Autobiography of a 'Died-Again Christian by Dr. Jaco Gericke

[Jaecp]

It's a pointless question coming from you, much like a theist asking a hard atheist and soft atheist which one is right.

Imprecise analogy, particularly since you can ask the hard and soft atheists why they think a certain way and they will tell you.

One of you has the interpretation of christianity I should be focusing on.

Stop dodging my question.

It's the creation of a vacuum absent of light, out of a space/time with light, which also makes it creation of darkness.

No, no its not. Read the article.

They didn't have to be aware of it, all they had to do was record metaphors given to them by God and leave it to us for sorting out at a time when we are more knowledgeable of physical cosmology. Like now.

Metaphors that you believe to be correct, but I would wager are a minority amongst christians. Why is your interpretation the one I should focus on?

I solidified my positions regarding Old Earth and Evolution due to discussions with Atheists about Modern Science. So yes Atheism, informed me about Modern Science.

No.

Atheists informed you about modern science.

Atheism did not.

Algae existed billions of years ago, before marine animals like Spongebob existed millions of years ago.

Where do you get it in the bible obviously I know it exists in the real world, thats why your trying to link it to an old jewish creation myth.

No it is a metaphor like this:

Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

K,

Why.

No it is a metaphor like this:

Ezekiel 1:10 As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle.

K,

Why

I don't like nukes and other things science has produced, so I guess you could say that.

You don't like nukes? I love em, we haven't used em on anybody since the first time and their creation directly led to the nuclear power plants I lived on/by for 4 years.

This isn't what I am saying though.

What Im saying is, you want to cling to science when you think it helps you argument but as soon as it doesn't then it stops being important, this is what hurts the "days of the bible are equal to periods of the formation of the universe", because it just doesn't work.

The sun is a direct or greater source of light, and the moon is an indirect or lesser source of light. Nothing wrong here, although it is referring to the metaphor I described, not to the literal creation of the solar system in Genesis 1:3.

Its a metaphor when it doesn't make sense any other way :D

The moon is not a source of light, no matter how many adjectives you tack on RB.

[Rainbow Brite]

Imprecise analogy, particularly since you can ask the hard and soft atheists why they think a certain way and they will tell you.

I might ask them why they take their respective positions, but I wouldn't ask which one is correct since neither is correct in my view.

One of you has the interpretation of christianity I should be focusing on.

You don't seem to have a choice since MM stopped talking to you.

No, no its not. Read the article.

Even a black hole creates darkness by sucking light into it.

No. Atheists informed you about modern science. Atheism did not.

It did, we were discussing their views from atheism at the time.

Where do you get it in the bible obviously I know it exists in the real world, thats why your trying to link it to an old jewish creation myth.

The commands given for plant and marine animal life were Genesis 1:11 and Genesis 1:20.

You don't like nukes? I love em, we haven't used em on anybody since the first time and their creation directly led to the nuclear power plants I lived on/by for 4 years.

Ok...

This isn't what I am saying though.

What Im saying is, you want to cling to science when you think it helps you argument but as soon as it doesn't then it stops being important, this is what hurts the "days of the bible are equal to periods of the formation of the universe", because it just doesn't work.

I said days of the Bible are when specific commands were given. Each command was initiated and carried out over millions of years, some overlapping along the way. It does work, but you are misunderstanding my position.

Its a metaphor when it doesn't make sense any other way :D

It makes sense according to all verses I attached earlier, but you will probably have to enter a thread in Eschatology or something to see further explanation.

The moon is not a source of light, no matter how many adjectives you tack on RB.

The sun is a source of direct light, but the moon is a source of indirect light as reflected by the sun's direct light.

[Jaecp]

I might ask them why they take their respective positions, but I wouldn't ask which one is correct since neither is correct in my view.

This is getting off point.

You both believe you are correct and you both believe that christianity is true.

One of you has the better understanding of christianity and what the bible really says, so stop evading the point and tell me already.

You don't seem to have a choice since MM stopped talking to you.

Dude, he hasn't logged on in two days, he hasn't been talking to anyone.

Even a black hole creates darkness by sucking light into it.

This is not creating darkness in the way said so in the bible, darkness is the absence of light. Obviously a black hole that doesn't let light escape is going to look dark to us. This is quite different from what you are trying to harmonize in genesis, that you have insofar failed to do.

It did, we were discussing their views from atheism at the time.

So?

They gave you their view on science while also giving you their views on atheism. The information was from atheists about science. You may as well say my recipe for really good taco meat has something to do with my atheism if I mention it while talking about religion.

The commands given for plant and marine animal life were Genesis 1:11 and Genesis 1:20.

And thats the algae, genesis 1:11? This verse "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. "

Yeah, that doesn't sound like algae to me.

I said days of the Bible are when specific commands were given. Each command was initiated and carried out over millions of years, some overlapping along the way. It does work, but you are misunderstanding my position.

Ooh! Now they overlap.

If I am misunderstanding anything it is because you are unable to articulate what you are getting at, let alone my suspicion that you are horribly horribly wrong about this.

It makes sense according to all verses I attached earlier, but you will probably have to enter a thread in Eschatology or something to see further explanation.

May as well explain yourself here, TWeb threads get off-topic all the time.

Hit me with your best shot.

The sun is a source of direct light, but the moon is a source of indirect light as reflected by the sun's direct light.

The moon is not a source of light anymore than your Ethernet cable is the source of theologyweb.

You have no case, superfluous adjectives do not help you.

[TheologicalDisc]

Stop dodging my question.

This has to be the most hypocritical thing you've ever said. Man, you're such a pathetic half witted hypocrite. How dare you of all people accuse ANYONE of dodging your question. How dare you. Of all the questions and points you constantly dodge around here you have absolutely NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to even expect a question of yours to be answered, much less accuse and fault someone for dodging your question. This is beyond pathetic. I didn't think you could get any lower than you already are but you've done it right here, you've hit a new low, you're such a pathetic idiotic joke.

[Jaecp]

Skip the tu quoque's please

[TheologicalDisc]

Skip the tu quoque's please

Really you stupid half wit? its a tu quoque? support your idiotic assertion.

[Jaecp]

Nah,

Your just trying to draw me into some stupid argument about your tu quoque because Rainbow Brite's points are horrible and you really hate to see christians lose any argument, so your hoping to get into some big drug out affair to distract people.

Not going to happen.

[TheologicalDisc]

Nah,

Your just trying to draw me into some stupid argument because Rainbow Brite's points are horrible and you really hate to see christians lose any argument, so your hoping to get into some big drug out affair to distract people.

Not going to happen.

You can't support your idiotic assertion because you don't even know what a tu quoue is. Moreover, this is even more hypocrisy from you. You've faulted RB and other people for not supporting their assertions and YET AGAIN when asked to support one of your many stupid ridiculous idiotic assertions you duck out like the stupid hypocritical pathetic idiot you are. You're a joke, an embarrassment to honest atheists everywhere. You're a disgrace to honest discussion, you're a disgrace, a pathetic disgrace to skeptics everywhere that properly use logic and want to discuss these issues. You're a joke. A disgusting, pathetic, embarrassment. You're a disgrace, a complete and utter disgrace.

[Rainbow Brite]

This is getting off point. You both believe you are correct and you both believe that christianity is true. One of you has the better understanding of christianity and what the bible really says, so stop evading the point and tell me already.

This would involve discussing many things like understanding of Trinity, not just Genesis. So it's also a pointless question from that angle too.

Dude, he hasn't logged on in two days, he hasn't been talking to anyone.

When he comes back we can see if he talks to you, that may give you more of an idea of who you should focus on.

This is not creating darkness in the way said so in the bible, darkness is the absence of light. Obviously a black hole that doesn't let light escape is going to look dark to us.

Thus proving darkness can be created.

This is quite different from what you are trying to harmonize in genesis, that you have insofar failed to do.

A vacuum without light created out of space/time with light is also creating darkness.

They gave you their view on science while also giving you their views on atheism. The information was from atheists about science. You may as well say my recipe for really good taco meat has something to do with my atheism if I mention it while talking about religion.

Or, I could say employees of Taco Bell (atheists) gave me tacos (science) from Taco Bell (atheism). Tacos (science) didn't give me tacos (science), Taco Bell (atheism) gave me tacos (science). Simple.

And thats the algae, genesis 1:11? This verse "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. " Yeah, that doesn't sound like algae to me... Ooh! Now they overlap.

Genesis 1:11 is God's command for the earth to bring forth plant life, not the completion of it, which seems to be your anticipation possibly because you've relied on YEC teachings rather than understanding for yourself what the verse actually says. And as you may know, different forms of plant and animal life continue to evolve at the same time.

May as well explain yourself here, TWeb threads get off-topic all the time. Hit me with your best shot.

Replies like "Please" regarding Genesis 1:16 as a metaphor show that unlike other atheists, you are either not capable or not interested in discussing soundness of biblical interpretation, even if you don't believe in it. Expand on your last reply according to what I posted so far and I might continue. If not I'll wait for posters who can, and you can join in then if you like.

The moon is not a source of light anymore than your Ethernet cable is the source of theologyweb.

Light does not flow through the moon but is reflected by it, while data flows through a cable, bad comparison.

[lilpixieofterror]

No lpot,

I simply want to know which interpretation of christianity is correct and I should focus on understanding, I've been accused on not understanding christianity before, I'd like to avoid that. Either the sun was created in verse 5 or in verse 14-16, can't have been both.

Nice cover up, but we both know that isn't true and your language indicates that isn't true either. Nobody said they can't both be true, but when you go and say things like:

So... which is it? Is mountainman spreading the correct christian message or is rainbowbrite spreading the correct christian message?

It makes it sound like that is just what you're trying to do, pit Christian against Christian and it seems you fail horribly at it because your attempt is too open. Try to be more subtle, you'll do much better if you do.

[Jaecp]

Nice cover up, but we both know that isn't true and your language indicates that isn't true either. Nobody said they can't both be true, but when you go and say things like:

"nobody said they can't both be true"

So, is this you saying they can both be true? Or something else, becuse it looks fairly self evident that one of the two is correct. No matter how you wanna make me into the bad guy, the sun was only created once. One of them is wrong.

It makes it sound like that is just what you're trying to do, pit Christian against Christian and it seems you fail horribly at it because your attempt is too open. Try to be more subtle, you'll do much better if you do.

One of them is right, one of them is wrong.

I do nothing wrong by asking which

[lilpixieofterror]

"nobody said they can't both be true"

So, is this you saying they can both be true? Or something else, becuse it looks fairly self evident that one of the two is correct. No matter how you wanna make me into the bad guy, the sun was only created once. One of them is wrong.

Leaving out the rest of your sentence eh, let us take a look at it yet again:

So... which is it? Is mountainman spreading the correct christian message or is rainbowbrite spreading the correct christian message?

*note the underlined phrase*

Keep dodging and weaving away, is there a reason you left out your full sentence?

One of them is right, one of them is wrong.

I do nothing wrong by asking which

No you don't, but you do wrong when you try to pit them against each other and it looks even worse on you when you get caught trying to do this and try to say you were not. What's the problem; did you get your hand caught in the cookie jar?

[Jaecp]

Because its my sentence and I'm replying to what you said? Why would I quote myself?

They gave mutually contradictory explanations for the same bible verses and its a valid question to ask which one is correct. How else am I going to figure out which one of them is correct if not by asking them?

This would involve discussing many things like understanding of Trinity, not just Genesis. So it's also a pointless question from that angle too.

When he comes back we can see if he talks to you, that may give you more of an idea of who you should focus on.

Yeah, he still hasn't logged back on, weird.

Still, if I focus on your interpretation just because he isn't back yet, thats a bit weird.

Thus proving darkness can be created.

A vacuum without light created out of space/time with light is also creating darkness.

No, your confusing an area that is dark with what the jews were talking about darkness,as its own "substance" or whatever being created ex nihilo. Absences are not created ex nihilo, they are a lack.

Or, I could say employees of Taco Bell (atheists) gave me tacos (science) from Taco Bell (atheism). Tacos (science) didn't give me tacos (science), Taco Bell (atheism) gave me tacos (science). Simple.

That analogy is anything but simple and is just a rephrase of what you just said and it still doesn't work.

Genesis 1:11 is God's command for the earth to bring forth plant life, not the completion of it, which seems to be your anticipation possibly because you've relied on YEC teachings rather than understanding for yourself what the verse actually says. And as you may know, different forms of plant and animal life continue to evolve at the same time.

The verse states to bring forth grass, herb yielding seed, and the fruit trees, then the next verse is the completion of this. You have no case.

Replies like "Please" regarding Genesis 1:16 as a metaphor show that unlike other atheists, you are either not capable or not interested in discussing soundness of biblical interpretation, even if you don't believe in it. Expand on your last reply according to what I posted so far and I might continue. If not I'll wait for posters who can, and you can join in then if you like.

When your interpretations are directly contradicting the verses your interpretation is over, then yeah, I am to want you to explain yourself first. Since, as we can see, you do not have some unanimous christian backing on your interpretation. I am not going to just take it as "the christian position" when it isn't.

Light does not flow through the moon but is reflected by it, while data flows through a cable, bad comparison.

No, the comparison is quite apt.

We have the source, Sun/ISP, and we have the other part that helps get the Light/Data to people by means of Moon/Ethernet Cable

In each instance, the secondar part is not a source.

[Rainbow Brite]

No, your confusing an area that is dark with what the jews were talking about darkness,as its own "substance" or whatever being created ex nihilo. Absences are not created ex nihilo, they are a lack.

According to your reasoning then it's impossible to create a vacuum, doesn't work.

That analogy is anything but simple and is just a rephrase of what you just said and it still doesn't work.

Sure it does. If an atheist promoting Atheism gave me information, regardless of the source, then Atheism has directly informed me of the information. Same as the moon directly lights up my night, even though the original source of the light is the sun.

The verse states to bring forth grass, herb yielding seed, and the fruit trees, then the next verse is the completion of this. You have no case.

It doesn't say it's the completion, it's the beginning of the earth bringing forth of it. As my example of algae billions of years ago, from which all plants evolved.

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

You assume God looked at the pretty grass and trees already formed here because you've relied on traditional Christian interpretations for your understanding of the verse.

When your interpretations are directly contradicting the verses your interpretation is over, then yeah, I am to want you to explain yourself first. Since, as we can see, you do not have some unanimous christian backing on your interpretation. I am not going to just take it as "the christian position" when it isn't.

I never claimed it was any kind of official Christian interpretation. Show me specifically what you think contradicts and maybe I'll discuss it. "Please" doesn't tell me anything.

No, the comparison is quite apt. We have the source, Sun/ISP, and we have the other part that helps get the Light/Data to people by means of Moon/Ethernet Cable In each instance, the secondar part is not a source.

Still bad because you can get sunlight without moonlight, but you can't get ISP data without the cable. And initially bad because you need a direct flow from the ISP through the cable, but you don't need direct sunlight to get direct moonlight.

[Jaecp]

According to your reasoning then it's impossible to create a vacuum, doesn't work.

No. Creating a vacuum is easy. Creating darkness in the sense that the bible talks about? Totally different.

Sure it does. If an atheist promoting Atheism gave me information, regardless of the source, then Atheism has directly informed me of the information. Same as the moon directly lights up my night, even though the original source of the light is the sun.

Again, no. Atheism isn't the source of the information. Science is, in this situation the atheist is the conduit, atheism is not the conduit.

It doesn't say it's the completion, it's the beginning of the earth bringing forth of it. As my example of algae billions of years ago, from which all plants evolved.

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

You assume God looked at the pretty grass and trees already formed here because you've relied on traditional Christian interpretations for your understanding of the verse.

1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

So yeah...

I never claimed it was any kind of official Christian interpretation. Show me specifically what you think contradicts and maybe I'll discuss it. "Please" doesn't tell me anything.

I want your argument not your statement, is this so confusing?

Still bad because you can get sunlight without moonlight, but you can't get ISP data without the cable. And initially bad because you need a direct flow from the ISP through the cable, but you don't need direct sunlight to get direct moonlight.

No analogy is completely analogous, it doesn't make it a bad analogy. The simple fact of the matter is the moon isn't the source, your statement above is where you state as much