Errancy list??

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>Justin

>I have been on this list only a few days and have seen very little

>discussion of the bible.  However I have learned a great deal

>about physics and astronomy.  Do your strings end up in debates

>that are far from the original subject often?



|aaron|

Threads will naturally diverge for different reasons.  This is an
unmoderated list, so it's fairly easy for the subject to get way off
topic really quickly.  Plus...It's hard to discuss the Bible a lot when
the inerrantists keep running away from the subject.  And expecting
a bunch of skeptics to discuss the inerrancy issue with any passion
is insane (except when you get them debating to what extent the
Jesus presented in the Bible is based on a real person).  ;>

POOBAH
It is a shame; we had a chance for a real mud-wrestling with Bell & Terry
going toe-to-toe on the Trinity, but alas it didn't happen.

And what ever happened to the Ezekiel debate? It was my understanding that
at the very least Mr. Bell was going to drown us in quotes to show that he
was really right in a point involving "scholarly consensus" that was already
conceded. What happened there?

And poor ole Jason Carter is running again. To recount all of the threads
he's left tire marks fleeing would be quite a task, but recently he asked
questions of us about Columbine, but never responded to the questions that
came in response, and he's fled uncomfortable questions about the
composition of the early Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas. Just yesterday I
offered him a chance to show that using Numbers25-31 as a justification to
be horrible to people considered sinners is wrong; I fear he will ignore
that as well. Seemingly he'd rather talk about whether space is a concept or
reality or whatever. If you want something to watch, Justin, watch this:
just as the questions get too difficult for Mr. Carter to handle,
coincidentally he will find too much work to respond, will disappear just
long enough for everyone to forget the context of the conversations (a week
or two), and then jump in on a new one (like the nature of logic) that have
absolutely nothing to do with inerrancy. If questioned about any of the
previous topic, he will claim he won. Just watch.

The problem is that none of our inerrantists have any desire to defend their
position.

• Previous message: Errancy list??
• Next message: Errancy list??
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]