XPost: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn, alt.bible, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: talk.atheism
From: try_not@here.com
"Raymond Griffith" wrote in message
news:M_CdnfL8P-C1NFbdRVn-iQ@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.
Undoubtedly so. So I would fully expect that you are protesting to every
media outlet, after all they all regularly take quotes from various sources
without meeting your expectations.
>
> > 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.
I am willing to admit I am mistaken, but the contents of your posts make it
hard to see it any other way.
>
> Oh right. You don't like the word, "lying". Well, I think you know my
> intent well enough, but are misrepresenting it here.
I have nothing to go on but your slanderous rants.
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.
It is not lying to follow God's word. You need to recognize that and give
it the consideration it most certainly deserves.
Until you do, you are in fact railing against scripture.
>
> Now would I be so concerned that Christians obey the Scripture if all I
> wanted to engage in is "mindless mudslinging"?
You tell me.
>
> >
> >
> >>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.
Scripture is doing the interpreting here. Plain and simple.
>
> 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.
Never said it did. However, it is part of the reality of scripture, and if
it is not reliable on what it says there, it cannot be trusted in other
areas that do pertain to salvation.
>
> You demonstrate in many ways that you, yourself, take some things in
> Scripture figuratively in an unwarranted fashion.
There is obvious figurative language in scripture. But in this instance
scripture itself determines it is not.
>
> >
> >
> >>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?
more ranting..more ignoring.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>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.
Say what?!? The son of Adam--first created human by God-- had no intimate
knowledge of God?!? Totally preposterous to think it was not so.
In fact, *all* references to Cain outside of the Genesis
> account are negative ones.
And....!!! That is clearly a reference to his evil nature, something we all
have.
>
> > 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.
It fits. Use another word...how about "bent"
>
> > 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
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
