XPost: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn, alt.bible, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: talk.atheism   
   From: tiffirgREVERSE@ctc.net   
      
   JISTASKKIN wrote:   
      
   > "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.   
      
   I do not agree.   
      
   > Your expectations are unrealistic.   
      
   I do not agree. Actually, I think that documenting one's sources is the   
   patently *honest* thing to do.   
      
   Of course, I also have an expectation that Christians should be   
   truthful. Perhaps my expectations are unrealistic after all.   
      
    > And considering your intent is only   
   > mindless mudslinging, you shouldn't  expect anything else.   
      
   Got a lot of mud all over your own clothes, haven't you? And lying about   
   my intent isn't going to help.   
      
   Oh right. You don't like the word, "lying". Well, I think you know my   
   intent well enough, but are misrepresenting it here. But in case you   
   don't know it -- Christians should act like the Father they claim to   
   represent, and obey the Lord's commands as He gave them. Christ said,   
   "If you love me, keep my commandments." So lying, misrepresentation, and   
   all evil should be put out of one's mouth (or fingers on the keyboard).   
   I believe that Creationism generally, and its leaders particularly,   
   misrepresent the evidence of God's creation, and the position of   
   science. Misrepresentation and distortion (aw phooey -- read, "lying")   
   is outside of the will of God.   
      
   Now would I be so concerned that Christians obey the Scripture if all I   
   wanted to engage in is "mindless mudslinging"?   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>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.   
      
   I have a problem with your interpretational bias, as well as your hubris   
   that allows you to place your interpretation of Scripture on par with   
   the Scripture itself.   
      
   I actually don't mind that you and I disagree on the meaning. But   
   accepting a literal global Flood is not a point that Scripture   
   identifies as a part of saving faith.   
      
   You demonstrate in many ways that you, yourself, take some things in   
   Scripture figuratively in an unwarranted fashion.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>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.   
      
   Too bad. You should take instruction. "No lie is of the truth." Do you   
   belong to Christ, Jist? Shouldn't you be concerned with telling the   
   truth? Shouldn't you be concerned that others do so as well?   
      
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>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.   
      
   To quote your eminence, "you have zero scriptural grounds" for your   
   assumption. In fact, *all* references to Cain outside of the Genesis   
   account are negative ones.   
      
    > His   
   > attitude was obviously of the evil one,   
      
   Hmmm. It doesn't say "attitude" in the Scripture, Jist. You are   
   inserting your own interpretational bias.   
      
    > but that does not put you in hell.   
      
   Look at the Scripture. I quoted it before, and you conveniently ignore   
   it to pursue your doctrine without it. Pretending to be scriptural   
   without scripture doesn't work.   
      
   Hebrews 11:4   
   By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by   
   which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his   
   gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.   
      
   1 John 3:12   
   Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And   
   wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his   
   brother's righteous.   
      
   Jude 1:11   
   Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily   
   after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of   
   Core.   
      
   There you have it -- all three references to Cain in the New Testament.   
   Actually, all the references to Cain outside of Genesis 4! Anywhere in   
   there that testifies that Cain had saving faith (or to quote you), a   
   "saving knowledge of God"?   
      
   Now what gives you the right -- against the clear statement of Scripture   
   -- to assume that Cain was saved?   
      
   Of course, if you assert the right to do so, then what is wrong with me   
   reading the Flood account as figurative, or possibly more local (like   
   the Black Sea event)? At least when I read it, I try to take a spiritual   
   application to heart, and I try to understand *why* it was relayed to   
   the people and its purpose.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)