Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 179:
Line 179: + + + +
Talk:Essay:Adulteress Story (view source)
Revision as of 13:39, April 10, 2008
, 13:39, April 10, 2008→Inspired Word of God or Not: reply
::::::::: Interesting how the first quote on your link to support a [[liberal]] interpretation of [[Jesus]] is ... the phony adulteress story. Will you admit that [[liberal]]s' favorite quote from the Gospels is widely recognized not to be an authentic original?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:41, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: Interesting how the first quote on your link to support a [[liberal]] interpretation of [[Jesus]] is ... the phony adulteress story. Will you admit that [[liberal]]s' favorite quote from the Gospels is widely recognized not to be an authentic original?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:41, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::I think the arguments above - that later addition might not be an adequate proxy for falsity - are well made. The Bible was compiled from various authors at various times. Some built upon the works of others, and added their own experiences. That a late edition must needs be a falsity doesn't follow. Further, if you're admitting that the Bible isn't all literal - that it's open to interpretation on some issues - there's a much harder issue you must face. How do you know which parts are open to interpretation, and which aren't? How can you be certain of any of your literal interpretations, anymore? This is a slipper slope, upon which I'm surprised to see you embark.-[[User:ArcturusM|ArcturusM]] 00:18, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::I think the arguments above - that later addition might not be an adequate proxy for falsity - are well made. The Bible was compiled from various authors at various times. Some built upon the works of others, and added their own experiences. That a late edition must needs be a falsity doesn't follow. Further, if you're admitting that the Bible isn't all literal - that it's open to interpretation on some issues - there's a much harder issue you must face. How do you know which parts are open to interpretation, and which aren't? How can you be certain of any of your literal interpretations, anymore? This is a slipper slope, upon which I'm surprised to see you embark.-[[User:ArcturusM|ArcturusM]] 00:18, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: The issue of the authenticity of a passage with respect to the [[Bible]] is unrelated and irrelevant to the truth of the [[Bible]] itself. There is no slippery slope.
::::::::::: It's not just that the adulteress passage was added later that makes it a hoax. It's also that the passage fundamentally contradicts both Christian principles (including the nature of forgiveness of sin and its complete effectiveness for those who seek it) and common sense (including the fact that [[Jesus]] would never have enjoyed unanimous support). The passage today is [[liberals]]'s favorite part of the [[Gospels]], and the passage is a hoax.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:39, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
== Mosaic law ==
== Mosaic law ==