historia wrote:
This is obviously false. All texts require interpretation.
Claiming that you don't need to interpret a text that was written thousands of years ago in a culture and language very different from our own is merely a confession that you haven't seriously considered your own assumptions and presuppositions when reading the Bible.
This is absolutely false again.
In fact, if you continue to hold to this position all you are doing is proclaiming that there is nothing of substance to Christian theology. After all, how could there be if your claim is that everyone will interpret it differently.
So no, the Bible is not open to interpretation. It's a very specific collection of fables, albeit riddled with self-contradictions.
But no, it's useless to try to claim that it's open to individual interpretation. If you make that claim that you can't also try to claim that it holds anything meaningful form any God. You very claim demands that it can mean whatever any individual decides that they would like for it to mean.
Hardly a meaningful foundation for a theology.
historia wrote:
Christians can interpret their scripture however they want. It's their scripture after all.
Again, absolute baloney. The Bible doesn't belong to anyone. Just because Christians would like to lay claim to the patent rights on ancient God myths doesn't make it so.
You and I are both human beings on planet earth. Neither one of us can lay claim to ownership or authorship of the Bible.
And as I said above, if you claim that it's open to individual interpretation, then my interpretation is equally valid to yours. But if we allow for that foolishness, then we can't claim that it has any coherent objective message. And therefore no ones interpretation could be said to be the "Word of God".
So your apologetics for this failed theology simply don't hold water.
historia wrote:
What doesn't make any sense is a non-Christian imagining that his interpretation of the Bible somehow constitutes "Christianity."
What kind of a bigoted statement is this? I'm not a "non-Christian". I'm a human being living on planet Earth just like you. Your attempt to dismiss me by branding me with an artificial label created by your theological club has no merit.
I'm not a "non-Christian". I'm a human. There are no such things as Christians or non-Christians. All that exists in that regard are people who are trying to pin labels on themselves and others in an effort to try to define other people.
It's not only an insult to my intellect, but your insulting your own intellect when you try to label other people in an effort to demerit them.
Sorry, that's nothing short of religious bigotry.
You and I are humans. Period. You don't gain anything by trying to label yourself as a "Christian" and me as a "non-Christian". Like as if that's supposed to give you some superiority over me when it comes to this failed theology.
historia wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:
Staying in the early chapters of Genesis we have this God cursing an evil angel to crawl on his belly and eat dirt for the rest of his life.
There is no mention of an angel in the text. I thought you said you didn't need to "interpret" and just "take the Bible for what it says"?
That wasn't my interpretation. This is what Christian theologians have been claiming for centuries.
Besides, it doesn't need to be an angel for the point I made stand. The point is that in a monotheistic religion it cannot have been a second God.
And by the way, even though this wasn't mentioned in Genesis it is mentioned in Revelation in the New Testament.
In Revelation it says: "
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
This is referring back to the serpent who deceived the whole world. The one who deceived Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Who else could it be referring to? There is no other serpent character in the Bible that it could be referring to.
And while it doesn't claim that Satan is himself an angel, it does refer to angels who were cast out with him.
And besides, what would be the difference?
What's the difference whether it's an angel or a serpent? Both of these creatures would have needed to have been created by God in a monotheistic religion.
The problem is, Historia, that no matter how hard you try to squeeze subtly different "interpretations" out of these fables, it never helps anything anyway.
What's the difference whether Satan was an angel or a serpent?
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever in the big picture. It still remains that the Biblical God cursed this creator to crawl on its belly and eat dirt for the rest of his days and that evil curse didn't even solve anything.
So it doesn't even matter how hard you try to twist interpretations around, you still end up with the same basic story.
In the end, you have no choice but to agree that this God cursed some creature to crawl on its belly and eat dirt for the rest of his days and that this didn't help the problem of sin one iota.
No matter how hard you try you can't change that.
Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Your stuck with this for the rest of eternity. It's never going to miraculously change or go away.
The Biblical God cursed some creature to crawl on his belly and eat dust for the rest of his days.
No amount of re-interpretation can change this.
If you are that ashamed of what the Bible has to say, I would suggest finding a better religion to defend.
Trying to belittle others by proclaiming that they are "
non-Christians" and therefore should not be permitted to point out the obvious errors and absurdities in Hebrew mythology because they supposedly don't know what they are talking about, simply isn't going to work.
You are never going to win an open debate by trying to discredit people simply because they don't claim to be "Christians".
That's ridiculous.