 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) I suppose we stop the debate, since I will say - that is what I'm saying - sorta. The literal interpretation says that God is the creator. Does the computer understand why it is programmed the way it is? Even if the software writer told it, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
Taking points one at a time? Indeed another difference between us mayap :) (...) Because I trust my judgement, and I don't trust the Bible's. The two don't mesh. For me. And as a result, I'm forced to choose. And I'll choose my judgement. Go check (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Biblically - no human has any rights. Just like the laptop that doesn't work (sin), God's righteousness (no sin) demands that we pay for our sin. The only sufficient payment is death. Where that "leaves us" - is destined for eternal separation (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) And really, here's where we get to the problem as I personally regard it. Why? Because for me, in order for me to have faith in a universalist religious system, things like morality (sins, etc) must be dealt with fairly. For me. I think I went (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) In effect what you are doing here is inventing you're own God. Because the God of the Bible DOESN'T fit what you'd like him to be, you decide that you cannot believe in that God. From whence did you get any rights you may have? I believe in (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) And that's EXACTLY my point. Let's take your argument to the next level. What if I say I worship Quazmon. Quazmon's my version of God. He delights in the suffering of his creation and abhors selflessness. He created the world to be very (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) I argue first and foremost that the Creation we see all around us is evidence of God's existence (as is mentioned in the Bible). I also argue that scientific evidence supports the Creation theory. Of course there's no proof, then there would (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) So, in other words, you refuse to admit that you might be wrong. James (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) No, I certainly might be wrong. I refuse to admit that the Bible might be wrong. (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Which Bible, exactly? You're aware, I expect, the so-called original texts have been translated and copied and edited and excerpted and altered and reinterpreted and re-translated and re-copied over and over and over again?What makes you think (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Thanks for falling into the logic trap. Given: You are not infallable Statement: You state the bible is not wrong. Conclusion: The Bible might be wrong. Pretty basic logic algorithm. James (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) A-ha! Your judgement tells you that such evidence supports the existence of God, yes? Mine doesn't. (...) I shall correct you by saying that scientific evidence does not contradict creationism, just as it does not contradict evolution. Neither (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Wow. You really ARE missing the point. One last chance, and that's all. You claim that the Bible is right. You admit that you may be wrong. Therefore, the Bible may be wrong. And quite frankly, I don't care if you think the Bible is right. I (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
