On Friday, November 29, 2013 7:42:41 PM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/29/13, 8:08 PM, Tim wrote:

On Friday, November 29, 2013 6:41:42 PM UTC-6,

No, I am not a theologian, but I did have as a college roommate for an



academic year a fellow who got his master's at Union Theological



Seminary, and was ordained an Episcopal priest. He got me to go to



Sunday Episcopal services on campus because, he claimed, they served the



best Sunday student breakfast and had the best-looking coeds at their



services. He was right on both counts.



Of course there would be an alternate motive for going.





He and I argued some on issues religious. We're still close friends.







I have an M.A. in English, and my concentration was in etymology. As for



your interpretations, you're just proving my point, that biblical



interpretation is in the mind of the beholder. There's nothing wrong or



intellectually dishonest about that, as long as one admits it.







I'm glad you told me. THANKS! But, you don't believe in the book anyhow.. so why make a big deal out of it? I mean, why are you trying to interpret something something you don't believe in anyhow?





An alternative motive for "going," beyond the free eats and hot

chicks...I didn't see any. I was agnostic 50 years ago when I was

getting my B.A.



I believe "the book" is a book. As for "interpretation," it is just an

intellectual pursuit. Do you have some actual evidence the bible wasn't

written, translated and rewritten by bunches of guys over a relatively

long time period? You know, some sort of "supreme" writing?


Hey Harry. I believe 'the book' in just as much as you believe the opposite.. But one thing. You've insulted and will continue to do so, 'the book' and whom it is about , it's writers, its theme, and it's followers far, far more than I will ever think of insulting those who don't believe in 'the book'

But that's ok. We're used to it...