RE: The Great Flood
November 8, 2008 at 12:31 pm
(This post was last modified: November 8, 2008 at 12:38 pm by Daystar.)
Excellent post, Jason! Very thoughtful and articulate.
I am not of the position that you can't truly believe the validity of something unless you personally read it yourself. Rather, I am of the position that it helps a great deal and if you are going to criticize it you have to be familiar with it enough to do so. More importantly to criticize it without being able to say why, other than a baseless opinion is of no import.
What I would like to see IS evidence to support a position for or against based upon evidence such as other documents supporting the existence and events surrounding Jesus and others, corroborating material, reliability of supporting documentation, impartiality etc but not excluding the Bible itself. For example, you can't assume that the Bible teaches hell when it doesn't and you can't demonstrate this without considering the Bible itself.
Harry Potter is fiction but there are witches and warlocks and magicians that can do things that you can't explain. The fact that you can't explain them or don't know that they exist doesn't make them go away and to ignore them isn't science. Is there substantial evidence for the existence of witches and warlocks? Yes. That they can do things that you can't explain. Yes. Does that imply that Harry Potter isn't fiction? No.
You say you are reading Numbers. Here is Numbers 22:22 - And the anger of God began to blaze because he was going; and Jehovah’s angel proceeded to station himself in the road to resist him. And he was riding upon his she-ass, and two attendants of his were with him.
Where it says resist the actual Hebrew says literally "in the road as a resister to him." The Hebrew word for resister is satan. The angel of Jehovah was satan to him. What does that mean?
You say it doesn't matter what ones hypothesis is but instead how you arrive at the point of proving it as fact, bringing it to the point of scientific theory with that supporting evidence, sources and testability.
Give me an example of that. What is satan? How would you approach what the Bible says about satan in that way.
What you have read so far leaves you with the impression that anybody who has read the Bible and still calls themselves a Christian is either an ignorant buffoon or heartless, immoral human being? Why is that?
EVF, I have not read TGD and I am not criticizing it. I have no opinion on it. I don't go on message boards and talk about how it can't be true because I can't judge it either way.
I have no argument with the fact that you can assume the Bible is full of shit without knowing anything about it. My argument is that that would be nothing more than an assumption. You are the one making that assumption and so the burden of proof is on you. Not me. As of yet you have given not one shred of evidence, and how could you do so?
I am not of the position that you can't truly believe the validity of something unless you personally read it yourself. Rather, I am of the position that it helps a great deal and if you are going to criticize it you have to be familiar with it enough to do so. More importantly to criticize it without being able to say why, other than a baseless opinion is of no import.
What I would like to see IS evidence to support a position for or against based upon evidence such as other documents supporting the existence and events surrounding Jesus and others, corroborating material, reliability of supporting documentation, impartiality etc but not excluding the Bible itself. For example, you can't assume that the Bible teaches hell when it doesn't and you can't demonstrate this without considering the Bible itself.
Harry Potter is fiction but there are witches and warlocks and magicians that can do things that you can't explain. The fact that you can't explain them or don't know that they exist doesn't make them go away and to ignore them isn't science. Is there substantial evidence for the existence of witches and warlocks? Yes. That they can do things that you can't explain. Yes. Does that imply that Harry Potter isn't fiction? No.
You say you are reading Numbers. Here is Numbers 22:22 - And the anger of God began to blaze because he was going; and Jehovah’s angel proceeded to station himself in the road to resist him. And he was riding upon his she-ass, and two attendants of his were with him.
Where it says resist the actual Hebrew says literally "in the road as a resister to him." The Hebrew word for resister is satan. The angel of Jehovah was satan to him. What does that mean?
You say it doesn't matter what ones hypothesis is but instead how you arrive at the point of proving it as fact, bringing it to the point of scientific theory with that supporting evidence, sources and testability.
Give me an example of that. What is satan? How would you approach what the Bible says about satan in that way.
What you have read so far leaves you with the impression that anybody who has read the Bible and still calls themselves a Christian is either an ignorant buffoon or heartless, immoral human being? Why is that?
EVF, I have not read TGD and I am not criticizing it. I have no opinion on it. I don't go on message boards and talk about how it can't be true because I can't judge it either way.
I have no argument with the fact that you can assume the Bible is full of shit without knowing anything about it. My argument is that that would be nothing more than an assumption. You are the one making that assumption and so the burden of proof is on you. Not me. As of yet you have given not one shred of evidence, and how could you do so?
