CW: No. I'm suggesting that you read it for yourself and give your honest
opinion of its clarity. The fact that some may misinterpret Jesus' teaching
shows correlation, not causation. :)
Misinterpretation does not show either nor have you explained how to
detect misinterpretation from interpretation.
>And why are you limiting yourself to the
>4 gospels?
CW: Because that's where the direct teaching of Jesus, in His own words, is
presented. Deal with that, Pim, and then we can discuss the rest of the
Bible. My challenge remains -- get a Bible, read the gospels, and form your
own conclusion, rather than parroting the standard atheist dogma.
Why are you assuming, incorrectly, that I am an atheist. Perhaps you are
the one parotting standard dogma ?
>The meaning of the words depend on the reader especially since
>we do not have the authors available to explain it to us.
CW: Then why are we having this conversation? If you are free to assign any
meaning you choose to my words, why even attempt to discuss anything?
I did not say that one is free to assign any meaning to words but that the
interpretation of words differ among people. If errors in interpretation
occur they can be corrected in such a forum like this one.
CW: BTW, you have just written off all recorded history to which there is
no living eyewitness. This way of looking at things is really pretty
cool. I
To a certain extent history has to deal with such problems.
CW: think that Darwin never lived -- prove me wrong, using your
antilogocentric
approach. You know, if we get enough people to agree, then we can get rid
of slavery, and all those slaves won't ever have been enslaved at all.
Clinton can then retract his apology -- this has real possibilities!
Are you trying to make a coherent argument here ? In that case please
clarify ?
>CW: Yes it does -- the teachings of Jesus Christ.
>
>That is not a moral basis. It is a subjective interpretation of morality
>and furthermore hearsay.
CW: Hearsay? That statement in not worthy of you, Pim. The existence, the
life, and the teachings of Jesus is better attested by documentary evidence
than of any person of anitquity. Better attested than Plato, better than
Homer, better than Alexander the Great, better than Budda.
And ? I am not the one claiming that the teachings of Plato should form an
objective moral basis. The teachings of JC are certainly not objective and
are heresay. After all we are to interpret the words of the bible in a
manner we hope is consistent with his interpretation.
CW: I'll pass on the rest of your post. It's redundant, it's been
addressed my
many others on the list, and it's bald assertion.
Perhaps some Rogaine could help the assertion ?