(September 17, 2011 at 11:42 pm)Ryft Wrote:(September 16, 2011 at 3:08 am)aleialoura Wrote: Young-earth creationism is unbiblical? To say that is to say that the Bible is unbiblical.
Saying that "the Bible is unbiblical" is as incoherent and meaningless as saying "logic is illogical" or "justice is unjust." The fact that you can type such a thing as "the Bible is unbiblical" with a straight face and think you have said something intelligible is, well, very troubling.
I didn't say the bible is unbiblical. Here you go again with your rewriting and trying to twist things around. Cute tactic, but fuck you anyway. I said that to say YEC is unbiblical is to say that the bible is unbiblical. The bible's account of our origin is inaccurate, yes, but it is the bible's account and therefore biblical.
I have to explain things less to my three year old. The fact that you delude yourself with these notions that YEC is unbiblical, is beyond me. You're delusions are even delusional. Twilight Zone madness! Get a hold of yourself, man! Stop pulling these deeply complex interpretations of this ancient, irrelevant text out of your ass.
Quote:Yes, Aleialoura, young-earth creationism is unbiblical. That means the Bible does not teach it. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. Honestly.
Maybe not for the person who lives in the same dreamworld in which you dwell. I live in reality. The one where I've read the bible with an understanding of primitive limits of understanding. The person(s) who(m) wrote Genesis knew not a damn thing about how we got here. I know this to be a fact because of evidence that clearly shows that men didn't start reasonably deducing the world until thousands of years later. It isn't a difficult concept to grasp if you're not clinging to fantasy.
Young earth creationism is biblical because it's in the bible. Get over it!
(September 17, 2011 at 11:42 pm)Ryft Wrote:(September 16, 2011 at 3:08 am)aleialoura Wrote: I'll admit that I was ignorant of who exactly Numbers is. Forgive me.
Forgive you? You only embarrassed yourself—which thus far you seem to have a penchant for.
That's funny, I don't feel embarrassed at all. Perhaps embarrassment is subjective.
How silly of me to ask a Christian for forgiveness.
(September 17, 2011 at 11:42 pm)Ryft Wrote:(September 16, 2011 at 3:08 am)aleialoura Wrote: I assumed that since you were dropping his name ...
Yes, and these are some of the embarrassing things that baseless assumptions produce. I doubt that will stop you from using them, though.
You assume God is real. You assume that Jesus is your savior.
Yes, and these are some of the embarrassing things that baseless assumptions produce. I doubt that will stop you from using them, though.
Quote:Which of these two articles support your claim? Daniels reports a horrifying case of child abuse by fundamentalist parents and an author who may have influenced them. And Huemer simply lists "scary" Bible quotes. How does either of these support your claim that "the reason Christians selectively disregard Deuteronomy and Leviticus is because it's no longer a part of our culture" (Msg. 24, para. 3)?
Can anyone else determine how this supports Aleialoura's claim? Feel free to explain how.
Look, Einstein, if you can't read the bible in it's entirety, and just live/look around in the world around you in 2011 and see why the horrifically immoral word of "god" no longer fits in modern culture, then I'm afraid there is no hope for you whatsoever.
Quote:What you spelled out was abundantly clear. What it does not do, unfortunately, is support your claim that "the reason Christians selectively disregard Deuteronomy and Leviticus is because it's no longer a part of our culture."
I hope that you're just being sarcastic and pretending you don't get it. If not then you're nothing more than a mindless drone who happens to know some big fancy words, and how to use them in context.
42
