Barry OGrady <god_free_jones@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:881724t55p6b970aoinnemu9p2v1rfuo4o@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
I never said it did. But, in the absence of other "truth," it is often
better than just guessing.
>>>>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.
You have a mind? Sure had me fooled! Congratulations -- on a near
perfect emulation of a self-made moron.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
|
