Barry OGrady <god_free_jones@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:1ll124lvo9u544vhsjua6a2tgoumpq531v@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 19:51:13 GMT, Dave Oldridge
> <doldridg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>" ::: good news runner :::" <veralein@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>news:686tv5F2ri8srU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> In news:Xns9A94411283B9Adoldridgsprintca@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Dave Oldridge <doldridg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> typed:
>>>> " ::: good news runner :::" <veralein@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>> news:682r9sF2ra2p4U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> In news:481c2997@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> Mark T <snailmail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> typed:
>>>>>> Why do people laugh at creationists?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because they are stupid?
>>>>
>>>> No, it's because creationist stupidity is self-inflicted.
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm
>>>>
>>>> Sheesh! Don't you guys get any NEW lies from your father in hell
>>>> once in a while?
>>>
>>> And you think you can back that up - how?
>>
>>The Paluxy River hoax is a very old one. It has been around for
>>several decades now. Essentially, it consists of a handful of
>>handcarved fake footprints, and a number of misidentified dino prints,
>>used in a phony "proof" that non-avian dinosaurs and humans coexisted.
>>
>>When you cite an old hoax, then expect to be called on it.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> No wonder the atheists are laughing at YOU!
>>>
>>> And you really think I would care about that?
>>
>>No, I really don't think you would care about that. You don't care
>>about the disposition of your own immortal soul, why should you care
>>about a trivial thing like appearing ridiculous?
>
> You don't care about appearing ridiculous because you have been
> tricked into believing in an immortal soul even though science tells
> you there is no such thing.
Science tells me no such thing. Science tells YOU no such thing. But
like all fundamentalists, you insist on reading things into your
scriptures that are not there.
>>> You are funny, aren't you? Ha, ha!
>>>
>>> And I can only say that God created this world in six days, and he
>>> rested on the seventh. I have no doubt that God can do that. It is a
>>> matter of faith, that is all. If you do not have it - well, I do not
>>> really envy you. :-)
>>
>>And I only say that, in this universe, the real one that we live in,
>>time is relative. So if God created this world in six days, we need
>>to know the viewpoint clock's position and velocity in order to
>>translate that measure into our own time relative to us here, now.
>>
>>Of course, you only need such subterfuge, when you insist on a literal
>>interpretation of Genesis 1. Since the church has never insisted on
>>such a literal interpretation, and since Jewish tradition has never
>>insisted on it, you're on your own there.
>
> Since when has reality been determined by what the church insists?
Physical reality is, of course, determined by itself. What is an
orthodox interpretation of Scripture, however, must be determined by each
denomination for itself. However, the denominations representing the
vast majority of Christians, reject the idea that Genesis 1 to 11 have to
be interpreted literally.
>>This has never been about faith in what God can do, it is about
>>rationally ascertaining what actually happened. And when.
>
> Christianity has never been about what really happens.
And once again you spew out your blanket condemnation of Christianity as
if you even know anything about it.
>
>>Apparently your cult requires you to invent lies about science in
>>order to sup****t a dogma about how to interpret scripture. Tell me,
>>which Bible verses tell you to do that?
>
> Apparently your cult allows you to select which passages you will
> ignore.
I have quite clearly stated to you on several occasions that I am not a
bibliolater. I am not bound by YOUR doctrine of Sola Scriptura. In my
tradition, Scripture is a tradition. But it is not the only tradition,
and it is far from being the sole source of doctrine.
But apparently you cannot bend your fundy mind around the idea that a
living tradition, while somewhat informed by Scripture, is not
necessarily a slave to it or a slave to any particular private
interpretation of it.
>
>>Inquiring minds want to know.
>
> Christians don't have inquiring lines.
I don't understand this lie. What do you mean by "inquiring lines?"
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
|
