Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation

[Subduction Zone]

There are three types of "wisdom" in the scriptures.

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: (1 Corinthians 1:22)
John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. (John 3:27)

• Secular wisdom (symbolized by Greeks)
• Religious wisdom (symbolized by Jews)
• God's wisdom (received only by divine revelation and excludes boasting)

Nothing has changed since then. Only the names are changed. Instead of Jews it's many religions we see today (even Christians) and instead of Greeks it's all those who claim secular or scientific wisdom/knowledge.

The things of God are hidden from the two former categories but the truth of God is revealed to small children. Many are looking in the wrong places for wisdom. Many will try to enter and will not be able. Because the gate is tight and the way is very narrow.

The problem with this version of "God's wisdom" is that it paints God as being evil and vindictive. If people do not believe him in because no valid reason for that belief has been given he metes out an immoral punishment. You can't claim "God is love" and at the same time support that sort of belief.

 

[3rdAngel]

I mainly argue against creationists since they have to lie to support their beliefs. To date no one here can find an honest and informed creationist. But sometimes I debate with Christians that cannot understand their own book of myths. And unlike them I at least can debate properly.

Perhaps we should revisit your errors in regard to Paul. Let's keep this simple since you like to hide behind excessively obscuring posts at times.

Do you understand that no one has denied that Paul believed sexual relations outside of marriage to be wrong?

Perhaps it is you that are the one not being honest? If you were being honest you would address the content of the posts provided you that show why you are in error. All your doing is hand waiving, ignoring and running away from the posts that disagree with you. You can do this if you choose. All it shows to me is a closed mind that does not want discussion or will listen to anything that disagrees with you. It is a shame really.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps it is you that are the one not being honest? If you were being honest you would address the content of the posts provided you that show why you are in error. All your doing is hand waiving, ignoring and running away from the posts that disagree with you. You can do this if you choose. All it shows to me is a closed mind that does not want discussion or will listen to anything that disagrees with you. It is a shame really.

Oh my, the projection is deep. I did explain and you are the one that used "hand waving". Seriously dude, at leas try to understand the terms that you use. You had to try to invent a false narrative.

So once again, has anyone denied that Paul believed sin outside of marriage to be a sin?

 

[3rdAngel]

I have. In fact you proved by your own source that you did not understand that you use a strawman when you try to describe what atheism is. Making claiming that one cannot prove is the game of literalists.

Nonsense. No you didn't and your not being honest now IMO.

 

[3rdAngel]

Oh my, the projection is deep. I did explain and you are the one that used "hand waving". Seriously dude, at leas try to understand the terms that you use. You had to try to invent a false narrative.
So once again, has anyone denied that Paul believed sin outside of marriage to be a sin?

Nonsense. You were provided the context of a scripture you cherry picked out of context, trying to make it say things it was not saying. Then when you were provided the context showing that the scriptures you provided does not mean what you were claiming it meant. Your response was to simply iglore this post and the scriptures that prove why your interpretation of the scriptures was in error. All I see is more hand waiving here. As posted earlier please let me know when you want to have an honest discussion. Until then I guess you have your faith and I have mine and we will have to agree to disagree, No need to get upset my friend. Let me honest. You know deep down I am telling you the truth. Seems you do not like it

 

[Audie]

You keep mentioning the “frozen Mammoths.” (You know they exist, right? Or don’t you?)

How did these 1000’s (millions?) get preserved underneath the permafrost? Some with vegetation still in their mouths?

Simply put — try to grasp this, now — some of the water of the Flood, originated where? From the “waters above the expanse”.

What would a global-encompassing water canopy, do to Earth’s atmosphere? It would provide for somewhat temperate weather, depending of course on how much water was suspended between the current boundary layer, then up through the troposphere to the mesosphere & exosphere. Apparently there was quite a lot, extending outward. Thereby creating a warmer climate, to some degree.

(Whatever mechanisms held those waters in place may be currently unknown, but some of them still exist somewhat in a weakened capacity, for even now there’s approximately 37.5 million billion gallons estimated to surround the Earth, denser in some locations, less in others.There is still a lot to learn! )

But once those waters fell, the warmer conditions the Earth enjoyed quickly diminished, causing a rapid drop in temperature near the poles, freezing whatever animals lived in those latitudes.

so, the pre-Flood ice wouldn’t “float”....it would simply create more.

Ice that dont flost.

Velikovsky would not have a chance against you,
in a tall tale contest.

 

[Audie]

LOLOL.. The flood wasn't global .. It was a 4 day flood of the Euphrates River Basin in 2900 BC caused by spring snowmelt from the mountains combined with spring rains.

Might be true, its dishonest to say that as a fact.

 

[Audie]

ICR is a Young-Earth” supporter. The article presents no valid, acceptable refutation of what I posted.

(Some) mammoths lived after the Flood? No problem. But many died during the Flood. And before, for thousands of years, of course.

Msmmoths on the ark. Droll.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense. No you didn't and your not being honest now IMO.

Of course I did. Link it again and I will show you the phrase that you did not understand. An inability to understand on your part does not mean that you were not refuted.

And I know that others have refuted you in the past by using the phrases "strawman" and "hand wave" appropriately. When you parrot them that only shows that you can copy phrases that you did not understand.

 

[74x12]

The problem with this version of "God's wisdom" is that it paints God as being evil and vindictive. If people do not believe him in because no valid reason for that belief has been given he metes out an immoral punishment. You can't claim "God is love" and at the same time support that sort of belief.

First of all; as stated previously you have no objective standard of good vs. evil. It just comes down to opinion.

But, I believe God has not hidden Himself. (Isaiah 48:16) We ourselves hid truth with lies. (Revelation 22:15) We extinguished the lights so we couldn't see. (John 3:19) And we don't seek Him because of our pride. (Psalm 10:4) We and our ancestors are to blame for our current predicament. If only we could get rid of all the hay then the proverbial needle could be found.

The antidote is not to try to get rid of the evil; but welcome in good and then the evil vanishes. As darkness is the absence of light. We took God out of the way; so we let in evil. Faith is the only reasonable answer in an age of universal deceit. By trusting; we reach God and He reaches us. But that's not to mean "blind faith". Sometimes blind faith is only the first step at best. When God answers; it's just trust from then on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense. You were provided the context of a scripture you cherry picked out of context, trying to make it say things it was not saying. Then when you were provided the context showing that the scriptures you provided does not mean what you were claiming it meant. Your response was to simply iglore this post and the scriptures that prove why your interpretation of the scriptures was in error. All I see is more hand waiving here. As posted earlier please let me know when you want to have an honest discussion. Until then I guess you have your faith and I have mine and we will have to agree to disagree, No need to get upset my friend. Let me honest. You know deep down I am telling you the truth. Seems you do not like it

The context did not matter since you were trying to create a false narrative. I did not ignore your supposed context. I explained why it did not matter.

Why do you keep running away from the simple question of did anyone deny that Paul believed that sex outside of marriage was a sin? Dodging a question is a tacit way of admitting that one is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First of all; as stated previously you have no objective standard of good vs. evil. It just comes down to opinion.

No, that is demonstrably incorrect. You have no objective standard. That does not mean that others do not have an objective standard. You may have to rely on a book of myths for your morality but that does not mean that everyone does.

But, I believe God has not hidden Himself. (Isaiah 48:16) We ourselves hid truth with lies. (Revelation 22:15) We extinguished the lights so we couldn't see. (John 3:19) And we don't seek Him because of our pride. (Psalm 10:4) We and our ancestors are to blame for our current predicament. If only we could get rid of all the hay then the proverbial needle could be found.

There are countless people that will disagree with you. Countless people that went searching for him and he was nowhere to be found.

The antidote is not to try to get rid of the evil; but welcome in good and then the evil vanishes. As darkness is the absence of light. We took God out of the way; so we let in evil. Faith is the only reasonable answer in an age of universal deceit. By trusting; we reach God and He reaches us. But that's not to mean "blind faith". Sometimes blind faith is only the first step at best. When God answers; it's just trust from then on.

Sorry, but faith is not a pathway to the truth. Are you going to try to claim that Muslims do not have faith? Or that Hindus do not have faith? They will disagree. And their God answers them in the same way yours answers you. Faith is not the answer. Faith is how one fools oneself.

 

[sooda]

Might be true, its dishonest to say that as a fact.

Its pretty well documented.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Msmmoths on the ark. Droll.

Yup. Big 'uns!

 

[3rdAngel]

The context did not matter since you were trying to create a false narrative. I did not ignore your supposed context. I explained why it did not matter. Why do you keep running away from the simple question of did anyone deny that Paul believed that sex outside of marriage was a sin? Dodging a question is a tacit way of admitting that one is wrong.

Nonsense. Please be honest. It is you who is running away from your claims that Paul is saying that people should not have sex. This was demonstrated in the context you left out which is in regards to what he was discussing which was fornication (unlawful sex outside of marriage). If you disagree please address post # 688 linked that shows why you are in error. Until then please stop making things up. You know you have been caught out. Please be honest . Until then we will have to agree to disagree. Your simply handwaiving and making claims you cannot prove

 

[Subduction Zone]

Might be true, its dishonest to say that as a fact.

But at least there is a fair amount of physical evidence that supports that claim. There was a large local flood at that time that could have led to the Ark myth. I am sure that you have seen the article that I have linked on it. Though I could do so again. The Flood is like a fish story. It starts with a fair sized sunfish and grows into a a huge muskellunge. Oops, there is my Minnesota upbringing coming out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense. Please be honest. It is you who is running away from your claims that Paul is saying that people should not have sex. This was demonstrated in the context you left out which is in regards to what he was discussing which was fornication (unlawful sex outside of marriage). If you disagree please address post # 688 linked that shows why you are in error. Until then please stop making things up. You know you have been caught out. Please be honest . Until then we will have to agree to disagree. Your simply handwaiving and making claims you cannot prove

Nope,. If anyone is ignoring the context it is you.

Why have you repeatedly dodged my question? You can't complain about someone being dishonest when you dodge a simple question. If you read it he was discussing more than fornication. That was the argument that you ignored. That was your hand waving.

 

[3rdAngel]

Nope,. If anyone is ignoring the context it is you.

Why have you repeatedly dodged my question? You can't complain about someone being dishonest when you dodge a simple question. If you read it he was discussing more than fornication. That was the argument that you ignored. That was your hand waving.

More handwaiving again I see without addressing the post and scriptures that show why you are in error. You were provided the context in post # 688 linked for all to see. This only proves you are not being honest again IMO.

 

[Audie]

No, that is demonstrably incorrect. You have no objective standard. That does not mean that others do not have an objective standard. You may have to rely on a book of myths for your morality but that does not mean that everyone does.



There are countless people that will disagree with you. Countless people that went searching for him and he was nowhere to be found.




Sorry, but faith is not a pathway to the truth. Are you going to try to claim that Muslims do not have faith? Or that Hindus do not have faith? They will disagree. And their God answers them in the same way yours answers you. Faith is not the answer. Faith is how one fools oneself.

Objective morality, from the bible?
Easy peasy. Whatever "god" does is defined as
Objective Morality.
Just dont you be going with the
idea you are ok following the example.

 

[Subduction Zone]

More handwaiving again I see without addressing the post and scriptures that show why you are in error. You were provided the context in post # 688 linked for all to see. This only proves you are not being honest again

There you go using a phrase that you do not understand. Your attempt to create a false a false narrative an abuse context was refuted. You may not have understood. That was why I tried to simplify it for you. And that was when you began to run away. In case you do not understand not answering reasonable questions is running away. That implies that you know that you are wrong.