Raf

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

Nice try, but we're discussing the Bible, I'm pointing out the errors, and you're ignoring them. So there's that. In the meantime, I spent 40 years devoted to the presumption you call "truth," and I find it never held up to honest inquiry. So for you to come along now and say I'm ignoring it... sorry, pal, but it rings a little hollow. I've got too much of a track record for you to get away with lying about me so shamelessly. Try again.

That's fine. And I have neither the time nor the interest to study the articles you wrote, which no doubt presume the integrity of a book riddled with errors you choose to ignore. No sweat off my brow.

Maybe the truth is the Bible doesn't hold up to genuine scrutiny. Perhaps your approach of attacking me rather than defending it is an indication of who's really being dishonest here. Obviously the truth doesn't come from me. It comes from the Bible! As long as you ignore all of its actual errors. You know, like the gigantic dome we all live under.

I am not being dishonest and have not been dishonest. I expect and demand an apology for this deliberate character assassination and deliberate derailing of this topic. Defend Genesis on its merits or butt out of this conversation. Keep making it about me and I will respond accordingly. Once again, this is not a Christian forum. If you have a problem with that, it is YOUR problem, not the cafe's. If you don't like the fact that an atheist can read the Bible and call shenanigans when he sees it, there are plenty of forums on the Internet where open inquiry and honest debate are discouraged and you can live in a cocoon where there really are no errors in the bible as long as you don't open the thing. This is NOT one of those forums. So if you expect me to shut up because I no longer believe, if you expect me to NOT express myself when and where I feel it's appropriate, then TOO BAD FOR YOU. Just a reminder for those who think this is a Christians only ghetto of the Cafe. It isn't.

I WANT more people reading the Bible. The more you realize what this book really says, without being "blinded" by the so called "light," the more you will agree with me. Please, read as much of the Bible as you can! Especially the good parts, like when God takes a man's life for the unspeakable crime of picking up sticks on Saturday. PLEASE read more Bible! Not just the prepackaged feel good pablum we fed each other for decades. The whole thing. Because if you ever had the BALLS to do it, you would be standing where I am today, wondering why you didn't wake up sooner. You are implying that I am being dishonest. I reject your character assassination and demand an apology.

Uncalled for. Can't defend the myth, can't counter my argument, so go ahead and attack me personally. Uncalled for and intellectually bankrupt. This is not a Christian doctrinal forum. Perhaps you forgot that. I am pleased to remind you. The only one wasting people's time here is Mark. I am raising genuine questions about the reliability of Genesis, and Mark has derailed that conversation. Christians who don't want to participate don't need to. But if you want to participate, I suggest you participate in the topic. If you'd prefer to make it about me, then YOU are derailing the thread and I would ask you to stop.

Maybe I should say it in Spanish.

The whole idea of "spiritual truth" assumes spirit. I do not. Do I see some wisdom in Paul? Sure. I also see some ignorance, some bigotry, some obliviousness and some sexism. Do I believe Jesus existed? Most likely. Do I believe what's written about him? Mostly not. Most of this is fodder for another thread though. Can we get back to Genesis?

Yes. You're up

Not to mention that some of the advice is bad. "Lean not on your own understanding"? That's some bad advice right there.

Again, that's not to say there's nothing to be learned from the gospels or epistles. I just cut to the heart of your question.

No and no.

For what it's worth, The Way had a fairly ignorant understanding of evolution, playing off our own ignorance on the subject. Evolution does not predict a horse will breed with a cow and produce a cowey horse or a horsey cow.

I should pay some cursory attention to Genesis 1, but I really don't want to dwell on it. Taking it at face value: There is no way the creation of the earth in any way preceded the making of the sun. There is no way plant life developed on earth before there was a sun. There is no way there were three days and three nights before there even was a sun. The sun, moon and stars are not in a firmament as described in Genesis (unless you butcher the meaning of the word firmament, which is a solid structure surrounding the earth, which only makes sense if the earth is flat). Etc. And I'll do us all a favor and just leave evolution as the great unspoken of this thread. Unless, of course, someone wants to go there.

In case Mark missed it, I now feel this way about the whole Bible, not just Genesis. Not to say that there's nothing historical in it, or nothing that can be learned. I am simply no longer a "believer" in the sense that I have been and have presented myself on this board for so many years. So I'm coming at this all from a different framework than you. You are free to engage, to disengage, to argue, and of course to disagree.

It is a Baldwin, but I had the wrong one.

Sure. There's plenty I can learn from this story. But there's plenty I can learn from Aesop's Fables, Star Wars and the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, too. Referring to a truth as "spiritual" assumes the existence of a "spiritual" plane, and that requires defining and accepting such a thing. There are other words that might convey a mutually agreeable meaning, and we can then look at this material from that perspective. In college, studying Genesis as literature, one professor noted that according to the story, "with the knowledge of good and evil comes a loss of innocence." Whether you accept this as historical, allegorical, divinely inspired or pure fantasy, I think honest people can agree that this is one of the messages that can be drawn from the tale. And for all I know, that WAS the original intent of the tale. We don't know who wrote it or why. We do know how it was received, accepted and represented over the course of history, and it's this latter view that I no longer accept.