Re: Is Ron O. Brain damaged?

Ray Martinez wrote:
On Jul 11, 5:59 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
snip

There are no contradictions, as you mean the word to mean, in the
Bible. This is a common misperception. Biblical complexity defeats
the misunderstanding of contradiction.

"Biblical complexity" is simply a way to weasel out of the
contradictions in the "textual evidence".


Dana Tweedy claims to be a Christian.

I am a Christian, and like many Christians, I accept that the Bible contains
contradictions.


The claim is refuted by his position against the Bible.

I don't have a position "against the Bible". It's you who claims that if
the Bible isn't accurate, it's "a f...... lie" I don't hold that position.




Such obvious fudging is not *as* available (I am not
underestimating human ingenuity) when we are dealing with evidence
that is not as directly manipulable by the finder as writing is by
its author.

Atheism ideology.

No, "atheism ideology" is claiming that if God isn't visible to
science, God doesn't exist..


So, Ray do you admit your opinion is "atheist ideology"?



snip


This is why we are Christians. Again, only Atheists-
Darwinists deny.

Ray, most theologians deny your claims, and realize the Bible wasn't
meant to be taken literally. Those theologians include many devout
Christians.


These comments define 'devout Christians' to be persons who agree with
Atheists against the Bible.

Again, you are the one who "agrees with atheists" against the Bible. I,
and many other Christians don't require the Bible to be accurate in order to
be worthwhile.


This belief is evidence that Dana Tweedy is confused or brain damaged.

Actually, it just shows you are wrong. Again.

snip of a lot of things Ray avoids


You fail to account for the fact that the textual evidence was
stated to contain very little wiggle room or play;

Which is nonsense, especially when you are dealing with the
translation of a translation of a translation..... "Textual
evidence" can be whatever the readers wants it to be.


In the spirit of what is advocated above, the comments could mean that
evolution is false.

It could be, if the evidence were to indicate it to be false. So far, the
evidence doesn't indicate that.
The point being, of course is that the physical evidence is what matters,
not the "textual".

Darwin could have written anything he liked, but no scientist would have
taken it seriously unless he could back it up with physical evidnce.
Darwin backed up his statements with evidence, which is why Darwin's theory
is a well respected scientific theory.



and that it MUST have
direct correspondence to physical reality or it is NOT true,
factual.

What you seem to miss is that the original authors weren't looking
for "true" or "factual".

"Darwin wasn't looking for truth or facts."

Darwin, on the other hand *was* looking for truth or facts. He was writing
a scientific thesis, not a religioius belief.


They were writing the oral tradition of their
people. None of it was intended to meet modern standards of factual
accounts.

Pro-Atheism.

Where does the above suggest that God doesn't exist? Again, I'm not the
one that "agrees with atheists" that if the Bible isn't scientific, it's
worthless.


Why is a Christian arguing against Biblical truth and facts?

I'm not. I'm pointing out that the Bible wasn't written to be factual.
Only one who espouses "atheist ideology" expects the Bible's legends to be
factual.


The story of Noah's Ark, for example was meant to tell a
story, not to record an actual event, and indeed the evidence refutes
such an event happening.


Noah's Ark claims to be an actual event----no one denies that.

Actually, nearly every Biblical scholar from the 20th century denies that.

Again,
this opinion is evidence that the writer is confused or horribly
ignorant. The claim of a worldwide flood is a scientific and historic
claim.

The claim of a "worldwide flood", as made by modern creationists, is refuted
by the evidence. Since the legend of the flood as contained in the Bible
was written down before there was science, or history in their present
understanding, it was niether a scientific, or historic claim. The
writers of the Bible were relating oral tradition, and legendary accounts.
They were not making a claim that the events actually occurred.




These facts do not eliminate bias as much as they incapacitate bias.

How could it "incapacitate bias"? An ancient legend is still a
legend, no matter who tells is, or who wrote it down.

In other words: the textual tells us what must plainly exist in the
physical.

Yet the evidence for Noah's flood doesn't exist in the physical.

Therefore your point that the bias of the physical
remains----regardless----is defeated based on the stated
requirements of the textual.

You keep missing the obvious. What if the "textual" was not a
factual account, but a legend?


Why is a Christian arguing like an Atheist?

I'm not arguing like an atheist. An atheist would say that the falsity of
the text meant that God doesn't exist. That's not what I argue, or claim.


Christians argue for the Bible, not against it.

Christians accept that the Bible was not meant to be judged by scientific
terms. Assuming that the Bible must be testable to be useful is an
"atheist ideology".


Again, Dana Tweedy is shown to be confused, brain damaged.

No, that's just another lie, because you can't admit you are wrong.




More odd-phrased agreement that evolution has no textual
correspondent.

Science has no need for "textual correspondent". Empirical evidence
trumps textual evidence every time.


Christians disagree.

Most Christians wouuld agree with me throughout their daily lives.


The word of God corresponds to physical; only Atheists disagree.

Yet many theists disagree with you, and worse for you, the physical evidence
disagrees. Therefore your claim is false.







"Argument ad adman"? If it's not found in an ancient text, it's
false?

No, its just inferior, of lesser quality, easily trumped.

And, given the many ancient texts that say quite different things,
ancient texthood itself is not evidence of truth.

Their common denominators and their correspondence to reality is
SPECTACULAR high quality, superior evidence, trumping the single,
biased witness of physical only.

There is no such "spectacular" "high quality" or "superior" evidence
contained in ancient texts. Physical evidence trumps anecdotes,
legends, and myths.


Pro-Atheism comments.

No such "pro atheism" exists. No where have I ever claimed that God
doesn't exist, nor does that follow from what I've written. When you
can't support your claims, simply saying "pro atheism" isn't going to help
you.


Why is a so called Christian arguing against the Bible?


I'm not arguing against the Bible. I'm showing your personal
interpretation is flawed.


Do not Christians argue *for* the Bible?

Christians argue that the Bible isn't a science text, and shouldn't be
treated as one. Again, I'm not the one suggesting the Bible is a lie.


Again, we have spectacular evidence that Dana Tweedy is confused,
deluded, brain damaged.


So, Ray, bereft of an argument, logical reutation, or even even a
reasonable way to respond, resorts to name calling and lies. Typical Ray
...


snip

While textual can be faked, the same is easily exposed as such by
its lack of correspondence to physical (= scientific) reality.

Which is why Noah's Flood was rejected long ago by devout Christians
who were studying geology.


Then they were not devout. Rejection of Bible corresponds to Atheism.

Those scientists didn't reject the Bible. They realized the story in the
Bible wasn't history, or science. Remember, Ray, you are already on record
of saying if you thought the Bible was wrong, you'd reject it, and perform a
scatological act on the Bible.

That sounds like rejection of the Bible to me.


Your inability to understand this logic is obvious.

How so? You haven't given the slightest indiation that you know how to
use, or apply logic.

You are shown to
be confused, deluded-deceived, brain damaged. Maybe this is why you
accept evolution like all Atheists.

I accept evolution because it's the best explanation for the evidence. Not
all atheists accept evolution, but those who do accept it for the same
reason. Again, when you find yourself without an argument, all you can do
is resort to name calling and lies.



The Bible
passes all of these tests,

Except for the one where it matches reality.......


A Christian arguing vehemently against the Bible matching reality?

I'm arguing that your own perception is what doesn't match reality. The
Bible wasn't meant to be taken as literal history or science. It was a
collection of religous writings, legends, myths and oral tradition.


Again: we have spectacular evidence proving that this person is
horribly confused, deluded-deceived, brain damaged since real
Christian argue vehemently *for* the Bible matching reality.

Again, whe have evidence that Ray can't come up with a rational or logical
response, so he must resort to name calling.




unlike all other texts. (Now there is a
word that Darwinists love to sling around "testability.")

what "tests" has the Bible been subject to, and when did it "pass"?

So, Ray, what's your answer?

snip

A Christian who says the Bible fails all tests of truth and veracity?

My question was what tests do you think the Bible has taken, and which it
has passed? I notice you don't have an answer.


Why is this person a Christian?

Because I believe in God, and the divinity of Christ. Why are you a
Christian, if you think an error in science means the whole Bible to be a
lie?


We know Dana Tweedy is a Darwinist. This explains all of his anti-
Bible beliefs.

I don't have any "anti bible beliefs". That's just another of your
mistakes, and another mistake you won't admit.



DJT

.

Relevant Pages
Loading