On Wed, 07 May 2008 12:31:51 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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 talk about Genesis not being sup****ted by the evidence. You ask
what we would expect to see if creation was true. I use the same method
to show there is no good God and no immortal soul.
>>>> 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.
OK.
>>>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.
You are trapped inside the square.
>>>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.
Tradition does not equal truth.
>>>Inquiring minds want to know.
>>
>> Christians don't have inquiring lines.
>
>I don't understand this lie. What do you mean by "inquiring lines?"
I don't know what was on my line, er mind, when I wrote that.
>--
>Dave Oldridge+
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
|
