Posted on 05/22/2007 6:26:44 AM PDT by Baladas
Probably passed up by priests when he was young, and still resents it.
Why am I not surprised?
I wish more people realized that the university stands for this before sending their kids there.
” the Bible as a relic of an ancient civilization instead of the “living” document most religionist scholars believe it should be’
How odd. Conservatives decry the leftist notion of a living constitution, but are just fine with the bible being such.
It’s more like the “leftist religionists” that think the Bible should conform to a changing society especially where their genitals are concerned.
That’s why I chose the excerpt I did. If the bible isn’t ‘living’ it’s deemed a relic. Take your pick.
To the believer it’s the “living word of God”, Jesus, who has not died. Hence the living part.
James Madison, to my knowledge, never had anyone claim he rose from the dead.
Easy. So put Gonzales in charge of the Religion dept, since he obviously believes in God. That would be a switch, huh.
In this instance, “living” is being used to mean “not etched in stone.” IOW capable of being adjusted to modern needs.
How can one be a relic if one is still living today, plus don’t forget the forever bit? For the faithful the “Word of God” will always be “living”. The whole notion of the New Testament accounts for this.
The OT stories would have been true in this particular case, a relic as you say but the Resurrection brought this “dead letter” to life.
The BIBLE is what is being discussed, not Jesus. But since you’ve got this one-track mind, and I’m not into being ‘saved’ at the moment, this is my last comment.
How can you possibly leave out Jesus from the Bible?
It’s like leaving the scotch out of scotch and soda.
By the way, I prefer my Crown straight up on the rocks but occasionally with coke.
Well had there been no Bible there would be no United States and thus no ISU nor "Professor Avalos".
You could just as easily say 'had there been no slavery there would be no United States and thus no ISU nor Professor Avalos'. What does that prove? Nothing really. Its the butterfly affect and says nothing about the merits of either the Bible or slavery.
Slavery would continue whether there was a United States or not.
The Bible which never declares slavery good nonetheless demonstrates through law and narrative the promise of the One God that Good will ultimately prevail over evil. In that sense America is "chosen" to project goodness into the world, which would otherwise be a very dark place without it.
Like it or not, any unbiased reading of the Old Testament would come to the same conclusion.
What the article (and Alvos) doesn't say is that the Old Testament is superseded by the New Testament. Christianity is based on Christs teachings, not Old Testament teachings.
Dr.: “What the article (and Alvos) doesn’t say is that the Old Testament is superseded by the New Testament. Christianity is based on Christs teachings, not Old Testament teachings.”
The WHOLE New Testament? I thought only the red letters in the Bible were important - The rest of the words are just fluff. Aren’t they??
I haven't tried to parse out the New Testament.
Do you disagree that the New Testament contradicts the Old Testament? (ie. 'turn the other cheek' versus 'an eye for an eye')
Dr: “Do you disagree that the New Testament contradicts the Old Testament?”
Yes. I disagree.
To believe that the New Testament disagrees with the Old Testament you must believe one of the following:
1. The scriptures are not from God. (The Bible is just a good lesson in morality or a self-help book)
2. God changes His mind.
3. There is no God.
So which of the above do you believe?
Isn’t tolerance a wonderful thing..............
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.