Deal for Daystar.

[Edwardo Piet]

Daystar, you say that you are here to just teach about the bible and not to teach the truth of it or prove that it is true.
So can we make a deal now?
The deal is this: I'd be very interested in learning more about the bible and how you interpret it. So long as you don't CLAIM that it is truth of the supernatural (meaning something that hasn't evolved or developed from natural laws). If you do claim this, you can still teach it your way but I should have every right to correct you and you should accept my correction when I remind you that you are not supposed to teach scripture as truth of the supernatural.
Deal?

[Tiberius]

He'll never accept it because he isn't just trying to "educate" us on the Bible; he's trying to convert us.

[Edwardo Piet]

He'll never accept it because he isn't just trying to "educate" us on the Bible; he's trying to convert us.

I'm interested in what his reply will be. If he replies.

[Daystar]

He'll never accept it because he isn't just trying to "educate" us on the Bible; he's trying to convert us.

You really think that I am trying to convert you? After I have said I haven't?

The objective of a true Christian is similar to that of Noah, not to convert but to present. Did you know that Noah didn't shut the door of the ark, God did. Or of Paul, just to plant the seed, and if the seed grows that is up to you and God. I do want to educate you but I am not so niave to think that that is likely. I have dealt with enough Xians and Atheists to know that is a vain pursuit.

I am here to discuss.

---

Daystar, you say that you are here to just teach about the bible and not to teach the truth of it or prove that it is true.

Not to teach the truth of it? I am certainly not here to teach anything but the truth of it. I don't need to prove it - that is nonsense.

So can we make a deal now?
The deal is this: I'd be very interested in learning more about the bible and how you interpret it. So long as you don't CLAIM that it is truth of the supernatural (meaning something that hasn't evolved or developed from natural laws). If you do claim this, you can still teach it your way but I should have every right to correct you and you should accept my correction when I remind you that you are not supposed to teach scripture as truth of the supernatural.
Deal?

That doesn't make any sense to me. What have we been doing all along? You know that I believe - that I CLAIM that the Bible is 'truth of the supernatural.' Are you like Windows Vista or something? Science has to 'prove' to you what I claim before you will acknowledge it?

If you are propositioning me to help you more accurately understand what the Bible teaches it is up to you not to accept the supernatural. Can I teach you in that way? I don't see why not.

You have a deal. (though not a point)

However, if by your proposition you mean that I can't mention God because he is supernatural you have no deal. The Bible deals with the supernatural.

If you want to express the reasons and logic and outside sources etc against, that is what I have been trying to get you to do all along.

[Tiberius]

Daystar,

You say you wish to "discuss" but all you have done so far is to write pages on your interpretation of your holy book. That isn't discussion, that is preaching. You may say you are not trying to convert us, but I don't believe a word of it. You insist your book is the truth, and by doing that you are holding it high and screaming "BELIEVE IN THIS!" (in the inter-webby form anyway). If that isn't converting I don't know what is.

For a discussion, you must present an opinion. You simply keep claiming that your book is true, and therefore anything that contradicts is either wrong, or needs to be changed so it fits with your narrow view of things. In a discussion everything must be placed on the table, including the Bible. I've always said that I *could* be wrong, but you have never admitted that perhaps your holy book is in the wrong.

[Edwardo Piet]

He'll never accept it because he isn't just trying to "educate" us on the Bible; he's trying to convert us.

You really think that I am trying to convert you? After I have said I haven't?

The objective of a true Christian is similar to that of Noah, not to convert but to present. Did you know that Noah didn't shut the door of the ark, God did. Or of Paul, just to plant the seed, and if the seed grows that is up to you and God. I do want to educate you but I am not so niave to think that that is likely. I have dealt with enough Xians and Atheists to know that is a vain pursuit.

I am here to discuss.

---

Daystar, you say that you are here to just teach about the bible and not to teach the truth of it or prove that it is true.

Not to teach the truth of it? I am certainly not here to teach anything but the truth of it. I don't need to prove it - that is nonsense.

So can we make a deal now?
The deal is this: I'd be very interested in learning more about the bible and how you interpret it. So long as you don't CLAIM that it is truth of the supernatural (meaning something that hasn't evolved or developed from natural laws). If you do claim this, you can still teach it your way but I should have every right to correct you and you should accept my correction when I remind you that you are not supposed to teach scripture as truth of the supernatural.
Deal?

That doesn't make any sense to me. What have we been doing all along? You know that I believe - that I CLAIM that the Bible is 'truth of the supernatural.' Are you like Windows Vista or something? Science has to 'prove' to you what I claim before you will acknowledge it?

If you are propositioning me to help you more accurately understand what the Bible teaches it is up to you not to accept the supernatural. Can I teach you in that way? I don't see why not.

You have a deal. (though not a point)

However, if by your proposition you mean that I can't mention God because he is supernatural you have no deal. The Bible deals with the supernatural.

If you want to express the reasons and logic and outside sources etc against, that is what I have been trying to get you to do all along.

What I mean is, if you are teaching the 'truth' of the bible, and claiming it, then you do want an argument don't you? Because of course I'm going to argue back because I don't think the bible is truth. But you say that you don't want argument. Seems like a contradiction to me. Unless of course you simply don't want me to use the burden of proof against an argument of your claims. Even though I think its very valid.
I'm happy if you teach the bible as fiction and I'm happy if you 'teach' about the 'truth' of the bible. But if you 'teach' about the 'truth' of the bible you cannot then tell me that I have nothing to say on the matter! I don't think the evidence you are presenting is valid, I think its false. And I don't have to disprove the truth of the bible as I have said many times now. I can just dismiss the evidence If I don't consider it to be evidence. Until you provide what I consider to be evidence, I can assume the bible is a load of nonsense. That's the burden of proof.

[josef rosenkranz]

Daystar, you say that you are here to just teach about the bible and not to teach the truth of it or prove that it is true.
So can we make a deal now?
The deal is this: I'd be very interested in learning more about the bible and how you interpret it. So long as you don't CLAIM that it is truth of the supernatural (meaning something that hasn't evolved or developed from natural laws). If you do claim this, you can still teach it your way but I should have every right to correct you and you should accept my correction when I remind you that you are not supposed to teach scripture as truth of the supernatural.
Deal?

You think that if Daystar quotes from the Bible he really has a wide knowledge of what is written in the Book of books.
Even if he has that knowledge most religious people will keep quoting from it as if it where written just yesterday in the Newsweek.
Watch the tv channel of Pat Robertson and you'll see high trained preachers speaking before an immense audience and supporting their arguments whith quotation from the Bible which they hold in front of them as if what Ezekiel (which by the way is a contorted name of the original Yeheskel) said or king David did or of God himself said onto X and Y.
At the end as an atheist you will learn nothing.
If the matter is really interesting you, then seek on Google for historic literature on the Bible.

[Edwardo Piet]

Daystar, you say that you are here to just teach about the bible and not to teach the truth of it or prove that it is true.
So can we make a deal now?
The deal is this: I'd be very interested in learning more about the bible and how you interpret it. So long as you don't CLAIM that it is truth of the supernatural (meaning something that hasn't evolved or developed from natural laws). If you do claim this, you can still teach it your way but I should have every right to correct you and you should accept my correction when I remind you that you are not supposed to teach scripture as truth of the supernatural.
Deal?

You think that if Daystar quotes from the Bible he really has a wide knowledge of what is written in the Book of books.

No. I'm just interested in understanding how he interprets it, and I find discussing with him about it more interesting than reading a book by a professor of theology. Which I think would be totally boring and a waste of time.
Of course I should have made it more clear: I'm happy for Daystar to 'teach' me how he interprets the bible just because it interests me. And I want to reply to him and discuss it with him.
And I should have mentioned before of course I mean on this forum I don't really consider what he is doing teaching because I think what he believes so far about the bible at least is total nonsense. And he is not really teaching me because I'm not his pupil. I just mean I'm interested in him doing what he considers teaching, what he has been talking about. I want to discuss with him about it on this forum. I'm interested in what he believes thats why I'm interested in his so called 'teaching'. I certainly have no reason to believe he knows what he's talking about.
There are too many ways to interpret the bible metaphorically, you can never decide on the correct one. So if there is indeed a correct one I think its a totally literal one. And when interpreted literally you realize what a load of nonsense the bible really is.

[infidel666]

He'll never accept it because he isn't just trying to "educate" us on the Bible; he's trying to convert us.

Nahh. Daystar is an atheist at heart. He read the ravings of mad men and went temporarily insane. Now he's lonely and needs someone to talk to. He needs an excuse to talk to us, because he still can't relate to the true religious nutters. His involvement here is just the first stage of healing his psychotic break:

[Jason Jarred]

Agreed.

Let's serve him up an extra large serving of spaghetty bolognese while he's susceptible.

rAmen.