3 Bible Misconceptions

[doctorcoug]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/1...isconceptions/

I bet this gets a lot of people upset.

Interesting points he makes about the timeline of written word vs actuality. Also, it seems he is calling into question things like the immaculate conception. Might calm some of those Mormons that think that God had spiritual sex with mary...or just make them really mad and discredit the man.

Seems like this was written to start a fight. Hard to avoid that when you take on the beliefs of the majority of the country. I'm fascinated to read the rebuttal.

[TripletDaddy]

Where does he talk about the Immaculate Conception?

[woot]

Good article, but it won't do any good. I also don't see any mention of Mary's conception in there.

[doctorcoug]

Come on guys, use those thinking caps. He talked about the timeline of the gospels and was implying fabrication. Inside he is talking about immaculate conception, but he didn't straight out say it, though that is exactly what he is thinking. Why write this article at Christmas?

[pelagius]

Come on guys, use those thinking caps. He talked about the timeline of the gospels and was implying fabrication. Inside he is talking about immaculate conception, but he didn't straight out say it, though that is exactly what he is thinking. Why write this article at Christmas?

They're poking fun at you for saying immaculate conception when you're talking about (and it's clear from the context of your paragraph that you are) the virgin birth. They're not the same thing; the immaculate conception is theologically irrelevant in Mormonism.

[CardiacCoug]

Maybe the author reads CUF:

The Bible exhorts slaves to be obedient to their masters and wives to be obedient to their husbands. Over the centuries, texts like these, taken from the Bible and interpreted literally, have been used as powerful and evil weapons to support killing prejudices and to justify the cruelest kind of inhumanity.

One thing Mormons have right at least is that it's OK to reject parts of the Bible (although the "as far as it is translated correctly" is kind of a silly way to express it).

It's funny how Evangelicals in this country talk about the Bible so much -- it's very popular to claim that your Church is based on the Bible, but that is pretty much a meaningless claim.

[doctorcoug]

They're poking fun at you for saying immaculate conception when you're talking about (and it's clear from the context of your paragraph that you are) the virgin birth. They're not the same thing; the immaculate conception is theologically irrelevant in Mormonism.

Wow, never knew the distinction

[TripletDaddy]

Wow, never knew the distinction

use your thinking cap.

[lambdacoug]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/1...isconceptions/

I bet this gets a lot of people upset.

Interesting points he makes about the timeline of written word vs actuality. Also, it seems he is calling into question things like the immaculate conception. Might calm some of those Mormons that think that God had spiritual sex with mary...or just make them really mad and discredit the man.

Seems like this was written to start a fight. Hard to avoid that when you take on the beliefs of the majority of the country. I'm fascinated to read the rebuttal.

That doesn't take much with most religious folk.

[ERCougar]

They're poking fun at you for saying immaculate conception when you're talking about (and it's clear from the context of your paragraph that you are) the virgin birth. They're not the same thing; the immaculate conception is theologically irrelevant in Mormonism.

Of course, the article doesn't really talk about either one.