Let’s call the evolution debate off.

So why would this forum exist then?

MagusAlbertus said:

aparently: to defy the heart of gal 4&5.

Click to expand...

Wait: You're posting here to tell people not to post here?

MagusAlbertus said:

and the problems of rejecting the bible out-right still need to be pointed out.

Click to expand...

And we've pointed out we are not rejecting the bible out-right, but just rejecting your literal interpretation of it. You need to address that point, but never do. YOU are NOT the Bible.

a good reason to debate in this forum would be to increase your knowledge & others. If you are here to convince people that they are wrong, then maby you shouldn't be posting here.

Nobody thinks they are wrong... obviously.

But a wise person knows that he (or she) is not the ultimate source of knowledge.

MagusAlbertus said:

i just want a reason for something to be a metaphore and a resonable metaphore for said instance.

well then it's not a debate but a discussion, which is a good thing. but these 'debates' are more about who's a better debater, who can pontificate better, and who is most arogant and hard headed... i think the oposit of what a good disgusion is about.

Click to expand...

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Bushido216 said:

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Click to expand...

If he was a wise horse,

...an open-mided horse

...a gracious horse

He'd drink

And if wishes were fishes all men would cast nets.

MagusAlbertus said:

i just want a reason for something to be a metaphore and a resonable metaphore for said instance.

Click to expand...

We've given you many reasons. One of them is in the first quote in my signature. God's two books can't contradict. So, since God's Creation was written directly by God, if we find a contradiction between science (which reads God's Creation) and our interpretation of the Bible, then we need to look for a new interpretation of the Bible -- metaphore. And this is how Christians have done it over the centuries. Christians started out being flat-earthers because of literal interpretation of several passages. They decided to view the passages as metaphores when round earth was sound science. Same for the sun at the center of the solar system and a moving earth. All the passages saying the earth is immovable were now viewed as metaphors. Geology, physics, chemistry, and biology all now state 1) the earth is old, 2) the Flood never happened, 3) there was no Tower of Babel, and 3) species, including humans, evolved from pre-existing species. So now Genesis 1-11 needs to be viewed as it was intended -- a metaphor.

The discussion isn't about whether Christians can use extrabiblical knowledge to change their interpretation of the Bible. It's already been decided that they can and have. The issue is whether you are ready to use extrabiblical knowledge to change your interpretation of this particular part of the Bible.

well then it's not a debate but a discussion, which is a good thing. but these 'debates' are more about who's a better debater, who can pontificate better, and who is most arogant and hard headed... i think the oposit of what a good disgusion is about.

Click to expand...

Truth isn't settled about who is the better debator, but around the arguments. Because it is a discussion, we don't allow debating tactics here -- strawman arguments, synecdoche, distraction, ad hominem, etc. We focus on the arguments. What you are saying is that theistic evolution has better arguments. (shrug) You are complaining because evolution is the truth!

I think your complaint arises because, in most evolution vs creationism forums, the evolutionists aren't aware of the arguments and therefore it appears that creationism has a stronger case. In this forum, both here and in the open creationism vs evolution forum, there are some very knowledgable evolutionists who can present the full range of arguments.

This is reflected in society at large. Historically, creationism has always had its "successes" only when it avoids public scrutiny. The 1982 Arkansas Law, the Kansas education standards, the Ohio education standards, the Alabama disclaimers, and now the Georgia education standards are all put thru in the absence of serious discussion and the absence of input from scientists. When the scientists do become involved and present the scientific arguments to the public, creationism always loses. Not because scientists are better debators. They are not. But because creationism simply doesn't have the legs to stand on.

MagusAlbertus said:

luc, you continue to extend your view of 'metaphore' to the point that the metaphoric menaing of what's said isn't needed to be explained. This is a rejection of the bible as 'just a book with good stories' insted of pure statment of fact given the style of writing *be is song, proverb, historical account, law books, prophicy etc..* their are plenty of places that metaphore applies, but in all of those places their is no problem in explaining what the metaphore means.

Click to expand...

I used "metaphor" because you did. If I'd known you were going to take it so literally and set the word as a trap, I would not have used it. Strictly speaking, metaphor is a simile with the "like" and "as" being implied and not stated aloud.

There are other non-literal ways of speaking other than similes and metaphors: analogy, symbolism, allegory, etc. If we are going to be strict about it, Genesis 1 is more symbolism and Genesis 2-3 is more allegory. Altho neither are totally symbolism or allegory.

you still refuse to put-fort what you view the intent is

Click to expand...

You've never asked me in this thread. Other people have asked (or I've volunteered) and I've given my views on the intent in a number of different threads. Do some browsing and you'll find it. I once again gave my view on Genesis 1 to pmhc1 in the "Would you change your mind" thread about 4 days ago.

you still allow sin to be called aceptable because of it.

Click to expand...

My views on homosexuality are not connected to my views on the non-literalness of Genesis 1-11. Totally different. I've given you my views on that subject in another thread. We have a difference of opinion about whether homosexuality -- as such -- is a sin. To continue to claim that I "allow sin to be called acceptable" is a misrepresentation of my position. I do expect better honesty from a Christian.

finaly: you keep harping on evolution! yes, this is an evolution board, but their are more basic things at stake here than this one interpetation. I hold fast to my beivfe of the bible being the inerant word of God, even if it's not a cirlce, and i 'd hold fast to my belief in the bible being the inerant word of God, even if 4billion year evoltion where quantifyably proven true, so debate dosn't change anything for me.

Click to expand...

The topic of the board is Creation Science vs Evolution. If you want to talk general Apologetics, maybe you should go to that Forum.

Your belief in an inerrant Bible is very basic. I've called it for what it is: worship of the Bible and not of God. Put very bluntly, you have made a graven image called "inerrant bible" and you worship it. The proof of that is that you would continue to hold to your "inerrant Bible" even tho God has "quantifyably proven" a 3.8 billion year evolution. I think it sad that you are so devoted to this false idol that nothing God can show you would cause you to change your mind. It seems that you are lost to God. Good luck to you.

And your use of the word "debate" is telling. Debates are formal contests to determine who the best debator is. In order to make that contest fair, topics are chosen such that either side of the issue is equal. IOW, there is no absolute evidence against one or for the other and both the "positive" and "negative" positions are valid. A debate of "the earth is round" would not be fair to the side that drew the "negative" side. They couldn't possibly do well. So debates are limited to topics where both sides are valid.

Discussion, OTOH, has the object of determining whether an idea is valid or not. Not all ideas are valid. "The earth is flat" is an idea that is not valid. No matter how skilled a debator you are, you cannot "win" a debate arguing that the earth is flat. Instead, you discuss the idea to see if it is valid or not valid.

The problem for internet boards -- are you listening, TheBear? -- is that they are often titled "debate" boards. This gives the impression that both sides are equally valid. Therefore both sides can entertain themselves seeing who the better debator is. But in reality most "debate" boards are discussion boards. The idea is, by discussion, to determine which ideas are valid and which are not. Unfortunately for you, a literal reading of Genesis is not valid.

What IS imporant is how you reject rebuke and acept the rejection of rebuke because you are upset with your creator for not explaining gentics in genisis. Sin is never aceptable and alwase leads to death.

Click to expand...

Again, the issue is whether the "rebuke" is valid. Whenever you have "rebuked" me with the Bible so far, I have returned with Bible verses showing that your "rebuke" is not Biblical. At that point you stop using the Bible and start using insults. I therefore conclude the rebuke was indeed not valid, or you would continue to discuss Bible verses with me.

I'm not upset with God at all in Genesis. God explained things very well in Genesis 1-3. In fact, when I stop using the failed human "inerrant" interpretation, I find many more, and more important, messages from God than you get with your "inerrant bible" worship.

Underlying your whole paragraph on "rebuke" is the presumption that you are correct. But that is the whole point under discussion -- are you correct? So far, the evidence says "no".

MagusAlbertus said:

[/font]
yea, like i said, you call sin aceptable, this is simply an impass that will not be solved t'll you become humble unto the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

t'll then we simply must agree to disagree, and i can only hope and pray you'll spread more salvation and humbleness than ignorance and pride.

Click to expand...

My Irony meter broke again. This is getting annoying.

MagusAlbertus said:

that WAS the point.

Click to expand...

Well it's just that Lucaspa is one of hte least proud posters I've met. Heck he goes out of his way to mention people who have stated points even vaguely resembling the one he's going to make, just to give credit where credit is due. He's never been angry that I've ever seen, and he's never responded in a manner that I'd call anything less then respectful (well except to ArkGuy. But no one could stand ArkGuy).