5 ms·

Are you being intentionally difficult in leaving out "falsifiable, but not yet falsified" and repeating "false" twice?

by jakear 3y ago

DonHopkins 3y ago
Have you done the math on the Noah's Ark story? Please argue in good faith, not argue from blind faith.
- jakear 3y ago
  You also left out "allegorical".
  - DonHopkins 3y ago
    So you're a "Cafeteria Christian"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Christians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Christians
    - jakear 3y ago
      I follow Jesus, that's what it means to be a Christian. He never said we have to take all of the Old Testament at face value (even though I never claimed I didn't). In fact His earthly mission was to inform us that it was out of date and He had the new Gospel, and many of his recorded words were dedicated to deriding those who followed the Old Testament legalistically. Edit: if you actually would like a literalists interpretation of the flood, you could do worse than call up The Narrow Path radio show I linked above from 2-3 PM Pacific time and ask. The host is a full literalist and would be happy to talk.
      - DonHopkins 3y ago
        So you've definitely proven my point you're not arguing in good faith, just from blind faith.
        jibal 3y ago
        jakear says "He never said we have to take all of the Old Testament at face value" but he pretty much did: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-did-jesus-mean-when-he-said-not-iota-not-dot-will-pass-law-until-all-accomplished https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-did-jesus-mean-...
        jakear 3y ago
        He's saying that His coming has fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah, and that the other prophecies of the Old Testament are still in effect. Please read a list of translations of that verse here, along with the original Greek https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm and come to your own conclusion of whether it has anything at all to do with a literal interpretation.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        jakear 3y ago
        This is life, pick your axioms – Readjust as necessary to optimize attitude. Don't act like you don't do the exact same. :)
        DonHopkins 3y ago
        There's a huge difference. I change what I believe when it's proven wrong. You just dig in deeper, believing things that have been proven wrong even harder that ever.
        jakear 3y ago
        Wrong again. In fact, I was born and raised atheist/agnostic, and I even studied biology at a top university. I only converted when I saw how incomplete that narrative was (and, following that, how much better the Abrahamic narrative fit my personal experience and observation). Do you have an evolutionary explanation for the butterfly?

Are you being intentionally difficult in leaving out "falsifiable, but not yet falsified" and repeating "false" twice?

by jakear 3y ago

Are you being intentionally difficult in leaving out "falsifiable, but not yet falsified" and repeating "false" twice?

DonHopkins 3y ago

Have you done the math on the Noah's Ark story? Please argue in good faith, not argue from blind faith.

jakear 3y ago
You also left out "allegorical".
- DonHopkins 3y ago
  So you're a "Cafeteria Christian"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Christians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Christians
  - jakear 3y ago
    I follow Jesus, that's what it means to be a Christian. He never said we have to take all of the Old Testament at face value (even though I never claimed I didn't). In fact His earthly mission was to inform us that it was out of date and He had the new Gospel, and many of his recorded words were dedicated to deriding those who followed the Old Testament legalistically. Edit: if you actually would like a literalists interpretation of the flood, you could do worse than call up The Narrow Path radio show I linked above from 2-3 PM Pacific time and ask. The host is a full literalist and would be happy to talk.
    - DonHopkins 3y ago
      So you've definitely proven my point you're not arguing in good faith, just from blind faith.
      - jibal 3y ago
        jakear says "He never said we have to take all of the Old Testament at face value" but he pretty much did: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-did-jesus-mean-when-he-said-not-iota-not-dot-will-pass-law-until-all-accomplished https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-did-jesus-mean-...
        jakear 3y ago
        He's saying that His coming has fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah, and that the other prophecies of the Old Testament are still in effect. Please read a list of translations of that verse here, along with the original Greek https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm and come to your own conclusion of whether it has anything at all to do with a literal interpretation.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - jakear 3y ago
        This is life, pick your axioms – Readjust as necessary to optimize attitude. Don't act like you don't do the exact same. :)
        DonHopkins 3y ago
        There's a huge difference. I change what I believe when it's proven wrong. You just dig in deeper, believing things that have been proven wrong even harder that ever.
        jakear 3y ago
        Wrong again. In fact, I was born and raised atheist/agnostic, and I even studied biology at a top university. I only converted when I saw how incomplete that narrative was (and, following that, how much better the Abrahamic narrative fit my personal experience and observation). Do you have an evolutionary explanation for the butterfly?