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.
You really are shameless. I challenge you to quote me from anyplace whatever that I have rejected the miracles performed by God.
I don't know if you are wrong or not; you have proposed your miraculous clean-up as an unfalsifiable proposition, which means it is impossible to disprove.So you're saying I'm right and they're wrong?
Or, as I suspect, are we both wrong in your eyes?
And if we're both wrong in your eyes, what is it you're harping about?
Now you have two options:
1. The clean-up was done in a miraculous way such that scientists cannot detect it.
2. Scientists have detected it but are lying about it as part of worldwide satanic conspiracy to deny Christ.
The second, of course, is the Creationist position.
I fail to find any post in this thread in which I have denied the reality of God's miracles. I don't think you can find one either.The conversation was about rejecting the validity of God’s miracles ever since you started defending it.
Why are some Christians anti Evolution?
And, if the Flood story is not a 100% accurate literal account of the Flood itself, then of course it never happened. Is that your line?No there’s a third option
“Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.”
2 Peter 3:3-7 NASB1995
The scoffers and mockers will deny the flood.
I fail to find any post in this thread in which I have denied the reality of God's miracles. I don't think you kind find one either.
We’re not talking about interpretation here we’re talking about believing the miracles that took place.
And, if the Flood story is not a 100% accurate literal account of the Flood itself, then of course it never happened. Is that your line?
You see, ottawak ... it's this kind of bologna that makes it very hard to have an honest discussion.I don't know if you are wrong or not;
That a story in the Bible about a person or an event doesn't have to be literal and inerrant for the person to be real or for the event to have happened. You have your causality turned around. Stories in the Bible don't give rise to persons and events; persons and events give rise to the stories.What’s “the difference between real people and events and stories about them in a book?” What was the point of that statement in response to my statement?
That a story in the Bible about a person or an event doesn't have to be literal and inerrant for the person to be real or for the event to have happened. You have your causality turned around. Stories in the Bible don't give rise to persons and events; persons and events give rise to the stories.
They don't know the difference, and they're trying to make it look like we don't either.What do you mean by stories are you speaking of historical facts or fictional stories?
I'm not confused. My point was that the scientists could be wrong without being liars.You see, ottawak ... it's this kind of bologna that makes it very hard to have an honest discussion.
In your eyes, which of the three applies?
And if you don't know if I'm wrong ... as you're now claiming ... then you have to admit you don't know if they're right.
- They're right and I'm wrong.
- They're wrong and I'm right.
- We're both wrong.
Yet you made this doosey of a statement:
Now you have two options:
1. The clean-up was done in a miraculous way such that scientists cannot detect it.
2. Scientists have detected it but are lying about it as part of worldwide satanic conspiracy to deny Christ.
The second, of course, is the Creationist position.
I'm going to do you a favor and give you credit for being confused.
That way, you don't look so bad.
You're welcome.
They don't know the difference, and they're trying to make it look like we don't either.
No, just trying to show you that your assertion that I denied the the reality of God's miracles is a despicable, bald-faced lie. I don't know what it is you are trying to defend here, but it is most certainly not the Gospel of Christ.He’s trying to crawfish his way out of his original position in the discussion by deflecting.
You see, ottawak ... it's this kind of bologna that makes it very hard to have an honest discussion.
In your eyes, which of the three applies?
And if you don't know if I'm wrong ... as you're now claiming ... then you have to admit you don't know if they're right.
- They're right and I'm wrong.
- They're wrong and I'm right.
- We're both wrong.
Yet you made this doosey of a statement:
Now you have two options:
1. The clean-up was done in a miraculous way such that scientists cannot detect it.
2. Scientists have detected it but are lying about it as part of worldwide satanic conspiracy to deny Christ.
The second, of course, is the Creationist position.
I'm going to do you a favor and give you credit for being confused.
That way, you don't look so bad.
You're welcome.
"Could be"?I'm not confused. My point was that the scientists could be wrong without being liars.
They don't know the difference, and they're trying to make it look like we don't either.
They don't know the difference, and they're trying to make it look like we don't either.
I was going to put a strikeout word in one of my posts (He’s trying to crawfish his way out of his original position in the discussion by deflecting.
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?