1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Can I have both?

Discussion in 'Interfaith Discussion' started by Gerry, Jan 20, 2018.

?
  1. 1. Evolution and a billions year old earth is true?

    75.8%
  2. 2. The 7 day creation story in Genesis is true?

    15.2%
  3. 3. You’re confident they are both true ?

    21.2%
  4. 4. Neither could be true?

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. 5. The author is out of his mind?

    3.0%
  6. 6. You don’t know?

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. 7. You need more time?

    3.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Enoch07

    Enoch07 Theistic Rationalist and Libertarian
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    4,911
    Ratings:
    +1,208
    Religion:
    Theistic Rationalist
    "The Bible" is not a valid citation. You need cite specific scripture to prove your assertion that I am misrepresenting the bible.

    P.S. I am not moving on to a secondary argument of bloodline extinction, whilst the primary argument of 6th day creations is still in contention. Lets deal with 1 argument at a time shall we.
     
  2. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    10,500
    Ratings:
    +7,016
    Religion:
    None
    The bible is not what? Really, what sort of faith are you in?



    You started with bloodline, now it's secondary because what? You have no argument?
     
  3. Enoch07

    Enoch07 Theistic Rationalist and Libertarian
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    4,911
    Ratings:
    +1,208
    Religion:
    Theistic Rationalist
    It is a secondary argument because it hinges on the primary argument. The primary argument (6th day creations) is still in contention. So there is no point in engaging the secondary argument.

    I am still waiting for you to provide evidence of your assertions that my primary argument is a misrepresentation of the bible. Until this is resolved there is no point in going forward.
     
  4. Gerry

    Gerry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,074
    Ratings:
    +586
    Religion:
    Christian
    I would agree completely with Newton’s above statements.
    And add:
    God is attempting to communicate with humanity through the Word, but humanity struggles to understand. Is it too many worldly thoughts and human ideas blocking the flow of communication from God for many? I don’t know.

    Though, I don’t see what you’re asking me about.
    I don’t know what you found inaccurate.
    And I don’t understand how genetics is involved.
    Genetics is a rather new science. I’m sure there have been people who understood Genesis prior to people understanding genetics.
    I must be missing something.
     
    #104 Gerry, Jan 24, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2018
  5. Gerry

    Gerry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,074
    Ratings:
    +586
    Religion:
    Christian
    Thank you for some wisdom on the topic.:)
     
  6. Gerry

    Gerry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,074
    Ratings:
    +586
    Religion:
    Christian
    I read the entire discussion between you and Christine.

    I have a few questions.

    It appears you’re taking the Genesis story literally and chronologically. So I ask, how to you account for Genesis 2:5?
    This states there was no man to till the ground. Therefore in Genesis 2:7 God mad man, placed him in the garden in 2:8. This man is later identified as Adam in 2:19. From these verses and I could only conclude that no one existed prior to Adam. Just curious.

    My second question: What is the purpose of the gold, bdellium and onyx in Genesis 2:12? Is it logical to think the first humans would require such items? They didn’t even need clothes at this stage, nor had their first meal. Just curious. :confused:
     
  7. Enoch07

    Enoch07 Theistic Rationalist and Libertarian
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    4,911
    Ratings:
    +1,208
    Religion:
    Theistic Rationalist
    Genesis 2:5 is speaking of Eden. There was no man to till the ground in Eden. Which is true, because Adam had not been created yet. This is confirmed in Genesis 2:8

    8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

    You answered your own question. LoLz you just read right over it and ignored it.

    Because gold and onyx are pleasing to the eye. Bdellium - Wikipedia is pleasant to the nose. Simple as that. There was no need for these, but they were put there because they are pleasant.
     
    #107 Enoch07, Jan 24, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2018
  8. Deeje

    Deeje Deeje
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    8,284
    Ratings:
    +4,162
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    It would help if you broke up your responses to address the section you want to comment on.....just highlight the part you want to respond to and hit the quote option. It will list them and then you just "insert quotes" and they all magically appear so you can address them individually.

    I cannot reply to that because it makes no sense the way you have written it. Sorry.
     
  9. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    10,500
    Ratings:
    +7,016
    Religion:
    None
    Yet its the argument you started with. No, point? Please be honest, you have no evidence for such a claim.

    The wording of the bible is not on contention, your interpretation is.

    You make the assertions, a case of Russell's teapot i think
     
  10. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    10,500
    Ratings:
    +7,016
    Religion:
    None
    I am me, i am not you. I responded to your post as i always respond to posts and have had no complaints. I can only assume your disinclination has a deeper aspect
     
  11. sandy whitelinger

    sandy whitelinger Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,912
    Ratings:
    +954
    Religion:
    Narrow-minded Biblist
    Since I've accepted the Biblical world by faith and the natural world by my senses I've certainly had the same experience you have. It even has a name, non-overlapping magisteria.
     
  12. Enoch07

    Enoch07 Theistic Rationalist and Libertarian
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    4,911
    Ratings:
    +1,208
    Religion:
    Theistic Rationalist
    Post #71 has citations for my argument

    I am still waiting for yours.

    Thank you
     
  13. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    10,500
    Ratings:
    +7,016
    Religion:
    None

    No, post #71 has bible verses followed by your interpretation. The verses say nothing of Cain's wife's heritage.

    And i have provided Genesis 1:24,31 to which you also provided interpretation not mentioner in the text
     
  14. Enoch07

    Enoch07 Theistic Rationalist and Libertarian
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    4,911
    Ratings:
    +1,208
    Religion:
    Theistic Rationalist
    Cain and Seth's wives are part of the 6th day creations. This is covered in #71.

    You need to provide evidence to counter this argument. If that is indeed what you wish to do.
     
  15. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    10,500
    Ratings:
    +7,016
    Religion:
    None

    Your opinion of your interpretation is not actually what is written in the bible and you know it.

    No matter how many times you stomp your foot, the fact remain that i have have provided my evidence, you have rejected it, therefore you reject the Bible.

    In see n point in going over and over and over and over the same old stuff. I have provided my evidence, genesis 1:24-31, you repeatedly asking me to provide my evidence bores me and shows you up.
     
  16. Deeje

    Deeje Deeje
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    8,284
    Ratings:
    +4,162
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    The quote system on this site is designed to avoid the way you responded to my post. If you read it as written, you are responding to points that you did not specifically quote. It makes no sense because you speak to points that are not obvious. The reason why you have had no complaints thus far could be because you usually respond in short sentences.

    You are correct....I am me and you are you. I include a lot of detail in my posts because the important things require details IMO. To explain the reasons why something is the truth is more important to me than merely stating the belief itself.

    If you respond to a point, at least quote it (highlight, copy, paste) so the person you are responding to (and other readers) can decipher what you mean.

    You can think that if you like, but the reasons I believe are obvious to anyone trying to understand what you wrote. :( It's no deeper than a muddy puddle.
     
  17. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    10,500
    Ratings:
    +7,016
    Religion:
    None

    I don't care what the quote system is designed for, it is not designed for dyslexics working on a tablet.
    i responded to your rather long and convoluted post, you don't like long replies then please be brief in your posting.
    And i respond in short or long sentences, or paragraphs as required. The reason i have had no complaints is because most people have little difficulty reading.

    Yes your opinion of what you include and why you include it is noted. Fair enough?

    Considering i replied to you responding to my post and none of the points you are advocating were visible in your post can i suggest you are being quite hypocritical?

    So in future do not respond to my posts and you will not be dumbfounded and speechless for a reply and so need to divert the thread to hide your inability.

    Thanks for your input.
     
  18. Deeje

    Deeje Deeje
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    8,284
    Ratings:
    +4,162
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Sorry, I was not aware of you reading difficulty. My husband and grandson both battled dyslexia. It does present its challenges, but it does not prevent you from quoting the relevant points to which you are responding. You don't seem to have any difficulty with your responses otherwise.

    If you quote each point separately, there is no confusion. I explain everything I post so that misunderstandings are minimised. People can read so much into what you don't say.

    I have no difficulty reading at all....what I have difficulty with is people responding to a point that is not quoted or obvious in amongst other responses that are also replying to what is not obvious. For the sake of clarity, I believe this is necessary....you may not.

    But you actually quoted something Enoch said and responded to it, so I know you can do it.

    Thank you.

    I addressed your points and added additional information as I do in most of my posts. I'm sorry if that was too much information for you. It was all relevant.

    If you prefer that I do not respond to your posts in future that is fine, just please don't make up excuses for the confusion that was obvious in your reply.

    I am rarely dumbfounded or speechless. :D
     
    #118 Deeje, Jan 25, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2018
  19. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    10,500
    Ratings:
    +7,016
    Religion:
    None

    Sorry you don't agree with my style.

    I have quoted you above, as i did in the original post you are griping about. No, i am not going to go back and forth separating your long winded posts, if you don't want to have to look at the top of a post to see what the answer is in relation then don't. Up to you.
     
  20. Deeje

    Deeje Deeje
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    8,284
    Ratings:
    +4,162
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Its not a "style" though, is it? It is you excusing the fact that your post was difficult to follow because you avoided the need to quote. That works with short posts, but not with multiple points which need separating IMO.

    It isn't difficult to separate the points as you read, which is what I do. When I find a point I want to comment on, I highlight it and add it to my quote list. Its not that difficult. It isn't a matter of not wanting to look at the top of a post.....living in different time zones, I often come in after many hours and a reply could be buried under a number of other posts on a different page. To keep it simple, just quote the point you are referencing....OK? I am not asking for anything that you haven't already done.
     
Loading...