Total Posts:102|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Was the universe really created in six days?

B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 3:55:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ever since Darwin arrived on the world stage, there have been many people, who claim to be Christians, trying to explain the creation story in Genesis as other than what the Bible clearly states. A special creation, performed in six 24 hour days. These people, instead of trusting Gods word, have tried to claim that it actually did not mean six 24 hour days. They claim that millions of years were needed. Well. I believe that this will clear things up for any believers who are having trouble with this. In it, we see that Jesus Himself claimed to have created the heavens and the earth in six days. There are others comments from Jesus that also support this claim.

THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT CREATION VS EVOLUTION! IT IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GODS WORD AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS. ATHEISTS ARE NOT WELCOME, UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE A RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.

Anyway. Here's the link. http://answersingenesis.org...
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 3:59:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 3:55:25 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Ever since Darwin arrived on the world stage, there have been many people, who claim to be Christians, trying to explain the creation story in Genesis as other than what the Bible clearly states. A special creation, performed in six 24 hour days. These people, instead of trusting Gods word, have tried to claim that it actually did not mean six 24 hour days. They claim that millions of years were needed. Well. I believe that this will clear things up for any believers who are having trouble with this. In it, we see that Jesus Himself claimed to have created the heavens and the earth in six days. There are others comments from Jesus that also support this claim.

THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT CREATION VS EVOLUTION! IT IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GODS WORD AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS. ATHEISTS ARE NOT WELCOME, UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE A RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.

Anyway. Here's the link. http://answersingenesis.org...

It's silly when religious people try to prove their relion through science. Of course it never works.

Thus, the necessity for belief. Pure belief seems honest to me. Trying to prove scientifically seems disingenuous.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 4:05:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 3:55:25 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Ever since Darwin arrived on the world stage, there have been many people, who claim to be Christians, trying to explain the creation story in Genesis as other than what the Bible clearly states. A special creation, performed in six 24 hour days. These people, instead of trusting Gods word, have tried to claim that it actually did not mean six 24 hour days. They claim that millions of years were needed. Well. I believe that this will clear things up for any believers who are having trouble with this. In it, we see that Jesus Himself claimed to have created the heavens and the earth in six days. There are others comments from Jesus that also support this claim.

THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT CREATION VS EVOLUTION! IT IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GODS WORD AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS. ATHEISTS ARE NOT WELCOME, UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE A RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.

Anyway. Here's the link. http://answersingenesis.org...

If you take the Bible as a whole, and assume a monolithic text, then the conclusion that the theology of the Bible points to a literal six day creation is rather inevitable - due to post-referencing of the creation event by the Gospels, Paul etc. None of which are particularly ambiguous on the interpretation. Taking Genesis alone, there is more room for debate, but the literal interpretation pretty much passes all criteria one would objectively put to judge the intent of the text. "Evening-Morning" qualifier, the use of yom, which is almost exclusively used to refer to a 24 hour period, including within Genesis itself. And the fact that the writing style of the text was clearly not allegorical or poetic, given it's geographical and artifact detail, ancestry, etc.

Sure, it is possible that Genesis did not literally mean a six day creation, but it doesn't follow that it is at all likely.
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 4:07:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 3:59:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/22/2015 3:55:25 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Ever since Darwin arrived on the world stage, there have been many people, who claim to be Christians, trying to explain the creation story in Genesis as other than what the Bible clearly states. A special creation, performed in six 24 hour days. These people, instead of trusting Gods word, have tried to claim that it actually did not mean six 24 hour days. They claim that millions of years were needed. Well. I believe that this will clear things up for any believers who are having trouble with this. In it, we see that Jesus Himself claimed to have created the heavens and the earth in six days. There are others comments from Jesus that also support this claim.

THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT CREATION VS EVOLUTION! IT IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GODS WORD AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS. ATHEISTS ARE NOT WELCOME, UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE A RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.

Anyway. Here's the link. http://answersingenesis.org...

It's silly when religious people try to prove their relion through science. Of course it never works.

Thus, the necessity for belief. Pure belief seems honest to me. Trying to prove scientifically seems disingenuous.

Like I said in my OP. This is not a scientific discussion. It's a discussion about Gods word, and what it really says. Did you read the article?

Also, it's more like Christians try to use science to DISCREDIT evolution. Not prove the Bible is correct. After all, there are plenty of scientists who don't believe evolution is correct. Granted, they are the minority. But then the majority of scientists used to believe some pretty silly things throughout history.
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 4:09:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 4:05:25 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/22/2015 3:55:25 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Ever since Darwin arrived on the world stage, there have been many people, who claim to be Christians, trying to explain the creation story in Genesis as other than what the Bible clearly states. A special creation, performed in six 24 hour days. These people, instead of trusting Gods word, have tried to claim that it actually did not mean six 24 hour days. They claim that millions of years were needed. Well. I believe that this will clear things up for any believers who are having trouble with this. In it, we see that Jesus Himself claimed to have created the heavens and the earth in six days. There are others comments from Jesus that also support this claim.

THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT CREATION VS EVOLUTION! IT IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GODS WORD AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS. ATHEISTS ARE NOT WELCOME, UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE A RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.

Anyway. Here's the link. http://answersingenesis.org...

If you take the Bible as a whole, and assume a monolithic text, then the conclusion that the theology of the Bible points to a literal six day creation is rather inevitable - due to post-referencing of the creation event by the Gospels, Paul etc. None of which are particularly ambiguous on the interpretation. Taking Genesis alone, there is more room for debate, but the literal interpretation pretty much passes all criteria one would objectively put to judge the intent of the text. "Evening-Morning" qualifier, the use of yom, which is almost exclusively used to refer to a 24 hour period, including within Genesis itself. And the fact that the writing style of the text was clearly not allegorical or poetic, given it's geographical and artifact detail, ancestry, etc.

Sure, it is possible that Genesis did not literally mean a six day creation, but it doesn't follow that it is at all likely.

Thank you for replying. I know we disagree on a lot of things, but that was well said.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 4:19:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think the old-Earth interpretation is much more easily accepted however, if one also accepts the premise that Genesis had multiple authors. Which seems to be the consensus on the Pentateuch.

I.e. this would entail that the Author(s) of Chapter 1 & 2 would have had little to do with the following chapters. Which does have decent arguments for it, for example the fact that the Noah's Flood narrative so strongly parallels the Epic Of Gilgamesh, that the latter is the ancestor of the former. thus, large portions of the Genesis narrative was incorporated, where the intention of large portions of it cannot in principle reflect the intentions of any original writing/incorporation of other portions of the book.

For me, I don't think "what was the intention of text x" is a very meaningful question when regarding these sorts of religious texts, since there are far too many mitigating factors and considerations, especially when it comes to recycling previous mythologies/writings, for it to have a simple answer. Thus, the question of "did Genesis really mean a literal 24 hour day" is rather meaningless, since it can have multiple answers.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 5:04:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 3:55:25 PM, B0HICA wrote:
THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT CREATION VS EVOLUTION! IT IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GODS WORD AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS. ATHEISTS ARE NOT WELCOME, UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE A RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.

Unfortunately, Bohica, the claim that Genesis is God's word (i.e. is Christian theological instruction) is itself not an intellectually respectable claim. It is outright rejected by leading ancient near east historians (see for example Christine Hayes, linked at right.)

Moreover, modern people trying to 'discover' what Genesis means theologically are doing so with minds biased by traditions, beliefs and information that didn't exist at the time of its writing, and most have little knowledge of the social, cultural and political contexts that did exist (indeed, historians feel that much of that detail is opaque.) So, modern Christian fundamentalists routinely use Genesis in ways that could not possibly have been understood or intended by its original pre-Christian authors and redactors, and have insufficient context to prevent themselves from doing so. Hayes herself points this out (more gently than I have) in her introductory lectures on the Tanakh.

It's not disrespectful to call such an endeavour intellectually bankrupt, Bohica -- it's simply a valid intellectual criticism. Moreover, that's not to say that religion itself lacks value -- simply that taking ancient texts out of their historical and cultural context and repurposing them to support the theology of a later, split-off faith isn't a wise or intellectually accountable thing to do.

Whatever one thinks of Christianity as a whole, the premise of this thread is flawed. I doubt you'll care, and won't belabour it, but it would be a disservice to let it pass unremarked.
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 5:59:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 5:04:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 3:55:25 PM, B0HICA wrote:
THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT CREATION VS EVOLUTION! IT IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GODS WORD AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS. ATHEISTS ARE NOT WELCOME, UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE A RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.

Unfortunately, Bohica, the claim that Genesis is God's word (i.e. is Christian theological instruction) is itself not an intellectually respectable claim. It is outright rejected by leading ancient near east historians (see for example Christine Hayes, linked at right.)



Moreover, modern people trying to 'discover' what Genesis means theologically are doing so with minds biased by traditions, beliefs and information that didn't exist at the time of its writing, and most have little knowledge of the social, cultural and political contexts that did exist (indeed, historians feel that much of that detail is opaque.) So, modern Christian fundamentalists routinely use Genesis in ways that could not possibly have been understood or intended by its original pre-Christian authors and redactors, and have insufficient context to prevent themselves from doing so. Hayes herself points this out (more gently than I have) in her introductory lectures on the Tanakh.

It's not disrespectful to call such an endeavour intellectually bankrupt, Bohica -- it's simply a valid intellectual criticism. Moreover, that's not to say that religion itself lacks value -- simply that taking ancient texts out of their historical and cultural context and repurposing them to support the theology of a later, split-off faith isn't a wise or intellectually accountable thing to do.

Whatever one thinks of Christianity as a whole, the premise of this thread is flawed. I doubt you'll care, and won't belabour it, but it would be a disservice to let it pass unremarked.

You didn't read the article. Did you?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 6:04:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 5:59:01 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 5:04:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 3:55:25 PM, B0HICA wrote:
THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT CREATION VS EVOLUTION! IT IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GODS WORD AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS. ATHEISTS ARE NOT WELCOME, UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE A RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.
Whatever one thinks of Christianity as a whole, the premise of this thread is flawed. I doubt you'll care, and won't belabour it, but it would be a disservice to let it pass unremarked.
You didn't read the article. Did you?
Yes.I don't think it warrants further comment.
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 6:08:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 6:04:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 5:59:01 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 5:04:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 3:55:25 PM, B0HICA wrote:
THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT CREATION VS EVOLUTION! IT IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GODS WORD AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS. ATHEISTS ARE NOT WELCOME, UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE A RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.
Whatever one thinks of Christianity as a whole, the premise of this thread is flawed. I doubt you'll care, and won't belabour it, but it would be a disservice to let it pass unremarked.
You didn't read the article. Did you?
Yes.I don't think it warrants further comment.

Then you probably don't realize how everything you said is simply biased talking points. Why don't you read it? It's not that long, and you might learn something. Or you can remain ignorant. Your choice.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 6:12:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 6:08:32 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:04:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 5:59:01 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 5:04:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 3:55:25 PM, B0HICA wrote:
THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT CREATION VS EVOLUTION! IT IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GODS WORD AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS. ATHEISTS ARE NOT WELCOME, UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE A RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.
Whatever one thinks of Christianity as a whole, the premise of this thread is flawed. I doubt you'll care, and won't belabour it, but it would be a disservice to let it pass unremarked.
You didn't read the article. Did you?
Yes.I don't think it warrants further comment.
Then you probably don't realize how everything you said is simply biased talking points. Why don't you read it? It's not that long, and you might learn something. Or you can remain ignorant. Your choice.
As indicated by 'Yes', B, I read it. Had I not read it, I'd have replied 'No'.
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 6:19:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 6:12:26 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:08:32 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:04:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 5:59:01 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 5:04:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 3:55:25 PM, B0HICA wrote:
THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT CREATION VS EVOLUTION! IT IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GODS WORD AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS. ATHEISTS ARE NOT WELCOME, UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE A RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.
Whatever one thinks of Christianity as a whole, the premise of this thread is flawed. I doubt you'll care, and won't belabour it, but it would be a disservice to let it pass unremarked.
You didn't read the article. Did you?
Yes.I don't think it warrants further comment.
Then you probably don't realize how everything you said is simply biased talking points. Why don't you read it? It's not that long, and you might learn something. Or you can remain ignorant. Your choice.
As indicated by 'Yes', B, I read it. Had I not read it, I'd have replied 'No'.

Regardless, it gave quotes by Jesus, that show He, and those he was talking to, understood the Old Testament. In other words, He was using the Old Testament to back up what He said. Your claim that we cannot understand it is baseless. You are the one who doesn't understand, as was made crystal clear by your original reply.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 6:21:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 3:55:25 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Ever since Darwin arrived on the world stage, there have been many people, who claim to be Christians, trying to explain the creation story in Genesis as other than what the Bible clearly states. A special creation, performed in six 24 hour days. These people, instead of trusting Gods word, have tried to claim that it actually did not mean six 24 hour days. They claim that millions of years were needed. Well. I believe that this will clear things up for any believers who are having trouble with this. In it, we see that Jesus Himself claimed to have created the heavens and the earth in six days. There are others comments from Jesus that also support this claim.

THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT CREATION VS EVOLUTION! IT IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GODS WORD AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS. ATHEISTS ARE NOT WELCOME, UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE A RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.

Anyway. Here's the link. http://answersingenesis.org...

LOL.

Answers in Genesis?

Really?

You go to a Christian site for science?

That's like going to a Michael Jackson website to learn parenting skills.

Can you please, please, give us ONE link to a secular site? A valid scientifically-based one. (BTW: did you ever see the debate between Hamm and Bill Nye? Man, Nye destroyed him. Even 70% of Christians who watched the debate admit it! LOL)
You can see it on youtube.

98% of all professional Cosmologists and Biologists agree with the four billion year-old Earth and the process of Evo. Find me ONE credible scientist who adheres to the preposterous 6-day hoo-ha.

But I suppose you're gonna say all those scientists, who have devoted their entire lives to their trade, are wrong.

Because, well, you know...your bible tells yo so.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 6:23:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here's a small list of some OTHER things about science that the ancient and scientifically bereft Hebrews got wrong..

I challenge you to read it and comment. Thanks!

http://home.nctv.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 6:48:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 6:19:00 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:12:26 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:08:32 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:04:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 5:59:01 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 5:04:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 3:55:25 PM, B0HICA wrote:
THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT CREATION VS EVOLUTION! IT IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GODS WORD AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS. ATHEISTS ARE NOT WELCOME, UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE A RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.
Whatever one thinks of Christianity as a whole, the premise of this thread is flawed. I doubt you'll care, and won't belabour it, but it would be a disservice to let it pass unremarked.
You didn't read the article. Did you?
Yes.I don't think it warrants further comment.
Then you probably don't realize how everything you said is simply biased talking points. Why don't you read it? It's not that long, and you might learn something. Or you can remain ignorant. Your choice.
As indicated by 'Yes', B, I read it. Had I not read it, I'd have replied 'No'.
Regardless, it gave quotes by Jesus, that show He, and those he was talking to, understood the Old Testament. In other words, He was using the Old Testament to back up what He said. Your claim that we cannot understand it is baseless. You are the one who doesn't understand, as was made crystal clear by your original reply.

The Tanakh is part of Judaic cultural tradition, so of course ancient Jews referenced it in a range of ways, just as modern Jews can today. However, what you're claiming is much more: that during the time of the Roman Empire, an historical Jew and founder of your faith claimed that he personally created the universe in six days.

That claim -- if it were truly made by the chief sage and prophet of your faith -- would immediately invalidate any claim of his authority to any reasonable, well-educated modern mind. For it would reveal him as ignorant of modern insight, and hence lacking in the divine insight, wisdom and inerrance claimed for him.

Luckily for you though, B, you cannot demonstrate that. What you have instead is some Judaic and Christian writers (some unknown or contested) writing at various points in Judaic and Christian history (with some times potentially contested), about events supposed to have happened -- some of which (like the Book of Genesis) bear strong resemblance to myths of other faiths, few events of which have been independently confirmed, and some (like Moses' supposed authorship of Exodus, and key events from Exodus itself) being historically debunked.

But with respect to why events from the Tanakh may also be referenced in the Gospels, no further reason need be sought than recognition that authors of the New Testament (whomever they were) had access to that material too, and could have put whatever quotes they wanted in the mouths of any character they wrote about (as was common practice of the day, the independence and fidelity of ancient chronologies being notoriously poor), to establish the moral and political authority of whomever they wanted to flatter.

As I said at the outset, this entire investigation is conjecture built on prejudiced and false presumptions, with no hint of independence or critical scrutiny. Like the linked article itself, it's historically ignorant, flawed with its own theological bias, and intellectually bankrupt.
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 7:13:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 6:48:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:19:00 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:12:26 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:08:32 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:04:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 5:59:01 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 5:04:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 3:55:25 PM, B0HICA wrote:
THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT CREATION VS EVOLUTION! IT IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GODS WORD AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS. ATHEISTS ARE NOT WELCOME, UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE A RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.
Whatever one thinks of Christianity as a whole, the premise of this thread is flawed. I doubt you'll care, and won't belabour it, but it would be a disservice to let it pass unremarked.
You didn't read the article. Did you?
Yes.I don't think it warrants further comment.
Then you probably don't realize how everything you said is simply biased talking points. Why don't you read it? It's not that long, and you might learn something. Or you can remain ignorant. Your choice.
As indicated by 'Yes', B, I read it. Had I not read it, I'd have replied 'No'.
Regardless, it gave quotes by Jesus, that show He, and those he was talking to, understood the Old Testament. In other words, He was using the Old Testament to back up what He said. Your claim that we cannot understand it is baseless. You are the one who doesn't understand, as was made crystal clear by your original reply.

The Tanakh is part of Judaic cultural tradition, so of course ancient Jews referenced it in a range of ways, just as modern Jews can today. However, what you're claiming is much more: that during the time of the Roman Empire, an historical Jew and founder of your faith claimed that he personally created the universe in six days.

That claim -- if it were truly made by the chief sage and prophet of your faith -- would immediately invalidate any claim of his authority to any reasonable, well-educated modern mind. For it would reveal him as ignorant of modern insight, and hence lacking in the divine insight, wisdom and inerrance claimed for him.

Luckily for you though, B, you cannot demonstrate that. What you have instead is some Judaic and Christian writers (some unknown or contested) writing at various points in Judaic and Christian history (with some times potentially contested), about events supposed to have happened -- some of which (like the Book of Genesis) bear strong resemblance to myths of other faiths, few events of which have been independently confirmed, and some (like Moses' supposed authorship of Exodus, and key events from Exodus itself) being historically debunked.

But with respect to why events from the Tanakh may also be referenced in the Gospels, no further reason need be sought than recognition that authors of the New Testament (whomever they were) had access to that material too, and could have put whatever quotes they wanted in the mouths of any character they wrote about (as was common practice of the day, the independence and fidelity of ancient chronologies being notoriously poor), to establish the moral and political authority of whomever they wanted to flatter.

As I said at the outset, this entire investigation is conjecture built on prejudiced and false presumptions, with no hint of independence or critical scrutiny. Like the linked article itself, it's historically ignorant, flawed with its own theological bias, and intellectually bankrupt.

Well. I'll simply close this discussion down by saying that I believe that you are suffering from a bad case of confirmation bias. It's not hard to find someone who will try to discredit Scripture. But just because they say it, doesn't make it true. The Bible has been attacked from day one. No one has ever successfully discredited it. You see, in a case like this, The defender has only to present a credible argument against such claims. The burden of proof is on YOU. Neither you, nor anyone else, has met this burden of proof. You're always making claims, usually by taking verses out of context, or playing word games. You believe what you want. I don't really care. I could point you to scholarly articles that refute what you say, but I feel it would be a waste of my time. You wouldn't listen. Would you. There are many men of great faith and personal integrity, who say that you are wrong. I know who I'll listen too. I'm done with you. Good day.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 7:40:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 7:13:34 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:48:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:19:00 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:12:26 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:08:32 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:04:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 5:59:01 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 5:04:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 3:55:25 PM, B0HICA wrote:
THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT CREATION VS EVOLUTION! IT IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GODS WORD AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS. ATHEISTS ARE NOT WELCOME, UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE A RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.
Whatever one thinks of Christianity as a whole, the premise of this thread is flawed. I doubt you'll care, and won't belabour it, but it would be a disservice to let it pass unremarked.
You didn't read the article. Did you?
Yes.I don't think it warrants further comment.
Then you probably don't realize how everything you said is simply biased talking points. Why don't you read it? It's not that long, and you might learn something. Or you can remain ignorant. Your choice.
As indicated by 'Yes', B, I read it. Had I not read it, I'd have replied 'No'.
Regardless, it gave quotes by Jesus, that show He, and those he was talking to, understood the Old Testament.
As I said at the outset, this entire investigation is conjecture built on prejudiced and false presumptions, with no hint of independence or critical scrutiny. Like the linked article itself, it's historically ignorant, flawed with its own theological bias, and intellectually bankrupt.
Well. I'll simply close this discussion down by saying that I believe that you are suffering from a bad case of confirmation bias.
Bohica, you are in no position to make that accusation, since you seldom critically scrutinise your own assumptions. You've borrowed scientific terminology without mastering basic scientific discipline of skepticism, objectivity and independent scrutiny, so your opinion is not the application of expertise, but simply retaliation in misappropriated language.

The burden of proof is on YOU.
Is it? Here's your contention from over in the Science forum:

At 6/18/2015 5:43:53 PM, B0HICA wrote:
We don't know how DNA came about. Scientists have theories, but they simply don't KNOW.

So there, the burden of proof is on scientists (and I agree: it is. Science shoulders that burden cheerfully.)

But here in theology, the burden of proof is on disbelief? So are you in the enviable position of always being able to hold other beliefs to account, while never being accountable for your own?

This is why your investigation is intellectually bankrupt, B. It's why debates with you frequently stall, and why I'm afraid that accusations of confirmation bias from you make me grin. :)

(And sadly for you and all Christian fundamentalists, there is plenty of contrary evidence against the validity of Christian theological claims. Your form of theology spends much of its time trying to evade accountability for past intellectual failures, rather than dealing with the consequences of error.)

I'm done with you. Good day.
I told you I didn't need to belabour it, B. I realised that when confronted with sound counter-argument you'd shut down, and wanted to spare you aggravation and humiliation. But you wanted to try it on, and ended up floundering for bare assertions and appeals to authority, like this one:

There are many men of great faith and personal integrity, who say that you are wrong.
What does integrity look like to you, B? Does it include admitting error? Science does that all the time -- proactively and accountably. How often has fundamentalist theology done so?

[Next time perhaps, take the truce when it's offered. :)]
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 7:44:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 7:40:58 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 7:13:34 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:48:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:19:00 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:12:26 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:08:32 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:04:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 5:59:01 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 5:04:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 3:55:25 PM, B0HICA wrote:
THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT CREATION VS EVOLUTION! IT IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GODS WORD AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS. ATHEISTS ARE NOT WELCOME, UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE A RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.
Whatever one thinks of Christianity as a whole, the premise of this thread is flawed. I doubt you'll care, and won't belabour it, but it would be a disservice to let it pass unremarked.
You didn't read the article. Did you?
Yes.I don't think it warrants further comment.
Then you probably don't realize how everything you said is simply biased talking points. Why don't you read it? It's not that long, and you might learn something. Or you can remain ignorant. Your choice.
As indicated by 'Yes', B, I read it. Had I not read it, I'd have replied 'No'.
Regardless, it gave quotes by Jesus, that show He, and those he was talking to, understood the Old Testament.
As I said at the outset, this entire investigation is conjecture built on prejudiced and false presumptions, with no hint of independence or critical scrutiny. Like the linked article itself, it's historically ignorant, flawed with its own theological bias, and intellectually bankrupt.
Well. I'll simply close this discussion down by saying that I believe that you are suffering from a bad case of confirmation bias.
Bohica, you are in no position to make that accusation, since you seldom critically scrutinise your own assumptions. You've borrowed scientific terminology without mastering basic scientific discipline of skepticism, objectivity and independent scrutiny, so your opinion is not the application of expertise, but simply retaliation in misappropriated language.

The burden of proof is on YOU.
Is it? Here's your contention from over in the Science forum:

At 6/18/2015 5:43:53 PM, B0HICA wrote:
We don't know how DNA came about. Scientists have theories, but they simply don't KNOW.

So there, the burden of proof is on scientists (and I agree: it is. Science shoulders that burden cheerfully.)

But here in theology, the burden of proof is on disbelief? So are you in the enviable position of always being able to hold other beliefs to account, while never being accountable for your own?

This is why your investigation is intellectually bankrupt, B. It's why debates with you frequently stall, and why I'm afraid that accusations of confirmation bias from you make me grin. :)

(And sadly for you and all Christian fundamentalists, there is plenty of contrary evidence against the validity of Christian theological claims. Your form of theology spends much of its time trying to evade accountability for past intellectual failures, rather than dealing with the consequences of error.)

I'm done with you. Good day.
I told you I didn't need to belabour it, B. I realised that when confronted with sound counter-argument you'd shut down, and wanted to spare you aggravation and humiliation. But you wanted to try it on, and ended up floundering for bare assertions and appeals to authority, like this one:

There are many men of great faith and personal integrity, who say that you are wrong.
What does integrity look like to you, B? Does it include admitting error? Science does that all the time -- proactively and accountably. How often has fundamentalist theology done so?

[Next time perhaps, take the truce when it's offered. :)]

Why are you replying? I said I was done with you. I didn't even read your post. A lot of trouble for nothing. Don't you think?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 7:47:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 7:44:10 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 7:40:58 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 7:13:34 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:48:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:19:00 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:12:26 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:08:32 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:04:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 5:59:01 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 5:04:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 3:55:25 PM, B0HICA wrote:
THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT CREATION VS EVOLUTION! IT IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GODS WORD AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS. ATHEISTS ARE NOT WELCOME, UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE A RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.
Whatever one thinks of Christianity as a whole, the premise of this thread is flawed. I doubt you'll care, and won't belabour it, but it would be a disservice to let it pass unremarked.
You didn't read the article. Did you?
Yes.I don't think it warrants further comment.
Then you probably don't realize how everything you said is simply biased talking points. Why don't you read it? It's not that long, and you might learn something. Or you can remain ignorant. Your choice.
As indicated by 'Yes', B, I read it. Had I not read it, I'd have replied 'No'.
Regardless, it gave quotes by Jesus, that show He, and those he was talking to, understood the Old Testament.
As I said at the outset, this entire investigation is conjecture built on prejudiced and false presumptions, with no hint of independence or critical scrutiny. Like the linked article itself, it's historically ignorant, flawed with its own theological bias, and intellectually bankrupt.
Well. I'll simply close this discussion down by saying that I believe that you are suffering from a bad case of confirmation bias.
Bohica, you are in no position to make that accusation, since you seldom critically scrutinise your own assumptions. You've borrowed scientific terminology without mastering basic scientific discipline of skepticism, objectivity and independent scrutiny, so your opinion is not the application of expertise, but simply retaliation in misappropriated language.

The burden of proof is on YOU.
Is it? Here's your contention from over in the Science forum:

At 6/18/2015 5:43:53 PM, B0HICA wrote:
We don't know how DNA came about. Scientists have theories, but they simply don't KNOW.

So there, the burden of proof is on scientists (and I agree: it is. Science shoulders that burden cheerfully.)

But here in theology, the burden of proof is on disbelief? So are you in the enviable position of always being able to hold other beliefs to account, while never being accountable for your own?

This is why your investigation is intellectually bankrupt, B. It's why debates with you frequently stall, and why I'm afraid that accusations of confirmation bias from you make me grin. :)

(And sadly for you and all Christian fundamentalists, there is plenty of contrary evidence against the validity of Christian theological claims. Your form of theology spends much of its time trying to evade accountability for past intellectual failures, rather than dealing with the consequences of error.)

I'm done with you. Good day.
I told you I didn't need to belabour it, B. I realised that when confronted with sound counter-argument you'd shut down, and wanted to spare you aggravation and humiliation. But you wanted to try it on, and ended up floundering for bare assertions and appeals to authority, like this one:

There are many men of great faith and personal integrity, who say that you are wrong.
What does integrity look like to you, B? Does it include admitting error? Science does that all the time -- proactively and accountably. How often has fundamentalist theology done so?

[Next time perhaps, take the truce when it's offered. :)]

Why are you replying? I said I was done with you. I didn't even read your post. A lot of trouble for nothing. Don't you think?

I'm not going to harrass you, B, but some of your closing comments and accusations deserved reply. I'm sorry you're cranky, and will stop bothering you now.
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 7:58:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 7:47:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 7:44:10 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 7:40:58 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 7:13:34 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:48:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:19:00 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:12:26 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:08:32 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:04:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 5:59:01 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 5:04:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 3:55:25 PM, B0HICA wrote:
THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT CREATION VS EVOLUTION! IT IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GODS WORD AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS. ATHEISTS ARE NOT WELCOME, UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE A RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.
Whatever one thinks of Christianity as a whole, the premise of this thread is flawed. I doubt you'll care, and won't belabour it, but it would be a disservice to let it pass unremarked.
You didn't read the article. Did you?
Yes.I don't think it warrants further comment.
Then you probably don't realize how everything you said is simply biased talking points. Why don't you read it? It's not that long, and you might learn something. Or you can remain ignorant. Your choice.
As indicated by 'Yes', B, I read it. Had I not read it, I'd have replied 'No'.
Regardless, it gave quotes by Jesus, that show He, and those he was talking to, understood the Old Testament.
As I said at the outset, this entire investigation is conjecture built on prejudiced and false presumptions, with no hint of independence or critical scrutiny. Like the linked article itself, it's historically ignorant, flawed with its own theological bias, and intellectually bankrupt.
Well. I'll simply close this discussion down by saying that I believe that you are suffering from a bad case of confirmation bias.
Bohica, you are in no position to make that accusation, since you seldom critically scrutinise your own assumptions. You've borrowed scientific terminology without mastering basic scientific discipline of skepticism, objectivity and independent scrutiny, so your opinion is not the application of expertise, but simply retaliation in misappropriated language.

The burden of proof is on YOU.
Is it? Here's your contention from over in the Science forum:

At 6/18/2015 5:43:53 PM, B0HICA wrote:
We don't know how DNA came about. Scientists have theories, but they simply don't KNOW.

So there, the burden of proof is on scientists (and I agree: it is. Science shoulders that burden cheerfully.)

But here in theology, the burden of proof is on disbelief? So are you in the enviable position of always being able to hold other beliefs to account, while never being accountable for your own?

This is why your investigation is intellectually bankrupt, B. It's why debates with you frequently stall, and why I'm afraid that accusations of confirmation bias from you make me grin. :)

(And sadly for you and all Christian fundamentalists, there is plenty of contrary evidence against the validity of Christian theological claims. Your form of theology spends much of its time trying to evade accountability for past intellectual failures, rather than dealing with the consequences of error.)

I'm done with you. Good day.
I told you I didn't need to belabour it, B. I realised that when confronted with sound counter-argument you'd shut down, and wanted to spare you aggravation and humiliation. But you wanted to try it on, and ended up floundering for bare assertions and appeals to authority, like this one:

There are many men of great faith and personal integrity, who say that you are wrong.
What does integrity look like to you, B? Does it include admitting error? Science does that all the time -- proactively and accountably. How often has fundamentalist theology done so?

[Next time perhaps, take the truce when it's offered. :)]

Why are you replying? I said I was done with you. I didn't even read your post. A lot of trouble for nothing. Don't you think?

I'm not going to harrass you, B, but some of your closing comments and accusations deserved reply. I'm sorry you're cranky, and will stop bothering you now.

Thank you. I really appreciate it. Sorry about being cranky. I get that way sometimes. Nothing personal.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 8:01:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 7:44:10 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 7:40:58 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 7:13:34 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:48:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:19:00 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:12:26 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:08:32 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 6:04:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 5:59:01 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 5:04:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 3:55:25 PM, B0HICA wrote:
THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT CREATION VS EVOLUTION! IT IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GODS WORD AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS. ATHEISTS ARE NOT WELCOME, UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE A RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.
Whatever one thinks of Christianity as a whole, the premise of this thread is flawed. I doubt you'll care, and won't belabour it, but it would be a disservice to let it pass unremarked.
You didn't read the article. Did you?
Yes.I don't think it warrants further comment.
Then you probably don't realize how everything you said is simply biased talking points. Why don't you read it? It's not that long, and you might learn something. Or you can remain ignorant. Your choice.
As indicated by 'Yes', B, I read it. Had I not read it, I'd have replied 'No'.
Regardless, it gave quotes by Jesus, that show He, and those he was talking to, understood the Old Testament.
As I said at the outset, this entire investigation is conjecture built on prejudiced and false presumptions, with no hint of independence or critical scrutiny. Like the linked article itself, it's historically ignorant, flawed with its own theological bias, and intellectually bankrupt.
Well. I'll simply close this discussion down by saying that I believe that you are suffering from a bad case of confirmation bias.
Bohica, you are in no position to make that accusation, since you seldom critically scrutinise your own assumptions. You've borrowed scientific terminology without mastering basic scientific discipline of skepticism, objectivity and independent scrutiny, so your opinion is not the application of expertise, but simply retaliation in misappropriated language.

The burden of proof is on YOU.
Is it? Here's your contention from over in the Science forum:

At 6/18/2015 5:43:53 PM, B0HICA wrote:
We don't know how DNA came about. Scientists have theories, but they simply don't KNOW.

So there, the burden of proof is on scientists (and I agree: it is. Science shoulders that burden cheerfully.)

But here in theology, the burden of proof is on disbelief? So are you in the enviable position of always being able to hold other beliefs to account, while never being accountable for your own?

This is why your investigation is intellectually bankrupt, B. It's why debates with you frequently stall, and why I'm afraid that accusations of confirmation bias from you make me grin. :)

(And sadly for you and all Christian fundamentalists, there is plenty of contrary evidence against the validity of Christian theological claims. Your form of theology spends much of its time trying to evade accountability for past intellectual failures, rather than dealing with the consequences of error.)

I'm done with you. Good day.
I told you I didn't need to belabour it, B. I realised that when confronted with sound counter-argument you'd shut down, and wanted to spare you aggravation and humiliation. But you wanted to try it on, and ended up floundering for bare assertions and appeals to authority, like this one:

There are many men of great faith and personal integrity, who say that you are wrong.
What does integrity look like to you, B? Does it include admitting error? Science does that all the time -- proactively and accountably. How often has fundamentalist theology done so?

[Next time perhaps, take the truce when it's offered. :)]

Why are you replying? I said I was done with you. I didn't even read your post. A lot of trouble for nothing. Don't you think?

Even if you didn't read his post, I certainly did and know others read it, too, making Ruv's 'trouble' to pen it most appreciative.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 8:02:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 7:58:01 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 7:47:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I'm not going to harrass you, B, but some of your closing comments and accusations deserved reply. I'm sorry you're cranky, and will stop bothering you now.
Thank you. I really appreciate it. Sorry about being cranky. I get that way sometimes. Nothing personal.

Not a drama, B. I know you cherish your faith, and it isn't my wish to hurt or harass you about that.

Take care. :)
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 8:17:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 8:02:09 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 7:58:01 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 7:47:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I'm not going to harrass you, B, but some of your closing comments and accusations deserved reply. I'm sorry you're cranky, and will stop bothering you now.
Thank you. I really appreciate it. Sorry about being cranky. I get that way sometimes. Nothing personal.

Not a drama, B. I know you cherish your faith, and it isn't my wish to hurt or harass you about that.

Take care. :)

I respect you for that, and wish more people were like you. It seems there are a lot of them who delight in bashing Christians. I don't understand their motivation, other than to say the Devil makes them do it. :)
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 8:40:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
BOHICA...

In a previous post you claimed that nobody has ever been able to discredit the bible?

LOL--Yet, in my previous post I provided you with a good link which entailed an exhaustive list of scientific things that HAVE discredited the bible--especially its creation fable in Genesis.

Didn't you read the link? I challenged you to--and then to comment on it.

I was hoping you would not be one of that ilk of christians who do what I like to call the "cut and run" tactic. they present their apologetics, then don't bother listening to or reading opposing views. then they come back with the lame "it's gotta be true because the bible says so!" and then they run. Or end their thread when the competition gets to fierce.

This appears to be what you are doing. I figured you were above that. Guess not?

Just in case you want to prove me wrong, here is that link once again......

http://home.nctv.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 8:45:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 8:17:55 PM, B0HICA wrote:
It seems there are a lot of them who delight in bashing Christians. I don't understand their motivation...

Here are just a few of the many reasons...

At 6/15/2015 3:43:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
They want to be their own god, in other words. And since they reject God, their true master is Satan. He's the one behind their efforts. He is the master of lies. The author of confusion. It is his goal to take as many people to hell, with him, as he can. And he has many servants to help him with this. You see them on here every day.

At 6/16/2015 3:38:55 AM, B0HICA wrote:
And if God is not your master, that leaves only the Devil. There is no neutral ground. I'm not saying that all unbelievers are monsters. I'm referring to those who know the truth, yet they reject it. They exist. I see them on on this site, spewing their hatred of God and those who follow them. Talk about psychopaths...

At 6/19/2015 3:17:52 AM, B0HICA wrote:

Sorry. Islam is not even a religion. It's a socio-political tool that uses threats of violence and murder to control it's populace. Their prophet was a murderer and a pedophile, and he didn't even perform any miracles. Try again.

At 6/20/2015 7:45:31 PM, B0HICA wrote:

Is that what you tell yourself, so you can sleep at night? God is real, as are the consequences for rejecting Him. Sleep tight. There will come a time when you will never sleep again. You'll be too busy screaming in torment, begging God for a drop of water to cool the tip of your tongue.

At 6/21/2015 3:51:11 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Your bias and hatred are blinding you to the truth. Christians are commanded by God to warn others of their fate, should they reject God. If you consider that to be a threat, then you are the one with the problem. Not me.

At 6/21/2015 4:25:27 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Most people are willfully ignorant, and they will pay for that ignorance. My job is simply to warn them. Those who are called to Christ will listen. The rest will burn for their sinful pride.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 8:58:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 8:17:55 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:02:09 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 7:58:01 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 7:47:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I'm not going to harrass you, B, but some of your closing comments and accusations deserved reply. I'm sorry you're cranky, and will stop bothering you now.
Thank you. I really appreciate it. Sorry about being cranky. I get that way sometimes. Nothing personal.
Not a drama, B. I know you cherish your faith, and it isn't my wish to hurt or harass you about that.
Take care. :)
I respect you for that, and wish more people were like you. It seems there are a lot of them who delight in bashing Christians. I don't understand their motivation, other than to say the Devil makes them do it. :)

Not really on-topic, B, but many Christians so love their faith and so believe it is doing unique good for the world (including for non-Christians) they may be unaware of their adverse impacts, and of their deep-seated and near-unassailable contempt for and dismissal of other, secular moral movements.

Christianity is certainly not the only faith which feels that way, but it's the one most conspicuous in Atlantic and English-speaking civilisations.

That may explain the hate, but I don't personally believe Christians deserve it. I recognise that there's a lot of good will in your faith, coupled with (sadly) some ignorance and ancient privilege that needs to be challenged -- which is not the same as seeking to hurt or harm the people involved.

(Shushing now, since it's now very off topic. :))
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 9:02:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 8:40:18 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
BOHICA...

In a previous post you claimed that nobody has ever been able to discredit the bible?

LOL--Yet, in my previous post I provided you with a good link which entailed an exhaustive list of scientific things that HAVE discredited the bible--especially its creation fable in Genesis.

Didn't you read the link? I challenged you to--and then to comment on it.

I was hoping you would not be one of that ilk of christians who do what I like to call the "cut and run" tactic. they present their apologetics, then don't bother listening to or reading opposing views. then they come back with the lame "it's gotta be true because the bible says so!" and then they run. Or end their thread when the competition gets to fierce.

This appears to be what you are doing. I figured you were above that. Guess not?

Just in case you want to prove me wrong, here is that link once again......

http://home.nctv.com...

I've seen many of these before, and I've also seen them debunked. Like the one about the flat earth, and the dome covering the earth. That is not what the Bible claims. It is a failure of atheists to properly understand what they are reading. Besides, I was talking about what the Bible actually teaches. The historical claims it makes. What you presented is claims that OTHERS make about the Bible. I too think people who make claims such as this are a little loopy.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 9:10:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 9:02:45 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:40:18 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
BOHICA...

In a previous post you claimed that nobody has ever been able to discredit the bible?

LOL--Yet, in my previous post I provided you with a good link which entailed an exhaustive list of scientific things that HAVE discredited the bible--especially its creation fable in Genesis.

Didn't you read the link? I challenged you to--and then to comment on it.

I was hoping you would not be one of that ilk of christians who do what I like to call the "cut and run" tactic. they present their apologetics, then don't bother listening to or reading opposing views. then they come back with the lame "it's gotta be true because the bible says so!" and then they run. Or end their thread when the competition gets to fierce.

This appears to be what you are doing. I figured you were above that. Guess not?

Just in case you want to prove me wrong, here is that link once again......

http://home.nctv.com...

I've seen many of these before, and I've also seen them debunked. Like the one about the flat earth, and the dome covering the earth. That is not what the Bible claims. It is a failure of atheists to properly understand what they are reading. Besides, I was talking about what the Bible actually teaches. The historical claims it makes. What you presented is claims that OTHERS make about the Bible. I too think people who make claims such as this are a little loopy.

So...you claim that all the scientific discoveries in my link have been debunked?

And your threads OP was not about biblical teaching, but rather Creation. You posed a question. I answered it with a list of science that has debunked biblical statements.

Again..that link I posted. You deny those points they made? I just want to be sure.

thanks.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
E2D2
Posts: 156
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 9:16:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 3:55:25 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Ever since Darwin arrived on the world stage, there have been many people, who claim to be Christians, trying to explain the creation story in Genesis as other than what the Bible clearly states. A special creation, performed in six 24 hour days. These people, instead of trusting Gods word, have tried to claim that it actually did not mean six 24 hour days. They claim that millions of years were needed. Well. I believe that this will clear things up for any believers who are having trouble with this. In it, we see that Jesus Himself claimed to have created the heavens and the earth in six days. There are others comments from Jesus that also support this claim.

THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT CREATION VS EVOLUTION! IT IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GODS WORD AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS. ATHEISTS ARE NOT WELCOME, UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE A RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.

Anyway. Here's the link. http://answersingenesis.org... : :

Most people don't know that God created the earth without form and void, which means it was created as something completely different than what most people think.

Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Here are the definitions of form and void;
form
/f"rm/
noun: form; plural noun: forms
1. the visible shape or configuration of something.
"the form, color, and texture of the tree"
synonyms: shape, configuration, formation, structure, construction, arrangement, appearance, exterior, outline, format, layout, design
"the general form of the landscape"

void
noun
noun: void; plural noun: voids
1. a completely empty space.
"the black void of space"
synonyms: vacuum, emptiness, nothingness, nullity, blankness, vacuity; More

The earth can't be seen unless it is observed which is something that physicists understand today.

I'm sure it took a lot longer than six days to create an earth that can't be seen unless observed by man.