I propose that we have a new rule about quoting religeous texts.

This rule states: You cannot quote or paraphrase a religeous text when trying to prove, disprove, or otherwise alter an opinion about anything.

Quoting from the bible while trying to prove the existence of god is useless. The bible says that he is real, therefore arguing against the bible about the existence of god is useless.

I think that it causes a lot more frustration that is necessary. Let's start relying a little bit more on the logic and metaphors in these holy books, and less on the literal message.

As many have said. The bible is a book of metaphors. As is every other holy text.

quote:Originally posted by Nidias_91:

As many have said. The bible is a book of metaphors. As is every other holy text.

Prove it....

Dont forget to follow your own rule.

Wow. I was using the bible as a reference point, not paraphrasing it. I was using it as such because everyone in this board knows what the bible is.

quote:Originally posted by Nidias_91:

Wow. I was using the bible as a reference point, not paraphrasing it. I was using it as such because everyone in this board knows what the bible is.

Maybe i'm misunderstanding, but that does not seem like a 'proof' but more of an 'explaination'.

So if you would be kind enough to prove that it is just a "book of metaphors" following your own rule, it might clear it up for me.

Thanks.

That would be redundant. But then again, I wouldn't be trying to alter your opinion, as you have not expressed one.

Stop trying to be a dick just so you can prove me an idiot. If you express an opinion, I just won't reply to this thread, and then let the mods read it.

What if you're trying to say that the bible condemns homosexuality? Obviously to prove that you would have to cite passages from the bible.

OK... you want my *opinion*.

The Bible is mostly literal. It has some poetic verse. Most, if not all the metaphors in it are based primarily from a literal understanding of the text. And (almost)all doctrine is based from a literal interpretation of the first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis. I say *almost* because the doctrine of the virgin birth of Mary and the doctrine of purgetory are not from Genesis nor are they Biblical. There are a few others, but those are denominational doctrines, not general Christian doctrine. There is also the doctrine of Jesus' virgin birth that is not from Genesis, but the reason for a Savior is.

Now, i was not trying to be a dick about it, nor was i trying to prove anyone an idiot. I was just trying to show that this rule is flawed.

And whether the mods read this thread or not, doesnt matter.. neither one of us committed some sort of heinus TOTSE crime.

And no, it was not redundant since you gave no proof of "metephors", either by using the Bible or not using it. You only gave an opinion. Whether that opinion was initially your own, or whether you had been introduced to it via someone elses opinion, i dont know.

time for bed

What else can you quote? The Bible is the ONLY thing that supports god's existence.

hey, shit happens