Faith in Creation

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I rembered a thing that I heard back when I was a Christian, I guess it was six or more years ago. "It takes less faith to believe God created everything than that it just happened." Obviously they're ignorant and don't know what they're talking about, but did you catch the kicker? "It takes less faith", therefore this is their reason for accepting the Genesis account(or even Old Earthism). They're saying faith is a bad thing, so the less you have the better. I'm sooooo good. I'll have to try this out on someone if they ever say Creationism takes less faith to me.

[Yahweh]

There was a post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870294882&highlight=evidenced+AND+faith#post1870294882) I wrote about this a while back:
There are 2 types of faith:

1. Blind Faith
2. And Evidenced Faith

The only thing Blind Faith requires is blind belief. Blind Faith can never be used to assert positive belief or disbelief, it is perfectly justifyable for "personal belief". It doesnt mean anything in terms of determining what is "true" or "untrue".

Evidenced Faith requires evidence. When you say "I am going to throw this ball, and it will travel a parabolic path through the air", then you need evidence to back that claim up. You can cite the Laws of Physics as your evidence, or you could perform an experiment, or you could cite examples where this observation in similar conditions has always been correct.

However, when you assert a positive claim that requires evidence, but the Evidenced Faith is contradicted by currently existing evidence, you must reject the faith. Refusing to do so, and that Evidenced Faith becomes labeled with a term called "Willful Ignorance".

...

In actuality, I was trying to call "science" by a name which Iaachus could relate to.

I often find using the "Blind Faith vs. Evidenced Faith" analogy is good for defeating arguments that sound like "Evolution requires just as much faith as Creationism". And that is absolutely correct, however readers of those kinds of arguments implicitly assume the faith being referred to is blind faith, but that is not the case. Evolution requires Evidenced Faith (or science), and I would hold Creationism to the same standards of Evidenced Faith. No evidence for Creationism, then Creationism must be abandoned.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I think it's dumb to call it Evidenced Faith though. It's like calling shrimp Jumbo, Creationism science, nihilists Christians etc. I call it confidence.

[Gestahl]

As much as faith is rationalized and evidenced, it is no longer faith. It is reason.

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
but did you catch the kicker? "It takes less faith",

I think you're missing the point they are trying to make.

If I make the argument that "the only evidence you have about Creation is your faith in the bible", then responding with "it takes less faith to believe in the bible then evolution" is not kicking faith but is aimed as a kick to the original argument.

I don't agree with that, but that is the argument creationists are making. They are not being critical of faith but are throwing the argument back on the evolutionist.

Man I hope I explained what I mean well.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by Bearguin
I think you're missing the point they are trying to make.

If I make the argument that "the only evidence you have about Creation is your faith in the bible", then responding with "it takes less faith to believe in the bible then evolution" is not kicking faith but is aimed as a kick to the original argument.




I don't think so, because what would it matter what level of faith is needed to accept something is true if faith isn't a bad thing. Do you see what I'm getting at? Not all Christian sects have the goal of turning into a person if infinite faith, but some do. The sects that make arguments like this(fundamentalists) do have that goal. So it's very very ironic, even funny, in a feeling-sorry-for-them-being-so-stupid kind of way.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Bearguin
Man I hope I explained what I mean well.

Actually, you are right and did explain it well.

But I havent heard it said as of late.

[Mid]

Originally posted by SkepticJ

...snip...
"It takes less faith to believe God created everything than that it just happened."
...snip...


That's just depressing as it seems to boil down to "it's easier for me to just accept this story than to go out and actually think about the evidence".

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I often find using the "Blind Faith vs. Evidenced Faith" analogy is good for defeating arguments that sound like "Evolution requires just as much faith as Creationism". And that is absolutely correct, however readers of those kinds of arguments implicitly assume the faith being referred to is blind faith, but that is not the case. Evolution requires Evidenced Faith (or science), and I would hold Creationism to the same standards of Evidenced Faith. No evidence for Creationism, then Creationism must be abandoned. Yes, the evidence would tend to suggest it's not possible for something to come from nothing and, that things don't "just" happen. So, in this respect the "Creationsists" are correct. That doesn't suggest that their version of Creation is correct, however ... albeit the notion of "something" being responsible for Creation seems more likely. Indeed, if there was "nothing" there at the outset, then where is your evidence?

[Ossai]

Iacchus
albeit the notion of "something" being responsible for Creation seems more likely. Indeed, if there was "nothing" there at the outset, where is your evidence?
Not really. All the “something� does is beg the question of “where did something come from?� It doesn’t actually answer anything.

Ossai

[wollery]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, the evidence would tend to suggest it's not possible for something to come from nothing and, that things don't "just" happen. So, in this respect the "Creationsists" are correct. That doesn't suggest that their version of Creation is correct, however ... albeit the notion of "something" being responsible for Creation seems more likely. Indeed if there was "nothing" there, then where is your evidence? So where exactly did this "something" come from?

No, wait, don't tell me, let me guess, it was ....... something else ........ :rolleyes:

eta Darn, beaten to it!!

[Iacchus]

Yes, you folks continue to insist on "the evidence," yet what kind of evidence is there in concluding things "just" happen? I see no evidence in that in the least. Do you? It sounds very "unscientific."

[wollery]

And I suppose you have some evidence that there was "something" which caused the Universe to come into being do you?

If not, then your position is no more tenable than any other which has no supporting evidence, no matter how reasonable you believe it to be.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, you folks continue to insist on "the evidence," yet what kind of evidence is there in concluding things "just" happen? I see no evidence in that in the least. Do you? Yes. I'll refer you to quantum fluctuations, Hawking Radiation, isotope decay, random biological mutation, and so on.

Just because you choose not to look, doesn't mean it isn't there to see.
It sounds very "unscientific." What is unscientific is refusing to learn certain things because you fear they will <strike>challenge your world view</strike> have a corrupting effect on you.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by wollery
And I suppose you have some evidence that there was "something" which caused the Universe to come into being do you?

If not, then your position is no more tenable than any other which has no supporting evidence, no matter how reasonable you believe it to be. Do you believe that science can be proven wrong? After all, what is the reasonable assessment (i.e., theory) of evolution all about? Or, what exactly do you mean by reasonable?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Mid
That's just depressing as it seems to boil down to "it's easier for me to just accept this story than to go out and actually think about the evidence".

No... it boils down to:

"It's more comfortable for me to continue believing in what I was taught all my life, instead of looking at things that may force me to question those beliefs."

Not quite the same thing...

[wollery]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you believe that science can be proven wrong? After all, what is the reasonable assessment (i.e., theory) of evolution all about? Or, what exactly do you mean by reasonable? Of course individual theories can be proven wrong, that's what the scientific method is all about. Science, as such, cannot be proven to be anything, it just is a method for research and discovery.

By reasonable I meant a theory that has no supporting evidence but that makes perfect sense to you (or whoever). In that respect, at least, your theory that something cannot come from nothing is reasonable. Although there is evidence to the contrary (see Upchurch's post).

Evolution, on the other hand has a huge amount of supporting evidence.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by wollery
Of course individual theories can be proven wrong, that's what the scientific method is all about. Science, as such, cannot be proven to be anything, it just is a method for research and discovery.

By reasonable I meant a theory that has no supporting evidence but that makes perfect sense to you (or whoever). In that respect, at least, your theory that something cannot come from nothing is reasonable. Although there is evidence to the contrary (see Upchurch's post).

Evolution, on the other hand has a huge amount of supporting evidence. So, why is it that the cicadas only come out to breed every 17 years? Do you think it's something internally that tells them to do this or, something externally? Couldn't this be construed as a sign of faith if there was no external evidence to support this?

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by wollery
So where exactly did this "something" come from?

No, wait, don't tell me, let me guess, it was ....... something else ........ :rolleyes:

eta Darn, beaten to it!!

It's turtles ALL the way! ;)


Mosquito

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Yes. I'll refer you to quantum fluctuations, Hawking Radiation, isotope decay, random biological mutation, and so on.

Just because you choose not to look, doesn't mean it isn't there to see.And this is merely evidence of what? Of how much "you" don't know?

What is unscientific is refusing to learn certain things because you fear they will <strike>challenge your world view</strike> have a corrupting effect on you. Either that or, it's simply not true. If everything happened purely at random, then what purpose would the evidence serve? There would be no coherence to anything. And that's absurd.

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Yes. I'll refer you to quantum fluctuations, Hawking Radiation, isotope decay, random biological mutation, and so on.

Just because you choose not to look, doesn't mean it isn't there to see.
What is unscientific is refusing to learn certain things because you fear they will <strike>challenge your world view</strike> have a corrupting effect on you.

Just because something seems random, doesn't mean that it is random. There may be fully deterministic/mechanistic processes underneath that we are just not familiar with, yet.

And this does not mean that goddidit or any other wooism is correct. It just means that our current understanding is a few levels short of perfect.

A wise man once said: "Just because you choose not to look, doesn't mean it isn't there to see." Sometimes the choice is not ours to make, we can only see what our eyes and instruments can detect. But we can continue improving our instruments and hopefully one day we can se what makes parts of the quantum world seem random.

Maybe these parts of the quantum world really are random, but until we've checked, and double-checked, it may still be mechanistic.

Many things have seemed random, until better knowledge was found. As we're still collecting knowledge, we may still learn a few things.


Mosquito

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And this is merely evidence of what? Of how much "you" don't know?No, this is the evidence you asked for shows that some things just happen.
Either that or, it's simply not true. If everything happened purely at random, then what purpose would the evidence serve? There would be no coherence to anything. And that's absurd. The evidence servers the purpose for helping us understand our surroundings. If you refuse to learn certain things (as you have said that you do), you will never be in the position to determine whether or not something is true, or even absurd, simply because you lack the information to make that determination.

Ultimately, you are asking questions for which you are not interested in finding the answers.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Mosquito
Just because something seems random, doesn't mean that it is random. There may be fully deterministic/mechanistic processes underneath that we are just not familiar with, yet. Entirely possible. The reliability of the scientific proccess is in it's ability to self-correct and continually improve.

The best information to date is that these events are random, so without theories/evidence to the contrary, it is incorrect to say that there is no evidence that some things "just happen". There is clearly some very strong evidence to this effect.

[rocketdodger]

This thread is hard for my brain to follow....

Is anyone actually defending faith in creation? I see you arguing back and forth but I don't understand about what.


The way I see it, science involves faith just like religion. An athiest scientist must have faith that somehow the universe was created, since it is impossible to know exactly how or why, faith that sub-atomic particles and energy will behave the way we have discovered them to behave, because we cannot know exactly how or why, and faith about the limits of the known universe, because again, we cannot know exactly how or why. But once one has faith in those remote ideas, we can build up all we know about our world using reason.

In contrast a creationist must take almost everything on faith, which is a much bigger jump to make if you ask me. It seems like the difference between a scientist and a priest is that a scientist will admit what he doesn't know and tell you he is trying to find out about it.

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Entirely possible. The reliability of the scientific proccess is in it's ability to self-correct and continually improve.

The best information to date is that these events are random, so without theories/evidence to the contrary, it is incorrect to say that there is no evidence that some things "just happen". There is clearly some very strong evidence to this effect.

True, it is just that "It's the will of God"/"goddidit" and "it's random" seems to have something in common...

If the idea is that these processes are truly random, why check? What can you possibly learn about something that is random?

While the evidence is going to the side of "random" I feel it is important that the searches goes for the "mechanistic" view. If for nothing else, than to fail miserably and establishing that this stuff is random and nothing further can be learned about it. (which sounds defeatist and depressing)

Mosquito - being deterministic

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Mosquito
True, it is just that "It's the will of God"/"goddidit" and "it's random" seems to have something in common...What?
If the idea is that these processes are truly random, why check? What can you possibly learn about something that is random?Welcome to Chaos Theory, Statistics, and Quantum Mechanics! The answer to your question is: quite a bit, actually. Something can be random and still have patterns of behavior and predictiable-ish outcomes.

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by rocketdodger
This thread is hard for my brain to follow....

This problem can be fixed. This board is full of members with so much brain that they can probably sell you some upgrades. There is in fact so much brains on this board that the laws of supply and demand means that you should be able to make a really good deal.

Originally posted by rocketdodger
Is anyone actually defending faith in creation? I see you arguing back and forth but I don't understand about what.


On this board we ban creationists on sight. That is why you will never see any conflicting views here. In particular, you'll never see anybody defending creationism. Their posts will be deleted, if not sufficiently easily debunked.

Actually, this question worries me, didn't you check the membership agreement when you signed up? Especially the parts about "declaration of faith in Science, Evilution and our most holy God Darwin"?

I suggest that you read up on that, and also check the long list of web-sites you are not allowed to link to or reference while discussing on these boards. I will not mention them here, for I value my access to these boards.

Originally posted by rocketdodger
The way I see it, science involves faith just like religion. An athiest scientist must have faith that somehow the universe was created, since it is impossible to know exactly how or why, faith that sub-atomic particles and energy will behave the way we have discovered them to behave, because we cannot know exactly how or why, and faith about the limits of the known universe, because again, we cannot know exactly how or why. But once one has faith in those remote ideas, we can build up all we know about our world using reason.

In contrast a creationist must take almost everything on faith, which is a much bigger jump to make if you ask me. It seems like the difference between a scientist and a priest is that a scientist will admit what he doesn't know and tell you he is trying to find out about it.

This is correct. This is how you see it. Your view is, however, wrong.

Science requires faith in that that which has worked will continue to work, and that which has not worked will not start working. Then it searches for things that work, and in the process it finds a lot of things that don't work.

Creationism requires faith in that that which has worked will continue to work if it supports the religion and fail if it undermines it, and that which has not worked will work if it is needed for religion and will not work if not needed. Also, it requires that the followers are not actually curious and checks anything.


The difference between a scientist and a priest is not that a priest can't tell you he don't know. It is that a scientist will try to find out the right answer, and a priest will forbid any search into that which may limit his powerbase (just about anything), and quite possibly demand that any messenger of bad news are wiped out.


Mosquito - not being totally honest, am I?
;)

[triadboy]

Originally posted by rocketdodger
The way I see it, science involves faith just like religion. An athiest scientist must have faith that somehow the universe was created, since it is impossible to know exactly how or why, faith that sub-atomic particles and energy will behave the way we have discovered them to behave, because we cannot know exactly how or why, and faith about the limits of the known universe, because again, we cannot know exactly how or why. But once one has faith in those remote ideas, we can build up all we know about our world using reason.


Scientists don't deal in 'faith'.

Faith is belief that DOES NOT rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Science rests on logical proof or material evidence.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Mosquito
On this board we ban creationists on sight. That is why you will never see any conflicting views here. In particular, you'll never see anybody defending creationism. Their posts will be deleted, if not sufficiently easily debunked.

Actually, this question worries me, didn't you check the membership agreement when you signed up? Especially the parts about "declaration of faith in Science, Evilution and our most holy God Darwin"?

I suggest that you read up on that, and also check the long list of web-sites you are not allowed to link to or reference while discussing on these boards. I will not mention them here, for I value my access to these boards.

{snip}

Mosquito - not being totally honest, am I?
;) This will teach me to read an entire post before jumping to conclusions. :D

[rocketdodger]

Maybe we have differing definitions of faith here.

To me, taking something on "faith" means accepting that it will or won't happen, without knowing how or why it will or won't happen. By that token, science must involve faith, because at the limits of science are things that we just have to accept without knowing the how or why.

This doesn't mean that we won't find out the how or why sooner or later, but for the time being we have no choice but to take it on faith. Either that or throw away every scientific advancement in history.

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by Upchurch
What?
Welcome to Chaos Theory, Statistics, and Quantum Mechanics! The answer to your question is: quite a bit, actually. Something can be random and still have patterns of behavior and predictiable-ish outcomes.

It's just that something that actually is random, as opposed to just complex or chaotic (chaos is NOT random, it is purely deterministic) is something I have a hard time understanding that we can learn something about. It becomes very similar to "the will of God", which is something else we may be unable to learn anything about and thus it limits the will to search. Searching for further answers becomes futile.

Bu I may have a wrong idea as to what we're talking about, in effect what is "random"?

A loaded die has a pattern of behaviour (a favoured side), is it actually random?

A fair die is random (at least for practical purposes), does it have patterns of behaviour?

I'm missing something, and may have to resort to buying some surplus brain-modules. :)


Mosquito

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by rocketdodger
Maybe we have differing definitions of faith here.

To me, taking something on "faith" means accepting that it will or won't happen, without knowing how or why it will or won't happen. By that token, science must involve faith, because at the limits of science are things that we just have to accept without knowing the how or why.

This doesn't mean that we won't find out the how or why sooner or later, but for the time being we have no choice but to take it on faith. Either that or throw away every scientific advancement in history.

I see, yes, we have a slightly differing idea about what "faith" means. In effect, you seem to put all different types of "faith" in one basket. This may be fine in everyday conversation, but it does fail on these forums because it fails to differentiate between the different types of "faith".

I have "faith" that if I drop something, it will fall towards the Earth. Some people have "faith" that if they say some magic words, the Creator of the universe and most powerful being possible will come running to do their bidding. Nevermind what plan this Creator supposedly have.

One of these "faith"s is based on seeing what works and going with that, the other is based on whishing something was true.

As you can see, there is a difference between having faith in what has been, and still can be, shown to work and having faith in what (in many cases) have been shown not to work or which cannot possibly work or at best may have worked, once upon a time.

One of these faiths is rational, the other is irrational.


Mosquito - trying to be rational
:)

ETA: Or you can go by triadboy's definition, that works too.

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by Upchurch
This will teach me to read an entire post before jumping to conclusions. :D

Happy to be of help :)


Mosquito (proud)

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by rocketdodger
Maybe we have differing definitions of faith here.

To me, taking something on "faith" means accepting that it will or won't happen, without knowing how or why it will or won't happen. By that token, science must involve faith, because at the limits of science are things that we just have to accept without knowing the how or why.

This doesn't mean that we won't find out the how or why sooner or later, but for the time being we have no choice but to take it on faith. Either that or throw away every scientific advancement in history.

Mosquito you may have a point on differing views of the word faith but rocketdodger wins second behind bearguin for the best answer to the original question. :)

Creation says God started it all and set it in motion
Darwin says it started and got set in motion

The original comment was commenting that both are not proved beyond the shadow of doubt, and neither can be proven beyond the shadow of doubt.

The comment is saying there is more that makes sense about creation then for evolution. Because evolution is still working it out what exactly happened. Whereas God said how it happened.

THEN the other debates can start but this is what the ORIGINAL COMMENT was about.

If SkepticJ wanted the answer this is it. Doesnt mean it has to be agreed, its just the answer. :)



(And btw before Im flamed about what started God the answer is nothing started God, He said I am the begining and the end. He always is, so He has no start or end. As well, agree or not thats the answer. )

[c4ts]

For some reason, the Creationists assume that because they live in their own little world, everyone else must do the same.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by c4ts
For some reason, the Creationists assume that because they live in their own little world, everyone else must do the same.

Noo you dont have to but you are more than welcome.

Can always use more cats! :D

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
evidence servers the purpose for helping us understand our surroundings. If you refuse to learn certain things (as you have said that you do), you will never be in the position to determine whether or not something is true, or even absurd, simply because you lack the information to make that determination.

Ultimately, you are asking questions for which you are not interested in finding the answers. In the beginning, there was total incoherence. And then, for some strange reason, it became evidently clear. Is this not the theory you subscribe to? Hmm ...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
In the beginning, there was total incoherence. And then, for some strange reason, it became evidently clear. Is this not the theory you subscribe to? Hmm ... Who, me? No, I'm not familiar with this theory.

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Mosquito you may have a point on differing views of the word faith but rocketdodger wins second behind bearguin for the best answer to the original question. :)

Creation says God started it all and set it in motion
Darwin says it started and got set in motion

The original comment was commenting that both are not proved beyond the shadow of doubt, and neither can be proven beyond the shadow of doubt.

The comment is saying there is more that makes sense about creation then for evolution. Because evolution is still working it out what exactly happened. Whereas God said how it happened.

THEN the other debates can start but this is what the ORIGINAL COMMENT was about.

If SkepticJ wanted the answer this is it. Doesnt mean it has to be agreed, its just the answer. :)



(And btw before Im flamed about what started God the answer is nothing started God, He said I am the begining and the end. He always is, so He has no start or end. As well, agree or not thats the answer. )


I am not going to comment on who's winning this thread, but...

What you're saying about Creation and Darwin is basically indistinguishable, unless The Committee For Making A Really Big Mess comes clear and explains what they did.

Creation does NOT make more sense than evolution, it used to, a couple of centuries ago, but it doesn't anymore. No version of creation does. (I assume you are talking about the "Southern Baptist USA only, possibly actually only your local church"-version of creation). There are a whole lot of very different creation myths out there, and none of them seem to fit the data... Though several seem to claim they do, and do so better than everything else.

Evolution is not working out what happened. Scientists are working out what happened.

God did NOT say how it happened, God has, wisely, kept his mouth shut so as to avoid embarrassment.

Mosquito - My god is bigger than yours!

ETA: OK, so your location is Canada, my mistake, but I think the rest of my ramblings still hold.

Edit: Some punctuation and typo.

[Mid]

Originally posted by jmercer
No... it boils down to:

"It's more comfortable for me to continue believing in what I was taught all my life, instead of looking at things that may force me to question those beliefs."

Not quite the same thing...

I think this could be the case with the majority of fundamentalists, but not all of them; as I would assume that at least some people who come from none creationist families actually choose a fundamentalist religious belief, for whatever strange reasons. Although obviously in this case there would be a psychological element for rejecting the evidence of evolution in favour of the biblical story, in that the rejection could be there to reinforce their chosen beliefs.

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
I don't think so, because what would it matter what level of faith is needed to accept something is true if faith isn't a bad thing.

[Sidetrack to original topic]

I'm trying to explain what I mean better.

If my complaint with a religion is that it is based on faith, then a good counter to my complaint is "well it takes more faith to not beleive".

They are not saying that faith is a bad thing.

They are saying that I said faith is a bad thing but that I am using more of what I think is a bad thing to not believe. They are trying to accuse me of being a hypocrate. (I really need to learn to spell that).

So, if I think faith is a bad thing AND it takes more faith to not believe, then I am a hypocrate and their argument makes sense.

Of course thet have not shown the second statement to be true.

[/sidetrack to original topic]

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Mosquito I am not going to comment on who's winning this thread, but...

Bearguin I see his latest post He still wins for pinning the original answer :D (Im just trying to have fun) <but he still wins>

What you're saying about Creation and Darwin is basically indistinguishable, unless The Committee For Making A Really Big Mess comes clear and explains what they did.

:D too funny and true.

Creation does NOT make more sense than evolution, it used to, a couple of centuries ago, but it doesn't anymore. No version of creation does. (I assume you are talking about the "Southern Baptist USA only, possibly actually only your local church"-version of creation). There are a whole lot of very different creation myths out there, and none of them seem to fit the data... Though several seem to claim they do, and do so better than everything else.

Im only speaking about the comment, the comment and what its saying. I know, Ive heard others say it.

Now, I wanna say here and Im gonna be honest, this is one of those lines that are supposed to stop atheists in their tracks and make em think. I do not agree with that. In fact things like that are only inflammatory and not part of, can I say reasoned thinking.

Evolution is not working out what happened. Scientists are working out what happened.

whoops I meant scientists

God did NOT say how it happened, God has, wisely, kept his mouth shut so as to avoid embarrassment.

Hmm no, In the begining God created . . . He did say, its just so many kick it around the block and add their 2 bits and mess it up. As you have pointed out.

When they come across something, they justifiy it with their reasonings rather than letting the words speak for themselves. Then other times some get insulted and try to remove the words from science, and embarass themselves.

Like Ive said before IF God is God then He would be a fan of science (having invented it) and those trying to remove it are mistaken.

[wollery]

Originally posted by Iacchus
In the beginning, there was total incoherence. And then, for some strange reason, it became evidently clear. Is this not the theory you subscribe to? Hmm ... There's still a fair bit of incoherence around, some of it is evidenced in these forums!! :D :p

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Darwin says it started and got set in motion


He said no such thing. Darwin only made some observations, and drew a few conclusions out of those observations.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
(And btw before Im flamed about what started God the answer is nothing started God, He said I am the begining and the end. He always is, so He has no start or end. As well, agree or not thats the answer. )



Maybe the universe is its own cause. If God can exist without a creator why not a universe?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Hmm no, In the begining God created . . . He did say, its just so many kick it around the block and add their 2 bits and mess it up. As you have pointed out.

When they come across something, they justifiy it with their reasonings rather than letting the words speak for themselves. Then other times some get insulted and try to remove the words from science, and embarass themselves.

Like Ive said before IF God is God then He would be a fan of science (having invented it) and those trying to remove it are mistaken.


The huge problem is Genesis is very very wrong. It has birds coming before reptiles etc. Not to forget that if you trace the lifespans in the Bible back, Creation was a little over 6,000 years ago. "Allegory."; bullsh*t. Name me another Creation story from another ancient religion that wasn't meant to be literal. Why would God inspire a story so far from the truth? Why not tell us the Earth is 4,500,000,000 years old, that the Earth is spherical instead of a landmass out in the middle of a flat ocean, how Organic Evolution works, what creatures existed in the past but do no longer and why he's so inept so he can't create anything better than this. Planets aren't the best thing possible, try suprastellar and supramundane worlds (http://www.paulbirch.net/) . Microphones aren't damaged by the sounds of gunfire; can't God make ears as durable as imperfect humans are smart enough to create? This list could go on and on for days.

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Bearguin I see his latest post He still wins for pinning the original answer :D (Im just trying to have fun) <but he still wins>


Problem with Bearguin is that he sticks to the original topic. I think he's some kind of troublemaker.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Im only speaking about the comment, the comment and what its saying. I know, Ive heard others say it.

Now, I wanna say here and Im gonna be honest, this is one of those lines that are supposed to stop atheists in their tracks and make em think. I do not agree with that. In fact things like that are only inflammatory and not part of, can I say reasoned thinking.

Those arguments, unfortunately have a tendency of being very strong from the fundy position, and either meaningless or completely non sequitor from a non-fundy position.

I've seen some of these "showstopper" arguments, and they are not really made for atheists, they are made for "angry with god"-christians, or something similar.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Hmm no, In the begining God created . . . He did say, its just so many kick it around the block and add their 2 bits and mess it up. As you have pointed out.

Hmm, no, On the first day Nothing happened. On the second day Nothing continued to happen, but with rather less enthusiasm. On the third day Nothing got bored and left, the Universe happened.

Not a word of or from God in that...

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
When they come across something, they justifiy it with their reasonings rather than letting the words speak for themselves. Then other times some get insulted and try to remove the words from science, and embarass themselves.

Like Ive said before IF God is God then He would be a fan of science (having invented it) and those trying to remove it are mistaken.

Science can be viewed as an alternative way of knowing god. One that includes asking god questions and listening to the answers.

Religion is trying to know god by talking with some doofus about what said doofus would like god to be like or reading some book written by somebody who claim to know god but semingly can't get simple facts straight. It's like learning about Elvis by reading "Elvis, a biography" by John "never did any research on Elvis, but the book is really fat and has lots of chapters, I think my Elvis is the coolest Elvis ever" Doe, (12).

Also, science talks in a language understandable by contemporaries, and within the cultural framework. Religion talks in a language that either did not make sense ever, or whose sense has long been lost to the chasm of language and culture.


Mosquito - runner up in this thread?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by wollery
There's still a fair bit of incoherence around, some of it is evidenced in these forums!! :D :p Ah yes, but as some of you folks like to claim, the Universe would exist wholly and completely with or without our being here. ;) So, the fact that we may not be aware of reality in the ultimate sense (it's not possible), has nothing to do with it.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
The huge problem is Genesis is very very wrong. It has birds coming before reptiles etc. Not to forget that if you trace the lifespans in the Bible back, Creation was a little over 6,000 years ago. "Allegory."; bullsh*t. Name me another Creation story from another ancient religion that wasn't meant to be literal. Why would God inspire a story so far from the truth? Why not tell us the Earth is 4,500,000,000 years old, that the Earth is spherical instead of a landmass out in the middle of a flat ocean, how Organic Evolution works, what creatures existed in the past but do no longer and why he's so inept so he can't create anything better than this. Planets aren't the best thing possible, try suprastellar and supramundane worlds (http://www.paulbirch.net/) . Microphones aren't damaged by the sounds of gunfire; can't God make ears as durable as imperfect humans are smart enough to create? This list could go on and on for days.

Well SkepticJ I was trying to be fair and say there are some christians who tend to mix up stuff and not include science as if its some kind of evil thing. Whereas my only comment was If God did create everything then He would have invented science too. And those christians should think about that before pronouncing it evil.

Half the stuff your talking about in these creation stories above I dont know about. Im just learning, havent figured it all out to some degree Im happy with. I just know that with the exception of some miracles God works within science and its "rules"

(rules as a word to generally describe various aspects of science)

and not to mention answer the original question you asked :)

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Mosquito
Problem with Bearguin is that he sticks to the original topic. I think he's some kind of troublemaker.

:)

Those arguments, unfortunately have a tendency of being very strong from the fundy position, and either meaningless or completely non sequitor from a non-fundy position.
I've seen some of these "showstopper" arguments, and they are not really made for atheists, they are made for "angry with god"-christians, or something similar.

Thats why Im throwing them under the bus :)

As for God saying how He did it, He did through the bible. So to say He never said a thing is unaccurate, sorry. If you dont believe the bible is inspired by God then fine. But if you do then He did say How He made it.

Science can be viewed as an alternative way of knowing god. One that includes asking god questions and listening to the answers.

Religion is trying to know god by talking with some doofus about what said doofus would like god to be like or reading some book written by somebody who claim to know god but semingly can't get simple facts straight. It's like learning about Elvis by reading "Elvis, a biography" by John "never did any research on Elvis, but the book is really fat and has lots of chapters, I think my Elvis is the coolest Elvis ever" Doe, (12).

Also, science talks in a language understandable by contemporaries, and within the cultural framework. Religion talks in a language that either did not make sense ever, or whose sense has long been lost to the chasm of language and culture.

Well, I dont try to know God by talking to a doofus, I go for various discussions, reading, scripture, prayer, just like was recommened by God to understand things. Never talk to one or two sources. Yea some of the language is hard but if you take a moment to think about things and research it out its not that bad. There are some things not understood completely, but the same goes for science anyway. Some things are not understood compeletly yet either.

As for science language its like shop talk and hard to understand but with the same thought and research it can be understood as well.

Mosquito - runner up in this thread?

Yes you can be second runner up :D

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Well SkepticJ I was trying to be fair and say there are some christians who tend to mix up stuff and not include science as if its some kind of evil thing. Whereas my only comment was If God did create everything then He would have invented science too. And those christians should think about that before pronouncing it evil.

Half the stuff your talking about in these creation stories above I dont know about. Im just learning, havent figured it all out to some degree Im happy with. I just know that with the exception of some miracles God works within science and its "rules"

(rules as a word to generally describe various aspects of science)

and not to mention answer the original question you asked :)


Ah, I see. Be happy you live in The Great White North(Canada), and not down here in The States with these morons.
I wasn't talking about any creation story other than Genesis.
You're a liberal thinking Christian, good for you. What I don't get, and maybe never will, is how a Christian or any other liberal religious person believes in part of their book, but not all. If part is wrong, and it's god's perfect word, then the whole thing is in doubt. If The Flood didn't happen, then why believe in Jesus' miracles? They're both fantastic tales. Actually a man bringing back the dead with the touch of his hands is harder to believe than a global flood, small floods actually happen.

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
As for God saying how He did it, He did through the bible. So to say He never said a thing is unaccurate, sorry. If you dont believe the bible is inspired by God then fine. But if you do then He did say How He made it.

Umm, now you're making one of those errors... You are assuming that I'll take the bible for granted. In effect you are assuming I'm already a believer of christianity...

Actually, if you believe the bible is the word of god, then god is either very forgetful or outright lying. Meaning the bible is not a good source of information on anything.

If you believe the bible is inspired, but written by men, errors can be expected and understood. But it also means that you're trusting the judgement of some potential doofus...


Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Well, I dont try to know God by talking to a doofus, I go for various discussions, reading, scripture, prayer, just like was recommened by God to understand things. Never talk to one or two sources. Yea some of the language is hard but if you take a moment to think about things and research it out its not that bad. There are some things not understood completely, but the same goes for science anyway. Some things are not understood compeletly yet either.

As for science language its like shop talk and hard to understand but with the same thought and research it can be understood as well.

Into which I read "I'm not specifically looking for a doofus to tell me about god". Are you sure your sources on god are not doofuses or the work of doofuses? How about liars? Religious organisations and litterature are full of them, as is evidenced by their strong need to hide/twist/distort f.ex. science.

Prayer, how do you know that is not just yourself making up stuff? How do you validate it?

How do you know that god recommended these things? Maybe god recommended getting stoned and watching the stars on a clear night as a good way to get in touch with him? And then some doofus with "superior moral" decided that something more "holy/acceptable" had to be put there instead? (And there are plenty of christians with "superior morality" than god and Jesus.)

Note that I'm not advocating getting stoned, stars or not. What I'm saying is how do you know that the truth is not different from what (your local) christians think?

It is very easy (and comfortable) to do intellectual in-breading, by not really questioning the local ideas. Doesn't mean said ideas are correct, though.

I understand that the mere being on these boards will expose you to a lot of ideas in direct conflict with christianity, but are you reading them with an open mind? Seriously considering that they may be correct (or less wrong, in any case) than your current ideas? Some ideas presented on these boards are very easy to "shoot down", some are hard, but on these boards somebody is likely to try :) which is one thing I like about these boards, there is very likely somebody with some good arguments that can teach you a thing or two, I've learned a lot from reading here. You get arguments from several sides (not necessarily only two) and then you can go with those that argue the best and learn from them.

Science will always try to change it's language to be understandable within the current culture, many concepts (especially in modern science) are inherently difficult to understand, but if somebody else starts looking for answers, they will come to the same results (science is reproducible). Religion does not have that ability, several religious ideas are common between religions, but if all traces of christianity were to be erased, it would never re-emerge.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Yes you can be second runner up :D

WOOHOO! Second runner up! That'll make me about #5? Ummm, maybe (woohum) is a better response... This thread doesn't have all that many participants...

Mosquito (hopefully not completely incoherent here...)

[aargh57]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
What I don't get, and maybe never will, is how a Christian or any other liberal religious person believes in part of their book, but not all. If part is wrong, and it's god's perfect word, then the whole thing is in doubt. If The Flood didn't happen, then why believe in Jesus' miracles? They're both fantastic tales. Actually a man bringing back the dead with the touch of his hands is harder to believe than a global flood, small floods actually happen.

SkepticJ,

I believe that you said you used to be a Christian. I was wondering what denomination you were as even the most bible literal Christian denominations don't believe everything in their book. My mother was Catholic so I went to Catholic school but my Father and Stepmother were Pentecostals (pretty hard lined Christians who believe in the literal interpretation of the bible) so I got two very different perspectives. Catholics believe that their were a lot of non literal stories in the bible. For example, I remember hearing a priest say that numbers in the bible shouldn't be taken literally. The extremely old ages of the old testament people for example were just meant to show that living to an old age was a reward for living rightously. The Pentecostals, on the other hand, thought that if it said Moses lived to be 343 years old (not accurate from the bible, just for example) then he really lived for 343 years. They even believe a guy got swallowed by a whale for a few days and got puked up later on no worse for wear. However, even they ignored stuff like selling your daughter into slavery, etc. I think for the average person it's very easy to believe in a philosophy from a book that was written a long long time ago and still not believe in everything. After all, look what they're selling. Eternal life. Who wouldn't overlook some fine print to buy that.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Missionary Baptist, the One Correct Christian Sect.


That's my point, if there's non-literal stories(because they're filled with crazy stuff that can't be true) that are just as filled with magic, injustice and incorrect history as the stories that most Christians do believe are true(Jesus' healing hand tricks) then why do they believe those tales? A global flood is more realistic to me than a godman who heals a few people with magic. Like I said in the upper post, floods happen. When has anyone ever raised someone from the dead with the touch of their hands? Never.

[aargh57]

Probably the same reason that people believe all sorts of other crazy stuff. Also, like I said in the last post, the alternative is to face the fact that when you're dead you're really dead. From seeing the crazy stuff that people believe from this site it's not surprising that people believe that there was one special guy that could make a buffet of fish and bread out of thin air, cure the blind, etc... and still reject some other stuff (or be ignorant). I also don't think that the average (non-fundie) believer critiques his bible that closely. It's enough for him to say, "I believe in God and Jesus and believe that the bible has a good message with some stories told as factual and some as allegories." If you believe in God why would it be hard to believe that he worked miracles?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by aargh57
If you believe in God why would it be hard to believe that he worked miracles?

It wouldn't. But if some stories are allegory and others aren't; and there's nothing special that you can tell them apart by, then how do they know the Jesus story isn't just another one of the allegories? God, Satan, demons, heaven, hell, Jesus, all just allegories. Why not?

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Like Ive said before IF God is God then He would be a fan of science (having invented it) and those trying to remove it are mistaken.

IF God is God, then He would be a fan of child molesters(having invented them), and those trying to remove them are mistaken.

Or maybe not?

[aargh57]

Skeptic J,

I think that your problem with this is that you're looking at the bible as a critical thinker not as someone who wants to believe. I'm not disputing any of your arguments about the bible I'm just saying that the average Christian doen't really think that deeply about that type of stuff. If they did, they would probably be your average atheist.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
Ah, I see. Be happy you live in The Great White North(Canada), and not down here in The States with these morons.
I wasn't talking about any creation story other than Genesis.
You're a liberal thinking Christian, good for you. What I don't get, and maybe never will, is how a Christian or any other liberal religious person believes in part of their book, but not all. If part is wrong, and it's god's perfect word, then the whole thing is in doubt. If The Flood didn't happen, then why believe in Jesus' miracles? They're both fantastic tales. Actually a man bringing back the dead with the touch of his hands is harder to believe than a global flood, small floods actually happen.

Well I wouldnt be too hard on the states, the average "fundy" is just enthusiastic, its a cultural thing I think. We tend towards the British in the reserved dept. polite and all. :D

I dont know if Im Liberal (certainly not politically but Liberal is a dirty word in Alberta. Not for what you may suppose, just a little thing called the NEP that broke us in the 80's)

As for something wrong in the bible. hmm scripture says "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching". Now, I am with CS Lewis on this and that if it says that there is something to get out of it then one simply has to dig until they find it. Granted some things are harder to understand than others. But so is alot of things in this world and life.

(I will just say this about the flood, to date Ive not seen any "complete concrete" evidence for or against it. We just cannot say for sure, theres ideas but nothing 100% sure. So I will wait until something comes up, til then its moot)

Miracles of Jesus, you mention bring back the dead with the touch of His hands, Lazarus He stood outside the tomb and said come out. There was a woman who touched his clothes and Christ said who touched me? She was healed without Him doing anything. Then there is some who came for healing and He forgave them theirs sins instead.

People then and now are looking for signs and wonders, but Jesus did not always perform miracles for them, and said people should not look for them. That there would be hucksucklers that would perform wonders and fool even believers. He said one should test out these things and see if they are true.

Miracles and wonders are great, but they were not the point Jesus was trying to make, what God was trying to teach to people, who are stuborn, hardheaded and self serving. To focus on the miracles and ignore the instructions is to miss the point.

I think alot of people try to run things their way and not what God intended. They get hung up on these miracles or whatever else and forget that, Christ said love your neighbour. Thats that. It ends speculation about selling your daughter. molesting boys, killing nuns, ripping off people, stealing, lying and cheating.

Alot of people want God to fix it all, so they dont have to get their hands dirty. Christ said give what you have. So one tries to give at all times. If we were all truly giving then there would not have had to have Live8 this last weekend to get everyones attention to world hunger. People would have been taking care of one another already. Thats what Christ was calling those before and us now to do.

There is a lot of things to consider in the bible. However, the main thing which overshadows the rest of it is the command to love one another. :)

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
As for something wrong in the bible. hmm scripture says "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching". Now, I am with CS Lewis on this and that if it says that there is something to get out of it then one simply has to dig until they find it. Granted some things are harder to understand than others. But so is alot of things in this world and life.


Actually it says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" and CS Lewis was full of bullsh*t. God, his shameless apologetics to cling to the Bible as truth make me so sick and angry! You'll have to dig very deep to find good in the murder of infants, rape of women and a global flood that killed many(at least it would have).

[Kitty Chan]

Not sure what you mean by "actually it says", I wasnt being picky about exact wording my point was more to do with it saying that all the words can have a meaning of some sort if studied. I looked up the different translations and all have the same point.

I see I struck a chord with you regarding Lewis. He actually pondered long and addressed alot of the harder questions that one can find in the bible. At least he had the guts to actually speak about it. There was comment that christians tend not to discuss the "harder to understand" parts and leave them alone. Well Lewis didnt shy away so what am I to think with the contradictory statements made here, then?? On one hand a christian is made light of for forgetting the hard parts and then when one does remember the hard parts its the remainder of a bulls breakfast. One has to admit its confusing.

The point was the bible like anything else is only confusing because one hasnt studied it. I can say algebra is confusing after only glancing at it. Same with the bible, it gets bits pulled out and people wonder why it seems confused. Read the middle section of a Stephen King novel and see if it makes sense.

Now having addressed that I must say, three quarters of my previous comment was regarding people looking for signs, wonders, magic, wine, healings. Even Jesus said that stuff was not what was important. What was important was love one another and strive to do that. One may not be perfect at it, but thats the goal.

Sorta like Live8 wasnt about the music but about getting attention of a self serving people and their governments. And getting them involved in caring for others.

One has to get the mobs attention, to speak to them. Thus you have your signs, wonders, healings, wine, loaves which like the music, are secondary to the message. That message is love one another.

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan
(I will just say this about the flood, to date Ive not seen any "complete concrete" evidence for or against it. We just cannot say for sure, theres ideas but nothing 100% sure. So I will wait until something comes up, til then its moot)
What do you mean we don’t have any evidence against it? A global flood would leave some very definite evidence. Isn’t the total lack of any of that evidence enough?

As for something wrong in the bible. hmm scripture says "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching". Now, I am with CS Lewis on this and that if it says that there is something to get out of it then one simply has to dig until they find it. Granted some things are harder to understand than others. But so is alot of things in this world and life.
How do you propose to test what you ‘dig’ out of the bible to be the actual meaning or teaching? Especially when what you ‘dig’ out is in opposition to what others ‘dig’ out of the same passage?

He actually pondered long and addressed alot of the harder questions that one can find in the bible. At least he had the guts to actually speak about it. There was comment that christians tend not to discuss the "harder to understand" parts and leave them alone. Have you actually bothered to real Lewis? He uses so many logical fallacies it’s amusing. He doesn’t address the issues he glosses over them.

Ossai

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Ossai
Kitty Chan

What do you mean we don’t have any evidence against it? A global flood would leave some very definite evidence. Isn’t the total lack of any of that evidence enough?

There is evidence on both sides, to say there is "total lack of evidence" (for creation) is unaccurate because there are many books on the topic. If you dont want to recognise them, thats your choice. So those authors could say oh I dont recognise evolution, but wait a lot of them do know both topics. They are recognizing both sides. So, you could say you have studied the evidence and find yourself not agreeing. But dont say that it doesnt exist, thats completely unaccurate.

This is why I said, "complete concrete" evidence for or against. Without question, no other "what about this then" to come up. Note I do not say either "side" has the answer, just a idea. So the jurys out on it when there is a verdit I will look at it.

How do you propose to test what you ‘dig’ out of the bible to be the actual meaning or teaching? Especially when what you ‘dig’ out is in opposition to what others ‘dig’ out of the same passage?

In the scriptures there is discussion about people not agreeing. What happened with them and their conclusions are there to read. There is nothing wrong with discussion, thats whats supposed to happen. As for dig what about study, compare, consult thats what I mean for dig. Some things are plain some require your thoughtfullness. If one looks at it one will find that most disagreements are not on key issues, only secondary ones. Its not all as mysterious as its made out to be. Scientists disagree on many things but you dont see them tossing Darwin out and science. They press on and dig for the answer.

Have you actually bothered to real Lewis? He uses so many logical fallacies it’s amusing. He doesn’t address the issues he glosses over them.
Ossai

You should be proud a skeptic was needed to sort through the coat hangers of doctrine. Lewis studied God not how the church in its tradition has seen God, but how the individual has and can see God. He was actually in trouble from mainstream church because he was in disagreement. Probably because of some digging on his part. Seems Martin Luther did some digging too and let the mainstream church know it.

If he was glossing over issues he would not have annoyed the mainsteam church. They would have kept quiet and not called him names. They didnt like Luther too much either.

[Mosquito]

Sorry for butting in again :)

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
The point was the bible like anything else is only confusing because one hasnt studied it. I can say algebra is confusing after only glancing at it. Same with the bible, it gets bits pulled out and people wonder why it seems confused. Read the middle section of a Stephen King novel and see if it makes sense.

You are making the "if you don't think the Bible says what I think it says, it is because you haven't studied it (enough)"-fallacy.

Some atheists become atheists exactly *because* they study it, and find that it does not make sense.

A lot of atheists know a lot more about the Bible than your average christian, because in order to be a christian, selecting the comfy parts of the Bible and reiterating these until your brain is as clean as an ox's intestines, is enough. While the atheist does not necessarily know which parts to read for comfort, so he reads it all. And then he thinks about what he read. All he read.

I know christians that do not *want* to read the whole Bible, because they've found their comfy spots, and don't want to know about the less comfy parts.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
One has to get the mobs attention, to speak to them. Thus you have your signs, wonders, healings, wine, loaves which like the music, are secondary to the message. That message is love one another.

Umm, no. *Your* message is "love one another", I seem to recall that Jesus required some hating for accepting you into his gang. Something about hating your parents, I think.

Remember, Jesus didn't come to bring peace, but sword.


Mosquito

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan
There is evidence on both sides, to say there is "total lack of evidence" (for creation) is unaccurate because there are many books on the topic.
1. The original topic was global flood, not creationism.
2. A book does not constitute evidence

But dont say that it doesnt exist, thats completely unaccurate. Because evidence for a global flood does not exist.

Note I do not say either "side" has the answer, just a idea. So the jurys out on it when there is a verdit I will look at it. He’s a novel idea. Why not actually examine the evidence yourself, or at research it? Gather all of what you mistakenly call evidence you can find for a global flood and creationism, then actually do some research on their claims. It usually don’t take more than a day or so to debunk one of their claims, seeing as how most are unethical lies about data that has been tested/studied/discovered/etc.

If one looks at it one will find that most disagreements are not on key issues, only secondary ones. Oh, like whether Jesus was real, i.e. flesh and blood, or merely spiritual. Or whether the resurrection was physical or spiritual. Nothing serious. :rolleyes:

If he was glossing over issues he would not have annoyed the mainsteam church. They would have kept quiet and not called him names. They didnt like Luther too much either.
As for Luthor, I agree the church really didn’t like him. After all he attacked on of their moneymakers, selling indulgences.

With the sheer number of Christian sect, how could Lewis not annoy at least some of them? Admittedly I’ve only read bits and pieces of Lewis’s work but he did in fact gloss over large bits without ever trying to actually address them.

Seems Martin Luther did some digging too and let the mainstream church know it. Yes but nothing they would cause disagreements “over key issues, only secondary ones.� Which is why there is only one Christian church today, Oops, :eek: looks like someone misspoke.

Ossai

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Mosquito
Sorry for butting in again :)
You are making the "if you don't think the Bible says what I think it says, it is because you haven't studied it (enough)"-fallacy.
Some atheists become atheists exactly *because* they study it, and find that it does not make sense.

A lot of atheists know a lot more about the Bible than your average christian, because in order to be a christian, selecting the comfy parts of the Bible and reiterating these until your brain is as clean as an ox's intestines, is enough. While the atheist does not necessarily know which parts to read for comfort, so he reads it all. And then he thinks about what he read. All he read.

I know christians that do not *want* to read the whole Bible, because they've found their comfy spots, and don't want to know about the less comfy parts.

Your not butting in, its just called discussion. :)

Im trying very hard not to say "the you havent studied it bit" Not saying that one can know everything about any topic, just wont happen. But especially in the bibles case there is a history of people taking what they want and leaving the rest. There is alot of misinformation from lack of digging and avoiding hard parts and even taking what one wants from the easy parts.

Its not just christians who do that, its atheists or anyone reading the bible can take what is comfy or fits their needs and leave the rest. Thats why I said at least Lewis took the whole. This is why one is supposed to study the scripture, all parts of it. Thus the quote that it is useful so one needs to find out what is being said and to who and how it applies.

As a note study does not mean one started at page 1 and didnt stop until the end. Its a set of books, not necessarily in a series. So its not to be read like that. So if someone reads from front to back they are probably going to miss a whole lot. Thats why I say it gets studied wrong and ususally gets misquoted as a result.

Umm, no. *Your* message is "love one another", I seem to recall that Jesus required some hating for accepting you into his gang. Something about hating your parents, I think.

Remember, Jesus didn't come to bring peace, but sword.

Mosquito

When He spoke of the sword He was referring to the arguements arising from the hate. People hate because they dont want to give of theirselves to others. So they were mad at Jesus for calling them to a higher standard and He was recognizing the situation.

Jesus said A new commandment I give you, love one another as I have loved you. Not my message, His, and the one that gets swept under the carpet with issues. Because the issues can divert people from actually paying attention to the part of caring for one another. So, being diverted they dont need to try.

:)

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Ossai
Kitty Chan
1. The original topic was global flood, not creationism.
2. A book does not constitute evidence

Because evidence for a global flood does not exist

When I put in brackets (creation) I was referring to the flood as in Moses and the flood. I put creation in there to indicate a biblical view, sorry for confusion you may have had.

Books discuss . . .? evidence? or, are all the science journals no evidence, too. Books compile data, evidence, for people to read, if they are inclined.

He’s a novel idea. Why not actually examine the evidence yourself, or at research it? Gather all of what you mistakenly call evidence you can find for a global flood and creationism, then actually do some research on their claims. It usually don’t take more than a day or so to debunk one of their claims, seeing as how most are unethical lies about data that has been tested/studied/discovered/etc.

Over the years Ive read, watched, listened, to different evidence for the flood. I have not seen a tie breaker for the evolution version or the creation version (theres that creation word) So not having a complete undisputed conclusion, I have said this from the beginning. All the research out there always has counter and counter claims by both sides. Neither side trusts the other and each side says the other is lying so that has zero bearing on any evidence. Cutting one down to make yourself large is pointless.

So if there is a earth shattering info not heard before or something new please share it with me. Until then my jurys out, thats all Im saying. :)

Oh, like whether Jesus was real, i.e. flesh and blood, or merely spiritual. Or whether the resurrection was physical or spiritual. Nothing serious. :rolleyes:

No church is debated about this that I know of. I need a for instance to what you are speaking of.

As for Luthor, I agree the church really didn’t like him. After all he attacked on of their moneymakers, selling indulgences.

With the sheer number of Christian sect, how could Lewis not annoy at least some of them? Admittedly I’ve only read bits and pieces of Lewis’s work but he did in fact gloss over large bits without ever trying to actually address them.

Lewis had more sheer numbers so odds are someone would have disagreed? Martin Luther didnt have those odds so he was perhaps better? Ack both men were the bane of the pharisees of the church. You havent heard the things said against Lewis. And you gotta admit . . if you glossed over bits and pieces of his work, how can you say he glossed over things??

Lewis addressed infant and animal death, marriage and divorce, sex and sexuality, joy and suffering. He spoke openly of things no one else did. Especially for the times he lived.

Yes but nothing they would cause disagreements “over key issues, only secondary ones.� Which is why there is only one Christian church today, Oops, :eek: looks like someone misspoke.
Ossai

Key issue is the creed Luther and Lewis did believe in that. As does the catholic church and the rest of churches that claim Christ as Lord.

What's in disagreement is the secondary issue of money and a pharisee like corruption forming in the church government. Which goes against the creed, or the commandment of love one another.

If you wanna know why there is different churches, ask yourself why is there different anything. Different cars, cell phones, clothes, houses, buildings, tv shows, we all have different personalities. So those of particular personalities will want to worship God one way and others their way.

A child will make a drawing for her parents for a birthday, her brother may cut the grass for the birthday. Both ways are correct, just different methods. but BOTH show the same result.

To convey the love from the child to the parent. Thats why different churches. There was 7 churches Christ wrote to in Revelations, each with its own personality and its strengths and weaknessess. But all had the same agreement on the creed.

One but not the same. :)

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan
As a note study does not mean one started at page 1 and didnt stop until the end. Its a set of books, not necessarily in a series. So its not to be read like that. So if someone reads from front to back they are probably going to miss a whole lot. Thats why I say it gets studied wrong and ususally gets misquoted as a result. You are saying not to read the bible in order so as not to put quotes in context within the larger whole.
How do you propose to study it then?

When He spoke of the sword He was referring to the arguements arising from the hate. People hate because they dont want to give of theirselves to others. Huh?
From Matthew 10:32 - 42
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

Looks like Jesus was actually breaking up loving families. He came to sow dissent in families so that people would follow him.

When I put in brackets (creation) I was referring to the flood as in Moses and the flood. psst – it was Noah and the flood. Moses was the baby in the bassinet floating down the river that later lead the Israelites from Egypt.

Books discuss . . .? evidence? or, are all the science journals no evidence, too. Books compile data, evidence, for people to read, if they are inclined.
The bible is in no way evidenced for a biblical flood.
Books can be and are on many occasions historical evidence, however when said book contradicts physical evidence it becomes suspect if not thrown out entirely.

Over the years Ive read, watched, listened, to different evidence for the flood. I have not seen a tie breaker for the evolution version or the creation version (theres that creation word) Concentrate on the flood, you keep expanding the scope. There is no evidence of a global flood. The overwhelming lack of evidence indicates that there was in fact no global flood.

All the research out there always has counter and counter claims by both sides. Neither side trusts the other and each side says the other is lying so that has zero bearing on any evidence. Really, so what are the counter claims of ‘no evidence’? Remember claims are meaningless without evidence. You’re claiming a global flood, it’s up to you to provide that evidence. That evidence would be a counter claim. In fact it would be the first evidence for a global flood.

Cutting one down to make yourself large is pointless. Sorry but the world doesn’t work that way. Science is about disproving as well as proving hypothesis.

So if there is a earth shattering info not heard before or something new please share it with me. Until then my jurys out, thats all Im saying. Waiting on you to present evidence of a global flood.

Oh, like whether Jesus was real, i.e. flesh and blood, or merely spiritual. Or whether the resurrection was physical or spiritual. Nothing serious.
No church is debated about this that I know of. I need a for instance to what you are speaking of. Are you serious? Read some early church history or even the bible itself. The four accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) point to a physical Jesus. Paul’s later conversion points to a spiritual Jesus.

You want another major splitting point look up the Council of Nivencia (sp?). The Jesus movement was forcibly kept from attending in number. Thus ensuring the divine Jesus.

If you want a more modern split look up transubstantiation versus consubstantiation. Lutherans verses Catholicism.

You havent heard the things said against Lewis. And you gotta admit . . if you glossed over bits and pieces of his work, how can you say he glossed over things?? Because I’ve read large chunks of Lewis. He treats his audience as children and glosses over the ‘bad bits’. If you’ve got something specific to recommend, I’ll put it on my reading list (admittedly it’ll probably be months before I get to it – but I will read it). Lewis’s writings are full of fallacies, usually easily picked out.

What's in disagreement is the secondary issue of money and a pharisee like corruption forming in the church government. Which goes against the creed, or the commandment of love one another. Your ignorance of church history is apparent here.

There was 7 churches Christ wrote to in Revelations, each with its own personality and its strengths and weaknessess. But all had the same agreement on the creed. There are over 30,000 different Christian sects now. How does that translate to 7? Or is that just another example of god not being able to count?

Ossai

[Mosquito]

I'll keep this one "short", since Ossai had the nerve* to respond before I did.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Im trying very hard not to say "the you havent studied it bit" Not saying that one can know everything about any topic, just wont happen. But especially in the bibles case there is a history of people taking what they want and leaving the rest. There is alot of misinformation from lack of digging and avoiding hard parts and even taking what one wants from the easy parts.

Its not just christians who do that, its atheists or anyone reading the bible can take what is comfy or fits their needs and leave the rest. Thats why I said at least Lewis took the whole. This is why one is supposed to study the scripture, all parts of it. Thus the quote that it is useful so one needs to find out what is being said and to who and how it applies.

As a note study does not mean one started at page 1 and didnt stop until the end. Its a set of books, not necessarily in a series. So its not to be read like that. So if someone reads from front to back they are probably going to miss a whole lot. Thats why I say it gets studied wrong and ususally gets misquoted as a result.

So you start by saying that you try to avoid saying the "haven't studied it" bit, and later you say that reading it from start to finish to get the context and timeline is not "study it". So now you're saying that we're not studying it, only reading it, and thus we're clearly not doing things right. Especially since we get a different message from you, who seem to know exactly the correct order to read the biblical verses in.

If the Bible is not meant to be read from start to finish, where can I get one that is re-ordered to the order it IS supposed to be read? You'd think that after 2000 years somebody would have thought of making "The Easy Guide To The Bible" or something. Just think of all the different versions of the Bible out there, lots of different translations, old-style language, modern-style language, with footnotes, other footnotes, in Greek/Hebrew, with lots of footnotes and guides for "make your own translation".

Why not a "verses in the correct order for study"-version?


Originally posted by Kitty Chan
When He spoke of the sword He was referring to the arguements arising from the hate. People hate because they dont want to give of theirselves to others. So they were mad at Jesus for calling them to a higher standard and He was recognizing the situation.

Jesus said A new commandment I give you, love one another as I have loved you. Not my message, His, and the one that gets swept under the carpet with issues. Because the issues can divert people from actually paying attention to the part of caring for one another. So, being diverted they dont need to try.

:)

Well, since Ossai's quote, to me, seems to contradict this (which does not mean you're wrong). I'm at a loss as to know how to deal with this. Are you sure you're not picking out the parts you like and glossing over the rest? Seek deep into your soul, and think about it ;)

How do I know which parts to read and which parts to avoid? Which parts to take seriously and which parts to ignore? This is important for anybody trying to understand the Bible. And it rises as a result of the Bible being inconsistant.

Your idea that the Bible should be studied in a non-ordered way, while typical, is also very bad. It is a recipe for picking what you want and ignoring the rest. And it makes it very easy to take things out of context to make verses not really related seem to support your comfy needs.


Mosquito (Ok, not very short, I know)

*For which I'm thankful, especially since he(?) did such a good job of it.

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
To convey the love from the child to the parent. Thats why different churches. There was 7 churches Christ wrote to in Revelations, each with its own personality and its strengths and weaknessess. But all had the same agreement on the creed.

One but not the same. :)


Just out of curiosity, didn't some "John" character write the Revelations?


Mosquito

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
The point was the bible like anything else is only confusing because one hasnt studied it. I can say algebra is confusing after only glancing at it. Same with the bible, it gets bits pulled out and people wonder why it seems confused. Read the middle section of a Stephen King novel and see if it makes sense.

One has to get the mobs attention, to speak to them. Thus you have your signs, wonders, healings, wine, loaves which like the music, are secondary to the message. That message is love one another.



I don't doubt there's good in the Bible. It's just the majority is stupid, racist, sexist, superstitious, mystical crap. If you dig deep enough in anything you'll probably find a little good. Mein Kampf might have some good stuff in it also, I haven't read that book yet to know though. I know quite a bit about the Bible, thanks for talking down to me. If the Bible's message is love, why isn't that how it starts then? Why didn't Jesus come when there were only a few humans on Earth? His job would have been a lot quicker, and the message would have gotten out in a few min. instead of thousands of years.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Mosquito
I'll keep this one "short", since Ossai had the nerve* to respond before I did.
So you start by saying that you try to avoid saying the "haven't studied it" bit, and later you say that reading it from start to finish to get the context and timeline is not "study it". So now you're saying that we're not studying it, only reading it, and thus we're clearly not doing things right. Especially since we get a different message from you, who seem to know exactly the correct order to read the biblical verses in.

and

Your idea that the Bible should be studied in a non-ordered way, while typical, is also very bad. It is a recipe for picking what you want and ignoring the rest. And it makes it very easy to take things out of context to make verses not really related seem to support your comfy needs.


Well thats Ossai, ya gotta love him. :D

Im trying not to be arrogant about it is what Im saying. Im attempting to avoid sterotypes, whether its working or not, dont know. But Im trying.

No Im not saying I "know" how to read the bible. I do know that when I try to start at page 1 and go to the end its terribly confusing. Then I look at it to see why? Its because like I said before it is not one book. It is a set of books and they are not in a series. It is not volume 1, 2, 3 etc.

They refer back and forth to each other, they dont acknowledge one another, they can have a common theme, they repeat and dont repeat each other.

All Im saying is one cannot start at page 1 and go to the end and hope it will all make sense in one read. Not that people are stupid, are unable to get it. Its just the way it is, probably because it was written over the years.

So to be clear the separate books are not in specific order like a series. They are in a general order I guess, but not series. Im not picking and choosing parts, maybe just picking the books in a general order then reading from there. All parts no missing. If one read a series of books out of order then it would be confusing. Same with the books of the bible, thus why they are called that.

the Bible is not meant to be read from start to finish, where can I get one that is re-ordered to the order it IS supposed to be read? You'd think that after 2000 years somebody would have thought of making "The Easy Guide To The Bible" or something. Just think of all the different versions of the Bible out there, lots of different translations, old-style language, modern-style language, with footnotes, other footnotes, in Greek/Hebrew, with lots of footnotes and guides for "make your own translation".

It would take a bit of time, and when one changes a bible to run chronological order theres alot of work. And footnotes to show what youve changed so people who read it can pour over your work to see if your correct. It would be a giant task.

But a bible scholar, attorney and classroom teacher Dr.Smith did complete the "Daily Bible" which I have a copy of. And it does read 10x better chronological for a read through. Then when one to dig out something there is the regular types to look at to see if he was right.

Thats also the purpose of different translations, if one wants to know about something then one compares the translations to find a understanding.

Well, since Ossai's quote, to me, seems to contradict this (which does not mean you're wrong). I'm at a loss as to know how to deal with this. Are you sure you're not picking out the parts you like and glossing over the rest? Seek deep into your soul, and think about it ;)

How do I know which parts to read and which parts to avoid? Which parts to take seriously and which parts to ignore? This is important for anybody trying to understand the Bible. And it rises as a result of the Bible being inconsistant.

I dont pick out the best parts and leave the rest. Neither did Lewis thats why I liked him. (Now, Ive read a bit about Luther he had some ideas I want to read about too.) I like the parts that dont make sense. What do you think I wander around here for? Because everyones a yes man? What comfy parts am I allowed to get away with?

Which parts to read and avoid? none. One just has to look at the layout of the bible and notice its separate books. So if you want to get a overall snyopsis dont start at page 1. (The closest book to a gereral overview is John.) Unless one gets the chronological one, it just doesnt read like a novel. Thats how to know.

Mosquito (Ok, not very short, I know)

*For which I'm thankful, especially since he(?) did such a good job of it.

Im never short, ramble on. :)

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
I don't doubt there's good in the Bible. It's just the majority is stupid, racist, sexist, superstitious, mystical crap. If you dig deep enough in anything you'll probably find a little good. Mein Kampf might have some good stuff in it also, I haven't read that book yet to know though. I know quite a bit about the Bible, thanks for talking down to me. If the Bible's message is love, why isn't that how it starts then? Why didn't Jesus come when there were only a few humans on Earth? His job would have been a lot quicker, and the message would have gotten out in a few min. instead of thousands of years.

Sorry if you feel Im talking down to you wasnt trying to.

Jesus if He came today would still have the same result as before. People are still the same as they were. We think we are so advanced and have all the ideas. Those that came before had a couple ideas too and I notice alot of people forget that.

The last thing He did was leave it in the hands of his disiples to carry the message on. Just like care for one another. People are all too content for someone else (expecially Jesus) to take care of everything so they dont have to lift a finger. Thats why He said care and love one another.

Just a question about your comment on sexist, who defended the woman in adultry? Spoke to the woman at the well, Hung out with women, actually the bible records the women were the first to find the tomb empty. In those days womans testimony didnt matter but it wasnt excluded. It could have been stated the men found the tomb but it stated the women did.

Husbands love your wives, they are to put her ahead of themselves completely. She should be able to trust him so she can. Thats not sexist. Its been turned around to suit the mustard stained brats that want their dinner on the table. They convientely ignore the part they are to do. This is what I mean by people taking what they want and leaving the rest.

Another one is women listening to men and doing what they want. NO she will listen to HER man, NOT all men. And only if her man is trying to do what I said a moment ago. This one is abused completely too.

[Kitty Chan]

Ossai

For the last time I am saying that over the years I have seen and read various things about flood or no flood.

I havent seen new info on it, so Im leaving it out until I see something new to consider. This is not unreasonable, seems many wait for new info here. If you want to start a flood thread go ahead and I will look at it. But Im not derailing this one anymore with it as I feel Ive been clear.

Ive said the jurys out, Im going with the biblical account until I see new info that disputes it. Im not asking anyone to believe it, so I dont need to post anything about it.

In fact Im not even going with new creationists whatever they are, Captian Joes account or any church version. Just whats in the bible and thats it.

The only thing I know for sure about the flood is that this world will return to the attitude like those in the day of Noah.

That was the point of the flood story. :)

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Ossai

For the last time I am saying that over the years I have seen and read various things about flood or no flood.

I havent seen new info on it, so Im leaving it out until I see something new to consider.

Have you read through this stuff:

http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

You might find it interesting to wade through this thread in the Dead Horses forum on Ship-of-Fools, although it's about far more than just the flood:

The thread deceptively titled The Death (*cough*) of Darwinism (http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000032)

Warning, this thread is loooooonnnnng. It's grown on and off for about four years now.

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
As a note study does not mean one started at page 1 and didnt stop until the end. Its a set of books, not necessarily in a series. So its not to be read like that. So if someone reads from front to back they are probably going to miss a whole lot. Thats why I say it gets studied wrong and ususally gets misquoted as a result.

I once discussed the bible with an Evangelical, and when I pointed out inconsistencies with what she believed and what was actually written in the bible, she claimed that I didn't understand the bible because I read it with my brain when I should've been reading it with my heart.

It's almost the same as what you're saying, and it's nothing but an ad hominem attack, claiming that we might've read the same thing, but I'm just not understanding it. So, tell me, Kitty-chan, what is the correct order to read the bible? Since you understand it so much better than me.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
If you want to start a flood thread go ahead and I will look at it. But Im not derailing this one anymore with it as I feel Ive been clear.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59389

There you go! You're welcome to post the single most convincing evidence of a global flood.

For some reason, though, I doubt you will. For the same reasons you avoid answering bible questions regarding topics outside your biblical comfort zone, I believe.

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Just a question about your comment on sexist, who defended the woman in adultry? Spoke to the woman at the well, Hung out with women, actually the bible records the women were the first to find the tomb empty. In those days womans testimony didnt matter but it wasnt excluded. It could have been stated the men found the tomb but it stated the women did.

Oh, oh, I know! Jesus! But we're discussing the bible, not just Jesus. The ten commandments certainly seem to imply that women are property, just to name one sexist bible issue.

Edit : Syntax errors

[Kitty Chan]

Ossai

Study the bible is answered in post to mosquito, hope thats ok.

(This is getting awfully long, and various topics. Im going to answer your questions without quotes and just refer to them to shorten it up a bit)
--------------
Yea I know Noah, its a old joke, just a attempt at humour. :)
-----------------------
Where is is written that if a book contradicts physical evidence it should be thrown out?
---------------------
Flood is in separate post.
------------------
Re the spiritual physical Jesus, I simply asked for a for instance so I understand what you are talking about, isnt that reasonable? After all I dont have pyschic powers or Id have a million dollars :D (humour again)

I did say there was no churches (I know of) that debate this. Isnt it alright to say I dont know??

As for Paul, he may of had a spiritual conversion but he didnt say that Jesus was only spiritual. The disiples accepted him as their own.

Ive not heard that the catholics and lutherns disagree about Jesus what is it they disagree on?

As for the Jesus movement I think Ive heard about this. But I dont believe they are a church? A group obviously of some sort. Once again here is several answers from you, thats why I asked for a instance that you were thinking of. Its kind of hard to speculate what you mean.
-------------------
As for Lewis, I have said I enjoyed reading what he said exactly because, of him dwelling in bad bits and not glossing. Obviously theres a perspective you have or some other thing. I would have to ask for a instance or some theme you mean as I cannot honestly imagine what you mean.

All I can think of, is it because he was a skeptic and he insults you for "turning over" to the dark side? (humour)
On christian topics I have not heard anyone speak so plainly and fairly looking at the uncomfortable bits than him. Like I said it took a skeptics gift of view to explain what was in front of christians eyes, you should be happy. :)
---------------------------
I said that what's in disagreement is the secondary issue of money and a pharisee like corruption forming in the church government. Which goes against the creed, or the commandment of love one another.

How does this statement make me "ignorance of church history" by stating the church is guilty of being corrupt and forgetting what it was formed to foster.
--------------------
My statement regarding the 7 churches had nothing to do with numbers. The point was each church starting from the beginning had strengths and weaknesses to deal with. But all agreed on for example the creed, even if they did some things different. Just like the child would show love different from its sibling, the child is still showing love. And it continues today for the churches, the same situation.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Ossai
Kitty Chan
Huh?
From Matthew 10:32 - 42
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

Looks like Jesus was actually breaking up loving families. He came to sow dissent in families so that people would follow him.

This is directed to the 12 He is sending out on a mission, there is more before what you posted and it is a warning to the 12 what they may encounter. The persecution to come. Adding a bit more of the whole passage makes for better understanding once one knows who is being spoken to. It wasnt families.

Like I said before, because people will not enjoy being called to a higher standard of caring for one another to the exclusion of yourself. It will make them hate Christ and hate anyone who identifys with Him.

If a family is loving they will not separate, so there is no break up as you say.

When He speaks of giving a cup of cold water, Hes speaking to the smallest and a real easy way we can be nice to each other.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Ryokan
[B]I once discussed the bible with an Evangelical, and when I pointed out inconsistencies with what she believed and what was actually written in the bible, she claimed that I didn't understand the bible because I read it with my brain when I should've been reading it with my heart.

It's almost the same as what you're saying, and it's nothing but an ad hominem attack, claiming that we might've read the same thing, but I'm just not understanding it. So, tell me, Kitty-chan, what is the correct order to read the bible? Since you understand it so much better than me.

Did I say read it with your heart?? Did I say it is not written in chronological order with the exception of the one bible I quoted above. Did I cover I dont mean you cant understand? Its a set of books not in a series is all I said, As such they simply wont make sense to read them that way, I cant be more plain. Please everyone quit assuming I am accusing someone of something.

As for your friend she means that its possible to read something in the bible and God will speak to your heart. Which means something will really hit home, and you will grow because of it. Now, this is not connected with my previous statement. Although I suppose its possible this could happen at any reading of the bible. God moves in those mysterious ways, right? (humour again :)


There you go! You're welcome to post the single most convincing evidence of a global flood.
For some reason, though, I doubt you will. For the same reasons you avoid answering bible questions regarding topics outside your biblical comfort zone, I believe.

There you go again assuming. I have changed my mind about just what skeptics believe and correct christians when they say unaccurate things. I will check out your pages, I dont have a milllion hours in a day. But if its good I will read it. By that if every second thing is insulting creation then it falls under cutting someone down to make themselves large. I wont even listen to the Bible Answer Man cause he does that.

Oh, oh, I know! Jesus! But we're discussing the bible, not just Jesus. The ten commandments certainly seem to imply that women are property, just to name one sexist bible issue.

Jesus was asked what is the greatest of the commandments. He replied a new commandment I give you which is love one another as I have loved you.

If we truly love one another then the rest are fullfilled and no longer needed.

And I covered the sexist issue of women being property already. One of those un comfy parts that I wanted to know the answer to that everybodys handy to say I dont look at. :D

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Did I say read it with your heart?? Did I say it is not written in chronological order with the exception of the one bible I quoted above. Did I cover I dont mean you cant understand? Its a set of books not in a series is all I said, As such they simply wont make sense to read them that way, I cant be more plain. Please everyone quit assuming I am accusing someone of something.

I didn't say you said I had to read it with my heart. I said it was almost the same, i.e. that we didn't read the bible the 'right' way. But no-one seems to be able to show me the 'righ' way to read it, so I'll keep reading it the way you're supposed to read books.

Oh, and by the way, I know the bible is many books stuck together, sort of an anthology. I never thought each book was a sequel to the one preceeding it. I just assumed there was a reason they were arranged as they are, and have never before seen this 'you can't understand the bible if you read it from cover to cover' thing before. No matter how many times you make excuses about it (and for the record, I do believe you're sincere about it), to me it sounds like 'you're not reading the bible right, and therefore you don't understand it. Isn't this what you're saying?

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
I will check out your pages, I dont have a milllion hours in a day.

I'm lucky, I have a job that involves 8 hours of just surfing to make time go (nightshift at a hotel). But the thing is, from reading your posts in this forum, I think you're a very reasonable person, who happens to be a Christian. Yet, you're undecided when it comes to the evidence for/against a global flood. Therefore, I am VERY interested in what you think is the #1 evidence pointing to a flood, the evidence that makes you unsure what conclusion to draw.


Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Jesus was asked what is the greatest of the commandments. He replied a new commandment I give you which is love one another as I have loved you.

If we truly love one another then the rest are fullfilled and no longer needed.

So as long as we love each other, we can steal, whore, engage in homosexual activity, utter blasphemy, and enjoy life as we see fit? Cool, I think I like your version of Christendom ;)

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Ryokan
, I do believe you're sincere about it), to me it sounds like 'you're not reading the bible right, and therefore you don't understand it. Isn't this what you're saying?

Thanks for the sincere, but Im not saying you cant understand it. Its just not a book like a novel you can pick up and start at page 1. If you want go ahead but I guarentee you will be confused. Then you will complain to me or someone its confusing. Or you can approach it in perhaps new or old, John then the rest of the big 4 or numbers for some real excitement. Im just saying if one wants to actually get something out of it pick a block or a book. Then it will read better.

I'm lucky, I have a job that involves 8 hours of just surfing to make time go (nightshift at a hotel). But the thing is, from reading your posts in this forum, I think you're a very reasonable person, who happens to be a Christian. Yet, you're undecided when it comes to the evidence for/against a global flood. Therefore, I am VERY interested in what you think is the #1 evidence pointing to a flood, the evidence that makes you unsure what conclusion to draw.

Thanks, I will hint as to why if ya keep Ossai from endless questions lol :D I havent checked it all out yet. I know what the bible says and probably the most popular of what evolutionists say. Its not doubt in God its Im not gonna blindly believe I want to know or at least have a good idea before I decide. Even tonight tlc had something on it about a 7 day flood according to ? sorry forgot just saw couple minutes of it didnt catch the name. Wish Id seen it from the beginning. Too busy talking to you guys. :)

As for #1 evidence for would be the bible. But Im wondering about this partial flood and now this 7 day thing. But Ive looked at the Grand canyon, and Lake Powell I live in the high plains of Alberta I can see how a flood could occur too. But like the earth in 7 day part, hmm 7 of a day like we know or 7 of Gods days. Possibly the flood fits in the same way. Dont know havent decided. Now, Ive been honest, please no flaming :D

So as long as we love each other, we can steal, whore, engage in homosexual activity, utter blasphemy, and enjoy life as we see fit? Cool, I think I like your version of Christendom ;) [/B]

Yes true love is stealing and whoring, now your being silly. If thats true then there is absolutly nothing wrong with the world today.

Have a good night. :)

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan
They refer back and forth to each other, they dont acknowledge one another, they can have a common theme, they repeat and dont repeat each other. You want to read that again and make sense out of it.

So to be clear the separate books are not in specific order like a series. They are in a general order I guess, but not series. Im not picking and choosing parts, maybe just picking the books in a general order then reading from there. All parts no missing. If one read a series of books out of order then it would be confusing. Same with the books of the bible, thus why they are called that.
To repeat Mosquito Why not a "verses in the correct order for study"-version?

Just like care for one another. People are all too content for someone else (expecially Jesus) to take care of everything so they dont have to lift a finger. Thats why He said care and love one another. Isn’t that pretty much a brief description of the Christian heaven?

Ive said the jurys out, Im going with the biblical account until I see new info that disputes it. Im not asking anyone to believe it, so I dont need to post anything about it. You’ve said the jury’s out. It’s not out, it disbanded somewhere around 1750 – geology put the last nail in that coffin over 200 years ago.

The only thing I know for sure about the flood is that this world will return to the attitude like those in the day of Noah. Gee, the morality story the Israelites borrowed from the Babylonians and adapted is more important to you than the non-existent physical flood. Then why bring up a physical flood and declare ‘it happened cause it’s in the Bible’.

Where is is written that if a book contradicts physical evidence it should be thrown out? Let’s give an example. If you buy a book purporting to be scientifically accurate and all through it 1+1=3 (decimal), wouldn’t that cause you to reconsider the validity of the rest of the book?

Ive not heard that the catholics and lutherns disagree about Jesus what is it they disagree on? Way to long to go into here, but they disagree on a number of thing about and around Jesus, not just the selling of indulgences and purgatory. Maybe someone else can recommend a good book on the subject. What I’ve picked up has mainly been from Catholic and Lutheran friends.

As for Paul, he may of had a spiritual conversion but he didnt say that Jesus was only spiritual. The disiples accepted him as their own. Paul was concerned with a Hellenistic Christ cult. You can look up chapter and verse, but when questioned about his conversion and source of authority, Paul declared himself a discipline – just like the others, but he had never been visited in the flesh. Go look up what the Gnostics believed. It should give you a better handle on what Paul believed and taught.

As for the Jesus movement I think Ive heard about this. But I dont believe they are a church? The Jesus movement was on of the early churches. They followed Jesus’s teachings but did not believe he was divine, merely a holy man or prophet. They were actually a significant percentage of those that would have been considered Christians at that point in time. They were forcibly keep from the council of Nincevia (sp – at some point I’ll may learn how to spell) to ensure that their version wouldn’t win. If you want yet another off shoot of Christianity that was destroyed by Catholic church, look up the Carthers.

As for Lewis, I have said I enjoyed reading what he said exactly because, of him dwelling in bad bits and not glossing. Obviously theres a perspective you have or some other thing. I would have to ask for a instance or some theme you mean as I cannot honestly imagine what you mean. Ok, briefly about Lewis, he tried to answer Epicure’s riddle a number of times but never did. People claim he did but once you stop and actually think about his answer you realize he’s just piled on more BS to disguise the fact that the conundrum is still unanswered.

How does this statement make me "ignorance of church history" by stating the church is guilty of being corrupt and forgetting what it was formed to foster. Easy answer, read the list of grievances Martin Luther posted. (and if you find them online post a link)

And I covered the sexist issue of women being property already. One of those un comfy parts that I wanted to know the answer to that everybodys handy to say I dont look at. So it is ok if a virgin female is raped as long as the rapist pays the father 30 shekels of silver and marries her.

Ryokan
to me it sounds like 'you're not reading the bible right, and therefore you don't understand it. Isn't this what you're saying? That is exactly what she is saying, again and again.

Ossai