I refuse to insult individuals based on their beliefs and ideas, it just appears petty. I will not categorize athiests based on thier choices, I do not need to insult others to feel superior.

I’m sorry...that sort of tolerance will not be tolerated here!!!

Well first, thank you David for knowing when your no match for the person whom you debate.
In my experience as soon as your opponent has nothing in rebuttal but to point at a few missing ‘’’’ & an accidentally added L as some sure fire way of showing you are some solecistic inerudite that should immediately be chastised & discredited, has always meant he has reached his final act of defiance.
So at the benign expense of a few ‘’’’ & abundance of L’s i accept your capitulation. /em*Slides his superior intellect back into its sheath* quite obviously heavily armed.

Most Christians just keep on going letting their Cognitive Dissonance take over & start digging themselves deeper into their delusional mire.
Maybe the time you have spent on this website has permeated through that hard to crack Christiannutcasing your surrounded by.

I noticed after checking out the link Les supplied that he inoculated you with a strong dose of reality, (good job BTW Les) maybe its kicking in. Maybe a dose of Thorazine might be in order also.
I can only hope so for your sake.

As for the circular argument you refer, that was not an argument on my part as I stated.
“I can state some *theoretical hypothesis* but that’s about the extent of logical reasoning on something where there is no falsifiable evidence of”
In other words just pure unmitigated speculation on my part of which the irony of, was lost on my not nearly as accoutered as he imagines himself antagonist.

I would NEVER “argue” something of which I have zero falsifiable evidence of. Unlike every Christian on the planet.
(Oh and YES Vahalla I mean Falsifiable as “UNFalsifiable” is the Christian argument of the infallible bible of 100% absolutes with ZERO “verifiable” evidence all garnered from a 2000 year old book chock full of contradictions with no more validity to it than Aesop’s fables)

Definition:  [adj] capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation

Synonyms:  confirmable, empirical, verifiable

I find it amusing how someone can tag “Dr.” in front of their name “Dr. Clark H. Pinnock” on the pretense of being a “professor of theology” & touting the drivel as absolute fact. Such absurdity “should” be against the law.

That is akin to giving some loon strolling down Hollywood & Vine wearing an aluminum foil sombrero
because he is certain aliens are tapping into his cerebral cortex a Ph.D. in Ufology at the prestigious Heavens Gate University.
Please welcome “Dr. Loon H. Nutcase”
One should not be able to obtain a Ph.D. in a field known to be false then teach it as fact.
“Theology” should be no different than “Mythology”

A professor of Mythology when teaching say Egyptian Mythology teaches the truth, they don’t claim that Ra or Isis or Anubis are REAL but were a “belief” of ancient Egyptians.
They teach facts as recovered by archeology and deciphered from hieroglyphic writings.
They do not make ridiculous claims & teach them as the absolute truth such as:
“Ra brought forth four children, the gods Shu and Geb the goddesses Tefnut and Nut. Shu and Tefnut became the atmosphere. They stood on Geb, who became the earth, and raised up Nut, who became the sky. Ra ruled over all.”

There is no more evidence of the Christian God and his minions begetting begatting & miraculizing
than there is of the above Myth of Ra.

So when Mr. Clark Pinnock states as quoted above he clearly shows without any doubt he is delusional.
Here is a good accurate review of McDowels book.

In fact, since I’m about to send my eldest off to college, I’m hoping nunyabiz will let me know where he went so I can cross that turkey off my list of schools I’ll pay for

Please do, I graduated with a 3.9GPA summa cum laude from Stanford, BS. in Science in Engineering
MS. in Environmental Engineering & Science.
Me thinks my old Alma Turkey may have already saved you the trouble by crossing your little gobbler off of their list for you.

I type approx. 110-120WMP with an average of 95% accuracy. I never use a spell checker so Im certain i will give poor David some more fodder for his argument that im an unworthy opponent do to my abhorrent mangling of the english language.

This post took me a total of lets see about 12-15 minutes which included a quick Googlization of Mr. Pinnock and a quick dictionary look up of Falsifiable.
Im certain mistakes abound, im just as certain i could careless.

Bah the review of McDowels books did not show up for some reason.

http://members.aol.com/bbu85/josh.htm

“I find it amusing how someone can tag “Dr.” in front of their name “Dr. Clark H. Pinnock” on the pretense of being a “professor of theology” & touting the drivel as absolute fact. Such absurdity “should” be against the law.”

“I graduated with a 3.9GPA summa cum laude from Stanford, BS. in Science in Engineering
MS. in Environmental Engineering & Science.”

So what’s the difference?

According to your statement, you imply the more credentials someone has, the less they should be listened to?  Do your credentials indicate that we should not listen to you(in regards to science)?  Its ironic that you graduated from Stanford with an engineering degree, yet you feel it is appropriate to diagnose christians as delusional.  Maybe we should call you Dr. Nunyabiz.

DSM-IV Criteria:

A. A delusion develops in an individual in the context of a close relationship with another person(s), who has an already-established delusion. (proselytized into religious indoctrination)

B. The delusion is similar in content to that of the person who already has the established delusion. (all the other members of cult)

C. The disturbance is not better accounted for by another Psychotic Disorder (e.g., Schizophrenia) or a Mood Disorder With Psychotic Features and is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition. (mass psychosis not created by chemicals).

According to this criteria, Doc, Cubs Fans and obsessive website patrons could also be considered delusional.

Argument from authority is silly, because it is just an ad hominem attack in reverse - the person is given more importance than the argument.

However, if somebody uses academic credentials in an attempt to lend more weight to an opinion or argument, it is perfectly valid to examine if, how, and where these credentials were earned.

Geekmom,
How humbling, thank you. Yes, I am not perfect. I occasionally misuse an apostrophe. At least when I do, I admit I’m wrong, as I do now, instead of saying I’m too good to need to know how to use them at all, as our good friend who managed to graduate Stanford. I had no idea they graduated students who felt that the material that I’ve read in Nunyabiz’s post would be suitable, even in casual communications. I admit that it’s an eye-opener for me. Needless to say, I am relieved that my son has already declined their invitation to apply.

However, I’ve never attacked anyone on my personal preferences. I often use what they put forth as their own merits and attack that (as you just did to me). Nunyabiz claims wisdom, intelligence and education, me pointing out that he has none of these qualities is hardly ad hominem.

Nunyabiz, yes I recognize a greater intelligence when I’m in the presence of one. In your case it was not the presence, it was the lack thereof that left me without an argument. I’m not in the habit of trying to teach pigs to sing, I’ll not make an exception in your case. One can only hope that when you sheathed your intelligence, that your skill with the zipper is as poor as your skill with your keyboard. Perhaps the gene-pool has been saved. BTW, sorry you had to take the booby prize (errr… Masters) instead of actually attaining your PhD, as the “clearly insane and stupid” Doctors Geisler and Lewis did.

I made my decision to become a Christian based upon intellectual facts and personal experience, which in turn, led me to faith.

In other words, she decided ahead of time that she was going to believe in it, and then she talked herself into it. Nothing new there.

When I read this sentence, that’s not at all what I get out of it. “I made my decision to become a Christian based upon...” I think it is pretty clear some things are about to be presented and they are reasons that lead the writer to conclusions. “...intellectual facts and personal experience which in turn, led me to faith.” The decision was the last thing that happened, following faith, which was based on reason and experience. I think that’s all pretty clear. Unless, of course, this was just an attempt at character assassination on the part of you free thinking, wise, intelligent, kind, caring, individuals.

So what’s the difference?

According to your statement, you imply the more credentials someone has, the less they should be listened to? Do your credentials indicate that we should not listen to you(in regards to science)? Its ironic that you graduated from Stanford with an engineering degree, yet you feel it is appropriate to diagnose christians as delusional. Maybe we should call you Dr. Nunyabiz

Obviously you fail to comprehend what I said.

“One should not be able to obtain a Ph.D. in a field known to be false then teach it as fact.
“Theology” should be no different than “Mythology”

Not sure how much plainer I can make that really.

A Ph.D in “Theology” would be fine and dandy if it were taught like a science and based on facts.
Theologians however go Waaaaayyyy out of their way and make every effort possible to disregard empirical evidence if it interferes with their precious belief.

For instance how would you like to go into a Mythology class where the professor fully believes Zeus exist as a real tangible human “godman”?
Everything written about Zeus he fully believes happened exactly as written.
On top of that he worships him even today.

Now would you think this professor was delusional?
well maybe you would not but i have a feeling that some nice men with nets would be paying the good professor a visit.

Every single important event in the Bible can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be utterly false & nothing but rehashing of older pagan religions and rituals.
There is no more evidence of anything in the Bible being any more factual than Homers Iliad or Odyssey where there are a few grains of truth a few people, places, times that were correct but that’s the extent of it.
All 3 Iliad, Odyssey, Bible just works of mythology.

Yes I’m afraid I most certainly do consider Christian fundamentalist as completely delusional, there is really no other way I can force myself to perceive a human being in the year 2004 that believes 100% without any doubt whatsoever that some invisible omnipotent being merely 6000-10,000 years ago spoke a few choice words and created the entire universe “Poof”.
That all humans “pre-flood” lived to be 900 years old.
That dinosaurs walked with man, and did so just a few 1000 years ago.
That Noah when he was just a young whipper snapper of 600 or so managed somehow to gather millions of animals worldwide to stuff them into some Ark he built himself to float around for 40 days while the entire Earth every human man woman & child and innocent creature were all cruelly drowned.
That every single human on Earth today ALL are direct descendants of these 8 people on the Ark.

So just 3500 years ago there were only 8 people on the entire planet, yet we know positively that just a tad more than 8 people built the Pyramids.

I can go on and on and on there are so many utterly ridiculous 100% impossible absurdities in the Bible that to me YES anyone that believes this hogwash to be factual has got to be delusional there is simply no other way I can think of it.

well Mildred since you say your open minded and from what i can gather it appears as though this Book “More than a Carpenter” was what most influenced (though I would say tricked)you into believing the Bible to be valid.

If that be the case then answer these questions to yourself.

Do you believe the Bible to be “The word of God”?

Do you believe the Bible since it is the word of God to be “Infallible”?

If so then can you explain all the contradictions that the Bible is absolutely loaded with both old and new testament?

http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tcont.htm

Do you believe in Creationism?

If so explain just how ANY of it is even possible “unless” its your contention that ALL of the sciences & the 100s of 1000s of scientist worldwide for decades are ALL completely wrong and every science needs to be rewritten from scratch to fit the Bible.

Or are you in the camp of Christians that are not only rewriting history, denying science, but also rewriting your own Bible in order to bolster its “believability”

i.e.: dreaming up things such as “God Days” or Epoch in order to make the “In the beginning God created yada yada in 6 *days*” more palatable.
I believe that little gem came from some booklets similar to “The Watchtower” but called “The Fundamentals” back around 1905ish.

The Scofield “Gap Theory” of 1909.

“Flood Geology” that was around 1915 I think.

Or any other such desperate explanations in order to salvage any scrap of faith one might have in a religion in which true science clearly refutes & in most cases proves beyond any reasonable doubt to be false.

Did you know Evolution between 1865-1905 was pretty much accepted worldwide? was taught in schools etc., not till Christian fundamentalist around 1905 start to question it then start changing Christianity in an effort to make it more palatable which eventually led to the “Scopes Trial” in 1925 it was then that Christianity started its crusade against evolution.
Between 1925-1930 20 states (ALL of the South no surprise there) and a few western states pass “Anti-Evolution” laws/bills/schoolboard resolutions and start restricting teaching evolution & censoring Biology textbooks, Anti-evolution reached its peak in the mid 40s where less than 1/2 of high school science teachers taught ANYTHING about evolution.

Not till 1961 did they become even more insane with the publication of one the most blatant lies iv ever seen in print “The Genesis Flood” this book is just an utter abomination of reason & logic from cover to cover.
Not until 1968 when a Biology teacher named Susan Epperson challenge the ignorance ended up in the Supreme Court and won. Only then did Anti-Evolution laws start to be repealed in schools most were still on the books till the mid 70s, so we as a nation had over 40+ years of total LIES being taught to school age children, where the State & Federal Government were condoning & proselytizing children, these same children grow up have children and indoctrinate them into their same belief is it any wonder why so many people today believe Creationism over the FACT of Evolution?

What we had was Christian fundamentalist in positions of governmental power at all levels from Federal/State/County that pushed evangelist propaganda lies into law, clearly against the Constitution.
We are at another crossroads today even in the so called “Information age”.

What we need today is another trial in the form a nationally televised debate Evolution Vs Creationism with at least a 10 person panel on each side with all the worlds most emanate scientist covering the various fields of research for the Evolution side, then 10 of whomever the Creationist deem to be best qualified to argue the Creationist side would love to see Falwell & Robertson on that panel.
I don’t mean some 1 hour Fox debacle that does nothing but give 20 min of commercials and 40 min. of loaded questions.
More like a miniseries each episode 2 hours long with no less than 10 episodes and each episode could tackle 1 serious question to its conclusion.

I’m thinking of drafting a proposal for such a debate to present to various media outlets ABC/CBS/PBS/FOX etc.
I think I may attempt to contact some possible candidates for each side first to see if I can garner some support i.e.: some “Name Brand” recognition if you will since that’s ALL the media will care about at all is the commercial value.

Be like a prize fight so to speak like Pat Robertson Vs. Stephen J Gould

If I play one against the other I may possibly get support, though very doubtfully from the creationist side as I think they know they would be eaten alive but you never know.

In other words, she decided ahead of time that she was going to believe in it, and then she talked herself into it. Nothing new there.

Actually Geekmom, during the first part of my life I rebelled against any kind of authority.  I lived my life without regard to any god, denying the existance of anything besides the tangible things I could see and be sure of.  I denyed the existance of god openly and refuted anyone who believed differently.  But I continued to wonder what the point of civilization was.  After all humanity is the most alien force on the face of the planet.  Plantlife and animals all seem to have a natural place on the earth, they each have a role in the food chain.  Each plant and animal plays a crucial role in the continuation of each other, humans on the other hand, have no real value according to the scheme of things.  We consume and do not replinish to aid the continuation of the planet.  We do not naturally belong in the equation, so why are we here?  I sought answers to this question.  I consider evolution as a valid theory, but I have a hard time having 100% faith in science.  Science is a ever-evolving process, we only know what we have the capability of finding.  Science is an imperfect process because it is conducted by imperfect people, scientists make mistakes.  As we continue to seek truth we stumble upon more and more new information to replace ideas that once seemed to be absolute, therefore I cannot just agree with science as the absolute truth.  I then began to entertain the idea that maybe humans are an alien force, that would explain why we are so unique and different from the other forces on the earth that have their purpose.  But how did we get here?  Why are we here?  Why would the natural evolution process produce a useless species that would inhabit and destroy the planet?  Could we be alien?  I don’t mean like the grey alien folk flying around in little spaceships to abduct us type of aliens.  I mean the type of alien who do not really belong in the scheme of things on the earth type of alien.  I still wonder about that one.  I then began to contemplate the workings of the human psyche, I experimented with witchcraft and divination.  I would try to see how much I was able to alter and predict events by using my mind.  I found no further answers here.  It seemed like my search for answers was getting me nowhere.  I looked into a few other religions and was still unsatisfied with the results.  I could not find true enlightement in Budda or magic or science or whatever.  When someone I knew told me about God and I saw how peaceful and different they were, I was curious.  I began to research Christianity, I wondered why I had an intense calling to find out more about God, a feeling I had never felt when researching other avenues of knowledge.  I wondered how my friend could have undergone such a dramatic change.  Before she became a Christian she was a very hectic person, a real party girl.  She was always getting into trouble.  Now she seemed to ellude trouble, doubt, and worry.  She did not search for happiness and completion at parties.  I researched the validity of the Bible and began to read it to find out for myself what all the fuss was about.  I found that Jesus was the kind of person I wished I could be.  Above all sense of worry and pettiness that surrounded me.  I wished to be wise, kind, and self-sacrificing to my fellow man.  I was tired of being a taker, a parasite on the belly of society.  I had intense feelings of regret for the life I had lived, I had hurt and disregarded so many things in the past.  I realized that in no other search for truth had I felt so self-aware.  I felt so intensely about the person of God that I gave my life to him.  He is perfect, he is the fair judge, he is merciful and loving.  I realize that this must seem “dilusional” to many people, but if faith is “dilusional” behavior, then we are all guilty of it.  Everyone has faith in something, be it your own ideas and beliefs, or your reliance on what science or anything tells you.  You have faith that the chair you are sitting in is going to continue to hold your weight.  You have faith that the things you believe in are true and valid, my faith in God is the same, not because I believe in something that I have never experienced, but because I have experienced the love and guidance of God.  My life is the evidence, I no longer hate or degrade others because they don’t meet my personal standards.  I accept people just as they are and I do not try and force my beliefs on them because Jesus did not try to force faith on people, he gave them the CHOICE to follow him.  If people want to call me crazy or “dilusional” then that is there problem, I choose not to be a judge of other people’s character.  If you still choose to label me then that is your choice, but doing so demonstrates your close-mindedness and intolerance of anything that does not coincide with your standards.  I would expect that as an atheist being somewhat persecuted by others, you would appreciate and employ the same kind of respect and tolerance that I continue to offer.  Thanks

Geekmom,
I hope you can forgive my lengthy and block text, it was early and I just got on a roll.:doh:  Thanks again.

If so then can you explain all the contradictions that the Bible is absolutely loaded with both old and new testament?

Hi nunyabiz, maybe you could specify one example of contradiction for me first to try and explain.

explain just how ANY of it is even possible
“In the beginning God created yada yada in 6 *days*” more palatable.

It is “possible” because time is not measured the same way it is now.  In other time periods, time was not measured as one day=24 hrs.  Besides, if you would have read further you would have read the scripture that states that one day to God can be 1000 yrs. or even more to man’s standards of time.
Or any other such desperate explanations in order to salvage any scrap of faith one might have in a religion in which true science clearly refutes & in most cases proves beyond any reasonable doubt to be false.

I can think of an instance in which scientists found that the ratio of dimensions for Noah’s ark were found to be perfect.  When scientists followed the dimensions in the book of genesis and created a scale model of the ark, it proved more stable and buoyant than any modern vessel that has been engineered.  How could such a primitive people have designed a perfect boat that surpasses the capability of most advanced vessels we have today? 
I have read some of your other responses that claim that Christians are always 100% certain of Gods existance and the validity of the Bible, however that is not always the case.  I am telling you that almost all Christians question Gods existance and the credibility of the Bible.  When Jesus asks for faith it is not a blind faith, it is a careful and lifelong search for truth.  I have doubts all the time, which is perfectly natural, to blindly accept something for truth without evidence would be ignorant.  I will never know all of the answers but I cannot give up, I must continue to search for truth.

I’m thinking of drafting a proposal for such a debate to present to various media outlets ABC/CBS/PBS/FOX :nod:

I think that is a great idea nunyabiz!  I would tune in, maybe you could really help inform people with this kind of forum since so many people live by the tube.

My life is the evidence, I no longer hate or degrade others because they don’t meet my personal standards.

Me either.  But I didn’t need Jesus or the Bible, just the recognition that I was a codependent and a commitment to rectify that condition.

I am telling you that almost all Christians question Gods existance and the credibility of the Bible.

Most of the people I’ve known who say they’re “True Christians™” wouldn’t claim those doubters as one of their own.  For what it’s worth, however, I definitely disagree.  How anyone can believe that God imbued humans with free will but insists they never exercise their intelligence is beyond me.

You have faith that the chair you are sitting in is going to continue to hold your weight.

I wouldn’t really call that faith, what I have is proof.  I park my ass on it, and it holds.  Of course, should I choose to sit in a chair with broken legs or one that’s too small to bear my weight I can be fairly certain it won’t hold up because I understand the basic laws of physics that apply.  There’s a small probability that I could sit on one of those chairs in exactly the right way and NOT break it, but my personal experience in a lifetime of chair-sitting makes me 99.9% certain that the outcome will be “big ass + small chair = broken piece of furniture.”

I’m always confused by people who liken faith in an invisible being to believing in things that are provable because they’re actually tangible.  Perhaps it’s just me, but I don’t see how something I can physically experience can be compared to something else that is, by its very definition, supernatural.  “Apples to oranges” doesn’t even apply… more like “Apples to fairies.” It makes my head hurt.

Mildred parroted: - It is “possible” because time is not measured the same way it is now.

Since when could a day have been 1000 years or more long. Sunrise to sunrise is one typical day for most of the planet! A day is based on the earth’s rotation, and it’s doubtful this ever has ever changed once it’s position in our solar system was established. Are you referring to Psalms 90:4 - “For a thousand years in your (God’s) sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.” King David

That was his personal belief - not fact.

I can think of an instance in which scientists found that the ratio of dimensions for Noah’s ark were found to be perfect. When scientists followed the dimensions in the book of genesis and created a scale model of the ark, it proved more stable and buoyant than any modern vessel that has been engineered.

You’ll believe almost anything won’t you? Please provide a picture or link to this ark built to scale out of the materials and methods mentioned in the Bible.

I have doubts all the time.

Maybe you should examine those doubts more carefully before you discount them.

One evening spent in earnest trying to discover just a few of the contradictions would do you a world of good. You’ll find a “flood” of articles on the internet alone that give specific passages in the Bible and deal with them in an honest and rational manner. But instead, you’ll probably turn to other believers to “lift you up” and keep you in line.

Some links to check out:

http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/topic/23199-1.html

http://www.atheists.org/church/contradictions.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1990/4/4contr90.html

I hope you’ll forgive me if I suspect you’ll not bother checking these links out. I suspect you simply want to believe what you want to believe, no matter how difficult those beliefs are to properly justify. You won’t be the first to try to believe whole cloth the illogical, the nonsensical, the desperate stories that make up the Bible. You won’t be the first (or the last) to bury your head in the sand.

You’ve just GOT to stop taking the Bible literally!

I think one of the most dangerous things you can do is NOT doubt.  If something is real, it’ll keep being real, whether you believe it or not, and no matter how often you test it.  Go ahead, test the chair every time you sit in it; it won’t mind.  And if you happen to come across a chair one day that DOES break, well, you won’t be completely surprised by it and it won’t cause you to avoid all chairs in the future.

Some people think God is “absolute truth,” and if you suggest they might be wrong, they say, “Well, show me what IS the absolute truth, then.” Bzzzzt!  Wrong question.  Our world is way too complicated to be “absolutely” anything.  The only place you’ll find an absolute is in your mind, and it’ll only exist there as long as you keep shoring it up.  Once you let go, it’ll slip away.  We understand our world by asking questions, doubting, and testing—and being ready to adapt in the face of changes.

In trying to show that the bible teaches the earth is flat:

Brock at March 27, 2004 02:28 PM plagiarized the following… …the essential flatness of the earth’s surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth…reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth’s farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth’s farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him…”
[and many more such]

But here, trying to show that the creation story cannot be true:

Brock at March 27, 2004 04:02 PM wrote the following… Since when could a day have been 1000 years or more long. Sunrise to sunrise is one typical day for most of the planet! A day is based on the earth’s rotation, and it’s doubtful this ever has ever changed once it’s position in our solar system was established. Are you referring to Psalms 90:4 - “For a thousand years in your (God’s) sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.” King David

That was his personal belief - not fact.

Man, did I nail it, Hypocrisy is thy name, Brock.

OK, try this one out: according to Genesis 1:16, the sun and the stars were not created until day 4. What possible astronomical meaning could the word day have prior to that time? Clearly, a day was not necessarily 24 hours as there was no such rotational period. Could it be that there was a series of expansions and contractions, not unlike the big bang theory suggests, in which galaxies and suns brightened, exploded and went dark? Periods of light followed by dark. Day, night, but really long periods of time, billions of years by our scale. But to God, who is eternal, yea, timeless, this would seem not so long. And when God tried to explain it to Moses, who was no physicist or astronomer, instead of trying to teach him those things, which any fool can now learn in High School, He told him the few things that did matter: that only God could tell him.  Namely, I, God, created all these things, even you, man, and I fashioned you in my image, and I made all this, because of my love for you.

David, how the hell am I plagiarizing when I put the quotes in quote boxes? Plus, I provide all the links to the articles so you see this is research done and compiled by others.

If I don’t believe a god created the universe and instead believe the planets and stars and everything in the universe came to be through natural processes, how the hell am I being a hypocrite? Once in formation and position, why would the earth have days of different lengths? 1000 year days? That’s your obsession, not mine.

Are you so desperate to malign me that this is the best you could come up with?

You seem to be saying you know the mind of God pretty well. You know just what is, and obviously isn’t, to be taken literally in the Bible.

Or are you just an apologetic for the faith - You can’t address the questions head on so you call the passages poetry of idealized imagery (my words).

If the Bible is God’s Divine instructions, it should reflect absolute truth and none of the false impressions humans have at any time. Otherwise, it’s just an imperfect, often times flat-out false, theory of reality. Either it’s a work of fiction, loosely based on fact, or God-inspired revelation. You can’t have it both ways.

The Bible is no place for artistic license!

I forgot to mention that my other post David uses, to criticize me here, is in the “Man blames demonic possession for molesting his step-daughters.” thread.

Just to be clear what he alluding to.

To be fair, you did quote box it. But you certainly gave no original argument of your own, so I could hardly write that it was your original thinking, and isn’t that the spirit of plagerism?

Sorry, but it’s hypocritical to on one hand realize that it’s one writer’s opinion, not God’s understanding of time, when less than 2 hours earlier you wrote that God must believe in a flat earth because one writer writes “the four corners of the earth”.  But that’s hardly the end of your hypocrisy.

Thank you though, I got quite a laugh out of it.

To be clear, please do read my post on the other thread. The Bible is more than clear when symbolism and allegory are being used and when they are not, if you bother to read the work in context, and NOT pick and choose (which is what you’ve tried to accuse my and many others of). Can YOU name a single philosphic writer of any note that has never used symbolism or allegory to make their points?

And just where did you get that definition of apologetic? I think you’ve confused the meaning as one would use it as a noun with the definition of the adjective.

You’re right David, I meant to say that you practice apologetics: “The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.” Source: Dictionary.com

David said:- The Bible is more than clear when symbolism and allegory are being used and when they are not, if you bother to read the work in context, and NOT pick and choose (which is what you’ve tried to accuse my and many others of).

Who decides the proper context, David? Are you the final judge or can I bring my own education and understanding of language to the subject. Can I ever discern any statement or position in the Bible without your assistance?

I find you bombastic and pretentious and hardly worthy to teach great truths to others. You consider yourself an intellectual because you lead a worship group or teach a youth group or something or because you’re married to a professional. Take away your touchstones and what are you?

OK, now I’m reminded of the scene in “Anger Management” where Nicholson asks Sandler “I’m not asking what you do, I’m asking who ARE you?”

I think the the context is self evident. I don’t think you need me for that. Thousands, no millions, seem perfectly capable of doing it with no help from me or anyone else. Even in the catholic church where people are told explicitly NOT to interpret, only to read (leave the interpretation up to the priests) many still seem to get the same meaning. It’s when you take things obviously out of context, such as claiming that the Bible says the earth is flat, that I feel the need to help you out. Particularly when you say it in a public forum; then I guess I am an apologist.

I find you bombastic and pretentious…

You may be right. I mean, of course you have that opinion, but I may actually be guilty. Hard to say, anyone here could probably be accused of that if we get get stringent enough on the definitions. There is no doubt that I should act more humble. But I do not consider myself an intellectual, and wouldn’t for the reasons you list in any case. If you’ve gotten that impression because of what I’ve said about my wife, then I’ve put it poorly. Yes, I am proud of her, not for what she does for my reputation or standing, but because she is truly a remarkable individual, and I am fortunate to even know her. Of course, I may be a little biased, but that is something I will not apologize for.

Here is 8 easy steps to help you Christians further along since short of an intervention combined with forced institutionalization & medications you are hopelessly brainwashed anyway.

http://www.thamus.org/eac/bible-apologist.html

Each of you BTW use many of these steps.

OOOh.  So much on this thread.  David you quoted Nicholson (via his screenwriters) “it’s not what you do, it’s who you are.” I was brought up as a Catholic, and I saw catholics in my town firebomb a house that ‘black’ (read: Huggeybear pimps and whores sans hearts o’ gold) people wanted to move into.  I also saw Catholics drive miles away from their parishes to deliver food to poor families that their parish-mates would’ve firebombed in a second, if they’d wandered into the wrong ‘hood.  So much for the Catholic debate over Acts and Intention.  I’ll never believe that Catholicism (or a belief in christ) alone moved these people to make their choices.  I have to rely on my own experience, and that tells me that the loudest supporters of Jesus are very rarely the ones who do the truly good works.
And Mildred, the quest for absolute truth, in every case, will prove fruitless. Scientists looking for the Big Theory of Everything, philosophers searching for the key that explains it all, deists waiting for that one perfect translation of the Holy Book… Forget it, it’s never gonna happen. 
We want completion, because that’s the stuff we’re made of.
We are ANIMALS-- not aliens, not some Eric Von Daniken fever-dream.  We’re very unlikely primates on a very unlikely planet, and isn’t that amazing enough??  We seem hardwired to construct tales that explain our specialness-- but isn’t the idea of an animal who feels the necessity of defining itself so intrinsically fascinating? Why would entertaining this idea be threatening in the first place?
And why do certain Christians have to always preface their arguments with those damn “I was a slutty party girl etc et.c till I metaphorically banged Christ” statements? I was a slutty girl, too, but as an agnostic, I have no representation on late night cable TV, and Ba’al knows, I’m mighty pissed about it.

I have a feeling I’ll regret this post once I sober up…

David never ceases to crack me up. He says stuff like:

Man, did I nail it, Hypocrisy is thy name, Brock.

And then wonders why people think he has a smug and superior attitude. Dude, if you pat yourself on the back any harder you’re gonna leave a mark.

To be fair, you did quote box it. But you certainly gave no original argument of your own, so I could hardly write that it was your original thinking, and isn’t that the spirit of plagerism?

Hello, Pot? Yeah, this is kettle. I’m calling you black. Once again David, the man who has relied on other people’s arguments such as the popular Argument from Design, the man who likes to make use of C.S. Lewis’ arguments with regards to absolute morality, demonstrates he has no sense of irony. The same man who once accused me of never admitting I’m wrong demonstrates again his need to avoid admitting he was wrong. In fact, I don’t think there’s a thing he’s accused other people of doing in these threads that David himself hasn’t engaged in himself.

We could make a drinking game out of it, you know, take a drink whenever David accuses someone of something he’s guilty of doing, but it happens so damned often that I’d be afraid we’d end up dieing of alcohol poisoning.

Though it sounds like maryh is already playing this game.

And with that observation I’m shutting this puppy down. Wanna continue? Take it to the forums.