User talk:Lilfut

Welcome to the cesspit of the internet. 21:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

good to see a fellow theist here.

Ahhh. I see. (From your userpage)
"Real Christians don't." TheoryOfPractice 15:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh heh. There was a load of "Real [atheists/christians/whatever] support the end of the monarchy!" spam that went around Facebook a few months back. I'm always reminded of that whenever NTS gets brought up. 15:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is some talk of bibliolatry among creationists. If those charges are true then they are, at best, heretics. 15:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, so the "not real Christians" thing may actually have a point in places? 15:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Bible says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." It does not say, as do the creationists, "Believe on the literal truth of all books contained herein, and thou shalt be saved." 16:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The 'true' bible
Hmm... so, the biblical world wide flood. True as in it actually happened or true as in it's a bronze age myth? Hey, I'm not trying to be unfriendly but coming here with statements like 'the bible is true' is bound to be contentious. Bob Soles 16:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Most Christians admit that the writers of the Old Testament had a tendency to exaggerate things. The Deluge could just be an exaggeration of a more local (and plausible) flood. 16:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that some 50% of the population of the US thinks the earth is less than 10,000 years old - your statement about "most Christians" may be in doubt.--BobNot Jim 16:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Old Catholic Encyclopedia discusses some Biblical exaggerations from a perspective in which the Deluge literally happened. Most Biblical-literalists today are in the U.S., whose population contains a minority of the world's Christians. (Also, I would say that the positions of theologians and other qualified people count for more than the positions of uninformed laymen in this case.) 16:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. So the rest are Not True Christians.--BobNot Jim 16:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? 16:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bob means No True Scotsman. 16:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * EC. Presumably the opinions of the "uninformed laymen" to whom you refer do not count so much because they are in some way not as Christian as your "theologians and other qualified people". If their opinions should not count in statistics I assume that is becasue they are Not True Christians in some way.  If they were "True Christians" then their opinions should be counted along with the "theologians and other qualified people".--BobNot Jim 17:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bob, the only reason that a theologian's position would count for more than a layman's there is because the theologians have, presumably, spent some time studying the Bible's ancient manuscripts, complete with all the differences between the different versions, whereas the uneducated layman would probably just be reading the King James or the NIV with no clue about the disparities. Similarly a physicist's position would count for more than an English professor's in the field of quantum theory. 17:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. But in a statement "most Christians believe X" I rather think you should actually count "most Christians" and not Christian scholars.  Otherwise you leave yourself open to the NTS accusation.--BobNot Jim 17:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think that most Christians admit the possibility of exaggeration. Even more so if you qualify it to "most Christians who know enough Bible history to take a position on the matter." 17:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I feel Lx shifting the ground beneath our feet.--BobNot Jim 17:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon me. Did I not just say that I still hold to my original statement? 17:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, so we've dismissed as allegorical and/or exaggerated the Biblical flood. Now, what about Deuteronomy and all those wierd and wonderful laws. Are they 'true'. Should I be out stoning witches? Is my cotton/polyester shirt an abomination (apart from in the fashion sense)? Bob Soles 17:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it organic cotton?--BobNot Jim 17:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) Unless you are a legalist, those laws are not regarded as needing to be literally adhered to. 17:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

How about raising the dead, the Resurrection, walking on water, multiplying loaves and fishes and the very existence of supernatural beings like Santa Claus the tooth fairy God? Can we throw dismiss them as allegorical/exaggerations too? TheoryOfPractice 17:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Those things (when claimed as literally true) are mostly said to be outside the scope of natural law or any scientific study. As to the existence of supernatural entities, that is not per se incompatible with science. 17:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Brad Rayment could come up with some rational explanations. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They would probably claim that the evidence supports the Loaf-and-Fish-Multiplying Model better than the atheistic one. 18:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to the "no true scotsman" thing: put yourself in the shoes of a network exec of, say, Fox News. Would you choose a rational, man-on-the-street Christian to be a correspondent, or Glenn Beck? The most high-profile Christians represent the minority. Lilfut (talk)

Signature
Even on a debate page you create, please use the four tilde's ( ~ ) to sign. Researcher (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!
You are now a sysop. You'll find that it isn't completely powerful, but it does come with this handy mop and bucket. Cheers! 01:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlucky mate. 01:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)