(January 29, 2015 at 1:46 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Good lord Drich, A/S/K God to fix your formatting.

He sent a poet

(January 29, 2015 at 2:12 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 29, 2015 at 1:50 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: Didn't Paul say God's law is written on everybody's heart (i.e. intuitive)? My intuitive sense of right and wrong wants to puke when it reads the story of Genesis.

The laws yes. These things are wrong because God says they are wrong. But the mistake being they are wrong because a given act in wrong in itself. When in fact they are wrong only because God has forbade man from doing these things.

(January 29, 2015 at 1:50 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: This idea that we should abandon our own innate sense of morality is really dangerous IMO - especially when the Bible is so ambiguous and people claim to get guidance through the Holy Spirit.

I don't expect I will change your mind though.

Your right I am not going to change my mind, but the thing is my mind is not where you think it is. I did not say we should abandon 'morality'. Just view it for what it is. a work study on whatever the lessor of two evils is. In man's morality is an evil can be justified or if it can be minimumized it ceases to be wrong. (abortion and homosexuality) where in God's ecconomy these things will always be wrong for us to do.

Let me see if I understand. Imagine a pregnancy, where the doctor can perform an abortion to save the mother's life, or the doctor can do nothing and allow both mother and fetus to die. Are you saying that there is nothing inherently bad about death, but it is bad to break God's rules? Therefore the doctor should do nothing and allow both mother and fetus to die (rather than break God's rule about abortion to save the mother's life)? (Correct me if I misunderstand.)

I agree that nothing is inherently good or bad. I can see why a Christian might be tempted to use the Bible to define good and bad. Unfortunately the Bible isn't a law book, and it isn't consistent IMO.

(January 29, 2015 at 1:45 pm)Drich Wrote: Again your mixing two things. the first is theexegetical statement that their is no time line between the last day of creation and the fall of man. Without a doubt in any bible there is no date. This has been proven several different times to you.

How about you read the responses that people take the time to type to you? You might find it enlightening. There is a timeline, it is very well delineated, you can do the math or I can do the math, in fact anyone can do the math.

Quote:Second thing. Man, a Man, Adam was different than ALL Other creatures in that God breathed into Him a Living soul. This was unique to Adam and his children and their children.

-of which you and I are not.

Quote:IF
It is your belief that man existed outside of the garden the bible does not deny you this belief. In fact it supports it as it speaks of cities and of people not listed in the garden account. However as per genesis 2 these 'men did not have souls as ADAM was the only one who did.

Neither do you, because you're one of those men, one of us......and yes, I'm aware...those men and those cities described therein are part of the timeline layed out in the narrative.

Quote:So to recap: Monkey men/Evolved man/ Man who lived out side the garden did not have a soul. Adam did per The Creation account.

Good for Adam, don't care.

Quote:We are discussing exodus because a question was ask. That's what I do here I answer questions.

uh-huh...

Quote:You do not have question you make strawmen and want me to defend what you think I should say.

as always, you misidentify a fallacy in the reverse.

Quote: Nope try again sport. This is exactly what I mean by you creating strawmen. A link I posted showed the scripture that said their clothing did not wear out, everything being discussed clothing never came up. You all want to see camp fires, poop, bones, dead people, tents and pottery

Of course we do, because that's what real people would have left in their wake, as opposed to fictional people within the pages of a fairy tale about magical clothes and "manna".

Quote:Yes I've been called out many many times but each and every time the out callings have been shot down. How? Because they are almost always based on logical fallacy/false repersentation of my position.

You've demonstrated your expertise in misidentifying logical fallacies at length.

Quote:Actually I can not support what you believe I believe. In the very beginning of your last post you wanted to provide a synopsis. YOU FAILED To do That! So then how can you tell me I can't support what I believe if you don't even have an elementry grasp of it?

I stand by my summary.

Quote:So me that I am wrong show me by truly restating me arguement. Show me your not the lazy pretender you seem to be and I will put in the time to straighten out what ever you like no matter how long it takes (lord willing I have the time.)

No you wont, and frankly, you can't. I point to your time here as evidence of both facts.

(January 29, 2015 at 6:28 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 29, 2015 at 1:46 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Good lord Drich, A/S/K God to fix your formatting.

He sent a poet

ee cummings ain't gonna help, either with your formatting or your "logic", such as it is.

(January 29, 2015 at 7:32 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: (rather than break God's rule about abortion to save the mother's life)? (Correct me if I misunderstand.)

What's gods rules about abortion?

God was fine with abortions. It gives instructions in the bible on how to kill an unborn child, under certain condition. The woman is forced to drink some sort of "dirty water" which kills the pregnancy.

---

Theist: it doesn't say that

Me: here's the verse

Theist: it doesn't mean what it says you have to interpret it

Me: *revs chainsaw*

(January 30, 2015 at 6:33 am)robvalue Wrote: God was fine with abortions. It gives instructions in the bible on how to kill an unborn child, under certain condition. The woman is forced to drink some sort of "dirty water" which kills the pregnancy.

---

Theist: it doesn't say that

Me: here's the verse

Theists: it doesn't mean what it says you have to interpret it

Me: *revs chainsaw*

I'm just going to say it so we can move on...

"It's a metaphor. Duh."

Cool. We don't even need theists on here anymore, we know what they will say anyway :p

(January 30, 2015 at 6:15 am)h4ym4n Wrote:

(January 29, 2015 at 7:32 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: (rather than break God's rule about abortion to save the mother's life)? (Correct me if I misunderstand.)

What's gods rules about abortion?

According to Drich, God is opposed to abortion and homosexuality. I think the abortion rule is derived from the ten commandments' "thou shalt not kill"? The homosexuality rule comes from some bible verse that says God hates a man sleeping with another man. The Jews were opposed to male homosexuality, but it's not clear how they felt about female homosexuality.

robvalue mentioned the verse about deciding the innocence of a women by forcing her to drink a nasty magic potion that would shrivel her womb or something. I never connected that with abortion, but maybe that was what it described. (My eyes usually glazed-over when I read that part of the Bible. )

Haha. Yeah pretty sure that is abortion. It stops the pregnancy, what else can it be?

And "shall not kill" isn't in the 10 commandments according to the bible I find that hilarious. He had to boot it to make room for more stuff about his ego and boiling goats.

---

Theist: Yes it is!

Me: Here's the verse

Theist: *Puts robvalue on block*

Theist: Poopy pants!