“You are to bring the bull to the front of the tent of meeting, and Aaron and his sons must lay their hands on the bull’s head. Slaughter the bull before the Lord at the entrance to the tent of meeting. Take some of the bull’s blood and apply it to the horns of the altar with your finger; then pour out all the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. Take all the fat that covers the entrails, the fatty lobe of the liver, and the two kidneys with the fat on them, and burn them on the altar. But burn the bull’s flesh, its hide, and its waste outside the camp; it is a sin offering.” (CSB – Read the chapter)
When someone does something wrong, a debt is incurred. The very idea that there can be things that are wrong to do means that by doing them we owe another person or perhaps a group of people a debt of some kind. It may be a small debt resulting from a small offense, or it may be a large debt resulting from a large offense. But there is some party who was not only chiefly offended by our actions, but to whom we are sufficiently accountable that there is some measure by which they can either force us to pay the debt or can otherwise punish us until we do. This idea lies at the heart of the purification rituals God prescribes in the next several verses. Let’s explore this all in more detail here and over the next few posts.
Let’s start at the end. God has Moses refer to the offering being described here as a “sin offering.” From everything we have thus far encountered in Exodus that designation means pretty much nothing. This is because Exodus doesn’t contain any kind of detailed descriptions of any of the various sacrifices or offerings that were part of Israel’s regular religious rituals. It mentions many of them (especially in this passage), but those mentions all assume a level of understanding on the part of the people that as readers we don’t yet have. There’s a reason for this. All of the detailed descriptions we are looking for come in Leviticus. Specifically, the sin offering being described here is unpacked in a great deal more detail in Leviticus 4. In fact, reading this chapter, then going to read the first seven chapters of Leviticus, and then coming back to read this chapter again is probably a wise thing to do if you want a bit more understanding of what’s happening here.
That’s all just for context. What I want to take most of our time here to do is to explore the line of thinking I started in the introduction there. Let’s start that here: If God doesn’t exist, the idea of sin doesn’t make any sense. If you are reading through this material and don’t believe that God exists in the first place, it’s not going to make the first bit of sense to you. It is all going to be little more than a bunch of pointless religious rituals that are kind of weird and more than a little disgusting. Not to mention those poor animals being slaughtered just so people can feel better about that thing they did one time that has been bothering their conscience ever since. If you reject the foundational premise, none of the rest of the structure being built on top of it is going to make any sense.
That all being said, God’s non-existence presents some challenges that are not so easy to overcome. For this particular context, if there’s is no God, no objective, external-to-us arbiter of morality, there is also no way for us to rightly declare any action to be always and unequivocally wrong. In order for some behavior to be unequivocally wrong, there has to be a standard against which that behavior is measured that is independent of the people potentially engaging in the behavior. Without that, the best we can do is to express our opinion that some action is personally inconvenient. It is offensive to us. And while that’s certainly not a good thing, neither are we generally in the kind of position from which we can exercise any meaningful authority over the people engaging in that action around us so as to prevent or even offer substantive condemnation of their actions. We’re just stuck being personally offended by the inconvenience of it.
The trouble here is that this is not how we experience the world. There are certain behaviors that we intuitively know to be wrong in every instance. Are we wrong in assuming on this knowledge? Or is this merely arrogance on our part to project our personal tastes onto the people and cultures around us. Yet such arrogance itself is generally received as a moral failing. Why is that? Says who? How do we know? Do you see how hard it is to hold to any kind of stable morality absent God?
The only way for something to be pronounced meaningfully wrong is for the chiefly offended party to declare it so. Yet who is the chiefly offended party? Absent God, that depends entirely on the context. In the realm of personal relationships, we often consider ourselves to be the chiefly offended party when someone does something to hurt us in some way. Okay, but what kind of authority do we have such that our personal preference should mean something to the offending party? If we are talking about parents dealing with children, there exists some natural authority (again, says who?), but if all we do is punish them for personally offending us, we are doing little more than raising them to be selfish adults later on in life.
When we go beyond merely personal relationships things get even more complicated. Who has the right to declare themselves to possess sufficient authority over our lives that they can dictate the terms within which our behavior must fall in order to be considered acceptable and “moral”? How did they come by that authority? By what means do they maintain such authority? In this God-less universe, Nietzsche was right, power is the only thing. Everything boils down to an exercise of power. Might really does make right. If the world really does all boil down to nothing more than power grabs, we are all at the mercy (if such a thing can even be considered to exist) of whatever power brokers have accumulated enough power for themselves through a combination of personal charisma, wealth-amassed loyalty, and muscle to exert their will on the masses. And, in the end, whatever their will happens to be is not something anyone can declare to be wrong. It’s nothing more than varying levels of inconvenient. Yet if they possess the power, and we don’t have the means of taking it from them, it is an inconvenience we are stuck having to simply bear.
What a terrible world that would be!
When everything is hopelessly subjective, moral improvement is a meaningless concept. Moral superiority isn’t a thing at all. Morality itself isn’t fixed at any point. There is only power and preference. Again: yuck!
Yet none of this is properly descriptive of the world as we actually experience it. At its worst, perhaps on occasion. But never at its best. So then, if our repeated experience continues to insistently refuse to accept this kind of an explanation of the world and its workings, perhaps that is an indication that there’s something to our intuitive sense to the contrary. Perhaps the reason we continue to imagine the world to be other than this is because it is.
If there exists a God who created the world and everything in it, then nearly all of these problems instantly vanish except where we try to live apart from His authority, and the rest of them are fairly easily dispatched with a little bit of logical thought. If this God exists, then He logically falls into this position of objective moral agent by virtue of His being the Creator. He created it all and thus He owns it all unless and until He actively relinquishes ownership to someone else. We don’t have any evidence such a thing has happened. Because of this, we are morally accountable to Him. When we declare something to be wrong, we do so because He has helped us in some way to understand that it is wrong. And by “wrong,” we mean that the behavior is in violation of His character which serves to set the boundaries of human morality.
If He is the one to whom we are all morally accountable, then when we have violated His character and command in some way (the definition of sin), there has to be a means of restoring the relationship. What we see in the Old Testament Law are God’s various provisions for this restoration. These provisions were always intended to be temporary until the permanent solution could be instituted by and in and through Jesus’ work on the cross and the resurrection. By His work, we no longer need the kinds of sacrifices the priests here had to perform in order to make themselves right with God so they could lead others to experience His presence in some meaningful way. We only have to go to Jesus and He takes care of the rest.
Now, does this kind of world impinge on our desires to be in charge of ourselves? Of course it does. But that’s part of the corruption caused by sin’s entrance into the world in the first place. We want to be independent of our Creator and yet we have never demonstrated ourselves capable of maintaining any kind an independence that leads to human flourishing. Our efforts to make our own worlds that are autonomous of any Creator either quickly devolve into a devastating violence and chaos, or else borrow so heavily on ideas and concepts that only come out of His character that we can hardly call them truly independent worlds. Our best bet is to get comfortable accepting Him for who He is and living in light of who He is. Things will always go better that way.
The Nexus 
You should consider evolution. Here you will find all the answers to ethics and morality.
Add in culture and you are A for Away. No god needed.
LikeLike
I’ve seen those answers. They’re a joke. And a bad one at that.
As for the other part, as I have explained time and time again, evidence must be interpreted. You interpret it through a lens framed by methodological naturalism and scientism. I don’t. Therefore, we see it differently. It’s all worldview whether you want it to be or not. That’s how worldview works. You continuing to insist with bad arguments and ad hominems otherwise won’t make it any less true.
And again, you’re just saying the same things on repeat. The question is still out there of why you keep bothering when you already know where it’s going to go.
LikeLike
A joke? Evolution is fact.
You cannot offer any evidence to demonstrate your god, Yahweh is responsible for morality.
Is this simply more scientific evidence you are rejecting simply because of comes into conflict with your indoctrinated religious beliefs?
Good grief, I am surprised you haven’ t yet made a case for humans and dinosaurs coexisting.
As to your last question. You already know this surely?
People having been calling out the lies and misinformation of religion and its proponents since forever it seems.
Why would you be in the least surprised!
Your interpretation is based on your faith, itself the result of your religious indoctrination.
LikeLike
You literally have nothing that you haven’t already said before every time you offer up another comment this round. None of it was convincing before; it isn’t hitting that mark now.
But wait…it’s because I’m so indoctrinated. Yawn…
LikeLike
You cannot label something a joke simply because it does not gel with your religious beliefs, for which I will remind you, you have presented no evidence.
LikeLike
No, I haven’t presented any evidence you are willing to accept because of your philosophical presuppositions. We’ve talked about this before. A lot. I label it a joke because I’ve seen the arguments and what you consider evidence. It’s philosophical garbage. That’s why I label it a joke.
LikeLike
In actual fact it is scientific, not “garbage”.
Did you read the link?
But okay, let’s say for a moment you are correct. Please present the evidence you feel demonstrates the veracity of the claim that Yahweh is responsible for human morality.
Remember. Faith cannot be considered.
LikeLike
1. No, I won’t play by your worldview rules. Faith is something that I would consider whether you like it or not.
2. We. Have. Already. Talked. About. That.
It doesn’t seem to be clicking that we have had this same conversation over and over and over. And you keep trying to have it again like it’s going to go somewhere else.
3. It is science from a worldview and philosophical perspective that you support, therefore you accept it at face value. I think the worldview presuppositions in place are in error. Therefore, all of the conclusions and findings are suspect at best.
LikeLike
Not what “I consider” . Faith is belief WITHOUT evidence. Evolution is fact.
In the case of the Noachian global flood it is worse as it is belief CONTRARY to the evidence. In other words, bullshit and lies, a la Ken Ham for which you have no evidence to support your faith-based worldview, which is, of course, all down to religious indoctrination.
LikeLike
See, this kind of stuff is why I have to keep reminding you that you don’t sound like you know what you’re talking about at all when it comes to matters of philosophy or the Christian worldview.
I’ve explained what faith is before. You seem either unwilling or incapable of accepting that explanation. Either way, as a result, you keep making statements like this. There are certainly people who talk about faith that way and even think about faith that way. In the context of the Christian worldview, though, that’s simply not what faith is.
I haven’t said anything this round that would seem to justify your twice now stating that “evolution is fact.” I haven’t questioned “evolution” as you seem to be using the word there at all in the course of this particular conversation. I have argued that evolutionary explanations for the existence of morality are philosophically pathetic. Those are two different things. For all your complaints about my not reading your comments very closely, are you doing this on purpose, or do you just need to lean a little harder into your own advice? You said it was rude then. Is it still rude now, or have we switched to a different set of rules now that you are consistently doing it? I just want to know what the terms of engagement are here.
The same thing applies to the rest of your comment there. And, once again, you beautifully make my case that all you have in terms of an explanation of why I don’t agree with you on these matters is “indoctrination.” Your apparent total lack of a grasp of the larger philosophical questions and their impact on the issues here is getting rather glaring this go round.
So then, yet again, why do you keep coming back to these same issues no matter where we happen to start from, when you know this is how things are going to go? I’m more and more convinced that the right description of your dedication to secularism is that it is of a religious nature. Your priests are scientists. Your creeds are whatever those scientists happen to have declared true in the given cultural moment (because, if we’re being honest, what scientists have declared true over the centuries has changed and even to the point of completely reversing itself on certain questions). Conversations like the one we have been having is your evangelism, I suppose the time you spend on secular message boards getting attaboys from folks who hold to the same basic worldview position that you do is your church, and so on and so forth. Secularism as you display it is a religion different only in detail from any other religion in the world. Perhaps that’s what keeps you coming back? You are doing your faithful religious duty by trying to convert this particular heathen? Your efforts in that regard are admirable, but foolhardy.
As for the YouTube video, neither of them are treating Genesis properly, and D’Souza is obviously a pathetic debater. At least he is in the various clips of that debate you’ve sent me in the past and now. But, no, I don’t see myself in there at all. I’ve never made the claim that Genesis offers a scientific assessment of the mechanics of creation. I don’t think it does. That debate clip is irrelevant to what we have been talking about on this go round.
LikeLike
The point you miss every time is simply
this:
Your entire worldview is predicated on the bible being true, this being the only place we will find your Canaanite god, Yahweh, or his Come in the Flesh version Jesus. As it has been demonstrated oodles of times to be riddled with errors across almost every known discipline you only have faith to uphold your religious beliefs.
These are reinforced largely by Church established doctrine.
Again because it is necessary to repeat this:
Not a single foundational tenet of Christianity is supported by evidence.
This begs the question why do you ( and others) to various degrees believe?
And again, the answer is straightforward: various forms of indoctrination.
Therefore, ANYTHING pertaining to Christianity that is claimed by Christians to be true or factual needs to be demonstrated as such with verifiable evidence otherwise it remains merely an unsupported claim.
To continue to insist this is not the case but simply a question of interpretation/worldview is disingenious, a charge that can be qualified when solid evidence refutes such Bible tales as Adam and Eve, the Noachian Flood, and the entire Exodus narrative to name three of the most obvious.
And when one thing is wrong about the inspired word of Yahweh(sic) it should bring into sharp focus: What about the rest of it?
The charge of hypocrisy arises because many Christians accept and utilize the very same scientific methods that have refuted such biblical myths.
The charge of cowardice arises because the very same Christians refuse to confront these issues with any real degree of honesty.
This is one of the reasons an entire industry has developed to defend the bible and those Christians who are simply ignorant or unaware of the true nature of their religion – Christian Apologetics.
The dishonesty within Christianity and apologetics that regularly rears its ugly head was on full display when Alex O’Conner took Da Souza to the cleaners.
As O’Conner said: “You can’t now move the goalposts especially when you miss!”
So this is why every post you put up can be dismantled.
Without evidence, Jonathan you only have faith.
At least have the humility and integrity to acknowledge this fact.
Therefore, as soon as
LikeLike
I assume there’s still more coming here…I’ll wait for that next part before responding.
LikeLike
No, that was a typo I didn’t notice until after I sent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, you are once again just repeating yourself. That’s mostly all you’ve been doing for over a week now.
What you are doing here is attempting analyze the Christian worldview. That’s a fine thing in and of itself. The problem you are running into whether you realize it or not (I think you don’t, but that’s not for a lack of trying on my part), is that you are analyzing the Christian worldview from out of a secular one. In other words, all you understand is the Christian worldview through a secular lens. That means you don’t really understand the Christian worldview at all. And, the kinds of arguments you make here just betray this lack of knowledge. I’ve tried in our past conversations to help you address this lack, but you’ve been stubbornly resistant to such efforts to the point I struggle to see their being worth making anymore.
You very consistently whale away at one straw man or another you have created and then proudly march away from your keyboard thinking you have meaningfully dismantled something. But you mostly just rage at a God I don’t believe in either and agree with you should be rejected by anyone with half a brain or a heart. Your worldview and philosophical blinders are so thick, however, that you can’t ever see any of this. So, we just keep going round and round. Which, to belabor the point, brings me back to the question of why. You persistently refuse to address this question. Is that because you don’t know the answer? Are you afraid of the answer? You don’t like the answer? I’ve hit on a correct answer, and you don’t want to admit it? It remains a mystery.
LikeLike
And you still refuse to address the two main points.
Faith and the complete lack of evidence of your religious beliefs.
Perhaps you need to tackle these two Issues and we can see if any future dialogue is more productive?
Let’s try to stay narrowly focused, keep comments brief and on point covering only the issue in the table.
And let’s work through one at a time.
Old Testament first?
You get to choose.
Pick a biblical theme, story, and present the evidence that you claim supports it.
LikeLike
We’ve been down this road before too. Multiple times. It always ends the same way. Because you either won’t or can’t process those matters from any frame of reference other than your secular one, we’re really just wasting our time. And again, I’d be more open to giving it another shot if the evidence of our interactions thus far gave me any hope of a different outcome. But they don’t.
LikeLike
And this is why your position is ostensibly dishonest.
You claim to have evidence but refuse to present it.
This is why there is an industry called Apologetics
And you saw how easily this can be dismantled when someone as dishonest and ignorant as Da Souza is called upon to represent the Christian position.
I challenge you to do a better job.
Or at least be honest enough to accept that you have no evidence and the entire basis of the tenets of your religious belief is simply faith.
LikeLike
No, it’s not a refusal and there’s no dishonesty here. It’s like you’re not actually reading anything I’m writing. At the very least, you seem to be comprehending very little of it such that you ignore most of it and just go on to make the point you were going to make anyway.
In any event, I’ve tried that before. More than once. That’s what I keep telling you here and what you seem to just have blinders for. I’ve tried to help you grasp the philosophical hangups that are preventing you from being able to see the whole picture here. You have rejected and rebuffed all my efforts in the past, preferring to remaining safely encamped in your philosophical encampment rather than trying to meaningfully engage beyond that. As a result of this evidence of past interactions, I have concluded that trying to do the same thing again but expecting different results doesn’t make sense.
And that just leads us back to the question I have asked again and again and which you stubbornly refuse to answer or even acknowledge. What keeps you coming back for this? I mean, I appreciate the stats boost when you do, and I’ve had more and more folks around here sharing that they are enjoying the interactions as an exercise in learning how to engage with a stubbornly secular person from a committedly Christian worldview, so, thank you, I guess, for giving me the opportunity to give them an object lesson, but surely you get tired of talking in the same set of circles every time you invite another round of engagement.
LikeLike
I have explained why. I am fa’s ibatedby certain aspect of religion.
I explained, again and again how this began while doing research about Moses for a novel – and how that led me to ultimately discover the dishonest world of Christian Apologetics
If all you have are philosophical arguments to defend your faith then you are simply acknowledging you have no evidence.
The Adam and Eve tale and the Noachian Flood myth are perfect examples.
If I were one of your flock/ visitors you claim reads along I would be extremely frustrated and annoyed as to why my Pastor will not provide any meaningful answers to the questions posed by Arkenaten.
I would begin to wonder if perhaps my Pastor was, in actual fact, trying to hide something?
Why won’t my Pastor explain why there could be truth to the Noachian Global Flood tale?
Why does my Pastor refuse to offer a plausible explanation as to what happened to Pharoah’s army?
Arkenaten continues to assert my Pastor is being a hypocrite and a coward so why doesn’t Pastor Jonathan simply offer a plausible explanation why Adam and Eve were real people and why the tale of Noah is true?
Why indeed, Pastor Jonathan?
Your flock wants to know.
LikeLike
If you were a member of the church here, you would be a follower of Jesus with a radically different way of looking at the world and all of these kinds of issues, meaning you probably wouldn’t be asking those kinds of questions at all.
That’s you once again looking at the Christian worldview from out of your secular lens and trying to make sense of it in those terms. As I have said, though, and doesn’t seem to be sticking for you, you can’t make sense of it through that lens.
As the apostle Paul rightly noted, “But the person without the Spirit does not receive what comes from God’s Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to understand it since it is evaluated spiritually.” Look at you fulfilling Scriptures you don’t even believe!
To belabor the point yet again, we’ve talked about all of those things before. You didn’t like my answers then. You probably won’t like them now. Why waste our time continuing to repeat ourselves to no apparent end?
LikeLike
Aah… So your flock is as indoctrinated to your worldview as you, then?
Sheep indeed!
So you lack any evidence for your claims and ostensibly deflect or become disingenious when asked to defend them.
Got it.
LikeLike
If that’s where you need to land (as you have multiple times before) in order to give you the feeling of the win you seem to need, by all means, conclude away. It’s not, of course, what I said at all, but you don’t seem to be very big on engaging with what I have actually said or asked this go round, so, sure.
And, yes, to the extent I am aware, the members of the church here are all indeed followers of Jesus. In fact, being a follower of Jesus is a prerequisite for membership. That’s sort of how churches work. Why would someone be a member of a group whose foundational beliefs they don’t share? Talk about disingenuous.
LikeLike
It’s what you don’t or rather won’t say that is important.
This is the foundation of your hypocrisy.
Well, yes, I expect they are believers in the bible character Jesus of Nazareth.
I was just hoping that maybe one or two had enough between their ears to ask of you a few pertinant questions.
Seems this is not the case, but it does reinforce just how insidious, yet effective, is religious indoctrination.
As I wrote. Sheep, indeed!
LikeLike
Well, once again, I’ve explained over and over why I keep refusing to indulge you. For some reason, that explanation doesn’t seem to be sinking in. Instead, you just went back to offering insult when I won’t engage your argument…like is your pattern.
LikeLike
That you don’t engage is not so much the issue but rather your assertion that I don’t understand and you simply refuse to offer evidence for your claims /position.
That is where the hypocrisy and cowardice lies.
LikeLike
So, what you are doing here is once again making my point for me. I have said over and over that I’ve made honest attempts at making a fuller case in the past, but you responded from out of your secular lens (which I had told you would not allow you to properly understand matters of the Christian worldview), and you simply rebuffed my efforts.
Given that you haven’t moved in your perspective at all, by what evidence would my efforts to do the same thing again be justified? I fail to see any. As long as you hold the perspective you do, you won’t be able to understand issues of the Christian worldview for reasons Paul made clear. And, given that you haven’t ever demonstrated any genuine interest in changing your perspective, why would I cast pearls before swine, as Jesus once called it?
I understand that you’re trying to bait me this time by repeating the charges of hypocrisy and cowardice over and over again, but that isn’t moving me at all to play ball.
Once it became clear several rounds ago that you are both not able but also not seriously interested in understanding the position I hold, I gave up trying to meaningfully engage.
This is what is so baffling to me then. I’ve been telling you every time you engage again that I’m not interested in wasting either of our time by engaging on a question about which we haven’t shown any signs of coming to any kind of agreement about, but then you come back again making the same arguments, the same charges and insults, and I just keep responding in the same way.
This goes beyond merely a fascination with religion on your part. It’s something else. What that is, I’m not sure, and you don’t seem to be inclined (or able) to explain why you really keep coming back to argue in circles time and time again. I know it gave you some blog fodder of your own a couple of times, but you haven’t done that in a while (that I’m aware of—I haven’t checked). Beyond that, it’s a mystery.
Okay, that’s it from me today and maybe through the weekend. Lots to do. If you’re still interested in running around in circles, I’ll check back in later. Happy Friday and have a good weekend.
LikeLike
Consider your reply to the question of Pharoah’s army.
You refused point blank to my request asking what you thought happened to it.
You refuse to accept the archaeological evidence regarding that refutes the Noachian Flood.
You refuse to accept the evidence of the HGP that refutes Adam and Eve.
So please explain how is your response in any way honest?
LikeLike
So back to your comfort zone again then?
I come at all of those questions from an entirely different worldview position than you do. I’m going to interact with them differently because of that. I’ve explained this before. A lot. I’ve explained why I do too. I haven’t ever been dishonest with you. I’ve simply come at things from a different standpoint. I’m not moving in my position. You just refuse to believe or accept that.
LikeLike
Exactly! A Worldview position solely of faith and NOT evidence.
Why can you not grasp this concept? Or do you simply refuse to acknowledge it?
I reiterate, there is no evidence for a single foundational tenet of your faith.
Do you understand this point?
Your other major problem is the fact you openly deny/ reject solid evidence where it refutes your faith-based worldview (eg. Noachian Flood myth, Adam and Eve etc) while utilizing the same scientific evidence /methodology when it does not come into conflict with your faith-based beliefs.
This is where you display hypocrisy.
That you simply refuse to confront these issues or even acknowledge them is where you display cowardice.
And whether you admit it or not this IS dishonest.
LikeLike
No, you once again don’t understand the Christian worldview. Or you won’t. Or you can’t because of your own worldview blinders. I’ve explained this to you over and over and over again.
Your philosophical commitment to scientism and methodological naturalism limit your ability to engage with evidence and what you are even willing to consider as evidence, not to mention how you interpret the available evidence. I’ve explained this too. Over and over. You won’t or can’t accept it.
The evidence of this is that you just keep hammering away at what have become your stock insults. That’s all you have. It’s all you’ve had for a long time. As long as you are stuck on your secular frame of reference, that’s how Christians (me included) are only and ever going to look. But, because you demonstrate so well how profoundly little you actually understand the things you are arguing against, you’re making yourself look less and less like a reasonable interlocutor to anyone who actually understands these things. As I have also explained several times here, though, I’ve tried to help you rectify this ignorance in the past, but you have been either unwilling or unable to receive it. Thus you’re stuck.
I really am trying to help you here not make yourself look so bad before an audience who mostly (to my knowledge at least) embraces and understands the Christian worldview, but you once again stubbornly refuse to accept it. There’s not much more I can do for you in this as much as I’d like to be able to.
So, since that’s the only thing you can offer, why keep coming back to spin around in the same circles, making yourself look less and less reasonable all the time?
LikeLike
First. As you refuse to explain this worldview how am I supposed to understand it?
If you are able to demonstrate how one engages with supernatural evidence then I will be a willing student
And I remind you, when I asked for your explanation regarding the disappearance of Pharoah’s army you flatly refused to offer anything at all and shut down any further enquiries.
If you truly are trying to help then explain why you refuse to accept the evidence that refutes the Noachian Global Flood tale.
This at least would be a show of good faith( pun intended).
LikeLike
I’ve tried. More than once. You rhetorically rolled your eyes and went back to your comfort zone just like you always do. This is because you are too stuck in your position to be able to engage beyond it. You’re only willing to engage as long as I play in your comfort zone and by your rules. That’s been the case since almost the very beginning. I’ve never been willing to do the latter, of course, I’m just not willing to indulge you anymore in the former now either.
LikeLike
No, you have not tried, merely done what you are doing now, dismiss my requests because of my naturalist pov.
So, again, I ask:
1. Explain how one engages with the supernatural and:
2. Explain why you refuse to accept the evidence that refutes the Noachian Global Flood.
LikeLike
I have indeed tried. More than once. I’m not interested in taking that time again.
LikeLike
No, you have not. Be that as it may, at least explain why you refuse to accept the evidence that refutes the Noachian Global Flood tale.
LikeLike
I explained my approach to that issue in this very conversation. It was right in line with the same answer I’ve given before. Multiple times. You rhetorically rolled your eyes and moved on. I’m sorry if you didn’t like that, but as I explained, you’re operating from a different set of worldview assumptions, so I didn’t expect you to understand it.
LikeLike
Perhaps I misssed it, or missunderstood it!
Can you highlight your explanation as to why you do not accept the evidence that refutes the flood tale and I’ll go and reread it.
LikeLike
You’re on your own for that. I’m not willing to give the time to scrolling back through for something.
LikeLike
Well, I just read this thread, as I did not wish to misquote you or create a strawman, as you like to accuse me of, and not once in a single comment did you directly answer why you refuse to accept the evidence that refutes the Noachian Flood.
You did not even try.
So, are you willing to answer that particular question or are you going to insist you already have?
LikeLike
I didn’t say I answered that question directly. I said I laid out my thinking in approaching those kinds of issues.
LikeLike
Yes, you continue to assert I do not understand the Christian Worldview and I am hung up on scientism.
This does not even come close to any sort of explanation.
So, again, and I suppose I should apologise for not being able to frame this question any other way, and all other things aside for the moment, please explain why you do not accept the scientific evidence that flatly refutes the Noachian Global Flood?
LikeLike
Seven and half minutes….
See if you can spot your self here.
LikeLike
Here you go… Educate yourself.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210003/#:~:text=Moral%20codes%20arise%20in%20human,have%20experimented%20with%20moral%20systems
LikeLike