home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   alt.battlestar-galactica      Worshipping this overlooked Scifi show      119,658 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 119,132 of 119,658   
   Stephen M. Adams to Jim Phillips   
   Re: Homosexual Intent of   
   27 Apr 11 15:10:25   
   
   From: stephen.m..adams@THRWHITE.remove-dii-this   
      
     To: alt.battlestar-galactica,   
   Jim Phillips  writes:   
   >On 6 Oct 2005, Stephen M. Adams wrote:   
   >> Jim Phillips  writes:   
   >> >On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> Ok, where does the Bible state that the sun revolves around the earth?   
   >> >   
   >> >	Joshua makes the Sun stand still, which means that it's the one   
   >> >that's moving.  Pretty basic, and a very sensible conclusion.   
   >>   
   >> Jim - this is pretty lame, actually.  In English, we use terms like   
   >> 'sunrise' and 'sunset' and similar terms, when we know for a fact   
   >> that the sun is not rising or setting, but that the earth is rotating.   
   >   
   >	Yes, but we don't claim that *everything* we say is *literally*   
   >correct and should be read that way.  That's the issue for me.   
      
   See below.   
      
   >> We also talk about stars transiting the night sky, constellations rising   
   >> and setting, the sun being 'in' a constellation, and a whole host of   
   >> other things that aren't scientifically 'accurate' - at least not when   
   >> taken literally.   
   >   
   >	Again, that's why I don't criticize people who don't claim that   
   >everything should be taken literally.  If biblical idolators didn't want me   
   >to take the bible literally, it wouldn't be an issue.  But they do, and they   
   >want me to agree with their interpretation (if it has to be interpreted, how   
   >can it be "literally" correct?).   
      
   But even the strongest Biblical literalists permit for allegory, metaphor,   
   idiom, etc.  In other words, it appears to me that you've setup a straw   
   man - that every single word is literally true, that no allegorical,   
   metaphorical, figurative or idiomatic sense is ever permitted.   
      
   Do you know of someone who claims literalism in the way you reject?  I   
   don't mean to be flip or disrespectful, but let's at least criticize   
   properly.  It does us credit if we stick to solid criticism.   
      
    -Stephen   
   --   
     Space Age Cybernomad                                   Stephen Adams   
                malchus842SP@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)   
      
   ---   
    * Synchronet * The Whitehouse BBS --- whitehouse.hulds.com --- check it out   
   free usenet!   
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.92   
   Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca