[quote='Rhythm' pid='322541' dateline='1344811308']
No, he wasn't, and no, he didn't.With facts one does not require faith. [/quote]
Ya, huh! and Yes he did.

---

[quote='FallentoReason' pid='322627' dateline='1344823821']
[quote]So Drich, what you're saying is that you can be selective about what you hold to be true in the Bible?? [/quote]Noope.
I'm saying is you do not have to understand your whole bible. I do not understand what happened in Genesis beyond any doubt.
But I know what the bible says, and I believe it to be true as read.
At the same time I know my belief to be a simple man's belief, one that points back to "God did it." and no matter what God did (whether I fully understand it or not) will not change my faith.

[quote]So far your explanation for creation has been nothing but messy and now you say none of it matters anyways?[/quote] way to try and trivialize and dismiss when you preceived a weakness in my arguement, but no. This whole thread does one thing. It takes away the artifical time line placed between Creation and the fall. Nothing messy about that unless you simply can not excegetically argue the point and are desperatly trying to dismiss what you do not understand. This arguement is as clean and easy to understand as one needs it to be if he is one trying to reconsile two absolutes. (Creation and Evolution)

[quote] How is it wise to have faith in any of it then?[/quote]Again it is foolish to speak in absolutes when none are avaiable. It is wise to have faith and know it is faith when in the presents of a fool speaking in 'absolutes.'
-Drich

(August 12, 2012 at 11:39 pm)Drich Wrote: [quote='Rhythm' pid='322541' dateline='1344811308']
No, he wasn't, and no, he didn't.With facts one does not require faith.

Ya, huh! and Yes he did.

---

(August 12, 2012 at 10:10 pm)FallentoReason Wrote:

Quote:So Drich, what you're saying is that you can be selective about what you hold to be true in the Bible??

Noope.
I'm saying is you do not have to understand your whole bible. I do not understand what happened in Genesis beyond any doubt.
But I know what the bible says, and I believe it to be true as read.
At the same time I know my belief to be a simple man's belief, one that points back to "God did it." and no matter what God did (whether I fully understand it or not) will not change my faith.

Quote:So far your explanation for creation has been nothing but messy and now you say none of it matters anyways?

way to try and trivialize and dismiss when you preceived a weakness in my arguement, but no. This whole thread does one thing. It takes away the artifical time line placed between Creation and the fall. Nothing messy about that unless you simply can not excegetically argue the point and are desperatly trying to dismiss what you do not understand. This arguement is as clean and easy to understand as one needs it to be if he is one trying to reconsile two absolutes. (Creation and Evolution)

Quote: How is it wise to have faith in any of it then?

Again it is foolish to speak in absolutes when none are avaiable. It is wise to have faith and know it is faith when in the presents of a fool speaking in 'absolutes.'
-Drich

Oh I see how it works. All this time I thought it was the content of my posts using logic, reason and evidence that mattered. I feel so silly now you've shown me what makes a truly strong argument.

I win, I have the most laughter in my retort thereby making it the most plausible.
If you don't agree its because you can't fathom the eloquence of my point. :-)
-Drake

So, what do we have Drich? We have your insistence that a man named Moses wrote the first five books of the bible (up to and including writing about his own death and events thereafter).....or...we have the opinion of seminary textbooks, rigorous scholarship, and (my favorite) functioning minds.

Sorry, don't think I can side with you on this one, if you were the kind person who prided themselves on their vast wealth of biblical knowledge this particular claim would be almost inexcusable. It's a fundy joke, definitely not the kind of thing one would expect from an expert.

Mayan creation mythology is so much better. At least the gods recognised they weren't perfect and they destroyed the first 3 worlds.

http://www.godchecker.com/

What's your second favourite Drich?

(August 13, 2012 at 12:30 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: Oh I see how it works. All this time I thought it was the content of my posts using logic, reason and evidence that mattered. I feel so silly now you've shown me what makes a truly strong argument.

I win, I have the most laughter in my retort thereby making it the most plausible.
If you don't agree its because you can't fathom the eloquence of my point. :-)
-Drake

What made you post disagreeable and so funny is how convinced you were that it was right, but completely ignored the fact that you had to mislable my position and misidentify intentions, so you could move to dismiss. How can you change the topic so much and still claim to be discussing the same thing?

---

(August 13, 2012 at 12:44 am)Rhythm Wrote: So, what do we have Drich? We have your insistence that a man named Moses wrote the first five books of the bible (up to and including writing about his own death and events thereafter).....or...we have the opinion of seminary textbooks, rigorous scholarship, and (my favorite) functioning minds.

Sorry, don't think I can side with you on this one, if you were the kind person who prided themselves on their vast wealth of biblical knowledge this particular claim would be almost inexcusable. It's a fundy joke, definitely not the kind of thing one would expect from an expert.

so, your 'feelings' and 'logic' against 1000's of years of Jewish tradition and History?
Sorry, don't think I can side with you on this one, if you were the kind person who prided themselves on their vast wealth of biblical knowledge this particular claim would be almost inexcusable. It's a fundy joke, definitely not the kind of thing one would expect from an expert.

Thousands of years of any culture's history maintains that a whole host of mythical creatures exist, your Moses among them (but I bet you don't grant other cultures their magical beasties, do you?). Who said anything about my feelings? My feelings on the matter don't factor in at all.

If you have something to add to the body of knowledge then by all means share. If you could make a case for Moses, as it were, it would radically alter our body of knowledge on the subject. It wasn't exactly secular scholarship that led us to conclude that Moses didn't write the books attributed to him btw. There are those strange religious folks who don't feel the need to make an ass of themselves to maintain their faith.

Now, since you brought up my feelings on the matter, I'll tell you what I think-
Your faith probably doesn't "hang on this narrative", right? Why not ditch the untenable bits? You could always go the route of "No, Moses did not write those books, but people wrote about Moses - who was some manner of historical figure even though the actions attributed to him in the narrative did not occur as stated-." See, this is what I don't get. One would assume that people who were serious about their faith would want to know everything there is to know about their faith, would take research and scholarship about their faith very seriously. Insisting upon putting forward a parody of the narrative of faith does nothing to educate skeptics or atheists, and honestly, it doesn't do the faithful any favors either.

Well said Rhythm. I don't understand either why the religious are so resistant to accept the facts of their own religion. Their 'ultimate truth' is exactly that right, the truth? I think Drich knows deep inside that his religion's truth surpisingly doesn't match up to reality.

(August 13, 2012 at 9:29 am)Drich Wrote: What made you post disagreeable and so funny is how convinced you were that it was right, but completely ignored the fact that you had to mislable my position and misidentify intentions, so you could move to dismiss. How can you change the topic so much and still claim to be discussing the same thing?

I know. The Drake does this all the time. He refuses to accept the facts as you lay them out and then pretends to be answering your post anyway. Obviously what you had to say was predicated on the world of facts as you see them. You weren't talking about the world as the Drake experiences it so what he had to say completely missed your point. I'm sure he meant no disrespect.

(August 13, 2012 at 9:29 am)Drich Wrote:

(August 13, 2012 at 12:30 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: Oh I see how it works. All this time I thought it was the content of my posts using logic, reason and evidence that mattered. I feel so silly now you've shown me what makes a truly strong argument.

I win, I have the most laughter in my retort thereby making it the most plausible.
If you don't agree its because you can't fathom the eloquence of my point. :-)
-Drake

What made you post disagreeable and so funny is how convinced you were that it was right, but completely ignored the fact that you had to mislable my position and misidentify intentions, so you could move to dismiss. How can you change the topic so much and still claim to be discussing the same thing?

Er... no. Actually you're just very easy to mock and that is more or less your style of debate. I was merely pointing out when you have no decent retort you typically put a laughter emote up and attempt to claim your opponent has misunderstood with a very vague justification for the claim.
But well done for completely missing that and thinking it a serious retort, kinda proves my point.