Jump to content


Photo

Verses That Make You Go Hmmm...


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
67 replies to this topic

#61 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 27 September 2009 - 05:17 PM

No contradiction.

The fact that "creationist science seems to support" literal intepretation, even though my current position is that there is no relationship, is expressing my reservations about the current position I hold.  So, it is no suprise I'm asking questions and wanting to learn, is it!?

If it seems to you there is a relationship, how can you deny that a relationship exists?

Well, that is the second time you've accused me of "propaganda", which is clearly meant as an insult.  I'm not making any arguments for the position I currently hold.  I'm not even confident the position I currently hold is tenable, yet you accuse me of systematic spreading of ideology.  I'm going to have to report you, because you're making such accusations without any good reason.

Evangelizing for atheism is also disallowed. You have a pattern of slipping in one or two brief unsustainable assertions geared toward undermining confidence in God into your posts. I classify them as propaganda. If the appropriateness of this term offends, you're, welcome to request I employ another. 'Evangelizing' would certainly be among the candidates.

Ad hominem attacks -- discussions about someone's credentials or character are disallowed unless the exchange necessitates a clear need to point out a problem with a source of the information. Such exceptions shall be few and brief.

I have discussed the content of your posts. All I know of your character is what's been displayed. I know nothing of your credentials, and I certainly am not so naive as to simply take claims posted anonymously on the internet at face value.

If pointing out discrepancies and logical fallacies constituted ad hom, practically no debate would be possible. Perhaps you take things too personally?

So you don't think there is a relationship between the Bible and science, or are you merely trying to put words in my mouth, even though in my last post I explained my views on why I have questions about such a relationship?

You have not once provided any reason to question the existence of a relationship. Your denial-based position should be abandoned outright when you know of so many relationships.

Sorry, about it.  I didn't know we needed to take baby steps.  Given Genesis seems to be supported by Creation Science, I am assuming there must be a relationship

You are? I see you're not keen on the law of non-contradiction. We discussed this law some months ago; I forget the title of the thread.

(even though I do not yet understand it), so it seemed appropriate to move on to the next question, how does this relationship work?

When one simultaneously holds two opposite and irreconcilable views on the first question, it is not time to move on. It is time to resolve one way or the other.

I thought my question was pretty straight forward, "How should I interpret the following quotes; 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5, Joshua 10:12-14?"

I thought the answers provided in this thread were sufficient, including my own of course, or I wouldn't have posted it.

What is "loaded" about that?  Just out of curiousity, do you jump at shadows?  (now, that's a loaded question!)

No - that is not a loaded question. It can simply answered in the negative, without taking on any further burden. It is a suggestive question. I'm reluctant to link you to descriptions of logical fallacies; I have an idea it would not be in my best interest. Your practice so far has been to employ such and then cry ad hom when you get caught.

What assertions?  I haven't made any assertion or any argument!

Nonsense! You have asserted all sorts of things, and I quoted some right there when I mentioned them. Do you not know what an assertion is? It happens when something is asserted.

#62 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 27 September 2009 - 05:21 PM

All I did is state what I'm interested in, and have since elaborated on why I'm interested due to a series of false allegations from you, because for some reason you're having difficulty with the fact I'm interested in biblical intepretation and science.

I suggest you have the cart before the horse. First you need to resolve your relationship with the law of non-contradiction.

Man, you're a piece work! 

Thank you. Well, I think. Perhaps this is meant as ad hom?

I don't know if it is true or not, that is simply my current view.  It's background on why I'm asking, because straight off the bat you questioned my integrity by accusing me of propaganda and other nonsense.  So I explained why I was asking.  I do not even know why I have to justify myself in asking a fairly simply question.  This is a bizarre discussion.

When a and b are contradictory, and one doesn't know which is true, the correct procedure is not to contend both are true.

Do you always hold an Inquisition when someone asks you a question?

I have a habit of carefully reading what is written to see what is actually being said. If it is wrong, I often re-examine for polywrong content. I have also learned to stay alert for assumptions being smuggled in.

Perhaps you'd prefer to discuss things with mush-heads who accept what you say and don't care if it makes any sense?

Your choice of the term 'inquisition', now. Any propaganda intent behind that, or do you consider me to be conducting a literal inquisition?

I have encountered arguments, didn't you read that I had a Catholic background?

I was not aware that Catholics were required to establish an awareness of the relationship, and/or argue about it.

I'm familar with arguments in Catholicism, and frankly I'm sick of them, but I want to learn how other denominations think about the issue.  I just didn't realise it was going to be so difficult to get answers from anyone.

I don't think you're so familiar as you'd have us believe. There are Catholics who accept scientific evidence and Catholics who reject it in favour of evolutionism - that much I know for certain.

And why are you trying to break me?

More ad hom? Or does this mean something else. Why do you feel in jeopardy of breaking over a discussion on an internet forum?

My claims about Buddhism come from my knowledge on the subject, which if I am wrong about, in most civil society, people usually correct one another.  They don't engage in personal attacks or belittle a person for being ignorant.

Didn't you just say you hadn't made any assertions?

In order to make claims about Buddhism, only knowledge of Buddhism is required. In order to make comparative claims about Buddhism and scripture, knowledge of both Buddhism and scripture are required.

But the competition to claim who has the longest scholarship; buddhism or christianity is a non-issue in regard to the topic of this thread and my questions.  I can only assume you are bringing it up to avoid actually addressing the topic of the thrread.  Which makes me wonder why you even bother posting, are you taunting me?

"Who has the longest scholarship; buddhism or christianity" is not an issue I raised. It is a straw man, as a matter of fact, and you're the one who brought up Buddhism.

You raised the issue in response to my claim that the Bible has undergone more scrutiny than any other texts, as if the Bible is exclusively Christian rather than Judeo-Christian, and as if time is how scrutiny is to be quantified. I didn't even say "longer scrutiny". You complain of how carefully I read what you write, and this complaint I take as sincere; you certainly are careless in your reading of my own writing (or you assume others to be careless).

Neither was my claim regarding the scrutiny of scripture spontaneous. I pointed out the scrutiny in my response to your assertion "because the Bible isn't something to be proven or disproven". You yourself raised all the issues which you claim we shouldn't be discussing - every last one of them. This is consistent with premeditation (sans wisdom). "I will slip in off-topic content, and falsely accuse anyone who disputes it of sidetracking". This does not mean it's inconsistent with simply making false accusations without premeditation.

#63 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 27 September 2009 - 05:34 PM

Looks like another relationship where none are supposed to exist. This is the first mention of denominations, as I recall, and denominational treatment is a separate issue from does a relationship exist? Again, most persons competent with the English language would be able to posit a simple separate question.

This is just petty. The Catholics treat the relationship between biblical intepretation and science as NOMA; non-overlapping magisteria. That is, the Bible doesn't cross into the domain of science and science doesn't cross into the domain of the Bible, but they share a border. I don't really like that view.

It might be accurate to say some Catholics take that approach. It is not accurate as a blanket statement.

NOMA is simply nonsense; one cannot arbitrarily designate categories of information as a means of circumventing the law of non-contradiction. NOMA, by its very existence demonstrates a mistaken belief that science and scripture are in conflict. We don't see NOMA applied to science and math or to chemistry and biology, do we? NOMA only exists as a means of accommodating antiscience.

And of course denominations are a seperate issue, but I have been accused of being disingenous by you and Adam, so I thought I would provide Adam some background to why I'm interested in Biblical intepretation, since he was making threats.

View Post

Either a relationship exists or it does not.

If you wanted to compare denominations, some queries might have been in order that you might establish which members belong to which denominations. The procedure you followed is not consistent with investigating the differences between denominations.

The thread already contains opinions on how scripture is to be interpreted. It might appear disingenuous to pretend it does not.

This discussion raises more than a couple of questions. "Why would one who rejects the law of non-contradiction" even care about how other people think, let alone interpret?" might be the chief.

It also answers a question or two. "What happens when one attempts to conduct an assertive argument from a position of non-commitment?"

If you would not have folks conclude you are disingenuous, I would recommend avoiding behaviour which is consistent with the conclusion. Contradicting the history of this very thread itself, which can be so easily verified, is something you should classify as a no-no.

#64 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 27 September 2009 - 06:32 PM

CTD,

It's cute that you have three different replies for every one post I make. I'm quite flattered that someone is actually giving my opinion that much attention. But it does seem excessive.

If it seems to you there is a relationship, how can you deny that a relationship exists?

I'm not actually denying the relationship. Neither have I made any such argument to refute a relationship, nor have I said the relationship categorically does not exist.

When I say "my current position is that there is no relationship", I'm stating that I do not have any concept of what that relationship might be. So for all intents and purposes, I do not see one.

It's not a denial of any relationship, it's just a statement of fact; I do not know what the relationship would be, so my current position is there is no relationship. And I used the word "current" precisely because I'm expecting my position will change when I learn what the relationship is.

Now if I had asserted, "there is no relationship" and all your arguments for there being a relationship are wrong, then that would be a denial, based on a claim, and reasoning (or poor reasoning) for that claim. I have done no such thing.

Are you going to make any concessions on what I am saying, or am I your new punching bag that no matter what I say, we will always be in disagreement on principle? I get the feeling if I said, "its raining outside" you would find some problem with that statement.

Evangelizing for atheism is also disallowed. You have a pattern of slipping in one or two brief unsustainable assertions geared toward undermining confidence in God into your posts. I classify them as propaganda. If the appropriateness of this term offends, you're, welcome to request I employ another. 'Evangelizing' would certainly be among the candidates.

Eh? What evangelizing for atheism?

I'm confident God can look after Himself thank you very much, so I'm confused how somebody as insignificant as me could undermine any confidence in God. I think you're being a tad sensitive.

And if you're going to make such accusations, you had better back them up, because at the moment all I see is sweeping accusations with no substance. What am I propagating or evangelizing by ask how biblical intepretation relates to science?

I have discussed the content of your posts. All I know of your character is what's been displayed. I know nothing of your credentials, and I certainly am not so naive as to simply take claims posted anonymously on the internet at face value.

All you done in relation to my posts is give them an eisegesis reading. You're misintepreting my posts through some preconceived notion that I am propagating some anti-God message.

If pointing out discrepancies and logical fallacies constituted ad hom, practically no debate would be possible. Perhaps you take things too personally?

I have no problem with you looking for discrepancies and logical fallacies. In fact I appreciate it, because it shows where my reasoning is wrong. But when you misintepret my posts, the so-called discrepancies and logical fallacies turn out to be fictions. And you've been using these fictions to make accusations against me, which is personal.

You have not once provided any reason to question the existence of a relationship. Your denial-based position should be abandoned outright when you know of so many relationships.

I'm not denying the relationship, in fact I'm seeking to understand it. I don't think much of the Catholic intepretations of those relationships, which is all I have known until now.

Or is that problem? You agree with the Catholics, and by me disagreeing with them, I'm denying your understanding of what the relationship is?

It makes sense now. I am denying the Catholic version of the relationship. I'm sorry, I didn't realise that was also your position.

I assumed this was a non-catholic forum, because Pope John Paul II declared Evolutionary Theory was a supported hypothesis in the 1990s, and this forum is "evolution fairytale". Surely I can be excused for making an innocent mistake? I didn't mean to offend anyone.

:rolleyes:

#65 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 27 September 2009 - 06:50 PM

CTD,

It's cute that you have three different replies for every one post I make.  I'm quite flattered that someone is actually giving my opinion that much attention.  But it does seem excessive.

View Post

The forum software restricts posts to a limit of 10 quote boxes.

But thanks for the warning. I'll try not to waste too much time.

#66 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 27 September 2009 - 07:17 PM

The forum software restricts posts to a limit of 10 quote boxes.

But thanks for the warning. I'll try not to waste too much time.

View Post

That's funny. I've only been responding to the first one and browsing over the rest, because I thought that was salient point you would be making.

:rolleyes:

I really didn't think I was saying that much, that it could be given so much analysis. I think it proves my point that you are over-analysing my posts.

Here's a tip. Just deal with what I say on face value, because all I wanted to know was how those scriptual verses in my first post were to be intepreted. Adam gave some good links, and I posted an extract [Sep 27 2009, 03:15 PM] from Danny Faulkner article that I was interested in exploring further.

For all the talk that you've been doing in this thread I don't think you know anything on the subject.

You seem to be one of those people Adam was questioning in the first few posts of this thread... "Are you this pedantic in your everyday speech?"

When I first read that, I thought it was brilliant, but now that I can use it, I think Adam has just become my hero.

:lol:

#67 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 27 September 2009 - 07:49 PM

CTD,

I'm not actually denying the relationship.  Neither have I made any such argument to refute a relationship, nor have I said the relationship categorically does not exist.

When I say "my current position is that there is no relationship", I'm stating that I do not have any concept of what that relationship might be.  So for all intents and purposes, I do not see one. 

It's not a denial of any relationship, it's just a statement of fact; I do not know what the relationship would be, so my current position is there is no relationship.  And I used the word "current" precisely because I'm expecting my position will change when I learn what the relationship is.

Now if I had asserted, "there is no relationship" and all your arguments for there being a relationship are wrong, then that would be a denial, based on a claim, and reasoning (or poor reasoning) for that claim.  I have done no such thing.

Are you going to make any concessions on what I am saying, or am I your new punching bag that no matter what I say, we will always be in disagreement on principle?  I get the feeling if I said, "its raining outside" you would find some problem with that statement.

I'll start conserving time right away, and just let the self-contradictory and antihistorical nature of this portion of the post speak for itself.

Eh?  What evangelizing for atheism? 

I'm confident God can look after Himself thank you very much, so I'm confused how somebody as insignificant as me could undermine any confidence in God.  I think you're being a tad sensitive.

It's not my rule, and neither has it anything to do with God looking after Himself. That one's quite a stretch even by evobabble standards.

And if you're going to make such accusations, you had better back them up, because at the moment all I see is sweeping accusations with no substance.  What am I propagating or evangelizing by ask how biblical intepretation relates to science?

Whose posts have you been reading? It is my policy in all arenas never to make any accusation without presenting evidence.

All you done in relation to my posts is give them an eisegesis reading.  You're misintepreting my posts through some preconceived notion that I am propagating some anti-God message.

Now there is a false accusation, and you'll not find any evidence to back it up. You have contradicted yourself time and time again, and you continue to do so.

Even your employment of the term 'eisegesis' indicates that you know the answer to the question of how things are to be interpreted, or at least how not to interpret. Was the false accusation worth the information you divulged in making it? Was it simultaneously not worth it?

I have no problem with you looking for discrepancies and logical fallacies.  In fact I appreciate it, because it shows where my reasoning is wrong.  But when you misintepret my posts, the so-called discrepancies and logical fallacies turn out to be fictions.  And you've been using these fictions to make accusations against me, which is personal.

Self-contradiction is a discrepancy. It is not fiction to point it out; neither was it fiction to point out your practice of accusing me of raising issues you introduced. If all you have left is a game of openly denying the history of this very thread, which is clearly available for all to observe, you may soon find yourself on my ignore list. I can't say when others will tire of your behaviour.

Then again, you could always put me on your own ignore list. People seem to resent it when this tool is used; it would be a learning experience for me if I could experience this resentment, and perhaps discover its cause.

I'm not denying the relationship, in fact I'm seeking to understand it.  I don't think much of the Catholic intepretations of those relationships, which is all I have known until now.

There is a relationship. There isn't a relationship. Back 'n' forth, back 'n' forth. You bore me.

Or is that problem?  You agree with the Catholics, and by me disagreeing with them, I'm denying your understanding of what the relationship is? 

It makes sense now.  I am denying the Catholic version of the relationship.  I'm sorry, I didn't realise that was also your position.

I assumed this was a non-catholic forum, because Pope John Paul II declared Evolutionary Theory was a supported hypothesis in the 1990s, and this forum is "evolution fairytale".  Surely I can be excused for making an innocent mistake?  I didn't mean to offend anyone.

:rolleyes:

View Post

Now it's make up stories about CTD time? What did I just say about NOMA? Or will you turn around and tell us Catholics all reject NOMA now, just as I do?

Alternatively, you could review the thread and see which of the answers provided you find disagreeable. State your dissatisfaction with them, and maybe it could be discussed. I'll be right up front about the drawback: you'd have to acknowledge the existence of the answers. This shouldn't trouble you too much. Can you not turn right around and deny that they exist?

As a bonus, I'll propose a description of the relationship between the Bible and science. Science is a systematic methodology for doing one of the things the Bible instructs people to do: seeking truth.

#68 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 27 September 2009 - 07:54 PM

I'm not denying the relationship, in fact I'm seeking to understand it.  I don't think much of the Catholic intepretations of those relationships, which is all I have known until now.

Or is that problem?  You agree with the Catholics, and by me disagreeing with them, I'm denying your understanding of what the relationship is? 

It makes sense now.  I am denying the Catholic version of the relationship.  I'm sorry, I didn't realise that was also your position.

I assumed this was a non-catholic forum, because Pope John Paul II declared Evolutionary Theory was a supported hypothesis in the 1990s, and this forum is "evolution fairytale".  Surely I can be excused for making an innocent mistake?  I didn't mean to offend anyone.

:rolleyes:



Hi Loungehead,

Popes/members of the church, as with any denomination, may differ in their personal opinion re the manner God used to bring all things into existence. But no Catholic is obligated to take onboard the evolution theory or anything else that is not backed up biblically and a part of official church teaching.

I am a Catholic and I am a creationist and share many similar beliefs to fellow Christian Creationists on this forum.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users