Welcome Chap! I think that we will get along. In Christ, dj
DJ, if you are serious it must be wonderful to find some else who has low standards of proof and an inability to realise they are being presuppositionalists! Sorry to be a little mean, but have you read Chaps 'arguement', or thought about how what he says is amazingly illustrative as to his level of knowledge. Look at his reply to me pointing out loads of people had claimed to be god;
Abaddon: I probably could have phrased the question better as I was responding to funkyderek's question. The people I was referring to are the likes of Buhda, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, etc. Yeah there are lots of people who claim to be God and usually, they end up in psychiatric wards unless they are in power. (Saddam Hussein, for instance?)
Buhdda never claimed to be a god. Muhammad never claimed to be a god. Joseph Smith never claimed to be a god but said that all (white males) could become one. Chap doesn't know what he is talking about.
On the basis of his logic, and the lack of either psychiatric wards or 'care in the community', maybe Jesus was executed because, even if he had a nice line in "Chicken Soup for the Soul", people thought he was a nut for claiming to be the son of god (although he was probably really pissed that people didn't understand it was a metaphor, especially after the bit with the nails).
Basically, step one, which Chap consistantly fails to do, is prove the inspiration of the Bible.
I present to you as a proof that the Bible is not divinely inspired the humble bristlecone pine. These prove not only that there wasn't a flood, but that some trees were standing before the world existed, at least from a Young Earth Creation perspective. If Genesis is not inspired there is no way I think you can show me how to tell the bits that are inspired (if there are any) and the bits that are not inspired, other than OPINION. In which case, I have mine, you have yours, and I seek nor allow any claim of moral superiority on your part or mine based on something as neabulous as 'opinion'.
The only way you can get out of that proof is by;
- Showing that dendrochronology when applied to bristlecone pines is unreliable (you can try, but I don't think you can). In this event I have more proofs. Museums of them.
- Telling me that the appearance of age was put there by god (which is an arguement even most creationists dismiss as silly, as it requires people to believe in a very peculiar sense of humour on the part of the Creator).
If you do believe in the 'appearance of age', you are a presuppositionalist, i.e., you believe the Bible is true because you believe the Bible is true, not because of any proof, and if you are a presuppositionalist, there's no point in talking to you as you have selected a philosophy of dust that you are welcome to but that I have no truck with (other than vaugely annoyed exasperation).
Obviously these things pertain to Chap to, so he should (doesn't have to but he has no arguement to me otherwise) first address the proof of Biblical inspiration before he posits things like "Is the baby being thrown out with the bath water?". It's like saying "Are you guys just clinging onto a bunch of unprovable fairy tales as you are too educationally or intellectually compromised to rigourously re-examine the beliefs you have from the ground up without any pre-exisitng assumptions?" to you; utter rubbish unless I can prove it.