The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[ecco]

The Bible, which is the container that holds the words of Christ, says, "be born again," "do not be surprised I said be born again" and "be born again to get to Heaven".

Your words encapsulated in quotation marks are not a Source for your words that are not encapsulated in quotation marks. You've been in these forums long enough to know that.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The christian scam is making people think themselves automatically degenerate and so dependent on religion for salvation. That has been keeping clergy on easy street for millenia.

So, you are unaware that without any clergy involved, a person can read the Bible, receive eternal life, and live a happy and productive life?

 

[BilliardsBall]

and now you are treating your personal interpretation of the Bible as if it were that of most Christians. Being "born again" is mostly a U.S. fundy concept.

So... now a definition of terms is invalid because "only tens of millions" believe it. Any more fallacies of logic you'd like to share?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Quoting out of context does not help you.

Fine. Please explain the context in John 3 in which Christ told us to be born again, several times.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't know what specific cult/sect you belong to, but I suspect most Catholics would state that you are not True Christian.

Every Catholic I witness to says we are brethren though they have different shades of belief than me, however, my statement is, "All other doctrines aside, my concern is Rome teaches salvation by works, I believe the Bible teaches salvation by trust in Christ".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your words encapsulated in quotation marks are not a Source for your words that are not encapsulated in quotation marks. You've been in these forums long enough to know that.

Huh? I wrote,

The Bible, which is the container that holds the words of Christ, says, "be born again," "do not be surprised I said be born again" and "be born again to get to Heaven".

All three statements are in the Bible, specifically, John's third chapter. Jesus's words.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fine. Please explain the context in John 3 in which Christ told us to be born again, several times.

Sure, as soon as you admit that you do not understand how to use literary tools. Otherwise an explanation would be pointless.

 

[ecco]

Every Catholic I witness to says we are brethren though they have different shades of belief than me,

You witness to Catholics? I thought you were in favor of people just reading the Bible themselves.

however, my statement is, "All other doctrines aside, my concern is Rome teaches salvation by works, I believe the Bible teaches salvation by trust in Christ".

And therein lies the biggest flaw in your Holy Scripture. It says two different things regarding how to get to heaven. You would think the Bible would be very clear on something so vital to Christians. But it isn't - it's ambiguous just like it's ambiguous about almost everything else. Even six days doesn't mean six days.

And where is it specific...

"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.
The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.​

... it lies.

 

[ecco]

Huh? I wrote,

The Bible, which is the container that holds the words of Christ, says, "be born again," "do not be surprised I said be born again" and "be born again to get to Heaven".

All three statements are in the Bible, specifically, John's third chapter. Jesus's words.

What you actually wrote:

The Bible, which is the container that holds the words of Christ, says, "be born again," "do not be surprised I said be born again" and "be born again to get to Heaven".

Now you added a reference to John.

Source? BB - It's in the Bible
Source? BB - It's in John 3

Are you really that lazy or do you not know where to find supporting documents. You intentionally drag things out so long people forget what the original question was.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sure, as soon as you admit that you do not understand how to use literary tools. Otherwise an explanation would be pointless.

I do not understand how to use literary tools. Please teach me how I misunderstand Jesus's statements in John 3, to say that sinners must be born again, from God.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You witness to Catholics? I thought you were in favor of people just reading the Bible themselves.





And therein lies the biggest flaw in your Holy Scripture. It says two different things regarding how to get to heaven. You would think the Bible would be very clear on something so vital to Christians. But it isn't - it's ambiguous just like it's ambiguous about almost everything else. Even six days doesn't mean six days.

And where is it specific...

"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.
The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.​

... it lies.

I witness to all people who are unclear on the methods and mechanisms of salvation. "I'm saved" for many people means "Was born Catholic and go to church sometimes", not "I transferred my trust from saving myself via good works, to Christ saving me via the cross and resurrection".

A gedanken? The ocean floor shows evidence of past upheavals and scientists have conjectured vast subterranean waters under the Earth. Why is it that the water couldn't have covered the mountains than subsided toward subterranean oceans?

PS. "Not proven by geologists!" is not an answer when this gedanken of mine has remained mostly unformulated, untested, unexplored.

Think bigger, darling.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What you actually wrote:

​

Now you added a reference to John.

Source? BB - It's in the Bible
Source? BB - It's in John 3

Are you really that lazy or do you not know where to find supporting documents. You intentionally drag things out so long people forget what the original question was.

The original post was "If you want to know what Jesus said, read the Bible" and now, "Three references to the new birth are in John's third chapter". The "source" for being "born again" isn't Hollywood or the Superbowl or Christopher Hitchens or C.S. Lewis!

 

[ecco]

I witness to all people who are unclear on the methods and mechanisms of salvation. "I'm saved" for many people means "Was born Catholic and go to church sometimes", not "I transferred my trust from saving myself via good works, to Christ saving me via the cross and resurrection".

You are entitled to the beliefs you share with Luther. That doesn't mean they are right. As I stated earlier...

It [the Bible] says two different things regarding how to get to heaven. You would think the Bible would be very clear on something so vital to Christians. But it isn't - it's ambiguous just like it's ambiguous about almost everything else.

Pick and choose as you see fit. Just remember, the Bible does not necessarily agree with your interpretation.

A gedanken?

Do you really believe throwing in a German word makes you sound smart(er)? It doesn't. It just reeks of desperation.

The ocean floor shows evidence of past upheavals and scientists have conjectured vast subterranean waters under the Earth. Why is it that the water couldn't have covered the mountains than subsided toward subterranean oceans?

Please explain why there is no evidence that Mt. Everest was ever covered in water.
Please explain how a wooden boat with no method of propulsion and no method of steering could have survived hundred foot waves.

 

[ecco]

The original post was "If you want to know what Jesus said, read the Bible" and now, "Three references to the new birth are in John's third chapter". The "source" for being "born again" isn't Hollywood or the Superbowl or Christopher Hitchens or C.S. Lewis!

Then why is it so difficult for you to specify the verses?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not understand how to use literary tools. Please teach me how I misunderstand Jesus's statements in John 3, to say that sinners must be born again, from God.

You misunderstood it by taking a poetic line and trying to read it literally. You go through some very strange contortions in the process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I witness to all people who are unclear on the methods and mechanisms of salvation. "I'm saved" for many people means "Was born Catholic and go to church sometimes", not "I transferred my trust from saving myself via good works, to Christ saving me via the cross and resurrection".

A gedanken? The ocean floor shows evidence of past upheavals and scientists have conjectured vast subterranean waters under the Earth. Why is it that the water couldn't have covered the mountains than subsided toward subterranean oceans?

PS. "Not proven by geologists!" is not an answer when this gedanken of mine has remained mostly unformulated, untested, unexplored.

Think bigger, darling.

No you are thinking smaller.

I might as well that "Why couldn't God have used the Tooth Fairy and Rumplestiltskin to cover up his evil deeds? Think bigger darling."

instead of making ridiculous excuses you should be looking into why they do not make any sense.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You misunderstood it by taking a poetic line and trying to read it literally. You go through some very strange contortions in the process.

That's your "textual interpretation?" You "just know" where Jesus is being "poetic"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's your "textual interpretation?" You "just know" where Jesus is being "poetic"?

Assuming that Jesus is who you think he is and that he cannot lie that is the only interpretation that does not make him a liar. Bible literalists are constantly claiming that their God lied, though they do not realize it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Assuming that Jesus is who you think he is and that he cannot lie that is the only interpretation that does not make him a liar. Bible literalists are constantly claiming that their God lied, though they do not realize it.

I lack literary tools. Explain why John 3 being literal, not poetic, makes Jesus a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I lack literary tools. Explain why John 3 being literal, not poetic, makes Jesus a liar.

Actually you call God a liar.everyone you support the myths of Genesis. John 3 is merely part.Of the Bible that you do not appear to understand.