How is Vic wrong?Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I immortalized Vic's version of what a con is for all to enjoy!
Yes, except that you've misrepresented your own position in your own sig, which is that the Bible was originally and intentionally written as such. This is almost comical!
Actually, the quote was almost perfect... the word man was left out. Guys, if you use the word "con", then Vic thinks you think something should be outlawed! Because con is a synonym for fraud...and when fraud is used as a legal term, it means something illegal.. and when something is illegal, it is outlawed!
Originally posted by: Garth
What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."
Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.
Where does it say that?Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: Garth
What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."
Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.
Garth, Genesis 2:17 was not speaking of an immediate physical death, but a spiritual separation (spiritual death) from God that would be the consequence of disobedience.
But you're not taking cues from the text itself, but shoe-horning ideas from different authors' works written much later under the assumption that they MUST decide the correct interpretation of the passage. That's nonsense.Adam's sin is the reason why Christ was required to die at Calvary; for by him sinners are able to recompense themselves through Christ, bringing forth the second birth (spiritual regeneration/rebirth) spoken of in the Scriptures.
John 3:3
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Edit: I replied to this without reading the whole thread, and evidently there have been answers already proposed.
I dreamed all of you up. The universe came into existence the moment of my birth. It will cease to exist the moment of my death. I apologize for the inconvenience.How did human life come about?
If you were a Christian Scientist, it would be you in Jacob's dream.Originally posted by: Vic
I dreamed all of you up. The universe came into existence the moment of my birth. It will cease to exist the moment of my death. I apologize for the inconvenience.How did human life come about?
Originally posted by: Vic
I dreamed all of you up. The universe came into existence the moment of my birth. It will cease to exist the moment of my death. I apologize for the inconvenience.How did human life come about?
Originally posted by: Vic
It was meant as a joke. Heated discussions about the unknowable inevitably fall apart because the unknowable is, well... unknowable. So my favorite way to kill such discussions is to bring up solipsism, i.e. the nature of existence is so unknowable that I question whether or not anything outside my own mind actually exists.
And... while it is meant as a joke... it is also meant to spur serious internal thought about your own personal beliefs (as opposed to just validating your own by attacking everyone else's). We all think we know so much, but the truth is that we can't even prove our own existences as living consciouses except to ourselves.
This will now likely fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes, as the case may be over the internet).
Originally posted by: Vic
It was meant as a joke. Heated discussions about the unknowable inevitably fall apart because the unknowable is, well... unknowable. So my favorite way to kill such discussions is to bring up solipsism, i.e. the nature of existence is so unknowable that I question whether or not anything outside my own mind actually exists.
And... while it is meant as a joke... it is also meant to spur serious internal thought about your own personal beliefs (as opposed to just validating your own by attacking everyone else's). We all think we know so much, but the truth is that we can't even prove our own existences as living consciouses except to ourselves.
This will now likely fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes, as the case may be over the internet).
But, as usual, you are wrong. In fact, I'm making as few assumptions as possible, taking the text at its face value. You guys are the ones making leaps of logic based on your presupposition that the passages mustn't contradict.Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Garth,
You are doing what alot of other people do, and that is to read the Bible as though it was written in the modern text. If you don't believe anyone else's interpretation of the Bible, then you must do it yourself. But considering the attitude that you have demonstrated, that is not likely to happen. The only alternative is to continue as you have, making alot of false assumption about something that you know nothing about.
Originally posted by: Vic
I dreamed all of you up. The universe came into existence the moment of my birth. It will cease to exist the moment of my death. I apologize for the inconvenience.How did human life come about?
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Vic
I dreamed all of you up. The universe came into existence the moment of my birth. It will cease to exist the moment of my death. I apologize for the inconvenience.How did human life come about?
Did you eat some Taco Bell before you went to bed?
Originally posted by: Garth
But, as usual, you are wrong. In fact, I'm making as few assumptions as possible, taking the text at its face value. You guys are the ones making leaps of logic based on your presupposition that the passages mustn't contradict.Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Garth,
You are doing what alot of other people do, and that is to read the Bible as though it was written in the modern text. If you don't believe anyone else's interpretation of the Bible, then you must do it yourself. But considering the attitude that you have demonstrated, that is not likely to happen. The only alternative is to continue as you have, making alot of false assumption about something that you know nothing about.
So maybe you should have that plank in your eye examined.
Originally posted by: Garth
Where does it say that?Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: Garth
What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."
Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.
Garth, Genesis 2:17 was not speaking of an immediate physical death, but a spiritual separation (spiritual death) from God that would be the consequence of disobedience.
But you're not taking cues from the text itself, but shoe-horning ideas from different authors' works written much later under the assumption that they MUST decide the correct interpretation of the passage. That's nonsense.Adam's sin is the reason why Christ was required to die at Calvary; for by him sinners are able to recompense themselves through Christ, bringing forth the second birth (spiritual regeneration/rebirth) spoken of in the Scriptures.
John 3:3
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Edit: I replied to this without reading the whole thread, and evidently there have been answers already proposed.
Originally posted by: purplehippo
It is pointless to debate creationism and religion simply because you cannot convince a non-believer of the existence of God. It is complete foolishness to them. I will however point this out. Romans 1:18-20 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities?his eternal power and divine nature?have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Originally posted by: purplehippo
It is pointless to debate creationism and religion simply because you cannot convince a non-believer of the existence of God. It is complete foolishness to them. I will however point this out. Romans 1:18-20 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities?his eternal power and divine nature?have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Originally posted by: zinfamous
I actually agree with Rapid Snail's argument about Adam's spiritual death. It's the kind of thing that you need to understand when explicating Renassaince literature, as well as Old/Middle English lit (Beowulf, Canterbury tales, etc). I place value in the bible as an allegorical fable and a wonderful literary text. It is not rational to me to say that God spoke, and vomited out the bible in pure, literal splendor.
The rest of your arguments are pretty asinine: "It is impossible for the unsaved to truly understand the word of god." Clearly, Rapid Snail is just as qualified of properly translating and understanding the text as Seekermeister. I imagine they would probably disagree on many points as well....wrap that around your god-filled noodles
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: zinfamous
I actually agree with Rapid Snail's argument about Adam's spiritual death. It's the kind of thing that you need to understand when explicating Renassaince literature, as well as Old/Middle English lit (Beowulf, Canterbury tales, etc). I place value in the bible as an allegorical fable and a wonderful literary text. It is not rational to me to say that God spoke, and vomited out the bible in pure, literal splendor.
The rest of your arguments are pretty asinine: "It is impossible for the unsaved to truly understand the word of god." Clearly, Rapid Snail is just as qualified of properly translating and understanding the text as Seekermeister. I imagine they would probably disagree on many points as well....wrap that around your god-filled noodles
Is it just me or is it circular to prove the truth of the bible with even more exerpts from the bible.
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
I lived in Soviet Russia up until the age of 6. They did discourage religion but they didn't come to your house and kill you if they found out you read the bible. People celebrated Christmas, Quanza, and Chanukah. But my family kept the Jewishness on a down low because of anti-semetism among the people more than the government.