The Pope Vs. Islam

[South]

Originally Posted by littleFella

Unfortunatelly, so many Chirstian denominations show that the picking apart of the Bible is a mute exercise, but it has been happening almost since the begining of Christianity. Often to satisfy one groups needs/views. That is the biggest problem IMO.

Exactly, but that's where humans complicate the simple. Christianity is first and foremost a very personal decision and a very personal walk. The organized church is for gathering of individual believers. Humans often turn it into a petty, political bickering match, but we do that with everything we involve ourselves with. Christianity itself and as a personal faith is perfect.

[G10]

Originally Posted by littleFella

That will work for a debate on the evolution and creationism, but not in this context. Do the math. You can't have it both ways

The day he ate the forbidden fruit, he lost the right to live forever and was cast out of the garden.

So yes, the day he ate the fruit, his body was no longer perfect and was dying.

As for my day to 1000 years, even though I said it tongue-in-cheek, how does it not hold water here as surely, in the verses previous, it talks about days in making the earth but we already know it doesn't mean literal days so how is this different?

It must be read in context with the verses before and after.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by G10

The day he ate the forbidden fruit, he lost the right to live forever and was cast out of the garden. So yes, the day he ate the fruit, his body was no longer perfect and was dying.

A tempting interpretation but God was specific:

Genesis 2:17 (King James Version)
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

He didn't die that day. He died later.

Originally Posted by G10

As for my day to 1000 years, even though I said it tongue-in-cheek, how does it not hold water here as surely, in the verses previous, it talks about days in making the earth but we already know it doesn't mean literal days so how is this different?

It must be read in context with the verses before and after.

Tongue in cheek is cool.

If you assume that 1 biblical day equals 1000 years today then Adam lived much longer than 930 years in todays terms. Works fine if you want to state that the age of the earth calculated based on the bilble is longer than 6K years in todays terms.

In either case, he wasn't killed the day he had his lunch wih Eve, and it doesn;t appear that he died twice; once during lunch, and then the second at the age of 930.

[John Scott]

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

He did die that day, spiritually. I thought that was clear? If you want to erroneously interpret the Bible, and then criticize it, all you are criticizing is your own erroneous interpretation.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by John Scott

He did die that day, spiritually. I thought that was clear?

I thought it wasn't. Unless, of course, there is some lingusitic/translation issue in regards to the word "died", which would clarify the fact that "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died" wasn't such a big event since he had already died the day he bit on an apple.

Originally Posted by John Scott

If you want to erroneously interpret the Bible, and then criticize it, all you are criticizing is your own erroneous interpretation.

One can't criticize the Bible. That would be like burning books. It is possible to disagree with interpretaion of the Bible though. You can have your own interpretation of the Bible, but whether mine is erroneous or not, is not really up to you to decide, is it? I do not take the Bible literally because IMO it is not possible to do so. That's all I meant by my recent posts.

[John Scott]

I thought it wasn't. Unless, of course, there is some lingusitic/translation issue in regards to the word "died", which would clarify the fact that "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died" wasn't such a big event since he had already died the day he bit on an apple.

I use the word "die" a lot, and it very rarely refers to physical death. I am sure you are the same way, and your ignorance is merely feigned. Curious what benefit you derive from feigned ignorance.

[G10]

Originally Posted by littleFella

I thought it wasn't. Unless, of course, there is some lingusitic/translation issue in regards to the word "died", which would clarify the fact that "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died" wasn't such a big event since he had already died the day he bit on an apple.

The day he 'bit on the apple' (or whatever fruit it was) he died in gods eyes as god had taken away perfection from him. (spiritual death)

God didn't actually kill him by stabbing him or such but he did die in the end (physical death)

I don't actually see this part as difficult to understand and can't see how that is open to interpretation, sounds pretty straightforward to me.

Where's the complication in that?

[Trapper]

Was there an actual Ark? Did Jesus physically (or visibly)walk out of the tomb on Easter Sunday? I say no. I always said no. So does the minister at the church I attend fairly regularly. Just putting some feelers out there as I find this thread is going in circles and I want to hear where you guys stand on this.

[G10]

Was there an actuall flood?

Almost every culture on Earth includes an ancient flood story. Details vary, but the basic plot is the same: Deluge kills all but a lucky few.

European explorers in the Americas were startled by Indian legends that sounded similar to the story of Noah. Some Spanish priests feared the devil had planted such stories in the Indians’ minds to confuse them.

Basic stance on this is that wherever people go around the world, there seems to be some story about the flood.

One step at a time, we get an agreement (maybe) on the flood and then we start on the ark

[Trapper]

OK, I'll give you the flood. Carry on...

BTW - What kind of god fearing man would forget the unicorn?

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by Trapper

OK, I'll give you the flood. Carry on...

BTW - What kind of god fearing man would forget the unicorn?

Or Mithra?

[G10]

Sorry Trap, I didn't mean the text to be bigger, it was a mistake, I wasn't trying to shout or anything

[Ferre]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgHfq0epSJg&eurl=

[Imran]

Originally Posted by jg_v7n

The Pope did not give offence yet his enemies took it.

Taking offence is a blackmail strategy and any excuse, real or imagined, will do: it is seen in the belligerent drunk, growling “What are you lookin’ at?” or the gang member who draws a knife because he has been “dissed”. It works because polite, educated respondents try to treat this as a real question, to apologise and negotiate.

You cannot negotiate with a drunk or a knife, and you cannot negotiate with those who manufacture offence as a weapon.

The Pope was a fool in making offensive comments in relation to the prophet Muhammed (pbuh). I am not surprised because the doctrine that is followed in Islam is that if you preach hatred towards the prophet muhammed (pbuh) then you have no right to only stand up and speak up to that.

The Pope is educated and in his age he should have known better then to make a stupid remark. What do you expect? The voice of the majority was heard. We are all human beings but we follow differnet principles, muslims are generally 99 per cent nice people. I speak myself, who comes from a muslim background, I wouldnt say I was very religious but my faith is important to me.

If someone says that about the Prophet muhammed than thats an insult not only to the faith Islam than to the whole doctrine to which the religion is. It was not a cause of "how" it was just a case of "when"" something like this would happen and in turn people are just getting the wrong idea.

The Pope was wrong.

[tantantin]

I agree. The Pope was wrong.

[G10]

The pope may have been wrong in what he said but at the end of the day, in the UK anyway there are also certain British Imams preaching hatred towards us or praising the tube bombers - Both are influential people and at least he tried to make ammends for his comments.

If we pick on one, we must not forget about the other.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I use the word "die" a lot, and it very rarely refers to physical death. I am sure you are the same way, and your ignorance is merely feigned.

True, I will use the word die too, without refereing to the actual psychical death. Mostly in PHP. I will also, on occassion, kill when I come across a runaway process in Linux.

But seriously, I'm not sure I can say I use the word "die" mostly when it doesn't refer to physical death. I don't know how you can be sure I do, based only on a bunch of posts on v7n.