Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1069895 Posts in 71006 Topics- by 18773 Members - Latest Member: deezel901
Jump to:  
The Trombone ForumRecent Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10
 31 
 on: Today at 01:00 PM 
Started by BillO - Last post by John the Theologian
I would agree with that.

But I really think there is a difference for the religious person who is sure that his view is correct and everybody else's wrong, because his comes from God.  The Holy Spirit revealed this to him (also wrote the Bible, but I digress).  When you're speaking for the Almighty, I think your perceived sense of certainty is higher than the most self evident political truth.  

Yes and No.  I've met some very certain politicos who are absolutely certain that their political opponents were ruining the country. :)

 32 
 on: Today at 12:59 PM 
Started by BillO - Last post by timothy42b
I would agree with that.

But I really think there is a difference for the religious person who is sure that his view is correct and everybody else's wrong, because his comes from God.  The Holy Spirit revealed this to him (also wrote the Bible, but I digress).  When you're speaking for the Almighty, I think your perceived sense of certainty is higher than the most self evident political truth.  

Uh, also, the stakes are higher.

Vote for the wrong politician, your taxes go up.

Sign up with the wrong Deity, be tortured in hell for billions of years.  Once you're sure you're right, you DARE NOT second guess. 

 33 
 on: Today at 12:58 PM 
Started by MoominDave - Last post by John the Theologian
Good point.  But God being God, why be rhetorical?  Just say "He must bear punishment" and have done with it?
That's precisely what I did John.  Rhetorical questions are frequently used as a literary device to influence the reader for the purposes of seeking persuasion or validation. 



You are asking the question why is the text the way it is, which is a different one than interpreting the text before us.  We can ask those questions, but I'm not sure it is all that fruitful in interpreting the text itself. 

A lot of answers could be given to your question, but they all would be speculative, I think.  At least mine and yours would be. :)

 34 
 on: Today at 12:57 PM 
Started by BillO - Last post by timothy42b


BTW, many politicos that I know would never say that what they consider a false political view is "true for them."-- referring to the person holding that belief.  

I would agree with that.

But I really think there is a difference for the religious person who is sure that his view is correct and everybody else's wrong, because his comes from God.  The Holy Spirit revealed this to him (also wrote the Bible, but I digress).  When you're speaking for the Almighty, I think your perceived sense of certainty is higher than the most self evident political truth.  

 35 
 on: Today at 12:55 PM 
Started by MoominDave - Last post by BillO
Those are rhetorical questions.

Good point.  But God being God, why be rhetorical?  Just say "He must bear punishment" and have done with it?

Quote
It's a good example to me of making sure that the normal use of such things as figures of speech, normal literary devices, etc, are observed in interpreting the text.
That's precisely what I did John.  Rhetorical questions are frequently used as a literary device to influence the reader for the purposes of seeking persuasion or validation. 


 36 
 on: Today at 12:52 PM 
Started by Ryebone - Last post by routemaster
Apologies for a stupid question but how do you know it has a gold-brass bell?
Best wishes

 37 
 on: Today at 12:51 PM 
Started by BillO - Last post by John the Theologian
True enough.
As I've said, that does happen.  What you mention can happen for at least 3 reasons as well.
   1) The person saying that is the real ignoramus.
   2) The person saying that is right.
   3) Both the person making the statement and the person the statement is about are both ignoramuses



Same things can apply to religious/theological discussions but none of this changes the fact that people can have fundamentally different beliefs on a whole range of topics, but none of that touches the issue of the warrant for those beliefs which is a different kettle of fish.  Let's make sure we don't confuse categories.

 38 
 on: Today at 12:45 PM 
Started by BillO - Last post by BillO
I agree that we didn't resolve it, but I thought this thread was going in a different direction.
True enough.

Quote
I've seen plenty of politicos that would argue that one is completely an ignoramus who is helping foul up the whole country by holding and voting according to those "completely wrong" political beliefs.
As I've said, that does happen.  What you mention can happen for at least 3 reasons as well.
   1) The person saying that is the real ignoramus.
   2) The person saying that is right.
   3) Both the person making the statement and the person the statement is about are both ignoramuses


 39 
 on: Today at 12:44 PM 
Started by MoominDave - Last post by John the Theologian
It's not literal.  I get it from God saying "But he rebelled against him by sending his ambassadors to Egypt, that they might give him horses and a large army. Will he thrive? Can one escape who does such things? Can he break the covenant and yet escape?" that God was expecting a different result.  Why else would God be asking for validation for the actions to be taken as a result of the behavior?

You can just put it down to my uninformed misinterpretation, as I am sure you will.

Anyway, are interpretations not allowed here?

Those are rhetorical questions.  Nothing in the text implies that God was surprised. 

Yes, interpretations are allowed here, but I was very puzzled at yours.  To me it was so obvious that those were rhetorical questions that I never would have thought otherwise. 

It's a good example to me of making sure that the normal use of such things as figures of speech, normal literary devices, etc, are observed in interpreting the text. The context nowhere describes a God who was surprised, so that fits very well with those phrases being rhetorical questions.

 40 
 on: Today at 12:36 PM 
Started by MoominDave - Last post by BillO
It's not literal.  I get it from God saying "But he rebelled against him by sending his ambassadors to Egypt, that they might give him horses and a large army. Will he thrive? Can one escape who does such things? Can he break the covenant and yet escape?" that God was expecting a different result.  Why else would God be asking for validation for the actions to be taken as a result of the behavior?

You can just put it down to my uninformed misinterpretation, as I am sure you will.

Anyway, are interpretations not allowed here?

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10