Raf

I can't prove the warmth in the bosom felt by Mormons isn't what they claim it is. I can't prove that when a bus turns the corner, it doesn't cease to exist as soon as it is out of my sight. I can't disprove that Oakspear has an invisible dragon in his garage. But the evidence is against all those prospects. The existence of a natural explanation overrides the insistence that there is a supernatural explanation, unless you have some further evidence that the natural explanation is insufficient. If we define "faith" as accepting something even though the evidence for it is not sufficient, then it does NOT take faith to disbelieve in the supernatural when it comes to Ferguson. The natural explanations are sufficient. If we define "faith" as a strict synonym for "believing," then it's irrelevant to say I have faith, because of course I do. Everyone does. But you have defined faith in such a way that it is meaningless as its own word, and you have also countered an assertion I never made. In other words, you're wasting your breath. And it wouldn't be the first time. Wierwille (in the PFAL class) falsely defined atheism as "not believing" and surmised that no one could really be an atheist, because they believe they don't believe. Therefore they believe. It was a cute quip, but it started on a false premise. An atheist is not someone who doesn't believe. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. Of course people can be atheist. Duh! But when you start saying things like "atheists have faith, too," then you are playing word games, and it is incumbent upon you to define what you mean by the word "faith." Otherwise, the discussion is meaningless.

Anyone participate in this thing yet? For those who haven't heard of it, the challenge is to donate $100 to an ALS charity (Lou Gehrig's Disease) OR, if you can't make that much of a donation, to give less AND pour a bucket of ice over your head. You record yourself doing that, then you challenge others to do the same. Most folks are giving AND donating, and the result has been phenomenal. I did it over the weekend (as usual, I put my own twist on it: I auctioned off the opportunity for someone else to pour the bucket over my head. Ended up raising $450 that way). I'll post the video later. For those who are Facebook friends with me, you've probably already seen it. If you've done it, post the video. I'd love to see it.

Appreciate those kind words, sir.

This 1996 film produced an Oscar-nominated song and was generally well-liked. It was written and directed by one of the supporting actors, a major star. An interesting bit of trivia: one of the major characters in the film is never named. In fact, at the end of the movie, we get one of those "what happened to them after the story" updates, and this character is referred to simply as "T.B. Player," which is not a name. You realize that when you decipher what "T.B." stands for.

I try not to submit lengthy posts from my phone or tablet, because it's not as easy. I'm in front of a keyboard now. So I want to address a few things johniam said. That's not what I said. What I said was that the Bible is rather obviously a product of its time, offering no indication that they were written by anyone with a knowledge of science, history, geology, geography, meteorology or (most certainly) astronomy. Period. So if I had a book in front of me that told me the moon is made of green cheese, I would conclude that the book was written by someone who had no understanding of what the moon is made of. It's that simple, and misrepresenting what I said to fit your own preconceived narrative of what I'm trying to say is fundamentally dishonest. Not in error, dishonest. As Bob Dole once said, "Stop lying about my record." I would like to know what definition of "faith" johniam is working with. I ask this because there's a common definition, and there's the various definitions we all worked with and under in (and out) of TWI. So before I challenge what johniam says about me having "faith," I'd like to know what he means. That said, the notion that it takes faith NOT to believe something is incorrect by definition, given that faith is believing. By definition, it takes the absence of faith NOT to believe something. If you believe the devil is behind what's happening in Ferguson, that takes faith (namely, faith that there is a devil who is capable of such results). I lack that faith. I believe it's people, and that belief is based on the evidence: people are behind every action we see coming from Ferguson. So it's not "faith" in the sense johniam appears to be using that word (again, I need his definition to be sure). I don't believe I am morally superior to any of you. Nor do I believe I am more intelligent. I do believe I am morally superior to the Bible, and I believe most of you are as well. The fact that you don't go around stoning Sabbath breakers is enough evidence of that for me. I do not accept the authority or moral superiority of the Bible. If you'd like to have that discussion, I'm game. But it is not a reflection on what I think of YOU. Quite the opposite. As I said, I believe you share the quality of being morally superior to the Bible. I know this offends, and that's unavoidable. It is my personal opinion about the Bible which I will gladly defend if asked. I do not think I am morally superior to johniam or anyone else. I do think we are all morally superior to the writers of the Bible [by current standards]. We would never tolerate the barbarism of the Old Testament law, and as believers, we resorted to some pretty healthy mental gymnastics to explain that barbarism away. I reached the point where I could not do that anymore. I am not asking ANYONE to take that journey with me. But if you're going to go around making FALSE ACCUSATIONS about how I consider myself above you, then you are kind of forcing my hand. Just saying.

Thanks Twinky. Oakspear, given GSC as it's currently laid out, I felt the doctrinal section was the best place to have this kind of discussion. The central issue here is NOT "is there a God?" although I made it clear that it forms part of my underlying assumption. The central issue here is, "are there actual errors in Genesis?" And there are. So where does one go, doctrinally, from there? I contend that you cannot maintain the premise that the Bible is inerrant without explaining why the errors in Genesis aren't really errors. You can abandon the premise that the Bible is inerrant while maintaining a belief in Christianity, but I contend that it is beyond difficult to do so. Ultimately, I found the task impossible, but others manage it, so there's that. You can abandon Christianity altogether. Or you can find some other way to grapple with these issues. Or you can ignore them. All of that falls generally under the framework of the doctrinal section on a forum that is NOT exclusively Christian.

By the way, I do not accuse Christians of calling me a fool if I disagree with them. Johniam is lying there. Hopefully, decent people caught him lying about that. And I have had no problem with anyone who disagrees with me on issues. Let's discuss the issues. But if you want to make it about ME, then brace yourself, because I will call you out, as I am doing with Johniam.

Oh, I am SO different from you, John. For one thing, I make an ounce of sense, unlike your last post. But we are the same in one respect: we both now lead people away from the God of the Bible. Only difference is, I do it on purpose. ;)

So much falsehood in that one sentence. Prove it's not Loki or Pandora or the ghost of Patrick Swayze behind all that's taking place in Ferguson. You can't! You have faith! Nonsense. Pretty stupid point right there. Key difference: I no longer claim a connection to a supernatural omnipotent omnibenevolent force who can do something about Miami if I pray with faith. So one would expect the results one sees in Miami. In the same way, one would expect the results you're seeing in Ferguson if you were praying to an omnipotent, omnibenevolent supernatural force-- that did not exist. So my point is made on both fronts. I have no problem with you critiquing me or my approach. Frankly, I just wish you were a little better at it.

You know, I have to get this off my chest: Having been on both sides of this, I can say confidently that there are few things that drive people away from Christianity as much as the approach taken by johniam and others who think they are so in tune with God that it absolves them of the responsibility to make an ounce of sense.

Yes. ;)

No he hasn't. Just people, buddy. But clearly your presence there hasn't inspired God to jump in and make anything better. You must be slacking.

Superman

Because it was

Top gun ?

Ok... The premiere of this series featured the explosion of a jetliner in a terrorist attack. Then, shortly before it was to air, 9/11 happened. So the producers scrambled and, while the explosion was still part of the premiere, it didn't play as ominous or pervasive a role as originally scripted. Depending on how you look at it, the series lasted "only" 8 1/2 days.

Wow. You're going for the really obscure here, if my guess is correct. Not Necessarily the News

Thank you. I just checked in to see if someone jumped in, and fortunately for me, you did. :)

{b]Animal House[/b] "May the Schwartz be with you!"

Though I speak in the tongues of men and of lower mammals, and still have not evidence, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling puppy.

Lost in Translation Bill Murray Stripes

No. The Bible calls Christians who abandon their faith dogs who return to their own vomit. So your complaint is not with me. Sorry.

When did I criticize dogs?

Dandy! Let us know when you have something to contribute to this discussion. Meantime, if you want to whine about something I might have said to you two, five or 10 years ago in the context of a completely different discussion, please feel free to start a thread in Soap Opera and I give you my word as a demonically influenced vomit - eating dog that I'll be happy to address it.

Doctrinal minutiae was AN issue. I'm not sure where it ranks. Like SIT, it was bait on TWI's hook. It allowed us to think we were masters of detail, and it masked how many details we were missing. Either The Way's definition of God breathed was in error, or the Bible is not God breathed. Personally, I choose B. But I can respect those who choose A, because at least they don't feel compelled to assassinate the characters of those who accurately show that, well shucks, there really are actual errors in this book. Mark, that's wonderful, but waysider and I have repeatedly implored you to get back on topic, and you steadfastly refuse to do so. So, one more time, discuss Genesis and show me where my "errors" are not really errors, or shut up. Not hard. Stay on topic, or zip it.