Guest LadyC Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 do you honestly believe that all those theologians who consider God a liar have a snowballs chance of entering through the narrow gate on judgement day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrestkc Posted February 19, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,015 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/15/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 19, 2007 do you honestly believe that all those theologians who consider God a liar have a snowballs chance of entering through the narrow gate on judgement day? They are not calling God a liar. To say that the story of creation is not literal is not calling God a liar, it is merely stating that the story of creation in Genesis is not meant to be taken as a literal account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 well i think it's a lot safer bet to think that God's account of creation is accurate than to say it's some sort of fanciful parable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabowd Posted February 19, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 112 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,489 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 13 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted February 19, 2007 You were already corrected for your attempt to use the ancient Hebrews as your "proof" that the OT is not pro-life. Maybe you should start listening to those who have studied these issues in depth (some of whom are actually Hebrew), instead of googling to find information to support your presuppositions. You would have a wonderful point if about 90% of Jews were not pro-choice. First of all, this is what's known as argumentum ad numerum (or an appeal to the majority/number). The reason this is known as a logical fallacy is because a position cannot be proven to be true simply because a large number (or all) of the majority believe it to be true. Secondly, it would be appreciated if you would refrain from throwing out "statistics" unless you're going to provide a valid source. Valid sources do not inlcude Wikipedia by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabowd Posted February 19, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 112 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,489 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 13 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted February 19, 2007 I do not believe that God meant for the stories of creation to be a literal scientific account, and thus that he created a universe that was lie. wow, so now you're calling God a liar? wow. just, wow. butero, excellent post. If I am then 3/4ths of the worlds Christian theologians are. The majority of the world's christian theologians believe the stories of creation are allegorical, and a topical, not literal account. Do you honestly believe the man, all life, the earth, and the entire universe is but 6000 years old? This is a discussion for another topic, however, I just wanted to ask you to please substantiate your claims. 1. Where did you come up with this number? 2. What do you qualify as a "Christian Theologian"? 3. So what? Once again, just because the majority believes it does not make the proposition true. And finally, I do not believe the universe is 6,000 years old...however I do believe that the Genesis account of creation is literal, not "allegorical". In the New Testament, Adam is presented as a literal person and mentioned in the same breath as Jesus. If we deny that Adam was a literal person and that sin entered through him, we must also deny that Christ was/is a literal figure and that salvation came by Him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted February 19, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.20 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted February 19, 2007 Look, I've come to the conclusion (especially after Forrest's last post to me...which I haven't responded to because it's so absurd that I literally get too frustrated before I just start wondering how anyone with an inkling of cognitive thought could say such trite) that Forrest is, what I call, a "Google Intellect." What this means is he, like many other people on message boards, will walk into an issue with a presupposition, and any argument thrust upon him is immediately searched via Wikipedia, Google, or some other informational type search engine and all arguments are then shifted to his presupposition. Case in point: I gave him a passage in Exodus, with what the Hebrew word actually means. He then comes back with the same passage from The Message, which is a paraphrase and the original language was not consulted, to prove that Exodus is devaluing a child's life. He then proceeds to tell me the definition for the Hebrew word, which, no doubt he looked up online without putting any study into the issue. Never mind that I could bring up five well respected commentaries to refute his point, he wouldn't listen. Why? Because...with Forrest, Christian theology is dictated by the majority. This is the second sign of a Google Intellect. They see big names supporting ideas and assume that the majority of theologians must support this interpretation, and that majority = correct. He, of course, could not begin to tell us how German Rationalism, the Kierkegaardian response, and Barth's Neo-Orthodoxy have all skewed modern theology (unless, of course, he looked it up). He also can't validate his claim of a majority of theologians...the fact that most theologians that are teaching what he is supporting would likewise deny the following: The Trinity The incarnation The resurrection The miracles of Jesus The miracles in the Old Testament Much of Paul's teachings (if not all) The absolute morality presented in the Bible A theistic world view We even see this from Forrest himself when he says that the ancient Hebrews devalued life via their actions. He ignores that: 1) They did all of this as a command of God 2) They obviously had a conflict with their morals because more than once they refused to kill everyone in the villages 3) God commanded these killings as part of His judgment on these nations 4) The concept of societal judgment Instead, he removes God from the equation and assumes that the entire Old Testament was actually written allegorically and where the Hebrews invoke God as their justification for killing, they are doing this to save face for their genocidal acts. Never mind the fact he has no idea where this type of theology originated from, he's simply going to support it without studying it any further than Wikipedia will allow him to. So beware the Google Intellects, they will post a lot of hog wash, but it's all a paper tiger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabowd Posted February 19, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 112 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,489 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 13 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted February 19, 2007 Look, I've come to the conclusion (especially after Forrest's last post to me...which I haven't responded to because it's so absurd that I literally get too frustrated before I just start wondering how anyone with an inkling of cognitive thought could say such trite) that Forrest is, what I call, a "Google Intellect." What this means is he, like many other people on message boards, will walk into an issue with a presupposition, and any argument thrust upon him is immediately searched via Wikipedia, Google, or some other informational type search engine and all arguments are then shifted to his presupposition. Case in point: I gave him a passage in Exodus, with what the Hebrew word actually means. He then comes back with the same passage from The Message, which is a paraphrase and the original language was not consulted, to prove that Exodus is devaluing a child's life. He then proceeds to tell me the definition for the Hebrew word, which, no doubt he looked up online without putting any study into the issue. Never mind that I could bring up five well respected commentaries to refute his point, he wouldn't listen. Why? Because...with Forrest, Christian theology is dictated by the majority. This is the second sign of a Google Intellect. They see big names supporting ideas and assume that the majority of theologians must support this interpretation, and that majority = correct. He, of course, could not begin to tell us how German Rationalism, the Kierkegaardian response, and Barth's Neo-Orthodoxy have all skewed modern theology (unless, of course, he looked it up). He also can't validate his claim of a majority of theologians...the fact that most theologians that are teaching what he is supporting would likewise deny the following: The Trinity The incarnation The resurrection The miracles of Jesus The miracles in the Old Testament Much of Paul's teachings (if not all) The absolute morality presented in the Bible A theistic world view We even see this from Forrest himself when he says that the ancient Hebrews devalued life via their actions. He ignores that: 1) They did all of this as a command of God 2) They obviously had a conflict with their morals because more than once they refused to kill everyone in the villages 3) God commanded these killings as part of His judgment on these nations 4) The concept of societal judgment Instead, he removes God from the equation and assumes that the entire Old Testament was actually written allegorically and where the Hebrews invoke God as their justification for killing, they are doing this to save face for their genocidal acts. Never mind the fact he has no idea where this type of theology originated from, he's simply going to support it without studying it any further than Wikipedia will allow him to. So beware the Google Intellects, they will post a lot of hog wash, but it's all a paper tiger. Thank you, that's exactly what I was trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted February 19, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.20 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted February 19, 2007 It should be understood that I am not saying you have to be an expert on an issue to post on it, or that you can't use Google for clarification. Instead, I'm saying that there are people who have no justification for their claims because they have failed to study - thus, they do a five minute search on Google, find a site that proves their point, and pull information from it without understanding the depth of the controversy they are presenting. That is a "Google Intellect." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 oh, it's nice to have a subject on which AK and i can agree. that's so very uncommon. but, AK, i have to correct you.... i assumed he had used the message bible for his scriptural context. he informed me he'd used the NAB, which is the current favorite of the catholic church. however, you're still correct that it is a paraphrase, similar to the message. it is not a word for word translation and doesn't appear to even make the claim that it is. of course, i addressed that in my post to forrest.... but i don't recall him ever redressing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabowd Posted February 19, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 112 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,489 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 13 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted February 19, 2007 It should be understood that I am not saying you have to be an expert on an issue to post on it, or that you can't use Google for clarification. Instead, I'm saying that there are people who have no justification for their claims because they have failed to study - thus, they do a five minute search on Google, find a site that proves their point, and pull information from it without understanding the depth of the controversy they are presenting. That is a "Google Intellect." Well this was evident earlier when he posted that ungodly link to a site that said something like "Why abortion is Christian". When someone informed him that it was disgusting, he came back with "you're right, it was". This clearly shows that he didn't even take the time to research the site he was advocating as a "source". He merely googled it and posted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts