[Tea_Bag]

Originally Posted by Tim Robbins

OP, Do you fancy her?

do I have to because she's female?

[Tea_Bag]

Originally Posted by Tim Robbins

I would say C. S. Lewis's 'Mere Christianity' is probably one of the best arguments for atheism.

it'd be hard to suggest a book by a guy that became a Christian.

[Tim Robbins]

Originally Posted by Tea_Bag

do I have to because she's female?

Why do you care what she believes in?

[MagicMarker]

Originally Posted by Tim Robbins

Why do you care what she believes in?

Why do you care why he cares what she believes in? Do you fancy Tea_Bag?

[Galvasean]

Originally Posted by MagicMarker

Why do you care why he cares what she believes in? Do you fancy Tea_Bag?

Janey likes Milhouse....

[Sarky]

She does not!

[Dades]

Originally Posted by Tim Robbins

Why do you care what she believes in?

TR - I'm not sure what the point of this line of questioning is.

Two friends had a conversation about their differing beliefs and agreed to read some books recommended by the other.

[Sonics2k]

Originally Posted by philologos

Except I have on numerous occasions. Most of the time people just don't like my opinion, that the Bible can and does make good sense on a number of issues.

A lot of people get annoyed that I don't fit their preconceived box and that I spend time and effort trying to see what the Bible is saying.

King Mob: Firstly, it's not dishonest to see that the Hebrew term eretz can also be rendered as land.

Secondly, I read Genesis 1 and 2 that way because I can see textually the style in which it is written. I can see how the author intentionally wrote the text in that way. It isn't simply a list of details, it is a poetic account.

I read other passages which are presented as narrative and history in that way, because well, the Bible presents them in that way. I look at commandments presented by God in that way, because the Bible presents them that way.

robindch: I don't believe Genesis 1 and 2 is false. Just because something is written in a poetic style doesn't mean that it cannot communicate truth. For example, the Psalms are written in a poetic style, yet I still believe that David and the other Psalmists are communicating a clear truth about God. The same is true for Ecclesiastes and Solomon.

Genesis 1 and 2 make me clearly see that the Lord God is responsible for everything, and that He is all powerful. The sun and the moon were created by Him, rather than being deities in and of themselves as many would have believed at that time. The fundamental beginnings ultimately come back to Him in a Judeo-Christian setting. That's a claim that I regard as true. I just don't happen to regard the world as young, or that it was literally created in 7 days.

If you do a search for the Hebrew term yom in the Old Testament, you'll find that it is used for longer periods of time in other Scriptures.

So in a nutshell. Some of it is literal, some of it is not, and you decide this based on your previous opinions.

I actually feel sorry for people like this.

[King Mob]

Originally Posted by philologos

King Mob: Firstly, it's not dishonest to see that the Hebrew term eretz can also be rendered as land.

I didn't say that was dishonest, I said it was a lame fobbing off. And I'll add that it ignores the context of the rest of the passage that very clearly refers to the entire Earth.
What I called dishonest was the fact that you are ignoring the questions I'm asking, which you have done again.

Originally Posted by philologos

Secondly, I read Genesis 1 and 2 that way because I can see textually the style in which it is written. I can see how the author intentionally wrote the text in that way. It isn't simply a list of details, it is a poetic account.

So then, which style was the claim that Noah's flood covered mountain tops written in?
Do you believe the flood waters actually covered mountain tops, yes or no?
Do you realise that this is impossible for normal floods, yes or no?

Originally Posted by philologos

I read other passages which are presented as narrative and history in that way, because well, the Bible presents them in that way. I look at commandments presented by God in that way, because the Bible presents them that way.

No, it's all presented in the one way, you are just pretending, or perhaps convinced yourself otherwise because you realise how stupid and wrong the claims in genesis are. You know that they have no baring in reality and are impossible, so you need some excuse to ignore that fact.
And even then you realise how that excuse falls apart because you are ignoring my other questions about why birds are claimed to come before land animals.
Did birds actually come before land animals? Yes or no?
Is there a "poetic meaning" to claim that they did? Yes or no?
If so, what is it? If not, why does the bible claim so?

You really should be asking yourself why you have to keep dodging these very simple straightforward questions.

[Tim Robbins]

Originally Posted by MagicMarker

Why do you care why he cares what she believes in? Do you fancy Tea_Bag?

Most witty.

Originally Posted by Dades

TR - I'm not sure what the point of this line of questioning is.

Two friends had a conversation about their differing beliefs and agreed to read some books recommended by the other.

Ok. Fair enough. I guess as I get older I care less for trying to convince anyone to have similar views to me and I wonder why I ever did.

[Jernal]

Originally Posted by Tim Robbins

Most witty.


Ok. Fair enough. I guess as I get older I care less for trying to convince anyone to have similar views to me and I wonder why I ever did.

I think that's because when we're younger we're convinced we can change the world! Make it a better place for all, banish irrationality and fallacious reasoning from the surface the Earth. With time we realise that people can't be reasoned out of something they didn't really reason themselves into. Finally, we realise that life is too short to be wasted on such trivialities, apathy sets in and we set about making sure our life is an enjoyable one. Sometimes I still care but not near as much as I once did.

[Burt Lancaster]

Originally Posted by King Mob

But those posts do not answer the question.
And the bible does not say a "regional flood".

So why does the bible say 1) the flood covered the entire world and 2) claimed to cover mountain tops.
Do you believe that Noah's flood covered mountain tops which is impossible for any sort of flood?

And why does the bible claim that birds existed before land animals? Is this a metaphor? If so what for and why does it not look like any sort of metaphor?

Philologos, can you answer these flood queries please ?

[equivariant]

Originally Posted by Tim Robbins

Most witty.


Ok. Fair enough. I guess as I get older I care less for trying to convince anyone to have similar views to me and I wonder why I ever did.

Because you are nearer to dying and therefore have less time to reap the rewards of having more sensible people in the world. Of course young people care more about changing the world - they have to live in it longer after all

[Tim Robbins]

Originally Posted by equivariant

Because you are nearer to dying and therefore have less time to reap the rewards of having more sensible people in the world. Of course young people care more about changing the world - they have to live in it longer after all

But if you want to change the world, why go for a friend? Why not aim for things at a higher level? Fly a Richard Dawkins poster over that 12 million euro church in firhouse!

[Pushtrak]

Originally Posted by Tim Robbins

But if you want to change the world, why go for a friend? Why not aim for things at a higher level? Fly a Richard Dawkins poster over that 12 million euro church in firhouse!

Gotta be trolling...