Christians Endorse God's Hatred

[Esquilax]

No excuses, understanding. Things that appear on first blush to be illogical make sense when considered more deeply. It is like this: you walk into a dark room and you think there is a snake in the corner. When you turn on the light you see that it was a coiled rope. If you let in the light of God's truth it will enlighten your understanding of the text.

So the next question, logically speaking, is how do you know the interpretation that you've convinced yourself of reflects the intention of god? I suspect you'll say that you're just enlightened as to what god wants by way of personal experience, but that's the same thing as saying "I've convinced myself that this is true, and then I choose to ignore that it was me doing the convincing."

The stuff that happens inside your head isn't necessarily true just because you tell yourself someone else put it there.

[Jacob(smooth)]

So your beef from the fundamentalists is they don't claim to hold a super duper decoder ring that makes excuses for the illogical points of their story?

No excuses, understanding. Things that appear on first blush to be illogical make sense when considered more deeply. It is like this: you walk into a dark room and you think there is a snake in the corner. When you turn on the light you see that it was a coiled rope. If you let in the light of God's truth it will enlighten your understanding of the text.

Another question is how do you know that the verses you chose to look at more deeply were MEANT to be looked at more deeply? How do yo know that the snake is not meant to be a snake and you're convincing yourself it's a coil of rope be squinting.

The Yec vs oec vs TE, debate is a good example. Some Christians decide it's right to take it at face value, others that it is right to look deeper. Both sets are Christians, all are sure, but they can't all be right.

[Lion IRC]

The Yec vs oec vs TE, debate is a good example. Some Christians decide it's right to take it at face value, others that it is right to look deeper. Both sets are Christians, all are sure, but they can't all be right.

I have never spoken to a YEC or TE Christian who was "sure".
Usually they are as interested in testing and discussing the evidence as their non-theist counterparts.

[Ryantology]

The Yec vs oec vs TE, debate is a good example. Some Christians decide it's right to take it at face value, others that it is right to look deeper. Both sets are Christians, all are sure, but they can't all be right.

I have never spoken to a YEC or TE Christian who was "sure".
Usually they are as interested in testing and discussing the evidence as their non-theist counterparts.

That's an interesting way to interpret twisting the evidence so that it conforms to the narrative which you believe, with total conviction, is a 100% straightforward account of the origin of the universe.

[Lion IRC]

That's my point.
The evidence being discussed is competing evidence.
I haven't seen or heard young earthers claiming its a slam dunk case.

[Zen Badger]

So your beef from the fundamentalists is they don't claim to hold a super duper decoder ring that makes excuses for the illogical points of their story?

No excuses, understanding. Things that appear on first blush to be illogical make sense when considered more deeply. It is like this: you walk into a dark room and you think there is a snake in the corner. When you turn on the light you see that it was a coiled rope. If you let in the light of God's truth it will enlighten your understanding of the text.

Yes you heathens.....

When you let gods light in, you too will understands that murdering children and pregnant woman is ok.

As long as god tells you to do it.

[Jacob(smooth)]

That's my point.
The evidence being discussed is competing evidence.
I haven't seen or heard young earthers claiming its a slam dunk case.

I could introduce you to a few.

Usually when I discuss it with those people we get nowhere because the a priori conviction is the inerrancy of scripture. Whilst some may examine evidence, any which Is mutually exclusive with their primary commitment to the Biblical account is discarded or critiqued, that which is not is accepted without question.

This is where inerrancy is so tricky. Oec s and yes s both tend to believe that the Bible is true, but reach conclusions which differ by a few billion years!

Judging which passages to take "as is" and which to "look deeper" is where the bullet hits the bone. Hermeneutic and internal consistency would seem to be the tools but inevitably external evidence and morality also plays a part. In which case are we not simply treating the bible like are giant ink blot, where we see what we want to see?

[Bad Writer]

That's my point.
The evidence being discussed is competing evidence.
I haven't seen or heard young earthers claiming its a slam dunk case.

You haven't met Statler Waldorf here, have you?

[Godscreated]

I bet you were good at dodgeball in school, still see no explanation for Deut. 21:18-21. Bet you've never heard of prophecy either.

GC

I was just enjoying the way god splashes his love around like eviserated intestines, that's all.

And why do I have to explain Deuteronomy?

It's your fucked up fairytale, not mine.

You want to throw those verses up in our faces, yes you need to explain why, by giving the explanation of the verses you use.

GC

[Esquilax]

You want to throw those verses up in our faces, yes you need to explain why, by giving the explanation of the verses you use.

GC

Why bother? I can already predict the totality of your response:

"That's not the correct interpretation. Mine is, and it says "god are good!""

Add in a random, staid insult to the intelligence of the person you're replying to, and an entreaty to read der bible, and you're done.

See, that's the thing: you christians are all too willing to disagree with any interpretation that paints god in a less than stellar light, but you're never willing to back up your own interpretation in the process.