Via common sense and taking words at face value considering their
grammatical and historical context. However you, not having read them,
are of all people the least qualified to comment on either correct or
incorrect 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 ?
I don't what you are; but your arguments are straight out of The Atheist's
Handbook.
>>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.
Now *there's* a cogent argument!
>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 ?
See below.
>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.
My point is that the life and teachings of Jesus are extremely
well-documented. If His words are hearsay, so are Darwin's -- and you have
allowed yourself the luxury of rewriting history to fit your prejudices.
Pim, you affirm the objectivity and clarity of language to argue for
materialism. But thenin the next breath, you claim language is inadequate
to communicate religious truth. It's getting a little difficult to find
much common ground for our discussion, now that language has been eliminated.
Chuck
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Warman
cwarman@wf.net (Wichita Falls, TX)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"The abdication of Belief / makes the Behavior small."
----Emily Dickinson