XPost: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn, alt.bible, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: talk.atheism   
   From: try_not@here.com   
      
   "Raymond Griffith"  wrote in message   
   news:4uidndEtm9RHH1bd4p2dnA@ctc.net...   
   > JISTASKKIN wrote:   
   >   
   > > "Raymond Griffith"  wrote in message   
   > > news:jN-dnTB05ulr4FbdRVn-tA@ctc.net...   
   > >   
      
   > >   
   > >>Unfortunately, fraud is not the sole province of the leaders of the   
   > >>movement. I would suggest that, in the quote-mining business, that   
   > >>failure to disclose the source of publication is an example of   
   > >>intellectual dishonesty. After all, trying to make your sources appear   
   > >>somehow better than they really are is fraudulent. It would merit a   
   > >>failing grade on a paper at my school.   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > In light of what scripture is clearly saying WTR to the Flood, you are   
   in   
   > > the opposite corner.  So I choose to be on Gods side, and if that means   
   > > failing in your school, I certainly won't lose any sleep over it.   
   > >   
   >   
   > Oh how positively noble of you!   
   >   
   > Actually, failure to properly document your sources is what merits the   
   > failing grade. I made that quite clear. If you wish to try to say that   
   > being "on God's side" means you can't properly document your sources, I   
   > do wish you'd show some Scripture to that effect.   
      
   As standard posting etiquette on Usenet, demanding someone document a public   
   quote within an adhoc thread is without any grounds.   
   Your expectations are unrealistic.  And considering your intent is only   
   mindless mudslinging, you shouldn't  expect anything else.   
      
   >   
   > And, sir, I read the Flood account figuratively, not literally. Yet that   
   > does not put me as fighting against God.   
      
   Well sir, according to the Bible it does put you against God.  The Bible   
   makes it very obvious that the Flood was a real historical account, referred   
   to as such in many places within scripture.  You have zero scriptural   
   grounds for a figurative interpretation. If you have a problem with that,   
   take it up with God.   
      
   >   
   > It is positively *amazing* that you (and others) would wish to wallow in   
   > deceitfulness in your battle for your interpretive bias. How can you   
   > possibly justify it? Isn't it ridiculous that scientists are arguing   
   > that you ought to be moral and truthful, while creationists are acting   
   > immorally and spreading falsehoods?   
      
   Mudsling rant ignored.   
      
      
      
   >   
   > By the way, Jist, you never got back to me about Cain. Cain is spoken of   
   > as being "of that evil one". So I contend that, according to the   
   > Scripture, he went to hell when he died. You said that was ridiculous.   
      
   I say your assumption he "woke up in hell" is ridiculous.   
      
   > Clarification? Why didn't God warn Cain that he was going to an eternal   
   > hell?   
      
   It is far more reasonable to assume he had a saving knowledge of God.  His   
   attitude was obviously of the evil one, but that does not put you in hell.   
   The entire human race would "wake up in hell"  if that was the case as we   
   are all born in a sin nature that is "of the evil one"   
      
      
   >   
   > Regards,   
   >   
   > Raymond E. Griffith   
   >   
   >   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >>Raymond E. Griffith   
   > >>   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)