Most of the letters didn't belong to the church. They belonged to her friends that she had corresponded with over the years. I don't think it was the church's right to destroy the letters. Besides, it would have looked absolutely terrible if word had gotten out that her letters had been destroyed.

It's definitely understandable that she'd want the letters destroyed. She was afraid that they'd ruin her image and destroy her legacy. Nobody seems to have paid much attention to them, though. I remember the story coming out a couple of years ago and it was barely a blip on the news radar.

The letters didn't stop the Roman Catholic church from naming her a saint, though. They even gave her a quickie sainthood, rather than waiting the hundred or so years after her death that is normally required.

Jib, out of curiousity, what do you think of Pletho's posts in this thread? You seemed to be defending him. Do you agree with what he's been saying in this thread? You've always struck me as a very moderate Christian. Pletho is definitely much more hardcore. For instance, do you agree with his stance that Roman Catholics aren't Christians?

More importantly, do you agree with his stance that everyone who doesn't agree with him is ignorant, unknowledgable, stupid, and blind?

I have not read a lot of what has been going on in the thread. His posts are often very long and I get ADD sometimes.

I think that he is getting frustrated with some people. I can understand that, as I have gotten frustrated before in this forum as I am sure you remember. And I said many things that I wish I did not. If you notice I take a very different approach now. I think that he just needs to understand some of the guys here. I notice he went after OH. I like OH and feel that it is just part of his personality and humor to try to be abrasive. I often get a kick out of it and do the same thing myself. I am defending no one. I have a chip on my shoulder about the church especially the catholic church so I could not resist taking a shot there.

Do I agree that Roman Catholics are not Christians? No. I do not care what denomination you associate with, all that matters is what is in your heart. I think that many of the Catholic doctrines are destructive, but that does not mean that being a Catholic means you are not a Christian. Nor do I think that I have any right or even close to enough knowledge that would be required to say someone is not a christian. I can say that something they did was not very Christ like. But the only reason that I would do something like that is so that others understand that it was not a representation of the God of the bible or how Jesus laid out for us to live.

No. First off I have said many times before that I reserve the right to change my mind on things at anytime. I believe what I believe for my own reasons. I feel that what I believe in many areas is the most logical and sometimes most obvious way of thinking. But there are many people out there that are way smarter than me and disagree with my beliefs, and that includes Christians.

There are people in this forum that purposefully do not listen and are not worried if what they say makes any sense as they are only looking to take shots at people. I think that is why he is getting frustrated.

I just try and do what I do, and if people what to listen then great. If not, then there is not much I can do about that anyway. I just hope that the things I am wrong about we be made aware to me. We are all in a learning process here.

Ditto. I'm sooo guilty of this with a lot of tl;dr posts in this forum and in SMP.

What OH?!?

So you've missed EVERYTHING I've said?!?

I, uh, read every word.

No true Scotsman, good thinking.

only sometimes though, right?

no. but I also do not think that the bible was written in english. Nor do I that that the way we talk today is exactly the way that they talked 2000 years ago.

Apparently many people on this site feel otherwise.

so you believe that the bible means everything that it says? you take the entire bible literally?

That depends on what you mean by "literally"

This:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...7/#post8496601

Is all of that meant to be literal, or are they some sort of methaphorical legal contract terms?

uh, literally = means exactly what it says...

so if it says that adam and eve talked to a snake and ate a poison apple that is what it means...its not a metaphor for evil entering the world...

if it says you should stone someone for working on the sabbath then you believe people should be stoned for working on the sabbath etc...

No, I do not think they were talking about metaphorical people.

But the people on this site seem to incapable of understanding what the difference is between 5000 years ago and yesterday, both in historic terms and biblical terms.

The prob I have Jib, is god's advice and knowledge should be timeless. If it's perfect as it has been supposed, it should be applicable to all persons in all times. It applies, in large part, only to the benefit of white men in the 1st century.

If this was written as a metaphor, then how am I not taking the bible to mean what it says? This was the original post that I responded to,

Apparently you feel that metaphors are not allowed to be read as metaphors now? If something was written as a metaphors and I interpreted it otherwise, then wouldn't I twisting what the bible says?

Do you believe that figures of speech must be taken literally in order to think the bible means what it says?

I believe that it literally said that for that time under the old covenant. But I also take it literally when we are told to no longer live under the old covenant but live under the new covenant.

And this is when (an all knowing) God decided to publish his work...appealing to the understanding of people who barely knew how to read & write?

The more that time passes, the harder it will become to understand what "life was like back then", and the harder it will be for future generations to figure out what God's word means. Just imagine what it will be like 10000 years from now!

Meanwhile, this is NOTHING for an all knowing god. 2000 years, 5000 years, 15000 years...it's NOTHING at all. Yet he writes his messages to primitive people and expects people to work harder at understanding those messages as time goes on.

I guess all of that is more likely than humans having authored the Bible.

What was so drastically different between 500BC and 33AD that isn't even MORE drastically different in 2009AD?

I understand what you are saying, but the problem is that people change throughout time. So you would have to say that people act and are exactly the same as they were 5000 years ago as they are today.

You say that it should be perfect. You are right, it was perfect for that time and those people and circumstances. But people, times, and circumstances change.

So what changed? Jesus changed. We are no longer under the stronghold of the devil. That is why our rules for the way we live changed.

If you would like a link to what I am talking about as far as one of the many reasons for the atonement, you can look here,

CLICK HERE

Also, what methods do you use for determining what "was good for that time" and what isn't? Your own (faulty -- and I don't mean that as an insult) judgment?

The difference in Historic terms 5000 years ago? Like the term day = 1 million years. What do you mean by terms? Are you just making points of no substance because your not sure what you mean?

What do I seem to be incapable of understanding on this matter? Please "enlighten" me.

how can you know it was written as a metaphor? you are just guessing that it was and thus you are interpreting it using whatever values/logic you think are applicable...this is expressly not taking the bible to mean what it says...

also, i have not given any opinions as to how i think the bible should be interpreted, whether literal or as metaphor...i am only commenting on how you said that you take the bible to mean exactly what it says and then you go on to say that you think it is a metaphor and thus are free to interpret it your own way...

So you think that God should have just waited till people were different? I do not see how that makes sense.

Not hard at all. If the bible was telling me to live like that now, then it would be very hard. We do not have to understand what it was like back then to understand how we are to act today. It is irrelevant.

Oh, poor us. We actually have to pay attention to something. How terrible for us. I mean really, he expects us to not only read the bible, but pay attention to when and how it is being written.