New Submarines: Carney vs Poilievre

[User]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Every single Christian I've spoken to or watched speak agrees the bible can't be taken super literally word for word. There are questions about the translations.  And that's why there's different 'bibles'. 

Well, good thing the whole of Christianity is not defined by your personal experiences with Christians. 

There is a difference between taking every word super literally and what you claimed, that its being written by man and not God. 

I get it, maybe you are not Christian? Perhaps you don't have extensive experience studying Christianity? These are concepts that people may not be familiar with or understand if they are not Christian and/or do not really study Christianity. 

The point is that Christians, generally speaking, across all the major denominations, accept that the Bible is the word of God, not that God literally wrote it, but that it was divinely inspired. 

You are conflating this concept with the concept of translation and the concept of translation with interpretation. 

There are different Bible translations for any number of reasons, they do not all come down to not taking the word literally, in fact, if you look at the major versions, you get down to simple differences like these: The KJV was simply one of the first historical efforts to translate The Bible to English accurately, doesn't make it wrong or bad, but there were some things that were missed and then you get to things like the NIV that is meant to be more of a story telling version and then the NASB which is meant to be a more literal translation, but they all still fundamenally do the same thing and say the same thing. 

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Not going from anything. The original was written by man

Yes, you are conflating concepts here, going from questioning the divitiy of the Bible to how it was translated. 

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I think somehow we worked our way back to being Basically on the same page. You can read the bible and believe that the bible is the word of god and still believe in the big bang and not have a logical conflict Like exflyer tried to claim

I would agree and go further that you can still believe in a literal Young Earth Creation and it is not in conflict with science, and even if I concede it is in conflict, that is only the smallest part of "science" as "science" covers many things. 

 

[User]

7 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Nope that is exactly what I said, you don't need to like it and I do not care  "

"Concludes is the wrong word...a better word would be conflicts.

Science and beliefs (religious) conflict."

 

What it means is...back to the topic about submarines which has been lost.

Now you are just back to asserting yourself again, as if making the assertion makes it true. It does not. 

If you want to talk about Submarines, then do so, don't make bad/wrong comments about beliefs. 

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, User said:

Well, good thing the whole of Christianity is not defined by your personal experiences with Christians. 

 

True.  Just most of it  

Have been using thing is if there are different interpretations And improves conclusively when I'm saying is correct

 

Quote

There is a difference between taking every word super literally and what you claimed, that its being written by man and not God. 

Even if it is god inspired it is being written by man. I'm more importantly in man's own language and man's language is flawed

Quote

I get it, maybe you are not Christian?

Not really. But it was raised that way

Quote

Perhaps you don't have extensive experience studying Christianity?

I have a very extensive experience studying Christianity  

Quote

These are concepts that people may not be familiar with or understand if they are not Christian and/or do not really study Christianity. 

They're really not that hard a concept.
 

Quote

The point is that Christians, generally speaking, across all the major denominations, accept that the Bible is the word of God, not that God literally wrote it, but that it was divinely inspired. 

I have said nothing that conflicts with that. You can't take every word literally and I think that that is pretty much universally understood. As I noted, 6 days could mean 6 24 hour periods or it could mean six pages and the words would still be accurate.
 

Quote

You are conflating this concept with the concept of translation and the concept of translation with interpretation. 

I am conflating nothing. You are becoming defensive because in your mind you are perceiving my argument as being the bible is inaccurate or not divinely inspired. And as a christian this concerns you obviously. However you are reading into my argument that which is not there. The bible can still be divinely inspired and still be written by men in the laws and language of men and not be meant to be taken 100% word for word syllable by syllable

 

Quote

There are different Bible translations for any number of reasons, they do not all come down to not taking the word literally,

It comes down to the fact that you cannot take them literally because they are the words of men. If it was possible for it to be 100% accurate and all men would agree on what it says precisely. They do not. Further even where they do agree in the translation they can't always agree on what the actual verse or line means.

Bible is not a literal document whether it's inspired by god or not. God is still working with the confines of what man is capable of. Just like I couldn't possibly Paint a color picture if all I have is black ink.

You're getting yourself worked up over nothing.

Catholic church has always maintained that the bible should be taken as literal but not Literalist. That involves attempting to determine the meaning or intent of the writer and that of course is often challenging and frequently we just don't know.

the Catholic Church's position is that the Bible should be interpreted through a “literal” rather than a “literalist” sense. - Google Search

Edited November 16, 2025 by CdnFox

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

All of the creatures on this planet according to science began essentially from dirt and rocks which under the right conditions created RNA which under the right conditions created DNA and things evolve from there. Nothing says god waved a magic wand and everything appeared all at once, evolution is simply a process and it may have been a process that god created

. So no, science doesn't conflict with god as a general rule.

The correct interpretation of the Bible is to take it literally unless there is sound reason to not take it literally.  In the account of creation in Genesis, it should be taken literally.

God is not subject to science or the scientific method.  God does things supernaturally.  That is how he created the universe in six days.

Google professor Philip Stott if you wish to hear the views of a scientist who beliefs in God.  He is a mathematician and an expert on the creation/evolution debate.

He said the laws of probability in mathematics shows there is not enough time in the universe for life to be created by pure chance coming together of molecules.  On top of that, RNA and DNA are extremely complex and long chains of information that couldn't happen by chance.   It all required a infinitely powerful designer Creator to create things.  The bottom line is creation was a supernatural act.   As for the apparent age of everything, it seems reasonable to believe God created everything with an apparent age.  He didn't just create seeds for plants and trees.  He created them as actual grown plants and trees.  Same with animals and humans.  He created them full grown.  That explains why the earth has an appearance of being millions of years old.  God simply created everything with an age.

[User]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

True.  Just most of it  

Have been using thing is if there are different interpretations And improves conclusively when I'm saying is correct

Using what thing? Who proves you are correct?

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Even if it is god inspired it is being written by man. I'm more importantly in man's own language and man's language is flawed

Yes, but you were trying to make the argument as if it being written by man somehow diminished its validity. 

No, when it is divinely inspired, there are no mistakes like that. 

You are entirely missing the point of saying it is divinely inspired. 

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I have a very extensive experience studying Christianity  

Well, no offense, your arguments here certainly do not convey this at all. 

You continue to completely butcher basic concepts, such as those surrounding the divine inspiration of the Bible. 

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They're really not that hard a concept.

Well, not for those who study this stuff, but you are here struggling. 

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I have said nothing that conflicts with that. You can't take every word literally and I think that that is pretty much universally understood. As I noted, 6 days could mean 6 24 hour periods or it could mean six pages and the words would still be accurate.

I really don't think we agree at all on what is meant by not taking every word literally here. 

You continue to downplay The Bible as flawed and merely being written by man, butchering concepts about divine inspiration... translation, interpretation...

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I am conflating nothing. You are becoming defensive because in your mind you are perceiving my argument as being the bible is inaccurate or not divinely inspired. And as a christian this concerns you obviously. However you are reading into my argument that which is not there. The bible can still be divinely inspired and still be written by men in the laws and language of men and not be meant to be taken 100% word for word syllable by syllable

No, you are conflating several things, that I just pointed out. You are conflating flaws (being written by man) with translation, and then interpretation. These are all very different things. 

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It comes down to the fact that you cannot take them literally because they are the words of men.

See, you continue to prove my point, that you fail to understand what divine inspiration is and to my point earlier, we do not agree at all on what it means to not take the Bible literally. 

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If it was possible for it to be 100% accurate and all men would agree on what it says precisely.

Wrong. The inability for men to agree has nothing to do with what they are arguing about being accurate or not. 

If 2+2=4, that doesn't cease to be true or accurate because I disagree. 

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Bible is not a literal document whether it's inspired by god or not. God is still working with the confines of what man is capable of. Just like I couldn't possibly Paint a color picture if all I have is black ink.

You clearly do not understand what divine inspiration means at all. 

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You're getting yourself worked up over nothing.

No, you are resorting to emotional arguments now. 

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Catholic church has always maintained that the bible should be taken as literal but not Literalist. That involves attempting to determine the meaning or intent of the writer and that of course is often challenging and frequently we just don't know.

This is not the same thing as you saying The Bible should not be taken literally because it is flawed and written by man as you were saying. This goes to my belief, that some parts of the Bible were written as parables, stories, allegory, just like anyone else would tell a story to make a point, it doesn't make the story literally true, but it does mean there was a person who accurately wrote that story as divinely inspired to do so to convey the point being made at that time in that historical context. To that point it means that we can't literally take a word for word understanding today, because we live in a different culture and words convey different meanings, but that word as recorded is still accurate and true. 

Attempting to understand meaning and intent, doesn't change not believing it is the authoritative word of God. 

We do know a great deal, it is the very foundation of Christianity and why Christians believe what the Bible says... 


 

[ExFlyer]

41 minutes ago, User said:

Now you are just back to asserting yourself again, as if making the assertion makes it true. It does not. 

If you want to talk about Submarines, then do so, don't make bad/wrong comments about beliefs. 

I made a comment about beliefs because that is where the posts were. It always turns to that when blackturd posts.. ...as it did on page 4 of this thread. LOL

And you and confux...kept on with it, as opposed to returning to the topic.

[User]

Just now, ExFlyer said:

I made a comment about beliefs because that is where the posts were. It always turns to that when blackturd posts.. ...as it did on page 4 of this thread. LOL

And you and confux...kept on with it, as opposed to returning to the topic.

It doesn't matter who started it, you chose to make wrong comments about it. Don't complain when people call you out for being wrong. 

[blackbird]

47 minutes ago, User said:

Every single Christian I've spoken to or watched speak agrees the bible can't be taken super literally word for word.

Actually most of the Bible is meant to be taken literally.  Some of it is history too.

Today we live in a world where many Christians have been deceived about a lot of things.

The modern Bible versions is an example.  They are corrupt and are made from a few corrupt manuscripts.  I have had a major interest in the Bible version issue.  God promises in various verses in the Bible that he would preserve his words.  Not just the concepts or ideas, but the actual words.

That being the case, where is it?   Since the only Bible that is based on the Received Text or Textus Receptus is the King James Bible of 1611 or Authorized Version, then that is God's preserved word.

After 1,800 years, the new versions started coming out about 145 years ago.  They are not based on the Received Text and differ with the King James Bible in thousands of places.  They must be rejected as corrupt and not God's real word.   Many people have been deceived or know nothing about the versions or where they came from and therefore use them.  I will stick to God's preserved words in the King James Bible.

[ExFlyer]

2 minutes ago, User said:

It doesn't matter who started it, you chose to make wrong comments about it. Don't complain when people call you out for being wrong. 

Oh...poor little man...you no like being called out when you are irrelevant

I am not wrong and even provided evidence.... but hey, I know you and confux like to disregard proof and deflect LOL

Oh and thanks for the down votes, I am collecting them and consider them as a badge of honour LOL

[User]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

Actually most of the Bible is meant to be taken literally.  Some of it is history too.

Somehow you quoted me here... that was not me. 

[herbie]

So has anyone yet heard what PP has to say about subs?
More? Fewer? Budget multi-billions more for nukes?
Or just more "the Liberal plan is bad" BS.

[User]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

Oh...poor little man...you no like being called out when you are irrelevant

Huh? You were the one crying about staying on subject when you got called out for being wrong when you were off subject. 

[User]

3 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Oh and thanks for the down votes, I am collecting them and consider them as a badge of honour LOL

Um... you are the one who pushes the downvotes, so we should take them as badges of honor from you then? LOL

[blackbird]

55 minutes ago, User said:

The KJV was simply one of the first historical efforts to translate The Bible to English accurately, doesn't make it wrong or bad, but there were some things that were missed

No, nothing is missed.  The KJV is based on the Received Text which is an accurate copy of the original manuscripts.  That means that the inspiration is carried through the Received Text in the KJV in English.  It is not missing anything and is inerrant and inspired.  Not because the translators were inspired but because God promised in his word to preserve it and he did preserve it for 1,900 years.  It is called providential preservation.

3 minutes ago, User said:

Somehow you quoted me here... that was not me. 

Sorry, I will have to look back and see what happened.

[User]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No, nothing is missed.  The KJV is based on the Received Text which is an accurate copy of the original manuscripts.  That means that the inspiration is carried through the Received Text in the KJV in English.  It is not missing anything and is inerrant and inspired.  Not because the translators were inspired but because God promised in his word to preserve it and he did preserve it for 1,900 years.  It is called providential preservation.

Listen, we have already had a lengthy discussion on this that you ran away from. 

 

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

Eyeball hopes "science" opposes Christian beliefs, but that's because he doesn't understand the Bible or real science.  The two are totally different.  Science is about observing how things work in this world while the Bible is about spiritual matters.  You can't mix the two or try to use science to debunk the Bible because they are totally different.

That doesn't stop you or Christianity from mixing supernatural beliefs with reality...parting the Red Sea...fishes and loaves...rising from the dead...miracles... Christianity does this all the time.  Your religion in particular insists on having its cake and eating it too and you yourself routinely use the Bible to debunk the science upholding evolution and cosmology.

Its odd that hypocrisy wasn't amongst the Ten Commandments.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, User said:

You seem to have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what "science" is. 

Could be you're just fundamentally flawed.

In any case science is a method - it definitely isn't a religion.

[ExFlyer]

52 minutes ago, User said:

Huh? You were the one crying about staying on subject when you got called out for being wrong when you were off subject. 

Awww, can't get over you going off topic. Poor baby LOL

Got told to go back and now you whine...must be a complainaitve like confux LOL

52 minutes ago, User said:

Um... you are the one who pushes the downvotes, so we should take them as badges of honor from you then? LOL

Yup, sure do

You can take em as you wish but it seems whining about it tells me you don't like em LOL

[User]

Just now, ExFlyer said:

Awww, can't get over you going off topic. Poor baby LOL

Got told to go back and now you whine...must be a complainaitve like confux LOL

Yes, you are a poor baby because you went off topic and are crying that you got called out for your comment being wrong. 

 

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Could be you're just fundamentally flawed.

In any case science is a method - it definitely isn't a religion.

Good thing the discussion was not centered on any claim by me or others that science is a religion. 

Once again... you can't engage honestly. 

[ExFlyer]

3 minutes ago, User said:

Yes, you are a poor baby because you went off topic and are crying that you got called out for your comment being wrong. 

 

G...

Nope...followed your lead when blackturd went off....you seem to be very easily swayed LOL

Wandering off topic again eh??  So easily swayed LOL

You need to get off your pedestal or confux's basement and maybe gain some credibility. LOL 

Edited November 16, 2025 by ExFlyer

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, User said:

The purpose of Submarines is not just to fight other submarines or underwater vessels, though... 

Subs to surface navy guys is on the same level as grunts yelling tanks to our front....for a reason....they spark fear because they are deadly...

[blackbird]

18 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Your religion in particular insists on having its cake and eating it too and you yourself routinely use the Bible to debunk the science upholding evolution and cosmology.

Nothing hypocritical about what I said.   I just pointed out that the theory of evolution was only a theory.  It contradicts the Bible and many scientists even reject the theory.  It is just not a reasonable explanation.   The theory has caused more people to doubt the Bible.  The Bible has many accounts of supernatural events.  Both evolution and the Bible can't be correct. 

I believe the Bible because it was inspired by God.  But also, it makes more sense than a theory than can't be proven and doesn't explain how a such a complex universe came to be, except to claim it was all an accident.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, User said:

Listen, we have already had a lengthy discussion on this that you ran away from. 

 

No, I didn't "run away" from it.  I think we realized it was hopeless.  We weren't getting anywhere.  You had your own ideas and if I recall, you weren't listening to anything.

Do you believe what the Bible says, that God would preserve his word?  Psalm 12:6, 7 KJV?

 

Edited November 16, 2025 by blackbird

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

So has anyone yet heard what PP has to say about subs?
More? Fewer? Budget multi-billions more for nukes?
Or just more "the Liberal plan is bad" BS.

He has not said anything about the Canadian Military..... period.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, User said:

People who have faith, beliefs, and religions or whatever you want to try to call it now, all acquire knowledge with scientific methods too. In fact, the study of faith, from a Christian perspective, is a scientific endeavor that utilizes facts, evidence, and methodology to interpret biblical writings.

LMAO!

 

2 hours ago, User said:

How is that? 

How? As evidence and facts in the hope people would buy into the desire to invade Iraq. It was like taking candy from a baby.

What makes religion so dangerous is that its made the willful suspension of disbelief respectable amongst millions if not billions of human beings.