1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneIf my recollection of a response you made to someone a while ago is accurate - that you believe "the AntiChrist" is going to visit the earth in the next 50 years (or thereabouts) - then you are more a fundamentalist than you give yourself credit for.
Contradictions between the Bible and Science are far, far less than what you have been led to believe.
I believe in the Big Bang and I believe in Evolution.
I also believe that the universe was created by God.
Your argument is mainly with the fundamentalists and the young earth creationists who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, i.e. rly as much as everyone thinks it does. It only does if your thinking is rigid and inflexible.
Originally posted by AgergBut this is entirely plausible, quite unlike the necessity of creating the earth in 6 literal days.
If my recollection of a response you made to someone a while ago is accurate - that you believe "the AntiChrist" is going to visit the earth in the next 50 years (or thereabouts) - then you are more a fundamentalist than you give yourself credit for.
Originally posted by SuzianneI disagree - assertions about some battle of armageddon, "the AntiChrist", and so on... are just as outlandish as the supposition an all powerful god made the world in 6 days.
But this is entirely plausible, quite unlike the necessity of creating the earth in 6 literal days.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneOh yes that argument is definitely with the fundamentalists and Young Earth Creationists.
Contradictions between the Bible and Science are far, far less than what you have been led to believe.
I believe in the Big Bang and I believe in Evolution.
I also believe that the universe was created by God.
Your argument is mainly with the fundamentalists and the young earth creationists who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, i.e. rly as much as everyone thinks it does. It only does if your thinking is rigid and inflexible.
Which is who I was arguing with.
If you don't take the bible literally and view it as allegory then the fact that it doesn't make scientific sense is irrelevant.
However many people (including the ones I was/am arguing with) view the bible as literal and inerrant.
The fact that read literally it doesn't make any scientific sense and is self contradictory is thus a valid argument against that
particular viewpoint.
EDIT: Although I would add, that if you are using the bible as a moral guide;
Read literally it promotes morals that are so simplistic, and oft-times downright evil, that using it as such is abhorrent.
And if you have to interpret it and filter it to be able to use it then you are obviously using your own, or otherwise external
guides to morality to do so so why bother using it at all?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneAgreed, while you may be less fundamentalist than a Y.E.C. if you believe in an imminent Armageddon
But this is entirely plausible, quite unlike the necessity of creating the earth in 6 literal days.
Originally posted by Agerg
I disagree - assertions about some battle of armageddon, "the AntiChrist", and so on... are just as outlandish as the supposition an all powerful god made the world in 6 days.
and the coming of the Antichrist, then you are still a fundamentalist.
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.
----
RJH, like all Christians, was once blind. But now he sees.
This would be the utter opposite of ignorance.
Call him what you want but ignorant (or worse as you suggest) would be inappropriate.
5 edits
Originally posted by sumydidContrary to your opinion, based on wishful thinking that you somehow chose the correct god out of infinitely many others, ignorant is very much contained in the set of negative traits that apply to RJHinds. He is other things too.
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.
----
RJH, like all Christians, was once blind. But now he sees.
This would be the utter opposite of ignorance.
Call him what you want but ignorant (or worse as you suggest) would be inappropriate.
In just the same way I'm absolutely sure that gravity will continue to work as I expect, I'm absolutely sure that Bible god does not exist. (The degree of uncertainty in both cases is negligibly small) As such I say that neither you nor RJHinds can see any better than before you chose to bet on the primitive Bible construct you have faith exists.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by sumydidIgnorant of what?
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.
----
RJH, like all Christians, was once blind. But now he sees.
This would be the utter opposite of ignorance.
Call him what you want but ignorant (or worse as you suggest) would be inappropriate.
I wasn't talking about the teachings of the bible.
Also, All Christians don't agree, so they can't all be seeing the same thing.
And even if they were, it would still have to be true for that to have any validity.
Given that they don't agree and it [teachings of bible] manifestly isn't true, The fact
that he may or may know a bit about what the bible says is of no consequence or
relevance to his (or anyone else's) general level of knowledge or ignorance.
As RJH shows positive delight in not knowing things, many things, useful and important
things, he is wilfully ignorant....
However the fact that his ignorance is self imposed makes little odds to it's blissfulness.
Also I would add that as poetic as your point was (and I do actually like that song... when
I ignore the meaning of the words)....
Simply stating your point in poetic form doesn't make it any more right or forceful.
Not to dissuade you from using any cadence or tone you like.
But the fact that someone has written a song about it isn't going to make me consider
your point any more (or less) valid. ;-)
2 edits
Originally posted by AgergContrary to your opinion the most logical conclusion on how this came about is that it was done vis a vis a Creator. Now, if I'm correct, your position is that there is no God. Therefore, your reference to "infinitely" many other gods is irrelevant to both of us.
Contrary to your opinion, based on wishful thinking that you somehow chose the correct god out of infinitely many others, ignorant is very much contained in the set of negative traits that apply to RJHinds. He is other things too.
I happen to have had personal experiences that lead me to no other possible conclusion than, that of the God of the bible being as real as you and me. In fact, even more real.
If you find that this belief of mine doesn't make any sense, that is fine. In fact I do not fault you whatsoever for your conclusion and up until the point you have a paradigm-changing event occur in your life, you will inevitably go on believing what you believe. Not your fault, and not something I would make fun of at all.
But the fact is, we both have different beliefs, neither of which we can prove to one another. The reasonable person, when recognizing this impasse, will politely agree to disagree; yet you for some reason find it necessary to mock and denigrate the other person. This reflects negative thought patterns on your part and also exposes weakness and desparation.
As they say, when a person can't win an argument based on the merits of their position, they often resort to ad hominems and other hostile tactics. Again, it's human nature so I don't hold it against you.
Carry on.