Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:02:10 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: George Reid <george.reid1@ntlworld.com> Cc: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net>, <dave@jetcafe.org>, <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020906092136.L94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <20020906155919.A6312@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, George Reid wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 09:37:56PM -0700, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > [...] > > 2) The litany of passages you offered as personally objectionable > > to you indicate that you are hardly an unbiased interpreter. > > Why you would poison your own well like that before making your > > controversial claims, one can only speculate. > [...] > > On the contrary, it is your well that I'm poisoning. If you are going to > cite passages from the Bible in support of your arguments, you'll have to > explain to us why it is that you don't adhere to all of the laws written > in Leviticus et al. I see. So you admit you are engaging in a fallacious argument? "Poisoning the well" is hardly a valid debate tactic. With that said, I think I am quite capable of defending my beliefs. The reason not all of the laws written in Leviticus are any longer applicable is that they had a theological purpose. I'm talking primarily of the ceremonial laws and such, the temple sacrifices, etc. All of these pointed forward to the coming of the Messiah. Now that He has come, they are superflous, not only that, but blasphemous, since to regard the pointers as more valuable than what they pointed to is an offense to God. > Additionally, what makes you think I find them personally objectionable? > Perhaps you are emotionally involved in the argument; I am not. At no > point did I say that I agreed or disagreed with any of the statements. > Perhaps I do believe that homosexuality is a greater abomination than > eating shellfish or that slaves from neighbouring nations are acceptable. > My personal beliefs are not important. Then why did you even bring them up? Wasn't it to induce an emotional response in other members of the list? If that isn't it, then why? Was it an attempt to embarrass my position? Do you suppose that I *am* embarrassed by those passages? What is *your* rationale for opposing slavery? I'll tell you mine. I am grateful to God for having mercy on me as a sinner. As such, I seek to glorify God by emulating His compassion that He had on me. Do you suppose that God is *obligated* to have mercy on everyone? An obligation implies justice, not mercy. Your objections fail to take into account that all of the evils that you mentioned that appear in the Bible are a result of *man's* sin, not God's. God uses the evil acts of men as well as the consequences to His own ends. Slavery, et al are all consequences of sinful man's rebellion against God. By the way, what objective standard are you using to judge God? I would really like to know. > > [...] > > 5) If you think you have a case, please present your arguments, > > instead of making grandiose assertions with little to back > > it up besides your claim to know Hebrew and Greek. If that > > is the case, present your arguments so that they can be > > scrutinized. You'll have to excuse me for not just taking > > your word for it. > [...] > > Further to this you wrote in an earlier post, and I quote: > > > Do you think that Christians just made up the doctrine of hell? Where > > do you think it came from? Did it not come from the lips of Christ > > himself, who claimed to be your Messiah? > > Hence the original postulate that hell is real (with little to back it > up) was brought up by none other than yourself. It is your claim to > argue. My response to you was an attempt to solicit such an argument so > that I can supply you with a counterargument. If I had the time I would > sit here all day and write you a small book on the inaccuracies, > contradictions, malicious mistranslations and other such errors which > riddle the teaching of the doctrine of hell. Unfortunately this is not a > luxury that I possess. You substantitate your claim that hell is real and > I'll do my best to refute that claim. Perhaps we'll both learn something > from it. Oh. So no argument is forthcoming. I am not the one throwing out claims of conspiracy theories and asserting that every translation of the Bible is corrupt. *You* are the one making the claims that are in opposition to the majority consensus of Hebrew and Greek scholars that have given us a plethora of translations which all just happen to teach the same doctrine of hell. As such, the burden of proof is on *you*. You are the one asserting that the majority opinion is in error. That is a case which you have not even attempted to make, much less proven. By your logic, the following is a valid pattern of reasoning: 1) I assert that the moon is made of swiss cheese. 2) Anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant or part of a vast conspiracy to with-hold the truth that the moon is made of swiss cheese. 3) Oh, and by the way, the burden of proof is on you to disprove my claims. Give me a break! Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020906092136.L94577-100000>