The Bible

[Anomalocaris]

That's probably because you are making a category error. Evolution has to do with material causation; creation has to do with agent causation. The OT creation accounts teach about the purpose of creation and the purposer. Ancient Near Eastern Hebrews didn't say anything of any relevance to whether evolution is true, or even the age of the Earth.

Stempy.

The OT had retard's clue in MIT about what was done, when it was done, or how it was done, but doggone it you'd better listen when it tell you why it was done!

[Stempy]

Only a moron would listen to the teaching about the why from a teacher hopelessly befuddled about the how, the when, and the what.

Could you provide a passage that demonstrates this befuddlement, then?

[Anomalocaris]

Only a moron would listen to the teaching about the why from a teacher hopelessly befuddled about the how, the when, and the what.

Could you provide a passage that demonstrates this befuddlement, then?

Oh, this is going to be fun. I can throw darts at the Genesis account. You can tell me which part in your opinion I should avoid.

[Stempy]

Can you provide a passage from genesis that doesn't?

Well as I said, the Old Testament doesn't have anything to say on the how, when or what. It has to do with the who and why.

[Anomalocaris]

Well as I said, the Old Testament doesn't have anything to say on the how, when or what. It has to do with the who and why.

No, it is full of shit about the how, when and what. It then propose the who and why be taken seriously.

[Stempy]

No, it is full of shit about the how, when and what. It then propose the who and why be taken seriously.

You will have to enlighten me then as to where I can locate said "shit".

[Anomalocaris]

No, it is full of shit about the how, when and what. It then propose the who and why be taken seriously.

You will have to enlighten me then as to where I can locate said "shit".

I would say you are playing stupid, but you are probably just a christian playing christian. Shall we start with the account of the "7 days"? Let me assign you a home work. Go through the passages ending with "And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done", and try to find one part in that that might refer to how, one part of it which might refer to when, and one part of it which might refer to what.

[Stempy]

I would say you are playing stupid, but you are probably just a christian playing christian. Shall we start with the account of the "7 days"? Let me assign you a home work. Go through the passages ending with "And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done", and try to find one part in that that might refer to how, one part of it which might refer to when, and one part of it which might refer to what.

I may be stupid, but I'm not playing. What I'm challenging you to demonstrate is that Genesis 1 was written for the purpose of teaching about the hows whens and whats. It is a question of the authorial intent of the passage. What in your view is the genre of Genesis 1? How would it have been understood by its original audience? Would they have understood it to be making scientific claims about how the world came to be as it is? These are the kind of questions you need to think about to make a case for your view of the text.

[Anomalocaris]

I would say you are playing stupid, but you are probably just a christian playing christian. Shall we start with the account of the "7 days"? Let me assign you a home work. Go through the passages ending with "And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done", and try to find one part in that that might refer to how, one part of it which might refer to when, and one part of it which might refer to what.

I may be stupid, but I'm not playing. What I'm challenging you to demonstrate is that Genesis 1 was written for the purpose of teaching about the hows whens and whats. It is a question of the authorial intent of the passage. What in your view is the genre of Genesis 1? How would it have been understood by its original audience? Would they have understood it to be making scientific claims about how the world came to be as it is? These are the kind of questions you need to think about to make a case for your view of the text.

No, those are not the questions I need to think about because I am not in the business of twisting into pretzels to avoid intellectual independence from a sad piece of barbarous beduin creation myth. It is either true, or not. If it is false, it remains false whatever the author's intent. If it is mostly false, and what remains is completely unsupported, then it is quite totally worthless, dissembling about divine intent not withstanding. Truth does not need support from fabricated data. If the ignorant can't make sense of the data, then the respectable author teaches the ignorant, he does not make up or dumb down data. Perhaps the true meaning of the bible is "when you've learned enough to finally stop believing the last word in here, then you are ready to be saved"? Perhaps the true meaning of the bible is "SUCKER!"? It's true meaning is mostly certainly not knowledge through intellectual integrity. This is to say whatever its intended meaning it's one shabby piece of shit that would be a sad disgrace to any forth rate human author much less a putative divinity.

[Stempy]

It is either true, or not. If it is false, it remains false whatever the author's intent.

So you are saying that the truth of a statement is independent of the intended meaning of that statement?