I the idea to start this thread from PA, so I'm going to give him credit for this, and I also got the idea while discussing the topic in Lt. Ripleys "Misquoting Jesus" thread, so I'm going to give the credit where it is deserved.
Anyway, when interpreting the Bible (or any other religious text for that matter), what is the best mindset to take? Surely, the bias of faith would make it hard to actually understand what is written from a historical perspective, but then again, wouldn't the bias of disbelief also affect how you interpret it? How then do we best go about understanding what a religious text says? Or understand how why and who wrote it? Apologetics will tell us that (insert book here) is the inerrant, inspired, perfect word of God written by (such and such persons) at (such and such date), where someone else might say that it is not, it wasn't written by so and so, and it was written at a different time than date such and such. So what then, are we to do? Is it all just a matter of faith then? That seems like a bogus response if you ask me. ::shrugs::
Full Version: Understanding the Bible
People read what they want to in any religous text they just won't admit it is all. 20 people can read the bible & get 20 different things out of it. If the people who wrote the bible can not agree on what it says then then how come we're supposed to buy into someone else's idea who is not jewish?
QUOTE (norwood1026 @ Jun 9 2008, 04:05 PM) 
People read what they want to in any religous text they just won't admit it is all. 20 people can read the bible & get 20 different things out of it. If the people who wrote the bible can not agree on what it says then then how come we're supposed to buy into someone else's idea who is not jewish?
This has always been the problem for me with the bible ,all the different interpretations of the same thing .Each one convinced they are right and the other wrong ,then at the end of the day ,they say but we all believe the same thing !!!!! the differences are only trivial
fullywired
QUOTE (fullywired @ Jun 9 2008, 06:23 PM)
This has always been the problem for me with the bible ,all the different interpretations of the same thing .Each one convinced they are right and the other wrong ,then at the end of the day ,they say but we all believe the same thing !!!!! the differences are only trivial
fullywired
fullywired
Maybe but if you buy into the idea of hell then I'd make sure I had it right.....
Most of the different interpretations are quite nuanced and do not take away from the main message of salvation. So one camp might think that Adam and Eve had belly buttons while another does not? That is of course if you are reading the Bible with a faith based mindset. There is also the difference between those who believe it to be inerrant and others who view it as infallible with various degrees.
To answer the main question as provided by the OP. There is no best mindset. What is best is realizing what mindset you are studying the Bible with and do not confuse them with other mindsets. It is possible the same person can look at it for faith then turn around for the historical perspective which would be necessary to compare to other historical sources.
If one chooses one method over another that is fine but they would be mistaken to claim only their favored approach is the only correct one and everyone else is wrong.
To answer the main question as provided by the OP. There is no best mindset. What is best is realizing what mindset you are studying the Bible with and do not confuse them with other mindsets. It is possible the same person can look at it for faith then turn around for the historical perspective which would be necessary to compare to other historical sources.
If one chooses one method over another that is fine but they would be mistaken to claim only their favored approach is the only correct one and everyone else is wrong.
QUOTE (churchanddestroy @ Jun 9 2008, 06:57 AM)
I the idea to start this thread from PA, so I'm going to give him credit for this, and I also got the idea while discussing the topic in Lt. Ripleys "Misquoting Jesus" thread, so I'm going to give the credit where it is deserved.
Anyway, when interpreting the Bible (or any other religious text for that matter), what is the best mindset to take? Surely, the bias of faith would make it hard to actually understand what is written from a historical perspective, but then again, wouldn't the bias of disbelief also affect how you interpret it? How then do we best go about understanding what a religious text says? Or understand how why and who wrote it? Apologetics will tell us that (insert book here) is the inerrant, inspired, perfect word of God written by (such and such persons) at (such and such date), where someone else might say that it is not, it wasn't written by so and so, and it was written at a different time than date such and such. So what then, are we to do? Is it all just a matter of faith then? That seems like a bogus response if you ask me. ::shrugs::
Anyway, when interpreting the Bible (or any other religious text for that matter), what is the best mindset to take? Surely, the bias of faith would make it hard to actually understand what is written from a historical perspective, but then again, wouldn't the bias of disbelief also affect how you interpret it? How then do we best go about understanding what a religious text says? Or understand how why and who wrote it? Apologetics will tell us that (insert book here) is the inerrant, inspired, perfect word of God written by (such and such persons) at (such and such date), where someone else might say that it is not, it wasn't written by so and so, and it was written at a different time than date such and such. So what then, are we to do? Is it all just a matter of faith then? That seems like a bogus response if you ask me. ::shrugs::
It all depends on the foundation of the religious text. The Torah and the Bagavhad Gita are the two with the best background. You never see Jews or Buddhists confused about what they're supposed to do. They may not know why they are supposed to do it. But they know how and what to do.
QUOTE (Clovis @ Jun 9 2008, 10:30 AM)
Most of the different interpretations are quite nuanced and do not take away from the main message of salvation. So one camp might think that Adam and Eve had belly buttons while another does not? That is of course if you are reading the Bible with a faith based mindset. There is also the difference between those who believe it to be inerrant and others who view it as infallible with various degrees.
To answer the main question as provided by the OP. There is no best mindset. What is best is realizing what mindset you are studying the Bible with and do not confuse them with other mindsets. It is possible the same person can look at it for faith then turn around for the historical perspective which would be necessary to compare to other historical sources.
If one chooses one method over another that is fine but they would be mistaken to claim only their favored approach is the only correct one and everyone else is wrong.
To answer the main question as provided by the OP. There is no best mindset. What is best is realizing what mindset you are studying the Bible with and do not confuse them with other mindsets. It is possible the same person can look at it for faith then turn around for the historical perspective which would be necessary to compare to other historical sources.
If one chooses one method over another that is fine but they would be mistaken to claim only their favored approach is the only correct one and everyone else is wrong.
I would add that it would benefit anyone to explore the bible with as many POV as possible, it should add to anyones conclusions,positions faith etc i adore the wizard of oz it doesnt. have to be real to get the message I love fairy tales factual has no bearing on the place they have had in a childs world or how they have defined countries in some cases......they donot need to be real to delight in nor would I argue they were .............
very rarely does an agnostic feel their happiness threatened by an opposing view, Pov are the crux of life fun and interesting IMo as many as possible....... from a literary stance I find the bible a delight in composition and how from a historical perspective how our mindsets and values and fears have been reflected in literature.......... As a NB i rather enjoy as many perspectives as possible to add to my understanding enlargen my scope i seek to be a bridge not a wall.......
.
agnostic simply says one doesn't know , i am not confident in saying that the bible is the truth or there is any meanig other than the one we give....... to many variables for me to arrive at that conclusion.. can it be of use certainly but so can many other things... when we rely soley on one book as the truth we create dogmas...
QUOTE (fullywired @ Jun 9 2008, 01:23 PM)
This has always been the problem for me with the bible ,all the different interpretations of the same thing .Each one convinced they are right and the other wrong ,then at the end of the day ,they say but we all believe the same thing !!!!! the differences are only trivial
fullywired
fullywired
The most important aspects of Christianity are commonly agreed upon. The things that are often trivial are the disagreements, unless you're discussing the Protestant Church vs the Catholic Church, since the Catholic Church believes they can change or add doctrine. Example, praying to angels or worshipping Mary.
QUOTE (churchanddestroy @ Jun 9 2008, 03:57 PM)
I the idea to start this thread from PA, so I'm going to give him credit for this, and I also got the idea while discussing the topic in Lt. Ripleys "Misquoting Jesus" thread, so I'm going to give the credit where it is deserved.
Anyway, when interpreting the Bible (or any other religious text for that matter), what is the best mindset to take? Surely, the bias of faith would make it hard to actually understand what is written from a historical perspective, but then again, wouldn't the bias of disbelief also affect how you interpret it? How then do we best go about understanding what a religious text says? Or understand how why and who wrote it? Apologetics will tell us that (insert book here) is the inerrant, inspired, perfect word of God written by (such and such persons) at (such and such date), where someone else might say that it is not, it wasn't written by so and so, and it was written at a different time than date such and such. So what then, are we to do? Is it all just a matter of faith then? That seems like a bogus response if you ask me. ::shrugs::
Anyway, when interpreting the Bible (or any other religious text for that matter), what is the best mindset to take? Surely, the bias of faith would make it hard to actually understand what is written from a historical perspective, but then again, wouldn't the bias of disbelief also affect how you interpret it? How then do we best go about understanding what a religious text says? Or understand how why and who wrote it? Apologetics will tell us that (insert book here) is the inerrant, inspired, perfect word of God written by (such and such persons) at (such and such date), where someone else might say that it is not, it wasn't written by so and so, and it was written at a different time than date such and such. So what then, are we to do? Is it all just a matter of faith then? That seems like a bogus response if you ask me. ::shrugs::
The idea that the Bible needs to be "interpreted" or understood with a particular "mindset" opposes the concept of a universal religion being instructed by a single set of writings. That they apply only to those who can intelligently "interpret" them or only to those with the correct "mindset" denies that universal character and makes it exclusive to the intellectuals.
Unfortunately, the concept is true. The Bible poses problem for those with lesser reading skills, lower comprehension or lower intelligence, thus the universal application cannot be claimed. The less intelligent are forced to depend upon the more intelligent to interpret and exercise exegesis for them.
The "bias" factor is diminished by the exclusivity of the work since it refers to those with sufficient intellect to form a bias.
That is one view expatriate but the other view is that the Christian path, while being explained within the Bible, does not need vast intellectual insight into the Bible. It is the path and walk you take with God, the personal relationship that counts, someone with much knowledge but little spiritual foundation, is like a tree with vast limbs and leaves but with little roots that topples at the first storm, it is more ideal if one must pick between the two to be a tree with less limbs and leaves and solid roots.
Also the Bible never advocates within the NT a huge universal church with a central organization. Most see that house churches are more ideal. A simple reading, and literacy rates are much better throughout the world now, and while some countries still have low literacy rates it is true that they have to depend on others, but that does not make it or should make it a religion of the intellectually elite.
There is no claim either that the church is universal or should be fall. In fact it is reiterated that the faith is not for everyone and rightfully so. Not everyone will become a Christian or should become one.
Also the Bible never advocates within the NT a huge universal church with a central organization. Most see that house churches are more ideal. A simple reading, and literacy rates are much better throughout the world now, and while some countries still have low literacy rates it is true that they have to depend on others, but that does not make it or should make it a religion of the intellectually elite.
There is no claim either that the church is universal or should be fall. In fact it is reiterated that the faith is not for everyone and rightfully so. Not everyone will become a Christian or should become one.
Excellent question, C.A.D./P.A.
Why would the Bible or any other religious text require the reader to have a different or special or 'right' mindset when interpreting the text? The reader already brings her/his own subjective means of understanding the text, correct? Can a reader turn off their "suspension of disbelief" switch? Is it even possible for reader to assume a POV not inherent to their psyche? What I try to encourage/teach my students to do is to immerse themselves into the text. Unpack, unravel, and unveil. I oppose the claim that there is a limitation on textual criticism because every time you read a text, you read it differently. Always remember that there is more truth in fiction than there is in history.
Kaizen: I find your remarks concerning Jews and Buddhists v. Christians very disturbing and inappropriate. You post with an uber-authoritative voice which does not conceal your Anti-Christian biases.
Why would the Bible or any other religious text require the reader to have a different or special or 'right' mindset when interpreting the text? The reader already brings her/his own subjective means of understanding the text, correct? Can a reader turn off their "suspension of disbelief" switch? Is it even possible for reader to assume a POV not inherent to their psyche? What I try to encourage/teach my students to do is to immerse themselves into the text. Unpack, unravel, and unveil. I oppose the claim that there is a limitation on textual criticism because every time you read a text, you read it differently. Always remember that there is more truth in fiction than there is in history.
Kaizen: I find your remarks concerning Jews and Buddhists v. Christians very disturbing and inappropriate. You post with an uber-authoritative voice which does not conceal your Anti-Christian biases.
QUOTE (Clovis @ Jun 9 2008, 10:12 PM)
That is one view expatriate but the other view is that the Christian path, while being explained within the Bible, does not need vast intellectual insight into the Bible. It is the path and walk you take with God, the personal relationship that counts, someone with much knowledge but little spiritual foundation, is like a tree with vast limbs and leaves but with little roots that topples at the first storm, it is more ideal if one must pick between the two to be a tree with less limbs and leaves and solid roots.
Also the Bible never advocates within the NT a huge universal church with a central organization. Most see that house churches are more ideal. A simple reading, and literacy rates are much better throughout the world now, and while some countries still have low literacy rates it is true that they have to depend on others, but that does not make it or should make it a religion of the intellectually elite.
There is no claim either that the church is universal or should be fall. In fact it is reiterated that the faith is not for everyone and rightfully so. Not everyone will become a Christian or should become one.
Also the Bible never advocates within the NT a huge universal church with a central organization. Most see that house churches are more ideal. A simple reading, and literacy rates are much better throughout the world now, and while some countries still have low literacy rates it is true that they have to depend on others, but that does not make it or should make it a religion of the intellectually elite.
There is no claim either that the church is universal or should be fall. In fact it is reiterated that the faith is not for everyone and rightfully so. Not everyone will become a Christian or should become one.
I didn't mention a "universal church," rather a universal religion as was proposed by the content of Mark 3:14.
QUOTE
Mark 3:14 And he appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) so that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach
I fail to see how that creates a universal religion. There are other scriptures which state there will be differences in belief such as one person eating meat and it is OK for them while another will not thinking it is a sin and it is for them only. Differences in sabbath days. There are others. There will be one body of Christ which can be considered a universal religion thought Mark 3:14 is not the best scripture explaining a universal religion, and religion might be an ill-suited term since as already stated there will be differences of opinion and what is a sin for one might not be for another, these are issues of standards and personal, not like other sins which are clearly stated as sins, but that is just my view.
Many of you will not like this answer, But!
The words of the scriptures are a great puzzle that was dismantled to protect it from corruption, only the individual who truly asks with an earnest desire to know the truth will be given two keys to understanding. Many can quote the Bible word for word (including the devil himself) but few understand its meaning. There are two keys to understanding, one is in the heart of man and the other is held by the Holy Spirit of God.
The first key is attained by free will and a desire to know the truth (the heart). The Holy Spirit holds the second key to protect it from corruption by the deceiver until they are delivered to the born again soul shortly after acceptance of redemption.
Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Irish
The words of the scriptures are a great puzzle that was dismantled to protect it from corruption, only the individual who truly asks with an earnest desire to know the truth will be given two keys to understanding. Many can quote the Bible word for word (including the devil himself) but few understand its meaning. There are two keys to understanding, one is in the heart of man and the other is held by the Holy Spirit of God.
The first key is attained by free will and a desire to know the truth (the heart). The Holy Spirit holds the second key to protect it from corruption by the deceiver until they are delivered to the born again soul shortly after acceptance of redemption.
Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Irish
QUOTE (churchanddestroy @ Jun 9 2008, 11:57 PM)
I the idea to start this thread from PA, so I'm going to give him credit for this, and I also got the idea while discussing the topic in Lt. Ripleys "Misquoting Jesus" thread, so I'm going to give the credit where it is deserved.
Anyway, when interpreting the Bible (or any other religious text for that matter), what is the best mindset to take? Surely, the bias of faith would make it hard to actually understand what is written from a historical perspective, but then again, wouldn't the bias of disbelief also affect how you interpret it? How then do we best go about understanding what a religious text says? Or understand how why and who wrote it? Apologetics will tell us that (insert book here) is the inerrant, inspired, perfect word of God written by (such and such persons) at (such and such date), where someone else might say that it is not, it wasn't written by so and so, and it was written at a different time than date such and such. So what then, are we to do? Is it all just a matter of faith then? That seems like a bogus response if you ask me. ::shrugs::
Anyway, when interpreting the Bible (or any other religious text for that matter), what is the best mindset to take? Surely, the bias of faith would make it hard to actually understand what is written from a historical perspective, but then again, wouldn't the bias of disbelief also affect how you interpret it? How then do we best go about understanding what a religious text says? Or understand how why and who wrote it? Apologetics will tell us that (insert book here) is the inerrant, inspired, perfect word of God written by (such and such persons) at (such and such date), where someone else might say that it is not, it wasn't written by so and so, and it was written at a different time than date such and such. So what then, are we to do? Is it all just a matter of faith then? That seems like a bogus response if you ask me. ::shrugs::
The mindset in my view should be this:
INTUITION,INTUITION,INTUITION,INTUITION,INTUITION,INTUITION,INTUITION,INTUITION,
INTUITION,INTUITION,INTUITION,INTUITION,INTUITION,INTUITION,INTUITION,INTUITION backed with reason. But intuition should always be in front in my view.
QUOTE (Irish @ Jun 9 2008, 10:38 PM)
Many of you will not like this answer, But!
Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Irish
Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Irish
That scripture has been taken "out of context"
QUOTE (Irish @ Jun 9 2008, 04:38 PM)
Many of you will not like this answer, But!
The words of the scriptures are a great puzzle that was dismantled to protect it from corruption, only the individual who truly asks with an earnest desire to know the truth will be given two keys to understanding. Many can quote the Bible word for word (including the devil himself) but few understand its meaning. There are two keys to understanding, one is in the heart of man and the other is held by the Holy Spirit of God.
The first key is attained by free will and a desire to know the truth (the heart). The Holy Spirit holds the second key to protect it from corruption by the deceiver until they are delivered to the born again soul shortly after acceptance of redemption.
Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Irish
The words of the scriptures are a great puzzle that was dismantled to protect it from corruption, only the individual who truly asks with an earnest desire to know the truth will be given two keys to understanding. Many can quote the Bible word for word (including the devil himself) but few understand its meaning. There are two keys to understanding, one is in the heart of man and the other is held by the Holy Spirit of God.
The first key is attained by free will and a desire to know the truth (the heart). The Holy Spirit holds the second key to protect it from corruption by the deceiver until they are delivered to the born again soul shortly after acceptance of redemption.
Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Irish
That is the Christian view of which mindset and heartset to approach the Word and I agree.
QUOTE
2 Corinthians 4:3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 7 But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us.
QUOTE
1 Corinthians 2:6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified(N) the Lord of glory. 9 But, as it is written,
"What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man imagined,
what God has prepared for those who love him"—
10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
"What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man imagined,
what God has prepared for those who love him"—
10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
QUOTE (Clovis @ Jun 10 2008, 06:58 AM)
That is the Christian view of which mindset to approach the Word and I agree.
The bible isnt the Word. The bible is words. The Word is Christ itself. The map isnt the territory.
Well I did state 'that is the Christian view' right from the onset and in that view it is the Word lol. I get your point no one is claiming your view is not valid just some of us who identify as Christians choose to only believe the Word when it states it is the Word ^__^
QUOTE (Clovis @ Jun 10 2008, 06:13 AM)
Well I did state 'that is the Christian view' right from the onset and in that view it is the Word lol. I get your point no one is claiming your view is not valid just some of us who identify as Christians choose to only believe the Word when it states it is the Word ^__^
Show where the scripture anywhere identifies the Word with the words of the scripture? The Word was in the beginning before man knew how to write. The bible describes the Word with words but isnt the Word itself. If that was the case then for every bible there would be another Word. But there is only one Word.
QUOTE (Clovis @ Jun 9 2008, 10:29 PM)
I fail to see how that creates a universal religion. There are other scriptures which state there will be differences in belief such as one person eating meat and it is OK for them while another will not thinking it is a sin and it is for them only. Differences in sabbath days. There are others. There will be one body of Christ which can be considered a universal religion thought Mark 3:14 is not the best scripture explaining a universal religion, and religion might be an ill-suited term since as already stated there will be differences of opinion and what is a sin for one might not be for another, these are issues of standards and personal, not like other sins which are clearly stated as sins, but that is just my view.
Considering that religion is nothing more than a prescribed order of beliefs and rituals, I think the term is valid. That the disciples went forth, by tradition, and spread the teachings of Jesus would not have logically been done without prior instruction. The structural differences within religions provide little evidence that the theme of those faiths are not constant. Whether people dance with rattlesnakes in Kentucky, are sprinkled at baptism or dunked in a river alters the core of the religion very little. If Jesus recognized that such differences would exist, one could easily assume that he did not want those differences to deter his message. However, like you, this is only my view.
Perhaps the cumbersome interpretation one must do, examining everything for metaphorical meaning/deeper analysis et cetera, et cetera, et ctera detracts from Christs message. Otherwise you can put to much of yourself into the reading. Why wouldn't Gods written message be intuitive (lol like an easy to use computer program)? If he didn't strive to make it that way - that strikes me as odd.
What does this Holy Spirit feel like, btw.
What does this Holy Spirit feel like, btw.
QUOTE (brave_new_world @ Jun 10 2008, 08:16 AM)
Show where the scripture anywhere identifies the Word with the words of the scripture? The Word was in the beginning before man knew how to write. The bible describes the Word with words but isnt the Word itself. If that was the case then for every bible there would be another Word. But there is only one Word.
Clovis is right, BNW:The “word” or “logos” can well be applied to “the Scriptures of the Bible”, and can be applied to the “gospel message”, etc., etc.
For example, read the Acts 8:21 in its full context – you will see that the word “matter” is the same Greek word as used for “Word” in John 1:1
Act 8:21 You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
G3056 λόγος
Logos log'-os
From G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): - account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.
Surely the right mindset if you want a clear view of any subject or phenomenon would be an objective,dispassionate,rational,impartial one free from selfish agenda,lazy prejudice,myopic preconception or 'assumption' (no pun intended).
Just cherrypicking sections which fit snugly within your own worldview whilst wilfully ignoring all else seems a little childish and narrow minded.
As we are talking about something that in no way can be proved (faith not fact) then I'm sure bickering between the faiths about who the 'chosen people' are is destined to be an recurring,eternal argument.
Just cherrypicking sections which fit snugly within your own worldview whilst wilfully ignoring all else seems a little childish and narrow minded.
As we are talking about something that in no way can be proved (faith not fact) then I'm sure bickering between the faiths about who the 'chosen people' are is destined to be an recurring,eternal argument.
^Hi Karl, I think the question being addressed is whether it is possible to be objective, dispassionate, rational, impartial and free from agenda when it comes to something so fundamental to our lives as our Faith (or lack thereof).
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.