real life wrote:Setanta wrote:.......if one is not to take the bobble literally......
rosborne979 wrote:I bet he chooses to cherry-pick what's literal and what's not.....
I have frequently said that there is NO one who takes ALL of the Bible literally.
You cannot find such a person.
I have also said that I can, with little effort, find passages in the Bible that YOU will , without question, take literally.
The question , then, is always........which ones to take literally........and which ones NOT to take literally.
Typical Christian. Ignore the parts you don't like and accept the parts you do like.
blindsided wrote:real life wrote:Setanta wrote:.......if one is not to take the bobble literally......
rosborne979 wrote:I bet he chooses to cherry-pick what's literal and what's not.....
I have frequently said that there is NO one who takes ALL of the Bible literally.
You cannot find such a person.
I have also said that I can, with little effort, find passages in the Bible that YOU will , without question, take literally.
The question , then, is always........which ones to take literally........and which ones NOT to take literally.
Typical Christian. Ignore the parts you don't like and accept the parts you do like.
blind,
where did I say I ignored any of it?
Ken Ham, in Answers in Genesis says...
Setanta wrote: I don't give a rat's ass whether you have a history of peddling the basis for your lies or not--so i'll not be looking any such thing up, now or in the future.
And I'm takin my ball and bat home too. Waa waa waa.
If that is how you wish to characterize my refusal to play the stupid games of dim-witted theists, help yourself.
The playground is over there, to your right . . . be careful, though, those grade school kids have sharp minds . . . you'd could quickly find yourself out of your depth.
Come on you guys anyone with half a brain ought to be capable of seeing that its all based on bronze age mythology. They didnt know, so they invented God to explain it. And sacrificed to God in the hope of good times to come. Its all to do with the transition from neolithic hunter gatherers to settled farmers imho. The agriculturalists realised how vulnerable they were to forces over which they had no control, like rain. So they sacrificed to the Rain God, because if he/she was annoyed no rain meant starvation and death. It really isnt that complicated and I'm constantly surprised that intelligent people such as RL fall for it.
If you live on the Wet Coast (like me) then maybe you're more likely to worship the shroom-god than the rain-god.
Being that there is an abundance of rain; not that anyone would associate psychoactive chemicals with a belief in god
nope, no work of fiction should be taken literally
real life wrote:BDV wrote:BDV wrote:I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Isaiah 45:7
Just incase you didn't notice it, Isaiah 45:7 is part of the bible and it says quite clearly that the good old god guy created evil, cause he is the lord and he does these things.
Real Life you need to brush up on your bible
Ok, I'll play along for a bit.
BDV, do you think that the Bible should be taken literally?
BDV wrote:
real life wrote:BDV wrote:BDV wrote:I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Isaiah 45:7
Just incase you didn't notice it, Isaiah 45:7 is part of the bible and it says quite clearly that the good old god guy created evil, cause he is the lord and he does these things.
Real Life you need to brush up on your bible
Ok, I'll play along for a bit.
BDV, do you think that the Bible should be taken literally?
nope, no work of fiction should be taken literally
thanks for the circular argument
How is it a circular arguement?
T
K
O
Diest TKO wrote:How is it a circular arguement?
. . .
BDV introduced a statement not proven as fact.
But the problem arises in what Isaiah meant when he used the term 'evil'. Note that he did not use the term 'wickedness' or 'sin'. Clearly, to those who are in line for adverse judgement from God, their consequence is 'evil', 'painful', etc.
neologist wrote: The answer is that Satan has been given a period of time to prove or be disproved in his rebellion.
That the current ruler of this world is not God, but Satan, was verified by Jesus several times. (See John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11) Also, consider the fact that Satan was able to offer the kingdoms of the world to Jesus. (Matthew 4:8-11)
What has to be proved about Satan? If God is omniscient, doesn't he already know how things will play out? Why do you suppose that God created Satan in the first place? Why would a loving God put Earth into the hands of a devil and give him free rein to cause pain and suffering for millennia? That makes no sense, and must have been concocted by someone trying to excuse God for having created evil and failing to alleviate it.
neologist wrote:Diest TKO wrote:How is it a circular arguement?
. . .
BDV introduced a statement not proven as fact.
But the problem arises in what Isaiah meant when he used the term 'evil'. Note that he did not use the term 'wickedness' or 'sin'. Clearly, to those who are in line for adverse judgement from God, their consequence is 'evil', 'painful', etc.
The bible doesn't have to be proven wrong, it has to be proven right. Until that poin, it IS fiction.
T
K
O
Diest TKO wrote:neologist wrote:Diest TKO wrote:How is it a circular arguement?
. . .
BDV introduced a statement not proven as fact.
But the problem arises in what Isaiah meant when he used the term 'evil'. Note that he did not use the term 'wickedness' or 'sin'. Clearly, to those who are in line for adverse judgement from God, their consequence is 'evil', 'painful', etc.
The bible doesn't have to be proven wrong, it has to be proven right. Until that poin, it IS fiction.
T
K
O
Prove your own statement right. Otherwise it is fiction.
That's the burden of proof RL. I'm sorry if you can't handle it. cry until your eyes run dry, it won't change that fact.
T
K
O
Setanta wrote:If that is how you wish to characterize my refusal to play the stupid games of dim-witted theists, help yourself.
Put whatever self-righteous spin you want to on your whining - it still is what it is.
I haven't whined. I've pointed out that "real life" wants to read the bobble literally when it suits him, and wants to interpret it when that suits him. BDV provided an unambiguous passage in the bobble in which your boy "god" said that he had created evil. The member "real life" responded by asking BDV if he takes the bobble literally. The passage is not obscure or ambiguous, therefore, "real life's" question implies one must not necessarily take the bobble literally, that one must not necessarily take the passage to mean what it patently says.
So i pointed out the irony of his remark about taking scripture literally, and mentioned in passing that i had never noticed him saying in the past that the bobble must not be taken literally. That he is able to link several posts in which he has said as much does not alter either the hypocrisy of taking some parts of the bobble literally while "interpreting" other passages, nor does it alter the fact that the passage quoted by BDV is an unambiguous statement which contradicts the previous statements which "real life" made. I don't need to read the linked posts of "real life" to see any of this. So there is no whining involved.
You're not very good at this sort of thing, are you?
neologist wrote:Diest TKO wrote:How is it a circular arguement?
. . .
BDV introduced a statement not proven as fact.
That does not make his argument circular.
