Q. What do Christians and Darwinists have in common with one another?

[Right Divider]

me too

is there something controversial about BibleGateway?

Apparently this "Christian" doesn't even know about BibleGateway. It looks like he thought that it's some sort of commentary site when JR simply quoted the BIBLE using their site. That "Christian" is really dense.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Oh, it has everything to do with fundamentalism.

No, Arthur, it doesn't.

It has everything to do with your pride and unwillingness to give up your a priori belief in millions of years.

Anything that doesn't concur with a rigid and absolute, literal reading of the Genesis account is "wrong" effectively for people like you.

This is a straw man.

I do not, nor have I ever, asserted a rigid and absolute literal reading of Genesis is required.

Nor do I think that the Bible should be read woodenly literally.

I have simply said that you should understand what it actually says before trying to insert meaning into the text that isn't there to begin with.

Heard it many times before and your'e not saying anything new frankly. You're too entrenched into such a belief that you can't entertain actual science that disproves YEC, even though it's been provided for you time and time again by Christians on here.

Heard it many times before, and you're not saying anything new, frankly, you're to entrenched in such a belief that you can't entertain actual science that disproves millions of years, even though it's been provided for you time and time again by Christians on here.

See how that works?

Stop begging the question and provide an actual argument.

I don't expect you to change or entertain anything that conflicts with fundamentalism as that's what it does unfortunately. It completely discourages independent thought.

:yawn:

Your rhetoric is getting old. Try learning something new (without putting your "millions of years" glasses on first).

 

[Arthur Brain]

You have no idea what science is. That you think what people say might be science proves it.

Sure I do. Alate One and Barb (among others) here are scientists, evidenced by what they write on here. It's been both enlightening as well as entertaining to see them take apart ignorance such as the like that you've often inflicted on here.

Nobody said it was. And nor should they.

I'm being pedantic for a reason. That reason is to show that you have no idea what science — or the law — is.

So, you're admitting that creation science isn't actually science now? Okay, a surprising admission on your part I have to admit but credit where credit is due as it most certainly isn't science. I'm presuming you're including Walt Brown's hydroplate theory in that as well then? Oh, you are in no position to call anyone ignorant in regards to law after that debacle of a thread with TH.

We've got plenty of time. Show us their best argument if you haven't got evidence of your own. :up:

Check out Alate One's recent(ish) thread. Lot's of good stuff on there from the get go.

:up:

 

[Arthur Brain]

:rotfl:

So now you're redefining Christianity.

You are a HOOT!!!

Hmm, didn't actually do anything of the sort so that was...something...

:liberals:

 

[Right Divider]

Hmm, didn't actually do anything of the sort so that was...something...

:liberals:

Yes, because it's your own claim and one mired in fundamentalism that can be discarded accordingly. Your belief system is not Christianity.

It is YOUR belief system that is not Christianity.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You're seeing things that are not there. And it's simple to understand why.

Funny, people down the centuries have seen allegory in the Genesis account, pretty easy to see why.

Again you try to wave the magic wand and make it all just disappear.

It disgusts me the way that you denigrate the Word of God.

Well, carry on being disgusted by a notion all of your own making if you want. It's not what I'm actually doing but hey.

You even try to flip the truth on its head. YOURS is the man-made belief system.

Well, again, no. Science isn't a "belief system"...

And NO, I do NOT "insist on rigid literalism"... I insist on taking God's Word in its normal and natural reading, unlike you who make almost every into an allegory when it's NOT!

Well, you do while simultaneously denigrating anyone who doesn't go along with how you insist on reading it.

Another pile of lies. You're pathetic.

No lies at all and you were even provided with a link that explains in irrefutable detail as to how "creationist science" can't be regarded as science. Science does not start with an immutable conclusion, fact.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Ah, the poetry gambit again. :chuckle:

Can you explain how the fact that the Genesis account employs poetry and allegory means that it cannot be an account of history?

We'll wait. :chuckle:

It's hardly a "gambit". It's pretty obvious. Perhaps you can explain how there are two different genealogies if everything related is supposed to be 100% literal?

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's hardly a "gambit". It's pretty obvious.

Try explaining it.

Perhaps you can explain how there are two different genealogies

Referring to.... what passages?

if everything related is supposed to be 100% literal?

Please point out where anyone here has said such.

 

[Right Divider]

Funny, people down the centuries have seen allegory in the Genesis account, pretty easy to see why.

Here we go AGAIN... more FALLCIOUS arguments. Appeals to popularity are NOT any indication of what is TRUE.

It matters not one tiny bit what unidentified "people down the centuries" have believed.

Well, carry on being disgusted by a notion all of your own making if you want. It's not what I'm actually doing but hey.

Yes, it is.... you reject the PLAIN reading of scripture.

Well, again, no. Science isn't a "belief system"...

Belief that "science" has proved things that it cannot prove is a belief system.... a FALSE one.

Your lack of ability to actually discuss science shows that you simply believe these things on faith. That's why you keep bringing up what others have said as your "proof" that "science" has "proven" something.

Well, you do while simultaneously denigrating anyone who doesn't go along with how you insist on reading it.

:juggle:

No lies at all and you were even provided with a link that explains in irrefutable detail as to how "creationist science" can't be regarded as science. Science does not start with an immutable conclusion, fact.

That you START with "science" is your fundamentalist problem.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, Arthur, it doesn't.

It has everything to do with your pride and unwillingness to give up your a priori belief in millions of years.

To do so would be to indulge in intellectual dishonesty and deny the evidence, so no thanks. An example of someone being intellectually honest would be Alate One who was a former YEC herself and candidly admitted to having a crisis of faith when she could no longer reconcile the scientific evidence with her belief system. Thankfully she realized that having faith and accepting the evidence weren't mutually exclusive.

This is a straw man.

I do not, nor have I ever, asserted a rigid and absolute literal reading of Genesis is required.

Nor do I think that the Bible should be read woodenly literally.

I have simply said that you should understand what it actually says before trying to insert meaning into the text that isn't there to begin with.

Then what's the problem? Noticing allegory in the creation account is hardly something I invented, it's been on record through the centuries and as many Christians can attest to, there's no cognitive dissonance with accepting an old earth/evolution with a belief in God.

Heard it many times before, and you're not saying anything new, frankly, you're to entrenched in such a belief that you can't entertain actual science that disproves millions of years, even though it's been provided for you time and time again by Christians on here.

See how that works?

Stop begging the question and provide an actual argument.

There's no such "science" that has done anything of the sort. If you're familiar with the scientific method then you'd know why "creation science" is rightfully regarded as pseudoscientific bunk. You don't start with an immutable conclusion that can't be disproved by unscientific methods and that disregards anything that doesn't fit in with it. That simply isn't science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

I've seen plenty of debates on here and there hasn't been any compelling argument from YEC's but there have been from those who actually know their stuff such as Alate One. Frankly, there's only so many times where it's entertaining to see people like Stripe have their head handed to them on a plate time and again.

:yawn:

Your rhetoric is getting old. Try learning something new (without putting your "millions of years" glasses on first).

Try taking your YEC glasses off and learn something new yourself.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It is YOUR belief system that is not Christianity.

I'm not even saying that what I believe is "Christianity". Fundamentalism itself is not Christianity though.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That's what I've been wondering!

:idunno:

I guess it's that people don't like having truth shoved in their face...

My bad on that. I was mixing it up with something else last night.

I've no problem with truth however, more people's ideas of what said "truth" happens to be...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Here we go AGAIN... more FALLCIOUS arguments. Appeals to popularity are NOT any indication of what is TRUE.

It matters not one tiny bit what unidentified "people down the centuries" have believed.

Pointing out a fact is not in the least bit a "fallacious argument", nor is it an "appeal to popularity" either. I'm simply explaining that people have seen allegory in the creation account and it should also be pretty easy to see as to why. Believe it or not, you are not the arbiter of what is "true" and you may steadfastly insist that it's 100% literal but that in itself can be dismissed just as easily as you dismiss allegory.

Yes, it is.... you reject the PLAIN reading of scripture.

Rather, I reject your literal reading of it.

Belief that "science" has proved things that it cannot prove is a belief system.... a FALSE one.

Your lack of ability to actually discuss science shows that you simply believe these things on faith. That's why you keep bringing up what others have said as your "proof" that "science" has "proven" something.

I've yet to see any compelling argument that undermines actual science. Lots of shouting, snarky derision and feeble mockery/tropes etc but nothing that's actually undone the established.

:juggle:


That you START with "science" is your fundamentalist problem.

Hardly, I have no cognitive dissonance and I'm not bound by a belief system.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Try explaining it.

A talking serpent?

Referring to.... what passages?

The two differing ones in Matthew and Luke. They can't both be correct if they're both to be read literally.

Please point out where anyone here has said such.

Well, you seem to insist on reading Genesis literally don't you?

 

[Right Divider]

Pointing out a fact is not in the least bit a "fallacious argument", nor is it an "appeal to popularity" either. I'm simply explaining that people have seen allegory in the creation account and it should also be pretty easy to see as to why. Believe it or not, you are not the arbiter of what is "true" and you may steadfastly insist that it's 100% literal but that in itself can be dismissed just as easily as you dismiss allegory.

Your appeal to what some unidentified "people down the centuries" have believed is meaningless. It proves nothing. It is your usual kind of "supporting evidence".

And no, I have never used the term "100% literal".... but Adam is real person and NOT an allegory. You've provided ZERO scriptural evidence to support this bogus claim. You just keep, repeatedly, begging the question. A FALLACIOUS argument.

Rather, I reject your literal reading of it.

No, you reject the PLAIN and NATURAL reading and attempt force everything to be allegory.

Based on YOUR silly ideas, an "allegory" sinned and brought a curse upon the earth. An "allegory" had children... an "allegory" and his "wife" are the basis of marriage. The silly list goes on and on.

I've yet to see any compelling argument that undermines actual science. Lots of shouting, snarky derision and feeble mockery/tropes etc but nothing that's actually undone the established.

You deserve all of the snarkiness that you get... as you never actually discuss ANY science whatsoever.

Hardly, I have no cognitive dissonance and I'm not bound by a belief system.

Of course you are... you just cannot see it because you believe that you can adapt to anything without any foundation.

Your faith is in man-made ideas.

 

[7djengo7]

It's quite easy to see allegory and poetic narrative in the Genesis account.

The Genesis account of what? Poetic narrative about what? Quite a lot is written in Genesis, no? There're accounts about lots of persons, places, and things in Genesis. So, please specify what (if anything) you are referring to, here, as "the Genesis account".

I guess if "it's quite easy to see allegory and poetic narrative in the Genesis account", then you'll have no trouble telling us just what "allegory and poetic narrative" you imagine you see in any given verse(s) in the book of Genesis. Right?

Really, though, my guess is that, for once, you happen to not be lying, when you say "No, I don't," in response to Right Divider's having said that you force allegory into Genesis, where there clearly is no allegory. For, I've never heard you actually propose any detailed specifics as to exactly how--that is, in what sense--you imagine this or that portion of Genesis is to be thought allegory. All you've been doing--and, it would seem thus far, all you are capable of doing--is repeatedly asserting that such and such in Genesis is "allegory and poetic narrative". It's obviously very easy for enemies of Bible truth such as yourself to over and over assert "Genesis is allegory! Genesis is allegory!" Let's see, now, just how easy it is for you to start trying to tell us specifically how, and in what sense, this or that portion of Genesis is, according to you, allegory.

We know that your obsession is not really about having any part(s), or the whole of Genesis to be thought "allegory and poetic narrative". I mean, for all you care, Genesis may just as well be thought altogether meaningless. Your obsession, rather, is about having at least certain parts, if not all of Genesis, to be thought literally false. That's the sum and substance of what you intend when you say that things written in Genesis are "allegory and poetic narrative": you therein mean nothing more than that those things written in Genesis are false. I've never seen you say anything along the lines of, say, "Genesis 2:7 is allegory, and as such here is what it really means--what it is really saying.........."

Please don't fool yourself into thinking that those of us who are well aware that you are a Bible-despiser, and an irrationally-thinking person, are not already well aware that your "Genesis is allegory!" shtick is nothing other than code for "Genesis is false!" Obviously, we can see right through your peformance into the truth of the matter.

 

[Right Divider]

Really, though, my guess is that, for once, you happen to not be lying, when you say "No, I don't," in response to Right Divider's having said that you force allegory into Genesis, where there clearly is no allegory. For, I've never heard you actually propose any detailed specifics as to exactly how--that is, in what sense--you imagine this or that portion of Genesis is to be thought allegory. All you've been doing--and, it would seem thus far, all you are capable of doing--is repeatedly asserting that such and such in Genesis is "allegory and poetic narrative". It's obviously very easy for enemies of Bible truth such as yourself to over and over assert "Genesis is allegory! Genesis is allegory!" Let's see, now, just how easy it is for you to start trying to tell us specifically how, and in what sense, this or that portion of Genesis is, according to you, allegory.

Precisely... all he does is beg the question over and over again. Never any attempt to explain exactly WHY the creation accounts are allegorical. Why Adam is an "allegory" when the Bible clearly shows him as an actual man... etc. etc. etc.

1Ti 2:13 KJV For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

 

[7djengo7]

Hardly, I have no cognitive dissonance and I'm not bound by a belief system.

You've obviously bound yourself to belief of certain falsehoods, like that Genesis is false, and that Adam and Eve did not exist. As you persistently reek, on TOL, of your gross cognitive dissonance and glaring hypocrisy, though, I tend to agree with you about the "system" part of what you just said, for, clearly, you're as un-, nay, anti-systematic and irrational a thinker as anyone could ever be.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Your appeal to what some unidentified "people down the centuries" have believed is meaningless. It proves nothing. It is your usual kind of "supporting evidence".

And no, I have never used the term "100% literal".... but Adam is real person and NOT an allegory. You've proved ZERO scriptural evidence to support this bogus claim. You just keep, repeatedly, begging the question. A FALLACIOUS argument.

Stating a fact is neither making an appeal or a fallacious argument. People through the ages have recognized allegory in the creation account. That you don't, can't or whatever doesn't undermine that.

No, you reject the PLAIN and NATURAL reading and attempt force everything to be allegory.

Based on YOUR silly ideas, an "allegory" sinned and brought a curse upon the earth. An "allegory" had children... an "allegory" and his "wife" are the basis of marriage. The silly list goes on and on.

Well, no, but you convince yourself of that if you want.

You deserve all of the snarkiness that you get... as you never actually discuss ANY science whatsoever.

It wasn't really me that was the recipient of it overall and I've got a thick enough skin to deal with childish antics on here anyway.

Of course you are... you just cannot see it because you believe that you can adapt to anything without any foundation.

Your faith is in man-made ideas.

Again, nope, but you carry on with that if you want.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You've obviously bound yourself to belief of certain falsehoods, like that Genesis is false, and that Adam and Eve did not exist. As you persistently reek, on TOL, of your gross cognitive dissonance and glaring hypocrisy, though, I tend to agree with you about the "system" part of what you just said, for, clearly, you're as un-, nay, anti-systematic and irrational a thinker as anyone could ever be.

LOL