Raf

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.

WhatEVER. You are neither putting up nor shutting up. For God's sake, pick one!

Wait! I haven't been called a "fool" or a "dog returning to its own vomit" yet. Why does the Bible get to say whatever it wants about atheists, but atheists are dishonest if they expect the Bible writers to know something that only an omniscient God could have told them? P.S. I have no idea how many Way doctrines I defended in my time, but I imagine the number is quite high. Just saying, hardly an "accusation" when you think about it.

Yeah, yeah, so was I. I'm not impressed. You're using an old accusation to buttress nothing of an argument. So what if I once accused you of accepting a Way doctrine? You probably were. It's got nothing to do with the fact that Genesis has more errors than a third grader's calculus aptitude test. Put up or shut up. Show me where I'm mistaken or go threaten someone else with goblins, demons and whatever other nonexistent forces you care to conjure.

Yeah, yeah. If the facts don't back you up, you can always count on your opponent being a demonic deceiver. Such insults no longer work on me, old friend. If you're going to use magic to intimidate your opponent, you'd best pick an opponent who believes in magic. Point out and correct my errors, or shut up.

Like like like like like