The Flood

[Inan3]

You've already pointed out that one shouldn't attribute thoughts and feelings to people when you can't possibly know what they are thinking and feeling and now you are berating me for my ignorance, which we all share, of this.

get some consistency woman, you are all over the place, you can't chastise me for doing something and then chastise me for not doing it.

I can see why AV seems to be so persuasive to you

So I am smug in pointing out my ignorance of other peoples thoughts and feelings? Does that make any sense at all, even to you? Smugness isn't usually a feeling - there you go again assigning feelings to me that you can't possibly know I am feeling - associated with ignorance.

I'm sure it probably made sense to you; have you considered reading your posts through before hitting the submit button?

Now that was smug

As always.



Well you could always try and explain what you actually meant.

Here's what you actually said:

AV


You


It certainly looks like you were using the word ostentation to describe the answer to AV's question.

What did you mean?





You certainly don't wish to learn anything about science, one explanation for that could be because it would undermine your literalist beliefs, the logical corrollary of that is that you fear the knowledge. You could also just be lazy or stupid. I'm sure there are also other reasons for ignoring scientific evidence. If you are not proud of your ignorance you are certainly not ashamed of it, AV positively revels in it as you can see from many of his posts on this thread, as you are his "audience" I assumed that you felt the same way, sorry if I was wrong.





Suitably cryptic, and not addressing the question




Is it the illuminati?




I already have, your cheerleading of AV. That would appear to be reveling in ignorance to me.

Or this for example:







You still haven't had a stab at explaining what you did mean. I have asked a number of times.




We have both done it to each other, as I have quite clearly shown you have assigned feelings to me just as often as I have to you. Neither of us shows any signs of reigning it in.

And "inane ramblings" isn't assigning a thought or feeling to you, it was a criticism of your writing style.

So far you have berated me for assigning thoughts and feelings to people and then berated me for my ignorance of people's thoughts and feelings. Have you decided which upsets you most yet?




You don't think posting writing that ambiguous and difficult to decipher is your fault?

Just about everybody who converses with you finally runs into the buffers of a post like this where we are no longer debating any points but just what think you said and what people thought you said.

Why do you think that is?




That was rather the point



Just a little what's good for the goose is good for the gander but you guys can't seem to handle that. You can dish it out but you can't take it.

[/QUOTE]

I don't have a problem with that, a little consistency from you might go some way to making your points less dismissable though. There seems little point in berating people for a perciceved crime and then commiting it yourself, there isn't actually a "sauce goose/gander" clause, complaining about something and then doing it yourself makes you look foolish.[/QUOTE]

I'm not playing your twist the words game. You are trying to feign innocence and pass the blame off on others but you know exactly what I was saying and that it was true. I'm not receiving it.

 

[Inan3]

Been there --- done that --- my friend.

As one deacon in our church is fond of saying:

• I never used to worry about going to Hell until after I was saved.

I'd just like to add that once you learn and UNDERSTAND the Word you NEVER have to worry about Hell again. I never worry about Hell. I KNOW I am not going there. I never worry about sin either. Sin has no dominion over me. If I sin He is faithful and just to forgive me and to cleanse me from ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS! I am the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. I am accepted in Him. I am going to heaven. I will rule and reign with Him. When you know who you are in Christ you don't have to worry about it anymore.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'd just like to add that once you learn and UNDERSTAND the Word you NEVER have to worry about Hell again.

See, that would indicate that I didn't "understand", which may very well be the case. But the key is I tried. Doesn't God have to grant us the peace that comes from understanding?

Honestly, I desperately tried for 30+ years to feel God's presence. I believed and believed and loved God with as much of my heart as I possibly could. I am not saying I did everything "right". I waited until near the end of my life as a Christian to read the bible through cover-to-cover (sans apocrypha). And I was never a full-on fundamentalist. But for a mere human being, trying to see the light, I looked hard. Spent a lot of time in church and thought about religion every single day. I earnestly sought the philosophy of religion discussions, I read a lot of the history of Christian thought.

But God never really kept me from the horrors of scrupulosity. In fact, his stoney silence to my repeated prayers to have the terrors lifted from me indicated that, if anything, He must have been rather pleased with it. My path diverged from Martin Luthers in a very different way.

Understand? No, what you mean is "Understand it as you do".

Peace from the "Heavenly Gift"? No, what you mean is "the peace you have from it."

I got no such peace. I'm glad you have whatever peace you have from it.

The very fact that that which brings you peace brought me almost unbearable fear and dread indicates that there is probably nothing there.

This is where my science kicks in: if I see completely opposing effects from the same "factor" I have to assume either there is something second factor this that is changing the effect of the first or the first factor simply isn't there.

Since I know I've spent a good deal of time studying the Christian faith and I've read the Bible, and I've spent years as an honest believing (if troubled) christian, and the only retort I get from folks like you is "you have to accept the word of God before you can believe it!", then I will go with the null hypothesis: There is no God.

(BTW: this is why I find it so intellectually offensive to see Christians tell an atheist "oh you don't understand until you believe in the word of God!")

I never worry about Hell. I KNOW I am not going there.

Good for you. Isn't that a bit presumptuous though? Honestly, are we not all deserving of hell? But only through grace are you saved? Grace is given, not earned. You can't do anything to "earn" heaven, and if you deserve it as we all do, then how do you know you're not going there?

(I know how you'll answer that you have fulfilled all that is required by accepting Jesus as your savior. But the debate over grace and works does still go on.)

 

[Inan3]

See, that would indicate that I didn't "understand", which may very well be the case. But the key is I tried. Doesn't God have to grant us the peace that comes from understanding?

Honestly, I desperately tried for 30+ years to feel God's presence. I believed and believed and loved God with as much of my heart as I possibly could. I am not saying I did everything "right". I waited until near the end of my life as a Christian to read the bible through cover-to-cover (sans apocrypha). And I was never a full-on fundamentalist. But for a mere human being, trying to see the light, I looked hard. Spent a lot of time in church and thought about religion every single day. I earnestly sought the philosophy of religion discussions, I read a lot of the history of Christian thought.

But God never really kept me from the horrors of scrupulosity. In fact, his stoney silence to my repeated prayers to have the terrors lifted from me indicated that, if anything, He must have been rather pleased with it. My path diverged from Martin Luthers in a very different way.

Understand? No, what you mean is "Understand it as you do".

Peace from the "Heavenly Gift"? No, what you mean is "the peace you have from it."

I got no such peace. I'm glad you have whatever peace you have from it.

The very fact that that which brings you peace brought me almost unbearable fear and dread indicates that there is probably nothing there.

This is where my science kicks in: if I see completely opposing effects from the same "factor" I have to assume either there is something second factor this that is changing the effect of the first or the first factor simply isn't there.

Since I know I've spent a good deal of time studying the Christian faith and I've read the Bible, and I've spent years as an honest believing (if troubled) christian, and the only retort I get from folks like you is "you have to accept the word of God before you can believe it!", then I will go with the null hypothesis: There is no God.

(BTW: this is why I find it so intellectually offensive to see Christians tell an atheist "oh you don't understand until you believe in the word of God!")



Good for you. Isn't that a bit presumptuous though? Honestly, are we not all deserving of hell? But only through grace are you saved? Grace is given, not earned. You can't do anything to "earn" heaven, and if you deserve it as we all do, then how do you know you're not going there?

(I know how you'll answer that you have fulfilled all that is required by accepting Jesus as your savior. But the debate over grace and works does still go on.)

TMT no offense meant. I'd say more than half the true Christians in church don't understand it either. I believe you really tried. I really do empathize with you. I am just sorry I wasn't there for you.

One more point in no way do I think I have earned anything. I just understand a little more about the free gift. Not trying to boast myself....I just have had the good fortune to have excellent teachers.

 

[Split Rock]

No, it's not an "unsupported assumption."

The Bible Itself claims it --- and that means that our "unsupported assumption" is backed - in writing.

Once again we come to the understanding that the Bible is God's infallible Word because the Bible says it is. And a round and around we go.....

 

[AV1611VET]

That would be the book of Acts as written by...?

Luke

If I saw George Bush's face on it instead of George Washington's, its authorship most certainly would be in question. Having had plenty of experience with authentic legal tender, I'd like to think I'm competent enough to spot an obvious fake.

Let's try this again:

If you saw a legal-tender one-dollar bill today, would it's "authorship" be in question to you?

I first typed that without the words in red, then figured someone would bring that up. Anything to avoid answering the question, I guess.

Again, it was not the job of the council to establish legality --- it was their job to separate the authoritive books from the non-authoritive books.

Or as I said: the council didn't create an authorized list of books, it created a list of authorized books.

How much experience did the Council have with authentic divinely-inspired documents?

I don't know. How much does it take? As I said, it was almost as easy as separating legal tender from non-legal tender.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Luke

So Luke wrote acts. I guess that would explain why his account of the death of Judas is totally diifferent from the one in Matthew.

Doesn't all this discussion belong in apologetics? I thought the topic of this thread was the supposed global flood. I notice that as soon as it becomes clear that all the scientific evidence shows that the flood of Noah could not have been global these thread somehow get steered to apologetics.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd just like to add that once you learn and UNDERSTAND the Word you NEVER have to worry about Hell again. I never worry about Hell. I KNOW I am not going there. I never worry about sin either. Sin has no dominion over me. If I sin He is faithful and just to forgive me and to cleanse me from ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS! I am the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. I am accepted in Him. I am going to heaven. I will rule and reign with Him. When you know who you are in Christ you don't have to worry about it anymore.

Amen!

 

[AV1611VET]

Once again we come to the understanding that the Bible is God's infallible Word because the Bible says it is. And a round and around we go.....

That's right --- just like your science --- so enjoy the ride.

 

[AV1611VET]

So Luke wrote acts. I guess that would explain why his account of the death of Judas is totally diifferent from the one in Matthew.

Different --- but not contradictory.

Doesn't all this discussion belong in apologetics?

Why are you asking me? The answers belong in the same thread as the one asking the question. If you think I'm going to take a question in one thread and answer it in another --- forget it.

I thought the topic of this thread was the supposed global flood.

Do threads usually stay on topic?

I notice that as soon as it becomes clear that all the scientific evidence shows that the flood of Noah could not have been global these thread somehow get steered to apologetics.

What's with the legalism all of a sudden?

I've seen more threads ruined than the Singer Sewing Co., and you don't see me complaining.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Different --- but not contradictory.

Only totally.

Why are you asking me? The answers belong in the same thread as the one asking the question. If you think I'm going to take a question in one thread and answer it in another --- forget it.



Do threads usually stay on topic?



What's with the legalism all of a sudden?

I've seen more threads ruined than the Singer Sewing Co., and you don't see me complaining.

I am not specifically asking you but it does seem that this steering of threads into apologetics happens most consistently on thread where you throw out you special version of the Omphalos hypothesis.

 

[thaumaturgy]

TMT no offense meant. I'd say more than half the true Christians in church don't understand it either.

As I said, I'm sure I didn't do everything "right", but not for lack of trying. And indeed it was toward the end of my life as a Christian that I finally got around to reading the Bible front to back. So I came to the instruction manual after years of getting bits and pieces (as most Christians do anyway) from years in church and meandering through the faith.

I will readily grant that my path may not have been optimal, but if God exists then he presumably knows the human weaknesses.

He appeared not to exist or he hid his guidance from me in my path. Since I don't think any rational conception of God allows him to hide himself from the truly seeking soul, I pretty much had to go with the other option.

That's why I don't mind debating the Bible with you or AV because I have read it. I don't buy the claims that you have to fully accept it before you understand it. Especially in light of how literalists read it anyway.

Either the Bible clearly says what it says, open to anyone who reads it, or it doesn't.

If it requires you come with some additional key, like some roman a clef, then it loses all value to teach. If you have to believe the conclusion before reading how the conclusion was arrived atI can't see how I could possibly learn anything from it.

I read the Bible at the weakest point in my spiritual path, and it provided no real assurance that it was more holy than any other writing by humans. It looked indistinguishable from the countless other writings by countless other humans I'd read.

I came to the table but found no placesetting.

(And, as I said earlier, I don't wish to de-convert another human being. I don't want to dictate anyone else's spiritual path. I'm glad to present what I have learned but anyone who takes my word for anything without checking out what I say is a bigger fool than I. And that is my main debating point against religious thought. If it's worth knowing, it's got plenty of support and can be independently verified at every turn. No apologetics, no exegesis, required.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Only totally.

FB, only someone who is not familiar with critical analysis, per se, would make a claim so hastily.

As I have pointed out, before a true critic would assess two or more passages as a "contradiction," he would first subject it to the Law of Non-Contradiction.

If it can't pass that; then, and only then, are two or more passages to be labeled a "contradiction."

I wish you armchair critics could see yourselves as we see you.

I am not specifically asking you but it does seem that this steering of threads into apologetics happens most consistently on thread where you throw out you special version of the Omphalos hypothesis.

Check out this donnybrook that occurred between another poster and me. Administration had to step in and break it up.

I felt so badly afterwards, especially when the poster himself left the forums because of it.

What a loss, and all because he consistently accused me of being a YEC.

 

[FishFace]

No, it's not an "unsupported assumption."

The Bible Itself claims it --- and that means that our "unsupported assumption" is backed - in writing.

Come on AV, even you can do better than that. Consider the following:

FishFace is the grand-pasta-prophet of the flying Spaghetti Monster. This piece of writing is absolutely infallible. The earth was created by His Noodliness with the appearance of age as a grand joke. Remember that everything I say is true, because this is infallible and written by the FSM.
-- The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Wow, I was just possessed by the flying spaghetti monster!

Your incessant circularity bores us all, AV. Now, once again:

We know books are fallible because they're written by people - you have to make the unsupported assumption that it was written by God to conclude that the map overrules the territory.
You can't assume the Bible is true to prove the Bible is true. It's foolish and stupid and - when you've been told repeatedly - dishonest.

 

[FishFace]

I don't know. How much does it take? As I said, it was almost as easy as separating legal tender from non-legal tender.

O RLY?

Got any evidence?

ETA: Nota bene, I said evidence not a bible quote. Nor someone else's assertion.

 

[AV1611VET]

...you have to make the unsupported assumption that it was written by God...

No, I don't --- the Bible states clearly Who the Author is --- even on the front cover.

If Carl Hawkings said the universe was expanding, and the Hubble Telescope confirms it, would I be making an "unsupported assumption" if I said the universe was expanding?

 

[AV1611VET]

Got any evidence?

You're welcome.

 

[Phred]

That's right --- just like your science --- so enjoy the ride.

Science relies upon evidence
Bible relies upon Bible

 

[FishFace]

That's right --- just like your science --- so enjoy the ride.

No, AV, science is not infallible. Science is probably correct and is the best we've got and we can determine this by philosophy. But since philosophy is "love of knowledge" your previous posts tell us you probably aren't concerned with that.

 

[FishFace]

FB, only someone who is not familiar with critical analysis, per se, would make a claim so hastily.

As I have pointed out, before a true critic would assess two or more passages as a "contradiction," he would first subject it to the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Also called the "Linguistic Mangle?"