America's Judgment - A Losing War with Islam

[RRocket]

Fossten,

I disagree. Certainly in Deutoronomy (if I recall) by god's order the entire male population of prisoners of war are to be murdered/killed. Then certain races (Hittites, Amorites, etc..) are to be eradicated by god's order. Sure it doesn't say genocide or murder, but when god commands an entire race to be erased, we call that genocide. Again..a contradiction...be merciful, forgive..but eradicate...in god's name. Certainly he wasn't speaking directly to you, or I, but there it is..genocide, murder and a contradiction..all from a "benevolent" god. This murder/genocide is also found in Leviticus, and Numbers. (IIRC..it's be awhile). Also in Lev. and Jeremiah, god orders cannabilism. (I forget what passages..if you REALLY want me to look, I'll look, but you sound well versed, so I think you'll know what I am referring to) and in several passages he orders the death of the righteous along with the wicked. And the list goes on. While you do have an argument in saying that god is not speaking directly to you (or me), these are some pretty grave things he's ordering, and this sounds alot different than a loving god.

I wish we both had something to look forward to after death, but sadly I think we're both just going to be fertilizer...

 

[RRocket]

Let's summarize:

The creation folks are basing their claims on the oft translated recaords of tribal oral history, from one region of the globe, whch cannot be validated.



The evolution folks are basing their claims on a theory which is oft misrepresented and cannot provide any unquestionable evidence that this theory is valid.

I believe these two guesses of how we got here are just as valid as the sci-fi folks who claim we didn't orginate on this planet at all, but came here from another orb. God delivered us, and everything else, from his skyship. Why? Who knows? Does a child understand why it's important to be trustworthy? ( Do Preidents?, that's another thread...) Does this sound any whackier than Genesis or Darwin? Not really.....

Interesting indeed. I'll papraphrase an atheist's point of view: Let's look at the "verifiability theory of meaning." This is a priciple which would show that the inability to define god puts all statements about god into the ranks of scientifically meaningless sentences. For a proposition to be scientifically "meaningful," one must be able at least to imagine a way to test it. Thus, the statement that "the moon is made of green cheese" was meaningful even a hundred years before rockets were invented, since people could easily imagine tests to perform that would be able to resolve the issue. When the proposition was tested in our time by astronauts who found that moon dust makes lousy salad dressing, it was found to be meaningful but false.

(Paragraph for Fossten here!!)

By contrast, the statement that "undetectable gremlins inhabit the rings of Saturn" is scientifically meaningless, since there is no conceivable way to detect undetectable gremlins! No matter how fine the gremlinometers we send to Saturn, they will not be up to the challenge of undetectable gremlins. Thus, undetectable gremlin sentences are meaningless - they can't even be false. Sentences involving the term 'god,' if it is not defined operationally (i.e., by saying what has to be done to detect the entity), are also meaningless. They can't even be false.

There...chew on that!! LOL

 

[fossten]

Interesting indeed. I'll papraphrase an atheist's point of view: Let's look at the "verifiability theory of meaning." This is a priciple which would show that the inability to define god puts all statements about god into the ranks of scientifically meaningless sentences. For a proposition to be scientifically "meaningful," one must be able at least to imagine a way to test it. Thus, the statement that "the moon is made of green cheese" was meaningful even a hundred years before rockets were invented, since people could easily imagine tests to perform that would be able to resolve the issue. When the proposition was tested in our time by astronauts who found that moon dust makes lousy salad dressing, it was found to be meaningful but false.

(Paragraph for Fossten here!!)

By contrast, the statement that "undetectable gremlins inhabit the rings of Saturn" is scientifically meaningless, since there is no conceivable way to detect undetectable gremlins! No matter how fine the gremlinometers we send to Saturn, they will not be up to the challenge of undetectable gremlins. Thus, undetectable gremlin sentences are meaningless - they can't even be false. Sentences involving the term 'god,' if it is not defined operationally (i.e., by saying what has to be done to detect the entity), are also meaningless. They can't even be false.

There...chew on that!! LOL

It’s interesting that you atheists, who pretend to be so logical, actually outsmart yourselves. If you’re right and I’m wrong, and we’re all going to be nothing but compost after death, what have I lost by my faith? What am I risking? Nothing.

But if I’m right and you’re wrong, and there is a heaven and a hell, what have YOU lost? You will suffer eternal judgment and I’ll be in heaven.

Now, just looking at that from a logical standpoint, which one of us is exercising greater faith and taking a greater risk?

Chew on that.

 

[fossten]

Fossten,

I disagree. Certainly in Deutoronomy (if I recall) by god's order the entire male population of prisoners of war are to be murdered/killed. Then certain races (Hittites, Amorites, etc..) are to be eradicated by god's order. Sure it doesn't say genocide or murder, but when god commands an entire race to be erased, we call that genocide. Again..a contradiction...be merciful, forgive..but eradicate...in god's name. Certainly he wasn't speaking directly to you, or I, but there it is..genocide, murder and a contradiction..all from a "benevolent" god. This murder/genocide is also found in Leviticus, and Numbers. (IIRC..it's be awhile). Also in Lev. and Jeremiah, god orders cannabilism. (I forget what passages..if you REALLY want me to look, I'll look, but you sound well versed, so I think you'll know what I am referring to) and in several passages he orders the death of the righteous along with the wicked. And the list goes on. While you do have an argument in saying that god is not speaking directly to you (or me), these are some pretty grave things he's ordering, and this sounds alot different than a loving god.

I wish we both had something to look forward to after death, but sadly I think we're both just going to be fertilizer...

It's interesting to observe the arrogance of atheists. You complain about God's commandments to the children of Israel being too harsh. You criticize God Almighty for commanding 'genocide.' Yet you decide to live your life in total defiance of His other commandments. Talk about a contradiction.

I've got news for you - humans don't dictate to God how He decides things. The Bible quotes God as saying "My ways are not your ways, and my thoughts are not your thoughts." It's also interesting how you refer to God with a small 'g.' Almost as if you're deliberately thumbing your nose at Him. I don't think you believe there's no God. Deep down I'll bet you're just fighting Him.

Nowhere in the Bible is the word "benevolent" used in reference to God. Did you actually study the Bible? Much of the Bible is about keeping God's law. In fact, God calls Himself a 'jealous God' in Exodus, and commands us not to worship other Gods. Much of the Bible is about judgment for sin.

Benevolence is only applied when His commandments are kept. Much of the races that God commanded the ISRAELITES to destroy were sinful, rebellious, pagan races that God was sick of, and He knew that allowing them to continue to exist would corrupt the Israelites, as it eventually did. We're talking about people that sacrificed babies to the sun god and married their mothers and crap like that.

Reminds me of the current war on terror: These people aren't going to change their minds. We have to kill all of them because they're like a cancer - they will spread and you must eradicate them in order to eliminate terrorism. Is that genocide too?

Still waiting for the verses that condone rape in the Bible. While you're at it, you might as well show me the place where it talks about cannibalism too.

 

[Barwick]

Let's summarize:

The creation folks are basing their claims on the oft translated recaords of tribal oral history, from one region of the globe, whch cannot be validated.



The evolution folks are basing their claims on a theory which is oft misrepresented and cannot provide any unquestionable evidence that this theory is valid.

I believe these two guesses of how we got here are just as valid as the sci-fi folks who claim we didn't orginate on this planet at all, but came here from another orb. God delivered us, and everything else, from his skyship. Why? Who knows? Does a child understand why it's important to be trustworthy? ( Do Preidents?, that's another thread...) Does this sound any whackier than Genesis or Darwin? Not really.....

Um, no... the "creation folks" are basing their claims on observations made by secular scientists, and showing how all these observations inexplicably line up exactly with the Biblical account of creation, the flood, and history.

 

[Barwick]

Fossten,

I disagree. Certainly in Deutoronomy (if I recall) by god's order the entire male population of prisoners of war are to be murdered/killed. Then certain races (Hittites, Amorites, etc..) are to be eradicated by god's order. Sure it doesn't say genocide or murder, but when god commands an entire race to be erased, we call that genocide. Again..a contradiction...be merciful, forgive..but eradicate...in god's name. Certainly he wasn't speaking directly to you, or I, but there it is..genocide, murder and a contradiction..all from a "benevolent" god. This murder/genocide is also found in Leviticus, and Numbers. (IIRC..it's be awhile). Also in Lev. and Jeremiah, god orders cannabilism. (I forget what passages..if you REALLY want me to look, I'll look, but you sound well versed, so I think you'll know what I am referring to) and in several passages he orders the death of the righteous along with the wicked. And the list goes on. While you do have an argument in saying that god is not speaking directly to you (or me), these are some pretty grave things he's ordering, and this sounds alot different than a loving god.

I wish we both had something to look forward to after death, but sadly I think we're both just going to be fertilizer...

No offense, but whoever taught you the Bible did a poor job.

The entire Bible's theme is "man is sinful, and cannot live up to God's standard". We all choose to ignore God's decrees. Every single one of us (even Mother Theresa) have done something against God's standard.

God is both merciful AND just. Here's an example. Say there is a judge in your town trying a case, and the guy on trial hijacked a bus full of fifth graders, shot the teacher, and started raping the fifth grade girls one by one, then strangled each one. The police raided the bus and witnessed the act, and eighteen of the other kids that are still alive are witnesses. Ok, got the background? Now, let's say that judge says "Well, tell you what, you're sorry for what you did, so I'm going to let you off with a warning. Case dismissed".

What would you think of that judge? Is he a just judge? Or is he the worst judge you've ever seen on this planet? Well, we've done much worse in God's eyes. Every single thing we do is just as bad as that murderer, since God is perfect, and his standard is perfection. So once we do one single thing that is against God's standard, then God MUST punish us for that sin.

So God's use of Israel as his tool to punish the Hittites, Amorites, etc. for their sins, is entirely "fair and just". There was not a single one of them who was innocent, not even the children (have you ever been around kids? "NO!!! MINE!!!!" We're all naturally evil, even kids. Heck, even my little daughter, I love her to death, but we're all evil by nature).

Now with that said, God's plan was to send His only Son, Jesus Christ, to come to earth, live the perfect life we could not live, and offer Himself as the substitute for us, to take the punishment we deserve. By doing this, we can be reconciled to God, AND sin is still punished. So, that's why every day, I thank God for sending his Son to take that punishment for us. And once I realized He did that, he sent his Spirit to change my heart, so that I try to live my life (although I still fail at times, just as the Apostle Paul did) to glorify God.

 

[Barwick]

It’s interesting that you atheists, who pretend to be so logical, actually outsmart yourselves. If you’re right and I’m wrong, and we’re all going to be nothing but compost after death, what have I lost by my faith? What am I risking? Nothing.

But if I’m right and you’re wrong, and there is a heaven and a hell, what have YOU lost? You will suffer eternal judgment and I’ll be in heaven.

Now, just looking at that from a logical standpoint, which one of us is exercising greater faith and taking a greater risk?

Chew on that.

I love that argument. It's so right on (unfortuantely, not effective because of human nature, but I still love it). The funny thing is, people will say "Oh, that's just Pascal's Wager..." As if identifying the argument makes it different. I mean, if someone pulled a gun on me and pulled the trigger, if I said "oh, that's just a 40 caliber bullet..." would that save my life?

 

[mach8]

Um, no... the "creation folks" are basing their claims on observations made by secular scientists, and showing how all these observations inexplicably line up exactly with the Biblical account of creation, the flood, and history.

I've not seen any instance where any string of observations line up exactly with Biblical accounts. I have seen some intense stretching going on to make this appear so.

The trouble with most Biblical accounts is they are related hundreds or thousands of years after the event by people who, because of the time difference, had no personal knowlege of the event, and recorded in a tomb that has an agenda. It is no secrect the bible was written to support the Catholics agenda and has been edited since to better serve the ends of the Roman Catholic Church.

To question the accuracy of events in the bible, or the reality of events in the bible is not questioning the existence of a god, or if we and our universe was created by a god. The bible is but one tale of gods creation and plans for man in the world and there is no evidence it is more valid than any other.

We need to "think outside of the box" (what a worn out phrase) if we are to escape the inbreeding of old ideas. There is no evidence we are little more than some advanced societies science experiment.

Does a god exist? There seems to be an almost instinctive recognition through out history by man that he was created, a god, or gods are above us, and we are not native to the area we now occupy.

 

[fossten]

God is both merciful AND just. Here's an example. Say there is a judge in your town trying a case, and the guy on trial hijacked a bus full of fifth graders, shot the teacher, and started raping the fifth grade girls one by one, then strangled each one. The police raided the bus and witnessed the act, and eighteen of the other kids that are still alive are witnesses. Ok, got the background? Now, let's say that judge says "Well, tell you what, you're sorry for what you did, so I'm going to let you off with a warning. Case dismissed".

What would you think of that judge? Is he a just judge? Or is he the worst judge you've ever seen on this planet? Well, we've done much worse in God's eyes. Every single thing we do is just as bad as that murderer, since God is perfect, and his standard is perfection. So once we do one single thing that is against God's standard, then God MUST punish us for that sin.

Exactly. Straight from Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Excellent example. Now to take it a step further:

When anyone stands in front of God, will he be found guilty or not guilty? Look at the 10 Commandments. Nobody here can say that they've kept every one of them. Therefore, everyone will be found guilty. What other choice does God have then to pronounce sentence upon us if we're guilty of violating His Law?

 

[fossten]

To question the accuracy of events in the bible, or the reality of events in the bible is not questioning the existence of a god, or if we and our universe was created by a god. The bible is but one tale of gods creation and plans for man in the world and there is no evidence it is more valid than any other.

Your assertion is an incorrect talking point. There is a preponderance of scientific evidence that supports creation.

I will also argue (and you can read all the posts about evolution to see what I'm talking about) that every time I argue creation, I get very little in the way of scientific refutation of my arguments, while at the same time I get accused of trying to push my religion. This is in spite of the fact that I use nothing but scientific evidence to support my arguments.

It seems that those of you that believe in evolution use the same talking points over and over again, while I actually present real scientific evidence. Who's acting by faith here?

Me: Here's another scientific argument...
Them: You're just another Bible-thumping creationist trying to shove your religion down our throats!

 

[mach8]

Your assertion is an incorrect talking point. There is a preponderance of scientific evidence that supports creation.

I will also argue (and you can read all the posts about evolution to see what I'm talking about) that every time I argue creation, I get very little in the way of scientific refutation of my arguments, while at the same time I get accused of trying to push my religion. This is in spite of the fact that I use nothing but scientific evidence to support my arguments.

It seems that those of you that believe in evolution use the same talking points over and over again, while I actually present real scientific evidence. Who's acting by faith here?

Me: Here's another scientific argument...
Them: You're just another Bible-thumping creationist trying to shove your religion down our throats!

It's not an incorrect point, nor am I denying creationism. The point is while we, and all around us may have indead been the result of creation THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that this creation was at the hand of the realitivly new on the scene Judeo-Christian god Jehovah or that this act of creation is accurately described in the Bible, or that humans originated upon this planet.

While if what we percieve was created, it was not created from nothing existing in nowhere. The creator(s) had to exist and have some type of material to work with. This is, I believe, the path science is following. How was it done? With what? By who? To what purpose? At the present time science is not to far along the path.

 

[fossten]

It's not an incorrect point, nor am I denying creationism. The point is while we, and all around us may have indead been the result of creation THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that this creation was at the hand of the realitivly new on the scene Judeo-Christian god Jehovah or that this act of creation is accurately described in the Bible, or that humans originated upon this planet.

While if what we percieve was created, it was not created from nothing existing in nowhere. The creator(s) had to exist and have some type of material to work with. This is, I believe, the path science is following. How was it done? With what? By who? To what purpose? At the present time science is not to far along the path.

There is more evidence supporting the Biblical flood than there is supporting any part of evolution. And yet evolution is taught AS FACT in schools, a point I have to keep making continuously, since everybody on your side of the aisle always reverts back to the old "Well, both sides require faith" baloney argument. If it's not an exact science, why do the evolutionary scientists scream bloody murder when some poor kid wants to discuss it in class? Why are they afraid of debate?

You cannot seriously believe that evolutionary scientists are following a path toward God. They are bending over backwards to try to explain away God. There is a ton of evidence supporting that. See the bold part of your quote. I have questions for you: Where do the BIG BANG theorists get THEIR materials for the BIG BANG? They NEVER assume GOD; therefore, they have no idea.

I promise you, if you actually go back and research this like I did, you'll find that EVERY SINGLE evolutionary premise MUST START with this: "Assume _____________. Then, here's what happened." There is zero accountability for where ___________ came from. To me that's a bigger problem for evolutionists than for creationists, since creationists can believe in a God that is powerful enough to create matter. Evolutionists have nowhere to get their materials.

 

[Barwick]

I've not seen any instance where any string of observations line up exactly with Biblical accounts. I have seen some intense stretching going on to make this appear so.

The trouble with most Biblical accounts is they are related hundreds or thousands of years after the event by people who, because of the time difference, had no personal knowlege of the event, and recorded in a tomb that has an agenda. It is no secrect the bible was written to support the Catholics agenda and has been edited since to better serve the ends of the Roman Catholic Church.

Who told you that? The Roman Catholic Church is in contradiction with the Bible in a lot of aspects (for example: salvation by faith plus works = catholic, salvation by faith alone = Biblical).

And if it were altered to serve the Roman Catholic Church, it would not coincide exactly with what we found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were dated to about 100 AD or so.

If you're really serious about wanting to know what scientific evidence lines up with the Bible, and not just looking for a good argument, then read the book (or even the introduction) that's readable online at www.creationscience.com - Dr. Brown looks from both ways, starting with no assumptions, looking solely at events and saying "based on what I see here, I believe this should have happened". And he also looks at it saying "Based on what the Bible says, we should see this in nature... Then he goes and looks for it and makes a scientific discovery that wasn't known before". I'd suggest just start by clicking on "Part I" at the left, and read through there for a while.

To question the accuracy of events in the bible, or the reality of events in the bible is not questioning the existence of a god, or if we and our universe was created by a god. The bible is but one tale of gods creation and plans for man in the world and there is no evidence it is more valid than any other.

We need to "think outside of the box" (what a worn out phrase) if we are to escape the inbreeding of old ideas. There is no evidence we are little more than some advanced societies science experiment.

Does a god exist? There seems to be an almost instinctive recognition through out history by man that he was created, a god, or gods are above us, and we are not native to the area we now occupy.

Ok, that's fine if you want to feel that way, but if the Bible IS true, then it isn't going to bode well for people who believe that way. Think about it: What makes us think that the nature of God should be like "we think it should be"? Meaning, why should "what I think about God" be what God is like? What makes us think that we've got the wisdom or knowledge to understand the nature of an infinite being that created this entire universe from zilch-o?

 

[Barwick]

There is more evidence supporting the Biblical flood than there is supporting any part of evolution. And yet evolution is taught AS FACT in schools, a point I have to keep making continuously, since everybody on your side of the aisle always reverts back to the old "Well, both sides require faith" baloney argument. If it's not an exact science, why do the evolutionary scientists scream bloody murder when some poor kid wants to discuss it in class? Why are they afraid of debate?

That's a good point. If someone came up with a new theory of relativity that might possibly link all four fundamental forces found in the universe (strong, electromagnetic, weak, and gravity), but it wasn't yet proven, these scientists would be jumping up and down, trying to get it into scientific textbooks.

But once someone comes up with a new theory of origins, they scream and holler because it MIGHT lead people to lean towards God as the source, instead of the absence of a god.

I'm not surprised by it, and I know exactly why they do it, because God has told us (not surprisingly, He told us in the Bible) that human beings by nature HATE God. Not hate "a god", but hate THE God, the Creator, the one true God. Because God demands complete perfection of them, and we all know we cannot live up to that perfection. And so if we can convince ourselves that we don't have to follow Him, we feel better. Lucky for us though, He provided a way for us to be reconciled to him. But in our human nature, we want to be reconciled to Him about as much as we want to jump head first off a bridge into a rocky valley below. That's why He comes to us, and draws (drags) us to His son, Jesus Christ. Then, finally, our eyes are opened, and we begin to see and hear His truth.

 

[fossten]

It is no secrect the bible was written to support the Catholics agenda and has been edited since to better serve the ends of the Roman Catholic Church.

One more thing: The Catholic church has never advocated reading the Bible to its members. During the dark ages the church burned thousands of copies of Bibles owned by Protestants that they tortured and executed. Popes made sure that the only copies of the Bible were in Latin (convenient that nobody but the priests could read Latin) and locked up in the church libraries. Do a google search on "Charles Chiniquy."

I dare you to go to one single Catholic mass today and see if you hear one Catholic priest urge the members to go home and read their Bibles. NEVER HAPPEN. Baptist preachers have to beg their members to read theirs, and they offer prizes.

See the difference?

I don't dispute that the Bible has been altered, but that has very little to do with the Catholic church. That has more to do with Westcott and Hoyt, two of the biggest heretics ever to revise and distort the KJV (which has NOT been edited). Don't get me started on this topic.

 

[RRocket]

Fossten,

I'll try to find those passages...it's been awhile. But how come whenever I use a word/situation to describe what happened in the bible, you say "nowhere in the bible does it say...". Well no. I mean, if someone said "god is pretty sweet" or "god is the best thing since sliced bread", would you jump on them and say neither of those things is said in the bible, so it must not be correct?

And this is directed to the "god is merciful AND just" post. god ordered the death of the wicked along with the righteous. That doesn't sound terribly merciful or just to me...

Oh and Fossten...again..I don't want you to think I would criticize you for believing in god. I'm really happy that you have something in your life that gives you passion, solace and great love. Even though I no longer believe, I would never criticize you for doing so. If your life is a happy one in your beliefs, that makes me a happy person..

 

[mach8]

Let's see;

A: I've never presented evolution as being a fact.
B: I've never specified "evolutionary scientist".
C: The Roman Catholic Chuch does indeed have contradictions with the scriptures. A good reason for not inducing people to read it.
D: I've never even implied there is no god, but I do cast serious doubts upon our ablilty to say we know what and how god works.


But all of this is an aside. Why does everyone ignore the point that creation doesn't have to fit the Biblical model? If you were say, a Hindu, you'd still belive in creationism, but you'd certainly have a different slant on it.

It's true that if one follows the scriptures, and it's all bunk, what have you really lost? (I've always wondered which of the Ten Commandments the liberals object to so strongly).

So before Mr. Darwin came along, what other ideas were popular about how we popped onto the scene?

 

[fossten]

I'll try to find those passages...it's been awhile. But how come whenever I use a word/situation to describe what happened in the bible, you say "nowhere in the bible does it say...". Well no. I mean, if someone said "god is pretty sweet" or "god is the best thing since sliced bread", would you jump on them and say neither of those things is said in the bible, so it must not be correct?

Because I want you to look at the passages in context. You must cite your support when you make claims, or else nobody knows whether or not you're taking liberties or deliberately distorting the truth.

It's like the verse in Psalms where it says that there is no God. But that's not the whole verse. It actually says, "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."(Psalm 14:1) Context is so very important, wouldn't you agree?

 

[TheDude]

Exactly. Straight from Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Excellent example. Now to take it a step further:

When anyone stands in front of God, will he be found guilty or not guilty? Look at the 10 Commandments. Nobody here can say that they've kept every one of them. Therefore, everyone will be found guilty. What other choice does God have then to pronounce sentence upon us if we're guilty of violating His Law?

So were basically born to be found guilty; since we have an ABSOLUTE zero chance in being perfect like God. That sounds logical?

 

[TheDude]

I don't dispute that the Bible has been altered, but that has very little to do with the Catholic church. That has more to do with Westcott and Hoyt, two of the biggest heretics ever to revise and distort the KJV (which has NOT been edited). Don't get me started on this topic.

Now you confuse me, before you stood on the ground that the Bible (Gods word) was infalible, now you say that it's been altered out of orginal context? I must have missed something, please clarify.

 

[Barwick]

And this is directed to the "god is merciful AND just" post. god ordered the death of the wicked along with the righteous. That doesn't sound terribly merciful or just to me...

I thought I covered that... there are none righteous. Not one. Zero, zippo, zilch. Mother Theresa didn't even live up to the 10 commandments her whole life. I absolutely guarantee you that she sinned at least once in her life, and actually, probably on a daily basis. Even the 'best Christian" in history, the Apostle Paul, called himself the chief of sinners, and that even though he tries not to sin, he still sins (he was writing in the present text).

The only righteous person who died was Jesus Christ, and that because he voluntarily offered to take our punishment that we deserved.

 

[Barwick]

Let's see;

A: I've never presented evolution as being a fact.
B: I've never specified "evolutionary scientist".
C: The Roman Catholic Chuch does indeed have contradictions with the scriptures. A good reason for not inducing people to read it.
D: I've never even implied there is no god, but I do cast serious doubts upon our ablilty to say we know what and how god works.


But all of this is an aside. Why does everyone ignore the point that creation doesn't have to fit the Biblical model? If you were say, a Hindu, you'd still belive in creationism, but you'd certainly have a different slant on it.

It's true that if one follows the scriptures, and it's all bunk, what have you really lost? (I've always wondered which of the Ten Commandments the liberals object to so strongly).

So before Mr. Darwin came along, what other ideas were popular about how we popped onto the scene?

That's a good question. There is an absolutely EXCELLENT book on the topic, that summarizes all sorts of philosophical thoughts people used to believe (and many still exist today, just by a different, flashy name). The book, by John Blanchard, is called "Does God Believe in Athiests". You will definitely love the heck out of the book.

 

[Barwick]

So were basically born to be found guilty; since we have an ABSOLUTE zero chance in being perfect like God. That sounds logical?

We were created with free will, and we had the opportunity to live a perfect life, but our great great great great.... great grandfather and grandmother "Adam and Eve" made a poor decision in the Garden of Eden, that we're still paying for, and will continue to pay for. They chose to disobey God, and that changed the nature of human beings forever. But like I said, God provided another way. We can complain about that way, but that's like going to a store when you're starving, and them offering you a free meal, and you complaining because the only way into the store is a window on the second story by the fire escape. Any sane person would say "wow, good thing there's a way", and take it. But unfortunately, most people aren't sane.

And yes, I do believe in Adam & Eve. They don't trace the descendants of make believe people, and Adam & Eve's descendants are traced in the Bible for a reason.

 

[fossten]

So were basically born to be found guilty; since we have an ABSOLUTE zero chance in being perfect like God. That sounds logical?

Logical, no. Accurate, yes. We were created to glorify God, but we all (ALL) chose to disobey God. Yes, Deville, even you. That makes us guilty.

 

[fossten]

Now you confuse me, before you stood on the ground that the Bible (Gods word) was infalible, now you say that it's been altered out of orginal context? I must have missed something, please clarify.

The Bible is still intact in the King James Version and any other language version directly transliterated from the Textus Receptus.

The NIV, NASV, and all the other English versions come from the English Revised Version, which was a flawed and corrupt English translation done in the 1880s by Westcott and Hort. (oops, it's Hort not Hoyt) These translations have numerous errors and disagreements with each other and cannot be trusted to be God's Word. Even seminary students use careful language when referring to versions like the NIV, saying that it "contains" God's word.