aChristian

I am curious. Do you really not understand that once the fact of the resurrection is established and along with it the truth of Christianity that it is no problem for God (not a human being) to make the sun stand still?

John A. Broussard

I keep looking for them and can't find them. How about a quick summary of two or three of them?

No quoting from the Qu'ran or Rig Veda, though, since I don't believe either of them are divinely inspired.

Thanks.

John A. Broussard

Thank you.

Do you believe the sun stood still on that day?

I'm looking forward to your answer.

Antlerman

You stated it as a fact. I understand it seems clear to you, but there are others who do not read it the same way as you do. Putting words into Paul's mouth that are only a reflection of your understanding, is in effect being dishonest in stating your argument, adding extra weight to a personal bias to help sell the interpretation to others.
I see considerable reasons to see mythology as a literary tool in at least one of the Gospels writers (notice how I avoid stating this as fact, though I feel there is strong evidence to support it?). The main point to make though is that if a writer chooses to use the vehicle of supernatural tales to tell a story of their hero, it's not a lie - its mythology.

It's not a perfect analogy, but think of it like Stephen King writing a story based on a contemporary figure (be it a real person or a supernatural figure like an E.T.), told in historical setting the readers would connect to, like in a small town in New Mexico. His readers more than likely would understand the tales as a literary vehicle to tell an underlying story about a notable character. Many years later then, religious devotees started reading his works as factual representations.

Was Mr. King being dishonest with his original readers, or does the problem lay with how people later interpreted it? I suppose, once those later people learned it was a mythology they might feel they were lied to, but were they?

Godless Wonder

I think It's a veiled (but empty) threat. I think he's trying to say that the next to last thing you'll do is explain to God your case for your unbelief. The last thing you'll do is go to hell. I sort of wondered if that was what he was driving at.

mata leao

bingo Godlesss! but p.s. Godless, if the threat is so empty, why are you here shadow boxing so hard against it? Lotta 'pretty girls' in Houston son, if the threat is so empty, I'd be with 'them' 'stead of us!!!! med school 101 "anxiety is the sign of unrequited fears".....worried about anything Godless?

Godless Wonder

And you say we're the arrogant ones. Read what you just wrote and ask yourself it it makes the author look like a jackass or not.

I'll tell you why I'm here, but I doubt you'll be able to finish reading the explanation, much less be able to empathize enough to actually comprehend it.

I'm going to use an analogy. You're not going to like the analogy, you're going to think that it doesn't fit. I happen to think it fits quite well. Whether you agree that the analogy fits is not important to getting the point of what follows. What is important to "get it" is that you play along with the analogy, and really try to imagine the world as I'm about to describe. If you can't do this, you will not understand what follows.

Imagine that you live in a world in which 80% or more of the people believe that leprechauns exist, and spending their sundays out hunting leprechauns. This despite the fact that nobody has ever caught a leprechaun, or even seen one, so far as you can tell, though they tell tall tales about "almost catching" one, seeing them from a distance. Imagine further that this 80% of the population holds those who do not believe in the leprechauns to be somehow morally defective and generally undesirable, for no reason except that they do not believe in, nor hunt for leprechauns. Suppose further that there were government subsidezed stores selling leprechaun hunting supplies and various books about leprechauns, and suppose that there were always people trying to teach all about leprechuans in Biology classes in the public schools. Suppose that it it was impossible for any leprechaun-doubter to be elected to public office.

edit

Sauron

No, it's not. It's a mistake you made, that you now cannot bring yourself to admit.

And you were trying to claim that other people were avoiding admitting obvious facts -- sounds like you got that reversed as well.

I'm not the one running around opening up threads but too arrogant to support them.

Nor am I the one claiming to be a National Debating Champ. :rolling: Given your performance in this current debate, that's kinda like putting a ribbon on a country pig and trying to convince us that it's a national beauty queen.

But since you haven't proven that any of the prophecies came true, maybe they were correct to mock them?

You do seem to have a problem; all your arguments eventually wind up assuming your conclusion. Are you *sure* you were a National Debating Champ? :rolling:

Sauron

I must have missed where you established this.

Care to point me to your argument?

Sauron

More likely, mata leao made a mistake and then quickly hobbled together a contrived usage for the word. I mean, it's not as if we don't have evidence of other instances of "creative linguistics" from our resident National Debate Champ.