Theists: Are you here to defend theism, or to convert people?

[NMSquirrel]

How about these:
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

my point above still stands..you are arguing what is says, not what is meant.How many discussions have you had in real life where this concept became a problem? (they did what you said,not what you meant.)

IOW i do not think it is a point of contention to cite genesis as argument for or against anything as this particular chapter is very controversial.(theist vs atheist)

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

proverbs has many verses taken at face value it would seem conflicting,but to study the meaning/intent of the verses would make them clearer.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

and it doesn't conflict with this verse. with understanding comes new ways to think of things and as such illuminates the reality of this world,which brings the sorrow they speak of. (ignorance is bliss)

1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

this speaks of ppl who have pride in wisdom,(so that explains me..lol)

Or (Judas' death):

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)

this one i have found myself..i can only say it is possible that the author of one of these is misinformed..this is one that i think of when i say the bibles authors add their own flavor to the story, IOW the authors own humanity influences what is written.

 

[Dywyddyr]

my point above still stands.

One more time: while I may agree entirely with your point the fact remains that MY point also stands.

you are arguing what is says, not what is meant.

And, as stated, in some cases it requires "official" interpretation to ascertain what it actually says.

How many discussions have you had in real life where this concept became a problem? (they did what you said,not what you meant.)

You're kidding right?
It's highly common. All communication is open to misinterpretation.

this is one that i think of when i say the bibles authors add their own flavor to the story, IOW the authors own humanity influences what is written.

Interesting. So the bible isn't the inerrant word of god?

 

[NMSquirrel]

One more time: while I may agree entirely with your point the fact remains that MY point also stands.

the one where there is ppl who would intentionaly pull things out of context to invalidate the bible?
in science is that acceptable?
to validate an opinion based on intentional misinterpretation?
where is the scientific method in this?

And, as stated, in some cases it requires "official" interpretation to ascertain what it actually says.

again you are arguing that misinterpretation is a valid argument.

You're kidding right?
It's highly common. All communication is open to misinterpretation.

exactly.
and the bible is just a communication from various authors.

Interesting. So the bible isn't the inerrant word of god?

um..i have said this on several occasions.
my point in this discussion was your claim of 'conflicting verses' doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Dywyddyr]

the one where there is ppl who would intentionaly pull things out of context to invalidate the bible?

Um, not what I said.

again you are arguing that misinterpretation is a valid argument.

Nope, I'm saying that the interpretation depends on many things. In some cases it go either way.

and the bible is just a communication from various authors.

QED.

my point in this discussion was your claim of 'conflicting verses' doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Now go back and see what my claim actually was.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Now go back and see what my claim actually was.

"Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
.
Plus, of course, the slight problem that whatever you find in the bible you can nearly always find something to contradict it: in the bible."

doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
doesn't hold up to the scientific method.
admit defeat on this one point.

Um, not what I said.

interesting..right after i argue what is said vs what is meant..you focus on what you said rather than what you meant...(hmm..there are political flavors in this..)

 

[Dywyddyr]

Plus, of course, the slight problem that whatever you find in the bible you can nearly always find something to contradict it: in the bible."

Um, have I not posted contradictory quotes?
"Resolution" of those contradictions takes a varying amounts of work: from scholoarly debate and declamation down to simply glossing over them.

interesting..right after i argue what is said vs what is meant..you focus on what you said rather than what you meant...(hmm..there are political flavors in this..)

Try again: I meant exactly what I said. Which is not true for all communication.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Um, have I not posted contradictory quotes?
"Resolution" of those contradictions takes a varying amounts of work: from scholoarly debate and declamation down to simply glossing over them.

yet you would ignore the scholarly debate and work to justify your opinion
(i have given you just a cursory explaination of the lack of contradictions and you still ignore it to justify your own opinion)..
don't you accuse theist of this when it comes to the science perspective?

 

[Dywyddyr]

yet you would ignore the scholarly debate and work to justify your opinion
(i have given you just a cursory explaination of the lack of contradictions and you still ignore it to justify your own opinion)..
don't you accuse theist of this when it comes to the science perspective?

Did you miss the fact that I'm not debating that (some of) these contradictions can be resolved? The fact remains that within the Bible there are things that can be used to promote the opposite view of things also stated in the Bible.
You appear to have ignored my comment "In some cases it go either way" due to interpretation.
And you also ignored my comment "glossed over" which is exactly how some of these contradictions are "solved".

 

[NMSquirrel]

Did you miss the fact that I'm not debating that (some of) these contradictions can be resolved?

nope..did not miss that..

The fact remains that within the Bible there are things that can be used to promote the opposite view of things also stated in the Bible.

only for those using those as an excuse to invalidate the bible,and is not true to understanding.(see comment on ignorance)

You appear to have ignored my comment "In some cases it go either way" due to interpretation.

nope.didn't ignore it..incorperated it actually..

And you also ignored my comment "glossed over" which is exactly how some of these contradictions are "solved".

glossed over = don't have enough information to come up with a valid argument for or against it.

have you ever admitted you were wrong?
i can't recall if you have or not..

 

[Dywyddyr]

only for those using those as an excuse to invalidate the bible

Nope. That's a supposition.

glossed over = don't have enough information to come up with a valid argument for or against it.

Or just dismissed without consideration.

have you ever admitted you were wrong?

Yup.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Nope. That's a supposition.

not really..maybe..

Or just dismissed without consideration.

close enough..

Yup.

prove it..(JK)

that's two i got you on..
(recently,not counting old arguments)

 

[Dywyddyr]

not really..maybe..

Oh come on!
People can't see something as a contradiction because of:
A) not understanding
B) interpreting differently (but consistently)

It does happen that some use these contradictions in order to invalidate the Bible, but to suggest that's the only reason to do so... pfft.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Oh come on!
People can't see something as a contradiction because of:
A) not understanding
B) interpreting differently (but consistently)

hehe..i use the same argument..
People can see something as a contradiction because of:
A) understanding
B) consistent interpretation (subjective to perspective)

It does happen that some use these contradictions in order to invalidate the Bible, but to suggest that's the only reason to do so... pfft.

but it is the easiest to disprove..(i usually leave the harder stuff for jan..)

 

[wynn]

Ok here the deal when ever i make a point in my posts you can automatically put "I think that" in front of it ok.

Okay. I shall use this post of yours as a reference in the future.


It is only your opinion that eternal damnation exists!

And as to your point If everyone believed as i do it would not change their basic human set-up people would still fall into being an enemy of others due to all the human failings we have. The difference would be that they would no longer feel justified in their hate for another.

So you hereby admit that you hate people?

 

[wynn]

and the bible is just a communication from various authors.

The usual horror of irrationality that necessarily befalls Protestants ...

 

[Dywyddyr]

So you hereby admit that you hate people?

Yeah, but it's only an opinion.

 

[wynn]

Yeah, but it's only an opinion.

Oh, good!

 

[wynn]

The fact remains that within the Bible there are things that can be used to promote the opposite view of things also stated in the Bible.

only for those using those as an excuse to invalidate the bible,and is not true to understanding.(see comment on ignorance)

A Protestant on a witch hunt! How novel!

Although I heard even Luther himself believed witches exist and ought to be punished.

 

[Adstar]

So you hereby admit that you hate people?

I confess i do fall short of the good teachings of Jesus not to hate people. I have had the emotion of hate for others in the past and i will probably into the future.

But i do not seek to justify myself when i do fall into this emotion. I sin when i hate people. Thanks be to God that i am forgiven my failings in this through the atonement of the Messiah Jesus.

All glory and honour be to God. To men be shame.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Rav]

I am making sense all right, but your not making an effort to actually read what i say and try to understand.

Your statement came to the conclusion that religion causes conflict in the world because religion teaches that people who reject the will of God deserve to be killed.

I clearly showed you that my Faith tells me that God will be the one carrying out the destruction in the next world and we have been called upon by God not to kill anyone.

Sorry, this still does not make sense. You believe that people who don't embrace your particular faith are so fundamentally flawed that they deserve to be destroyed. However (and by whomever) this sentence is supposedly carried out doesn't change that.