Wayne Delia

"There you go again." (Ronald Reagan)

Exactly where did Bishop Ussher go wrong with his calculations, and why? It ought to be a piece of cake to identify his mistakes, but you cannot, since you are unfamiliar with Ussher's method and calculations. "Going with the earlier date" has nothing whatsoever to do with whether that date "agrees with everything else in the Bible." At best, you are committing a logical fallacy known as Argument from Antiquity, the position that the older something is, the more likely it is to be right, i.e. "The Bible is the truth, and the Book of Mormon is wrong, because the Bible predates the Book of Mormon by thousands of years." In fact, a common technique of cornered apologists is to reject Ussher's figure in favor of a slightly older date, much as the authors of the alternative view website you presented, to make their estimates fall in line with what is known about evolution. If Creation and the Flood had actually occurred on Ussher's timeline, there would be so much inbreeding within species that none would be able to survive to the current day. So, if given the choice between Ussher's date of October 23, 4004 BC (at 9 AM GMT to be precise!) and another date such as the one you presented of between ten and twenty thousand years BC, one might prefer the older one, because it is the closest to the much more accurate date of 4.5 BILLION years given as the age of the universe.

But you've already acted out the stereotype of Dan Quayle condemning a book he hadn't actually read: you've rejected Ussher's calculation and timeline, after admitting you were not familiar with Ussher's method.

How do you spell "potato"?

WMD

Wayne Delia

I realize I've already responded to this, but here's an evasion alert: an apologist could make the claim that the Bible says man was created within the last 50,000 years (or substitute with another figure of known accuracy). If the Bible contained verses which support, for example, Ussher's timeline of six thousand years, the apologist then exclaims in triumph "See! Six thousand years qualifies as 'within the last 50,000 years'."

WMD

Wayne Delia

In order to feed their persecution complex.

WMD

Wayne Delia

The problem is, as a result of your "exhortation" (a term which sounds a little overdramatic), I've read the Bible, and determined that you were misrepresenting what the Bible said. For example, John 10:10 does not identify atheists as thieves. I realize you aren't a Christian (remember the four criteria from the Bible you posted, which disqualified you on two of the four points?) but how could you even pretend to think you're saved when you misrepresent the Bible at every turn?

WMD

Wayne Delia

Seems to me to be more similar to a Mafia protection racket. It is the consequence of paying for the "protection" that a person knows they have offended the Godfather in the first place, which caused the threat of property damaged. No kidding - that's a fairly good analogy.

Obviously, a person being described as totally depraved does not equate to that person actually being totally depraved. For example, the Qu'ran might describe you, as a pretend-Christian, as condemned to the Islamic hell, but that probably doesn't concern you in the least. That's why the corresponding fantasies of your theology don't concern us in the least.

Then there's something seriously wrong with that system of classification. One can claim to be a sinner, as you did, but when something goes wrong (such as intense scrutiny and skepticism of the claims in the Bible, as I did, or intentional disobedience of the Ninth Commandment, as you did), then the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy clicks into high gear. "He said he was a Christian, and claimed to be a sinner, but he probably didn't mean it, since No True Christian would criticize the bible like Wayne does (or misrepresent the Bible, like rhutchin does)". Again, if you're still unfamiliar with the definition of "No True Scotsman," you can review the thread in GRD of several hundred posts in which people attempted to explain and illustrate it to you - already.

It's pretty much the same deal with the Mafia protection racket.

You sound like many people who make the same claim, because they imagine that's what they'd do if they didn't have the Invisible Boogey-Man threat of hell hanging over their heads. You'd be free from the guilt, free from the responsibility of anything they do at all. The striking fact is that I do not live my life the way you imagine you'd live yours without your God. I take full responsibility for my actions, and feel guilt based on very understandable concepts such as empathy, compassion, fear of punishment by law, and fear of retribution from victims. On the other hand, you seem to imagine that you would not be affected by those controls and constraints, and would be a mindless sociopath if you did not have God's threat of hell to keep you in line. The only conclusion that can be reached is that I, and most atheists, live more moral lives than yours.

A more likely scenario is that they meet all the qualifications of being a Christian, like you probably once did, and discovered that the promises made in the Bible are not kept. You picked a very unfortunate example as an illustration: Mark 11:22-24 says that whatever is asked for in faithful prayer will be delivered. (The only loophole is the person making the request in prayer has to convince himself that he actually got what he asked for.) In the case of your own example, life did not get better because Jesus's promise in Mark 11:22-24 failed. You've already been clobbered on debate concerning that passage.

If the Bible was actually true, you'd have nothing to worry about, and its truthfulness could withstand any request for proof. But the problem is, key parts of the Bible are not true, such as Mark 11:22-24, which has never once worked to physically relocate a mountain into a remote lake, to use Jesus's example, or to regrow an amputated limb. The Christian would need to take it upon himself to convince himself that the mountain actually moved (although it's still in the same place), or that the missing limb was regrown (even though it is still missing).

I don't see anything in what he wrote above that would lead to the opposite conclusion. The big advantage is that you can keep the definition of Christian so vague, tenuous, and unfalsifiable, i.e. nobody alive today can be definitively characterized as a Christian, since they need to keep the faith active until they die, and we don't know what will happen to them in the future. The problem for you turned out to be that the definition of a true, saved Christian disqualified you from being a Christian, because you were unable and unwilling to admit you were wrong.

You're still missing the point. What "he" did, back then, is not materially different from what "you" are doing right now. We have the benefit of hindsight to see that it didn't stick with him. The same could happen to you in the future, although whether it does, I don't particularly care. So, the comic element is that you seem to think you're a True Christian (you already identified yourself as one) even though you might not actually be one if you give up the faith in the future. It's all a moot point, though, since you are disqualified from being a True Christian by two of the four the Biblical criteria you posted.

And, by a valid analogy, neither is yours.

WMD

Ubercat

WTF???? You have to be saved BEFORE you turn to christ? What are you smoking? As for the rest of your post.... I knew that you would make up garbage, in order to avoid acknowleging the flaws in your world view. Good job. May I have a slice of that pride of yours? It looks very comforting.

-Ubercat

Ubercat

But the problem is that god doesn't really save all of those that he reveals his salvation to. I, and many others here can testify that we were once saved, but now we aren't. What will you do, if and when you find out that you aren't saved and never were? I for one, would LOVE to be present when some future Rhutchin explains to Rhutchin that he's no christian, and never was. :rolling:

As for encouragement and support, I think I know you well enough now, to say that you personally are incapable of giving these. They clearly aren't gifts you've been blessed with. Is arrogance one of the gifts of the spirit? How about pride?

-Ubercat

rhutchin

God reveals His salvation to the whole world. Even atheists are familiar with God's salvation. Many people want to be saved on their terms and can mistake a brief fling with religion as salvation. Even I could do that. If so, then neither one of us has a complaint with God.

My role is not to provide encouragement and support to those who are not saved (what more can I tell you, for instance, seeing as how you have tasted the gospel (albeit on your terms) and have rejected it).

rhutchin

Yes, God has to save you BEFORE you will turn to Christ (otherwise, why would you seek Christ except, perhaps, to appease yourself or maybe to get into some girl's pants). You write like a person who wants to be saved when he wants to be saved and not saved when he does not want to be saved. Saved today, not saved tomorrow, maybe saved the next day. Where did you dig up that theology? Sounds like you may be a true Arminian.

rhutchin

You have to keep the context straight. It would be like the Mafia coming to you and giving you protection when you did not know you needed it. In salvation, the person (take yourself as an example) does not see his need for protection or for salvation. Certainly, you do not see that you have offended God or need any protection from judgment.