100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Throw down | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The book asserts that the world was formed and inhabited with all that it was inhabited by in 6 days, do you take this to mean that it was 6 literal days of equal 24 hour periods of time? If so and your answer is yes we will proceed from there, if not, then what do you believe the 6 time periods said to be days, to consist of as to time meant by the writer?? I will not address this. You didn't follow any of the rules or process I presented for this debate. I am not going to attempt to prove that the earth was created in six days, the evidence to support that position isn't strong enough right now. Please follow the rules and process so that we can do this fairly. Present a contradiction and I will attempt to refute it. that is the easy way out of the fundies who believe the Bible literally, but they don't have the logical answers to prove their point. That is when SOLA SCRIPTURA fails. I will answer as far as I understand the creation of the universe in six days: It's an allegory used by the sacred author to teach us that the Almighty God created the universe out of nothing. But ofcourse it was not done is six days. The intention to use the 7 days period was to teach that God rested the last day, and therefore the seventh day is the Lord's day, thus we also need to rest in that day, and offer that day to the Lord in gratitude for His love to us. TLW, I am so disappointed in you that I can't express it in words. You decided to start this feud, even though I asked you nicely not to. Think about if you are doing good with this. Pray and ask God if you are doing right. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kayaker138
on
Fri 08/01/08 03:13 PM
|
|
Why would god need to rest... if he doesn't get tired?
Isaiah 40:28 - Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. (P.S. This does not reflect my beliefs, just my curiosity.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why would god need to rest... if he doesn't get tired? Isaiah 40:28 - Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. I'll be back later, it's an easy answer, but someone is waiting for me and I want to make sure that I make it clear and simple to understand. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 o'clock I have to go...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abra, Your assertion is quite long, so if you don't mind I will summarize your assertion and facts before I continue. Assertion: God's behavior changes from the Old Testament to the New Testament, disproving the belief that God is unchanging. Facts: In the story of Noah, God flooded the world as a way to deal with humanities evil. In the story of Jesus, God sent his son to be a sacrifice to deal with humanities evil. Those two methods show a contradiction in God's behavior and thus God is not consistent with God being unchanging. Is this a correct summation? If so, I will post my response after your approval and my dinner. Sounds good to me. I await your rebuttal. No rush. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why would god need to rest... if he doesn't get tired? Isaiah 40:28 - Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. (P.S. This does not reflect my beliefs, just my curiosity.) again He does not need to rest. It was a way of saying that we need to keep the seventh day in His honor. That's all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The book asserts that the world was formed and inhabited with all that it was inhabited by in 6 days, do you take this to mean that it was 6 literal days of equal 24 hour periods of time? If so and your answer is yes we will proceed from there, if not, then what do you believe the 6 time periods said to be days, to consist of as to time meant by the writer?? I will not address this. You didn't follow any of the rules or process I presented for this debate. I am not going to attempt to prove that the earth was created in six days, the evidence to support that position isn't strong enough right now. Please follow the rules and process so that we can do this fairly. Present a contradiction and I will attempt to refute it. that is the easy way out of the fundies who believe the Bible literally, but they don't have the logical answers to prove their point. That is when SOLA SCRIPTURA fails. I will answer as far as I understand the creation of the universe in six days: It's an allegory used by the sacred author to teach us that the Almighty God created the universe out of nothing. But ofcourse it was not done is six days. The intention to use the 7 days period was to teach that God rested the last day, and therefore the seventh day is the Lord's day, thus we also need to rest in that day, and offer that day to the Lord in gratitude for His love to us. TLW, I am so disappointed in you that I can't express it in words. You decided to start this feud, even though I asked you nicely not to. Think about if you are doing good with this. Pray and ask God if you are doing right.
I'm just giving a logical answer that you couldn't. why are you making this such a big deal? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The book asserts that the world was formed and inhabited with all that it was inhabited by in 6 days, do you take this to mean that it was 6 literal days of equal 24 hour periods of time? If so and your answer is yes we will proceed from there, if not, then what do you believe the 6 time periods said to be days, to consist of as to time meant by the writer?? I will not address this. You didn't follow any of the rules or process I presented for this debate. I am not going to attempt to prove that the earth was created in six days, the evidence to support that position isn't strong enough right now. Please follow the rules and process so that we can do this fairly. Present a contradiction and I will attempt to refute it. that is the easy way out of the fundies who believe the Bible literally, but they don't have the logical answers to prove their point. That is when SOLA SCRIPTURA fails. I will answer as far as I understand the creation of the universe in six days: It's an allegory used by the sacred author to teach us that the Almighty God created the universe out of nothing. But ofcourse it was not done is six days. The intention to use the 7 days period was to teach that God rested the last day, and therefore the seventh day is the Lord's day, thus we also need to rest in that day, and offer that day to the Lord in gratitude for His love to us. thnx TLW |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Fri 08/01/08 03:45 PM
|
|
The book asserts that the world was formed and inhabited with all that it was inhabited by in 6 days, do you take this to mean that it was 6 literal days of equal 24 hour periods of time? If so and your answer is yes we will proceed from there, if not, then what do you believe the 6 time periods said to be days, to consist of as to time meant by the writer?? I will not address this. You didn't follow any of the rules or process I presented for this debate. I am not going to attempt to prove that the earth was created in six days, the evidence to support that position isn't strong enough right now. Please follow the rules and process so that we can do this fairly. Present a contradiction and I will attempt to refute it. that is the easy way out of the fundies who believe the Bible literally, but they don't have the logical answers to prove their point. That is when SOLA SCRIPTURA fails. I will answer as far as I understand the creation of the universe in six days: It's an allegory used by the sacred author to teach us that the Almighty God created the universe out of nothing. But ofcourse it was not done is six days. The intention to use the 7 days period was to teach that God rested the last day, and therefore the seventh day is the Lord's day, thus we also need to rest in that day, and offer that day to the Lord in gratitude for His love to us. TLW, I am so disappointed in you that I can't express it in words. You decided to start this feud, even though I asked you nicely not to. Think about if you are doing good with this. Pray and ask God if you are doing right.
With all due respect Spider I think Miguel has made a very good point. Even all believers in the Bible don't accept the same interpretations and you're out to try to disprove potential inconsistencies? I was a Free Methodist and they believed much like TLW describes concerning the 6-day creation. They take it as an allegory and they don't demand that it be taken literally. I think this brings to light a very real concern. You are going to argue against accusations of 'contradictions' in the Bible, yet not all believers in the Bible even agree that all the stories should even be taken to mean the same things. My view on the 6-day creation interpretation as being a mere allegory is every bit as valid as any Christian because it was indeed the view that I was taught when I was a Christian. My church would agree with TLW's assessment completely. Also, why should you say that you are "so disappointed in TLW?". What are you? His father? In all seriousness Spider, sometimes you exhibit such extremely authority that I think the whole "god" picture has gone to your head. I don't mean that as an insult. I'm seriously concerned about it. You always talk down to everyone else like as if your word is final and anything they have to say is a disappointment to you. And then you get so easily insulted when they disagree with you. That's just not normal Spider. 
Going around telling other Christians that you are disappointed in them for not agreeing with your interpretations is truly not cool. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Fri 08/01/08 05:03 PM
|
|
Going around telling other Christians that you are disappointed in them for not agreeing with your interpretations is truly not cool. Didn't you read his insults for me? Don't you EVER read a post before you jump on me? that is the easy way out of the fundies who believe the Bible literally, but they don't have the logical answers to prove their point. That is when SOLA SCRIPTURA fails. That's what disappoints me, that we have to have a feud about who is right: Catholics or Protestants. It's pointless. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Fri 08/01/08 05:07 PM
|
|
Why would god need to rest... if he doesn't get tired? Isaiah 40:28 - Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. (P.S. This does not reflect my beliefs, just my curiosity.) Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. "shabath" is translated in Genesis 2:2 as "rest". Shabath more oftenly translated as "cease", but it can mean rest. In the context of Genesis 2:2, the proper translation would be "ceased". God didn't rest, God stopped working (creating). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Going around telling other Christians that you are disappointed in them for not agreeing with your interpretations is truly not cool. Didn't you read his insults for me? Don't you EVER read a post before you jump on me? You were taking his comments about fundamentalist's views as a personal insult? Fundamentalists insist on a verbatim approach to scripture, TLW thinks that's logically indefensible, as do most non-fundmentalists. All he was basically saying is that he disagrees with Fundamentalism. And you take that as a personal insult? You are way overly senstive Spider, no wonder you're always claiming personal insult. I didn't see that as a personal insult at all. And I'm totally in agreement with him that Fundamentalists don't have the logical answers to prove their points. I think the vast majority of people would agree with this. After all, if they agreed that Fundamentalists are making any progress at proving their points they'd all become Fundamentalists. Fortunately Fundamentalists are an extreme minority. We can thank God for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abra, Your assertion is quite long, so if you don't mind I will summarize your assertion and facts before I continue. Assertion: God's behavior changes from the Old Testament to the New Testament, disproving the belief that God is unchanging. Facts: In the story of Noah, God flooded the world as a way to deal with humanities evil. In the story of Jesus, God sent his son to be a sacrifice to deal with humanities evil. Those two methods show a contradiction in God's behavior and thus God is not consistent with God being unchanging. Is this a correct summation? If so, I will post my response after your approval and my dinner. Sounds good to me. I await your rebuttal. No rush.
NOAH'S FLOOD Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually. In the time immediately before the flood, people were dedicated to evil. God found evil in the hearts of all men. John 3:23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. In the time of Jesus, we see that the Jews were repentant and were going into the desert to be baptized by John the Baptist. That's the difference between the two times, many of the Jews in the time of Jesus were repentant for their sins and sought salvation, but during Noah's days, the hearts of men were turned towards wickedness. Another difference is that no man before the flood had so impressed God as Abraham did. God blessed Abraham with a blessing that promised of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. Genesis 22:18 And in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because you have obeyed my voice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Going around telling other Christians that you are disappointed in them for not agreeing with your interpretations is truly not cool. Didn't you read his insults for me? Don't you EVER read a post before you jump on me? You were taking his comments about fundamentalist's views as a personal insult? Fundamentalists insist on a verbatim approach to scripture, TLW thinks that's logically indefensible, as do most non-fundmentalists. All he was basically saying is that he disagrees with Fundamentalism. And you take that as a personal insult? You are way overly senstive Spider, no wonder you're always claiming personal insult. I didn't see that as a personal insult at all. And I'm totally in agreement with him that Fundamentalists don't have the logical answers to prove their points. I think the vast majority of people would agree with this. After all, if they agreed that Fundamentalists are making any progress at proving their points they'd all become Fundamentalists. Fortunately Fundamentalists are an extreme minority. We can thank God for that.
He was responding to one of my posts. What don't you get? He was calling me a "fundie" and stating that I cannot logically defend the six day creation, which I can. But as I said, the physical evidence isn't strong enough yet to make a good case. There is evidence, but not enough right now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider wrote:
That's the difference between the two times, many of the Jews in the time of Jesus were repentant for their sins and sought salvation, but during Noah's days, the hearts of men were turned towards wickedness. This is precisely the argument I expected. The reason that I personally reject this argument is because it only looks at the precise moment in the times of the actual stories. However, we can't do that. That's not the full picture. There had to have been a time prior to the flood when all men were not evil and many indeed were seeking to serve God. Therefore the argument that, because every man was evil at the time of the flood the situation on the ground was different, doesn't hold water (if you'll excuse the pun). It doesn't hold water, because that's merely the pinnacle of the story, but there must have been times earlier, prior to the flood, when all men were not evil and therefore those times would have been equal opportunities for God to have offered salvation before he allowed the whole world to become corrupt. I've thought of all these possibilities before Spider. This explanation does not hold water IMHO. Another difference is that no man before the flood had so impressed God as Abraham did. God blessed Abraham with a blessing that promised of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.
Again, IMHO, this argument doesn't hold water for two reasons. First reason: Noah Himself It doesn't hold water because of Noah himself. You say that no one impressed God as much as Abraham did, but evidently Noah must have impressed God, as well as his entire family, including his in-laws. So again, IMHO, this doesn't hold water as a rational explanation for the behavioral change of God. Second reason: This is nothing more than a concession that God does indeed change This concedes that God's behavior did change and just offers a justification for the change. But God is supposed to be unchanging. This is saying that God is allowed to change if he has a good enough excuse to change. But that would mean that if Abraham could cause God to change his behavior, then maybe some other man can also cause God to change his behavior. Again, we're right back to a God who can change. But that was my original assertion. The biblical story is a story about a God who supposedly never changes. Making excuses for why he might have changed is nothing more than a concession that he did indeed change. If he could change for Abraham, then maybe he's willing to change again for Jay Leno. It doesn't matter because it's still a God who changes how he deals with humanity. It's a concession that the unchanging God of the Bible does indeed change. I'm ready to put it to a vote and see what the people have to say, unless you have more to add.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Fri 08/01/08 06:25 PM
|
|
There had to have been a time prior to the flood when all men were not evil and many indeed were seeking to serve God. Therefore the argument that, because every man was evil at the time of the flood the situation on the ground was different, doesn't hold water (if you'll excuse the pun). This is an assumption not based on evidence. Unless you can offer evidence to support this position, then this point will be ignored. Again, IMHO, this argument doesn't hold water for two reasons. First reason: Noah Himself It doesn't hold water because of Noah himself. You say that no one impressed God as much as Abraham did, but evidently Noah must have impressed God, as well as his entire family, including his in-laws. Yes, Noah impressed God, but only enough to be saved, not enough to become the foundation of the line that would lead to the salvation of the world. God saved Lot from Soddom, but Lot offered his daughters up to be raped. Lot wasn't a holy man, but he was a repentant man. God didn't have reason to bless Lot, like he did Abraham. And God didn't have a reason to bless Noah as greatly. Just because God blesses someone, doesn't mean God has to give this, the greatest blessing to them. Second reason: This is nothing more than a concession that God does indeed change No, that's not true. God doesn't change and these incidents prove that. The people in Noah's day had to be punished, just like the people in Jesus' day. Jesus took that punishment upon himself, instead of God wiping out humanity again. Also, you are judging them as equal still, which ignores my argument of the wicked generation of Noah, which has not been refuted with any evidence. Since the people in Jesus' time were dedicated to being saved, God could treat them as they deserved. It's not a "change" to treat people as they deserve to be treated. And before you argue that the people before the flood were treated unfairly, that's not true. Noah was saved by his faith in God's ability to save him. Those people before the flood were saved through sacrifice (as a symbol of faith) and faith. The people before the flood were also saved through Jesus' sacrifice. Hebrews 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is an assumption not based on evidence. Unless you can offer evidence to support this position, then this point will be ignored.
What??? I thought we were going to put this to a vote???? Who are you to claim what should be ignored???? This is so typical of you Spider. Just put it to a vote already. I was polite enough to give you the last word. Let's hear what the people have to say. Take the poll of how many Christians, and non-Christians are reading the threads tonight. 
I gave you the last word. You have nothing to complain about. Email all your Christian friends and have them swamp the thread with votes. 
I'll just sit here and watch. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is an assumption not based on evidence. Unless you can offer evidence to support this position, then this point will be ignored.
What??? I thought we were going to put this to a vote???? Who are you to claim what should be ignored???? This is so typical of you Spider. Just put it to a vote already. I was polite enough to give you the last word. Let's hear what the people have to say. Take the poll of how many Christians, and non-Christians are reading the threads tonight.
I gave you the last word. You have nothing to complain about. Email all your Christian friends and have them swamp the thread with votes.
I'll just sit here and watch.
Abra, You once said to me "I am a human and I have feelings" do you think I don't? You suggest that I would cheat and I guess I shouldn't be hurt. It's a really bad day for me and to do this. We'll just have to take this to one point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Fri 08/01/08 06:46 PM
|
|
Spider wrote:
That's the difference between the two times, many of the Jews in the time of Jesus were repentant for their sins and sought salvation, but during Noah's days, the hearts of men were turned towards wickedness. This is precisely the argument I expected. The reason that I personally reject this argument is because it only looks at the precise moment in the times of the actual stories. However, we can't do that. That's not the full picture. There had to have been a time prior to the flood when all men were not evil and many indeed were seeking to serve God. Therefore the argument that, because every man was evil at the time of the flood the situation on the ground was different, doesn't hold water (if you'll excuse the pun). It doesn't hold water, because that's merely the pinnacle of the story, but there must have been times earlier, prior to the flood, when all men were not evil and therefore those times would have been equal opportunities for God to have offered salvation before he allowed the whole world to become corrupt. I've thought of all these possibilities before Spider. This explanation does not hold water IMHO. Let's have a vote. If you feel the above argument is valid without any supporting evidence, say "Aye". If you think it is an invalid argument because it lacks evidence, say "Nay" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abra,
You once said to me "I am a human and I have feelings" do you think I don't? You suggest that I would cheat and I guess I shouldn't be hurt. It's a really bad day for me and to do this. We'll just have to take this to one point. I didn't suggest that you would cheat. I didn't say that you would tell them how to vote.
|
|
|
|
|
