My Enoch Challenge

[Nathan Poe]

The deterrent is the bondage. We live free so we do not have to live in bondage or be a slave to sin. Kind of a catch 22.

And how would you define "sin"?

This is an important theological question, one which many Christians flub the answer to. Perhaps you'll get it right.

 

[selfinflikted]

The deterrent is the bondage. We live free so we do not have to live in bondage or be a slave to sin. Kind of a catch 22.

So, god "cleaned" up evidence for the flood so we could live free? I do not follow.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's apply AV's "theology" up to this point:

1 -- AV says God wrote the Bible
2 -- AV has just rewritten the Bible
Q.E.D., AV considers himself to be (or at least equal to) God.

"Vain deceit," indeed -- AV's narcissism has finally taken its toll.

2 -- try paraphrased.

 

[Nathan Poe]

2 -- try paraphrased.

More like "conveniently reinterpreted to suit your own agenda."

You hate evolution, but God doesn't. So you told God to take a hike and took over.

You call that Christianity? You call that your "Great Commission"? You honestly think you're fooling anyone?

Q.V. -- 1

You want to know why this guy got to you? Because you know he had you pegged. Because you can't even fool yourself anymore.

 

[AV1611VET]

More like "conveniently reinterpreted to suit your own agenda."

More like paraphrased for clarity.

You hate evolution, but God doesn't.

Chapter and v... er ... I mean, post where I said that, please?

So you told God to take a hike and took over.

Well, just now, in another thread, I asked someone who must think he is God if I have been tithing to him.

You call that Christianity? You call that your "Great Commission"? You honestly think you're fooling anyone?

That's not going to work with me, and you know it.

You have a tendency to unleash your brand of sarcasm and ridicule on people here -- and I can't figure out what it is about us that bugs you; so I stopped trying.

I personally think your problem isn't with us specifically, but Someone else -- but I could easily be wrong, and it's none of my business.

But I'm not going to sugar-coat my points with you guys.

 

[Nathan Poe]

More like paraphrased for clarity.

The only thing made clear is your own agenda, AV -- as long as you can use the Bible as a tool for that, you're happy with it.

When it's not useful, you edit it.

Chapter and v... er ... I mean, post where I said that, please?

You still think you're difficult to figure out?

 

[AV1611VET]

The only thing made clear is your own agenda, AV --

If that's what you culled from my post, then I would say the problem lies on your end.

Albeit, I do think you're just yanking my chain.

-- as long as you can use the Bible as a tool for that, you're happy with it.

Why shouldn't I be? the Bible is a two-edged sword.

When it's not useful, you edit it.

Try paraphrase for clarity.

You still think you're difficult to figure out?

Yes -- if you're the yardstick.

 

[sandwiches]

Try paraphrase for clarity.

Nah... More like reinterpreting. Paraphrasing is restating the same meaning in different form. You add and remove words, change the meanings of others, and reinterpret to suit your bias.

After all, everyone knows what Colossians 2:8 really says:
Beware lest any man spoil you through sophistry and semantics games and self-serving deceit, after old tales and ancient superstitions common of mankind, after a flawed and incomplete view which is contrary to what is evident in God's creation, and not after Christ.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Produce evidence that verifies this:

Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

... or admit that there are things God did that didn't generate any.

Admit that there are things written in the Bible that cannot be independently verified? Ok.

 

[AV1611VET]

Admit that there are things written in the Bible that cannot be independently verified? Ok.

What do you think I've been doing here for the past five years, newbie; just posting numbers or something?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

What do you think I've been doing here for the past five years, newbie; just posting numbers or something?

Apparently.

 

[AV1611VET]

Apparently.

Then I'll consider your request sterile.

 

[Jazer]

And how would you define "sin"?

I define sin as anything that I will be taken to the woodshed for. Something that has a price to pay or consequences. You know the price you pay when you don't think it will be that bad but when the time comes it is a lot worse then you thought it was going to be.

 

[Jazer]

So, god "cleaned" up evidence for the flood so we could live free? I do not follow.

God cleaned up evidence of the sin and the rebellion, so people were not influence by it anymore. We do not need them out there setting a bad example for others.

 

[VehementiDominus]

Then I'll consider your request sterile.

As is your point.

Produce evidence that verifies this;

"Rincewind peered up and down the street and felt almost happy.

At the back of his mind the Spell was kicking up a ruckus, but he ignored it. Maybe it was true that magic was getting weaker as the star got nearer, or perhaps he'd had the Spell in his head for so long he had built up some kind of psychic immunity, but he found he could resist it."

or admit that there are things Rincewind did that didn't generate any.

 

[Tiberius]

Because He cleaned up the mess.

What would you think if your teenage son spilled milk on the floor, then just walked away and said, "Let nature handle it. It'll be gone tomorrow."?

Ah, but that's different. There would be a measurably smaller amount of milk in the fridge. There would have been a measurable amount of water used when he mopped up the spill. There would be the broken cup in the garbage bin. There would be one less cup sitting in the cupboard.

Even if I didn't know that my son had spilled the milk, and he had cleaned up the evidence, I'd still see that some milk had gone, and that there was a cup missing, I'd see that the mop bucket was moved, that there was slightly less detergent in the bottle (since he'd used some while mopping). In short, I'd be able to look at reality and still see that something had happened. I might not be able to figure out the exact details, but I'd still know that something fishy was going on.

So your analogy is flawed, since you maintain that we cannot look at reality and figure out something happened.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

That's right --

That passage seems to say that an investigation of the world is the best place to learn about God. I fully agree. Investigate the world and see what it says.

Now, if the passage said, "Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are explained in the Bible, for they cannot be seen in the world, and thus the only way we can ever find out about them is from the Bible," then maybe you'd have a passage that fits in better with what you've repeatedly demonstrated - an unfailing choice to place a collection of old books above reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, but that's different. There would be a measurably smaller amount of milk in the fridge. There would have been a measurable amount of water used when he mopped up the spill. There would be the broken cup in the garbage bin. There would be one less cup sitting in the cupboard.

Um ... that analogy was only to show a motivation for cleaning up the mess.

You don't know how much 'milk was in the fridge' when the Flood occurred, so you don't have any basis of comparison.

Even if I didn't know that my son had spilled the milk, and he had cleaned up the evidence, I'd still see that some milk had gone, and that there was a cup missing, I'd see that the mop bucket was moved, that there was slightly less detergent in the bottle (since he'd used some while mopping). In short, I'd be able to look at reality and still see that something had happened. I might not be able to figure out the exact details, but I'd still know that something fishy was going on.

Yes -- got it.

Stop looking at the trees and try to see the forest, please.

So your analogy is flawed, since you maintain that we cannot look at reality and figure out something happened.

That's one of your problems. You guys want to 'figure it out' on your own. The Bible is just as much a part of reality as DNA, and in It is the information you're seeking.

That passage seems to say that an investigation of the world is the best place to learn about God. I fully agree. Investigate the world and see what it says.

It says you are 'without excuse'.

Now, if the passage said, "Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are explained in the Bible, for they cannot be seen in the world, and thus the only way we can ever find out about them is from the Bible," then maybe you'd have a passage that fits in better with what you've repeatedly demonstrated - an unfailing choice to place a collection of old books above reality.

Riiiight -- then you guys would be harping that the [completed] Bible didn't exist when Romans was written, and that the term was snuck in there after-the-fact by conspiratists, who also secretly implanted prophecies.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I define sin as anything that I will be taken to the woodshed for. Something that has a price to pay or consequences.

Taken to the woodshed -- by God, right?

Pay the consequences -- to God, correct?

Given God's track record, would it therefore be fair to say that the one and only "sin" is to disobey God's commands -- either His standing orders or whatever He demands you to do at that particular moment?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Um ... that analogy was only to show a motivation for cleaning up the mess.

If your analogy is so woefully insufficient, perhaps you shouldn't have used it.

 

[AV1611VET]

If your analogy is so woefully insufficient, perhaps you shouldn't have used it.

Or perhaps I gave the source too much credit for understanding?