Oy vey! A talking snake!!

[busterdog]

You know, when I see posts like this, I wonder if "creationists" really believe that God created the world.

Posts like this make me ....

Remember to be content in my own reading and not worry about the critics.

And let us be clear that we seem to be speaking specifically of scientific knowledge here, given that a few posts ago you blasted off about technology you didn't like.

It all reconciles quite nicely.

"Blasted"?

I barely got started. Let me tell you what I think of MS Windows and CRTs, the works of the devil!

 

[Mallon]

Spoken like a true a [sic] 25 year old teenager.

Out of curiosity, Hypo, given you've publicly announced your hatred for knowledge, do you still expect to be taken seriously, as though you have some knowledge of any topic whatsoever?

 

[HypoTypoSis]

hatred for knowledge

Totally misreading or reading into what is not so.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

 

[Scotishfury09]

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

I love the Bible too...

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[Mallon]

Totally misreading or reading into what is not so.

Maybe "contempt" would have been a better word. Regardless, it is obvious that you do not hold the pursuit of knowledge in high esteem.
So I ask again: Do you expect to be taken seriously after having condemned the acquisition of knowlege? Do you expect people to listen to you as though you were learned on some subject matter?

 

[busterdog]

Can you name some and their views?

I am never sure whether you are presuming to test my knowledge of the subject matter.

Anyway, google Michelle Foucault for starters.

 

[busterdog]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mallon
we're all believers here.

Really? Would that be on this board? On this earth? In your own church? What proof have you of this? Each man's say so? Please, pre-consider your words' cud.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mallon
wisdom and knowledge

They are quite different you know. What evidence have you that man's wisdom and knowledge is the same as that of God's?

I understood where you were going from the get-go. What is especially silly is that people take the word "knowledge" and attack you as if it made no difference whether we were talking about Jeopardy, "Carnal Knowledge" (starring Jack Nicholson), or knowledge from God.


It is absurd and offensive that you were prosecuted on that basis. Unfortunately you need to proof read a little better, since those who love to prosecute others on this board make use of your malapropisms. Not that anyone who really cares about your ideas cares about a slip of the keys.

For the record, I think I was also called a knowledge hater or something not very sensible. Sort of like Imus being called a racist. It's a famous prosecution techinque. See Kelly Michaels, who wrote the lyrics to "Both Sides Now" (as in bisexuality) by Joni Mitchell in her notebook and ended up doing prison time as an alleged sexual abuser of young boys and girls in a day care until that absurdity of prosecution was recognized on appeal.

Whatever.

 

[Mallon]

busterdog, if you and HypoTypoSis both feel that you are being misrepresented, by all means, feel free to clearly and succinctly voice your position. If your audience has misunderstood you, it is very likely because you have been overly vague in distinguishing your position. The onus is on you to get your message across in an audible way.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

Not claiming the mantle of 'teacher' but the subject matter raised herein is much the same in that: Teachers are not required to raise or educate anyone; their responsibility begins and ends with the presentation of knowledge, learning and applying it is the sole duty belong to the pupil.

 

[Assyrian]

I understood where you were going from the get-go. What is especially silly is that people take the word "knowledge" and attack you as if it made no difference whether we were talking about Jeopardy, "Carnal Knowledge" (starring Jack Nicholson), or knowledge from God.

What my client it trying to say your honour...

 

[gluadys]

Not claiming the mantle of 'teacher' but the subject matter raised herein is much the same in that: Teachers are not required to raise or educate anyone; their responsibility begins and ends with the presentation of knowledge, learning and applying it is the sole duty belong to the pupil.

That's not what you learn in teacher certification courses. Nor is it the expectation of parents, principals or the head of your department.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

That's not what you learn in teacher certification courses. Nor is it the expectation of parents, principals or the head of your department.

Then, since all students are willing submissive eager to learn pupils, schoolyard gangs, detention, repeating courses and years, failing grades, student abuses, disrespect, fighting, and the like are non-existent and are nothing more than myths designed to raise teachers' respect and salaries. Rright! There's an old story, you can lead a horse to water but...
Anyone who thinks children are honest sin free creations never taught class. Evil is inherent at birth, it is central to the human fallen condition. This cannot be eliminated or altered by any class, course, school or teacher. As far as teacher certification courses, etc are concerned, remember, that is all controlled by humanist advocates of which the NEA is not only among the largest sponsors of such it is also THE educational arm of the American Humanist Society just as evolution is its avowed scientific arm and, as a final notation, among the Humanists biggest endeavors is reducing Christianity to "a rotting corpse".

 

[shernren]

What is especially silly is that people take the word "knowledge" and attack you as if it made no difference whether we were talking about Jeopardy, "Carnal Knowledge" (starring Jack Nicholson), or knowledge from God.

What's even sillier is that you guys first started out taking the word "knowledge" and attacking it as if it made no difference whether we were talking about Christian philosophizing, science, technology, political knowledge, or the knowledge that the Bible actively exhorts us to accumulate. We can hardly be blamed for riding on the coattails of the confusion you've started.

 

[gluadys]

Then, since all students are willing submissive eager to learn pupils,

[snip]

... course, school or teacher.

No comment on irrelevant remarks. Whether true or not, they don't deal with a teacher's responsibility.

As far as teacher certification courses, etc are concerned, remember, that is all controlled by humanist advocates of which the NEA

Not in Canada, where I took my teacher training. Teachers' professional organizations don't certify teachers here. That is a government responsibility.

 

[busterdog]

What's even sillier is that you guys first started out taking the word "knowledge" and attacking it as if it made no difference whether we were talking about Christian philosophizing, science, technology, political knowledge, or the knowledge that the Bible actively exhorts us to accumulate. We can hardly be blamed for riding on the coattails of the confusion you've started.

Had you merely argued against my point, then we could all understand your position and intentions more clearly. And, I still presume, quite justifiably, that good arguments take an understanding of their opposition, properly demonstrated, as a beginning point.

Until I am engaged, I am happy to sit and wait. I added a comment here for the benefit of Hypo. His comments on the "knowledge" issue were sensible to me.

I think Hypo should probably scale back his own rhetoric. He comes close to commenting on salvation of others, though it might be read to make it clear that the presumption of original sin has not been rebutted by those who mock him here. Hypo's possible inferences on salvation are arguable, as they are for just about all of us when viewed from the outside on a message board. The "unequally yoked" comment is better left aside than argued further. I understand his generalized concern, but a message board is poor place to invest one's passion on such matters in that form. Suffice it to say, there is no Mt 18:19 agreement, which the Lord blesses. Rather, that is lots of non-blessing.

As for the mocking, does it matter who started it? You can reflect on that on your own. I only know you were in on it.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

Until I am engaged, I am happy to sit and wait. I added a comment here for the benefit of Hypo. His comments on the "knowledge" issue were sensible to me.

I think Hypo should probably scale back his own rhetoric. He comes close to commenting on salvation of others, though it might be read to make it clear that the presumption of original sin has not been rebutted by those who mock him here. Hypo's possible inferences on salvation are arguable, as they are for just about all of us when viewed from the outside on a message board. The "unequally yoked" comment is better left aside than argued further. I understand his generalized concern, but a message board is poor place to invest one's passion on such matters in that form. Suffice it to say, there is no Mt 18:19 agreement, which the Lord blesses. Rather, that is lots of non-blessing.

Yo, BD,

Excuse me.

There's been so much peanut gallery chatter it's likely some of their ulterior purpose likely was most nearly achieved as it, doubtless, did derail things considerably.

If you would be so kind as to refresh the conversation's salient points I shall be more than happy to resume the discussion with you.

Regards,
Hypo

 

[busterdog]

Yo, BD,

Excuse me.

There's been so much peanut gallery chatter it's likely some of their ulterior purpose likely was most nearly achieved as it, doubtless, did derail things considerably.

If you would be so kind as to refresh the conversation's salient points I shall be more than happy to resume the discussion with you.

Regards,
Hypo

Some have charged you with being completely anti-intellectual and anti-knowledge (whatever that is).

Some of the TE posts started by suggesting that knowledge outside of God's purposes is a bad thing, suggesting some agreement with you.

Can we clear the air here?

 

[HypoTypoSis]

Some of the TE posts started by suggesting that knowledge outside of God's purposes is a bad thing, suggesting some agreement with you.

Not sure what TE stands for but at the risk of quoting out of context, "in the beginning it was not so" in that it was not God's desire man should know the difference between the knowledge of good and evil.

However, since man screwed that up, as the saying goes, times changed.

There is human knowledge and there is scriptural knowledge and the twain shall never meet.

For all its pride filled search for truth human knowledge is incapable of finding that truth for, as the scriptures teach:

1. Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
2. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
3. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

On the other hand, only those that are in Christ can ever come to the true truth that is only found in spiritual truth as the scriptures, also, teach:

1. even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
2. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
3. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Anything man's knowledge is capable of producing is of benefit only in this life

1. Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
2. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

and has no real merit

• For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

as far as the spiritual things of God are concerned

1. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
2. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
3. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood,
   1. which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

and which should be our only concern.

1. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
2. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

I believe that states my position quite succinctly.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Fiction is still fiction, not truth.

Let's get back to this then, shall we?

As gluadys already brought up, what about the parables? Are they false?