Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Are Science and the Bible incompatible

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 2:02:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The people whose life storied are listed below apparently don't think so, and they are all highly qualified scientists in various fields. Some have published articles to their names. Science is more and more coming round to the side of scripture, hence more and more scientists are taking to the bible, and in the fields which are revealing the inevitability if creation day by day, fields such as microbiology, my favourite.

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

Why have these scientists come down on the side of the bible?

Well read their stories on the end of those links, and see for yourself.
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 1:51:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you allow your presentation of religious scientists, you must allow the opposite.

93% of scientists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheist or agnostic. Only 5.5% of biologists in that group believe in some kind of god, and that includes deism.

In total, the percentage believing in god in the NAS has fallen from 27% in 1914 to 7% as of 1998, so the trend is scientists moving away from belief.

I only read your first link, and one paragraph shows perfectly how Feng-Ling Yang's opinion of evolution is not scientifically-based:

Well, I asked myself, "How did those protein machines become so well engineered?" At the time, the unexpected complexity of cell chemistry made a number of scientists ask the same question. A professor of biochemistry in the United States published a book arguing that the molecular machines in living cells are so complex that they could not have originated randomly. I agreed. I felt that life must have been created.

Engineered? She starts by assuming engineering, not natural processes. That's not science.

No hypothesis, no testing, no papers, no science. Just a feeling. "This looks complicated, therefore God."

There is no controversy around evolution. There are no alternative theories. There hasn't been any falsification of the theory.

If the other stories are like the first, then they are irrelevant to the 'science' portion of your topic.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 4:08:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 1:51:29 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
If you allow your presentation of religious scientists, you must allow the opposite.


Of course, that is what discussion is, though it doesn't mean I have to accept it as relevant. However I certainly have no interest in suppressing counter evidence, after all, it is only on hearing all the evidence, either way that people can make up their minds.

I would not have let any restrict my areas of research so I will not restrict anyone else's, though there is good reason to advise against some areas.

The God I serve gave us all a freedom to choose. Why should I take it away?

I simply advise caution in how and why you choose your "experts". Majority is a very poor way to do so.

93% of scientists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheist or agnostic. Only 5.5% of biologists in that group believe in some kind of god, and that includes deism.

In total, the percentage believing in god in the NAS has fallen from 27% in 1914 to 7% as of 1998, so the trend is scientists moving away from belief.

I only read your first link, and one paragraph shows perfectly how Feng-Ling Yang's opinion of evolution is not scientifically-based:

Well, I asked myself, "How did those protein machines become so well engineered?" At the time, the unexpected complexity of cell chemistry made a number of scientists ask the same question. A professor of biochemistry in the United States published a book arguing that the molecular machines in living cells are so complex that they could not have originated randomly. I agreed. I felt that life must have been created.

Engineered? She starts by assuming engineering, not natural processes. That's not science.

No hypothesis, no testing, no papers, no science. Just a feeling. "This looks complicated, therefore God."

There is no controversy around evolution. There are no alternative theories. There hasn't been any falsification of the theory.

If the other stories are like the first, then they are irrelevant to the 'science' portion of your topic.

You are welcome to your opinion of what the content of her story reveals, though I suspect she might disagree.
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 4:12:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 4:08:14 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I simply advise caution in how and why you choose your "experts". Majority is a very poor way to do so.

Yet your post tries to argue a trend of more and more scientists turning to the Bible as somehow meaning something. You can't have it both ways.

You are welcome to your opinion of what the content of her story reveals, though I suspect she might disagree.

I'm not talking to her, this is a discussion here. Do you disagree with me? Did she present any evidence for her religion, or any evidence against evolution?

Or was it just, as I said, feelings? I felt this was too complex to have evolved, therefore God did it?

You presented these stories for a reason, I'm surprised you don't seem willing to stand behind them or even discuss them.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 4:18:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Second link:
There, at night, while viewing the magnificent celestial panorama through the clear desert skies, I could not help but conclude that God must have created the universe.

Nothing to do with science. He said 'Pretty sky, therefore God'.

Third link:
Then I thought about my work with robots. Whose designs was I imitating? I could never design a robot capable of catching a ball as we can. A robot can be programmed to catch a ball, but only in precisely controlled conditions. It cannot do so in circumstances for which it has not been programmed. Our ability to learn is vastly superior to that of a machine"and mere machines have makers! This fact is just one of many that led me to conclude that we must have had a Designer.

He's saying that because we can't artificially copy aspects of life, that means they couldn't occur naturally and must have been designed by a great Creator. Again, that's not science. We can't make a star, but that doesn't mean they don't form naturally. This is all junk.

Fourth link:
The more I studied the immune system, the more I realized just how complex and effective it is. Thus, my research led me to conclude that life is a product of an intelligent Creator.

Complex, therefore God. Even though we can show the evolution of these complex systems, somehow that's not good enough.

Do I really need to go on? There are no arguments presented in these stories. No science. They do not support the title of this topic.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 4:41:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 2:02:20 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
fields such as microbiology, my favourite.

what is it about microbiology that makes you favour it so?
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 4:49:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 2:02:20 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
The people whose life storied are listed below apparently don't think so, and they are all highly qualified scientists in various fields. Some have published articles to their names. Science is more and more coming round to the side of scripture, hence more and more scientists are taking to the bible, and in the fields which are revealing the inevitability if creation day by day, fields such as microbiology, my favourite.

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

Why have these scientists come down on the side of the bible?

Well read their stories on the end of those links, and see for yourself.

So are you one of the 144000 in number that are going to make heaven, or are these scientists?
superflymegastallion
Posts: 370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 10:27:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 4:18:35 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
Second link:
There, at night, while viewing the magnificent celestial panorama through the clear desert skies, I could not help but conclude that God must have created the universe.

Nothing to do with science. He said 'Pretty sky, therefore God'.

Third link:
Then I thought about my work with robots. Whose designs was I imitating? I could never design a robot capable of catching a ball as we can. A robot can be programmed to catch a ball, but only in precisely controlled conditions. It cannot do so in circumstances for which it has not been programmed. Our ability to learn is vastly superior to that of a machine"and mere machines have makers! This fact is just one of many that led me to conclude that we must have had a Designer.

He's saying that because we can't artificially copy aspects of life, that means they couldn't occur naturally and must have been designed by a great Creator. Again, that's not science. We can't make a star, but that doesn't mean they don't form naturally. This is all junk.

Fourth link:
The more I studied the immune system, the more I realized just how complex and effective it is. Thus, my research led me to conclude that life is a product of an intelligent Creator.

Complex, therefore God. Even though we can show the evolution of these complex systems, somehow that's not good enough.

Do I really need to go on? There are no arguments presented in these stories. No science. They do not support the title of this topic.
I spent way too much time reading these articles, and taking notes why I didn't agree with them. I was getting ready to post and now I see that you read them the same way as me.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 11:28:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 4:49:13 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/30/2013 2:02:20 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
The people whose life storied are listed below apparently don't think so, and they are all highly qualified scientists in various fields. Some have published articles to their names. Science is more and more coming round to the side of scripture, hence more and more scientists are taking to the bible, and in the fields which are revealing the inevitability if creation day by day, fields such as microbiology, my favourite.

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

Why have these scientists come down on the side of the bible?

Well read their stories on the end of those links, and see for yourself.

So are you one of the 144000 in number that are going to make heaven, or are these scientists?

The ones in the stories are all scientists.

No I am not one of the 144,000 If I have a hope of life it will be the earthly one. I have no desire to go to heaven.

In fact currently and I hope temporarily, I am not even a JW.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 11:30:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 4:41:35 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 12/30/2013 2:02:20 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
fields such as microbiology, my favourite.

what is it about microbiology that makes you favour it so?

It is continually revealing the inevitability of creation being the origin of everything.

Thee deeper they go, the more obvious the design becomes.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 11:32:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 4:18:35 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
Second link:
There, at night, while viewing the magnificent celestial panorama through the clear desert skies, I could not help but conclude that God must have created the universe.

Nothing to do with science. He said 'Pretty sky, therefore God'.

Third link:
Then I thought about my work with robots. Whose designs was I imitating? I could never design a robot capable of catching a ball as we can. A robot can be programmed to catch a ball, but only in precisely controlled conditions. It cannot do so in circumstances for which it has not been programmed. Our ability to learn is vastly superior to that of a machine"and mere machines have makers! This fact is just one of many that led me to conclude that we must have had a Designer.

He's saying that because we can't artificially copy aspects of life, that means they couldn't occur naturally and must have been designed by a great Creator. Again, that's not science. We can't make a star, but that doesn't mean they don't form naturally. This is all junk.

Fourth link:
The more I studied the immune system, the more I realized just how complex and effective it is. Thus, my research led me to conclude that life is a product of an intelligent Creator.

Complex, therefore God. Even though we can show the evolution of these complex systems, somehow that's not good enough.

Do I really need to go on? There are no arguments presented in these stories. No science. They do not support the title of this topic.

If they didn't they could never have become JWs. You cannot be a JW and not believe scripture 100%.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 11:35:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 4:12:30 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 12/31/2013 4:08:14 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I simply advise caution in how and why you choose your "experts". Majority is a very poor way to do so.

Yet your post tries to argue a trend of more and more scientists turning to the Bible as somehow meaning something. You can't have it both ways.

You are welcome to your opinion of what the content of her story reveals, though I suspect she might disagree.

I'm not talking to her, this is a discussion here. Do you disagree with me? Did she present any evidence for her religion, or any evidence against evolution?

Or was it just, as I said, feelings? I felt this was too complex to have evolved, therefore God did it?

You presented these stories for a reason, I'm surprised you don't seem willing to stand behind them or even discuss them.

I stand alongside them as a fellow believer in the entirety of scripture.

No, not feelings it is a self evident fact when you look close enough.

They do not need me to defend them. They do a good enough job of defending thenselves.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 11:37:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 1:51:29 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
If you allow your presentation of religious scientists, you must allow the opposite.

93% of scientists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheist or agnostic. Only 5.5% of biologists in that group believe in some kind of god, and that includes deism.

In total, the percentage believing in god in the NAS has fallen from 27% in 1914 to 7% as of 1998, so the trend is scientists moving away from belief.

I only read your first link, and one paragraph shows perfectly how Feng-Ling Yang's opinion of evolution is not scientifically-based:

Well, I asked myself, "How did those protein machines become so well engineered?" At the time, the unexpected complexity of cell chemistry made a number of scientists ask the same question. A professor of biochemistry in the United States published a book arguing that the molecular machines in living cells are so complex that they could not have originated randomly. I agreed. I felt that life must have been created.

Engineered? She starts by assuming engineering, not natural processes. That's not science.

No hypothesis, no testing, no papers, no science. Just a feeling. "This looks complicated, therefore God."

There is no controversy around evolution. There are no alternative theories. There hasn't been any falsification of the theory.

If the other stories are like the first, then they are irrelevant to the 'science' portion of your topic.

Hardly, because all the scientists are true supporters of the truth of scripture. They have to be to be JWs.
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 11:54:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 11:35:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/31/2013 4:12:30 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 12/31/2013 4:08:14 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I simply advise caution in how and why you choose your "experts". Majority is a very poor way to do so.

Yet your post tries to argue a trend of more and more scientists turning to the Bible as somehow meaning something. You can't have it both ways.

You are welcome to your opinion of what the content of her story reveals, though I suspect she might disagree.

I'm not talking to her, this is a discussion here. Do you disagree with me? Did she present any evidence for her religion, or any evidence against evolution?

Or was it just, as I said, feelings? I felt this was too complex to have evolved, therefore God did it?

You presented these stories for a reason, I'm surprised you don't seem willing to stand behind them or even discuss them.

I stand alongside them as a fellow believer in the entirety of scripture.

No, not feelings it is a self evident fact when you look close enough.

They do not need me to defend them. They do a good enough job of defending thenselves.

Self-evident fact, the shining beacon of reason and discovery. Alright, as long as you admit that you cannot and will not defend your position. I just find it amazing that you call scientists into the spotlight as if that means something, but refuse to provide any actual link between science and belief.

Belief in self-evident fact is the pinnacle of willful ignorance.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 12:01:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'll go one step further for you. Science and the Bible are incompatible.

Genesis states that God created the earth, plants, and light before the sun. It states that above the sky is water. It states that the sun and stars are placed in the sky, not above it, because that's where the water is. It states that God froze the sun in the sky.

All are incompatible with science. There shouldn't even be a debate, there is no real controversy. It's a ridiculous book to claim divine authority.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 1:17:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 12:01:35 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
I'll go one step further for you. Science and the Bible are incompatible.

Genesis states that God created the earth, plants, and light before the sun. It states that above the sky is water. It states that the sun and stars are placed in the sky, not above it, because that's where the water is. It states that God froze the sun in the sky.

All are incompatible with science. There shouldn't even be a debate, there is no real controversy. It's a ridiculous book to claim divine authority.

Actually it does not say that at all if you read it correctly.

The creation of the sun is covered in Verse 1.

The rest of Genesis is written as if viewed from the surface of the earth, so at first light becomes available, though the sun cannot be seen, because the dust has at least settled sufficiently for light to penetrate to the ground.

The next step is when the sun is finally visible from the earth's surface.

Think of it this way.

When light first appears it is like a day when the Volcanic ash cloud has cleared sufficiently for light to penetrate, but there is still heavy cloud over head.

On a cloudy day, you have light, but can you see the sun? No!

But when the clouds clear the sun is actually visible.

We know better, now, but for all an observer on the earth, who had never been able to see the sun, everything would appear as described in Genesis Chapter 1.

Genesis Chapter two is written from a completely different viewpoint. It is not written in the Chronological order that Chapter 1 is, but in the order things are revealed to Adam. In other words it is written in the order of discovery, not of creation.

You cannot understand scripture simply by reading the words. You have to study it well enough to work out the context, the viewpoint, from which is was written.

Notice also that nowhere in Genesis 1 does it say that God created every single animal that we know. It says merely that he created animals "according to their kinds" therefore the only reasonable understanding is that he created a few basic kinds and then allowed them to adapt as necessary to suit their environment.

Please notice also that in the first instance all animals and humans were created to eat fruit and vegetation. It was only after the flood, when vegetation became scarce that God gave Noah permission to eat meat, and also put a dread of humans into many animals so they had a fighting chance of living.

However they were not allowed to eat meat as and when they wanted to, only when they had no alternative, "when your soul craves it", when necessary to support life.

That probably explains why the only hunters mentioned in scripture are all enemies of God, or at the least, ones who are not favoured by him.

Even Esau had his birthright taken from him at God's instigation so that a hunter would not appear in the line which led to the Messiah.

God is not above manoeuvring things to make sure they fit his purpose, as scripture shows.

Even the water layer is not actually beyond science. Even NASA acknowledge that there may well have been a gas or vapour layer in the upper atmosphere, but according to scripture the water vapour that was up there, and it would have had to have been vapour, is what God brought down to the earth to cause the flood.

Genesis does not speak of the sun freezing in the sky.

However there are two events where the sun was given the appearance of being manoeuvred.

The first was when Joshua was sent to defends the Gibeonites, who had agreed to join Israel, and Joshua asked God to cause the sun to stand still. Scripture does not tell us how God achieved that, but since the sun does not go round the earth it could well have been by his causing the rotation of the earth to slow or stop. Not something which is beyond his power. That would, in Joshua's understanding have made the sun appear to stand still for almost a whole day.

The second was when Hezekiah demanded of Isaiah a sign to show that what Isaiah had told him really had come from God. Isaiah told him, under inspiration, that sun sun would reverse it's apparent course so the the shadow went back up the stairs again them steps, having just come down. That is easily explained by God doing the same trick as with Joshua, only this time reversing the direction of rotation for a brief while.

Why would such feats be beyond the creator of this whole universe? He could even make sure that Gravity was altered as needed, if needed.

Take the crossing of the Red Sea.

We are often given this strange picture of walls of water a few hundred yards apart, but is that what happened.

Well, someone worked out that for the whole of the Israelite party, including the Egyptians who had attached themselves to Israel, including livestock and wagons, to cross in the time allowed, the land between the waters would not only have had to have been very dry, but also the width would have had to have been along a two mile front, approximately.

Again not an impossible feat for a God with the power of our creator.

It is not often remembered that this was not the only occasion on which God parted waters. He did so to enable Joshua and the Army to cross the Jordan at flood stage and capture Jericho.

Genesis also describes the waters on the earth as all being gathered into one place, which implies that the land was also, Science agrees.

Genesis also states that a while after the flood, the "earth was divided", something else which is self evidently true and resulted in the continents we have now.

No, science and scripture are definitely not incompatible, as long as one accepts that man has almost certainly got his time measurements back into pre-history thoroughly wrong, which is likely since all current methods are based on "best guess" assumptions and cannot possibly be based on anything else because no-one was around to define the start points.

It would be like me asking you to work out how long a tank of water had been leaking without telling you:

A) How much water was in there to begin with.

and

B) Whether or not anything had happened to alter the rate of leakage.

You could not reliably do so.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 1:19:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 11:54:02 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 12/31/2013 11:35:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/31/2013 4:12:30 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 12/31/2013 4:08:14 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I simply advise caution in how and why you choose your "experts". Majority is a very poor way to do so.

Yet your post tries to argue a trend of more and more scientists turning to the Bible as somehow meaning something. You can't have it both ways.

You are welcome to your opinion of what the content of her story reveals, though I suspect she might disagree.

I'm not talking to her, this is a discussion here. Do you disagree with me? Did she present any evidence for her religion, or any evidence against evolution?

Or was it just, as I said, feelings? I felt this was too complex to have evolved, therefore God did it?

You presented these stories for a reason, I'm surprised you don't seem willing to stand behind them or even discuss them.

I stand alongside them as a fellow believer in the entirety of scripture.

No, not feelings it is a self evident fact when you look close enough.

They do not need me to defend them. They do a good enough job of defending thenselves.

Self-evident fact, the shining beacon of reason and discovery. Alright, as long as you admit that you cannot and will not defend your position. I just find it amazing that you call scientists into the spotlight as if that means something, but refuse to provide any actual link between science and belief.

Belief in self-evident fact is the pinnacle of wilful ignorance.

Refusal to accept the evidence of god in the world around is actually the hight of wilful ignorance.

Anything which is self-evident is beyond reasonable argument.
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 1:27:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Listen, this is very simple. If you ask if science and the Bible are incompatible, you have to take science as it is. Science says you cannot reverse the rotation of the earth, for instance, without killing everybody.

Your 'Well God can do anything' argument isn't science. It's not compatible with science. I know full-well how far believers are willing to go to justify their faith. The mental gymnastics are endless, but they are unscientific and irrational.

You believe God can stop the rotation of the earth, fine. Go ahead. Just don't claim it's compatible with science.

Also, it says 'God made two great lights"the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. ' It says God made the sun after light already existed, after plants already existed, and after the earth already existed.

Again, call it faith, but don't call it compatible with science. You can't make the light of the sun before making the sun.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 1:29:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 1:19:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Refusal to accept the evidence of god in the world around is actually the hight of wilful ignorance.

Anything which is self-evident is beyond reasonable argument.

There is no evidence of god.

It is self-evident that something cannot pop into and out of existence. It is self-evident that time is the same in your basement as on your main floor. It is self-evident that an electron can only be in one place at a time.

Yet all those self-evident 'facts' are wrong. You value your common sense above reality.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 2:12:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 1:27:22 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
Listen, this is very simple. If you ask if science and the Bible are incompatible, you have to take science as it is. Science says you cannot reverse the rotation of the earth, for instance, without killing everybody.

It theorises that, yes, but can it prove it. Theories don't count, only facts that take all impossible factors not account. How do you account for the power of the creator of all things? After all to have created it all he must be a source of more power than all of the suns in creation and as far as we know there are billions of them.

Nothing which science can prove, or demonstrate, argues with what the bible says. Not one thing, or no scientist could put their faith in it as all the ones I have listed the life stories of, and more besides, do just that.

Don't forget to prove it as a fact one also has to be able to demonstrate it.


Your 'Well God can do anything' argument isn't science. It's not compatible with science. I know full-well how far believers are willing to go to justify their faith. The mental gymnastics are endless, but they are unscientific and irrational.

Of course it is compatible with science. If it is true, and it is, then it can only be compatible with science.

Again if it were not compatible with science so many scientists could not put their faith in it, and they have.

It may not be compatible with some of the theories of some scientists, probably even the majority of scientists, but if they are only theories they are not science either.


You believe God can stop the rotation of the earth, fine. Go ahead. Just don't claim it's compatible with science.

If it can happen then it can only be compatible with science, because science is the measure of what is possible.

Science is more than the theories of scientists, science is what has been proven.


Also, it says 'God made two great lights"the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. ' It says God made the sun after light already existed, after plants already existed, and after the earth already existed.

That is not true. Genesis had already said that the ehavens and the earth had been created, in verse one.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That inevitably includes the sun

Verse 2 onwards simply describes the preparation of the earth for life.

The relevant verses to your comments are:

3 And God said: "Let there be light." Then there was light.

That is where the light from the sun started to reach the surface of the ground. no vegetation had been created let alone animal life, at that point.

14 Then God said: "Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years. 15 They will serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth." And it was so. 16 And God went on to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.

To an observer on the surface it would appear as if they had been created when all that had happened was that they had become visible. Those verses a re written from that viewpoint.

The fact that the moon is not a true luminary, but a reflective surface which merely reflected the light of the sun onto the earth would also not be obvious to an observer on the earth.


Again, call it faith, but don't call it compatible with science. You can't make the light of the sun before making the sun.

No of course you can't but then Genesis doesn't say it was that way. merely that it would appear that way to an observer on the earth, which is completely compatible with the scientific evidence, and as we can see every day when it is cloudy and the sun is not visible though the cloud, but its light still reaches the earth.

Do you find that so difficult to understand? or do you simply not want to understand it?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 2:28:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 1:29:09 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 12/31/2013 1:19:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Refusal to accept the evidence of god in the world around is actually the hight of wilful ignorance.

Anything which is self-evident is beyond reasonable argument.

There is no evidence of god.

It is self-evident that something cannot pop into and out of existence. It is self-evident that time is the same in your basement as on your main floor. It is self-evident that an electron can only be in one place at a time.

Yet all those self-evident 'facts' are wrong. You value your common sense above reality.

There is a great deal of evidence of God and it is constantly appear in microbiology almost daily. The fact that you do not wish to accept that does not affect the fact that it is true.

Actually your "self-evident facts" are jot self evident, they are simply illusions.

The time illusion is because your watch will not noticeably be altered by altitude.

It depends on what you means "pop into existence out of nothing". If you mean it literally then yes it is true, they cannot, though things can appear to do so.

The cells that are created to form the body of a growing child may appear to come from nowhere but in fact they are made from the nutrition the child is given. if you dramatically under-feed an infant it will not grow properly.

An electron can only be in one place at a time, however that may not be apparent due to the speed of it's movement. However electrons are always on the move, either round in circles, occupying a different, if microscopic, amount of space at any given instant

Apparent is not the same as self-evident.

It is apparent that a brick is a solid, whereas in fact it is very far from it. Nothing is completely solid even if to our eyes it appears so. once you start to increase magnification sufficiently it becomes self evident that even an atom is not remotely solid.

Few things are truly self evident, most simply appear to be as we see them, however the deeper you go the more self-evident it really is that God exists.

That is why even 2,000 years, almost, ago, Paul was even then able to say perfectly correctly that those who did not recognise the existence of God were inexcusable. How much more is that the case with what we know of the complexity, and yet absolute interdependency of everything in this system? That will continue to be, increasingly, the case until none can deny it, though no doubt some will even then.
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 2:29:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 2:12:18 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/31/2013 1:27:22 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
Listen, this is very simple. If you ask if science and the Bible are incompatible, you have to take science as it is. Science says you cannot reverse the rotation of the earth, for instance, without killing everybody.

It theorises that, yes, but can it prove it. Theories don't count, only facts that take all impossible factors not account. How do you account for the power of the creator of all things? After all to have created it all he must be a source of more power than all of the suns in creation and as far as we know there are billions of them.

Nothing which science can prove, or demonstrate, argues with what the bible says. Not one thing, or no scientist could put their faith in it as all the ones I have listed the life stories of, and more besides, do just that.

Oh, I see. You have no idea what science is.

Don't forget to prove it as a fact one also has to be able to demonstrate it.


Your 'Well God can do anything' argument isn't science. It's not compatible with science. I know full-well how far believers are willing to go to justify their faith. The mental gymnastics are endless, but they are unscientific and irrational.

Of course it is compatible with science. If it is true, and it is, then it can only be compatible with science.

Oh I see. You have no idea what logic is.

Again if it were not compatible with science so many scientists could not put their faith in it, and they have.

It may not be compatible with some of the theories of some scientists, probably even the majority of scientists, but if they are only theories they are not science either.

Oh I see. You really have no idea what science is.


You believe God can stop the rotation of the earth, fine. Go ahead. Just don't claim it's compatible with science.

If it can happen then it can only be compatible with science, because science is the measure of what is possible.

Science is more than the theories of scientists, science is what has been proven.


Also, it says 'God made two great lights"the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. ' It says God made the sun after light already existed, after plants already existed, and after the earth already existed.

That is not true. Genesis had already said that the ehavens and the earth had been created, in verse one.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That inevitably includes the sun

Verse 2 onwards simply describes the preparation of the earth for life.

The relevant verses to your comments are:

3 And God said: "Let there be light." Then there was light.

That is where the light from the sun started to reach the surface of the ground. no vegetation had been created let alone animal life, at that point.

14 Then God said: "Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years. 15 They will serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth." And it was so. 16 And God went on to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.

To an observer on the surface it would appear as if they had been created when all that had happened was that they had become visible. Those verses a re written from that viewpoint.

Fine, they are written from the viewpoint of someone on earth. They are still wrong, and don't agree with science. You're admitting that the verses don't actually mean what they say. They don't actually mean 'And God went on to make the two great luminaries, '.

So by your own admission, without any scientific consideration, those verses are a lie.

The fact that the moon is not a true luminary, but a reflective surface which merely reflected the light of the sun onto the earth would also not be obvious to an observer on the earth.


Again, call it faith, but don't call it compatible with science. You can't make the light of the sun before making the sun.

No of course you can't but then Genesis doesn't say it was that way. merely that it would appear that way to an observer on the earth,

No, you say that. Genesis does not say that. Nowhere does it say 'as seen by men on earth'(before they were even created by its own account).

which is completely compatible with the scientific evidence, and as we can see every day when it is cloudy and the sun is not visible though the cloud, but its light still reaches the earth.

Do you find that so difficult to understand? or do you simply not want to understand it?

I understand. It's illogical, but I understand your thought process. Anything to justify faith. The Bible doesn't mean what it says. You have to take the wrong parts metaphorically, but you can take the parts that you think agree with science literally.

I understand completely, it's the perfect demonstration of why religion is harmful. It makes people go absolutely bonkers.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 2:35:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 2:28:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/31/2013 1:29:09 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 12/31/2013 1:19:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Refusal to accept the evidence of god in the world around is actually the hight of wilful ignorance.

Anything which is self-evident is beyond reasonable argument.

There is no evidence of god.

It is self-evident that something cannot pop into and out of existence. It is self-evident that time is the same in your basement as on your main floor. It is self-evident that an electron can only be in one place at a time.

Yet all those self-evident 'facts' are wrong. You value your common sense above reality.

There is a great deal of evidence of God and it is constantly appear in microbiology almost daily. The fact that you do not wish to accept that does not affect the fact that it is true.

Actually your "self-evident facts" are jot self evident, they are simply illusions.

The time illusion is because your watch will not noticeably be altered by altitude.

It depends on what you means "pop into existence out of nothing". If you mean it literally then yes it is true, they cannot, though things can appear to do so.

The cells that are created to form the body of a growing child may appear to come from nowhere but in fact they are made from the nutrition the child is given. if you dramatically under-feed an infant it will not grow properly.

An electron can only be in one place at a time, however that may not be apparent due to the speed of it's movement. However electrons are always on the move, either round in circles, occupying a different, if microscopic, amount of space at any given instant

Apparent is not the same as self-evident.

It is apparent that a brick is a solid, whereas in fact it is very far from it. Nothing is completely solid even if to our eyes it appears so. once you start to increase magnification sufficiently it becomes self evident that even an atom is not remotely solid.

Few things are truly self evident, most simply appear to be as we see them, however the deeper you go the more self-evident it really is that God exists.

That is why even 2,000 years, almost, ago, Paul was even then able to say perfectly correctly that those who did not recognise the existence of God were inexcusable. How much more is that the case with what we know of the complexity, and yet absolute interdependency of everything in this system? That will continue to be, increasingly, the case until none can deny it, though no doubt some will even then.

How can you make a thread claiming that science is compatible with the Bible, and then in that very thread, claim that science is wrong? You're wrong about matter coming from nothing, and you're wrong about electrons. You're wrong about interdependence.

Your claims about self-evident facts are simply attempts to skip out on the burden of proof. Nothing you have posted is logical. Nothing you have posted is scientific.

I've gotten bored with you. Drop the science schtick, you don't accept science.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 3:17:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 2:35:04 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 12/31/2013 2:28:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/31/2013 1:29:09 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 12/31/2013 1:19:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Refusal to accept the evidence of god in the world around is actually the hight of wilful ignorance.

Anything which is self-evident is beyond reasonable argument.

There is no evidence of god.

It is self-evident that something cannot pop into and out of existence. It is self-evident that time is the same in your basement as on your main floor. It is self-evident that an electron can only be in one place at a time.

Yet all those self-evident 'facts' are wrong. You value your common sense above reality.

There is a great deal of evidence of God and it is constantly appear in microbiology almost daily. The fact that you do not wish to accept that does not affect the fact that it is true.

Actually your "self-evident facts" are jot self evident, they are simply illusions.

The time illusion is because your watch will not noticeably be altered by altitude.

It depends on what you means "pop into existence out of nothing". If you mean it literally then yes it is true, they cannot, though things can appear to do so.

The cells that are created to form the body of a growing child may appear to come from nowhere but in fact they are made from the nutrition the child is given. if you dramatically under-feed an infant it will not grow properly.

An electron can only be in one place at a time, however that may not be apparent due to the speed of it's movement. However electrons are always on the move, either round in circles, occupying a different, if microscopic, amount of space at any given instant

Apparent is not the same as self-evident.

It is apparent that a brick is a solid, whereas in fact it is very far from it. Nothing is completely solid even if to our eyes it appears so. once you start to increase magnification sufficiently it becomes self evident that even an atom is not remotely solid.

Few things are truly self evident, most simply appear to be as we see them, however the deeper you go the more self-evident it really is that God exists.

That is why even 2,000 years, almost, ago, Paul was even then able to say perfectly correctly that those who did not recognise the existence of God were inexcusable. How much more is that the case with what we know of the complexity, and yet absolute interdependency of everything in this system? That will continue to be, increasingly, the case until none can deny it, though no doubt some will even then.

How can you make a thread claiming that science is compatible with the Bible, and then in that very thread, claim that science is wrong? You're wrong about matter coming from nothing, and you're wrong about electrons. You're wrong about interdependence.

Your claims about self-evident facts are simply attempts to skip out on the burden of proof. Nothing you have posted is logical. Nothing you have posted is scientific.

I've gotten bored with you. Drop the science schtick, you don't accept science.

You get bored easily when you aren't winning don't you?

First I did not make a thread claiming that science and the bible are compatible, I raised a thread asking the question and supplied one side of the answer, leaving it open for people to supply the other side.

Second I did not say science was wrong, though I would suggest your view of what science is, is wrong.

I know scientists who would disagree with you, but you are welcome to your opinion, but don't forget that is all it is, an opinion.

In fact I would have said that it was your argumentation that was illogical, but that is just my opinion.

It is a shame you find discussion boring unless you are winning, but again that is your choice.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 3:34:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 2:29:07 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 12/31/2013 2:12:18 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/31/2013 1:27:22 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
Listen, this is very simple. If you ask if science and the Bible are incompatible, you have to take science as it is. Science says you cannot reverse the rotation of the earth, for instance, without killing everybody.

It theorises that, yes, but can it prove it. Theories don't count, only facts that take all impossible factors not account. How do you account for the power of the creator of all things? After all to have created it all he must be a source of more power than all of the suns in creation and as far as we know there are billions of them.

Nothing which science can prove, or demonstrate, argues with what the bible says. Not one thing, or no scientist could put their faith in it as all the ones I have listed the life stories of, and more besides, do just that.

Oh, I see. You have no idea what science is.

More than you do apparently.


Don't forget to prove it as a fact one also has to be able to demonstrate it.


Your 'Well God can do anything' argument isn't science. It's not compatible with science. I know full-well how far believers are willing to go to justify their faith. The mental gymnastics are endless, but they are unscientific and irrational.

Of course it is compatible with science. If it is true, and it is, then it can only be compatible with science.

Oh I see. You have no idea what logic is.

More than you do it seems.


Again if it were not compatible with science so many scientists could not put their faith in it, and they have.

It may not be compatible with some of the theories of some scientists, probably even the majority of scientists, but if they are only theories they are not science either.

Oh I see. You really have no idea what science is.

More than you do it would appear.



You believe God can stop the rotation of the earth, fine. Go ahead. Just don't claim it's compatible with science.

If it can happen then it can only be compatible with science, because science is the measure of what is possible.

Science is more than the theories of scientists, science is what has been proven.


Also, it says 'God made two great lights"the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. ' It says God made the sun after light already existed, after plants already existed, and after the earth already existed.

That is not true. Genesis had already said that the ehavens and the earth had been created, in verse one.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That inevitably includes the sun

Verse 2 onwards simply describes the preparation of the earth for life.

The relevant verses to your comments are:

3 And God said: "Let there be light." Then there was light.

That is where the light from the sun started to reach the surface of the ground. no vegetation had been created let alone animal life, at that point.

14 Then God said: "Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years. 15 They will serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth." And it was so. 16 And God went on to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.

To an observer on the surface it would appear as if they had been created when all that had happened was that they had become visible. Those verses a re written from that viewpoint.

Fine, they are written from the viewpoint of someone on earth. They are still wrong, and don't agree with science. You're admitting that the verses don't actually mean what they say. They don't actually mean 'And God went on to make the two great luminaries, '.

On the contrary they agree with science in more way than you care to admit.

No I am saying that they don't mean what you want them to mean. Words can be descriptive, describing what appears to be rather than what is. as well as bland statements of fact, they can also be metaphorical.

I see you don't understand the uses of language. It is not as rigid as you would like to think, nor come to that is science. Or life even.


So by your own admission, without any scientific consideration, those verses are a lie.


No they are not a lie, they are descriptive of what appears to be as someone on earth would have understood it.

You really don't understand language usage do you. Do you never speak metaphorically? If not I do hope you aren't a teacher.

The bible uses metaphor a lot, and Jesus used it liberally as a way of teaching truths.

The bible does not claim to be a science textbook, but understand the meanings behind the words and where it touches on science it is accurate.

The fact that the moon is not a true luminary, but a reflective surface which merely reflected the light of the sun onto the earth would also not be obvious to an observer on the earth.


Again, call it faith, but don't call it compatible with science. You can't make the light of the sun before making the sun.

No of course you can't but then Genesis doesn't say it was that way. merely that it would appear that way to an observer on the earth,

No, you say that. Genesis does not say that. Nowhere does it say 'as seen by men on earth'(before they were even created by its own account).

Does it need to? Do you need to be spoon fed to understand things? If you stop to think about it rather than just picking holes it is obvious what it is doing.

Neither God nor the bible treats us like idiots. We are expected to think, reason, understand, not just take everything on face value, as you insist on doing.

That is why the bible itself proclaims "The essence "substance" of your word is truth" (Psalm 119:160.

which is completely compatible with the scientific evidence, and as we can see every day when it is cloudy and the sun is not visible though the cloud, but its light still reaches the earth.

Do you find that so difficult to understand? or do you simply not want to understand it?

I understand. It's illogical, but I understand your thought process. Anything to justify faith. The Bible doesn't mean what it says. You have to take the wrong parts metaphorically, but you can take the parts that you think agree with science literally.

No that just proves that you do not understand my thought processes at all.

I understand completely, it's the perfect demonstration of why religion is harmful. It makes people go absolutely bonkers.

No wonder you are easily bored if you can't handle an "opponent" who can reason rather than just parrot, or kow-tow.
superflymegastallion
Posts: 370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 4:26:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 2:35:04 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 12/31/2013 2:28:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/31/2013 1:29:09 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 12/31/2013 1:19:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Refusal to accept the evidence of god in the world around is actually the hight of wilful ignorance.

Anything which is self-evident is beyond reasonable argument.

There is no evidence of god.

It is self-evident that something cannot pop into and out of existence. It is self-evident that time is the same in your basement as on your main floor. It is self-evident that an electron can only be in one place at a time.

Yet all those self-evident 'facts' are wrong. You value your common sense above reality.

There is a great deal of evidence of God and it is constantly appear in microbiology almost daily. The fact that you do not wish to accept that does not affect the fact that it is true.

Actually your "self-evident facts" are jot self evident, they are simply illusions.

The time illusion is because your watch will not noticeably be altered by altitude.

It depends on what you means "pop into existence out of nothing". If you mean it literally then yes it is true, they cannot, though things can appear to do so.

The cells that are created to form the body of a growing child may appear to come from nowhere but in fact they are made from the nutrition the child is given. if you dramatically under-feed an infant it will not grow properly.

An electron can only be in one place at a time, however that may not be apparent due to the speed of it's movement. However electrons are always on the move, either round in circles, occupying a different, if microscopic, amount of space at any given instant

Apparent is not the same as self-evident.

It is apparent that a brick is a solid, whereas in fact it is very far from it. Nothing is completely solid even if to our eyes it appears so. once you start to increase magnification sufficiently it becomes self evident that even an atom is not remotely solid.

Few things are truly self evident, most simply appear to be as we see them, however the deeper you go the more self-evident it really is that God exists.

That is why even 2,000 years, almost, ago, Paul was even then able to say perfectly correctly that those who did not recognise the existence of God were inexcusable. How much more is that the case with what we know of the complexity, and yet absolute interdependency of everything in this system? That will continue to be, increasingly, the case until none can deny it, though no doubt some will even then.

How can you make a thread claiming that science is compatible with the Bible, and then in that very thread, claim that science is wrong? You're wrong about matter coming from nothing, and you're wrong about electrons. You're wrong about interdependence.

Your claims about self-evident facts are simply attempts to skip out on the burden of proof. Nothing you have posted is logical. Nothing you have posted is scientific.

I've gotten bored with you. Drop the science schtick, you don't accept science.
I have noticed one thing with the biker. It doesn't matter if you are religious or not. If you don't agree with his interpretation, then you simply don't understand the bible. I have noticed that he is the only one who really gets it. You are talking to a wall. You should have noticed when he presented his scientists.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 5:26:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 4:26:03 PM, superflymegastallion wrote:
At 12/31/2013 2:35:04 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:

I have noticed one thing with the biker. It doesn't matter if you are religious or not. If you don't agree with his interpretation, then you simply don't understand the bible. I have noticed that he is the only one who really gets it. You are talking to a wall. You should have noticed when he presented his scientists.

I do not deny that, but when you have the truth what else can you say?

I would hope you are talking to a wall, truth is truth and must be defended at all costs. I would be a traitor to the God I serve if I did not stand by it, and acknowledge his help in finding it.

There is only one understanding of scripture, and it is not mine, it is scriptures itself, so yes if you don't agree with what scripture says then you don't understand it.

Why do I have no doubts?

Well apart from the fact that there can only be on truth, once you are given, and I do mean given, the key to understanding the bible, the whole thing opens up to you and becomes a completely integrated, and consistent book from Genesis to Revelation.

You start to realise that there are, nor can be, any real contradictions in there, only scriptures which appear to contradict until you understand them properly.

In fact the above is one of the biggest keys to understanding scripture. Even if you don;t fully believe it is truly the word of God, if you work from the premise that God cannot contradict himself then you have to accept that if you find something that appears to you have misunderstood it.

That is part 1 of what the bible calls humility, the ability to admit that a word or phrase may mean something other than you think it does, or want it to.

Of course that means work, study, thought, reasoning, and lots of them. But then Jesus did describe the understanding of God's word as being like a precious pearl, and ask any Pearl Diver the effort and danger involved in finding natural pearls, as would have been the only kind available in Jesus' days.

I have studied and read the bible for decades with only one aim in mind. To understand what God is really trying to say. After all there is no point in looking at God's word any other way.

Why?

Well when studying for an exam do you study to please yourself? Or to please the ones who will be reading your paper in order to assess it and mark it?

So who is going to decide whether or not your bible study merits a pass mark?

Christ has been given that responsibility, therefore it is him we have to please with our understanding, no-one else.

There are many warnings in scripture that not only will our fellow man not like it, for a number of reasons, but that some may even think that we think we are better than them, which could not be further from the truth.

If we felt that way God would not let us anywhere near his truth, and he needs to do nothing to stop us getting there because Satan is only too happy to do that for him, though he thinks he's doing it for himself.

However, there are three things you have to realise before God will ever give you access to the "deep things of God" as Paul called them.

The first thing you have to accept is that God will, actively help you.

Why, because it suits his purposes to do so, and for no other reason than that, because he knows that his purposes will bring what is best for mankind as a whole. That is his interest.

Another is that, if you think too much of yourself and your abilities you will not get the help you need, on the otehr hand you also need to learn not to think too little of yourself either. You have to remember that if you make yourself genuinely useful to God, or do your best to, you become very valuable to him indeed.

The finest scriptural example of that was the Gibeonites.

They were enemies of God's people, but out of sheer self preservation they agreed, by rather sneaky means, to serve Israel and their God.

Did God accept that despite the tricky way they did it?

Yes he admired their humility and so not only accepted them, but when their former allies attacked them sent Joshua and Israel to defend them against those attackers.

Not only that but he performed one of his greatest ever miracles in their defence.

That is how important any who come to his side and accept his help and protection are too him.

As Jesus said, there is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 100 righteous men. Anyone who freely makes the effort to "come on board" is highly valued as long as their trust n God is strong enough, as was that of the Gibeonites.

God dearly loves an enemy who becomes a friend.

Read their story for yourself and see what I mean.

It starts here, (Chapter 9) http://wol.jw.org... and covers two short chapters.

It says a lot about God's loyalty to those who choose to serve him, no matter what their previous attitude.

Of course, if you don;t believe truth is a pearl worth diving for???????
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 6:57:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you believe that truth is a pearl worth diving then you won't want to visit this desert http://wol.jw.org...
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 7:36:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/1/2014 6:57:48 AM, bulproof wrote:
If you believe that truth is a pearl worth diving then you won't want to visit this desert http://wol.jw.org...

No the desert, in scriptural terms is Apostate Christianity and other false religions where the waters of truth dried up long ago.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 7:43:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/1/2014 7:36:35 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/1/2014 6:57:48 AM, bulproof wrote:
If you believe that truth is a pearl worth diving then you won't want to visit this desert http://wol.jw.org...

No the desert, in scriptural terms is Apostate Christianity and other false religions where the waters of truth dried up long ago.

The very best of your efforts against me always come fifth and there's only two of us in the race.

Give us a sample of your snake oil spiel. The one you use when you're working the carnies.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin