Re: Do We Take the Bible Literally?

goddardbe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Bart=A0Goddard) wrote:
>
>Then don't try to make an argument that
> assumes He was and then draw silly
> conclusions from it.
>
Say what?   You did read my post, didn't you?
>
>Two problems, again. 1. We aren't trying to
> understand Heaven, we're trying to listen to
> God. 
>
Understanding Heaven, wasn't my point.  Read my post again. Only this
time, turn your mind up.
>
>2. We're perfectly capable of understand
> things through language without having 'been
> there'. That's why art is art.
>
Ahh.. Finally a light in the dark.  ...A version of this was in my
initial post (last paragraph), if you would have taken the time to read
it.
>
>I'm not the one who makes sweeping blanket
> statements without sup****t as if they were
> inspired Truth
>
So in other words: As long as my point of view agrees with yours, you're
ok with it.
>
>or thinks that ancient man was
> too simple-minded to understand deep
> spiritual things.
>
I never said that.  ...I said one does not talk to a child using terms
and technology they would be unable to understand -- or comprehend.  I
never said they were simple-minded. This was a deduction that you
derived, based on your own personal biases.    ...Jon


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a
moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org
for details about this group BEFORE you post. 
 )))