User talk:Millstone

Hiya Millstone. Hope I'm not being too harsh on the delete discussions. You mentioned there being "biblical literalists" and I justwanted to clarify with you. The operational definition that Arbeiter and others were using is one who doesn't believe in paraballic or metaphoric language in the Bible, including parables in Jesus' teachings and prophecy (trees of the field clapping hands). Arbeiter actually used that argument to explain why they (literalists) are wrong..

All of us as Christians are literalists in part. We all believe Jesus literally died. Most of us believe in a literal virgin birth (many do not) some of us believe in a literal flood or 7 day creation. If the author intended to relay that the earth was created in 7 days or that miracles literally happened, the person who believes it believes in biblical inerrency. Biblical literalism according to the definitions currently used doesn't take into account the authors intended message, it always assumes the literal, which doesn't make sense (and which the Bible refutes).

I've studied Bibliology at Christian universities (under very conservative teachers, staunch inerrencists and creationists) and none has EVER taught or used the term "Biblical Literalism". It's basically a pop culture term to describe any creationists as stupid, despite creationists agreeing with thier stance on it (that's why its a straw man argument, no one holds the view, it's easy to dispute)

Hope that clears it up for ya.

Peace in Christ--DjSamwise 19:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Accusations are being made against you

At this AfD discussion, Leinad-Z has accused you of being a sock puppet. You should hurry if you want to have your say before the discussion becomes a permanently unalterable record against your name. --DixiePixie 16:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)