Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Just can't get any help around here, can ya'? Maybe you should just stick to the argument you're most comfortable with.Fine.
Then take over this conversation and show HitchSlap the error of his ways.
I don't consider myself a very effective apologetic for theistic evolution.
* paging theistic evolutionists *It has all the earmarks of any ancient culture attempting to describe their origins.
I'd like to abandon this conversation, but when you put all creationists in the same category, it's time to employ some ... you know ... cladistics?Just can't get any help around here, can ya'? Maybe you should just stick to the argument you're most comfortable with.
Hmmm ... just shotgun a bevy of literary styles and one of them has to be right.Look Alfred, G1/2 is, allegory / myth / fable.
Look Alfred, G1/2 is, allegory / myth / fable.
Hmmm ... just shotgun a bevy of literary styles and one of them has to be right.
I didn't mean that literally.G1/2 is a mythical creation account containing allegory and fable.
Other than your own brothers & sisters in Christ, what exactly are you protesting, Hoghead1?It would appear, OzSpen, you have absolutely no knowledge of postmodern Protestant churches or of Protestantism, period. Yes, they are definitely Christian. They may not agree with your definition of Christians. But that is purely your own opinion based largely on your ignorance of the matter. I don't want to burst your bubble, but you are not the pope. You have neither th3 education nor the authority to rule on what is Protestant, what no, what Christian, what not.
As to science, , I have said before and will say again, God is not a scientific question to start with. I have already pointed this out to you several times, OzSpen. If you want to be critical of me, at least pay attention to my posts, so that your comments, sarcastic or otherwise, are at least on target.
*PsychoSarah comes to AV's aid. She isn't a theistic evolutionist, but has some experience defending that position*I'd like to abandon this conversation, but when you put all creationists in the same category, it's time to employ some ... you know ... cladistics?
Now there's a novel idea, isn't there?
Some people do, and some people don't. Scripturally, it doesn't actually matter if one takes it literally or not, they will be saved as long as they are believers.G1/2 is a mythical creation account containing allegory and fable.
Do you accept this as literal fact / history?
It has all the earmarks of any ancient culture attempting to describe their origins. The Hebrew account is no exception.
Add modern science to our understanding of human origins and cosmology, and it becomes patently obvious that all creation stories were primitive attempts at making sense of the world.
The difference now is, we have science on our side.
It would appear, OzSpen, you have absolutely no knowledge of postmodern Protestant churches or of Protestantism, period. Yes, they are definitely Christian. They may not agree with your definition of Christians. But that is purely your own opinion based largely on your ignorance of the matter. I don't want to burst your bubble, but you are not the pope. You have neither th3 education nor the authority to rule on what is Protestant, what no, what Christian, what not.
As to science, , I have said before and will say again, God is not a scientific question to start with. I have already pointed this out to you several times, OzSpen. If you want to be critical of me, at least pay attention to my posts, so that your comments, sarcastic or otherwise, are at least on target.
You really should not use logical arguments until you understand how they work. He did not use a "fallacy of appeal to ridicule" on you. He simply pointed out some of your flaws.Your fallacy of appeal to ridicule doesn't work with me.
You really should not use logical arguments until you understand how they work. He did not use a "fallacy of appeal to ridicule" on you. He simply pointed out some of your flaws.
Perhaps you should focus on the topic of the thread.
Just because someone ridicules you does not means that he used that logical fallacy. Quite often people earn ridicule on top of being wrong. If you want to claim that he used that fallacy you have to show how his ridicule "proved" that you were wrong. He did not do this. The ridicule was just a bonus.He did ridicule me, thus using a fallacy of appeal to ridicule. We cannot have a logical discussion when he uses it. You know that.
Appeal from the rules of this site then: it is explicitly against the rules to state that others that claim to be Christian aren't. Anyone that believes in YHWH and accepts Jesus Christ as their lord and savior is a Christian as far as this site is concerned.Your fallacy of appeal to ridicule doesn't work with me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?