3 edits
Originally posted by Lord Sharknope i have answered despite your vain and feeble attempts at protestation.
In other words, you can't answer can you, lol 🙂
Now, stop trying to get other people to do your exegesis for you and see if you can come up with an even faintly plausible account of your different responses to the two cases, otherwise my conclusion stands: you are just cherry picking.
I even used a chess analogy, in that every scripture must be viewed in its immediate context and then in the context of the bible as a whole, much like a position in chess must be viewed in its own context taking tactical and positional features into consideration. Simply because i have refused to allow your linguistic contortions to be projected upon my exegesis in no way negates these simple truths. I can only respond to specific cases not generalisations. This is not my belief, i am innocent, ask RBBarr and Zapansy and Conrau, they believe it!
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNow I LOOSELY agree with this point but cannot add to it at this time...
intelligent design is based on the probability, please remember that Fabian, the probability that complex life forms could not have arisen by chance. They seem to be too organised, to complex, too fully functioning, so that without intelligence it would have been highly improbable that they should exist and function. This forms it basis. thus the intelligence behind these incredible biological systems is thought to be God.
Having said that I also agree with Proper Knob, Zalanhzi and FabianFnas.
Yes I know, it seems contradictory, but I have long contended that the universe is a paradox.
As for your "debating" techniques, it seems the better the point is someone makes against you the more underhanded your are in you response.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't think you avoided this posting deliberately. I think you just didn't see it:
no its not about my beliefs, its about those who say that God used evolution. Thats not my belief! you got the wrong guy, Zapansy and Conrau and Mr.Barr are your targets, not me.
You think you can tell me what questions I can ask and what questions I cannot ask you robbie. The only things I ask about is a follow-up what you already told me. So don't bring sensitive things up if you're not prepared to answer follow-ups.
For me it is about your beliefs. You as a christian and you as a Jehovas Witness. Nothing else. If I have questions to others, I can ask them. Now I'm debating with you, robbie.
I asked you a question and you refuse to answer. Does that mean that I can interprete you as I want?
The question: "When you say god, do you mean the christian god, or can it be any god?"
Is your answer: "No, as everyone knows I worship Satan as my lord and saviour. He has created me and all other JW culters who have sold our souls to Him. Of course I mean Satan when I say god."
Correct me if I'm wrong.
As you see I hate avoidance.
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasi mean the God of the Bible yes.
You think you can tell me what questions I can ask and what questions I cannot ask you robbie. The only things I ask about is a follow-up what you already told me. So don't bring sensitive things up if you're not prepared to answer follow-ups.
For me it is about your beliefs. You as a christian and you as a Jehovas Witness. Nothing else. If I have ques ean Satan when I say god."
Correct me if I'm wrong.
As you see I hate avoidance.[/b]
(Isaiah 42:5) . . .Jehovah, has said, the Creator of the heavens and the Grand One stretching them out; the One laying out the earth and its produce, the One giving breath to the people on it, and spirit to those walking in it:
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelthe more underhanded i am in my response? thankyou for your support but i need friends like you like i need a hole in the head.
Now I LOOSELY agree with this point but cannot add to it at this time...
Having said that I also agree with Proper Knob, Zalanhzi and FabianFnas.
Yes I know, it seems contradictory, but I have long contended that the universe is a paradox.
As for your "debating" techniques, it seems the better the point is someone makes against you the more underhanded your are in you response.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes more underhanded.
the more underhanded i am in my response? thankyou for your support but i need friends like you like i need a hole in the head.
Dont worry ,Rob, I have no friends. Aquantances, yes. Spiritual affiliations, yes. Lovers,family, teachers, etc. yes. But no friends, in the strict interpretation of the word. For what is friendship without propping up ones ego?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI guess it runs something along the lines like this.
ok, perhaps he knows the answer as to why evolution and Christianity are compatible.
There is overwhemling evidence that evolution occurs, if there isn't what do you suppose is taught on the syllabus for all the evolutionary science degrees people can obtain?
mtDNA and Y Chromosone evidence gathered over the last ten years indicates as a species we have been around a lot longer than Biblical scripture would indicate.
It became apparent that a literal interpretation of scripture was not compatible with the evidence, so something had to give.
Remember it wasn't too long ago that the Church believed the Sun went round the Earth and the Earth was only 6,000yrs old or so (some nutcases still believe that). Inevitably they had to change their position due to the evidence.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOriginally posted by robbie carrobie
nope i have answered despite your vain and feeble attempts at protestation.
I even used a chess analogy, in that every scripture must be viewed in its immediate context and then in the context of the bible as a whole, much like a position in chess must be viewed in its own context taking tactical and positional features into consideration. Simp ...[text shortened]... ions. This is not my belief, i am innocent, ask RBBarr and Zapansy and Conrau, they believe it!
nope i have answered despite your vain and feeble attempts at protestation.
No, you haven't. If I'm wrong about that you could demonstrate this by providing a quote from your answer. Failing that, why not just give a brief summary of the substantive points now?
I bet you won't do either.
I even used a chess analogy, in that every scripture must be viewed in its immediate context and then in the context of the bible as a whole, much like a position in chess must be viewed in its own context taking tactical and positional features into consideration.
That's just another way of saying that you rely on the context.
We already know that. I have already spelled out to you that saying this does not answer the question. But, entertaining though this desparate hand waving of yours is, I too am genuinely curious. So why not give the actual answer itself rather than a vague or analogous description of how to get an answer?
Because I'm keen to see just how thick you are willing to pretend to be in order to defend the position, I'll spell out in baby steps what you need to do to actually answer:
1) Give details of how the context of the passage from Job supports your acceptance of meteorology rather than the literal interpretation.
2) Give details of how the context of any passage about creation of life supports your rejection of evolution and abiogenesis and your acceptance of the literal interpretation.
Now, don't protest that this is too much work, after all if you've answered already and I missed it, it should be easy, right?
If you can't answer, then it will just be clear to everyone that you can't defend your cherry picking (if it isn't already).
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWasn't hard, was it? Didn't hurt either?
i mean the God of the Bible yes.
Okay. so you are a creationist. Not an IDer. Now we have established this essential fact.
Creationists base their opinion on Genisis. Therefore a part of their religion and not science.
Intelligent Designers believe that an intelligent entity, some god, designed laws of the universe, including life. Some call this entity as god, bout not any specific god, just a god, nothing more. These IDers can be found in any religion, including Islam, Hinduism, animists etc. ID is a philosophy, not science. Not even a specific religion.
Robbie is a creationist.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieEvolution is like quantum mechanics a branch of science.
ok, perhaps he knows the answer as to why evolution and Christianity are compatible.
I've never heard any christian complained of quantum mechanics. So why couldn't a christian hold evolution, or any other science, as a truth?
Originally posted by FabianFnasID though has it's roots in Christianity and creationism.
Wasn't hard, was it? Didn't hurt either?
Okay. so you are a creationist. Not an IDer. Now we have established this essential fact.
Creationists base their opinion on Genisis. Therefore a part of their religion and not science.
Intelligent Designers believe that an intelligent entity, some god, designed laws of the universe, including life. Some cal ...[text shortened]... tc. ID is a philosophy, not science. Not even a specific religion.
Robbie is a creationist.
The founders of the ID movement and the associated organisations are all Christians.
Originally posted by Proper KnobRight, but they disguise its creationistic ideas with fancy scientific words. Making it sounding better.
ID though has it's roots in Christianity and creationism.
The founders of the ID movement and the associated organisations are all Christians.
I think, if I'm right on this, that because creationism is not science, it mustn't be thaught to school children in biology classes. Rightly so. And the juridical system in US was about to forbid these religious thoughts in school. So they, tada, renamed it as Intelligent Design, and therefore could bring it up in the schools again. Same thing but a different name. Hallelujah.
Robbie is one of those who has been tricked in this way.