YEC is physically impossible

[Neogaia777]

Very few of these things that we are discussing are actually salvation issues for most people @sjastro

Or, IOW's, most people don't have to believe everything I believe, exactly the way I believe them, in order to be saved.

But I just think if they can or do, then it's real true value is just way beyond words, etc, which is part of the reason why I share it, etc.

God Bless.

 

[sjastro]

I do very much deeply and sincerely apologize if you thought I was trying to gaslight you or some other thing, because that wasn't at all how I intended for it to be or mean, etc. And I never said you ever had to accept a literal anything, etc, but was just sharing my interpretations or beliefs, etc.

Are you sure your not just upset?

How was I trying to gaslight you, or flame you or goad you or anything, etc?

God Bless.
I'm just trying to have a conversation, etc. And I never said anyone had to accept a literal anything to be or not be anything at all either, etc.

But, whatever, just report me if you're really that upset, ok.

Later.

God Bless.

Evidently you don't seem to understand what gaslighting is because you are still doing it.
I am not going to report you nor anyone else who imply Christians who do not have literalist view of the Bible are wannabe devil worshippers, but the moderators who are watching this thread may have other ideas.

 

[Neogaia777]

Evidently you don't seem to understand what gaslighting is because you are still doing it.
I am not going to report you nor anyone else who imply Christians who do not have literalist view of the Bible are wannabe devil worshippers, but the moderators who are watching this thread may have other ideas.

"Imply Christians who do not have a literalist view of the Bible are wannabe devil worshippers???"

Now just where in the holy heck of anywhere did I ever say, or ever even imply a thing like that?

Are you sure you're not accidentally mistaking me for another poster?

Alright, we obviously got off on the wrong foot here somewhere @sjastro , so how do we get it back, etc?

God Bless.

 

[sjastro]

"Imply Christians who do not have a literalist view of the Bible are wannabe devil worshippers???"

Now just where in the holy heck of anywhere did I ever say, or ever even imply a thing like that?

Are you sure you're not accidentally mistaking me for another poster?

Alright, we obviously got off on the wrong foot here somewhere @sjastro , so how do we get it back, etc?

God Bless.

You are the one making the mistake of thinking I was referring to you.
This is what I wrote "I am not going to report you nor anyone else who imply Christians who do not have literalist view of the Bible are wannabe devil worshippers....."
The sarcastic remark refers to those posters who have attacked individuals here who use science or believe in it as doing the works of satan.
Do a word search using "satan" in this thread and you will know who I am referring to.

 

[Neogaia777]

You are the one making the mistake of thinking I was referring to you.
This is what I wrote "I am not going to report you nor anyone else who imply Christians who do not have literalist view of the Bible are wannabe devil worshippers....."
The sarcastic remark refers to those posters who have attacked individuals here who use science or believe in it as doing the works of satan.
Do a word search using "satan" in this thread and you will know who I am referring to.

Well, ok, but I'm not doing that to you, or science, or anyone right?

Because I absolutely love science, and very, very much greatly respect all of you guys, etc.

And I also very, very much greatly admire and respect you @sjastro. I can't even count the number of times I could only wish to know or understand certain sciences and subjects, and especially mathematics, the way you do @sjastro and that gives me "a lot of a lot of respect for you" @sjastro, etc.

God Bless.

 

[AV1611VET]

I challenge any literalist to come forward and state disagreeing with Deuteronomy's description of rape laws and therefore the Bible is being a non Christian and ascribing to the works of the devil.

What's your challenge again???

You want a literalist to come forward and disagree with what the Bible says?

Or are you saying you want a literalist to come forward and agree with what the Bible says?

 

[sjastro]

What's your challenge again???

You want a literalist to come forward and disagree with what the Bible says?

Or are you saying you want a literalist to come forward and agree with what the Bible says?

What is so complicated with the question you do not understand?
Let's make it as simple as possible, I disagree with Deuteronomy 22 ff on the laws regarding the treatment of rape victims, does this make me a follower of satan?

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's make it as simple as possible, I disagree with Deuteronomy 22 ff on the laws regarding the treatment of rape victims, does this make me a follower of satan?

No it does not.

And for the record, I agree with those laws.

Does that make me a follower of Christ?

And furthermore, if you want to discuss Deuteronomy 28:22,ff with me, just start a thread on it, and I'll give you a deeper perspective.

(My interpretation, of course.)

 

[sjastro]

No it does not.

And for the record, I agree with those laws.

Does that make me a follower of Christ?

And furthermore, if you want to discuss Deuteronomy 28:22,ff with me, just start a thread on it, and I'll give you a deeper perspective.

(My interpretation, of course.)

I'm impressed in the number of errors you can make in a post of only five sentences.

(1) You do not answer a question with a question.
(2) The relevant text is Deuteronomy 22 ff not Deuteronomy 28:22,ff.
(3) You have a memory of a goldfish, you discussed Deuteronomy 22:22-25 here.

 

[Neogaia777]

Nope, I'm not going to post, really, I'm not going to, I swear, really. (Neogaia tries really, really hard to just shut his mouth for the rest of the day, and just go to bed, because he's already ticked enough people off for one day, etc).

God Bless.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm impressed in the number of errors you can make in a post of only five sentences.

(1) You do not answer a question with a question.
(2) The relevant text is Deuteronomy 22 ff not Deuteronomy 28:22,ff.
(3) You have a memory of a goldfish, you discussed Deuteronomy 22:22-25 here.

I'll assume that's a NO.

And I still don't know what you want.

You said this ...

I challenge any literalist to come forward and state disagreeing with Deuteronomy's description of rape laws and therefore the Bible is being a non Christian and ascribing to the works of the devil.

... and it's not even a proper sentence, and I can't make out what you're saying.

As to your Deuteronomy 22, ff not meaning Deuteronomy 28:22, ff ... are you meaning Deuteronomy chapters 22 and all the chapters following?

If so, forget it.

But if you're talking about those rape verses, I'll gladly accept your challenge.

Just start a thread on it and let's get to it and quit dancing in this one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope, I'm not going to post, really, I'm not going to, I swear, really. (Neogaia tries really, really hard to just shut his mouth for the rest of the day, and just go to bed, because he's already ticked enough people off for one day, etc).

God Bless.

You're fine.

 

[Neogaia777]

You're fine.

Nah, God's grace might be unlimited, but there is only so much of man's to go around for one day, and I think I'm already in the red for today, etc, so I'm gonna try to go to bed, cause tomorrow is another day to get back down into the red again, etc.

So, Gnite.

God Bless.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nah, God's grace might be unlimited, but there is only so much of man's to go around for one day, and I think I'm already in the red for today, etc, so I'm gonna try to go to bed, cause tomorrow is another day to get back down into the red again, etc.

So, Gnite.

God Bless.

You too, my friend.

Sleep well.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Its impossible to " debunk ( all of ) the
bible", and nobody tries to.
Who could debunk "Egypt"? A camel?
Just TRY to debunk a camel!
Theres real stuff in it.

There might not be any Bigfoot. But there are big feet.

Debunk "flood"?

Wouldn't debunking "flood" be the same as debunking a camel?

Been done ten thousand
times over.

Debunking is a verb meaning expose the falseness or hollowness of a myth, idea, or belief. If a scientist's goal is to debunk a global flood, there's something seriously wrong.

ToE has nothung to do with that
though.

I don't think I said it did.

Not that you would likely be curious and want
to know the hows and whys.

Why do you say that?

I.D. at this point is pseudoscience.
MAYBE some day they will have a fact or two.
So far they have zero.

There are theoretical physicists that claim there's scientific evidence that we may one day be able to create a universe with life in a lab. Does that not qualify as intelligent design?

People have tried to use it to force their
religious agenda into schools.

I assume you're talking about the Discovery Institute.

They've actually made it clear that religion has no place in a public classroom, and evolution should not be removed from the public classroom, but rather use ID as a means of comparison, or possible alternative to TOE.

 

[sjastro]

I'll assume that's a NO.

And I still don't know what you want.

You said this ...

I challenge any literalist to come forward and state disagreeing with Deuteronomy's description of rape laws and therefore the Bible is being a non Christian and ascribing to the works of the devil.

... and it's not even a proper sentence, and I can't make out what you're saying.

As to your Deuteronomy 22, ff not meaning Deuteronomy 28:22, ff ... are you meaning Deuteronomy chapters 22 and all the chapters following?

If so, forget it.

But if you're talking about those rape verses, I'll gladly accept your challenge.

Just start a thread on it and let's get to it and quit dancing in this one.

Why repeat the embolden statement when I simplified it for you in post #347, or was that beyond your level of comprehension as well?

I am not going to waste my time in participating in your trollish behaviour in looking for a fight in particular when the subject of Deuteronomy 22: 22-25 has been discussed where you self destructed along with your prime directive of never contradicting the Bible.

Here is the embarrassing episode again for your reference.

AV wrote.

I don't feel qualified to discuss Old Testament law.

Some of them were done away with in this dispensation; some weren't.

These triangles you're bringing up are not my area of expertise.

Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

Looks consensual to me.

So if I was Moses, I would order both of them to die.

Deuteronomy 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Verdict: Death; Reason: Consensual.

Deuteronomy 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

Verdict: Death of the man, not the woman.

In today's dispensation, I don't know.

I'm for the death penalty for rapists; but adultery and fornication need a lesser punishment.

 

[Astrid]

There might not be any Bigfoot. But there are big feet.

Wouldn't debunking "flood" be the same as debunking a camel?

Debunking is a verb meaning expose the falseness or hollowness of a myth, idea, or belief. If a scientist's goal is to debunk a global flood, there's something seriously wrong.

I don't think I said it did.

Why do you say that?

There are theoretical physicists that claim there's scientific evidence that we may one day be able to create a universe with life in a lab. Does that not qualify as intelligent design?

I assume you're talking about the Discovery Institute.

They've actually made it clear that religion has no place in a public classroom, and evolution should not be removed from the public classroom, but rather use ID as a means of comparison, or possible alternative to TOE.

Do you have some point to make?
I respondrd to your nonsense about a
scientific theory having a political side,
and debunking the bible with it.
If you think it isnt nonsense my doubt about
interest is appropriate.

ID will be welcomed with huge interest and
excitement if it ever manages to be backed by
a fact o two.

 

[BCP1928]

There's a political side of TOE that maintains science absolutely debunks the Bible. And that intelligent design is a religious political agenda.

Neither aimed at the existence of God per se, or even at a particular God but at the theology associated with a particular set of God. believers.

 

[BCP1928]

I assume you're talking about the Discovery Institute.

They've actually made it clear that religion has no place in a public classroom, and evolution should not be removed from the public classroom, but rather use ID as a means of comparison, or possible alternative to TOE.

They've had it made clear to them that their religion has no place in the classroom even when disguised as "Intelligent Design"

 

[Astrid]

Neither aimed at the existence of God per se, or even at a particular God but at the theology associated with a particular set of God. believers.

The science in evolution was "aimed at" nothing
but understanding the world we live in.

That some people choose to believe things
at variance with reality* is their deal.

In genrral, such behaviour is mentioned in the
dictionary under the definition of delusion.

The notion that science is opposed to, aimed
at christianity in some way presupposes some
very unrealistic things.

Like that-
-Scirntists are united in conspiracy.
-They are to their core intellectually and
scieintifically dishonest.
-A chosen interpretation of a book about
a chosen religion has such status in the world
that the above dishonesty and conspiracy is
marshalled against it.

* thevreality here is that every relevant
datum point is considtent with ToE and deep time.
For yec the total is zero.