Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > FL "Debate Thread"

Pages: (100) < ... 85 86 87 88 89 [90] 91 92 93 94 95 ... >

jupiter Posts: 97 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2009,22:59    Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:20)       Quote Floyd, you don't get to say who is and who isn't a Christian. And YOU don't get to declare people to be Christians when they personally testify that in fact they are not Christians.   The people I have quoted earlier, who wrote that they are no longer Christians, you have to take their personal testimonies just as seriously as if they had claimed to be Christians.   Otherwise you are not listening to them and you are not really respecting them. And, to be honest, if they say that evolution has played a part in their loss of Christian faith--and they did--you have to take that aspect seriously too. Floyd, you really don't get it, do you? Your entire argument rests on the proposition that anyone who accepts the standard, contemporary theory of evolution, however much it departs from a literal interpretation of the KJV bible, is NOT a Christian. You've acknowledged that this proposition is false. All else is wankery. The personal testimonies you've quoted? Of course I take them seriously, as personal testimonies. I don't take them seriously as philosophical texts or moral precepts or recipes for meatloaf or anything other than what they are—personal testimonies. Why are you elevating those personal testimonies into edicts?

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2009,23:12    Quote Why are you elevating those personal testimonies into edicts? He's got a "conclusion" that has to be supported somehow, so he uses the only things he has?

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2009,23:12    Quote (Constant Mews @ Nov. 01 2009,19:29) Let's lay out Floyd's principle difficulty. Christianity is not based on Biblical literalism.  The appropriate, rational reading of Biblical verses does not require literalism.  The reason no "incompatibilities" exist is that Biblical literalism is not a key tenet of Christianity, and the "incompatibilities" only exist with regard to Biblical literalism. Do you understand that, Floyd?  Biblical literalism and Christianity are not synonymous. Period. Does it bother you to realize that you are lying in order to save face?  That you have put your ego on a pedestal above God? I'm in total agreement w/ CM here, as I stated very early in this thread. Without biblical literalism, your Five Nincompats fall apart.  It seems to me Floyd, that your battle is not just with science and evolution, but also with the vast majority of modern Christians. I think you understand this all too well. You and the few remaining fundamentalist biblical literalists have a tough row to hoe with the rest of the faith, and you and your ilk are obviously losing the battle, thank God.  You are not helping your stated cause, of reducing the numbers of those leaving the faith. Most ex-Christians I've known, and the vast majority who write of their de-conversion experiences,  cite biblical literalism and the absurdly narrow viewpoint of the fundamentalists as a primary reason for leaving the faith.  Your quaint little cultish backwater of the Christian Faith is completely incompatible and irreconcilable with what the rest of modern Christians have come to accept as reality, and you are doing a disservice to your brethren.  So my closing comment to you is this: Before you even try to tackle science and evolution, you will have to first make your case for biblical literalism with your fellow Christians.  As we have seen here in this thread, you haven't done so well in that regard. -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Constant Mews Posts: 323 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2009,23:12    Jupiter, you raise an interesting question.  You will note that throughout this entire exchange, Floyd has relied solely on other people's opinions and analysis. For example, while he provided a "definition" of evolution early on, he has never used it (and when I took him to task for relying on it, he suddenly backed off), and instead relied on the opinions - cherry-picked opinions - of scientists regarding the relationship between evolutionary theory and Biblical literalism. Floyd has yet to present an argument of his own; and naturally given his proclivities is incapable of actually reading and understanding either evolutionary theory or Christian exegesis, theology, or doctrine. Hence, he must present others' opinions as facts.  He has nothing else to argue with.

Constant Mews Posts: 323 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2009,23:17    Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 01 2009,23:12) Quote (Constant Mews @ Nov. 01 2009,19:29) Let's lay out Floyd's principle difficulty. Christianity is not based on Biblical literalism.  The appropriate, rational reading of Biblical verses does not require literalism.  The reason no "incompatibilities" exist is that Biblical literalism is not a key tenet of Christianity, and the "incompatibilities" only exist with regard to Biblical literalism. Do you understand that, Floyd?  Biblical literalism and Christianity are not synonymous. Period. Does it bother you to realize that you are lying in order to save face?  That you have put your ego on a pedestal above God? I'm in total agreement w/ CM here, as I stated very early in this thread. Without biblical literalism, your Five Nincompats fall apart.  It seems to me Floyd, that your battle is not just with science and evolution, but also with the vast majority of modern Christians. I think you understand this all too well. You and the few remaining fundamentalist biblical literalists have a tough row to hoe with the rest of the faith, and you and your ilk are obviously losing the battle, thank God.  You are not helping your stated cause, of reducing the numbers of those leaving the faith. Most ex-Christians I've known, and the vast majority who write of their de-conversion experiences,  cite biblical literalism and the absurdly narrow viewpoint of the fundamentalists as a primary reason for leaving the faith.  Your quaint little cultish backwater of the Christian Faith is completely incompatible and irreconcilable with what the rest of modern Christians have come to accept as reality, and you are doing a disservice to your brethren.  So my closing comment to you is this: Before you even try to tackle science and evolution, you will have to first make your case for biblical literalism with your fellow Christians.  As we have seen here in this thread, you haven't done so well in that regard. Indeed.  The overwhelming majority of Christians are not Biblical literalists. In fact, Floyd himself does not accept a literal reading of the Bible.  I often use this very amusing fact when discussing the kind of exegetical confusion Floyd is displaying here.

jupiter Posts: 97 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2009,23:29    Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:42)         Quote ....the result of your particular interpretation of the Bible So what is YOUR particular interpretation, and would you mind putting it on the table for rational and critical examination?   Seems like people around here are really really scared to offer their own particular interpretation of the verses/texts I've been discussing.   (CM is pretty much the only exception to that rule, and as you can see, even he's doing rather poorly with his interpretation of Romans 5.) Again, Floyd, you're just not getting it. It doesn't matter how I interpret the Bible or the Upanishads or the Yengishiki or the Ghanifarb. Your entire argument rests upon one proposition: Anyone who accepts the contemporary concept of evolutionary theory cannot be a Christian. This proposition is false, as you've acknowledged. You and CM and anyone who's interested can sling around chapter and verse and quibble over exegetic minutiae as long as you like. Everyone needs a hobby. But don't delude yourself that the parry-and-thrust means anything. Imagine a wee Arthurian joust, with toothpicks, under the kitchen sink. Winning that is the best you can expect.

Keelyn Posts: 40 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,00:58    Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 01 2009,18:07) Quote Oh, you are so right. But, anyway, Deadman can close the thread and I can answer Lou's question. If he closes the thread, the resulting withdrawal symptoms are on his head. :p Henry I'm willing to chance it. :) -------------- This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. -- Wolfgang Pauli Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. -- Mark Twain

Dan Posts: 77 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,06:29    Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:42) Seems like people around here are really really scared to offer their own particular interpretation of the verses/texts I've been discussing. People around here are NOT "scared", except for FL. People around here are trying to stay on the topic of "Can one be a Christian and hold to evolution?"  (Interpretation of particular verses is clearly irrelevant to this question.) Except for FL, who wants to change the topic to "Does there exist one Christian who doesn't hold to evolution?" There's no point in debating the second question, because it's obviously true.  (For that matter, there's no point in debating the first question, because it's obviously true too.  FL and only FL can't see the obvious.)

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,07:04    Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:47) Quote (CM)Evolutionary theory says nothing about God Quote (Evolutionist Dr. Ernst Mayr) Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution). ----SciAm, July 2000 Nuff said.     :) Here's a few other things that "rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations." Medicine Classical Physics Quantum Mechanics Rain Falling from the sky Water cutting grooves into sandy soil as it drains down Mechanical Eng Computer Eng Chemistry Structural Eng Internal Combustion Engines A light bulb etc So all of "modern science" rejects supernatural causalities as science is empirical. Can you name any science that uses the metaphysical? -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

snorkild Posts: 32 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,07:31    If Floyd manages to convince Someone of his idea that there exists a dichotomy between fact based reasoning and Christian faith, and this Someone then leaves his faith because (s)he can't deny facts, doesn't that make Floyd into one who leads people away from faith? Doesn't the Bible say samething about those who leads people away from Christianity? -------------- wimp

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,08:45    Okay, I see the thread's still open.  Thanks, and my apologies, had to shift gears because of illness situation again. Top priority for today is to answer that one post from Deadman, with other comments as best I can.  In and out today.

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,08:56    Quote I don't take them seriously as philosophical texts or moral precepts or recipes for meatloaf or anything other than what they are—personal testimonies. And that's the way it should be.  The personal testimonies are provided so that you and I can see that this issue is a REAL problem for Christians, not merely an excuse to play around with online debating. The testimonies establish that there's a genuine reason to talk about this issue.  The followup for that is to rationally examine the Big Five Incompatibilities.

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,09:05    Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,08:56) Quote I don't take them seriously as philosophical texts or moral precepts or recipes for meatloaf or anything other than what they are—personal testimonies. And that's the way it should be.  The personal testimonies are provided so that you and I can see that this issue is a REAL problem for Christians, not merely an excuse to play around with online debating. The testimonies establish that there's a genuine reason to talk about this issue.  The followup for that is to rationally examine the Big Five Incompatibilities. What about personal testimonies from Mormons, Catholics or Jehovah's Witnesses?  Then there's the witnessing of other faiths.  If witnessing is important, why aren't you one of those? Why is your particular version of the bible right?  Why isn't the Catholic Version right?  How do you know it is right. See that's the thing.  You are declaring what scriptures are to be believed and others ignored (slavery, remember?), what bible is to be used.  All you're doing is showing people how to be a Christian like you. What that really does mean that you believe that the only "Trootm Christiantm according to you is one who acts, reads and thinks (in your case parrots oft refuted garbage) as you do. -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,09:07    Quote If Floyd manages to convince Someone of his idea that there exists a dichotomy between fact based reasoning and Christian faith, and this Someone then leaves his faith because (s)he can't deny facts, doesn't that make Floyd into one who leads people away from faith? It depends.  They say that the great revivalist, Charles Finney, wouldn't allow you to join his church if you owned ANY black slaves, even if you said they were Christian. So, was Finney "leading people away from faith", or was he simply insisting on Christians letting go of major inconsistencies and living out a consistent, biblical Christianity?

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,09:08    Typo correction:  "....even if you said YOU were a Christian."

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,09:09    Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,09:07) Quote If Floyd manages to convince Someone of his idea that there exists a dichotomy between fact based reasoning and Christian faith, and this Someone then leaves his faith because (s)he can't deny facts, doesn't that make Floyd into one who leads people away from faith? It depends.  They say that the great revivalist, Charles Finney, wouldn't allow you to join his church if you owned ANY black slaves, even if you said they were Christian. So, was Finney "leading people away from faith", or was he simply insisting on Christians letting go of major inconsistencies and living out a consistent, biblical Christianity? And yet there were churches springing up whose only purpose was to give scriptural support to slavery. Remember Floyd, you failed on showing how slavery isn't part and parcel of the bible. -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,09:18    Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 02 2009,09:09) Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,09:07) Quote If Floyd manages to convince Someone of his idea that there exists a dichotomy between fact based reasoning and Christian faith, and this Someone then leaves his faith because (s)he can't deny facts, doesn't that make Floyd into one who leads people away from faith? It depends.  They say that the great revivalist, Charles Finney, wouldn't allow you to join his church if you owned ANY black slaves, even if you said they were Christian. So, was Finney "leading people away from faith", or was he simply insisting on Christians letting go of major inconsistencies and living out a consistent, biblical Christianity? And yet there were churches springing up whose only purpose was to give scriptural support to slavery. Remember Floyd, you failed on showing how slavery isn't part and parcel of the bible. Actually what FL was not able to do was show that the bible condemns slavery. I showed that it did. -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,09:26    Quote Remember Floyd, you failed on showing how slavery isn't part and parcel of the bible. And YOU remember, I showed that the Euro-American slavery show, clearly violated the Bible (including violating a death-penalty-level Biblical regulation). And I also showed (direct quote, remember?) that the New Testament openly called for slaves to take any opportunity they got to free themselves from slavery. (And you better believe the American black slaves did NOT ignore those Bible instructions!!)    :)

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,09:34    Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,09:26) Quote Remember Floyd, you failed on showing how slavery isn't part and parcel of the bible. And YOU remember, I showed that the Euro-American slavery show, clearly violated the Bible (including violating a death-penalty-level Biblical regulation). And I also showed (direct quote, remember?) that the New Testament openly called for slaves to take any opportunity they got to free themselves from slavery. (And you better believe the American black slaves did NOT ignore those Bible instructions!!)    :) You are a troo liar for Jesus Floyd.  Releasing oneself from slavery and condemning slavery are two very different things. It also showed that Christian slaves were to do this, the rest of the world be damned. Yeas Floyd, the verses you quoted showed nothing about condemning slavery in the NT while the OT told a man how much they can cell their daughters for.  Yeah, you selectively read your bible and as far as you reading the bible "literally", that's another lie from you. -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,09:51    Quote You and CM and anyone who's interested can sling around chapter and verse and quibble over exegetic minutiae as long as you like. Actually, I wish he WOULD offer more chapter & verse!

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,09:53    Quote (Constant Mews @ Nov. 02 2009,00:12) Jupiter, you raise an interesting question.  You will note that throughout this entire exchange, Floyd has relied solely on other people's opinions and analysis. For example, while he provided a "definition" of evolution early on, he has never used it (and when I took him to task for relying on it, he suddenly backed off), and instead relied on the opinions - cherry-picked opinions - of scientists regarding the relationship between evolutionary theory and Biblical literalism. Floyd has yet to present an argument of his own; and naturally given his proclivities is incapable of actually reading and understanding either evolutionary theory or Christian exegesis, theology, or doctrine. Hence, he must present others' opinions as facts.  He has nothing else to argue with. that's why he will never answer my question. never has.  and never will.  because it requires him explaining why, to him, God is not part of the required explanation for water running down hill, when if it wasn't for God there wouldn't be any water!    He can't do that because then he would be forced to acknowledge that all that nonsense about "direct" and "indirect" creation can never be literally true. But Fold is waaaaaaaay too stupid to grasp that on it's face.  He knows not to touch it, just like an alcoholic knows not to drink the last hidden airplane bottle until some more are procured.  Floyd is addicted to being willfully stupid for jesus! -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,09:54    Quote It also showed that Christian slaves were to do this, the rest of the world be damned. Nope, the NT verse does NOT say "Non-Christians must stay on the ole ball and chain!"

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,09:58    Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,09:54) Quote It also showed that Christian slaves were to do this, the rest of the world be damned. Nope, the NT verse does NOT say "Non-Christians must stay on the ole ball and chain!" Who else would be reading or hearing that? Christians of course. Also note it does not admonish those with slaves to release them! -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,10:00    Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,09:54) Quote It also showed that Christian slaves were to do this, the rest of the world be damned. Nope, the NT verse does NOT say "Non-Christians must stay on the ole ball and chain!" Why?  Others have offered chapter and verse but you've already poo-pooed it because it was "Catholic doings and not (your) biblical! -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,10:22    Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,09:54) Quote It also showed that Christian slaves were to do this, the rest of the world be damned. Nope, the NT verse does NOT say "Non-Christians must stay on the ole ball and chain!" As your bible said nothing about slave owners releasing their slaves, why is it true in your mind that slavery was condemned?  Your bible says nothing about it yet you think that is the way it is despite OT "witnessing" to the contrary and even with specific examples on how one can sell family members and treat their slaves! Yet you say that the OT must be followed explicitly every where else but it was "changed" for things you don't like? Who wrote the book Floyd?  Your god?  This god changes its mind? -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,10:22    I showed that the Euro-American slavery show, clearly violated the Bible (including violating a death-penalty-level Biblical regulation).  And here's a reminder: Quote The Bible condemns kidnapping as a capital crime, and kidnapping is what fueled the African slave trade of the 1500s to 1800s, therefore the Old and New Testaments (Ex. 21:16; 1 Tim. 1:9-10; etc.) condemn slavery.  ----  Bob Enyart Your disproof of this was.......?

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,10:25    Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,10:22) I showed that the Euro-American slavery show, clearly violated the Bible (including violating a death-penalty-level Biblical regulation).  And here's a reminder: Quote The Bible condemns kidnapping as a capital crime, and kidnapping is what fueled the African slave trade of the 1500s to 1800s, therefore the Old and New Testaments (Ex. 21:16; 1 Tim. 1:9-10; etc.) condemn slavery.  ----  Bob Enyart Your disproof of this was.......? You showed nothing of the sort Floyd. Read the OT again about selling your daughters. As for "kidnapping", taking prisoners of war was not "kidnapping" in the bible.  Like when the Israelites slaughtered the other tribe and took the virgin females as concubines. Read you bible again Floyd. -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,10:26    The Bible doesn't condemn taking slaves forcibly. That would be kidnapping in any other context than war, and the Bible says that it's okay to take prisoners as slaves. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,10:30    You'd better get to work on answering your critics today, Floaty, because this is your last day, so far as I am concerned. You can't handle defending your position, which is shown by you not answering your critics. You're not advancing anything new, you're merely rehashing the old and stale. Get your summation in while you still have the chance. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2009,10:40    Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 02 2009,10:26) The Bible doesn't condemn taking slaves forcibly. That would be kidnapping in any other context than war, and the Bible says that it's okay to take prisoners as slaves. Are you saying FL has "selective literalness"? Perish the thought. -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

Pages: (100) < ... 85 86 87 88 89 [90] 91 92 93 94 95 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard