Jesus' Four Failed Prophecies About Him Returning In The Lifetimes Of His Apostles

[Subduction Zone]

No, I am not scientifically illiterate, SZ., and I don't have to ask this question. I asked this specific question in order to find out how much you knew about epistemology.

Not much, it seems.

None is really needed for this discussion. And your approach does indicate more than a bit of scientific illiteracy.

Do you believe the myths of Genesis? One cannot believe those without calling God a liar. This is why scientifically literate Christians do not interpret that book literally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The bolded word is the word on which to focus.

No, you need to focus on the whole thing. Quoting out of context is almost always a dishonest debating technique. There simply is no excuse to edit out important parts of a post.

It is rather clear that biblical beliefs are wrong. They end up being self contradicting sooner or later. What I was working for is minimizing the errors of Christians.

 

[Trailblazer]

One cannot believe the myths of Genesis without calling God a liar,

That would only be true if God wrote Genesis and/or if Genesis was intended to be interpreted literally.
Genesis is not a science manual, it is allegorical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That would only be true if God wrote Genesis and/or if Genesis was intended to be interpreted literally.
Genesis is not a science manual, it is allegorical.

To believe the myths of Genesis means not treating it allegorically but literally. I do agree that it does have some allegorical value. The problem is that there are many Christians that employ Black and White reasoning.

 

[Trailblazer]

The problem is that there are many Christians that employ Black and White reasoning.

And you are not going to get them to change so I suggest moving on to the more reasonable Christians.

 

[samtonga43]

None is really needed for this discussion. And your approach does indicate more than a bit of scientific illiteracy.

You don't think that one needs to understand something about epistemology to be able to discuss questions of belief and knowledge?

And you accuse me of illiteracy!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't think that one needs to understand something about epistemology to be able to discuss questions of belief and knowledge?

And you accuse me of illiteracy!

Epistemology is a concept that is abused more often than not. I do not give it much credence. I find that time after time people are not practicing proper epistemology, they are merely looking for excuses to believe.

 

[samtonga43]

No, you need to focus on the whole thing. Quoting out of context is almost always a dishonest debating technique. There simply is no excuse to edit out important parts of a post.

It is rather clear that biblical beliefs are wrong. They end up being self contradicting sooner or later. What I was working for is minimizing the errors of Christians.

Let me attempt to minimize your errors, SZ.

First of all, you employ the logical error of 'rash generalization' much too often. This weakens any argument you are attempting to make.

Maybe re-read you post above and think about this?

None is really needed for this discussion. And your approach does indicate more than a bit of scientific illiteracy.

Do you believe the myths of Genesis? One cannot believe those without calling God a liar. This is why scientifically literate Christians do not interpret that book literally.

Then why do you accuse me of scientific illiteracy?

You really should learn about the various literary genres
in Scripture.

 

[samtonga43]

Epistemology is a concept that is abused more often than not. I do not give it much credence. I find that time after time people are not practicing proper epistemology, they are merely looking for excuses to believe.

It is very clear that you 'do not give it much credence', SZ.

Very clear.

 

[samtonga43]

To believe the myths of Genesis means not treating it allegorically but literally. I do agree that it does have some allegorical value. The problem is that there are many Christians that employ Black and White reasoning.

And there are many non-Christians who employ black-and-white reasoning.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is very clear that you 'do not give it much credence', SZ.

Very clear.

Can you explain why it is so clear?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me attempt to minimize your errors, SZ.

First of all, you employ the logical error of 'rash generalizatio'n much too often. This weakens any argument you are attempting to make.

Maybe re-read you post above and think about this?

Nothing really "rash" in that post.

Then why do you accuse me of scientific illiteracy?

You really should learn about the various literary genres
in Scripture.

What goes around comes around. Why did you make your own false accusation first? And I am aware of various literary genres. Don't jump to "rash generalization"s of your own.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And there are many non-Christians who employ black-and-white reasoning.

That is true. But just as you hopefully are not guilty of that you should see that the same does not apply to me.

 

[samtonga43]

Epistemology is a concept that is abused more often than not. I do not give it much credence. I find that time after time people are not practicing proper epistemology, they are merely looking for excuses to believe.

Can you define 'proper' epistemology?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is very clear that you 'do not give it much credence', SZ.

Very clear.

And for a very good reason. Do you not understand how it has been abused to the point of being worthless? That is the fault of believers, not those that oppose them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you define 'proper' epistemology?

Now I have to ask if you understand the meaning of the word.

 

[samtonga43]

Nothing really "rash" in that post.

"It is rather clear that biblical beliefs are wrong".

If you really fail to recognize the above as a rash generalization, SZ, you will continue to sound irrational.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"It is rather clear that biblical beliefs are wrong".

If you really fail to recognize the above as a rash generalization, SZ, you will continue to sound irrational.

Oh that is not a rash generalization but a conclusion drawn from the evidence. Once one analyzes the Bible critically it fails again and again.

 

[samtonga43]

Now I have to ask if you understand the meaning of the word.

Of course I do. But you speak of 'proper' epistemology. This is what I asked you to define. Can you do this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course I do. But you speak of 'proper' epistemology. This is what I asked you to define. Can you do this?

I am beginning to have doubts if you do. And no, I do not care to play the definition game. Instead of dropping ten dollar terminology why not try properly supporting your claims?