Tweet
Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen
Originally posted by Mutty:
Fiver I maintain my positions on the first two items you brought up. I have been in circles of debates long enough to know how the tactics work on both sides. Perhaps you may only break down the story of the Flood simply to prove the literalists wrong, but for others, the agenda goes beyond that. This does not necessarily mean people are up to something sinister per se, but the bottom line I have found to be many times, whether consciously or subconsciously, is to prove God or to disprove Him by way of first disproving or proving the sacred writings attributed to Him. Christians, based on their beliefs, echo exclusive claims. Not everyone likes to hear them, wants to believe them, or sees reason to believe them. How convienient would it be to pick apart their lofty positions and expose the "alleged" fallacies. Where does that leave them? There are intelligent and observant enough people who spot this supposed glass pedestal very easy and get to working.
again you are projecting your own motives when you presume to know peoples hidden and unconscious agendas. you seem to argue for the biblical extent of the flood to protect the validity of your God without stating this up front. have you considered that others don't take the biblical acounts at face value simply because they feel the preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise? period.
For example Fiver, I have seen this a few times around the net and I have seen you use it..."don't use the Bible to prove the Bible." That disables most Christians right there who unfortunately do not know much outside the 66 or 72 books of the Bible. Personally, I think it is a very good point because it forces some very narrowminded people to think and look outside the box, not for their salvation which they SHOULD be secure in, but like for me,...
that is because "using the bible to prove the bible" is a logical fallacy anyone who does not share this faith can spot a mile away. it is no different than me proving the little green aliens dwell in my attic because my comicbook says they do. if you do not share my faith in the little green aliens there is no proof of anything beyond the fact my comicbook says so.
...to solidify what I already believe.
should you not at least try to keep an open mind? otherwise why seek knowledge at all?
As for motives, I do not necessarily go around populating my posts with the name of God whom I DO believe in. What I prefer to do is simply present things to provoke thought and let people make their own decisions or draw conclusions.
or solidify what they already believe?
Originally posted by Mutty:
Fiver I maintain my positions on the first two items you brought up. I have been in circles of debates long enough to know how the tactics work on both sides. Perhaps you may only break down the story of the Flood simply to prove the literalists wrong, but for others, the agenda goes beyond that. This does not necessarily mean people are up to something sinister per se, but the bottom line I have found to be many times, whether consciously or subconsciously, is to prove God or to disprove Him by way of first disproving or proving the sacred writings attributed to Him. Christians, based on their beliefs, echo exclusive claims. Not everyone likes to hear them, wants to believe them, or sees reason to believe them. How convienient would it be to pick apart their lofty positions and expose the "alleged" fallacies. Where does that leave them? There are intelligent and observant enough people who spot this supposed glass pedestal very easy and get to working.
again you are projecting your own motives when you presume to know peoples hidden and unconscious agendas. you seem to argue for the biblical extent of the flood to protect the validity of your God without stating this up front. have you considered that others don't take the biblical acounts at face value simply because they feel the preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise? period.
For example Fiver, I have seen this a few times around the net and I have seen you use it..."don't use the Bible to prove the Bible." That disables most Christians right there who unfortunately do not know much outside the 66 or 72 books of the Bible. Personally, I think it is a very good point because it forces some very narrowminded people to think and look outside the box, not for their salvation which they SHOULD be secure in, but like for me,...
that is because "using the bible to prove the bible" is a logical fallacy anyone who does not share this faith can spot a mile away. it is no different than me proving the little green aliens dwell in my attic because my comicbook says they do. if you do not share my faith in the little green aliens there is no proof of anything beyond the fact my comicbook says so.
...to solidify what I already believe.
should you not at least try to keep an open mind? otherwise why seek knowledge at all?
As for motives, I do not necessarily go around populating my posts with the name of God whom I DO believe in. What I prefer to do is simply present things to provoke thought and let people make their own decisions or draw conclusions.
or solidify what they already believe?
Comment