the flood

[David Gould]

It is typical creationist duck and weave. They know they have no answers to any of this stuff so they simply have no other choice but to behave in a disingenuous manner.

It is this sort of cognitive dissonance that must be battled against continually. I am glad that it has not taken off in a big way in Australia, but I am fearful that both the Australian Anglican and the Australian Catholic diases are heading towards YECism.

 

[Arikay]

Yes, if you take what you said literally, you did call people non christian.

There is of course irony there, and possibly going against some rules as well.

 

[David Gould]

And the Bible is? The Word of God. It is not by the way I interpret the Bible, when one sincerely seeks one finds. You may not agree and that is up to you my friend, and I respect that.

You claimed here that your interpretation of the Bible is what you will find if you sincerely seek.

As such, those who have not come to your interpretation of the Bible must not have sincerely sought, correct?

Or do you have some other explanation for your words above?

 

[Alessandro]

I did not call anyone anything, the level I was talking about was refering to God. In regards to what you are saying I said is simply put as this, Christian believing in young earth vs Christian believing in old earth, different points, both believe in God, which is the main aspect, both regarded as Christian, in regards to the difference in views regarding earth and creation etc then only God knows which is right, simple correct. No matter people will still disagree. I am stating what I found.

 

[Arikay]

Now, maybe you can answer the original original question I asked and actually provide evidence to support your claim. Prefferably something a bit more substantial than one liners.

Generally, when you make a claim, you should be willing and able to back it up.

I dont expect to ever hear any support though, but its always good to ask, multiple times.

 

[Alessandro]

And neither do I expect you to listen to what I provide.

 

[Arikay]

Nice excuse, but it doesn't fly.

So far you haven't provided anything, so you are right, I am not listening to anything right now, as there is nothing to listen too.

Dont expect me to accept what you say as truth, but I will listen. Remember, listening and blindly accepting are two different things, besides, if your evidence is any good, it should be able to stand up to scrutiny.

Unfortunatly, so far, you have spent many pages dodging the question to begin with, the question is, will this dodging continue?

And neither do I expect you to listen to what I provide.

 

[David Gould]

I did not call anyone anything, the level I was talking about was refering to God. In regards to what you are saying I said is simply put as this, Christian believing in young earth vs Christian believing in old earth, different points, both believe in God, which is the main aspect, both regarded as Christian, in regards to the difference in views regarding earth and creation etc then only God knows which is right, simple correct. No matter people will still disagree. I am stating what I found.

Okay. So the 'sincerely' part had nothing to do with a particular interpretation of scripture. Fair enough.

At least it appears here that you admit that:

1.) Evolutionists can be Christians; and
2.) YECism could be wrong.

From there, anything is possible.

 

[David Gould]

And neither do I expect you to listen to what I provide.

As Arikay said, how about testing this expectation by actually providing something?

Why were there no cats in Australia when white settlers/invaders got there?

 

[Alessandro]

Yea, but God reserves the judgement as to which is right.

 

[David Gould]

Yea, but God reserves the judgement as to which is right.

Don't you mean God knows which is right? He hardly needs to judge, does he? He knows. And since it isn't a salvation issue it has nothing to do with judgment.

 

[Arikay]

You know what is interesting, around 69 total posts have gone by since I originally asked for evidence to support Alessandro's claims and we have yet to see more than a couple one liners.

Alessandro, If god decides who is right, and you cant substatiate your claims, maybe you shouldn't be making them.

 

[Alessandro]

Judge us. In regards to our interpretation.

 

[David Gould]

Judge us. In regards to our interpretation.

In what sense would he judge you other to say, 'By the way, you were right about that flood thing'?

Are you saying that it does have a salvation consequence? If so, this is where you could start to find yourself in trouble re the forum rules ...

 

[David Gould]

You know what is interesting, around 69 total posts have gone by since I originally asked for evidence to support Alessandro's claims and we have yet to see more than a couple one liners.

And my cat is getting hungry for an answer.

 

[Alessandro]

No salvation consequenses. I think I could have worded it better

 

[Arikay]

I think your cat will starve before our friend here stops sidestepping the questions.

Maybe he should be a politician.

And my cat is getting hungry for an answer.

 

[Alessandro]

Dont worry it will come soon enough.

 

[Arikay]

that would be nice.

 

[Alessandro]

And hopefully it will be in your own terms, but Alessandro must be serious first.