Happy Easter

maani wrote: Reed Lover: My final observation is that you seem far too caught up in dogma and doctrine.  You are obsessed with establishing "events" (Adam & Eve, Noah's Ark, etc.) as "factual" - in "proving" that every word of Scripture is 101% accurate. Peace.

That's a pretty poor way to present the case Maani.

Simple facts:

You and others claim that all that is in the Scriptures came from God.

If God is omniscient and omnipotent (etc) he must be infallible.

If the stories of Adam&Eve and Noah's Ark are not true,then they could not have come from God.

If part of Scripture can be proved not to have come from God:

a) Who did it come from?

b)What does that do for the integrity and authenticity of The Bible?

c)What else is not true?

d)why would anything that is sourced from God be inaccurate-what purpose would this serve?

e)When does declaring that "we cannot presume to know God's motives,because it is his design and therefore already written" become a stonewall for refusing to accept the obvious,that even if God exists the Bible/Scripture is a man-made work and therefore open to innacuracies?

I think that everyday Christians should be given the answer to these things.

Your refusal to answer the "Adam & Eve" question seriously undermines your credibility.For all my bluster I will answer any questions about my non-belief-you will find no contradictions.

All this feeling sorry for me too is very patronising.Yes I have no Faith,but anyone with any brains at all can see I am a passionate,emotional person.

Happy easter people

PS i like slipknot

Here Comes The Flood-Gabriel

The 1990 Five Nations Championship reached its climax at Murrayfield, Edinburgh, as Scotland played England, with everything—the Grand Slam, the Triple Crown, and the Calcutta Cup—up for grabs. England had lorded their way through the championship under the captaincy of Will Carling, easily defeating Ireland (23-0), France (7-26), and Wales (34-6) with flowing and exciting rugby. The Scots, by comparison, had played a scrappy game, beating Ireland (10-13), France (21-0), and Wales (9-13). Everybody outside Scotland thought that England would win easily...but the friggin Scots did us again!

Who was the Scottish coach at this time and who captained Scotland to this famous victory?

Fragile wrote: I'm not a Rugby fan at all Reed but I'll have a go with David Sole as Captain.No clues as to the manager.

Half right-Ian McGeechan was the coach.

i'll hit you with some GK over the weekend!

JrKASperov wrote: Reed Lover wrote: If the stories of Adam&Eve and Noah's Ark are not true,then they could not have come from God. Philosophical error. Why is this so?

You tell me.........................that is what I am trying to find out.

Explain how I have made a Philosophical error

JrKASperov wrote: Does God really need to tell true stories all the time? (mind you I believe them, I am merely showing your logic is faulty) When we take Yeshua as in the Evangelics, we have indeed a God who tells stories that are not necessarily true. He Himself speaks in comparisons and metaphors from time to time, like with the beam and splinter for example. Concluding, if the stories are untrue, they could still have come from God. Your 'error' is taking that step which is not necesarily true.

But there is a big difference between using metaphor as a useful linguistic device to help understanding and creating"events" like The Flood/Noah's Ark.
There is no fault in my logic-I am merely extrapolating ideas that Maani has presented.

Your "error" is not reading the full body of debate between Maani and I.
Your logic is totally faulty.To say: "When we take Yeshua as in the Evangelics, we have indeed a God who tells stories that are not necessarily true." is pointless.You are presenting argument using the constraints of the story,not based on logic.
JrKasperov:you are obviously very convinced in your faith,and I am certainly not trying to "convert" you or lessen that belief.However,to debate this subject effectively you need to stand aside from that faith and take a more open-minded and cerebral approach.

For example,and I only use this is a useful comparison and not to disparage your belief,if we were discussing the work of a magician and trying to work out how he did his "tricks",based on what you have written in this debate you would contribute the following:

"why are you discussing "tricks"? I know he uses real magic-even if the cards fall from his sleeve occasionally I still believe that they vanish into thin air!"

I am not denegrating you,honestly.But try reversing the positions and imagine you were arguing against me in my example-how frustrated would you feel?

I need more from you than what you are giving me, or get out of the debate.Please.

JrKASperov wrote: Reed Lover wrote: But there is a big difference between using metaphor as a useful linguistic device to help understanding and creating"events" like The Flood/Noah's Ark. There is no fault in my logic-I am merely extrapolating ideas that Maani has presented.   It is simply logically wrong to immeadiately name a story nto from God if it is untrue.   Your "error" is not reading the full body of debate between Maani and I. Your logic is totally faulty.To say: "When we take Yeshua as in the Evangelics, we have indeed a God who tells stories that are not necessarily true." is pointless.You are presenting argument using the constraints of the story,not based on logic. JrKasperov:you are obviously very convinced in your faith,and I am certainly not trying to "convert" you or lessen that belief.However,to debate this subject effectively you need to stand aside from that faith and take a more open-minded and cerebral approach.   I think you misunderstood the reason why I made the last post. It was about a simple logic fault, I was not bringing in any argument making a case for my belief. I do not understand why you proceed to tell me that I should not be open minded in this debate because of this. Outside my faith or not, the logic fault stays.   For example,and I only use this is a useful comparison and not to disparage your belief,if we were discussing the work of a magician and trying to work out how he did his "tricks",based on what you have written in this debate you would contribute the following: "why are you discussing "tricks"? I know he uses real magic-even if the cards fall from his sleeve occasionally I still believe that they vanish into thin air!" I am not denegrating you,honestly.But try reversing the positions and imagine you were arguing against me in my example-how frustrated would you feel? I need more from you than what you are giving me, or get out of the debate.Please.   I do not understand the example you use. It sounds like you are implying that our belief has gaping holes. This is something that is very open to debate ,as more often than not, people think this because they don't know enough from the Bible or the process of faith and living it. Is this really the way you meant it?

It either a problem of language or you have have serious intellect issues.I know that is very insulting but come on,the passage I have highlighted in bold type is well..........

Hello, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Dante Alighieri and I welcome you to the First Circle of Hell, where the torment is Endless Debating...