Greatest Sect of Christianity

[loinburger]

In Kid's case we just need to wait a year until he decides that his version of Zoroastrianism (or whatever) is 100% correct

"In Eternity [insert non sequitur here], therefore Ahura Mazda [insert anything you want here]"

[giblets]

Interesting, so you think Jesus rode a T-Rex because that's in the eye of the beholder. You probably anticipated that response so let me ask you this. In eternity will anyone believe that, and if not will it still be true? If it's not true in eternity than how can it be true for an instant?

See in eternity Jesus riding a dinosaur is not at all funny, not to anyone. The darkness will be gone, and neither will anyone say, "truth is in the eye of the beholder." And that is why conservative is always right.

He probably says "correctly is in the eye of the beholder" because every human is fallible and will interpret it differently. That doesn't mean he thinks everyone's interpretation is equally accurate, in fact he seems to think the "conservative" approach produces very inaccurate interpretations. I'm not even clear on what believing something "in eternity" means because eternity is not a specific point in time.

[Kidlicious]

He probably says "correctly is in the eye of the beholder" because every human is fallible and will interpret it differently. That doesn't mean he thinks everyone's interpretation is equally accurate, in fact he seems to think the "conservative" approach produces very inaccurate interpretations. I'm not even clear on what believing something "in eternity" means because eternity is not a specific point in time.

You'll have to see what Imran posts. Right now you are assuming it will make sense.

As far as talking about the difference between eternal and temporal maybe you should read more books or something.

Loin, you're an idiot. I didn't say that I'm never wrong. I said conservative is the right way to interpret the bible.

[Kidlicious]

He probably says "correctly is in the eye of the beholder" because every human is fallible and will interpret it differently. That doesn't mean he thinks everyone's interpretation is equally accurate, in fact he seems to think the "conservative" approach produces very inaccurate interpretations. I'm not even clear on what believing something "in eternity" means because eternity is not a specific point in time.

You'll have to see what Imran posts. Right now you are assuming it will make sense.

As far as talking about the difference between eternal and temporal maybe you should read more books or something.

Loin, you're an idiot. I didn't say that I'm never wrong. I said conservative is the right way to interpret the bible.

[loinburger]

Loin, you're an idiot. I didn't say that I'm never wrong. I said conservative is the right way to interpret the bible.

I didn't say you thought you were never wrong. I said you thought you were never wrong when interpreting the Bible - otherwise you wouldn't go literalist, which is just an excuse to not think.

[Kidlicious]

I didn't say you thought you were never wrong. I said you thought you were never wrong when interpreting the Bible - otherwise you wouldn't go literalist, which is just an excuse to not think.

You're wrong at least twice in a very short post.

For one, I never said I was never wrong in interpreting the bible. You have a lot of trouble reading. I said that my approach is the correct approach.

Conservative = smart
Liberal = stupid

And I said in this thread, already, I don't just interpret literally.

[loinburger]

For one, I never said I was never wrong in interpreting the bible. You have a lot of trouble reading. I said that my approach is the correct approach.

Give an example of interpreting the Bible incorrectly as a result of using the correct approach to interpreting the Bible.

[Kidlicious]

1 Corinthians 11:13 - Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

This verse is interesting because it's LIBERALS who make the literal interpretation and say the church can judge for themselves. The conservative interpretation is that "judge for yourself" isn't a command, it's rhetorical.

But what if the conservative interpretation is wrong? There is no sin unless you consider not judging for yourself a sin. But if you make the liberal interpretaion and you are wrong you are guilty of sin. Th ed conservative interpretation doesn't result in sin even when it's wrong.

[loinburger]

Head-coverings? You've got to be ****ting me.

I doubt that it would have been possible for you to come up with a more arbitrary or insignificant point of dogma as your example. "The Bible says that red-headed people have to pray while standing on their heads, so that's how it's got to be!!! Don't listen to the LIBERALS who say that this piece of dogma is just an out-dated cultural artifact!!!"

[SlowwHand]

Matthew 7:1

[Tupac Shakur]

Austin 3:16

[Imran Siddiqui]

He probably says "correctly is in the eye of the beholder" because every human is fallible and will interpret it differently. That doesn't mean he thinks everyone's interpretation is equally accurate, in fact he seems to think the "conservative" approach produces very inaccurate interpretations. I'm not even clear on what believing something "in eternity" means because eternity is not a specific point in time.

This is what a rational person would have gleaned. Then again, it is that same "conservative" position that Kid likes to uphold that comes up with the Jesus riding a T-Rex point of view, which makes his statement even more amusing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

1 Corinthians 11:13 - Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

This verse is interesting because it's LIBERALS who make the literal interpretation and say the church can judge for themselves. The conservative interpretation is that "judge for yourself" isn't a command, it's rhetorical.

But what if the conservative interpretation is wrong? There is no sin unless you consider not judging for yourself a sin. But if you make the liberal interpretaion and you are wrong you are guilty of sin. Th ed conservative interpretation doesn't result in sin even when it's wrong.

What foolishness. The "liberal" position on 1 Cor 11:1-16 is not reading it literally because they want to its because if you read the passage in context instead of literally you will see that 1st Letter of Paul to the Corinthians is very concerned with divisions in the Church at Corinth. It is about not calling attention to yourself instead of God during prophecy. In those days, it was common for poor women to be veiled, while rich women would be uncovered and have fancy hair styles - it was a way to mark yourself as someone of status (this from my copy of "Dictionary of New Testament Background", pg. 446 if you are wondering). This could have created a real clash between rich and poor when all were called to be one. Also in that period, unexposed hair was supposed to have created male lust (current Muslim hardliners make this claim today). Also read 1 Cor 11:13-16, ESPECIALLY 16 when Paul speaks about the fact that they have no custom, nor do the churches of God on the issue (after he makes the argument, which is unusual for Paul, from nature).

& if the conservative interpretation is wrong it IS A SIN - because it places legalism above the love for the Spirit of God (you know that thing that Jesus was complaining that the Pharisees do?).

[Barnabas]

If I recall correctly it also says that women should cover their hair at church "because of the angels" who would be present in the Church. What it means is not clear (perhaps that angels could feel lust for women like the "sons of god" are said to have taken human females before the flood) but it seems it is good for angels to have women covered at church.

[Kidlicious]

Oh wow Imran. You might simply be being stiff-necked or grasping at strawmen. Let me have my coffee and try again.