WLC Challenge To all the religious leaders, theologians, and Bible students

[handsoff241]

---

are you sure?? did i disclose such thing?

You are forgetting your post that started this.

sure ka nga wala koy GOD?? did i even disclose such huh?? in such a brief period of exchange?

You can't blame a hunter if he shoots you if you sound like a boar.

wow, so CHRISTIAN of you.
you are the ones LABELING who the atheists are? what's next you decide who LIVES or DIE?

By "we" I refer to the people who started the term and to us who thinks that way. Not we like christian-only-we, your too cocky on your trashed filled whinny posts.

fundie ka nga, handsdown.

You did not hear me assert the scripture, did you?

[sizz-lorr]

You are forgetting your post that started this.

You can't blame a hunter if he shoots you if you sound like a boar.


By "we" I refer to the people who started the term and to us who thinks that way. Not we like christian-only-we, your too cocky on your trashed filled whinny posts.

You did not hear me assert the scripture, did you?

back up you allegations, so far it is only YOU judging me. labeling me as an atheist. bleeee
i lad lad mo nah, post it up. what i SAID, show it to me.
i never DISCLOSED such information, me an atheist, wa man gani koy religious affiliation gi lad lad dire. otomatik atheist nako?? mao ni ang PRIDE sa christian, huwaw naman. powertripping. lolz

[handsoff241]

back up you allegations,

I was actually talking about this post.

no, i saw a pink frog coz i was on ACID, you see.

so far it is only YOU judging me. labeling me as an atheist.
i lad lad mo nah, post it up. what i SAID, show it to me.
i never DISCLOSED such information, me an atheist, wa man gani koy religious affiliation gi lad lad dire. otomatik atheist nako?

As I said, what I see of you and how you present your self is how I relate my ideas to you. What you are showing to me(and us in the forum) will eventually prove my point.

mao ni ang PRIDE sa christian, huwaw naman. powertripping. lolz

I'm not labeling you as if you are a demon, i'm just stating what I think of you based on how you presented yourself.

[sizz-lorr]

I was actually talking about this post.



As I said, what I see of you and how you present your self is how I relate my ideas to you. What you are showing to me(and us in the forum) will eventually prove my point.


I'm not labeling you as if you are a demon, i'm just stating what I think of you based on how you presented yourself.

hahahahaha
wa na kay laing ma SAY. pachaka naman lang kag qoute.
tell me: no, i saw a pink frog coz i was on ACID, you see.;back up you allegations,
since when did those SIGNIFY i'm an ATHEIST?? fataka man lang kag ambit.

unsa na neeee, WHO IS THE NEXT ATHEIST?? send your votes now. lolz

com'on what would jesus say about this behaviour of yours?? you bring shame to the term CHRISTIAN.

[rynzco]

@ TS murag ADD ray mka kumbati nmo ani bro,..

asa rato c bro rcruman?,...

[brownprose]

This is a case of faulty hermeneutics commonly committed by fundamentalists. It miserably bears the presumption that the Biblical authors are talking to a present-day audience. A case in point is this thread.

If you follow the Mosaic Law intently as well as the Levitical ordinances instituted by Moses, they were primarily intended to ancient Israel. "The Covenant" that is repeatedly stated in the Old Testament is not the covenant between modern-day Christians and God BUT between Israel and God.

The wisdom of the Sabbath is NOT based on the injunction to observe it strictly on a Saturday but on the underlying principle that Christians must need to spare a day for rest and to dedicate the same to God.

Besides, even if we were to strictly follow Saturday as the day of rest, it is not certain that the Saturday we have now is the same Saturday that was observed by the ancient Hebrews. From the time the Israelites were yet slaves in Egypt to the time they were under the Babylonians and up to the time of Caesar, the calendar had underwent many changes.

[The_Child]

i have question in regards to this,

im not seminarian, never went to bible school, never tok up theology. so my question is:

why is biblical exegesis still taken as the fundamental hermeneutics in dealing with the bible amidst the progress in hermeneutics itself?

[brownprose]

i have question in regards to this,

im not seminarian, never went to bible school, never tok up theology. so my question is:

why is biblical exegesis still taken as the fundamental hermeneutics in dealing with the bible amidst the progress in hermeneutics itself?

Strictly speaking, exegesis should only come after exhausting the hermeneutics of a Biblical account. Hermeneutics therefore provides the exegete (interpreter) the tools to understand the intent of the author and to the audience for which the writing is primarily intended to while taking into context the events, the culture, the practices and even the politics that existed at the time of writing.

Simply, a verse in question may be more clear to the interpreter if he/she understands what exactly happened at the time of writing. A case of faulty exegesis is the word "unbeliever" which has been commonly misunderstood by most fundamentalists as a person who doesn't share their beliefs or doctrines. Hermeneutically, an unbeliever from a Biblical sense actually refers to someone who did not believe in the divinity of Christ.

[brownprose]

i think the Catholic Church has progressed a lot on the side of Hermeneutics.

[The_Child]

Strictly speaking, exegesis should only come after exhausting the hermeneutics of a Biblical account. Hermeneutics therefore provides the exegete (interpreter) the tools to understand the intent of the author and to the audience for which the writing is primarily intended to while taking into context the events, the culture, the practices and even the politics that existed at the time of writing.

Simply, a verse in question may be more clear to the interpreter if he/she understands what exactly happened at the time of writing. A case of faulty exegesis is the word "unbeliever" which has been commonly misunderstood by most fundamentalists as a person who doesn't share their beliefs or doctrines. Hermeneutically, an unbeliever from a Biblical sense actually refers to someone who did not believe in the divinity of Christ.

thats my point, is the forefront of biblical studies still dependent on Romantic Hermeneutics (schleiermacher) which was the very first tool used in art of interpretation? the oldest one might say.