The Conservative Cave
Interests => Religious Discussions => Topic started by: jinxmchue on January 21, 2008, 08:51:20 AM
-
http://conservativeunderground.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114114
Oy.
-
About the story of Noah...
Pablo Picasso once said that painting is a series of lies meant to express the truth. I view the Bible in the same way that Picasso viewed painting... as a series of lies meant to express the truth. Stories in the Bible do not have to be literally true to be figuratively true or spiritually true. For instance, to believe that God created the universe one need not believe the Biblical claim that he created it in 7 days.
I have never understood why some Christians feel the need to cling to the notion that the Bible is literally true. Faith does not require that stories in the Bible be literally true. All faith requires is that followers believe the spiritual truth.
-
http://conservativeunderground.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114114
Oy.
Yeah, but the sad thing, is that it doesn't take a mention of Noah or creation to make CU look like DU anymore. Most posts voer there now accomplish that all on their own!!
-
Picasso also said, "God is really only another artist. He invented the giraffe, the elephant and the cat. He has no real style, He just goes on trying other things". I can see how someone with a limited, but contained, mind could think Picasso was brilliant.
If the Bible is a series of lies meant to express the spiritual truth, then it is a contradiction to faith. Fortunately, we who have a broader understanding of who is God do not find it necessary to assign human limitations to Him in order to feel better about ourselves.
I don't find anything in the Bible unbelievable. If I did, it would be useless to me.
-
About the story of Noah...
Pablo Picasso once said that painting is a series of lies meant to express the truth. I view the Bible in the same way that Picasso viewed painting... as a series of lies meant to express the truth. Stories in the Bible do not have to be literally true to be figuratively true or spiritually true. For instance, to believe that God created the universe one need not believe the Biblical claim that he created it in 7 days.
I have never understood why some Christians feel the need to cling to the notion that the Bible is literally true. Faith does not require that stories in the Bible be literally true. All faith requires is that followers believe the spiritual truth.
If one can believe that God created everything, why is time important? God is independent of time. I have no problem at all believing it was done in 6 days. Note you claim 7 days, but it took only six...read the Bible much?
-
If one can believe that God created everything, why is time important? God is independent of time. I have no problem at all believing it was done in 6 days.
Exactly my point. If one believes that God created the universe, then the amount of time that God took to create the universe is unimportant.
Note you claim 7 days, but it took only six...read the Bible much?
According to the Bible, God blessed the universe on the 7th Day. I suppose that if one believes that God's blessing upon the universe was not an important part of creation that one could argue that the universe was created in 6 days.
-
If one can believe that God created everything, why is time important? God is independent of time. I have no problem at all believing it was done in 6 days.
Exactly my point. If one believes that God created the universe, then the amount of time that God took to create the universe is unimportant.
Note you claim 7 days, but it took only six...read the Bible much?
According to the Bible, God blessed the universe on the 7th Day. I suppose that if one believes that God's blessing upon the universe was not an important part of creation that one could argue that the universe was created in 6 days.
^ Not quite accurate
Genesis 2:2-3 (NIV)
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
-
If one can believe that God created everything, why is time important? God is independent of time. I have no problem at all believing it was done in 6 days.
Exactly my point. If one believes that God created the universe, then the amount of time that God took to create the universe is unimportant.
Note you claim 7 days, but it took only six...read the Bible much?
According to the Bible, God blessed the universe on the 7th Day. I suppose that if one believes that God's blessing upon the universe was not an important part of creation that one could argue that the universe was created in 6 days.
Oh, but it is important. The Bible lays it out very plainly. God did all the work in six days. The only thing we are left to wonder is why He took His time. We know He is unlimited, so why did He do it so incrementally? What are we to learn from His example?
The seventh day was the day God set aside to rest. He did not bless Creation on that day. He blessed that DAY.
-
Genesis 2:2-3 (NIV)
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Some versions of the Bible contain the claim that God finished the work of creating the universe on the seventh day. Some versions of the Bible contain the claim that God finished the work of creating the universe by the seventh day. Who knows for sure which version is correct? Certainly not mankind. Mankind is fallible.
-
About the story of Noah...
Pablo Picasso once said that painting is a series of lies meant to express the truth. I view the Bible in the same way that Picasso viewed painting... as a series of lies meant to express the truth. Stories in the Bible do not have to be literally true to be figuratively true or spiritually true. For instance, to believe that God created the universe one need not believe the Biblical claim that he created it in 7 days.
I have never understood why some Christians feel the need to cling to the notion that the Bible is literally true. Faith does not require that stories in the Bible be literally true. All faith requires is that followers believe the spiritual truth.
::)
Jesus treated the story of Noah as literal and real, so why shouldn't I?
-
Oh, but it is important. The Bible lays it out very plainly. God did all the work in six days. The only thing we are left to wonder is why He took His time. We know He is unlimited, so why did He do it so incrementally? What are we to learn from His example?
I suppose you could argue that there is a lesson in the claim that God took a number of days to create the universe, but the fact remains that the belief that God created the universe does not depend on knowledge of how long God took to create the universe.
-
Jesus treated the story of Noah as literal and real, so why shouldn't I?
What do you mean by the claim that Christ "treated" the story of Noah as being literal? Can you provide an example of Christ's treatment of the story of Noah?
-
Oh, but it is important. The Bible lays it out very plainly. God did all the work in six days. The only thing we are left to wonder is why He took His time. We know He is unlimited, so why did He do it so incrementally? What are we to learn from His example?
I suppose you could argue that there is a lesson in the claim that God took a number of days to create the universe, but the fact remains that the belief that God created the universe does not depend on knowledge of how long God took to create the universe.
Believing in one is just as easy as believing in the other.
-
Genesis 2:2-3 (NIV)
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Some versions of the Bible contain the claim that God finished the work of creating the universe on the seventh day. Some versions of the Bible contain the claim that God finished the work of creating the universe by the seventh day. Who knows for sure which version is correct? Certainly not mankind. Mankind is fallible.
Here are six versions of the same scriptures. They all say the same thing. It would appear you are mistaken.
New American Standard, Genesis 2:2-3
2By )the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
King James, Genesis 2:2-3
2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
New Living Translation, Genesis 2:2-3
2 On the seventh day God had finished his work of creation, so he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because it was the day when he rested from all his work of creation.
Holman Christian Standard Bible, Genesis 2:2-3
2 By the seventh day, God completed His work that He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done.3 God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, for on it He rested from His work of creation.
New International Reader’s Version, Genesis 2:2-3
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing. So on the seventh day he rested from all of his work. 3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy. He rested on it. After he had created everything, he rested from all of the work he had done.
Young’s Literal Translation, Genesis 2:2-3
2and God completeth by the seventh day His work which He hath made, and ceaseth by the seventh day from all His work which He hath made.
3And God blesseth the seventh day, and sanctifieth it, for in it He hath ceased from all His work which God had prepared for making.
-
Genesis 2:2-3 (NIV)
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Some versions of the Bible contain the claim that God finished the work of creating the universe on the seventh day. Some versions of the Bible contain the claim that God finished the work of creating the universe by the seventh day. Who knows for sure which version is correct? Certainly not mankind. Mankind is fallible.
Here are six versions of the same scriptures. They all say the same thing. It would appear you are mistaken.
New American Standard, Genesis 2:2-3
2By )the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
King James, Genesis 2:2-3
2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
New Living Translation, Genesis 2:2-3
2 On the seventh day God had finished his work of creation, so he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because it was the day when he rested from all his work of creation.
Holman Christian Standard Bible, Genesis 2:2-3
2 By the seventh day, God completed His work that He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done.3 God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, for on it He rested from His work of creation.
New International Reader’s Version, Genesis 2:2-3
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing. So on the seventh day he rested from all of his work. 3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy. He rested on it. After he had created everything, he rested from all of the work he had done.
Young’s Literal Translation, Genesis 2:2-3
2and God completeth by the seventh day His work which He hath made, and ceaseth by the seventh day from all His work which He hath made.
3And God blesseth the seventh day, and sanctifieth it, for in it He hath ceased from all His work which God had prepared for making.
Huh? The King James version of the Bible and the New Living Translation version of the Bible both contain the claim that God finished the universe on the 7th day. Finishing something "on the 7th day" can mean that it was completed at the end of that day... 7 days.
-
Jesus treated the story of Noah as literal and real, so why shouldn't I?
What do you mean by the claim that Christ "treated" the story of Noah as being literal? Can you provide an example of Christ's treatment of the story of Noah?
I believe that was covered in The Sermon On The Mound when Jesus claimed the Word Of God (the Bible) was Law and forever. That pretty much put His Seal of Assurance on the history of Noah as reported in The Bible.
-
Genesis 2:2-3 (NIV)
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Some versions of the Bible contain the claim that God finished the work of creating the universe on the seventh day. Some versions of the Bible contain the claim that God finished the work of creating the universe by the seventh day. Who knows for sure which version is correct? Certainly not mankind. Mankind is fallible.
Here are six versions of the same scriptures. They all say the same thing. It would appear you are mistaken.
New American Standard, Genesis 2:2-3
2By )the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
King James, Genesis 2:2-3
2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
New Living Translation, Genesis 2:2-3
2 On the seventh day God had finished his work of creation, so he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because it was the day when he rested from all his work of creation.
Holman Christian Standard Bible, Genesis 2:2-3
2 By the seventh day, God completed His work that He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done.3 God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, for on it He rested from His work of creation.
New International Reader’s Version, Genesis 2:2-3
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing. So on the seventh day he rested from all of his work. 3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy. He rested on it. After he had created everything, he rested from all of the work he had done.
Young’s Literal Translation, Genesis 2:2-3
2and God completeth by the seventh day His work which He hath made, and ceaseth by the seventh day from all His work which He hath made.
3And God blesseth the seventh day, and sanctifieth it, for in it He hath ceased from all His work which God had prepared for making.
Huh? The King James version of the Bible and the New Living Translation version of the Bible both contain the claim that God finished the universe on the 7th day. Finishing something "on" a day can mean that it was completed at some point during that day.
On the seventh day it was finished...meaning there was no work done on the seventh day. Is English your first language?
-
I believe that was covered in The Sermon On The Mound when Jesus claimed the Word Of God (the Bible) was Law and forever. That pretty much put His Seal of Assurance on the history of Noah as reported in The Bible.
Declaring the Bible to be law and eternal does not necessarily mean that everything in it should be interpreted literally. You can interpret Christ's declaration that the Bible is law and eternal to mean that the Bible should be intrepreted literally, but that is only your intrepretation.
-
I believe that was covered in The Sermon On The Mound when Jesus claimed the Word Of God (the Bible) was Law and forever. That pretty much put His Seal of Assurance on the history of Noah as reported in The Bible.
Declaring the Bible to be law and eternal does not necessarily mean that everything in it should be interpreted literally. You can interpret Christ's declaration that the Bible is law and eternal to mean that the Bible should be intrepreted literally, but that is only your intrepretation.
Psalm 111:7,8 seem to disagree with you.
-
On the seventh day it was finished...meaning there was no work done on the seventh day. Is English your first language?
So, if I say that I'm going to see a movie on Thursday, what I really mean is that I am going to see the movie before Thursday? Come on.
::)
-
Psalm 111:7,8 seem to disagree with you.
Uh, no. Your interpretation of Psalm 111:7,8 disagrees with me. A story can be figuratively true even if it is not literally true.
-
I believe that was covered in The Sermon On The Mound when Jesus claimed the Word Of God (the Bible) was Law and forever. That pretty much put His Seal of Assurance on the history of Noah as reported in The Bible.
Declaring the Bible to be law and eternal does not necessarily mean that everything in it should be interpreted literally. You can interpret Christ's declaration that the Bible is law and eternal to mean that the Bible should be intrepreted literally, but that is only your intrepretation.
Psalm 111:7,8 seem to disagree with you.
7 The works of his hands are faithful and just; all his precepts are trustworthy.
8 They are steadfast for ever and ever, done in faithfulness and uprightness.
-
On the seventh day it was finished...meaning there was no work done on the seventh day. Is English your first language?
So, if I say that I'm going to see a movie on Thursday, what I really mean is that I am going to see the movie before Thursday? Come on.
::)
If the viewing of the movie will be completed, on Thursday, then you saw it Wednesday or before.
-
If the viewing of the movie will be completed, on Thursday, then you saw it Wednesday or before.
Uh, no. Saying that something will be completed on a given day can mean that it will be completed by that day, but it can also mean that it will be completed at some point during that day. If I tell you that I will finish watching a set of DVDs on Thursday, I might mean that I will finish watching them by Thursday but I could also mean that I will finish watching them at some point on Thursday.
-
The literal translation of the word day means a period of time. In the beginning there was no time as we know it. Hence, God created X on X day (period of time). Religious scholars and scientists have been arguing forever, if one day they would stop being so hardheaded, they may see that they are both right. Science is HOW God created the universe, and a day doesn't neccesarily mean 24 hours.
Another example, God vs. Big Bang Theory: Big Bang Theory says there was essentially nothing, then BANG it's here. Isn't that pretty much what the Bibke says? God said BANG, and creation was here.
-
Psalm 111:7,8 seem to disagree with you.
Uh, no. Your interpretation of Psalm 111:7,8 disagrees with me. A story can be figuratively true even if it is not literally true.
Not quite, oh Liberal One. The words are very plain. The Sermon on the Mound was not a reading of free-thought poetry.
You are wrong. You have always been wrong. And you will never let the last word rest. Guess what? I won't either.
-
Not quite, oh Liberal One. The words are very plain. The Sermon on the Mound was not a reading of free-thought poetry.
The words of Psalm 111:7,8 are very plain but, in my opinion, none of those plain words indicate that stories in the Bible must be accepted as being literally true.
You are wrong. You have always been wrong. And you will never let the last word rest. Guess what? I won't either.
How do you know that I'm wrong? Are you infallible?
-
I don't know if I really wanna get into this. I want to, but I know everything I present will just be ignored for the most part so it won't really matter anyways.
It's hard to debate a matter when you've always got the fall back of "because God willed it."
-
The words of Psalm 111:7,8 are very plain but, in my opinion, none of those plain words indicate that stories in the Bible must be accepted as being literally true.
No, that isn't your "opinion". It is what you need in order to continue being obtuse. Words have meaning. The Words Jesus spoke plainly tell us we can trust and believe in the accuracy of God's word (everything you are denying).
How do you know that I'm wrong? Are you infallible?
Pretty much. Especially in this situation, considering the redundant and continuously denying nature of the competing statements.
-
If the viewing of the movie will be completed, on Thursday, then you saw it Wednesday or before.
Uh, no. Saying that something will be completed on a given day can mean that it will be completed by that day, but it can also mean that it will be completed at some point during that day. If I tell you that I will finish watching a set of DVDs on Thursday, I might mean that I will finish watching them by Thursday but I could also mean that I will finish watching them at some point on Thursday.
To use your example,
if the viewing of the movie is completed
and
it's Thursday,
you saw it Wednesday or before.
See how simple that is?
:whatever:
-
No, that isn't your "opinion". It is what you need in order to continue being obtuse. Words have meaning. The Words Jesus spoke plainly tell us we can trust and believe in the accuracy of God's word (everything you are denying).
The notion that God is always honest with humans has always struck me as odd. A supreme being is under no obligation to be truthful to anyone or about anything.
-
To use your example,
if the viewing of the movie is completed
and
it's Thursday,
you saw it Wednesday or before.
So, if I say that I'm going to a party on Thursday, what I really mean is that I'm going before Thursday comes? Give me a break.
You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Why can't you just admit that the various versions of the Bible contain differences?
-
To use your example,
if the viewing of the movie is completed
and
it's Thursday,
you saw it Wednesday or before.
So, if I say that I'm going to a party on Thursday, what I really mean is that I'm going before Thursday comes? Give me a break.
You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Why can't you just admit that the various versions of the Bible contain differences?
Wording varies, meaning never does.
You can't you just admit you are wrong?
-
No, that isn't your "opinion". It is what you need in order to continue being obtuse. Words have meaning. The Words Jesus spoke plainly tell us we can trust and believe in the accuracy of God's word (everything you are denying).
The notion that God is always honest with humans has always struck me as odd. A supreme being is under no obligation to be truthful to anyone or about anything.
You find honesty odd?
God owes us nothing. All we receive is from Grace.
-
No, that isn't your "opinion". It is what you need in order to continue being obtuse. Words have meaning. The Words Jesus spoke plainly tell us we can trust and believe in the accuracy of God's word (everything you are denying).
The notion that God is always honest with humans has always struck me as odd. A supreme being is under no obligation to be truthful to anyone or about anything.
Please put on the orange jacket. You are enterring the deep end.
-
You find honesty odd?
God owes us nothing. All we receive is from Grace.
I find the human expectation of honesty from a supreme being to be odd.
-
No, that isn't your "opinion". It is what you need in order to continue being obtuse. Words have meaning. The Words Jesus spoke plainly tell us we can trust and believe in the accuracy of God's word (everything you are denying).
The notion that God is always honest with humans has always struck me as odd. A supreme being is under no obligation to be truthful to anyone or about anything.
Please put on the orange jacket. You are enterring the deep end.
The lack of understanding runs deep, don't it?
I do feel sorry for him.
-
Wording varies, meaning never does.
You can't you just admit you are wrong?
The meaning of God's words may not vary, but mankind's interpretation of words can vary quite a lot. The difference between us is that I believe that the Bible is open to intrepretation and you seem to think that your interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one.
-
The lack of understanding runs deep, don't it?
I do feel sorry for him.
Feel free to explain to me why I should expect honesty from a supreme being.
-
The lack of understanding runs deep, don't it?
I do feel sorry for him.
Feel free to explain to me why I should expect honesty from a supreme being.
Only need one word.
Faith.
-
Wording varies, meaning never does.
You can't you just admit you are wrong?
The meaning of God's words may not vary, but mankind's interpretation of words can vary quite a lot. The difference between us is that I believe the Bible is open to intrepretation and you seem to think that your interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one.
I have found nothing to contradict my faith. You adjust your interpretation to fit your pre-existing belief.
-
Only need one word.
Faith.
So, your belief that God is always honest is based purely on faith. Fair enough. I was only wondering if the belief that God is always honest was based on something more than faith.
-
Wording varies, meaning never does.
You can't you just admit you are wrong?
The meaning of God's words may not vary, but mankind's interpretation of words can vary quite a lot. The difference between us is that I believe the Bible is open to intrepretation and you seem to think that your interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one.
I have found nothing to contradict my faith. You adjust your interpretation to fit your pre-existing belief.
Dishonesty is a human thing. Dishonesty is usually about personal gain. God has no such needs. The thought of God being dishonest is a real sidesplitter. It is pointless. Completely pointless.
-
Dishonesty is a human thing. Dishonesty is usually about personal gain. God has no such needs. The thought of God being dishonest is a real sidesplitter. It is pointless. Completely pointless.
Correct... Dishonesty is a tactic which is usually used for personal gain... but not always. Sometimes, dishonesty can have a noble purpose. What matters is intent not tactic. So, how do we know that God doesn't use dishonesty for a noble purpose?
-
Dishonesty is a human thing. Dishonesty is usually about personal gain. God has no such needs. The thought of God being dishonest is a real sidesplitter. It is pointless. Completely pointless.
Correct... Dishonesty is a tactic which is usually used for personal gain... but not always. Sometimes, dishonesty can have a noble purpose. What matters is intent not tactic. So, how do we know that God doesn't use dishonesty for a noble purpose?
Applying human characteristics to God doesn't work.
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. Proverbs 3:5
-
Applying human characteristics to God doesn't work.
If the Bible is to be believed, then God and humans share many characteristics. For instance, both God and humans are said to have the ability to love... the ability to get angry... the ability to forgive... etc.
-
Applying human characteristics to God doesn't work.
If the Bible is to be believed, then God and humans share many characteristics. For instance, both God and humans are said to have the ability to love... the ability to get angry... the ability to forgive... etc.
You missed this part.
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. Proverbs 3:5
-
Dishonesty is a human thing. Dishonesty is usually about personal gain. God has no such needs. The thought of God being dishonest is a real sidesplitter. It is pointless. Completely pointless.
Correct... Dishonesty is a tactic which is usually used for personal gain... but not always. Sometimes, dishonesty can have a noble purpose. What matters is intent not tactic. So, how do we know that God doesn't use dishonesty for a noble purpose?
What is a "noble lie"? Any lie is still dishonest and is always tied to the benefit of the liar. Even a lie to spare someone's feeling is actually a lie to keep the lie teller from having to deal with the hurt feelings of others. God has no need for such human folly.
-
What is a "noble lie"?
Were lies told to Nazis for the purpose of protecting Jews not for a noble purpose? I think that most reasonable people would agree that lies told to protect the innocent from harm are examples of noble lies.
Any lie is still dishonest and is always tied to the benefit of the liar. Even a lie to spare someone's feeling is actually a lie to keep the lie teller from having to deal with the hurt feelings of others. God has no need for such human folly.
Yes, all lies are examples of dishonesty, but dishonesty does not always serve a selfish purpose.
Lies and dishonesty are basically forms of deception. Deception is nothing more than a tactic. Like any tactic, deception can be used for good and it can be used for evil.
-
About the story of Noah...
Pablo Picasso once said that painting is a series of lies meant to express the truth. I view the Bible in the same way that Picasso viewed painting... as a series of lies meant to express the truth. Stories in the Bible do not have to be literally true to be figuratively true or spiritually true. For instance, to believe that God created the universe one need not believe the Biblical claim that he created it in 7 days.
I have never understood why some Christians feel the need to cling to the notion that the Bible is literally true. Faith does not require that stories in the Bible be literally true. All faith requires is that followers believe the spiritual truth.
::)
Jesus treated the story of Noah as literal and real, so why shouldn't I?
Because the scientific evidence says there was never a worldwide flood. Jesus used a LOT of allegory to make His point. He wasn't providing a science text, but rather a roadmap on how to live your life according to God's wishes.
-
I'll take God's word over that of a scientist any day.
-
I'll take God's word over that of a scientist any day.
So you don't go to a physician when you are ill? You eschew the Internet (I guess not)?
You can't even rely on the Bible itself -- Genesis I and Genesis II disagree with each other. You speak Arameic? I hope so because that is the only way you can hope to read the third and forth hand texts of the source material of the Bible.
The Bible is a theological text to tell man how to live his life. It never represents itself as a scientific text nor should it be used as such.
-
I'll take God's word over that of a scientist any day.
So you don't go to a physician when you are ill? You eschew the Internet (I guess not)?
You can't even rely on the Bible itself -- Genesis I and Genesis II disagree with each other. You speak Arameic? I hope so because that is the only way you can hope to read the third and forth hand texts of the source material of the Bible.
The Bible is a theological text to tell man how to live his life. It never represents itself as a scientific text nor should it be used as such.
Yet scientists spend their entire lives trying to disprove it...to no avail.
-
I'll take God's word over that of a scientist any day.
So you don't go to a physician when you are ill? You eschew the Internet (I guess not)?
You can't even rely on the Bible itself -- Genesis I and Genesis II disagree with each other. You speak Arameic? I hope so because that is the only way you can hope to read the third and forth hand texts of the source material of the Bible.
The Bible is a theological text to tell man how to live his life. It never represents itself as a scientific text nor should it be used as such.
Yet scientists spend their entire lives trying to disprove it...to no avail.
Scientists have no desire to prove or disprove any theological text. They go where the facts lead. One of these facts is there was no global flood. That doesn't detract in the slightest from God's Word.
Oh, so I assume you are OK with slavery? Sending she-bears out to kill children who blaspheme? Taking out the eyes of your enemies? These, too, are the Words of God.
And why are you on the Internet? It is from those EEEVIL Scientists who want to close the Bible. Oh, and do you or don't you use medical doctors? You realize almost all biological science is founded in TToE. As is 100% of pharmacology. Do you take drugs? Or do you just pray that illnesses for you and your children just go away?
-
I'll take God's word over that of a scientist any day.
So you don't go to a physician when you are ill? You eschew the Internet (I guess not)?
You can't even rely on the Bible itself -- Genesis I and Genesis II disagree with each other. You speak Arameic? I hope so because that is the only way you can hope to read the third and forth hand texts of the source material of the Bible.
The Bible is a theological text to tell man how to live his life. It never represents itself as a scientific text nor should it be used as such.
Yet scientists spend their entire lives trying to disprove it...to no avail.
Scientists have no desire to prove or disprove any theological text.
Utter b.s.
They go where the facts lead. One of these facts is there was no global flood.
Prove it.
That doesn't detract in the slightest from God's Word.
No, it contradicts it.
Oh, so I assume you are OK with slavery? Sending she-bears out to kill children who blaspheme? Taking out the eyes of your enemies? These, too, are the Words of God.
Try reading the New Testament
And why are you on the Internet? It is from those EEEVIL Scientists who want to close the Bible. Oh, and do you or don't you use medical doctors? You realize almost all biological science is founded in TToE. As is 100% of pharmacology. Do you take drugs? Or do you just pray that illnesses for you and your children just go away?
Looks like somebody's off his meds. Pick a direction and stick with it.
:whatever:
-
Dishonesty is a human thing. Dishonesty is usually about personal gain. God has no such needs. The thought of God being dishonest is a real sidesplitter. It is pointless. Completely pointless.
Correct... Dishonesty is a tactic which is usually used for personal gain... but not always. Sometimes, dishonesty can have a noble purpose. What matters is intent not tactic. So, how do we know that God doesn't use dishonesty for a noble purpose?
There's a saying. "The road to Hell was paved with good intentions."
-
Quote
They go where the facts lead. One of these facts is there was no global flood.
Prove it.
Flooding is easily located in geological strata. Ask any geologist this and he will tell you. There isn't anything out there to suggest such a thing. Here are some other things to look at though.
6. Implications of a Flood
A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.
How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?
How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.
Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood)
There are mountains and mountains of data that points to the fact that a global flood has never happend.
There is a book written 3000 years ago that says there was. Have you got anything else that would PROVE that it did happen?
-
I'll take God's word over that of a scientist any day.
God didn't write the Bible Lug-nut. Man did. And Man is fallible.
-
I'll take God's word over that of a scientist any day.
God didn't write the Bible Lug-nut. Man did. And Man is fallible.
No, God did not physically write the Bible, but the Bible is the inspired word of God.
-
Quote
They go where the facts lead. One of these facts is there was no global flood.
Prove it.
Flooding is easily located in geological strata. Ask any geologist this and he will tell you. There isn't anything out there to suggest such a thing. Here are some other things to look at though.
6. Implications of a Flood
A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.
How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?
How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.
Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood)
There are mountains and mountains of data that points to the fact that a global flood has never happend.
There is a book written 3000 years ago that says there was. Have you got anything else that would PROVE that it did happen?
There are many mountains of data that say it did happen. Still waiting for proof it didn't.
-
Quote
They go where the facts lead. One of these facts is there was no global flood.
Prove it.
Flooding is easily located in geological strata. Ask any geologist this and he will tell you. There isn't anything out there to suggest such a thing. Here are some other things to look at though.
6. Implications of a Flood
A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.
How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?
How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.
Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood)
There are mountains and mountains of data that points to the fact that a global flood has never happend.
There is a book written 3000 years ago that says there was. Have you got anything else that would PROVE that it did happen?
There are many mountains of data that say it did happen. Still waiting for proof it didn't.
Why don't you present some of that then? Meet me half way here.
And by the way, what I gave you was proof. It's not my fault if you don't read it.
-
I'll take God's word over that of a scientist any day.
God didn't write the Bible Lug-nut. Man did. And Man is fallible.
No, God did not physically write the Bible, but the Bible is the inspired word of God.
It was still written by Man.
My question for you. I've heard the argument time and time again that God changes his means. Hence the explanation from the wrathful and vengeful God of the Old Testament to the loving God of the New Testament.
The Muslims worship the same God that Christians and Jews worship, just differant teachings. How are you to know that when the Quran was dictated, it wasn't God's new word? What makes the Christian teachings anymore right then Muslim teachings?
Is it just Faith?
So if all you have is Faith, then why trust the literal teachings of the book?
-
Let me rephrase that. Not the teachings. I don't ever wanna challenge a mans faith.
But the literal story. The story of the flood. The story of the Creation. Etc...
Like NightOwl said, the meaning is still there. The teachings are still there. But that book was written in a time when no explanations could be given for such things other then the story of Genesis. Times are differant now. There is so much PROOF now that refutes the literal words of that book. Hell, the story of Genesis was written thousands of years after the events where supposed to have occured, with no written documentation to support it. You mean to tell me that every bit of that story is factual?
I present you actualy scientific evidence that says an event did not occur, and you say it's not proof, when all you have to go on is a story written 3,300 years ago by someone who had no documentation at all of the events that he wrote of.
It just makes no sense to me.
-
The Bible is written in a poetic nature.
-
Quote
They go where the facts lead. One of these facts is there was no global flood.
Prove it.
Flooding is easily located in geological strata. Ask any geologist this and he will tell you. There isn't anything out there to suggest such a thing. Here are some other things to look at though.
6. Implications of a Flood
A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.
How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?
How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.
Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood)
There are mountains and mountains of data that points to the fact that a global flood has never happend.
There is a book written 3000 years ago that says there was. Have you got anything else that would PROVE that it did happen?
There are many mountains of data that say it did happen. Still waiting for proof it didn't.
Why don't you present some of that then? Meet me half way here.
And by the way, what I gave you was proof. It's not my fault if you don't read it.
No, you provide opinions.
Still waiting for your proof.
-
I'll take God's word over that of a scientist any day.
God didn't write the Bible Lug-nut. Man did. And Man is fallible.
No, God did not physically write the Bible, but the Bible is the inspired word of God.
It was still written by Man. [\quote]
It is still the inspired word of God.
My question for you. I've heard the argument time and time again that God changes his means. Hence the explanation from the wrathful and vengeful God of the Old Testament to the loving God of the New Testament.[\quote]
Time to read it for yourself.
The Muslims worship the same God that Christians and Jews worship, just differant teachings. How are you to know that when the Quran was dictated, it wasn't God's new word? What makes the Christian teachings anymore right then Muslim teachings? [\quote]
1. Mohammad was a mortal man. Jesus wasn't.
2. The Bible foretold many false prophets and how to recognize them.
Is it just Faith?
So if all you have is Faith, then why trust the literal teachings of the book?
That's what faith is.
-
Quote
They go where the facts lead. One of these facts is there was no global flood.
Prove it.
Flooding is easily located in geological strata. Ask any geologist this and he will tell you. There isn't anything out there to suggest such a thing. Here are some other things to look at though.
6. Implications of a Flood
A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.
How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?
How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.
Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood)
There are mountains and mountains of data that points to the fact that a global flood has never happend.
There is a book written 3000 years ago that says there was. Have you got anything else that would PROVE that it did happen?
There are many mountains of data that say it did happen. Still waiting for proof it didn't.
Why don't you present some of that then? Meet me half way here.
And by the way, what I gave you was proof. It's not my fault if you don't read it.
No, you provide opinions.
Still waiting for your proof.
Lugnut, so you mean to tell me that Ice doesn't float in water? It's only an opinion? The amount of rainfall required for the world to be covered like the Bible says would have destroyed the Polar ICE Caps. In the time since then, it would have been impossible for that ice to reform to the levels that they are at today. The means to do so would have required a MASSIVE cold snap of the likes of what they had in "The Day After Tomorrow". And let me tell you something. I'm a meteorologist. That has never happend, and never will.
Flooding does leave geographic evidence. That is a fact, cold and hard. Soils will be displaced, and it is extremely easy to spot where a flood has occured in the past. No evidence has been found anywhere in the world to support this story. None. Geologic records are clean.
Geology is a science founded on fact. There is evidence that you can see, touch, and even taste if you want. Geology says a global flood has NEVER occured. Check that link I gave you. It gives item of evidence after item of evidence. It is not opinion. It is well stated proof presented in a scientific matter.
I don't even need to touch the impossibility of the task of collecting every animal on earth, or explaining how it's impossible for things to die at the same time to be buried in drastically differant strata (like the dinosaurs, compaired to more present creatures), because the geological record already disproves the possibility of the story.
-
I know I'm at the tail-end of this discussion, but I'd like to point out that there certainly have been massive cold snaps. How many times have mastodon been found frozen with undigested flowers still inside their stomachs? That took an extremely massive cold snap at a time when flowers were blooming.
World-wide flooding would obviously not leave the same soil displacement as localized flooding. What it would cause is the dirt settling in layers. A simple child's experiment can prove that fact.
Our science of geology is the based on interpretation of evidence, not facts.
-
About the story of Noah...
Pablo Picasso once said that painting is a series of lies meant to express the truth. I view the Bible in the same way that Picasso viewed painting... as a series of lies meant to express the truth. Stories in the Bible do not have to be literally true to be figuratively true or spiritually true. For instance, to believe that God created the universe one need not believe the Biblical claim that he created it in 7 days.
I have never understood why some Christians feel the need to cling to the notion that the Bible is literally true. Faith does not require that stories in the Bible be literally true. All faith requires is that followers believe the spiritual truth.
::)
Jesus treated the story of Noah as literal and real, so why shouldn't I?
Because it didn't happen. Jesus was teaching THEOLOGY not SCIENCE. The Bible Stories provided a common foundation for His teachings.
-
I get a chuckle out of the deniers who claim this or that did not happen because there is no evidence. It's funny because, if God can create the earth, and then create a flood to destroy life on earth, why is it such a stretch to believe God couldn't arrange for the flood not to leave a mark on His earth? God created physics. He is not bound by physics.
-
I get a chuckle out of the deniers who claim this or that did not happen because there is no evidence. It's funny because, if God can create the earth, and then create a flood to destroy life on earth, why is it such a stretch to believe God couldn't arrange for the flood not to leave a mark on His earth? God created physics. He is not bound by physics.
Well, you start to lurch into things such as miracles. Yes, God can do anything He wants. But why would He flood the Earth and then remove all traces. Why would He provide a clear and consistent evidence record to the contrary of what 'actually" occurred? Is He messing with our heads?
God provided an astounding and consistent and definable Universe bound by standard rules. He gave humans the ability to discern and use those rules. To be a trickster isn't in His nature.
-
I get a chuckle out of the deniers who claim this or that did not happen because there is no evidence. It's funny because, if God can create the earth, and then create a flood to destroy life on earth, why is it such a stretch to believe God couldn't arrange for the flood not to leave a mark on His earth? God created physics. He is not bound by physics.
Well, you start to lurch into things such as miracles. Yes, God can do anything He wants. But why would He flood the Earth and then remove all traces. Why would He provide a clear and consistent evidence record to the contrary of what 'actually" occurred? Is He messing with our heads?
God provided an astounding and consistent and definable Universe bound by standard rules. He gave humans the ability to discern and use those rules. To be a trickster isn't in His nature.
If all you say here is relevant, then there would never have been miracles.
I don't pretend to second guess God, but I have to wonder why He would leave the earth ravaged by the flood? God obviously had expectations for the earth to continue. It was a fresh start for mankind and animalkind. What sort of chance would any of them had if they were started on a barren earth?
It was only two weeks between the rain stopping and the Dove bringing back the olive leaf. I'd say the earth was protected by God's Will.
-
for what it's worth, more or less the same thing sometimes happens with similar subjects at FR . . . . depending on who is signed on that night.
-
I get a chuckle out of the deniers who claim this or that did not happen because there is no evidence. It's funny because, if God can create the earth, and then create a flood to destroy life on earth, why is it such a stretch to believe God couldn't arrange for the flood not to leave a mark on His earth? God created physics. He is not bound by physics.
Well, you start to lurch into things such as miracles. Yes, God can do anything He wants. But why would He flood the Earth and then remove all traces. Why would He provide a clear and consistent evidence record to the contrary of what 'actually" occurred? Is He messing with our heads?
If conclusive evidence were available, faith would not be necessary. God requires our faith.
God provided an astounding and consistent and definable Universe bound by standard rules. He gave humans the ability to discern and use those rules. To be a trickster isn't in His nature.
So now you're trying to explain the nature of God? Good luck with that.
-
If conclusive evidence were available, faith would not be necessary. God requires our faith.
Yes, I know that, but speaking in the strict confines of the Great Flood, why would anyone be looking for evidence it happened? God plainly spoke His plan to Noah, and it did not include a scorched earth.
To believe God would leave a physics footprint behind, one has to believe the earth was practically uninhabitable after the Great Flood. That is not what God promised Noah.
The deniers put God in a box which cannot possibly exist. I laugh and laugh at their limits.
-
I get a chuckle out of the deniers who claim this or that did not happen because there is no evidence. It's funny because, if God can create the earth, and then create a flood to destroy life on earth, why is it such a stretch to believe God couldn't arrange for the flood not to leave a mark on His earth? God created physics. He is not bound by physics.
Reference my first post in this topic. There isn't much point in debating these things when you can always fall back on the "God Wills it" argument.
-
I get a chuckle out of the deniers who claim this or that did not happen because there is no evidence. It's funny because, if God can create the earth, and then create a flood to destroy life on earth, why is it such a stretch to believe God couldn't arrange for the flood not to leave a mark on His earth? God created physics. He is not bound by physics.
Reference my first post in this topic. There isn't much point in debating these things when you can always fall back on the "God Wills it" argument.
But to ignore that aspect is the ultimate in dishonesty. To debate it, deniers have to put God into human context. That is not honest. It denies the other half of the debate their reality.
Why must we faithful ones allow God to be put into a box in order to debate? Is it because the other side hasn't a clue and we need to make it fair? I don't buy it and I never have.
If some denier wants to debate me about our God, he will not set the terms. I will never put God in his box and then let him tell me how dumb and limited I am.
-
I get a chuckle out of the deniers who claim this or that did not happen because there is no evidence. It's funny because, if God can create the earth, and then create a flood to destroy life on earth, why is it such a stretch to believe God couldn't arrange for the flood not to leave a mark on His earth? God created physics. He is not bound by physics.
Reference my first post in this topic. There isn't much point in debating these things when you can always fall back on the "God Wills it" argument.
But to ignore that aspect is the ultimate in dishonesty. To debate it, deniers have to put God into human context. That is not honest. It denies the other half of the debate their reality.
Why must we faithful ones allow God to be put into a box in order to debate? Is it because the other side hasn't a clue and we need to make it fair? I don't buy it and I never have.
If some denier wants to debate me about our God, he will not set the terms. I will never put God in his box and then let him tell me how dumb and limited I am.
Which makes my point still true. There is no point in the matter.
-
I get a chuckle out of the deniers who claim this or that did not happen because there is no evidence. It's funny because, if God can create the earth, and then create a flood to destroy life on earth, why is it such a stretch to believe God couldn't arrange for the flood not to leave a mark on His earth? God created physics. He is not bound by physics.
Reference my first post in this topic. There isn't much point in debating these things when you can always fall back on the "God Wills it" argument.
But to ignore that aspect is the ultimate in dishonesty. To debate it, deniers have to put God into human context. That is not honest. It denies the other half of the debate their reality.
Why must we faithful ones allow God to be put into a box in order to debate? Is it because the other side hasn't a clue and we need to make it fair? I don't buy it and I never have.
If some denier wants to debate me about our God, he will not set the terms. I will never put God in his box and then let him tell me how dumb and limited I am.
Which makes my point still true. There is no point in the matter.
Actually, It negates your point. It troubles me you can't see that.
God said His word would never die. It hasn't. We still, in the year of Our Lord 2008, have people trying to deny God. I find it tragic yet fascinating. It fascinates me to what lengths some folks will go to in order to deny God's existence when, even if God doesn't exist, there is no real point in denying Him. Rejecting such love and compassion is anti-human. It is like wishing and hoping for death.
I know God is the ultimate government. God stops you, as a human, from living a completely guilt-free life. That is a bummer. God is a downer. But yet we accept mans law which does basically the same things. It is such a paradox.
I asked myself, back when I was about thirteen, why guilt exists. I figured it out when I was about fourteen. It makes us human and responsible. Right and wrong will never change, regardless of our decadent hope and sinful dreams.
-
Edit: Just forget it. I'm not getting into this again tonight.
-
God stops you, as a human, from living a completely guilt-free life.
No he doesn't. My morals do.
Morals that where not taught to me through the bible, or by church, or by religious parents.
I'm getting sick and tired of people always asserting that Atheists are not bound by morals. Christians don't have a patent on the concept of morals. There was a system of right and wrong long before the Bible was written.
It doesn't matter where your morals come from. That is a silly concept. Yes, you want to be credited with being the master of your domain, and that's only human. Unfortunately, the concept of right and wrong begins, continues, and ends with God. Otherwise, you would be the arbitrator, and you are not. Just like Charles Manson wasn't.
I always think it is "cute" how the religion of atheism borrows from God but can never bring themselves to credit Him.
-
The literal translation of the word day means a period of time. In the beginning there was no time as we know it. Hence, God created X on X day (period of time). Religious scholars and scientists have been arguing forever, if one day they would stop being so hardheaded, they may see that they are both right. Science is HOW God created the universe, and a day doesn't neccesarily mean 24 hours.
Another example, God vs. Big Bang Theory: Big Bang Theory says there was essentially nothing, then BANG it's here. Isn't that pretty much what the Bibke says? God said BANG, and creation was here.
I agree. It says in the Bible God created the Earth and heavens in 6 days, but what is a day to God? Hell, a blink of His eye could be a millennium for all we know. But it's kind of an iffy subject to get into. For one, if you go by the literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1-3, God could have let the Earth sit for quite a while before getting to work.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
But in Exodus... 21:7 I think, Moses does say God created everything in 6 literal days and rested on the 7th, thus giving us our week on which to go by.
Like I said, iffy subject, but I'm sure I'll know all the answers when my time to meet with my maker is, until then... I ain't gonna be like an upitty atheist and pretend to know every single thing.
-
Creation, original sin, Noah's flood...and even morality...are those things that are so universal among human consiousness it makes me go, "Hm-m-m..."
I'm left to wonder if we have adequate translations for the orignal terms "day" "flood" etc. It seems these are more linguisitic controversies rather than scientificalism but when I read the Native American and Polynesian tribes have creation, sin flood stories and moral codes mimicking the same as the semitic nations of the Middle East and ditto the Asians and Europeans, I can't help but wonder if humanity shares a common experience only to find itself later scattered across the globe.
-
Like I said, iffy subject, but I'm sure I'll know all the answers when my time to meet with my maker is, until then... I ain't gonna be like an upitty atheist and pretend to know every single thing.
Athiesm comes in a few flavors...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
-
Okay, okay..... since this got bumped up again, here's something to ponder. If there was no "God"........ why say it during sex? Even atheists say it. They don't say "Oh, science!" (yeah, I watched that SP episode this afternoon) Admit it, it was He who gave ya the ability to have those orgasms that make your toes curl up like fried bacon. :-)
-
Like I said, iffy subject, but I'm sure I'll know all the answers when my time to meet with my maker is, until then... I ain't gonna be like an upitty atheist and pretend to know every single thing.
Athiesm comes in a few flavors...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
...all of them sour.
-
About the story of Noah...
Pablo Picasso once said that painting is a series of lies meant to express the truth. I view the Bible in the same way that Picasso viewed painting... as a series of lies meant to express the truth. Stories in the Bible do not have to be literally true to be figuratively true or spiritually true. For instance, to believe that God created the universe one need not believe the Biblical claim that he created it in 7 days.
I have never understood why some Christians feel the need to cling to the notion that the Bible is literally true. Faith does not require that stories in the Bible be literally true. All faith requires is that followers believe the spiritual truth.
::)
Jesus treated the story of Noah as literal and real, so why shouldn't I?
Because Jesus wasn't teaching history, he was teaching theology. The story of Noah is an important story in terms of Man's relationship with God. Jesus taught using many parables.
-
About the story of Noah...
Pablo Picasso once said that painting is a series of lies meant to express the truth. I view the Bible in the same way that Picasso viewed painting... as a series of lies meant to express the truth. Stories in the Bible do not have to be literally true to be figuratively true or spiritually true. For instance, to believe that God created the universe one need not believe the Biblical claim that he created it in 7 days.
I have never understood why some Christians feel the need to cling to the notion that the Bible is literally true. Faith does not require that stories in the Bible be literally true. All faith requires is that followers believe the spiritual truth.
::)
Jesus treated the story of Noah as literal and real, so why shouldn't I?
Because Jesus wasn't teaching history, he was teaching theology. The story of Noah is an important story in terms of Man's relationship with God. Jesus taught using many parables.
So you claim they are not true? Prove it.
-
About the story of Noah...
Pablo Picasso once said that painting is a series of lies meant to express the truth. I view the Bible in the same way that Picasso viewed painting... as a series of lies meant to express the truth. Stories in the Bible do not have to be literally true to be figuratively true or spiritually true. For instance, to believe that God created the universe one need not believe the Biblical claim that he created it in 7 days.
I have never understood why some Christians feel the need to cling to the notion that the Bible is literally true. Faith does not require that stories in the Bible be literally true. All faith requires is that followers believe the spiritual truth.
::)
Jesus treated the story of Noah as literal and real, so why shouldn't I?
Because Jesus wasn't teaching history, he was teaching theology. The story of Noah is an important story in terms of Man's relationship with God. Jesus taught using many parables.
So you claim they are not true? Prove it.
Can you name the Pharisee in that story? Was the Prodigal Son a personal friend of Jesus? Come on, you are arguing for arguing's sake.
I do have billions of data points that DISPROVE any "global flood" in the 4 billion years of Earth's existence.
-
About the story of Noah...
Pablo Picasso once said that painting is a series of lies meant to express the truth. I view the Bible in the same way that Picasso viewed painting... as a series of lies meant to express the truth. Stories in the Bible do not have to be literally true to be figuratively true or spiritually true. For instance, to believe that God created the universe one need not believe the Biblical claim that he created it in 7 days.
I have never understood why some Christians feel the need to cling to the notion that the Bible is literally true. Faith does not require that stories in the Bible be literally true. All faith requires is that followers believe the spiritual truth.
::)
Jesus treated the story of Noah as literal and real, so why shouldn't I?
Because Jesus wasn't teaching history, he was teaching theology. The story of Noah is an important story in terms of Man's relationship with God. Jesus taught using many parables.
So you claim they are not true? Prove it.
Can you name the Pharisee in that story? Was the Prodigal Son a personal friend of jesus? Come on, you are arguing for arguing's sake.
I do have billions of data points that DISPROVE any "global flood" in the 4 billion years of Earth's existence.
Come on...you are making claims you cannot back up. There are zero credible "data points" to prove the flood did not happen. There is certainly no proof that the earth if 4 billion years old. :whatever:
-
Come on...you are making claims you cannot back up. There are zero credible "data points" to prove the flood did not happen. There is certainly no proof that the earth if 4 billion years old
I noticed the smile. I assume that means you are kidding.
-
Come on...you are making claims you cannot back up. There are zero credible "data points" to prove the flood did not happen. There is certainly no proof that the earth if 4 billion years old
I noticed the smile. I assume that means you are kidding.
:whatever: isn't a smile.
-
Come on...you are making claims you cannot back up. There are zero credible "data points" to prove the flood did not happen. There is certainly no proof that the earth if 4 billion years old
I noticed the smile. I assume that means you are kidding.
:whatever: isn't a smile.
I can't tell -- that's why I don't use them little commie dealies.
Anyway, here you go: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord
When you are done there, I can start supplying geology books, you know by professional geologists who only do this for a living as opposed to you... your Life Science PhD is in which field again?...
-
Come on...you are making claims you cannot back up. There are zero credible "data points" to prove the flood did not happen. There is certainly no proof that the earth if 4 billion years old
I noticed the smile. I assume that means you are kidding.
:whatever: isn't a smile.
I can't tell -- that's why I don't use them little commie dealies.
Anyway, here you go: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord
When you are done there, I can start supplying geology books, you know by professional geologists who only do this for a living as opposed to you... your Life Science PhD is in which field again?...
Might wanna back of Freedumb. Otherwise people are gonna get ripshit pissed at you for attacking their faith.
-
Come on...you are making claims you cannot back up. There are zero credible "data points" to prove the flood did not happen. There is certainly no proof that the earth if 4 billion years old
I noticed the smile. I assume that means you are kidding.
:whatever: isn't a smile.
I can't tell -- that's why I don't use them little commie dealies.
Anyway, here you go: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord
When you are done there, I can start supplying geology books, you know by professional geologists who only do this for a living as opposed to you... your Life Science PhD is in which field again?...
Might wanna back of Freedumb. Otherwise people are gonna get ripshit pissed at you for attacking their faith.
My faith hasn't been attacked. FD is just showing a profound lack of it.
-
Come on...you are making claims you cannot back up. There are zero credible "data points" to prove the flood did not happen. There is certainly no proof that the earth if 4 billion years old
I noticed the smile. I assume that means you are kidding.
:whatever: isn't a smile.
I can't tell -- that's why I don't use them little commie dealies.
Anyway, here you go: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord
When you are done there, I can start supplying geology books, you know by professional geologists who only do this for a living as opposed to you... your Life Science PhD is in which field again?...
Nope, no PhD. Guess I couldn't possibly be as smart as you. :whatever: You have a PhD? In Life Science? Hmmmmm....that must be the end-all and be-all of the sciences. :whatever:
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/great-flood-faq.htm
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=qw968787420149B251
http://www.calvaryag.org/apologetics/apologetics_11-evidence_flood.htm
-
Come on...you are making claims you cannot back up. There are zero credible "data points" to prove the flood did not happen. There is certainly no proof that the earth if 4 billion years old
I noticed the smile. I assume that means you are kidding.
:whatever: isn't a smile.
I can't tell -- that's why I don't use them little commie dealies.
Anyway, here you go: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord
When you are done there, I can start supplying geology books, you know by professional geologists who only do this for a living as opposed to you... your Life Science PhD is in which field again?...
Might wanna back of Freedumb. Otherwise people are gonna get ripshit pissed at you for attacking their faith.
Good point. I don't want to get anyone upset. God, can you imagine the ruckus if I brought up The Theory of Gravity?
-
Come on...you are making claims you cannot back up. There are zero credible "data points" to prove the flood did not happen. There is certainly no proof that the earth if 4 billion years old
I noticed the smile. I assume that means you are kidding.
:whatever: isn't a smile.
I can't tell -- that's why I don't use them little commie dealies.
Anyway, here you go: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord
When you are done there, I can start supplying geology books, you know by professional geologists who only do this for a living as opposed to you... your Life Science PhD is in which field again?...
Nope, no PhD. Guess I couldn't possibly be as smart as you. :whatever: You have a PhD? In Life Science? Hmmmmm....that must be the end-all and be-all of the sciences. :whatever:
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/great-flood-faq.htm
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=qw968787420149B251
http://www.calvaryag.org/apologetics/apologetics_11-evidence_flood.htm
There is not a single peer-reviewed scientific article in any of those citations. "Cause we said so" isn't accepted in science circles.
And since I *agree* with the scientists, I don't have to have a degree of any kind. I accept their analysis and evidence. Since you have chosen to suggest that millions of scientists, billions of data points and a theory developed over a hundred years are all wrong, the onus is on you to prove it -- scientifically.
-
My faith hasn't been attacked. FD is just showing a profound lack of it.
I am a Christian.
-
Come on...you are making claims you cannot back up. There are zero credible "data points" to prove the flood did not happen. There is certainly no proof that the earth if 4 billion years old
I noticed the smile. I assume that means you are kidding.
:whatever: isn't a smile.
I can't tell -- that's why I don't use them little commie dealies.
Anyway, here you go: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord
When you are done there, I can start supplying geology books, you know by professional geologists who only do this for a living as opposed to you... your Life Science PhD is in which field again?...
Nope, no PhD. Guess I couldn't possibly be as smart as you. :whatever: You have a PhD? In Life Science? Hmmmmm....that must be the end-all and be-all of the sciences. :whatever:
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/great-flood-faq.htm
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=qw968787420149B251
http://www.calvaryag.org/apologetics/apologetics_11-evidence_flood.htm
There is not a single peer-reviewed scientific article in any of those citations. "Cause we said so" isn't accepted in science circles.
"peer reviewed"...sounds like TNO. BTW, "cause we said so" is pretty weak for a bunch of scientists who promote theory as fact.
And since I *agree* with the scientists, I don't have to have a degree of any kind. I accept their analysis and evidence.
...but if I choose to accept the analysis and evidence presented by those who disagree with your POV, I must be wrong...? :whatever:
Since you have chosen to suggest that millions of scientists, billions of data points and a theory developed over a hundred years are all wrong, the onus is on you to prove it -- scientifically.
Well, you have chosen to suggest that billions of people throughout the world over many centuries who have studied a written history dating back thousands of years is false, the onus is on you to prove it....scientifically. Good luck with that.
-
My faith hasn't been attacked. FD is just showing a profound lack of it.
I am a Christian.
...you don't even see it, do you?
-
"peer reviewed"...sounds like TNO. BTW, "cause we said so" is pretty weak for a bunch of scientists who promote theory as fact.
No, "peer reviewed" means something in science. It means that fellow scientists in the area of expertise have reviewed the material and found it independently validated. And no one says a theory is a fact. You need to learn what a scientific theory is. For example, the Theory of Gravity is a great debating point in scientific circles. But since it is "only" a theory, do you deny gravity? You are a lay person with little to no knowledge of these things. Do you have an opinion on brain surgery? Quantum Physics? The Relational Model (this, BTW is my area of expertise)?
...but if I choose to accept the analysis and evidence presented by those who disagree with your POV, I must be wrong...? :whatever:
In this Universe 1+1=2. There is a SCIENTIFIC reason this is so -- it is based on Mathematical Theories. The fact you don't understand those theories doesn't undo the conclusion. It isn't a POV, it is provable, based on the underlying theories.
Well, you have chosen to suggest that billions of people throughout the world over many centuries who have studied a written history dating back thousands of years is false, the onus is on you to prove it....scientifically. Good luck with that.
There is no such onus on me. The Bible is a theological reference. Or are you calling the Catholic Church and its BILLIONS of adherents wrong for understanding TToE? When you decide the Bible is a scientific text, then you need to provide scientific proof supporting that allegation.
Scientists don't "just say so." They prove things using independent measurements and rigorous principles. Faith "just says so."
-
My faith hasn't been attacked. FD is just showing a profound lack of it.
I am a Christian.
...you don't even see it, do you?
When you are obtuse, no.
-
My faith hasn't been attacked. FD is just showing a profound lack of it.
I am a Christian.
...you don't even see it, do you?
When you are obtuse, no.
Actually it's quite clear, but you have chosen not to see it. Your loss.
-
"peer reviewed"...sounds like TNO. BTW, "cause we said so" is pretty weak for a bunch of scientists who promote theory as fact.
No, "peer reviewed" means something in science. It means that fellow scientists in the area of expertise have reviewed the material and found it independently validated. And no one says a theory is a fact. You need to learn what a scientific theory is. For example, the Theory of Gravity is a great debating point in scientific circles. But since it is "only" a theory, do you deny gravity? You are a lay person with little to no knowledge of these things. Do you have an opinion on brain surgery? Quantum Physics? The Relational Model (this, BTW is my area of expertise)?
...but if I choose to accept the analysis and evidence presented by those who disagree with your POV, I must be wrong...? :whatever:
In this Universe 1+1=2. There is a SCIENTIFIC reason this is so -- it is based on Mathematical Theories. The fact you don't understand those theories doesn't undo the conclusion. It isn't a POV, it is provable, based on the underlying theories.
Well, you have chosen to suggest that billions of people throughout the world over many centuries who have studied a written history dating back thousands of years is false, the onus is on you to prove it....scientifically. Good luck with that.
There is no such onus on me. The Bible is a theological reference. Or are you calling the Catholic Church and its BILLIONS of adherents wrong for understanding TToE? When you decide the Bible is a scientific text, then you need to provide scientific proof supporting that allegation.
Scientists don't "just say so." They prove things using independent measurements and rigorous principles. Faith "just says so."
Ah, now it's clear...you worship science above all else. That explains a lot.
-
My faith hasn't been attacked. FD is just showing a profound lack of it.
I am a Christian.
...you don't even see it, do you?
When you are obtuse, no.
Actually it's quite clear, but you have chosen not to see it. Your loss.
I see that reducing God's magnificence to The Q Writ Large and that not to use His greatest gift to Man, the ability to think and reason and try to explore and Understand His Universe and its wonders is sad.
-
"peer reviewed"...sounds like TNO. BTW, "cause we said so" is pretty weak for a bunch of scientists who promote theory as fact.
No, "peer reviewed" means something in science. It means that fellow scientists in the area of expertise have reviewed the material and found it independently validated. And no one says a theory is a fact. You need to learn what a scientific theory is. For example, the Theory of Gravity is a great debating point in scientific circles. But since it is "only" a theory, do you deny gravity? You are a lay person with little to no knowledge of these things. Do you have an opinion on brain surgery? Quantum Physics? The Relational Model (this, BTW is my area of expertise)?
...but if I choose to accept the analysis and evidence presented by those who disagree with your POV, I must be wrong...? :whatever:
In this Universe 1+1=2. There is a SCIENTIFIC reason this is so -- it is based on Mathematical Theories. The fact you don't understand those theories doesn't undo the conclusion. It isn't a POV, it is provable, based on the underlying theories.
Well, you have chosen to suggest that billions of people throughout the world over many centuries who have studied a written history dating back thousands of years is false, the onus is on you to prove it....scientifically. Good luck with that.
There is no such onus on me. The Bible is a theological reference. Or are you calling the Catholic Church and its BILLIONS of adherents wrong for understanding TToE? When you decide the Bible is a scientific text, then you need to provide scientific proof supporting that allegation.
Scientists don't "just say so." They prove things using independent measurements and rigorous principles. Faith "just says so."
Ah, now it's clear...you worship science above all else. That explains a lot.
I UNDERSTAND science and see it as a useful tool for exploring the Universe. You don't get to plant your interpretation where none exists.
-
"peer reviewed"...sounds like TNO. BTW, "cause we said so" is pretty weak for a bunch of scientists who promote theory as fact.
No, "peer reviewed" means something in science. It means that fellow scientists in the area of expertise have reviewed the material and found it independently validated. And no one says a theory is a fact. You need to learn what a scientific theory is. For example, the Theory of Gravity is a great debating point in scientific circles. But since it is "only" a theory, do you deny gravity? You are a lay person with little to no knowledge of these things. Do you have an opinion on brain surgery? Quantum Physics? The Relational Model (this, BTW is my area of expertise)?
...but if I choose to accept the analysis and evidence presented by those who disagree with your POV, I must be wrong...? :whatever:
In this Universe 1+1=2. There is a SCIENTIFIC reason this is so -- it is based on Mathematical Theories. The fact you don't understand those theories doesn't undo the conclusion. It isn't a POV, it is provable, based on the underlying theories.
Well, you have chosen to suggest that billions of people throughout the world over many centuries who have studied a written history dating back thousands of years is false, the onus is on you to prove it....scientifically. Good luck with that.
There is no such onus on me. The Bible is a theological reference. Or are you calling the Catholic Church and its BILLIONS of adherents wrong for understanding TToE? When you decide the Bible is a scientific text, then you need to provide scientific proof supporting that allegation.
Scientists don't "just say so." They prove things using independent measurements and rigorous principles. Faith "just says so."
Ah, now it's clear...you worship science above all else. That explains a lot.
I UNDERSTAND science and see it as a useful tool for exploring the Universe. You don't get to plant your interpretation where none exists.
So when your science conflicts with God's word whom do you choose? Now who is planting interpretations? :whatever:
-
So when your science conflicts with God's word whom do you choose? Now who is planting interpretations? :whatever:
When you make the claim that mankind has no proof that the Earth is billions of years old, you are making a claim which invites scientific scrutiny.
-
"peer reviewed"...sounds like TNO. BTW, "cause we said so" is pretty weak for a bunch of scientists who promote theory as fact.
No, "peer reviewed" means something in science. It means that fellow scientists in the area of expertise have reviewed the material and found it independently validated. And no one says a theory is a fact. You need to learn what a scientific theory is. For example, the Theory of Gravity is a great debating point in scientific circles. But since it is "only" a theory, do you deny gravity? You are a lay person with little to no knowledge of these things. Do you have an opinion on brain surgery? Quantum Physics? The Relational Model (this, BTW is my area of expertise)?
...but if I choose to accept the analysis and evidence presented by those who disagree with your POV, I must be wrong...? :whatever:
In this Universe 1+1=2. There is a SCIENTIFIC reason this is so -- it is based on Mathematical Theories. The fact you don't understand those theories doesn't undo the conclusion. It isn't a POV, it is provable, based on the underlying theories.
Well, you have chosen to suggest that billions of people throughout the world over many centuries who have studied a written history dating back thousands of years is false, the onus is on you to prove it....scientifically. Good luck with that.
There is no such onus on me. The Bible is a theological reference. Or are you calling the Catholic Church and its BILLIONS of adherents wrong for understanding TToE? When you decide the Bible is a scientific text, then you need to provide scientific proof supporting that allegation.
Scientists don't "just say so." They prove things using independent measurements and rigorous principles. Faith "just says so."
Ah, now it's clear...you worship science above all else. That explains a lot.
I UNDERSTAND science and see it as a useful tool for exploring the Universe. You don't get to plant your interpretation where none exists.
So when your science conflicts with God's word whom do you choose? Now who is planting interpretations? :whatever:
It isn't MY science. You see that thingy there? The doohickey that lets you post information on that internet-thing? With the screen and the little letters on the keys? That is the result of science. Not faith, science. You can try to move the goalposts all you want, but you have yet to address any of my posts head on. Rhetoric ain't gonna cut it.
There is ZERO conflict between science and faith. None.
And you have yet to answer my question about Catholicism. Are you saying Catholics don't worship God because they understand TToE?
Answer directly, if it is at all possible for you (which I suspect it isn't).
And your "whatever" icon doesn't make any difference. There are very real issues here and you have yet to prove any of your points. I have supported every single contention I have made with hard facts and complete reasoning. You ignore them because you can't answer them.
Sadly, people like you make Conservatives look like a bunch of luddite moonbats.
-
Sheesh, guys. Relax. I see no need for the name-calling.
-
Sheesh, guys. Relax. I see no need for the name-calling.
I didn't call anyone names. I said makes conservatives LOOK LIKE luddite moonbats.
-
There is ZERO conflict between science and faith. None.
And yet you post numerous times that the Bible is not true. That would seem to be a conflict. So where is your faith when they do not agree....science or God? It's a simple question, but seems to have struck a nerve with you.
Oh, BTW, I'm not Catholic. I don't speak for Catholics. You want to argue with a Catholic, go right ahead.
Still waiting for that answer to such a simple question...the one you keep dodging.
:whatever:
-
There is ZERO conflict between science and faith. None.
And yet you post numerous times that the Bible is not true. That would seem to be a conflict. So where is your faith when they do not agree....science or God? It's a simple question, but seems to have struck a nerve with you.
Oh, BTW, I'm not Catholic. I don't speak for Catholics. You want to argue with a Catholic, go right ahead.
Still waiting for that answer to such a simple question...the one you keep dodging.
:whatever:
There is no conflict. The Bible is an allegorical book used to guide how you live your life. It is not a scientific text. Therefore there is no question at hand. Science and the Bible don't disagree. And you were the one who posited that the Bible is used as a science text by billions. I offer you billions who believe as do I that there is no conflict. You have no answer? You say that Catholics aren't worshipping the same God as you?
And you have dodged EVERY SINGLE QUESTION I HAVE POSED TO YOU.
Let's go back over a few:
1. You say the Bible is the literal word of God. Have you read it in its original Arameic and Greek? How do you explain the discrepencies between Genesis I and Genesis II?
2. There is scientific proof in peer-reviewed journals of there being no world wide flood. What fact-based, peer-reviewed scientific refutation do you have for that?
3. Catholicism, the largest Christian denomination on the planet with over a billion adherents, says there was no global flood and understands TToE. Are these billions all wrong?
Once you get past these easy ones we can go to the tougher ones.
-
There is ZERO conflict between science and faith. None.
And yet you post numerous times that the Bible is not true. That would seem to be a conflict. So where is your faith when they do not agree....science or God? It's a simple question, but seems to have struck a nerve with you.
Oh, BTW, I'm not Catholic. I don't speak for Catholics. You want to argue with a Catholic, go right ahead.
Still waiting for that answer to such a simple question...the one you keep dodging.
:whatever:
There is no conflict. The Bible is an allegorical book used to guide how you live your life. It is not a scientific text. Therefore there is no question at hand. Science and the Bible don't disagree. And you were the one who posited that the Bible is used as a science text by billions. I offer you billions who believe as do I that there is no conflict. You have no answer? You say that Catholics aren't worshipping the same God as you?
And you have dodged EVERY SINGLE QUESTION I HAVE POSED TO YOU.
Let's go back over a few:
1. You say the Bible is the literal word of God. Have you read it in its original Arameic and Greek? How do you explain the discrepencies between Genesis I and Genesis II?
2. There is scientific proof in peer-reviewed journals of there being no world wide flood. What fact-based, peer-reviewed scientific refutation do you have for that?
3. Catholicism, the largest Christian denomination on the planet with over a billion adherents, says there was no global flood and understands TToE. Are these billions all wrong?
Once you get past these easy ones we can go to the tougher ones.
Here, let me repeat it for you:
So where is your faith when they do not agree....science or God? Genesis agrees with Darwin? ROFL.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that science and the Bible have zero differences. :whatever:
No real need for you to answer again...you already have. You worship science. That is your choice. Why not admit it?
-
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness 2 Timothy 3:16
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. 2 Peter 1:20-21
-
Come on...you are making claims you cannot back up. There are zero credible "data points" to prove the flood did not happen. There is certainly no proof that the earth if 4 billion years old
I noticed the smile. I assume that means you are kidding.
:whatever: isn't a smile.
I can't tell -- that's why I don't use them little commie dealies.
Anyway, here you go: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord
When you are done there, I can start supplying geology books, you know by professional geologists who only do this for a living as opposed to you... your Life Science PhD is in which field again?...
Might wanna back of Freedumb. Otherwise people are gonna get ripshit pissed at you for attacking their faith.
Good point. I don't want to get anyone upset. God, can you imagine the ruckus if I brought up The Theory of Gravity?
:lmao:
-
There is ZERO conflict between science and faith. None.
And yet you post numerous times that the Bible is not true. That would seem to be a conflict. So where is your faith when they do not agree....science or God? It's a simple question, but seems to have struck a nerve with you.
Oh, BTW, I'm not Catholic. I don't speak for Catholics. You want to argue with a Catholic, go right ahead.
Still waiting for that answer to such a simple question...the one you keep dodging.
:whatever:
There is no conflict. The Bible is an allegorical book used to guide how you live your life. It is not a scientific text. Therefore there is no question at hand. Science and the Bible don't disagree. And you were the one who posited that the Bible is used as a science text by billions. I offer you billions who believe as do I that there is no conflict. You have no answer? You say that Catholics aren't worshipping the same God as you?
And you have dodged EVERY SINGLE QUESTION I HAVE POSED TO YOU.
Let's go back over a few:
1. You say the Bible is the literal word of God. Have you read it in its original Arameic and Greek? How do you explain the discrepencies between Genesis I and Genesis II?
2. There is scientific proof in peer-reviewed journals of there being no world wide flood. What fact-based, peer-reviewed scientific refutation do you have for that?
3. Catholicism, the largest Christian denomination on the planet with over a billion adherents, says there was no global flood and understands TToE. Are these billions all wrong?
Once you get past these easy ones we can go to the tougher ones.
Here, let me repeat it for you:
So where is your faith when they do not agree....science or God? Genesis agrees with Darwin? ROFL.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that science and the Bible have zero differences. :whatever:
No real need for you to answer again...you already have. You worship science. That is your choice. Why not admit it?
You clearly are incapable of understanding my answer -- there is no conflict. I have stated that case and I stand by it. I am a Christian. Or are you saying Catholics aren't Christians?
Now answer my questions.
-
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness 2 Timothy 3:16
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. 2 Peter 1:20-21
So, that exempts you from reading those words in their original language? How do you know their meaning hasn't been altered through translation?
If you don't read the Bible in its original language then you aren't reading the Literal Word of God. And generally, that is OK, since the Bible is meant to show you Man's relationship to God, bot man's relationship to matter and energy.
-
There is ZERO conflict between science and faith. None.
And yet you post numerous times that the Bible is not true. That would seem to be a conflict. So where is your faith when they do not agree....science or God? It's a simple question, but seems to have struck a nerve with you.
Oh, BTW, I'm not Catholic. I don't speak for Catholics. You want to argue with a Catholic, go right ahead.
Still waiting for that answer to such a simple question...the one you keep dodging.
:whatever:
There is no conflict. The Bible is an allegorical book used to guide how you live your life. It is not a scientific text. Therefore there is no question at hand. Science and the Bible don't disagree. And you were the one who posited that the Bible is used as a science text by billions. I offer you billions who believe as do I that there is no conflict. You have no answer? You say that Catholics aren't worshipping the same God as you?
And you have dodged EVERY SINGLE QUESTION I HAVE POSED TO YOU.
Let's go back over a few:
1. You say the Bible is the literal word of God. Have you read it in its original Arameic and Greek? How do you explain the discrepencies between Genesis I and Genesis II?
2. There is scientific proof in peer-reviewed journals of there being no world wide flood. What fact-based, peer-reviewed scientific refutation do you have for that?
3. Catholicism, the largest Christian denomination on the planet with over a billion adherents, says there was no global flood and understands TToE. Are these billions all wrong?
Once you get past these easy ones we can go to the tougher ones.
Here, let me repeat it for you:
So where is your faith when they do not agree....science or God? Genesis agrees with Darwin? ROFL.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that science and the Bible have zero differences. :whatever:
No real need for you to answer again...you already have. You worship science. That is your choice. Why not admit it?
You clearly are incapable of understanding my answer -- there is no conflict. I have stated that case and I stand by it. I am a Christian. Or are you saying Catholics aren't Christians?
Now answer my questions.
You seem to have a real problem with Catholics and their beliefs.
Genesis agrees with Darwin? ROFL
1 Co 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from
the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot
understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 John 4:6
We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is
not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of
truth and the spirit of falsehood.
2 TI 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching,
rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
-
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness 2 Timothy 3:16
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. 2 Peter 1:20-21
So, that exempts you from reading those words in their original language? How do you know their meaning hasn't been altered through translation?
You do all that scientific research yourself? How do you know the results hasn't been altered? It all depends on where you choose to place your faith first.
If you don't read the Bible in its original language then you aren't reading the Literal Word of God. And generally, that is OK, since the Bible is meant to show you Man's relationship to God, bot man's relationship to matter and energy.
-
Here, let me repeat it for you:
So where is your faith when they do not agree....science or God? Genesis agrees with Darwin? ROFL.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that science and the Bible have zero differences. :whatever:
No real need for you to answer again...you already have. You worship science. That is your choice. Why not admit it?
Don't want to jump into a crocodile pond here, but I'd like to point out one small thing. Not Darwin, necessarily, but the creation story and the scientific theory of world origins match up surprisingly well. I did a paper on this in college.
The order of creation in Genesis--God creating the heavens and the earth, let there be light, etc., etc., match up pretty closely with the Big Bang theory. Man was created last, according to Genesis, and we're evolutionary late-comers, according to scientists. When you consider the limitations of the languages of antiquity, it gets pretty interesting. What is time to God? How can there be a day, for example, when there was no earth to rotate yet, and no sun to shine?
Some of it is pretty intruiging. The comparisons are really interesting.
-
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness 2 Timothy 3:16
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. 2 Peter 1:20-21
So, that exempts you from reading those words in their original language? How do you know their meaning hasn't been altered through translation?
You do all that scientific research yourself? How do you know the results hasn't been altered? It all depends on where you choose to place your faith first.
If you don't read the Bible in its original language then you aren't reading the Literal Word of God. And generally, that is OK, since the Bible is meant to show you Man's relationship to God, bot man's relationship to matter and energy.
I do read scientific journals, so yes I read the published works (which is how science operates) in their original form. I also read the critiques.
So, are you going to answer my very easy questions? or will you just keep throwing things at me? if you are defeated, then say so then everyone can go home.
-
Here, let me repeat it for you:
So where is your faith when they do not agree....science or God? Genesis agrees with Darwin? ROFL.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that science and the Bible have zero differences. :whatever:
No real need for you to answer again...you already have. You worship science. That is your choice. Why not admit it?
Don't want to jump into a crocodile pond here, but I'd like to point out one small thing. Not Darwin, necessarily, but the creation story and the scientific theory of world origins match up surprisingly well. I did a paper on this in college.
The order of creation in Genesis--God creating the heavens and the earth, let there be light, etc., etc., match up pretty closely with the Big Bang theory. Man was created last, according to Genesis, and we're evolutionary late-comers, according to scientists. When you consider the limitations of the languages of antiquity, it gets pretty interesting. What is time to God? How can there be a day, for example, when there was no earth to rotate yet, and no sun to shine?
Some of it is pretty intruiging. The comparisons are really interesting.
What I find incredible is that so many people think that Genesis was written by Moses instead of merely scribed by him. What human would ever say that light came before the sun?
-
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness 2 Timothy 3:16
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. 2 Peter 1:20-21
So, that exempts you from reading those words in their original language? How do you know their meaning hasn't been altered through translation?
You do all that scientific research yourself? How do you know the results hasn't been altered? It all depends on where you choose to place your faith first.
If you don't read the Bible in its original language then you aren't reading the Literal Word of God. And generally, that is OK, since the Bible is meant to show you Man's relationship to God, bot man's relationship to matter and energy.
I do read scientific journals, so yes I read the published works (which is how science operates) in their original form. I also read the critiques.
So, are you going to answer my very easy questions? or will you just keep throwing things at me? if you are defeated, then say so then everyone can go home.
So you read the "published works" but not the original notes from the research. ..and the critiques...
See the comparison?
So where is your faith when they do not agree....science or God?
-
So you read the "published works" but not the original notes from the research. ..and the critiques...
See the comparison?
False comparison. The published works ARE the science. And they are all recent. You claim to be reading The Word, but have yet to read The Word.
So where is your faith when they do not agree....science or God?
It hasn't happened nor shall it happen. Since religion has no way to expand, it can't change. Since there has been no discrepancy, there will not be a discrepancy.
My faith is secure as a guide for my theology, as is my reliance on science as a guide for physicality.