What makes the bible true

[racrguy]

[Maddhattter]

i have an honest question without trying to set up anything...
how does the bible really differ in teachings than any other religion excluding the jesus part... i have read the bible and it is a great book of moral conditioning... but it really follows along the same Principes as lets say mother goose...

Moral what!? Did you miss the Old Testament? The bible's morality is far different than Mother Goose. Unless Mother Goose thought slavery was ok, for one. I didn't get that from Mother Goose stories, but it's possible.

However, your question is valid. When it comes to the Abrahamic religions, there is not a lot of difference, but there are major differences doctrinally. When expanding beyond the Abrahamic religions, points begin to vary wildly, depending on the particular religion.

If you want more info, I'd recommend you look up some comparative religion classes at your local college. The course would be able to cover more details than I would.

[Maddhattter]

Context is indeed key, petunia, and in the context of Genesis 1:26, image and likeness are not defining visual appearance.

Given that people have claimed seeing God both in the bible and in the hundreds of years since, there is no indication that it's not a visual likeness, and if image and likeness are interchangeable, due to the definitions, it could not be anything other than visual. That's the way word association works, sugarbear.

[The King]

i have an honest question without trying to set up anything...
how does the bible really differ in teachings than any other religoin excluding the jesus part... i have read the bible and it is a great book of moral conditioning... but it really follows along the same Principes as lets say mother goose...

The Jesus part is the centerpiece of the entire Bible, and it would not exist if not for Jesus.

[forbes]

i have an honest question without trying to set up anything...
how does the bible really differ in teachings than any other religoin excluding the jesus part... i have read the bible and it is a great book of moral conditioning... but it really follows along the same Principes as lets say mother goose...

[The King]

Again, you are correct except when context is taken into consideration. When discussing definitions context is key. Context is what determines relevance when discussing definitions, not me and not you.

There is also the fact that when two words are used interchangeably, they must share a common definition. So, what do image, semblance, and and likeness have in common when taking definitions into account? That's right, sweetheart, visual appearance as the similarity.

Context is indeed key, petunia, and in the context of Genesis 1:26, image and likeness are not defining visual appearance.

[The King]

What of those deceived by Satan’s manipulative whims? Is it impossible for someone to fully accept The Truth, and then be led astray by the Devil? Because that fully contradicts what you said earlier. How can someone be led astray if they weren’t already in the I-Love-Jesus camp to begin with? Please clarify so that I may provide a valid response to your statement.

They can indeed be led astray, but sooner or later they acknowledge that and move forward, back to the Truth. One could be led astray, without being in the I-Love-Jesus camp to begin with, by summarily dismissing God and His Word as being irrelevant to their lives.

If there is no need for outside interpretation, then what is the point of church? Bible study groups? Theology courses? Discussions amongst friends and family? How can there be this universal Truth you are touting, if your one true text is open to individual interpretation?

Churches, Bible study groups, etc. can serve very well in introducing the Word of God to people in a non-hostile environment. People can explore the teachings of the Bible, and learn examples of it's applicability to historic and contemporary times. All without the noise and blather that you can, for example, see for yourself in this thread. Some like getting down in the weeds however, and I am one of those. Noise and blather just come with the territory.

God's means of delivering His Message (the Truth) to individuals is done on a personal level however, via the Holy Spirit, and that must occur on a one-on-one basis. Thus one must ultimately learn that Message on their own, uncluttered by outside interpretation.

[Maddhattter]

Relevance is subjective, kitten, and the problem therein for you is that what is relevant to you is by no means universal.

Again, you are correct except when context is taken into consideration. When discussing definitions context is key. Context is what determines relevance when discussing definitions, not me and not you.

There is also the fact that when two words are used interchangeably, they must share a common definition. So, what do image, semblance, and and likeness have in common when taking definitions into account? That's right, sweetheart, visual appearance as the similarity.

[The King]

Don't hold bag, you know you want to call him a fag.

Are we now into writing rhymes, bag boy????

Seldom have we seen such an intelligent post, LOL.

i did if you felt the need to respond...

My intent was only to get you stirred up.....obviously it worked.

Not as well as it did with little Alex, though.....it only took him three posts to get to the babbling stage (i.e., post #384), quoted as follows:

Fuck. Just fuck.

[Parasite Eva]

Once the Word of God becomes an important part of one's life, there is no subsequent renouncement of that importance if the person seriously accepted it as the Truth to begin with. Someone's past history or path is not of consequence to me or anyone other than that individual. It needn't be to them either unless they choose it to be.

What of those deceived by Satan’s manipulative whims? Is it impossible for someone to fully accept The Truth, and then be led astray by the Devil? Because that fully contradicts what you said earlier. How can someone be led astray if they weren’t already in the I-Love-Jesus camp to begin with? Please clarify so that I may provide a valid response to your statement.

That's why I, and anyone else so inclined, must read the Bible for themselves and thus have no need for outside "interpretation" as you put it.

If there is no need for outside interpretation, then what is the point of church? Bible study groups? Theology courses? Discussions amongst friends and family? How can there be this universal Truth you are touting, if your one true text is open to individual interpretation?

[forbes]

He can e-state anything about anybody he wants, but that doesn't have any impact on me whatsoever. In case you failed to notice you have stirred up nothing, even just a lil.

i did if you felt the need to respond...

[mstng86]

See King, you should have called him a faggot..

[Parasite Eva]

You know… I came in here, prepared to delve into said topic with another lengthy post, until I noticed this:

show tits

Yea, show tits!!

Oh, yea,



Show tits!!

Seriously? There are enough boobs arguing in this thread that the forum is starting to rival New Orleans during Mardi Gras.

And then I saw this…

punkin'

sugar-pop

kitten

Oh my.

[mstng86]

Relevance is subjective, kitten, and the problem therein for you is that what is relevant to you is by no means universal.

Don't hold bag, you know you want to call him a fag.

[The King]

Relevance is subjective, kitten, and the problem therein for you is that what is relevant to you is by no means universal.