Audie wrote:Keeping it simple..you avknowledge that some things in the bible are not to be taken litrrally.crochet1949 wrote:Hi -- first off -- "Let's see if you actually get what I was talking about" is a bit condescending from My perspective.
Your point was in relation to taking Everything in the bible Literally. And My point has been -- there Are various types of literature In the Bible -- some history-- some poetry -- etc. -- and some is symbolic -- and there are parables. And as a person is Reading various portions -- it's apparently What they are reading.
My point has been that Jesus obviously is a person BUT He is Also the Son of God. And As the Son of God -- He came to earth in order to die for the sins of mankind. "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" -- throughout the Old Testament -- sacrifices had to be made once a year by the Priest - which meant killing an animal / shedding blood/ sacrificial to cover the sins of the people. The death of Jesus Christ was the Final sacrificial death. In the New Testament - on the cross - He said "It is Finished' and Gave up His life.
The intellectual dishonesty was regarding a person who was Not willing to accept 'intellectually sound' information -- was Not being 'intellectually honest' in acknowledging that just Maybe he was wrong -- that Maybe a person Should be willing to change their mind in the midst of such overwhelming evidence that goes contrary to their beliefs that they have long held in high esteem. Because they Might just Be wrong -- about God and about the flood.
You've stated that you don't take much of Anything at face value. That, I'm thinking, after high school you Didn't especially rely on textbooks -- even challenged a prof. as to the accuracy of His material.
And you've used the term 'lamebrain' in referring to the concept of the water after the flood ending up in Neptune. Cause it's not really being respectful to those with that concept. Even though it's definitely Not Biblical -- water recedes and evaporates. But someone could Probably come up with some explanation for how that Could Possibly happen. People who make sci-fi movies for instance. The make-up artists / clothes designers come up with WOW looking characters.
I've Not Been accused Of mocking the Bible. People have mocked Me for holding on to Biblical principals / concepts. The facts that the Bible Does present. So - how do I react to That? Depends on the situation. How have I responded back to You? But you don't Call it 'mocking' -- it's poking fun at. Using terms like 'lamebrain'.
Have a responded to your satisfaction?
So - now - your thoughts concerning the birth of Jesus Christ.
So, what device tells you when it is and when not? This has to be a perfect method.
What is it?
How might one unerringly know that "world wide flood" is it, contrsry to thd resding of manyba bible svholar, and contrary to every single bit of relevant evidence wrutten into thd very earth itself?
I can say this, rigorous intellectual honesty wont go that way.
Intellectual honesty involves among other things recognizing that one could be wrong. You seem to acknowledge that.
Science and law donr do absolutes. It is percents, probabilities. Data.
Now, if we have, say, ten thousand bits of evidence that thd Butler did it in
the parlour, and no evidence whatever to the contrary, well, we'd say thst we can showbeyond z reasonable doubt that he is guilty.
What might we think of the lone holdout in the jury who thinks it could have been Mf. Green because there were, yes, green curtains in the room. Never mind that Mr. Green was bedridden in Budapest at the time. Lamebrain, maybe?
Intellectual honesty in science or any other aspect of life is not about clinging no matter what to a preconceived idea.
I say "no flood". Skipping all the impossibilities that might be glossed over with appeal to miracles,
we end up with, say, ten thousand data points that directly contradict "flood"
(There would be a whole lot more than that). Nothing to favour it.
Which is the intellectually honest response?
A. There certainly was a flood, no possible doubt
B. There almost certainly was no flood.
Audie -- I Know that you're an intelligent person -- you Do recognize 'history' when you read it. And poetry when you read it. And in reading Anything , there is 'context' -- like, which is the correct the use of 'two, too, or to'. The context tells you. God has given you a wonderful brain, Use it. You can tell what it literal and what isn't. Sometimes we simply don't like what 'literal' is saying.
There has only been one world-wide flood recorded in God's Word -- and God even gave us the rainbow as a promise that He'd never Do that again. And, yes, I've Also heard a wonderful scientific explanation of the rainbow.
How about all the evidence that you'd consider as Irrelevant. But others would see as Relevant.
Since when have I acknowledged that I might be wrong about something in the Bible. I Have acknowledged Symbolism.
And science and law DO absolutes. You Do 'scientific absolutes' all the time -- especially to discredit a global flood.
And how many people on the jury have been a 'hold out' Because they were voting their conscience based on the evidence and Later it Was proven that the person on trial Was In Fact Innocent. If he'd caved in and voted Against his conscience , then what would have happened to the Innocent person. And if YOU were that innocent person and Would have gone to prison Except for that one 'hold-out'.
Okay -- what about the birth of Jesus --( a young woman who'd never had sex , getting pregnant by the Holy Spirit and giving birth to Jesus). You've ignored that question.
You already Know my response -- A.
