jakee 1,257
winsor 187
QuoteQuoteSo, I completely understand the misunderstanding of and hostility toward what we're talking about. I used to be there.
You neither understand nor were there. Ever.
Now how could you possibly know that? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to infringe on your atheism.
Not to worry, you are not capable of infringing on much of anything.
Your claims of understanding demonstrate nothing short of cluelessness.
If your standpoint had merit, it would not require belief. As it is, it requires both belief and a laundry list of logical fallacies.
Rest assured that I am not trying to sway your opinion - I do not value in the slightest.
BSBD,
Winsor
QuoteBecause when you've talked about it before you have described your 'atheism' as being angry at God and not wanting to obey him. You've never given any indication that there was a point when you honestly didn't believe god existed. Therefore, it doesn't sound like there was ever a point in your life when you were an atheist.
For one to be an atheist, in the true sense of the term, he would have to claim to possess all knowledge (which is impossible). To definitively deny the possibility of God would mean that it could be proven. I admit that the contrary can't be proven airtight. But neither can you prove that God doesn't exist. Of course, I know you could then say the same could be said of the flying spaghetti monster. I would then say I am agnostic with regard to the FSM. Can you say the same with regard to God? I say you can't truly be an atheist. Then you might say that the proof is incumbent upon me because I declare that there is a God. But you make a declarative statement yourself in saying that there definitely is not. That also puts a burden of proof on you. Again unless you are going to claim agnosticism instead of atheism.
billvon 2,421
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>A literal interpretation of the Bible does not mean that we, for instance in Psalm 93:1,
>believe that the Earth stands still.
So a literal interpretation does not mean that you take the Bible literally.
I think it's statements like that that make people think that you're playing games to make sure "your side" wins the argument.
>believe that the Earth stands still.
So a literal interpretation does not mean that you take the Bible literally.
I think it's statements like that that make people think that you're playing games to make sure "your side" wins the argument.
billvon 2,421
>he can understand how it is revealed in his own life for proper revelation and application.
Agreed! And how it is revealed varies from person to person. Some believe the Earth does stand still. Some believe it moves but that the Earth was created 6000 years ago in seven days. Some believe that when the Bible says "day" it really means "age" and therefore Genesis fits in with modern science. It is how they interpret it in the framework of their own life that gives it value to them.
>You have to join the club to enjoy the benefits of membership.
True with reason as well.
>As far as I am concerned, being a Christian counselor, the origin of the universe
>is a moot point.
Also agreed, and that gets us back to the origin of this thread. What if the Earth was created in billions of years instead of six days? Doesn't really matter to most people; the message of that book is what's important. What if Noah's Ark was just based on a guy on a raft when a lake flooded? Doesn't really matter. What if Jesus came so close to death that no one could tell if he was dead or not? Doesn't really matter; it is his message that's important.
Agreed! And how it is revealed varies from person to person. Some believe the Earth does stand still. Some believe it moves but that the Earth was created 6000 years ago in seven days. Some believe that when the Bible says "day" it really means "age" and therefore Genesis fits in with modern science. It is how they interpret it in the framework of their own life that gives it value to them.
>You have to join the club to enjoy the benefits of membership.
True with reason as well.
>As far as I am concerned, being a Christian counselor, the origin of the universe
>is a moot point.
Also agreed, and that gets us back to the origin of this thread. What if the Earth was created in billions of years instead of six days? Doesn't really matter to most people; the message of that book is what's important. What if Noah's Ark was just based on a guy on a raft when a lake flooded? Doesn't really matter. What if Jesus came so close to death that no one could tell if he was dead or not? Doesn't really matter; it is his message that's important.
QuoteSo a literal interpretation does not mean that you take the Bible literally.
I think it's statements like that that make people think that you're playing games to make sure "your side" wins the argument.
No dude. You just treat it like you would honestly treat any other literary work. You treat something written as history...literally as a historical account...a poem literally as poetry...a metaphor literally as a descriptive device...etc.
beowulf 1
Quite Literally!!!
Do you literally know what literally means??
I mean literally!!!
Ok, FYI, now I am being sarcastic.
Do you literally know what literally means??
I mean literally!!!
Ok, FYI, now I am being sarcastic.
billvon 2,421
>You just treat it like you would honestly treat any other literary work.
OK, so you treat it like the Odyssey? That I agree with.
Keep in mind, though, that if you asked anyone on the planet if the Odyssey is literally true, they would say something like "of course not, it's based on true events but is largely fiction." You'd have to explain that you are using a different definition of the word "literal" than everyone else.
OK, so you treat it like the Odyssey? That I agree with.
Keep in mind, though, that if you asked anyone on the planet if the Odyssey is literally true, they would say something like "of course not, it's based on true events but is largely fiction." You'd have to explain that you are using a different definition of the word "literal" than everyone else.
devildog 0
QuoteWhat if Jesus came so close to death that no one could tell if he was dead or not? Doesn't really matter; it is his message that's important.
While the other points have room to wiggle, a non-executed Christ completely changes the message being told, regardless of its veracity.
You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.
I'm just describing the grammatical-historical method of interpretation which is how even the Early Church Fathers interpreted Scripture. Somewhat different than the way you'd treat the Odyssey, I think (as you and most others would describe it; including me). There's also a whole lot more support for the biblical account making its comparison with the Odyssey kind of ridiculous.
winsor 187
QuoteQuoteBecause when you've talked about it before you have described your 'atheism' as being angry at God and not wanting to obey him. You've never given any indication that there was a point when you honestly didn't believe god existed. Therefore, it doesn't sound like there was ever a point in your life when you were an atheist.
For one to be an atheist, in the true sense of the term, he would have to claim to possess all knowledge (which is impossible). To definitively deny the possibility of God would mean that it could be proven. I admit that the contrary can't be proven airtight. But neither can you prove that God doesn't exist. Of course, I know you could then say the same could be said of the flying spaghetti monster. I would then say I am agnostic with regard to the FSM. Can you say the same with regard to God? I say you can't truly be an atheist. Then you might say that the proof is incumbent upon me because I declare that there is a God. But you make a declarative statement yourself in saying that there definitely is not. That also puts a burden of proof on you. Again unless you are going to claim agnosticism instead of atheism.
You again demonstrate conclusively that you know less than nothing.
jakee 1,257
QuoteFor one to be an atheist, in the true sense of the term, he would have to claim to possess all knowledge (which is impossible). To definitively deny the possibility of God would mean that it could be proven. I admit that the contrary can't be proven airtight. But neither can you prove that God doesn't exist. Of course, I know you could then say the same could be said of the flying spaghetti monster. I would then say I am agnostic with regard to the FSM. Can you say the same with regard to God? I say you can't truly be an atheist. Then you might say that the proof is incumbent upon me because I declare that there is a God. But you make a declarative statement yourself in saying that there definitely is not. That also puts a burden of proof on you. Again unless you are going to claim agnosticism instead of atheism.
If you go down that road you would have to claim agnoticism about the existence of everything, including yourself. Which makes the word pretty much useless.
None of which changes the fact that being angry at a god that you think exists does not make you an atheist in any sense of the word. Ergo, you weren't one.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
jakee 1,257
QuoteThere's also a whole lot more support for the biblical account making its comparison with the Odyssey kind of ridiculous.
Not for the bits of Genesis we're talking about. There is literally no support for that whatsover, and it's more than kind of ridiculous to claim there is.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
QuoteIf you go down that road you would have to claim agnoticism about the existence of everything, including yourself. Which makes the word pretty much useless.
So...are you now claiming agnosticism instead of atheism?
jakee 1,257
QuoteQuoteIf you go down that road you would have to claim agnoticism about the existence of everything, including yourself. Which makes the word pretty much useless.
So...are you now claiming agnosticism instead of atheism?
Do you claim agnosticism over whether the walls of your house exist?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
rehmwa 2
when I'm lying down, I call them "ceilings"
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Coreece 190
QuoteYou again demonstrate conclusively that you know less than nothing.
Your continued personal attacks and lack of substantiality in your replies suggests the contrary.
You don't debate the points because you lack the capacity to do so.
You're simply a jealous Jew that pops in here from time to time just to call christians poopie faces.
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
winsor 187
QuoteQuoteYou again demonstrate conclusively that you know less than nothing.
Your continued personal attacks and lack of substantiality in your replies suggests the contrary.
You don't debate the points because you lack the capacity to do so.
You're simply a jealous Jew that pops in here from time to time just to call christians poopie faces.
Irony score = 10
QuoteDo you claim agnosticism over whether the walls of your house exist?
We're talking about God...and origins. Someone had to build your house. Someone had to cut the wood. The wood then had to grow. Taken back far enough, the matter for the wood had to come from somewhere (like all other matter). It had to be organized at the molecular level...and so on. I know who organized it. I know because design implies a designer. I also know because of the revelation of scripture...and the inner witness of the Holy Spirit informing my conscience. I don't claim all knowledge...but God does. So why aren't you an agnostic and not an atheist? Do you claim all knowledge?
beowulf 1
QuoteI'm just describing the grammatical-historical method of interpretation which is how even the Early Church Fathers interpreted Scripture. Somewhat different than the way you'd treat the Odyssey, I think (as you and most others would describe it; including me). There's also a whole lot more support for the biblical account making its comparison with the Odyssey kind of ridiculous.
You still didn't use the word literal correctly no matter how you rationalize it. Redefining words only makes you look ignorant.
jakee 1,257
QuoteWe're talking about God...and origins.
We're talking about knowledge. Are you agnostic over whether the walls of your house exist?
QuoteI know who organized it. I know because design implies a designer. I also know because of the revelation of scripture...and the inner witness of the Holy Spirit informing my conscience.
You know? But you said you were agnostic about the FSM. They can't both be true. Which time were you lying?
QuoteI don't claim all knowledge...but God does.
How does that allow you be certain about your position? Are you god?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
QuoteYou still didn't use the word literal correctly no matter how you rationalize it. Redefining words only makes you look ignorant.
As opposed to what exactly beowulf? You're either going to read a text and attempt to derive what the author intended to convey or you're going to impress on the text what you want it to say. You may not agree with what something says but that does not give you the right to distort what the author intended to say.
beowulf 1
Your response doesn't make sense. You as the author are not doing a very good job conveying your message. It's being distorted by your redefining the word literal which is confusing and obscuring your intent to the point where I and I am sure others have no idea what you are trying to say with the word literal.
If you want people to "derive what the author intended to convey" then you should use words as they are defined.
BTW, how am I distorting what you wrote? I can't edit it. I didn't change anything that you wrote. I am just pointing out you contradictions in the use of the word literal.
If you want people to "derive what the author intended to convey" then you should use words as they are defined.
BTW, how am I distorting what you wrote? I can't edit it. I didn't change anything that you wrote. I am just pointing out you contradictions in the use of the word literal.
billvon 2,421
>There's also a whole lot more support for the biblical account making its comparison
>with the Odyssey kind of ridiculous.
You keep backpedaling. You said one should treat it as you would treat any other literary work. Now you say any such comparison is ridiculous. Which is it?
>with the Odyssey kind of ridiculous.
You keep backpedaling. You said one should treat it as you would treat any other literary work. Now you say any such comparison is ridiculous. Which is it?
Now how could you possibly know that? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to infringe on your atheism.
Because when you've talked about it before you have described your 'atheism' as being angry at God and not wanting to obey him. You've never given any indication that there was a point when you honestly didn't believe god existed. Therefore, it doesn't sound like there was ever a point in your life when you were an atheist.