International creationism

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
nowhere in the Bible does it claim what you say it claims

Flat earth: four corners of the world, among other things. Geocentrism: the fixed stars, among other things. Pi == 3: some passage about a bowl or something. Creationism: Genesis, twice. I can't be arsed to look up the passages, just run a Google for "geocentrism" and find the most stark raving mad webpage of the lot, it'll be sure to have plenty of biblical passages to back up the claim that the earth is the center of the universe. Also run a search for the flat earth society, they're sure to have plenty of biblical passages as well.

the Bible is a written, as such it uses language

I agree that language in general is not always clear and that the Bible in particular has many passages that could be taken different ways (as anything that is written or communicated in any fashion)

Great, then you're not arguing in favor of the Bible being infallible (since human language is fallible thus the Bible is necessarily fallible), so I don't know why you're bothering to address your post to me since we're apparently not in disagreement.

if you don't understand this from your years of life, than you are an idiot

**** you too.

the best way to read the Bible is to use it as it's own interpreter, such that everything is internally consisten[t]

Do you mean "use the Bible as a self-referential system"? Obviously that's problematic. Do you mean "read the Bible such that you take the context of the passages into account"? Fine, but then you wouldn't be arguing in favor of an infallible Bible, and again I'm not sure why you're addressing me with your post.

[CyberGnu]

nowhere in the Bible does it claim what you say it claims

the Bible is a written, as such it uses language

I agree that language in general is not always clear and that the Bible in particular has many passages that could be taken different ways (as anything that is written or communicated in any fashion)

if you don't understand this from your years of life, than you are an idiot

the best way to read the Bible is to use it as it's own interpreter, such that everything is internally consisten

Jon Miller

Which is all fine and dandy, if even a single sentence of it actually applied to the post you quoted... You might want to read loinburgers post again.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I always find it funny how modern athiests use proofs that are as bad as medieval theologians

It would be ten times funnier if you had a cite or a quote to provide an example of what you're referring to. Otherwise you're just trolling, and there's been enough of that on this thread that it's no longer particulalry amusing.

[CyberGnu]

Crosspost

[loinburger]

'Twas planned and coordinated through Evil Atheist Telepathy.

Speaking of which, time to pig out on the leftover Halloween candy.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by loinburger


Flat earth: four corners of the world, among other things. Geocentrism: the fixed stars, among other things. Pi == 3: some passage about a bowl or something. Creationism: Genesis, twice. I can't be arsed to look up the passages, just run a Google for "geocentrism" and find the most stark raving mad webpage of the lot, it'll be sure to have plenty of biblical passages to back up the claim that the earth is the center of the universe. Also run a search for the flat earth society, they're sure to have plenty of biblical passages as well.



Great, then you're not arguing in favor of the Bible being infallible (since human language is fallible thus the Bible is necessarily fallible), so I don't know why you're bothering to address your post to me since we're apparently not in disagreement.



**** you too.



Do you mean "use the Bible as a self-referential system"? Obviously that's problematic. Do you mean "read the Bible such that you take the context of the passages into account"? Fine, but then you wouldn't be arguing in favor of an infallible Bible, and again I'm not sure why you're addressing me with your post.

I am arguing for an infallable Bible

I am sayign however, that the Bible being infallable, does not mean that we (who are fallen) cannot misinterpret it

as with any communication made between men, there is the possibility for miscommunication

the Bible communicates exactly what God wants it to, if we are open to it (is me beleif)

if oyu try to use the Bible for your own ends, you can get it to say anything you want it to (As you can with any written document)

my statement was strong because your statement was strong and you were being unreasonable

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


Which is all fine and dandy, if even a single sentence of it actually applied to the post you quoted... You might want to read loinburgers post again.

I did

if you are too dense to follow me, I can try again and write more clearer

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by loinburger


It would be ten times funnier if you had a cite or a quote to provide an example of what you're referring to. Otherwise you're just trolling, and there's been enough of that on this thread that it's no longer particulalry amusing.

I am implying that Urban's was

I follow these threads, and I know there was nothing like a proof in any of them (that was logical)

if he could reference his 'proof' without linking it, so can I

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

here, maybe this will help you some Gnu

false dichotomy

Jon Miller

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am arguing for an infallable Bible

I am sayign however, that the Bible being infallable, does not mean that we (who are fallen) cannot misinterpret it

If we can misinterpret it, then it's not infallible.

as with any communication made between men, there is the possibility for miscommunication

Hence, it's not infallible. It uses imperfect human language to convey its message, so it is necessarily limited insofar as human language is limited.

my statement was strong because your statement was strong and you were being unreasonable

Arguing in favor of consistency is unreasonable? Then I'd hate to see your idea of being "reasonable."

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
well as fez needs to learn

just because you say something does not make it logical

just because you say what you say is logical does not make what you say logical

a fair majority of western civilization does not find your proof logical

now I agree that it might be logical, but I don't see it as such, and the fact that most agree with me should make you suspicious of your own logic

Jon Miller

John, you might be a good physicist, but you are a totally lousy logician. Appeal to Numbers, anyone?

There are really a zillion ways to prove an omnipotent being leads to contradictions. For example:

1. An omnipotent being can do anything.
2. An omnipotent being can make a cat both dead and alive at the same time.
3. A cat both dead and alive at the same time is a contradiction.
4. Therefore an omnipotent being leads to contradictions.

If you don't like contradictions, how about some dilemmas? Can an omnipotent being make a rock so heavy that he can't lift?

[Jon Miller]

(I will admit that sometimes I am hard to follow, so I guess I am wrong for calling you dense for you failing to follow me, I apologise for that and will try to make it clearer if oyu will point out what you are not following)

Jon Miller

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am implying that Urban's was

You know exactly what his proof was without even seeing it? That's funnier yet.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


John, you might be a good physicist, but you are a totally lousy logician. Appeal to numbers, anyone?

I am appealing to others logic

I am saying that while it might appear logical to you, it does not seem to appear logical to many others

while this does not make you wrong, you should question whether your logic is right and everyone else's is wrong

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by loinburger


You know exactly what his proof was without even seeing it? That's funnier yet.

I follow these sort of threads

and have seen 'proofs' of his and others in the past

I am not sure exactly which one he was referencing

but my statement is true for all I have seen

and so it is true for the one he posted

I see you have a hard time reading what I post

Jon Miller