Why literal creationists are abusing scripture

[Evolution_Not]

I was asking legitimite questions. I think that's what threw you off.

I was asking you to clarify your responses. Apparently you can't.

As far as the rest of your prissy little remarks; first you catagorize anyone who doesn't hold your view as ignorant, then you go on to demonstrate that your view isn't actually based on anything (nothing you can demonstrate or defend anyway).

Lets see if you can deal with an actual comparison of views without having to resort to lame avoidance attempts like this post you just made, shall we?

I would hardly qualify " the memo" as a question .If this was an attempt at humor then you have my apologie.

 

[Father Heathen]

Or the other way around?

Not really. Science is a method that is verifiable, testable, observable and applicable. You cannot say science is wrong just because it conflicts with some goofy, ancient superstition. If science were wrong the computer sitting in front of you wouldn't even be there.

 

[Evolution_Not]

Ok, lets try again;



And what, in your opinion, qualifies as an indication that we're suppose to read any given passage literaly, and any other given passage figuratively? (and here's a hint; "Because my pastor told me to" isn't going to cut it)



Again; what takes a lot of study? To be able to read the texts literaly? that's ridiculous. A literal reading of anything is the shallowest, least commited method imaginable.

Do you always read books as being figurative? For the Christian it is both and instruction book and a historical book accounting of Gods dealing with men past
present and future. If I were to read every passage as meaning something else I
would never come to an understanding of anything and apply any interpretation I wanted. Perhaps you should read Jonah, it is short, and tell me why I should read
this in any other context than a historical accounting. Where as in Genesis when
we are presented with a talking snake that might raise an eyebrow. Well the Bible
later reveals that it is satan. If you go back to Genesis 3:14 satan is now classified as the lowest, a character assasination for what he is done.
Just to read it from beginning to end is work. There is a lot to digest.

 

[Evolution_Not]

first you catagorize anyone who doesn't hold your view as ignorant

Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. We are all ignorant on various subjects and
topics unless your God. Now if I used stupid that would be meant as an
insult.

 

[Evolution_Not]

Not really. Science is a method that is verifiable, testable, observable and applicable. You cannot say science is wrong just because it conflicts with some goofy, ancient superstition. If science were wrong the computer sitting in front of you wouldn't even be there.

I don't think this was the topic of the thread.
I believe in science, just not crap science.
1 Tim 6:20
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe in science, just not crap science.
1 Tim 6:20
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

I see no credible reason to suspect that you know the difference, and quoting the anonymous author of 1 Timothy does little to help you cause.

 

[Quagmire]

I would hardly qualify " the memo" as a question .If this was an attempt at humor then you have my apologie.

No, it was an attempt at sarcasm. Sarcasm for sanctimony seems like a fair deal to me.

For future reference; questions usually have one of these -"?" at the end. Two of the sentences in that post had one of these-"?" at the end.

It's telling that you would chose to focus on the one that didn't and then adopt an attitude of, "Gee, I don't see any questions".

Do you always read books as being figurative?

You're dodging the question.

For the Christian it is both and instruction book and a historical book accounting of Gods dealing with men past
present and future.

Still dodging the question.

If I were to read every passage as meaning something else I would never come to an understanding of anything and apply any interpretation I wanted.

And still dodging the question.

Perhaps you should read Jonah, it is short, and tell me why I should read this in any other context than a historical accounting.

Well for one thing, Jesus obviously did, "...and they will be given no sign other than the sign of Jonah". Was Jesus saying that all of Israel was going to be swallowed by a fish? (rhetorical question btw.)

Where as in Genesis when
we are presented with a talking snake that might raise an eyebrow. Well the Bible
later reveals that it is satan.

Which makes no sense really.

If you go back to Genesis 3:14 satan is now classified as the lowest, a character assasination for what he is done.

Now you're reading Genisis allegorically and you don't even realize it.

Just to read it from beginning to end is work. There is a lot to digest.

More like a lot to swallow.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Or the other way around?

Of course .. both statements contradict each other.

The question is: which one is true ?
The answer: the religious one definetly not.

 

[UnTheist]

I believe in science, just not crap science.

You accidentally mixed those two: You meant to say that you believe in crap science, not science, right?