Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Taking Questions on the Creation
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="thaumaturgy" data-source="post: 49054874" data-attributes="member: 169303"><p>Do you want to know why I don't <strong>like or trust you</strong>, and think you are a poor witness for your faith, AV?</p><p> </p><p>This post is a prime example. Indeed it boils down to the meat of it all.</p><p> </p><p>In my discussions with you, I have always endeavored to <em><u>grant</u></em> that some of your "interpretations" of the BIble may be <em>technically</em> accurate. You claim the bible isn't pro-slavery, so I find the original hebrew words and point out that the <u>common</u> usage was as "slave" not servent <strong>but I grant that indeed the word <em>could</em> have meant servant</strong>, but that I was rather under the impression that the <u>bulk of the concepts around these "servants" indicate "slavery".</u> Other posters see that as well, and historically many Christians felt that to be the case. EVEN IF YOU AND I FIND SLAVERY REPELLENT.</p><p> </p><p>Even when discussing the <u>order of creation in Genesis 1</u> I granted that there were some "outs" based on "technicalities". I GAVE you a point! Ironic that when debating a "man" who claims to be a "Christian" you can't seem to do the same kind of "good turn" to the people you debate against! Are your points so weak that you fear any questioning will destroy them? Is your house built on sand?</p><p> </p><p>Look at your list up there. It is <strong>common knowledge</strong> that indeed, read literally, the Bible <em>can be read to teach</em> <u>geocentrism</u>. In point of fact it is actually so open that one can <em><u>interpret it a number of ways</u></em>, but you will <strong>note that history says <u>MOST PEOPLE IN PRE-COPERNICAN EUROPEAN CHURCHES READ IT AS MEANING GEOCENTRISM</u></strong>.</p><p> </p><p>The point NOT being that it does or doesn't but rather </p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 18px"><span style="color: red">you appear to <em>never grant that the bible could have ever been interpretted to read this way</em>. </span></span></strong></p><p></p><p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000">You treat us in a way we don't treat you.</span></strong></p><p></p><p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000">Why? Do you <u>want</u> us to treat you with the gross and alarming disrespect you exhibit REPEATEDLY????</span></strong></p><p></p><p><strong><span style="color: black">Surely you must. You love your bible so much I'm sure you've read Luke 6:31. I'm just sure of it.</span></strong></p><p> </p><p>Another example from your list: you say it is "FALSE" to claim the Isaiahan prophecy around Mary as merely a "young woman" and not a virgin. Well, whether it is or isn't <em><u>YOU CANNOT SAY</u></em> because the original hebrew word, <em>almah</em>, <strong><span style="color: red">CAN MEAN "YOUNG WOMAN".</span></strong></p><p></p><p><strong>THAT MEANS THAT WHEN YOU SAY IT IS FALSE YOU ARE DEMONSTRABLY WRONG. IT IS "QUESTIONABLE AT BEST". </strong></p><p> </p><p>False is a strong term. You need to get away from that kind of "reasoning" since <em>you don't know</em>.</p><p> </p><p>No matter what you <strong>BELIEVE</strong>, it <strong><em><u>COULD MEAN</u> </em></strong>a "girl of marriagable age" (<a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5959&t=KJV" target="_blank">SOURCE</a>). And while <em>most young women</em> probably "waited until marriage", it was not <strong><u>PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR AN UNMARRIED YOUNG WOMAN TO GET PREGNANT BY THE USUAL MEANS </u></strong>(ie she didn't have to be impregnated by God...there were other means available to young women back then.)</p><p> </p><p>Do you UNDERSTAND?</p><p> </p><p>You CANNOT CLAIM that it is FALSE for people to find these "interpretations" in the Bible. Whether they are true or false <strong>YOU DO NOT "KNOW".</strong></p><p> </p><p>THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!!!!</p><p> </p><p>If there's some compelling <em><u>other reason</u></em> why you claim these interpretations are "FALSE" you need to provide those. In point of fact, again, the best you will be able to do is get a "maybe". </p><p> </p><p>You treat others as if they are scum and you are privy to God's Thoughts. That is not in keeping with the <em>spirit</em> of your faith. Even if you can find some "letter" in the law that allows you to be thus, it violates the spirit of the law.</p><p> </p><p>And that is why ultra-literal fundamentalism is morally, intellectually and theologically <strong>bankrupt</strong>.</p><p> </p><p>Is that your witness?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="thaumaturgy, post: 49054874, member: 169303"] Do you want to know why I don't [B]like or trust you[/B], and think you are a poor witness for your faith, AV? This post is a prime example. Indeed it boils down to the meat of it all. In my discussions with you, I have always endeavored to [I][U]grant[/U][/I] that some of your "interpretations" of the BIble may be [I]technically[/I] accurate. You claim the bible isn't pro-slavery, so I find the original hebrew words and point out that the [U]common[/U] usage was as "slave" not servent [B]but I grant that indeed the word [I]could[/I] have meant servant[/B], but that I was rather under the impression that the [U]bulk of the concepts around these "servants" indicate "slavery".[/U] Other posters see that as well, and historically many Christians felt that to be the case. EVEN IF YOU AND I FIND SLAVERY REPELLENT. Even when discussing the [U]order of creation in Genesis 1[/U] I granted that there were some "outs" based on "technicalities". I GAVE you a point! Ironic that when debating a "man" who claims to be a "Christian" you can't seem to do the same kind of "good turn" to the people you debate against! Are your points so weak that you fear any questioning will destroy them? Is your house built on sand? Look at your list up there. It is [B]common knowledge[/B] that indeed, read literally, the Bible [I]can be read to teach[/I] [U]geocentrism[/U]. In point of fact it is actually so open that one can [I][U]interpret it a number of ways[/U][/I], but you will [B]note that history says [U]MOST PEOPLE IN PRE-COPERNICAN EUROPEAN CHURCHES READ IT AS MEANING GEOCENTRISM[/U][/B]. The point NOT being that it does or doesn't but rather [B][SIZE=5][COLOR=red]you appear to [I]never grant that the bible could have ever been interpretted to read this way[/I]. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/B] [B][COLOR=#ff0000]You treat us in a way we don't treat you.[/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=#ff0000]Why? Do you [U]want[/U] us to treat you with the gross and alarming disrespect you exhibit REPEATEDLY????[/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=black]Surely you must. You love your bible so much I'm sure you've read Luke 6:31. I'm just sure of it.[/COLOR][/B] Another example from your list: you say it is "FALSE" to claim the Isaiahan prophecy around Mary as merely a "young woman" and not a virgin. Well, whether it is or isn't [I][U]YOU CANNOT SAY[/U][/I] because the original hebrew word, [I]almah[/I], [B][COLOR=red]CAN MEAN "YOUNG WOMAN".[/COLOR][/B] [B]THAT MEANS THAT WHEN YOU SAY IT IS FALSE YOU ARE DEMONSTRABLY WRONG. IT IS "QUESTIONABLE AT BEST". [/B] False is a strong term. You need to get away from that kind of "reasoning" since [I]you don't know[/I]. No matter what you [B]BELIEVE[/B], it [B][I][U]COULD MEAN[/U] [/I][/B]a "girl of marriagable age" ([URL="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5959&t=KJV"]SOURCE[/URL]). And while [I]most young women[/I] probably "waited until marriage", it was not [B][U]PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR AN UNMARRIED YOUNG WOMAN TO GET PREGNANT BY THE USUAL MEANS [/U][/B](ie she didn't have to be impregnated by God...there were other means available to young women back then.) Do you UNDERSTAND? You CANNOT CLAIM that it is FALSE for people to find these "interpretations" in the Bible. Whether they are true or false [B]YOU DO NOT "KNOW".[/B] THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!!!! If there's some compelling [I][U]other reason[/U][/I] why you claim these interpretations are "FALSE" you need to provide those. In point of fact, again, the best you will be able to do is get a "maybe". You treat others as if they are scum and you are privy to God's Thoughts. That is not in keeping with the [I]spirit[/I] of your faith. Even if you can find some "letter" in the law that allows you to be thus, it violates the spirit of the law. And that is why ultra-literal fundamentalism is morally, intellectually and theologically [B]bankrupt[/B]. Is that your witness? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Taking Questions on the Creation
Top
Bottom