Origin of life, Adam and the Dinosaurs

[CogentPhilosopher]

I don't get your ^above ^ point because there is a difference between killing and murder.

But I killed innocent people for a "good cause" in that scenario just like what your god did according to scripture. So if what I did was murder than what he did was murder and if what he did was acceptable than what I did was acceptable.

You would be guilty of murder, and ' life for life ' would stand for justice in the form of your being executed for murder.

Not all places use the death penalty and not all people want it, myself included.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I just decided to read [the Bible] from a neutral standpoint, like I was a stranger who had never heard of it before in his life.

Cogent, that's not what you said. You said you read it to 'validate your beliefs'. That's not a neutral standpoint. And you can't read it that way....you won't get satisfaction, if what you were taught is not correct to begin with.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

the "numerous animals" evolved over millions of years - we know this,

No, you don't "know" this... You were taught this. You hope it is so.

Have you ever read "Darwin's Dilemma"?

 

[shmogie]

Then you've got contradictory scriptures. Since accepting that is not an option for the believer, he must pick an interpretation that he likes, emphasize the scriptures that support it, and neutralize the contradictory ones.

So which do you like better- submit to kings and slavers, or cast off the chains? Take your pick. Those that like kingship and slavery will emphasize the scriptures you downplay, and downplay those that you are emphasizing.

That's what an unbeliever sees.

I once mentioned to you that I thought that the unbeliever was in a better position to evaluate scripture because he has no need to make it make sense, and you became offended and began shunning me. I want to revisit that,and hope that you can understand that these opinions are held sincerely and offered constructively, not to be impious or offend believers.

The Klansman likes the pro-slavery scriptures and ignores the ones criticizing or condemning it. You do it the other way around. I do neither. I just note the contradiction and recognize the fingerprint of men writing using the voice of a contrived god, but not always agreeing one with another.

Who has the most objective viewpoint of the three of us?

Here are some of your problems, among quite a few when it comes to the Bible. You are simplistic and choose to to take what you read be it a verse, or sentence, or sometimes a word, you don't just chop it off to stand alone. You must realize that it is connected to the entire message, then to other verses that may make it's meaning situational, for a time period, or dependent on circumstances, The process is called exegesis and you don't employ it. So, your statement " so which do you like better submit to slavers and kings or cast off the chains" presents a bogus view of what the Bible says, a dichotomy. With exegesis you learn that the message is "while you are enslaved, act like a Christian slave, but look out for and take advantage of any opportunity to be free". Totally different from your dichotomy. This is a classic tactic of Bible critics and haters. By cherry picking verses, that support your position, you pretend the Bible is sitting on your knee like a puppet and you can make it say whatever you want. BTW, the hitchkins do so as well. This obvious and rather clumsy technique has earned them significant criticism from fellow atheists who actually think before they speak and have a modicum of understanding of what they are speaking about.

Your memory of why I chose to cease engaging you for a time is flawed. It had nothing to do with who you considered to be objective critics, It had everything to do with you defining a Christian by criteria the Church says defines a non Christian













'

Then you've got contradictory scriptures. Since accepting that is not an option for the believer, he must pick an interpretation that he likes, emphasize the scriptures that support it, and neutralize the contradictory ones.

So which do you like better- submit to kings and slavers, or cast off the chains? Take your pick. Those that like kingship and slavery will emphasize the scriptures you downplay, and downplay those that you are emphasizing.

That's what an unbeliever sees.

I once mentioned to you that I thought that the unbeliever was in a better position to evaluate scripture because he has no need to make it make sense, and you became offended and began shunning me. I want to revisit that,and hope that you can understand that these opinions are held sincerely and offered constructively, not to be impious or offend believers.

The Klansman likes the pro-slavery scriptures and ignores the ones criticizing or condemning it. You do it the other way around. I do neither. I just note the contradiction and recognize the fingerprint of men writing using the voice of a contrived god, but not always agreeing one with another.

Who has the most objective viewpoint of the three of us?

Then you've got contradictory scriptures. Since accepting that is not an option for the believer, he must pick an interpretation that he likes, emphasize the scriptures that support it, and neutralize the contradictory ones.

So which do you like better- submit to kings and slavers, or cast off the chains? Take your pick. Those that like kingship and slavery will emphasize the scriptures you downplay, and downplay those that you are emphasizing.

That's what an unbeliever sees.

I once mentioned to you that I thought that the unbeliever was in a better position to evaluate scripture because he has no need to make it make sense, and you became offended and began shunning me. I want to revisit that,and hope that you can understand that these opinions are held sincerely and offered constructively, not to be impious or offend believers.

The Klansman likes the pro-slavery scriptures and ignores the ones criticizing or condemning it. You do it the other way around. I do neither. I just note the contradiction and recognize the fingerprint of men writing using the voice of a contrived god, but not always agreeing one with another.

Who has the most objective viewpoint of the three of us?

 

[shmogie]

What does it mean to say that God hardened pharaoh's heart?

Pharoh had been given many opportunities to choose to do the right thing. He did not. God ensured then that he would attempt no middle way, no mild compromises, no relieving of conditions but still enslavement.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You and I just disagree. Sure the Earth may abide forever, but God's going to wipe it clean with fire, Make the days of Noah look like a honeymoon.

What would Satan do differently?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Cogent, that's not what you said. You said you read it to 'validate your beliefs'. That's not a neutral standpoint. And you can't read it that way....you won't get satisfaction, if what you were taught is not correct to begin with.

That was my motivation for reading it from a neutral standpoint.

I can have an objective reading while hoping for a certain result.

 

[Kemosloby]

What would Satan do differently?

Probably keep things going the way they are. Raise taxes, build more prisons, get some kids strung out on drugs, start some wars...etc. Let the dead stay dead forever.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Here are some of your problems, among quite a few when it comes to the Bible. You are simplistic and choose to to take what you read be it a verse, or sentence, or sometimes a word, you don't just chop it off to stand alone. You must realize that it is connected to the entire message, then to other verses that may make it's meaning situational, for a time period, or dependent on circumstances, The process is called exegesis and you don't employ it. So, your statement " so which do you like better submit to slavers and kings or cast off the chains" presents a bogus view of what the Bible says, a dichotomy.

So you say. I say otherwise.

So you refuse to choose? OK. No problem and no mystery. I'll judge why for myself.

Also, I'm going to follow your lead and declare the whole book situational. This is no longer antiquity. The world has changed since the Bible was written.

With exegesis you learn that the message is "while you are enslaved, act like a Christian slave, but look out for and take advantage of any opportunity to be free". Totally different from your dichotomy. This is a classic tactic of Bible critics and haters

I would have mentioned that slavery was immoral. But hey: I'm not a god. What do I know?

By cherry picking verses, that support your position, you pretend the Bible is sitting on your knee like a puppet and you can make it say whatever you want.

I am not doing anything that you don't permit yourself to do. You just want to disqualify me when I cite scripture because I am willing to point out its errors. You can try, but you have no power to do that.

I have kept a growing compilation of comments from believers attempting to disqualify the opinions of unbelievers. I'd be glad to share them with you if you'd like to see them.

Your memory of why I chose to cease engaging you for a time is flawed. It had nothing to do with who you considered to be objective critics, It had everything to do with you defining a Christian by criteria the Church says defines a non Christian

The church's definitions are irrelevant to me in this matter. It has no authority except with Christians.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Pharoh had been given many opportunities to choose to do the right thing. He did not. God ensured then that he would attempt no middle way, no mild compromises, no relieving of conditions but still enslavement.

So hardening pharaoh's heart meant, "God ensured then that he would attempt no middle way, no mild compromises, no relieving of conditions but still enslavement"?

Sorry. Not credible.

It was a rhetorical question. I already understand what the phrase means, which is somethung that is an embarrassment to the church today, and needs to be cleaned up and reinterpreted to mean something other than what the words say.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It Aint Necessarily So said: ↑ What would Satan do differently?

Probably keep things going the way they are.

No argument here.

I'm surprised by your answer, however.

 

[shmogie]

So you say. I say otherwise.

So you refuse to choose? OK. No problem and no mystery. I'll judge why for myself.

Also, I'm going to follow your lead and declare the whole book situational. This is no longer antiquity. The world has changed since the Bible was written.



I would have mentioned that slavery was immoral. But hey: I'm not a god. What do I know?



I am not doing anything that you don't permit yourself to do. You just want to disqualify me when I cite scripture because I am willing to point out its errors. You can try, but you have no power to do that.

I have kept a growing compilation of comments from believers attempting to disqualify the opinions of unbelievers. I'd be glad to share them with you if you'd like to see them.



The church's definitions are irrelevant to me in this matter. It has no authority except with Christians.

So, you make it clear, you are free to say whatever you choose, regardless it's accuracy, regardless of it's exegesis. Find something you dislike, regardless of the truth of and rip away. Contrary to your opinion on the matter, there is only one truth, not theirs and ours, or his or mine. Denying that truth is intellectual dishonesty, Most new atheists employ it, sadly, you appear to be no exception. I gave you some quotes from prominent atheists, who indict this penchant for lack of knowledge and screeching what they say as fact, when they are hopelessly wrong. I haven't found your response to them, just because I haven't gone through all the incoming posts you have launched at me. I think you would be wise to consider these, and many more from the atheist community you can easily find. It would be to your benefit

 

[shmogie]

So hardening pharaoh's heart meant, "God ensured then that he would attempt no middle way, no mild compromises, no relieving of conditions but still enslavement"?

Sorry. Not credible.

It was a rhetorical question. I already understand what the phrase means, which is somethung that is an embarrassment to the church today, and needs to be cleaned up and reinterpreted to mean something other than what the words say.

Doesn't embarrass me why should it ? Not re interpretation, one that is 1900 years old. See, you THINK you understand what it means. Once again, I call a foul for total lack of exegesis, and lack of knowledge of what has historically been understood. You narrow mindedly only see what you want to see to constantly self validate your views, and crow about it., If there was a referee, you would have fouled out by now.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So, you make it clear, you are free to say whatever you choose, regardless it's accuracy

No, I hold myself to a higher standard.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Doesn't embarrass me why should it ? Not re interpretation, one that is 1900 years old. See, you THINK you understand what it means. Once again, I call a foul for total lack of exegesis, and lack of knowledge of what has historically been understood. You narrow mindedly only see what you want to see to constantly self validate your views, and crow about it., If there was a referee, you would have fouled out by now.

I know what it means.

You seem to have appointed yourself referee. I do not recognize your authority, nor defer to what you judge to be true or false, so perhaps its time for you to rethink how you want to deport yourself.

I consider you the narrow-minded one. Your purpose is to promote Christianity, not the pursuit of dialectic. That will define what you allow yourself to think.

I've already explained why I consider any intelligent outsider's interpretation of Christianity to be more valid that that of an insider defending the faith from criticism. I already know in advance what such a person will see:God is good, the Bible is accurate, and Christians are great people - those not being so great are also not true Christians.

Did I leave anything out?

Oh yeah - atheist have no reason to not kill everybody around them, nor could their lives have any meaning or purpose.

 

[siti]

No, you don't "know" this... You were taught this. You hope it is so.

Have you ever read "Darwin's Dilemma"?

To employ your method of argumentation: I do, I wasn't, I don't and I haven't. So there

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But I killed innocent people for a "good cause" in that scenario just like what your god did according to scripture. So if what I did was murder than what he did was murder and if what he did was acceptable than what I did was acceptable.
Not all places use the death penalty and not all people want it, myself included.

I realize Not all places use the death penalty, and there could be good reason because an innocent person can be on death row. People can Not read hearts as God and Jesus can read hearts.

The violent people of Noah's day were Not innocent people, nor were the people of Sodom and Gomorrah innocent.
To me an 'execution' is Not murder. Killing innocent people is Not executing them for the sake of justice.
Please notice that Jesus will 'carry on war in righteousness' at Revelation 19:11 which means No one innocent will be in harm's way. Since we can Not read hearts but Jesus can, than the executional words from Jesus' mouth will Not execute the innocent. With ' good cause ' God warns at 2 Peter 3:9 ' repent ' if you do Not want to ' perish ' (be destroyed) with the wicked who will be destroyed forever according to Psalms 92:7. The choice is ours to make,

 

[URAVIP2ME]

God created Heaven and Earth at the same time. He can make new ones. Dead people don't need Earth and God can give them new bodies. Please, don't quote me anymore. I'm so sick of reading it.

To me, physically resurrected dead people do need Earth in order to be part of the humble meek to inherit the Earth.
Since such ones are in God's memory sure I agree they can have new bodies, but with the same memories as before death.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I realize Not all places use the death penalty, and there could be good reason because an innocent person can be on death row. People can Not read hearts as God and Jesus can read hearts.

The violent people of Noah's day were Not innocent people, nor were the people of Sodom and Gomorrah innocent.
To me an 'execution' is Not murder. Killing innocent people is Not executing them for the sake of justice.
Please notice that Jesus will 'carry on war in righteousness' at Revelation 19:11 which means No one innocent will be in harm's way. Since we can Not read hearts but Jesus can, than the executional words from Jesus' mouth will Not execute the innocent. With ' good cause ' God warns at 2 Peter 3:9 ' repent ' if you do Not want to ' perish ' (be destroyed) with the wicked who will be destroyed forever according to Psalms 92:7. The choice is ours to make,

I am against the death penalty because I think it is wrong to kill people when you can incarcerate them. Is that really such a foreign concept?

Do not ignore the firstborns killed in Egypt according to the bible. Or the children that where surely present in Noah's day, Sodom, and Gomorrah according to the bible.

I find it appalling that you think it is okay to kill children.

 

[Polymath257]

No, you don't "know" this... You were taught this. You hope it is so.

On the contrary, I have seen the evidence. I know the physics. I understand how science works. We *know* that species change over time. it is *you* that is hoping that conclusion is wrong.

Have you ever read "Darwin's Dilemma"?

Yes. Have you actually looked at the evidence? Or do you only read creationist tracks?