Ah, drat. Not only did I not stop the original post, I corrected the mistake wrong 
(btw, if I believe in God, there is no reason he can’t do miracles considering He is all powerful. Miracles are fine, and my having to believe in miracles to believe that the Bible is true does not mean that the Bible cannot be true. You cannot disprove God’s existence, although you can argue that He is not necessary.)
We don’t use that type of profanity in Great Debates. Perhaps you should learn a little decorum, and how the SDMB works.
Ok. Obviously, the resurrection of Jesus was a metaphor, right? I mean, that simply can’t happen in real life. So where does that leave the Christian?
Your debating skills are impeccable. I’m way out of my league here…
-Ah, so generally being an ass is allowed, but bypassing a nonexistant filter is not?
-no, see the note on my other post
-name an absolute. Something that you know must be true. For all you know, you’re a computer simulation. (Btw, that would be an ad hominem)
It’s also interesting that you tell me to learn a little decorum, when you told me not long ago that tact sometimes evades you… look up decorum in a thesaurus.
I will try, one more time, to engage you is some semblence of a rational discussion. If you aren’t interested, please take your ignorant whining elsewhere.
What possible, rational, logical, honest, intellectual reasoning can you provide for unilaterally choosing to believe that Jonah and the Whale is a metaphor, but the resurrection of Jesus is literal?
dreadnougat:
Are you referring to creation or eternal paradise?
Svt4Him:
There are plenty of people on these boards to argue with you regarding literal interpretation of the bible. Believe me you don’t want to add me to that list. My truck is with the liberal interpreters if for no other reason other than I am a fairly unique voice in that regard. As such don’t take it personally if I don’t respond to you on a point by point basis with regards to your criticisms of my post above.
However, if Siege has anything to say, well, that’s different.
I said it doesn’t matter if Jonah and the Whale is a metaphor. It doesn’t have to be, since my religion revolves around having an all powerful God who can do as He pleases. Although I’ll say it’s not a metaphor.
Attack my God as superfluous, if you want. It’s kinda stupid to attack the miracles that He does, but not Him.
badchad: witty
Nope, sorry, you are wrong again. So don’t venture into areas you know little about.
badchad- Fair enough, I agree with you.
dreadnougat:
Svt4Him:
This makes 189 posts for me.
Polycarp essentially silenced from religious debate and I’m becoming well received.
All part of my plan.
MUAHAHAHAHA.
With the ideas of Shelby Spong, IIRC.
I can accept that, if proven true. Admitting error is no problem for someone with an open mind. But you’ll pardon me if I’m a bit…skeptical.
RoundGuy,
Here is a good quote for you, “Assumption is the lowest form of knowledge.” You can assume all you like about what I do or do not read, but I do not believe it is fair, nor appropriate in this area of the forum. My personal belief is if you can find no fault in what I’ve posted, then don’t go for character attacks. Even if you can find fault, there are things that people may or may not agree with, but that doesn’t make you more right or wrong than I. For instance, I wouldn’t say the prayer in the OP, for reasons I’ve stated. If you would, that’s your desire, and you may have some good reasons for it. We don’t have to agree on this. And no, I don’t feel the need to prove or disprove myself to you. So please keep to issues. As for being skeptical, you’d be silly not to be. But if there is something I’ve done that is so outrageous that you feel my character needs to be addressed, there is a pit for this type of post, so take it there.
I have no problem with your character, and I don’t believe I’ve ever directly impugned it. I have a problem with your position, your arguments, and your belief system. I believe they are ignorant, and I will fight ignorance wherever I perceive it.
In my opinion, you won’t say the prayer because you really don’t want to to know the truth. You don’t want to hear that what you’ve believed all of your life may be wrong. You don’t want your world turned upside down.
Frankly, I don’t blame you. Accepting reality, when it goes against everything you’ve been taught, is a tough challenge.
Homebrew:
Be right there tough guy.
Don’t say you’re here to fight ignorance when you contribute to it. Granted, I believe that statement is used a lot, but I don’t believe it most of the time I hear it. You’re not here to fight ignorance, but rather my ignorance, as you have just said you have a problem with ‘my position, my argument, and my belief system.’ I have yet to hear a reasonable argument based on facts that you could provide against my argument. In the thread ‘proof of God’ you based your belief on your opinion, when clearly I showed quotes that backed up the claims I make, and you make huge assumptions that have no basis in reality, which is ignorance. For example, “all your life” How many years have I been taught this? “Everything you’ve been taught” What exactly have I been taught that has been turned upside down by a look at the facts?
Actually, you have just done what you’re accusing me of, which is why I think the fight against ignorance is taking so long. Different rules for different people, IMO. If you actually read the thread, you’ll see that there was not a thorough job done, but I guess you just don’t want to listen to it.
As for intellectual honesty, can you still say there’s no character issue here, or are we again going to let ignorance win over? Just call a spade a spade.
Well, let’s go back to the fight of ignorance. What proof have you that I’ve never read any other anti-apologetic (for lack of a better word) book (which is what provoked this quote)? You can tell me what you think, or how you interpret my posts, but, in fact, you have none. So how do you define ignorance?
Well, actually I think I laid out quite well why I wouldn’t say the prayer, but lets let ignorance prevail again.
Now please, if you want to address ‘my beliefs’ do it by addressing the issues, not me. Certainly if I say something wrong, feel free to prove me wrong, but don’t let your ignorance get in the way.
Back to the op, this is the reason I said I wouldn’t say the prayer, which is what this whole thread started out debating is:
So then is it safe to say that you believe anyone who doesn’t say this prayer is doing this because they don’t want to know the truth, and are somehow not ‘living in reality’?
And just as a side note, nowhere in the Bible does it say a whale swallowed Jonah.
You are correct, of course. It was a “great fish”. I guess that makes the story more believable.
The rest of your post deserves a reasoned, thoughtful response, and I don’t wish to do it in haste. I will respond when I have the time to give it my full attention.
There’s a Cubs game tonight, and right now, nothing else matters… 
Because it was never written to address the sciences of astronomy, geology and biology, or any other science. It was clearly written to use the understanding of the peoples of the times it was written to explain their understanding of God.
Ham’s argument is a straw man–as is that of anyone who argues with him–because it imposes a set of beliefs on scripture that are only a recent development in terms of the understandings of both scripture and science. Augustine of Hippo, writing in the fourth century, noted in his De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (translated loosely as The Literal Meaning of Genesis) that scripture was not science and that it was foolish to argue that scripture explained things scientifically:
There is no single approach that all “liberal” (whatever that means) Christians use any more than there is a single approach by “Fundamentalists” (however you define that group). However, one aspect that is shared by many people who do not follow Fundamentalist principles is that scripture proceeds from Faith, and then encapsulates it; Faith does not proceed from scripture. Rudolf Bultmann made that concept a central aspect of his studies of scripture and Archbishop Spong has (as noted above), also preached that message. However, it is not a new message and it can be found in various forms throughout Christian thought.
Both the Orthodox and the Catholics note that scripture does not stand without tradition. Instead, scripture encapsulates specific beliefs in specific stories, suited to the audience for which each book was written, but with a message concerning belief that resonates among later peoples. The writings reinforce the belief that precedes the writings.
It is, obviously, quite possible to challenge such a view as being created by human effort rather than divine effort or being subject to the whims of current cultural interpretative beliefs. However, to claim that one must accept a literal scripture or deny it all is to ignore the way in which mythology (used in the anthropological sense) works among people. One “liberal” approach, then, would be to note that God addressed His people where they stood at one moment in history, and inspired them to keep those writings that were capable of conveying the message to future generations. Those writings will seem to change in meaning precisely because they will be understood more clearly as the understanding of the people expands.
Non-Christians claim:
>Once again, the best the Jesus-science people can come up
>with is the fallacy of argument from ignorance. Just because
>science can’t explain something doesn’t mean that God did it.
Which translates to “Lack of evidence to the contrary is not proof”.
Now, contrast with this:
>Now the only evidence we have of the above claims is several
>thousand years old written in the bible by folks none of us have
>ever met to be able to judge either their sanity or honesty.
Which translates to “Lack of evidence to the contrary is proof”.
Make up your minds!