Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > rec.nude > #45126 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-06-14 08:31 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-06-15 03:15 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 100 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to rec.nude
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 08:31 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 08:31 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 08:45 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 09:34 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 20:04 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 09:01 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Bert Clanton <abertclanton@comcast.net> - 2026-06-14 11:03 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 13:04 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Neosapienis" <dariowestern@nospambigpond.com> - 2026-06-14 20:03 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 17:03 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 18:02 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-15 05:02 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 17:35 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 18:16 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 09:02 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 09:32 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Dan Abel <dabel@sonic.net> - 2026-06-14 10:19 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Jenny6833A <Jenny6833A@aol.com> - 2026-06-14 11:49 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Dan Abel <dabel@sonic.net> - 2026-06-24 14:44 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 11:01 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? stinson_home@HOTMAIL.COM - 2026-06-14 11:02 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 11:45 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 11:45 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 11:55 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? stinson_home@HOTMAIL.COM - 2026-06-14 13:01 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Clifford <CliffordAlls@aol.com> - 2026-06-14 13:04 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Dan Abel <dabel@sonic.net> - 2026-06-14 13:33 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Neosapienis" <dariowestern@nospambigpond.com> - 2026-06-14 14:34 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 18:16 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Jenny6833A <Jenny6833A@aol.com> - 2026-06-25 03:59 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 14:06 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 18:02 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-24 12:11 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 14:02 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Jenny6833A <Jenny6833A@aol.com> - 2026-06-14 17:42 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-25 00:58 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-15 02:32 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 13:01 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-25 00:58 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? stinson_home@HOTMAIL.COM - 2026-06-14 09:02 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Someone <someone@somewhere.com> - 2026-06-14 09:16 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? stinson_home@HOTMAIL.COM - 2026-06-14 20:31 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? BeoWolf <Naturistvideos@gmail.com> - 2026-06-14 09:16 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 11:02 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 12:00 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 17:15 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 17:35 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 09:34 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 09:34 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 09:35 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 09:35 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 09:46 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 12:00 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-24 09:43 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 10:00 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 10:23 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 12:01 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 13:16 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 11:45 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 17:16 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 20:31 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-15 05:32 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Jenny6833A <Jenny6833A@aol.com> - 2026-06-14 10:19 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Richard C. Rivers" <rcmang@comcast.net> - 2026-06-14 11:02 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Jenny6833A <Jenny6833A@aol.com> - 2026-06-14 11:03 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 11:46 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 11:02 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 11:16 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 11:46 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Dan Abel <dabel@sonic.net> - 2026-06-14 17:45 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 19:31 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-15 06:47 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-24 22:11 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 11:46 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 14:34 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-24 18:11 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Paul <something@somewhere.co.uk> - 2026-06-14 12:00 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 12:01 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-25 00:26 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 12:01 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 13:16 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 14:03 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 14:07 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Bert Clanton <abertclanton@comcast.net> - 2026-06-14 19:30 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 12:30 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 12:30 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 12:31 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 18:00 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Someone <someone@somewhere.com> - 2026-06-14 14:01 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 18:01 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Fridthjof Andersen" <df@os.dk> - 2026-06-14 14:03 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 14:34 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 19:15 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 19:30 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 20:00 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 12:15 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 14:01 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 20:30 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 17:04 +0000
Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-15 03:15 +0000
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | stinson_home@HOTMAIL.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-14 11:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <243hr4t40cdquh494obtivh9q3uk7d1hro@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #45600 |
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:58:51 -0500, "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> wrote: >"David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote in news:71q0s9FmcvggU1 >@mid.individual.net: > >> And are you claiming to know what the Biblical authors meant? Have you >> spoken to them? > >It's fine if he's spoken to them. Anyone can do that. However, if he >hears them REPLY, it's time to consult a physician. Not necessarily. -T.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-14 11:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <01eddc8f-7c76-4a34-9ec0-0e7247f6dcb3@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #45350 |
On Mar 18, 10:56 am, Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote: > In article > <4e050dbf-5d0a-4c8a-86cf-1d44cb141...@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > > Clifford <CliffordA...@aol.com> wrote: > > Ron gets it right when he says: > > I live by the golden rule, an ye harm none, do as ye will. If I want > > to be nude and can do it without being lewd, I > > should be able to. > > > BE TRUE TO YOURSELF AND YOU CANNOT BE TRUE TO ANYONE ELSE. That's what > > all normal religions teach; the same - no more, no less. > > Sounds like the opposite of the Golden Rule, which is taught extensively > in traditional (in the US) Christianity. There are, of course, sunday > morning Christians, who say all the words on sunday, and then ignore > them the other six days. I wouldn't call that so much a failure of the > religion, as a failure of the people who nominally belong to that > religion, to actually follow it. > > > This thread would benefit greatly if people used plainer English to > > express themselves. They might actually get read then! "The exuberance > > of his own verbosity is something up with which I will not put!" (sic) > > - (Winston Churchill) > > I agree, although for some posters here, it's not that they are too > verbose, it's that they don't make any sense, some in sentence > structure, some in thought and some in both. > > -- > Dan Abel > Petaluma, California USA > da...@sonic.net your lustful cultist mentality is akin to madness and insanity .....jz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-14 11:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r5efr4lavusef2ea8s18jt02cpa1f1kngp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #45350 |
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:12:37 -0000, "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote: ... >I meant it the way I wrote it, I believe you. OTOH, what can I do about that? The best I can do is to reply to it the way it I read it. >you have turned my intended meaning round by 180 degrees! You do realize this is exactly what you did to the Biblical authors. >What was the tree supposed to symbolise?, and the snake? There >are as many answers to this question as there are people answering it. My point, as backed up by my reference, is that the author NEVER intended that the answer to your question would be a real snake that talked, or a real tree that grew in a real garden, EVEN IF there was at some point in History a real snake, tree and garden involved. ... >Indeed, I think this argument has run it's course. It seems to have revolved >entirely around your mis-use of the word "literal". I used the definition from Mirriam Webster. I gave you a reference from the people who insist that the Bible be taken literally so that you can see my use of the word "literal" is spot on. I'm sorry if that offends your prejudices. While I don't agree with them, or you, on some points, there is a lot more that I do agree on and much that I enjoy culturally, even if I think their reasonings are silly at times.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-14 11:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <721bjcFngqgjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #45667 |
"Stuffed Tiger" <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> wrote in message news:2m7mr4lcd8pbggso5rmc5mcv8vo65p7ga9@4ax.com... > On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:13:38 -0700 (PDT), Jenny6833A > <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote: > > ... >>Hmmmm. I think you're conceding that the bible wasn't written by, or >>the writers guided by, some god. > > Physics demonstrates the point is impossible to prove one way or the > other. Not only does nobody know, but it is not possible for anybody > to ever know. As a result, I now think it is the modern equivalent of > the angels on pinheads controversy. I feel like an idiot. Thank you for conceding that one at least. > > >>I think you're also conceding that >>the intended audience wasn't humanity for the ages, but only the >>illiterate bronze age herdsmen of the time. > > That IS the literal meaning of the text, just like Hamlet was intended > to make Shakespeare money in the theatres of his day. Nevertheless, it > is still entertaining audiences today, partly due to the underlying > universal human issues it addresses, however rightly or wrongly. You really do seem to have a huge problem with the concept of "literal meaning" don't you? . Neither Shakespere's motives for writing Hamlet, nor his (or anyone else's) idea of the moral of the story are relevant to it's "literal meaning". I imagine you are familiar with Rudyard Kipling's "Just-So" stories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_So_Stories I don't know Kipling's motives for writing these, whether it was to make money, or merely to amuse some children, or both, it's unimportant. But I'm sure he didn't regard "The Elephant's Child", for example, as an accurate description of how elephants come to have trunks. Nevertheless the *literal meaning* of that story is elephants have trunks for precisely the reason given in the text. You suggest in another post that Genesis 2 is just a simple morality tale "Don't do what you are told not to, or you will be punished" of the sort that the Victorians were churning out on a daily basis. Well, maybe, but others see symbolism in the tree, the snake, the nakedness etc. *and you can't say they are wrong*. The "Adam and Eve" story reads like a "just-so" story: "How the snake lost it's Legs", "Why giving birth is so much harder for humans than other creatures", "Why mankind must work hard to grow food rather than simply collecting it". Because of that last one some commentators have suggested that it is, in part, a lament for the ending of the hunter-gatherer way of life. Well that one is highly speculative, and would require that this story is very much older than Genesis (as we know the flood story to be) since the hunter-gatherer way of life ended in that part of the world many thousands of years before Genesis was written, and I for one am not endorsing it. But again it can't be proved wrong. To sum up; you believe that Genesis 2 is just a simple morality tale about obedience to God. Well maybe it is and maybe that's all it was ever meant to be. But that is not, not, NOT!, a "literal reading" of the text!!!!!! I notice, BTW, that you also claimed that Genesis 1 was a similar "morality tale". I don't know how you worked that one out, since in Genesis 1 humans only have a "walk-on" part (or should that be "walk-off"? :-) because they are simply created and told to go away and reproduce which, presumably, they do since God reflects that everything he had made was "very good". Perhaps you aren't that familiar with the actual text? David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stinson_home@HOTMAIL.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-14 13:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rjb3s4l53ktvvllemt5vunefso4ba5shum@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #45694 |
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:46:35 -0700 (PDT), Jenny6833A <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote: >It could well be a failure of the religion to be coherent and >credible. It could very well not be, as well. -T.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clifford <CliffordAlls@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-14 13:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4e050dbf-5d0a-4c8a-86cf-1d44cb141687@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #45694 |
Ron gets it right when he says: I live by the golden rule, an ye harm none, do as ye will. If I want to be nude and can do it without being lewd, I should be able to. BE TRUE TO YOURSELF AND YOU CANNOT BE TRUE TO ANYONE ELSE. That's what all normal religions teach; the same - no more, no less. This thread would benefit greatly if people used plainer English to express themselves. They might actually get read then! "The exuberance of his own verbosity is something up with which I will not put!" (sic) - (Winston Churchill)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Abel <dabel@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-14 13:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dabel-043BB0.08563518032009@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au> |
| In reply to | #45793 |
In article <4e050dbf-5d0a-4c8a-86cf-1d44cb141687@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Clifford <CliffordAlls@aol.com> wrote: > Ron gets it right when he says: > I live by the golden rule, an ye harm none, do as ye will. If I want > to be nude and can do it without being lewd, I > should be able to. > > BE TRUE TO YOURSELF AND YOU CANNOT BE TRUE TO ANYONE ELSE. That's what > all normal religions teach; the same - no more, no less. Sounds like the opposite of the Golden Rule, which is taught extensively in traditional (in the US) Christianity. There are, of course, sunday morning Christians, who say all the words on sunday, and then ignore them the other six days. I wouldn't call that so much a failure of the religion, as a failure of the people who nominally belong to that religion, to actually follow it. > This thread would benefit greatly if people used plainer English to > express themselves. They might actually get read then! "The exuberance > of his own verbosity is something up with which I will not put!" (sic) > - (Winston Churchill) I agree, although for some posters here, it's not that they are too verbose, it's that they don't make any sense, some in sentence structure, some in thought and some in both. -- Dan Abel Petaluma, California USA dabel@sonic.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Neosapienis" <dariowestern@nospambigpond.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-14 14:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a8cwl.29391$cu.14142@news-server.bigpond.net.au> |
| In reply to | #45827 |
A world in which everybody is identical and thinks alike all the time is not only impractical, but undesirable. There will never be a 'one world religion'. -- Best wishes, Dario Western Home: (07) 3267-0099 Mobile: (0437) 428-859 Web Page: http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote in message news:14014300-1b4f-4d14-8855-7fde89a35518@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com... On Mar 18, 8:56?am, Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote: > > ... the Golden Rule ... is taught extensively > in traditional (in the US) Christianity. Yes, but few Christians understand what it actually says. >?There are, of course, sunday > morning Christians, who say all the words on sunday, and then ignore > them the other six days. About 99% of them, I think. Hey, whatever they do, they're forgiven! >?I wouldn't call that so much a failure of the > religion ... It could well be a failure of the religion to be coherent and credible. > ... as a failure of the people who nominally belong to that > religion, to actually follow it. Which of the various 'Christian' religions would you have them follow? And, if almost everyone did follow the same 'Christian' religion, would you like the resulting society? :-) Jenny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-14 18:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9f007dae-7bfa-40a6-ac82-944629924707@f1g2000prb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #45886 |
On Mar 18, 2:41 pm, "Neosapienis" <dariowest...@nospambigpond.com> wrote: > A world in which everybody is identical and thinks alike all the time is not > only impractical, but undesirable. > > There will never be a 'one world religion'. > > -- > > Best wishes, > > Dario Western > > Home: (07) 3267-0099 > Mobile: (0437) 428-859 > > Web Page:http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Jenny6833A" <Jenny68...@aol.com> wrote in message > > news:14014300-1b4f-4d14-8855-7fde89a35518@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 18, 8:56?am, Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote: > > > > > ... the Golden Rule ... is taught extensively > > in traditional (in the US) Christianity. > > Yes, but few Christians understand what it actually says. > > >?There are, of course, sunday > > morning Christians, who say all the words on sunday, and then ignore > > them the other six days. > > About 99% of them, I think. Hey, whatever they do, they're forgiven! > > >?I wouldn't call that so much a failure of the > > religion ... > > It could well be a failure of the religion to be coherent and > credible. > > > ... as a failure of the people who nominally belong to that > > religion, to actually follow it. > > Which of the various 'Christian' religions would you have them > follow? And, if almost everyone did follow the same 'Christian' > religion, would you like the resulting society? > > :-) > > Jenny if there is any Christians on rec nude....do you wonder why all these pervs argue...literal...common sense..and modern day saying anyone could interpret past words to mean anything anyway......soooo if that is the case with the non believers or the sooo call believers then why is it even discussed as nothing of value can result.....and no one can be considered to have the correct answer....David i think you are saying it good....jz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jenny6833A <Jenny6833A@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-25 03:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <14014300-1b4f-4d14-8855-7fde89a35518@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #45827 |
On Mar 18, 8:56�am, Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote: > > ... the Golden Rule ... is taught extensively > in traditional (in the US) Christianity. Yes, but few Christians understand what it actually says. >�There are, of course, sunday > morning Christians, who say all the words on sunday, and then ignore > them the other six days. About 99% of them, I think. Hey, whatever they do, they're forgiven! >�I wouldn't call that so much a failure of the > religion ... It could well be a failure of the religion to be coherent and credible. > ... as a failure of the people who nominally belong to that > religion, to actually follow it. Which of the various 'Christian' religions would you have them follow? And, if almost everyone did follow the same 'Christian' religion, would you like the resulting society? :-) Jenny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-14 14:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ra7ur49vc9lke19ip29l5jobpmnein1241@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #45694 |
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 09:27:07 -0000, "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote: ... >>>I think you're also conceding that >>>the intended audience wasn't humanity for the ages, but only the >>>illiterate bronze age herdsmen of the time. >> >> That IS the literal meaning of the text, just like Hamlet was intended >> to make Shakespeare money in the theatres of his day. Nevertheless, it >> is still entertaining audiences today, partly due to the underlying >> universal human issues it addresses, however rightly or wrongly. > >You really do seem to have a huge problem with the concept of "literal >meaning" don't you? . Neither Shakespere's motives for writing Hamlet, nor >his (or anyone else's) idea of the moral of the story are relevant to it's >"literal meaning". ... You really do have a huge problem understand that *meaning* is in the mind not the fact. What Shakespeare would have meant by those words at that time is the only thing relevant to their meaning. Hamlet himself and everything he is supposed to have said and did and every object he saw or felt never existed as in the play but only as in their minds. Let's first look at an example that is NOT the literal meaning. An example of usage that is not the literal meaning is the use of the word "dagger" in the famous quote from Act 3 Scene 2: "I will speak daggers to her - but use none" Here, the literal meaning of the word "dagger" is not the *intended* meaning, but the literal meaning is still that of a dagger. The author may intend a word mean something other than the literal meaning. There are many instances of this in the Bible. Genesis is full of them. In other places the literal meaning is intended, but not as today. When MacBeth uses a dagger on Duncan, it is the literal meaning of the word dagger, and that is pretty much as we know it today, but other words are not so obvious. For example, what does the word "King" mean? Even if you know MacBeth was to be the High King of Scotland, what is that? Was Scotland then the same as today? How big of a prize was that? Enough to kill for, or was MacBeth merely a homicidal kook? King of Scotland would have meant a lot more to a man in Shakespeare's audience than today, and been an even bigger prize to a Scot in 1040 than when Shakespeare lived, a fact his audience would know. The literal meaning of the word "King" here depends on roughly knowing what the author intended for the mind of his audience. A young person today in the USA seeing the play might wonder why a general like MacBeth didn't simply run in the next elections for prime minister or president, and get real power. Who would even want to be King? We can get the denotation of King from the dictionary, even the connotation with help from the syntax, but meaning involves semantics. Every attempt for a machine to understand what someone wrote or said has stumbled badly on the issue of semantics. Doing a dictionary based translation, with phrase translation, gives you the kind of translations you get from Google. Semantics are absolutely critical to the literal meaning and impossible to resolve without a reference model of knowledge that approximates that of the author or speaker. MacBeth is not historically accurate, even though there was a real King MacBeth of Scotland in 1040. It does not need to be historical because it is intended to convey something very different than accurate history, but that does not mean we can just fudge the intended literal meaning of the words if we want the full impact. MacBeth might be more truthful even if less factual. Like the Bible. MacBeth was given to us less than 400 years ago and in our native language, it is easy to see how the literal meaning of the words in the Bible are different than the obvious literal meaning today, however well translated, because the semantics of every word are so different today in our minds than in the author's over 2K years ago. Even more important, we can see with hindsight not available to people of that time, that their actions in the light of History were not at all pleasing to God, and certainly not to be duplicated, no matter how much they were celebrated and perhaps necessary. As with MacBeth. If a person's reading of the lessons of the Bible (or the Koran or Hamlet) does not stand up to reason or common sense in today's world, then it is not an accurate reading of the literal meaning of the time as it would apply to today's world. In the final analysis, then, it does not matter what it says in the Bible (or the Koran or Hamlet) because we have to take those lessons learned and run them up against reason and common sense to see how we would apply them today. We could just skip that step and go with reason and common sense, but who cares as long as we act together to promote reasonable, sensible solutions to the problems that beset us. So public nudity is not a sin if it is reasonable and sensible, and that conclusion does not require Biblical support or change in the face of Biblical condemnation. OTOH, it is not surprising to find both Biblical support and a lack of condemnation. It's a Biblical human value, and people who care about such things should know that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-14 18:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0b00785b-1b8d-4933-8a16-330859ba31d5@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #45864 |
On Mar 17, 12:47 am, Stuffed Tiger <No...@NotAnAddress.com> wrote: > On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 09:27:07 -0000, "David Looser" > > <david.loo...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > ...>>>I think you're also conceding that > >>>the intended audience wasn't humanity for the ages, but only the > >>>illiterate bronze age herdsmen of the time. > > >> That IS the literal meaning of the text, just like Hamlet was intended > >> to make Shakespeare money in the theatres of his day. Nevertheless, it > >> is still entertaining audiences today, partly due to the underlying > >> universal human issues it addresses, however rightly or wrongly. > > >You really do seem to have a huge problem with the concept of "literal > >meaning" don't you? . Neither Shakespere's motives for writing Hamlet, nor > >his (or anyone else's) idea of the moral of the story are relevant to it's > >"literal meaning". > > ... > > You really do have a huge problem understand that *meaning* is in the > mind not the fact. What Shakespeare would have meant by those words at > that time is the only thing relevant to their meaning. Hamlet himself > and everything he is supposed to have said and did and every object he > saw or felt never existed as in the play but only as in their minds. > > Let's first look at an example that is NOT the literal meaning. > > An example of usage that is not the literal meaning is the use of the > word "dagger" in the famous quote from Act 3 Scene 2: > > "I will speak daggers to her - but use none" > > Here, the literal meaning of the word "dagger" is not the *intended* > meaning, but the literal meaning is still that of a dagger. The author > may intend a word mean something other than the literal meaning. There > are many instances of this in the Bible. Genesis is full of them. > > In other places the literal meaning is intended, but not as today. > > When MacBeth uses a dagger on Duncan, it is the literal meaning of the > word dagger, and that is pretty much as we know it today, but other > words are not so obvious. For example, what does the word "King" mean? > Even if you know MacBeth was to be the High King of Scotland, what is > that? Was Scotland then the same as today? How big of a prize was > that? Enough to kill for, or was MacBeth merely a homicidal kook? > > King of Scotland would have meant a lot more to a man in Shakespeare's > audience than today, and been an even bigger prize to a Scot in 1040 > than when Shakespeare lived, a fact his audience would know. > > The literal meaning of the word "King" here depends on roughly knowing > what the author intended for the mind of his audience. A young person > today in the USA seeing the play might wonder why a general like > MacBeth didn't simply run in the next elections for prime minister or > president, and get real power. Who would even want to be King? > > We can get the denotation of King from the dictionary, even the > connotation with help from the syntax, but meaning involves semantics. > Every attempt for a machine to understand what someone wrote or said > has stumbled badly on the issue of semantics. Doing a dictionary based > translation, with phrase translation, gives you the kind of > translations you get from Google. Semantics are absolutely critical to > the literal meaning and impossible to resolve without a reference > model of knowledge that approximates that of the author or speaker. > > MacBeth is not historically accurate, even though there was a real > King MacBeth of Scotland in 1040. It does not need to be historical > because it is intended to convey something very different than > accurate history, but that does not mean we can just fudge the > intended literal meaning of the words if we want the full impact. > MacBeth might be more truthful even if less factual. Like the Bible. > > MacBeth was given to us less than 400 years ago and in our native > language, it is easy to see how the literal meaning of the words in > the Bible are different than the obvious literal meaning today, > however well translated, because the semantics of every word are so > different today in our minds than in the author's over 2K years ago. > > Even more important, we can see with hindsight not available to people > of that time, that their actions in the light of History were not at > all pleasing to God, and certainly not to be duplicated, no matter how > much they were celebrated and perhaps necessary. As with MacBeth. > > If a person's reading of the lessons of the Bible (or the Koran or > Hamlet) does not stand up to reason or common sense in today's world, > then it is not an accurate reading of the literal meaning of the time > as it would apply to today's world. In the final analysis, then, it > does not matter what it says in the Bible (or the Koran or Hamlet) > because we have to take those lessons learned and run them up against > reason and common sense to see how we would apply them today. > > We could just skip that step and go with reason and common sense, but > who cares as long as we act together to promote reasonable, sensible > solutions to the problems that beset us. > > So public nudity is not a sin if it is reasonable and sensible, and > that conclusion does not require Biblical support or change in the > face of Biblical condemnation. OTOH, it is not surprising to find both > Biblical support and a lack of condemnation. It's a Biblical human > value, and people who care about such things should know that. garbage.....jz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-24 12:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <72d124FotsikU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #45864 |
"Stuffed Tiger" <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> wrote in message news:ra7ur49vc9lke19ip29l5jobpmnein1241@4ax.com... > On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 09:27:07 -0000, "David Looser" > <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > You really do have a huge problem understand that *meaning* is in the > mind not the fact. No I don't, not at all, not even slighly. I'm not arguing about "meaning", I'm arguing about "literal". > > Let's first look at an example that is NOT the literal meaning. <snip> You are wasting your time with that one. I agree with you entirely. > > The author > may intend a word mean something other than the literal meaning. There > are many instances of this in the Bible. Genesis is full of them. OF COURSE! That has been my point all along! > > In other places the literal meaning is intended, but not as today. > The literal meaning can change with time, as the language changes and with cultural changes. > > Semantics are absolutely critical to > the literal meaning and impossible to resolve without a reference > model of knowledge that approximates that of the author or speaker. No, because the "literal" is based on the readers knowledge, not that of the author. We don't need a "reference model of knowledge that approximates to that of the author or speaker" to say what the "literal" meaning is, but we do if we want to speculate as to the *intended* meaning. Of course we can only ever speculate about the *intended* meaning of any text, unless we have a commentary by the original author. > MacBeth is not historically accurate, even though there was a real > King MacBeth of Scotland in 1040. It does not need to be historical > because it is intended to convey something very different than > accurate history, It would have been a problem if it *had* intended to convey accurate history, because we simply don't know enough about the historical Macbeth to write a historically accurate play about him, and Shakespeare probably knew even less. > but that does not mean we can just fudge the > intended literal meaning of the words if we want the full impact. The *intended* meaning of the words is NOT the *literal* meaning, you've just said so. The *literal* meaning is that it is a play about an 11th C Scottish King, the *intended* meaning is something else. The *intended* meaning is only the same as the *literal* meaning when the author intends us to read it that way. Shakespeare clearly didn't intend any of his plays to be read literally. > MacBeth might be more truthful even if less factual. Like the Bible. Truthful to what?. Truthful to the actual events in the life of the historical Macbeth?, probably not. Truthful to some concept of "the human condition"?, very likely. > > MacBeth was given to us less than 400 years ago and in our native > language, it is easy to see how the literal meaning of the words in > the Bible are different than the obvious literal meaning today, > however well translated, because the semantics of every word are so > different today in our minds than in the author's over 2K years ago. Which is why the Bible needs interpreting, and why that interpretation is so hard to do (and why "experts" will disagree as to the "correct" interpretation). We know very little about the culture that produced Genesis (and we don't know that Chapters 1 and 2 weren't borrowed from elsewhere, they may not actually be of Israelite origin at all). So deciding what the author's intended meaning was is near impossible. If we are going to interpret the text in terms of what it means to a modern reader, then all readers are equally qualified to make their own judgements. > > Even more important, we can see with hindsight not available to people > of that time, that their actions in the light of History were not at > all pleasing to God, and certainly not to be duplicated, no matter how > much they were celebrated and perhaps necessary. As with MacBeth. > I have absolutely no idea how anyone is supposed to know whether *any* actions are, or are not, "pleasing to God". > If a person's reading of the lessons of the Bible (or the Koran or > Hamlet) does not stand up to reason or common sense in today's world, > then it is not an accurate reading of the literal meaning of the time > as it would apply to today's world. Sorry, that is another paragraph that makes no sense. What *on earth* is "an accurate reading of the literal meaning of the time as it would apply to today's world"? - which "time"? If a passage does not conform to reason or common sense in today's world, that does not mean that it didn't conform to reason or common sense to the authors. So the *intended* meaning may well not conform to reason or common sense today. But perhaps a modern reader can find a different meaning in the text, one that perhaps the author was unaware of. David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-14 14:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <71q0s9FmcvggU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #45667 |
"Stuffed Tiger" <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> wrote in message news:r5efr4lavusef2ea8s18jt02cpa1f1kngp@4ax.com... > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:12:37 -0000, "David Looser" > <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote: > > ... >>I meant it the way I wrote it, > > I believe you. OTOH, what can I do about that? The best I can do is to > reply to it the way it I read it. > > >>you have turned my intended meaning round by 180 degrees! > > You do realize this is exactly what you did to the Biblical authors. I find that comment rather offensive! Nowhere have I said anything about the intended meaning of the creation stories, so how could I have turned round the intended meaning? And are you claiming to know what the Biblical authors meant? Have you spoken to them?, have you got access to notes (unkown to anyone else) which they wrote to explain meaning behind the stories? >>What was the tree supposed to symbolise?, and the snake? There >>are as many answers to this question as there are people answering it. > > My point, as backed up by my reference, is that the author NEVER > intended that the answer to your question would be a real snake that > talked, or a real tree that grew in a real garden, EVEN IF there was > at some point in History a real snake, tree and garden involved. > > I'm sure he didn't, so what? What DID he intend it to signify?, I don't know, you don't know, Micheal Sacasas doesn't know, nobody does. We don't know who wrote this story, or when. We don't know what he intended it to signify to it's readership. All we have are opinions, and there is no shortage of them! Micheal Sacasas may be "an expert" but he doesn't have access to the mind of the author any more than you or I do. > ... >>Indeed, I think this argument has run it's course. It seems to have >>revolved >>entirely around your mis-use of the word "literal". > > I used the definition from Mirriam Webster. Which is:- <quote> adhering to fact, or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression. <unquote> So in other words more or less the same as the definition from the OED that I quoted before. So you ARE misusing the word! > I gave you a reference > from the people who insist that the Bible be taken literally so that > you can see my use of the word "literal" is spot on. 1/ Your "reference" is just some blokes opinion, nothing more. 2/ I didn't see anywhere where he insisted that the Bible be taken literally. 3/ If he did, whilst at the same time saying, for example, that the mention of a talking snake isn't to be taken as referring to a real talking snake, then his use of the word literal would be just as wrong as yours is. > I'm sorry if that > offends your prejudices. Well I'm sorry if you see my insistence on using the language correctly as "prejudice". David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jenny6833A <Jenny6833A@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-14 17:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2d1a713b-e466-42a5-af07-dd09fe9d49b7@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #45855 |
On Mar 12, 3:18�pm, Stuffed Tiger <No...@NotAnAddress.com> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:41:14 -0000, "David Looser" > > <david.loo...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >"Stuffed Tiger" <No...@NotAnAddress.com> wrote in message > >news:r5efr4lavusef2ea8s18jt02cpa1f1kngp@4ax.com... > ... > >> My point, as backed up by my reference, is that the author NEVER > >> intended that the answer to your question would be a real snake that > >> talked, or a real tree that grew in a real garden, EVEN IF there was > >> at some point in History a real snake, tree and garden involved. > > >I'm sure he didn't, so what? What DID he intend it to signify?, I don't > >know, you don't know, Micheal Sacasas doesn't know, nobody does. We don't > >know who wrote this story, or when. We don't know what he intended it to > >signify to it's readership. > Yeah, yeah. The same could be said for Hamlet. Irrelevant. > > First of all, there is a lot that is known with reasonable certainty, > such as the narrow time period in which it was written, the class of > person who could have written it (few could read and write), the > knowledge level of the people it was written for, ... and so on. Hmmmm. I think you're conceding that the bible wasn't written by, or the writers guided by, some god. I think you're also conceding that the intended audience wasn't humanity for the ages, but only the illiterate bronze age herdsmen of the time. > That tells us much. For example, these people had no concept of the > size and scale of the Earth, let alone the Solar System. Universe? > Cosmos? None of that can be part of what the author intended to be > understood by the people it was written for. For sure. So it wasn't intended to impart anything that wasn't already 'known'? > That means it is silly for Christians to try and force science into it > or anybody to criticize it for that lack. Even if the authors knew the > science, nobody would have understood or listened to it. Heck, it's > hard to get people today not to turn off when they hear science. It's hard to get most religious people to listen. The vast majority of the others don't need to be urged. > Secondly, there are certain aspects of BOTH Genesis 1 and 2 that stand > out. For example, that there is good and evil, that men and women are > capable of good and evil and of choosing evil over good, that good is > what God asks us to do and evil is what separates us from God, and > that if we choose evil over good, not only do we get to live with it, > but so do our children. That's hardly news, now or then. > Sure one might quibble a bit. So what? These are rather universal, and > somewhat obvious. Not a bad way to start IMHO, as long as you spice it > up with a little drama so you don't loose your audience. So the bible is just another bunch of morality tales, no better than the many many others? Just asking! :-) Jenny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-25 00:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2m7mr4lcd8pbggso5rmc5mcv8vo65p7ga9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #45928 |
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:13:38 -0700 (PDT), Jenny6833A <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote: ... >Hmmmm. I think you're conceding that the bible wasn't written by, or >the writers guided by, some god. Physics demonstrates the point is impossible to prove one way or the other. Not only does nobody know, but it is not possible for anybody to ever know. As a result, I now think it is the modern equivalent of the angels on pinheads controversy. I feel like an idiot. >I think you're also conceding that >the intended audience wasn't humanity for the ages, but only the >illiterate bronze age herdsmen of the time. That IS the literal meaning of the text, just like Hamlet was intended to make Shakespeare money in the theatres of his day. Nevertheless, it is still entertaining audiences today, partly due to the underlying universal human issues it addresses, however rightly or wrongly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-15 02:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4l8ir4l8g5jo0nhpcg9n9jopku54coujrt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #45855 |
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:41:14 -0000, "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote: >"Stuffed Tiger" <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> wrote in message >news:r5efr4lavusef2ea8s18jt02cpa1f1kngp@4ax.com... ... >> My point, as backed up by my reference, is that the author NEVER >> intended that the answer to your question would be a real snake that >> talked, or a real tree that grew in a real garden, EVEN IF there was >> at some point in History a real snake, tree and garden involved. >> >> >I'm sure he didn't, so what? What DID he intend it to signify?, I don't >know, you don't know, Micheal Sacasas doesn't know, nobody does. We don't >know who wrote this story, or when. We don't know what he intended it to >signify to it's readership. ... Yeah, yeah. The same could be said for Hamlet. Irrelevant. First of all, there is a lot that is known with reasonable certainty, such as the narrow time period in which it was written, the class of person who could have written it (few could read and write), the knowledge level of the people it was written for, ... and so on. That tells us much. For example, these people had no concept of the size and scale of the Earth, let alone the Solar System. Universe? Cosmos? None of that can be part of what the author intended to be understood by the people it was written for. For sure. That means it is silly for Christians to try and force science into it or anybody to criticize it for that lack. Even if the authors knew the science, nobody would have understood or listened to it. Heck, it's hard to get people today not to turn off when they hear science. Secondly, there are certain aspects of BOTH Genesis 1 and 2 that stand out. For example, that there is good and evil, that men and women are capable of good and evil and of choosing evil over good, that good is what God asks us to do and evil is what separates us from God, and that if we choose evil over good, not only do we get to live with it, but so do our children. Sure one might quibble a bit. So what? These are rather universal, and somewhat obvious. Not a bad way to start IMHO, as long as you spice it up with a little drama so you don't loose your audience.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-14 13:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gnkbr41urs0vnicoo3ccf1a656vbea7ogq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #45350 |
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 08:05:24 -0000, "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote: ... > >I described Genesis 2 as I might describe one of the Grimm brother's fairy >tales. No you didn't. Here is what you wrote: "Genesis 2, on the other hand, looks as though it is allegorical, though after the passage of time it's "hidden" meaning has become somewhat obscure. But that does (not) mean that everyone can come up with his own meaning for it, and no-one can say he's wrong!" --- word in parenthesis was what I thought you meant --- The reference I gave you, discusses this more fully and says that the allegorical meaning is the literal meaning (i.e. the most likely primary or intended meaning of the words, in Hebrew), and this is by an expert and an evangelical. IOW, I gave you a reference confirming what you said from the very people the phony preachers claim don't say that. Ta Ta.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-25 00:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <71n3pmFm6u9lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #45778 |
"Stuffed Tiger" <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> wrote in message news:gnkbr41urs0vnicoo3ccf1a656vbea7ogq@4ax.com... > On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 08:05:24 -0000, "David Looser" > <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote: > > ... >> >>I described Genesis 2 as I might describe one of the Grimm brother's fairy >>tales. > > No you didn't. Here is what you wrote: > > "Genesis 2, on the other hand, looks as though it is > allegorical, though after the passage of time it's "hidden" > meaning has become somewhat obscure. But that does > (not) mean that everyone can come up with his own meaning > for it, and no-one can say he's wrong!" > > --- word in parenthesis was what I thought you meant --- I meant it the way I wrote it, you have turned my intended meaning round by 180 degrees! What was the tree supposed to symbolise?, and the snake? There are as many answers to this question as there are people answering it. And why should I not talk about a Grimm brothers fairy tale in such terms? The Grimms did not create their stories, they collected them, and quite likely some will have been of great age and had allegorical meanings. > > The reference I gave you, discusses this more fully and says that the > allegorical meaning is the literal meaning (i.e. the most likely > primary or intended meaning of the words, in Hebrew), That's NOT what "literal" means! Literal:- <quote> using or interpreting words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory. <unquote> If the intended meaning was allegorical then it remains allegorical, even though intended! I went back and read your reference again, and found this: <quote> It is our position that Genesis intends to communicate critical truths about the nature of reality and of God, but it does not intend to relate a scientific description of how God created the universe. Furthermore, we believe that attempting to find in Genesis scientific descriptions of God's method of creation and timeframe for doing so is not only to misread the text, but to miss out on significant and profound explorations of human nature and the nature of God. <unquote> In other words your source agrees that Genesis is to be read as allegorical, not literal > and this is by > an expert Maybe, but not *the* expert. The are many experts, each with their own interpretation of the texts. I accept that you like his interpretation, that's your prerogative, but his is hardly the only interpretation on offer. > and an evangelical. So he has an agenda! > > IOW, I gave you a reference confirming what you said from the very > people the phony preachers claim don't say that. I know nothing, and care less, about what "preachers", phony or otherwise, say. I *do* know that many Christians, particularly in the US, denigrate the science of evolution because, they claim, it conflicts with Genesis. > Ta Ta. Indeed, I think this argument has run it's course. It seems to have revolved entirely around your mis-use of the word "literal". David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stinson_home@HOTMAIL.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-14 09:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4414r4tonng22vioraun7aunenbd4t4tg9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #45126 |
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:19:42 -0800, Someone <someone@somewhere.com> wrote: >Creation, assuming for sake of argument is true, would also >be science. For a creationist, God's world and everything >He created is science. You get nowhere saying creation is >just religion. Hey, "Anna"?. Why not stick with "Anna"? Creating sock puppets is really overkill. -T.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | rec.nude
csiph-web