Denying science in the classroom

[Mierin]

So, not done.

I'll wait while you go back and read that part of the thread again. Let us know when you've caught up.

Seriously? What is your deal today? It was a simple innocent question. LOMs and I both wanted to know if you thought we were saying god isn't god. For no apparent reason you took the topic off course and now you're acting like someone else did that. You completely derailed the thing we were actually talking about.

 

[knapplc]

It's pretty damn difficult and frustrating trying to discuss the validity of the Bible with you, knapp. You refuse to give even a centimeter of courtesy in engaging with the ideas that other people want to explore, or even in explaining things you say that people don't understand, even when they are directly related to the questions you're asking or the claims you're making, but still expect everyone to engage with your restrictive and pidgeonholing questions. Like, I've spent dozens of posts trying to articulate the nuances and the complexities of how I think (through a lot of research) the Bible should be approached, and all you can focus on is, "yeah but you haven't answered my question about how many of the stories I listed are literal or aren't literal because if you answer that any of them aren't then the Bible is ridiculous caveman nonsense."

If you already have the answer, you're convinced it's the only answer, and you can only frame the questions in a way that leave no room to do anything other than to arrive at your answer, then what's the point of even asking?

Is a Christian more open-minded about religion than a non-theist? If so, how?

 

[Mierin]

I'm no longer responding to this personal tangent. If you want to discuss me, take it to the Woodshed.

I'm not discussing you. LOMs and I merely wanted clarification on a statement you made as often happens in discussions. I don't understand where any of your replies on it are coming from.

And why in the hell would I want to discuss it in the Woodshed? I would PM you. I'm not talking about you I'm talking directly to you.

 

[Mierin]

It's pretty damn difficult and frustrating trying to discuss the validity of the Bible with you, knapp. You refuse to give even a centimeter of courtesy in engaging with the ideas that other people want to explore, or even in explaining things you say that people don't understand, even when they are directly related to the questions you're asking or the claims you're making, but still expect everyone to engage with your restrictive and pidgeonholing questions. Like, I've spent dozens of posts trying to articulate the nuances and the complexities of how I think (through a lot of research) the Bible should be approached, and all you can focus on is, "yeah but you haven't answered my question about how many of the stories I listed are literal or aren't literal because if you answer that any of them aren't then the Bible is ridiculous caveman nonsense."

If you already have the answer, you're convinced it's the only answer, and you can only frame the questions in a way that leave no room to do anything other than to arrive at your answer, then what's the point of even asking?

Is a Christian more open-minded about religion than a non-theist? If so, how?

It's a tie.

The most open minded in general are agnostics.

 

[knapplc]

I'm no longer responding to this personal tangent. If you want to discuss me, take it to the Woodshed.

I'm not discussing you. LOMs and I merely wanted clarification on a statement you made as often happens in discussions. I don't understand where any of your replies on it are coming from.

And why in the hell would I want to discuss it in the Woodshed? I would PM you. I'm not talking about you I'm talking directly to you.

Help me understand why you're focused on this tangent.

What conclusions could we draw based on a positive or negative answer to the question?

 

[Landlord]

Your responses consisted of nothing more than

• I'm not answering until you answer

• I've answered that tons of times

• Answer my question

• Are you done?

• My answer was obvious

• Why are you so focused on this thing that I won't answer?

anyways, so I guess you being done doesn't really cause any loss

Anyways, since this thread has transitioned into Bible reliability/history/trustworthiness/etc., any of you guys that are interested in this stuff I'd recommend checking out Richard Rohr. Really cool old man that I wish was my grandpa - he's a Franciscan Fryer and a lot of his teachings have to do with self-realization, non-dualistic thinking, the cosmic nature of the Christ, deconstructing faith, and a healthy perspective of the tenants of enriching Christian faith rather than the dogma of stifling/oppressive faith:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgD_AO11Lac

 

[knapplc]

It's pretty damn difficult and frustrating trying to discuss the validity of the Bible with you, knapp. You refuse to give even a centimeter of courtesy in engaging with the ideas that other people want to explore, or even in explaining things you say that people don't understand, even when they are directly related to the questions you're asking or the claims you're making, but still expect everyone to engage with your restrictive and pidgeonholing questions. Like, I've spent dozens of posts trying to articulate the nuances and the complexities of how I think (through a lot of research) the Bible should be approached, and all you can focus on is, "yeah but you haven't answered my question about how many of the stories I listed are literal or aren't literal because if you answer that any of them aren't then the Bible is ridiculous caveman nonsense."

If you already have the answer, you're convinced it's the only answer, and you can only frame the questions in a way that leave no room to do anything other than to arrive at your answer, then what's the point of even asking?

Is a Christian more open-minded about religion than a non-theist? If so, how?

It's a tie.

The most open minded in general are agnostics.

How is it a tie?

 

[JJ Husker]

The question I asked is the most fundamental and relevant question in this thread. Landlord's question is actually irrelevant if my question is answered in the only way it can be answered.

Okay, I'll be the guinea pig. I believe half those stories are literally true and the other half are merely representative of some idea or lesson. Now please explain how that invalidates the whole Bible.

Have you not actually read anything I've posted in this thread? Really?

I've read every word of it multiple times. You've been accused of making logic leaps by myself and others. If you can't connect the dots and have it make sense, I'm thinking that's on you because I don't believe those of us struggling with it are that limited in the comprehension department. Pretend I'm from Missouri and show me. Or is this just one of those things we have to disagree on...?

 

[Mierin]

I'm no longer responding to this personal tangent. If you want to discuss me, take it to the Woodshed.

I'm not discussing you. LOMs and I merely wanted clarification on a statement you made as often happens in discussions. I don't understand where any of your replies on it are coming from.
And why in the hell would I want to discuss it in the Woodshed? I would PM you. I'm not talking about you I'm talking directly to you.

Help me understand why you're focused on this tangent.

What conclusions could we draw based on a positive or negative answer to the question?

Originally I wanted to know if you were implying LOMs or I were saying god isn't god so that I could figure out how you came to that conclusion and express my thoughts so they made more sense.

Now I'm actually pretty distraught that you've come to the conclusion you're being attacked. It's like we've never talked before.

 

[Mierin]

It's pretty damn difficult and frustrating trying to discuss the validity of the Bible with you, knapp. You refuse to give even a centimeter of courtesy in engaging with the ideas that other people want to explore, or even in explaining things you say that people don't understand, even when they are directly related to the questions you're asking or the claims you're making, but still expect everyone to engage with your restrictive and pidgeonholing questions. Like, I've spent dozens of posts trying to articulate the nuances and the complexities of how I think (through a lot of research) the Bible should be approached, and all you can focus on is, "yeah but you haven't answered my question about how many of the stories I listed are literal or aren't literal because if you answer that any of them aren't then the Bible is ridiculous caveman nonsense."

If you already have the answer, you're convinced it's the only answer, and you can only frame the questions in a way that leave no room to do anything other than to arrive at your answer, then what's the point of even asking?

Is a Christian more open-minded about religion than a non-theist? If so, how?

It's a tie.

The most open minded in general are agnostics.

How is it a tie?

I'm only going off my own experience so it doesn't mean a lot but some of the most closed minded people I've known in my life were Christian, and the few athiests I've met were also closeminded.

Also, I've heard my oldest brother and my mom argue enough without either budging.

 

[knapplc]

The question I asked is the most fundamental and relevant question in this thread. Landlord's question is actually irrelevant if my question is answered in the only way it can be answered.

Okay, I'll be the guinea pig. I believe half those stories are literally true and the other half are merely representative of some idea or lesson. Now please explain how that invalidates the whole Bible.

Have you not actually read anything I've posted in this thread? Really?

I've read every word of it multiple times. You've been accused of making logic leaps by myself and others. If you can't connect the dots and have it make sense, I'm thinking that's on you because I don't believe those of us struggling with it are that limited in the comprehension department. Pretend I'm from Missouri and show me. Or is this just one of those things we have to disagree on...?

You've really read every word of this thread multiple times? So if I can go back through this thread and find where I've answered the question, "Now please explain how that invalidates the whole Bible" you owe me a thousand dollars. Fair?

It doesn't have to be an answer you agree with, it just has to be an answer that I've already given.

Deal?

 

[Mierin]

The question I asked is the most fundamental and relevant question in this thread. Landlord's question is actually irrelevant if my question is answered in the only way it can be answered.

Okay, I'll be the guinea pig. I believe half those stories are literally true and the other half are merely representative of some idea or lesson. Now please explain how that invalidates the whole Bible.

Have you not actually read anything I've posted in this thread? Really?

I've read every word of it multiple times. You've been accused of making logic leaps by myself and others. If you can't connect the dots and have it make sense, I'm thinking that's on you because I don't believe those of us struggling with it are that limited in the comprehension department. Pretend I'm from Missouri and show me. Or is this just one of those things we have to disagree on...?

You've really read every word of this thread multiple times? So if I can go back through this thread and find where I've answered the question, "Now please explain how that invalidates the whole Bible" you owe me a thousand dollars. Fair?

It doesn't have to be an answer you agree with, it just has to be an answer that I've already given.

Deal?

I finally get why you posted that reply. I thought you were implying that El Diaco misunderstood and you weren't saying it invalidates the Bible.

The problem now that I understand it is El Diaco answered your question. Now what? You've already explained how taking only part of it literally invalidates the Bible, is there more to add now that your question has been answered? I think we were expecting something further after your question was answered.

 

[Landlord]

Help me understand why you're focused on this tangent.

1. knapp says something that we think might be an accusation against us

2. we ask for clarification on what he meant

3. he refuses to provide it, and instead directs attention to his question that hasn't been answered

4. we answer the question, then ask for clarification again

5. he still refuses to provide it

6. he then asks why we're so focused on it

I guess you claimed that what you meant was obvious. Maybe to you, not to me. For how many times I've seen you jump on other people for not answering direct questions, it's either really weird or really lame that you refuse to give the courtesy of explaining yourself and keep trying to deflect.

 

[knapplc]

I'm no longer responding to this personal tangent. If you want to discuss me, take it to the Woodshed.

I'm not discussing you. LOMs and I merely wanted clarification on a statement you made as often happens in discussions. I don't understand where any of your replies on it are coming from.
And why in the hell would I want to discuss it in the Woodshed? I would PM you. I'm not talking about you I'm talking directly to you.

Help me understand why you're focused on this tangent.

What conclusions could we draw based on a positive or negative answer to the question?

Originally I wanted to know if you were implying LOMs or I were saying god isn't god so that I could figure out how you came to that conclusion and express my thoughts so they made more sense.

Now I'm actually pretty distraught that you've come to the conclusion you're being attacked. It's like we've never talked before.

Start at post #264 where Landlord talks about concepts of god. Read that conversation. I was trying to clarify what he was saying by my post #275. I'm guessing you felt my post (#275) was a stand-alone statement.

 

[knapplc]

I finally get why you posted that reply. I thought you were implying that El Diaco misunderstood and you weren't saying it invalidates the Bible.

The problem now that I understand it is El Diaco answered your question. Now what? You've already explained how taking only part of it literally invalidates the Bible, is there more to add now that your question has been answered? I think we were expecting something further after your question was answered.

Once the Bible becomes invalid, the discussion ends, for all intents and purposes.