Let's Talk Rainbows

[_subgenius]

I think I understand your statement about contradicting the Bible but beg to differ.

beg away...

My life experiences have taught me that all information, regardless of source, must be viewed critically and any advice taken must be put under a magnifying glass of discernment.

now that you have justified your cynicism, perhaps you can justify the position that a reasonable person would not assume a critical view of everything presented to them.?
and what is a magnifying glass of discernment? Being able to make a judgement does not always require dissection.

Bible scripture is not valuable merely because it is biblical. The Songs of Solomon, for example, have never given me anything of value more than pretty verse with imagery. Certainly they offer no guidelines for better living.

not a valid argument, your failure to recognize their value does not conclude that there is no value present.

I have read the Old Testament untold many times in two different languages and find the 613 commandments of Moses Law, for the most part, not applicable to my life. I personally find God's commandment: Thou shalt not kill to be of such importance that I would never take another person's life no matter what the circumstances. I have refused military service and was ready to face jail for my action. At the same time I think Numbers 22 with Balaam being reprimanded by his donkey as sheer nonsense.

The interesting notion that science is "reliable to an extent" and "subject to change" is always trying to be imposed on the scriptures, of which neither of these conditions apply. The scriptures are intended as an unchanging detail of the nature and character of God. As you mention the notion of "thou shalt not kill" - this is an unchanging principle of man, it is not of the same paradigm as believing that leeches cure disease or that pluto is a planet.
But i appreciate that you recognize that it does apply to your life (even if it is "for the least part"). That simple recognition is an affirmation of the text and its timeless quality.

Having said that, and in regards to the date you have suggested; Do you think the flood was global?

with all sincerity, what do you care if Nipper thinks the flood was global? Your previous ideas have made it abundantly clear that you have no reason to care, so that really leaves you with only one admission here.

[Guest]

Not always. I feel that this website is very interesting and goes far not to contradict the Bible. One spends an entire lifetime reading information that is contray to the Holy Bible. I would feel it is reasonable to devote 10 minutes to hear another point of view. How does 2348 BC sound ---- give or take 5 or 6 years?

I think I understand your statement about contradicting the Bible but beg to differ.

My life experiences have taught me that all information, regardless of source, must be viewed critically and any advice taken must be put under a magnifying glass of discernment. Bible scripture is not valuable merely because it is biblical. The Songs of Solomon, for example, have never given me anything of value more than pretty verse with imagery. Certainly they offer no guidelines for better living.

I have read the Old Testament untold many times in two different languages and find the 613 commandments of Moses Law, for the most part, not applicable to my life. I personally find God's commandment: Thou shalt not kill to be of such importance that I would never take another person's life no matter what the circumstances. I have refused military service and was ready to face jail for my action. At the same time I think Numbers 22 with Balaam being reprimanded by his donkey as sheer nonsense.

Having said that, and in regards to the date you have suggested; Do you think the flood was global?

A theme found in the Song of Songs is true devoted love. The 613 commandments of Moses were designed to prove the folly of imagining one can gain salvation by keeping all of them without fail (also known as legalism). The verse translated , "Thou shalt not kill," is better translated, "Thou shalt not murder." There is a difference. As for Numbers 22, have you never felt like a mule? I have. And God most certainly could have made a donkey talk, or at least allowed Balaam to hear what the donkey was thinking...

[_Drifting]

I think I understand your statement about contradicting the Bible but beg to differ.

beg away...

My life experiences have taught me that all information, regardless of source, must be viewed critically and any advice taken must be put under a magnifying glass of discernment.

now that you have justified your cynicism, perhaps you can justify the position that a reasonable person would not assume a critical view of everything presented to them.?
and what is a magnifying glass of discernment? Being able to make a judgement does not always require dissection.

Bible scripture is not valuable merely because it is biblical. The Songs of Solomon, for example, have never given me anything of value more than pretty verse with imagery. Certainly they offer no guidelines for better living.

not a valid argument, your failure to recognize their value does not conclude that there is no value present.

I have read the Old Testament untold many times in two different languages and find the 613 commandments of Moses Law, for the most part, not applicable to my life. I personally find God's commandment: Thou shalt not kill to be of such importance that I would never take another person's life no matter what the circumstances. I have refused military service and was ready to face jail for my action. At the same time I think Numbers 22 with Balaam being reprimanded by his donkey as sheer nonsense.

The interesting notion that science is "reliable to an extent" and "subject to change" is always trying to be imposed on the scriptures, of which neither of these conditions apply. The scriptures are intended as an unchanging detail of the nature and character of God. As you mention the notion of "thou shalt not kill" - this is an unchanging principle of man, it is not of the same paradigm as believing that leeches cure disease or that pluto is a planet.
But i appreciate that you recognize that it does apply to your life (even if it is "for the least part"). That simple recognition is an affirmation of the text and its timeless quality.

Having said that, and in regards to the date you have suggested; Do you think the flood was global?

with all sincerity, what do you care if Nipper thinks the flood was global? Your previous ideas have made it abundantly clear that you have no reason to care, so that really leaves you with only one admission here.

What do you think subgenius?

Global flood yes/no?
2,300 'ish BC yes/no?

[_bcuzbcuz]

with all sincerity, what do you care if Nipper thinks the flood was global? Your previous ideas have made it abundantly clear that you have no reason to care, so that really leaves you with only one admission here.

You are assuming, of course, that I have to be rational and consequential in my discussions. I promise no such thing. I am neither god bound nor god approved. I do, however, expect god's messengers to be both of the above.