Jerzy Jakubowski wrote:
> Mark Isaak <eciton@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> wrote in message news:<dv90309pi6c7ur5lf81m7fi8pv8tv1vrsv@4ax.com>...
>
>>On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:55:04 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
>><noway@jose.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>So what's the scoop, Davey. Are you God's Spokesman, or aren't you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not, the Bible is.
>>>>
>>>>And how should the Bible be best interpreted?
>>>>
>>>
>>>By other parts of the Bible.
>>
>>Have you ever noticed that the people who make that claim most
>>vociferously never base their interpretation on the Bible? Instead,
>>they base it on current folklore about the Bible. For example, many
>>people claim the Bible as the basis for their idea that a marriage
>>must be one man and one woman, even though the Bible flatly
>>contradicts them. They add land animals surviving outside the Ark to
>>the Flood story. They disagree with the Bible about why Adam and Eve
>>were expelled from Eden. I don't agree with your approach to begin
>>with, Davey, but the fact that nobody ever uses it makes it doubly
>>worthless.
>
>
> But that's exactly why we get all these different religions each
> claiming to be biblical.
>
Indeed. And how, again, do we tell which of them is right and which
isn't? Other than your Holy Say-so?
> If we stick to the approach I just said, there is less of a problem.
>
Says you. <shrug> They disagree with your approach. Why are they
wrong and you are right? Other than your say-so?
> I don't believe that people from polygamous cultures cannot be
> Christian. I don't believe any land animals not in the Ark survived
> the Flood. I agree with the Bible about why Adam and Eve were expelled
> from Eden.
Glad to hear it. Who cares. Why is your opinion on the matter any more
authoritative than anyone else's?
>
> I think the appraoch is right, and just the fact that others fail to
> use it doesn't mean I shouldn't try to use it.
You are of course entirely free to use whatever approach you like. ,shrug>?
The rest of the world, of course, is not obligated to use it, agree wiht
it, or even pay any attention at all to it.
>
> If a chief from an African tribe becomes a Christian, should he lose
> three of his four wives? No. That's the answer I give, because that's
> the answer the Bible gives.
Where does the Bible give the answer "angels do not have cocks". Or did
you decide to add that part on your own divine authority, Davey?
>Can he become a bishop in the Church? No.
> Probably if I remember right he can become a deacon, but not a bishop.
> But that's no problem. We don't have to be bishops, and being a leader
> in the Church can carry the greater condemnation if the leader fails.
>
Says you. <shrug>
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 |
|