Surely, the burden of proof is not on us to show that when someone says "cut off your hand" he doesn't mean "cut off your hand", but he means "deal with your inner demons without actually cutting off your hand, sinner!"?Why is the burden of proof on me? If someone says "raining cats and dogs", is the burden of proof on me to prove that this deal with water rather than house pets? If Blake says "tiger, tiger, burning bright", is the burden of proof on me to prove that this deals with ferocious instincts rather than flammable jungle cats?
I'm sorry, but I don't see even in the slightest how you compare these to "cut off your hand"?
Why is the burden of proof on the person who says what's sensible and straightforward, while the person who's resting their entire case on a ridiculously obtuse line of reasoning doesn't have to provide any reasoning at all?
This line is completely meaningless. What you claim is sensible and straightforward isn't sensible and straightforward to me at all. So again, provide evidence
that your interpretation is correct instead of throwing such unsubstantiated, subjective lines like "this makes sense, and yours doesn't" nonsense. I can throw such meaningless statements right back at you: you're not making sense, it's neither logical nor sensible. Your turn again.
Let me ask you this. What would you classify as proof? I've already suggested reason, logic, and common sense, but apparently folks on this board don't like that sort of thing. So then what would classify as proof that Jesus meant this statement to be a metaphor? If you can't explain what you mean by "proof" in this situation, then your demand that I produce proof isn't meaningful.
Nothing you say is meaningful. You claim that passage is supposed to be a metaphor, back it up with something else other than "it's common sense". If you don't accept such statements from me, e.g. that you're not making sense, which is common sense to me, don't expect me to take such baseless assertions from you, either.
The video maker wants me to believe that Jesus was crazy. His proof that Jesus was crazy is that Jesus said "If your hand causes you to sin, cut if off." (Of course he also listed four other quotes from Jesus, but it seems you all have admitted that the video maker was flat wrong about that one.) So the entire correctness of the video rests on the assumption that Jesus was demonstrating craziness rather than using a metaphor. And since every Christian agrees that it was a metaphor, there's nothing to be accomplished by pretending otherwise. Indeed the video maker's line of reasoning is so utterly bizarre and desperate that some people might question his sanity.
Christians agreeing with each other not to cut off their hands when they sin using it seems like an awfully convenient thing to do. Which actually doesn't say anything about how sane they are in believing in what seems to be their own propped up doll they call Jesus/God (hint: it's not sanity). Nor does it provide any kind of evidence that that statement isn't to be taken literally, but Christians just decided to ignore that for convenience sake. I think that's actually the point of the video: you guys are just making things up as you go along, whatever is convenient to you. "What, Jesus said we should cut off our hand if we sin with it? That's too harsh, we'll just say he didn't mean that literally!"
Are Christians generally taught to preempt every talk with religious aspects with "First things first: I just want to say that I am of x denomination and I don't interpret the bible the same way you do. In fact, I think that some of the things you believe about god and Jesus are at best inaccurate and at worst ridiculous. So whenever I refer to Christians, Christianity, God and Jesus, I usually mean my interpretation of them, not yours, which I don't acknowledge as correct"? If they don't, why do you expect the creator of this video to do so?I've never expected the creator of the video to do so. I've expected the video maker to display a little bit of intelligence, and the response from another posted was that this is "an impossibly high standard". Which really says it all.
Look, you've presented nothing substantial whatsoever to show that that line is to be taken metaphorically rather than literally, so I'd rather you didn't spout about other people's lack of intelligence until you figure out you have absolutely nothing right now. You still have a lot of posts to catch up to in this thread, so there is plenty of time to realize that you have no case here.
Speaking of displaying a little bit of intelligence, are you going to acknowledge you misinterpreting a statement here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=15728.msg352596#msg352596
? That would be nice. Show some class, if nothing else.