If you new what the rules where and how they where used you would see how your last post was foolish.

In other words, BW, if you don't subscribe to Elvis' methodology of Biblical interpretation derived from some obscure author you don't know what you're talking about. Or any facts from well known sources of non-partisan reputation with reams of scientific evidence to back it up for that matter. He won't believe a word of it. All he'll do is parse your post and make some discouraging remark about your character. That's the "Elvis defensive debate" tactic. Used in instances of cluelessness.... like most of the time.

And what do you call trying to minimize a standard of biblical interpretation. Oh thats right if Harley can minimize it for the drones here he can continue to post passages out of context to make his world work. Thereby getting dogpile posts from the drones which help valoidate his samll world. Might work for you Harley but it's complete BS and you get called on it everytime. BW just quit when he gets called on it.

See? As surely as the sun sets in the West...

What is interesting is how the debates shape up here. It is clear that people debate against the person and not the subject in most cases. The case of biblical interpertation makes that point really clear. Usually the paople against defined rules of interpretation are the Zealots. The God hates gays crowd. I thought you people did not like them. Now you defend their methods? You see with defined rules of interpretation it is impossible to twist the bible for ones own pupropse. It would be impossible for people to do what they have done here. Argue that Christians are hypocritical based on out of context use of passges like KK did with "thou shalt not kill" . If KK was familiar with the riules as he claimed he would have quoted all 4 and the passage in context with all other references to that passe. He did not he googled it and then used the passage just as he would have without the rules. If he believes that killing is against gods word why would he just cite the war as an example? Why would he not cite abortion, the death sentanc etc. If killing is against gods word how could he support abortion or a candidate like Kerry that clearly did. But I suppose like most things with liberals it only applies to the person you happen to be pointing the finger at that time.

Oh, yeah, and then he'll ramble on about something, contridicting himself and making weird obscure points that, evidently, only he is capable of understanding.

For someone that claims to have a college degree and a journalism background he communicates worse than a five-year-old. You guys notice that?

I say that if someone has a problem with what the Bible says they should take it up with God and not just belittle those who believe and revere it (the Bible).

"You guys notice that?"

Ah yes safety in numbers. Harley graduated from the school of " If more of my friends agree with me I must be smart and every one else is stupid" specifically when caught it a contradiction.

That would be if I took offense to it AM. I don't . I just pointed it out to make a point about the hypocrisy because of peoples ignorance of the topic.

Krusty, if you and your NAMBLA group want to meet there, it's fine with me. Really. I don't even mind the Statanists; but then I keep all my chickens and goats penned up for my own sacrifices.

I don't doubt that Elvis isn't offended by being proven wrong on a daily basis. I think he actually enjoys being ridiculed in a self-deprecating sort of way. That's kind of sad.

AM,

Sure you can. If you try and speak to something you know nothing about and take a position on it you would be hypocritical if your false position countered your previous positions.

In this case biblical interpretation as propsed would eliminate zelots and psuedo religions from using the bible to defend thier doctrine. i.i. the god hates gay christians. It also would include the people that use the bible to promote or defend anti Christian beliefs. Again as in this case. Biblical interpertation is not something one can fake or pretend to understand. One has to be well versed in the rules and be able to know where and if any passage is refrenced in or by another passage through out the new and old testament. I doubt any of the Christain bashers here can even come close. Saying one was rasied in a religion is about as useful as someone claiming to be black because they had been to Africa.

Precisely, Aunty. It just like claiming to fully understand the Bible and it's interpretation because one follows a set of arbitrary rules concocted by one of a thousand guys with a doctorate in theology. It's the same as claiming to be an expert nutritionist because one follows the rules of Dr. Atkins. :rolleyes:

AM,

It is not hard to know when someone is using a bible passage out of context. As is the case in this thread. It has nothing to do with a different belief system. It either is or is not in context. If someone post "thou shalt not kill" they need to undersand what the generally accepted meaning of the word kill is in the context of the bible by any definiton( Jewish, catholic, luthern ,morman etc). Once they do then they would have to ascribe to that meaning in all biblical context . That would preclude supporting abortion among a few other beliefs. So if the posters truely believe in the biblical maning of "thou shalt not kill" they need to be anti abortion or they are hypocrits at face value.

As a very good example look this one up
"Judge not, lest ye be judged" you use it out of context and do not understand the biblical meaning of this passage. Otherwise you would not have posted it.

AM,
No you do not otherwise you would not have posted it. It is speaking specifically to salvation. Have I said anything about someones salvation?

The context in which you use it would preclude anyone from questioning anything any one said. 10,000 miles in how you use it and it's intent.

And BTW you would be guilty of your own charge by your post to me using your definition.

How about 3? It doesn't really matter if there are 3.5 million in the church, and 3.5 satanists, if they are an NPO, then they should be able to rent the school's facilities.

Now, what do you figure the chances are that nobody would complain when the satanists had their meeting on school grounds?

Yes, we do have the right and the authority to judge the behavior of others as long as we honor and obey His Word doing it. Jesus is the only one who can judge is speaking to judging whether someone is or is not saved. Neither you , I nor anyone else who has ever drawn a breath (except Jesus) or ever will draw a breath has the authority to say whether another has or has not been saved. Only Jesus can make that judgment since only He can give Salvation.

IF you read the bible it and not just look at the words AND use the TOTAL of what it says, not just the pieces that seem to fit an agenda. the whole purpose of rules of interpretation.

I will bet any ammount that you would like to pu t up that any minister,preacher or biblical scholar would support my view over yours.

"Now, what do you figure the chances are that nobody would complain when the satanists had their meeting on school grounds?"

So free speach is limited because one does not agree with somone elses right? I thought you had to deny someone elses right to be guilty? Now just thinking it gets you there. I remember you saying something differently a few threads back about Muslims and christians. Imagine that another fly caught in a trap of his own making

AM
Put it up then. I'll match any amount you want.

Big difference in reading and undersatnding .


I know it is what you where taught. Imagine something changing in the past 40 years and you are on your way.

BTW AM in case you did not hear Columbus was not the first to discover AMerica

You stupid ass.

Let me translate from simple English to simpler English for you.

The christians are offended that people complain when the church meets on school grounds.

Likely, the same christians would snivel and whine if the Satanists met on school grounds.

So, they're both phucking idiots. Just like you.

AM,

You where taught literal interpretation which is how most people are taught(I would also assume with a bit of the golden rule thrown in) Which is the way you are supposed to use the bible unless there is evidence somewhere else in the bible that a literal interpretation does not work. In this case the subject in contect is salvation and no one can do that but god. So it is impossible for man to" judge" another. Man can clarly have opinions about another man as long as they hold to biblical teachings.