Thou Shalts and Thou Shalnts

And therein lies the rub. The standard against which all is measured is a standard which has not been calibrated to indicate that it is a true standard against which to measure.Putting a dead true straight-edge against a very imperfect, warped "straight"edge and declaring the dead straight to be warped is to be expected if the warped is considered true in the first place.So which is the warped reality: ours or the bibles. And how does one figure this?

It sure will. But the question was how do we figure our reality is the straightedge? The bible doesn't say the earth is 6000 years old. It can be read that way by some. But clear on this it is not (see EvCforum.net) The Universe may tell us there is a God and he is something else. But it won't tell us a thing about salvation and how one gets itYour wiggling Jar What use the bible for anything if none of it is to be considered accurate?

edit to delete: double postThis message has been edited by iano, 18-Oct-2005 10:22 AM

Another map reader blows himself and others up in an israeli disco. Why is his map reading ability (or reality standard) less correct than yours. He sees bridges down in a different way to you. Is his way as valid as yours?

"Sounds like" to you. And you "sound like" to him etc etc. Point being your approach is as subjective as his.Without any firm mooring (even if only assumed for the sake of discussion) then discussion is impossible due to "that bit isn't true and this bit is" being totally arbitary and personal - measured against what ever reality happens to be in force todayNot much fun in that so.... see you around Jar

Phew. You wouldn't believe how rarely I've heard those words spoken. You can be 20 messages in with discussion then someone says..well Pauls writings are corrupted etc. Why attempt to? If Romans is not to be extrapolated outside that bunch of Christians then why Galations or Thessalonians. Why extrapolate even the words Jesus spoke to the woman at the well to apply to any other than the woman at the well?You ask later to show where the bible says follow all the law. But if the bible isn't seen relevant to you there is little point in quoting from it.

reality is not defined by saying "Reality is reality"We are more than the sum of our sensory inputs. Remove them and I still have a reality5 witnesses to an accident will give 5 different accounts. There is no such thing as OUR reality. Harmony, accordance, disharmony, discordance in varying measures. No OUR. No collective reality6,000,000,000 people reading Jars 'map'. Each one as valid as the other cos there is nothing objective to compare any of them to.1 book cannot match 6,000,000,000 realities...but one shouldn't point the finger at the book

Sight, smell, taste, touch, hearing.Losing all isn't fatalThis message has been edited by iano, 18-Oct-2005 02:25 PM

You win

So whenever talked to a gathering and didn't make any specific announcement that he was addressing all mankind we should ignore him too? I don't suggest it does. But neither is there a need for it to - unless someone can find an area of conflict between them. You don't need to trump someone if you are giving the same message as them. Ditto Jesus

I could think, I could hum tunes in my head. I could design machines in my head. I'm not saying it would be ideal but I wouldn't necessarily change in essence. iano would be by an large iano That there are many crossovers and similarities doesn't make collective reality. Look at the human race: massive similarities on a wide range of fronts yet each and every one is different. No two people are the same, neither are two peoples realities. Even if they agree on the number of legs a locust has

What's a literalist?Would they read the word 'death' and take the literal meaning of death: ie: death here means physical death.Guess that makes me an illiteralist

Is that it? On what specific basis do you decide that Jesus words are universal when he is speaking to specific people? I would apply the same logic as you posited for Jesus' specifically addressed words. Don't let his addressing a specific person deflect you. Take them in context. If he is talking to Christians in Rome about what makes them Christians and how Christian should carry themselves in the world - then I wouldn't see any reason to limit the instruction to a few Christians. If those Christians could be argued to have been saved by faith - then there is nothing to suppose it wouldn't apply to all Christians.But lets flesh out the intro to Romans5: " by whom we have received grace and apostleship, for (heres the reason...cue rolling drums....) obedience to the faith among ALL nations for his name"6: AMONG WHOM are ye also called of Jesus ChristAt this point there was a small smattering of churches around the locality. But the apostleship was for all nations. How would this be accomplished I wonder - especially since the apostles didn't get to all nations in their lifetimes. The apostleship must thus live on after they died. How I wonder..could that be accomplished? Matthew says "this is what Jesus said". (edit) Paul met Jesus too. I never said one was more important than the other. Me, I take all scripture as the word of God (which I understood you to do for the purposes of discussion). That would mean what Matthew records would be a pinpoint accurate recording of Jesus' words and what Paul writes would be pinpoint accurate commentary on and exposition of Jesus words as he received them.I fail to see how one word of God could be more important than another word of God. Especially when both these writers had direct contact with Jesus. For that is one requirement in order to be called an apostle...This message has been edited by iano, 18-Oct-2005 10:27 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 18-Oct-2005 10:27 PM

It would be better if we could just highlight the text and click a quote button. this qs stuff gets wearisome You cited an example Matthew 24. In Matthew 28 we see the people were astonished. Jesus was addressing a crowd. He was talking to them. You say... But I don't read that in the text. We do know he was (like Paul) addressing certain people. You've assumed universal it but can you say why you've assumed it? Can we not apply the same thinking to Jesus. He didn't say the same thing to everybody that he met. Why is Jesus not repeating himself and Paul not repeating himself seen as different.Besides, these are letters that Paul wrote to places he'd (largely) been. He had already seen these people (and did see the people in Rome eventually). "You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you..." The Galatians were introducing old legalism to the very Gospel that Paul had preached to them. He didn't need to write a letter explaining the Gospel to them - they'd heard it already first hand. The Romans on the other hand, hadn't seen Paul yet. Thus it was necessary to tell them what the gospel was.. Jesus didn't say it was simple to fulfill the law. He said that the all the law and prophets was summed up in two commands. The greatest is:Love God with all...
Love your neighbour as yourselfHe never said it was simple. He never said it was hard. He just said "do". If anyone want to imply 'simple' or that he meant 'try' then by all means make a (biblical) case You haven't addressed the issue. Both are the word of God. The deliverer in one case is Matthew, in the other Paul. How do you rank one word of God over another?Also could you address the God-decreed "all nations" aspect of the apostleship when they weren't going to get to all nations in their lifetimes?This message has been edited by iano, 19-Oct-2005 10:14 AM

Speaking of seed. Any of all this landing on fertile soil?