It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Absolute Power of Christianity!

page: 69
7
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)


Since Charlie had pointed out the omniscience aspect was where the hangup was between these two passages, I will address that rather than the more obvious was/was not contradiction. How could God, if He knows all, be pleased with His creation then not pleased with His creation? I'm going to tackle this one in two different ways, one using scripture and one not. Since I'm going to have to look up the scripture, I'll take the easier route first


I'm sure that at some point in your life, maybe even now (I'm not psychic
), I'm guessing you really love(d) someone. If you have children, that's the kind of love I'm talking about. Absolute, unconditional love. Yet, in so loving someone, that doesn't mean they can do no wrong; it's obsession and delusion to feel that way. When that person you really love(d) hurts you in some way, be it intentional or un, you're not pleased with them. That doesn't mean you no longer love them, though. Over all, you are still pleased, but due to that action, whatever it may have been, you're primary emotion as it applies to that person is not one of pleasure. Humans really screwed up, and God wasn't very happy about it. Does that mean there was no pleasure in Him anymore for His creation? I would say obviously not; He is God, and had the option on the table to wipe out everything, but He didn't. He kept His creation, but sort of...streamlined it to allow it to begin anew.

Now for more on Omniscience. God knows all, so that must mean He knows the future, right? I would say yes and no. God created us with free will, which means we have the ability to alter events; they're not all laid out for us in a linear line that we have no choice but to follow. This is demonstrated in several scriptures, such as Deuteronomy 16:10 (emphasis added)


10 Then celebrate the Feast of Weeks to the LORD your God by giving a freewill offering in proportion to the blessings the LORD your God has given you.


Now, you can't really give a freewill offering if you have no free will, can you? Leviticus 22:21, Leviticus 22:23, Leviticus 23:38, and several others also mention this freewill offering in the Levitican Law, or rules God set out for the Jews to follow. Again, how do you give a freewill offering if you have no free will and it had already been determined that you would or would not give it?

That, however, leaves the question of Omniscience open still. How can God know everything if He can't see the future? Obviously, since I had said, "yes and no," this part of the response is the "yes" part


God's intellect is unfathomable. He makes Stephen Hawking look not like a babbling idiot, but instead Hawking appears to have the intelligence of a chair. God can look at His creation, and know all the paths that people can take. Right now, I have very many options open to me, but I am choosing to continue typing this response. I could make a phone call, take a drink of my Sprite (that, actually, is a good idea...), etc. In seeing all those paths before me, God can also see the result every one of those actions could result in. It does not stop there, though. Every one of those threads could be seen from that moment to my death, and beyond. I take a sip of my Sprite, taking a break from typing this response. In so doing, maybe the slight delay while still thinking about this brings something else to mind. As a result, that something else gets into this reply (guess what that was
).

You may be thinking, that's just nuts. How could He see every single action of every being with free will (human alone, so far as I understand) for all time at every moment? As I said, His intellect is unfathomable, but in this case not entirely. We do this all the time, though not nearly to the level of detail I had mentioned. For instance, I would not follow the path of the future if I were to run to the kitchen and grab a plastic knife and start stabbing a coworker with it; that's completely out of my character and I don't believe it would ever happen. Yet, it is an option available (that was really hard to come up with, by the way! I'm sure there are other options that don't even enter my mind). Yet, we do do this to a degree. I just did in writing this paragraph; I predicted possible responses that would need to be addressed, and jumped the gun by addressing them now. Since man was created in God's image, it should be assumed that He is capable of doing this, as well. Due to his unfathomable intellect, He can do it a lot better.




posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
SPAM-

Originally posted by Spamandham
but the average teenie bopper hanging around on Christian forums has nothing to offer. They are not there to learn or to teach, but to reinforce one another.


Could you please elaborate on this? I have already learned so much from you, Saint and Jake.


This is a secular conspiracy forum, not a Christian forum. There are hundreds if not thousands of sites out there designed by Christians for Christians to sit around in a safe place of fellowship and argue apologetics with one another and then hold hands and sing Kumabaya. That's what I was referring to, and not internet forums in general.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   

GE 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.
EX 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.


This was confusing, because I read the link for Exodus6:2-3:


2And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD:

3And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.


Why am I confused? Because God says He was not known before as Jehovah. From the way the author of the website phrased the contradiction, it appeared as though Jehovah might be Hebrew for "The Lord" as a title, so I looked it up and got this from answers.com:


Jehovah

Another name for God; an approximation of the holiest name of God in Hebrew (the name was held so sacred that it was never written or spoken, and scholars are not sure exactly how it should be pronounced). It means “I am that I am,” or “I am the one who is.” In the incident of the burning bush in the Book of Exodus, God, speaking out of the bush, tells Moses that this is his name.


Link

There are several other definitions, that one was as it pertains to the Bible and actually translated the meaning of JHVH (written Hebrew in the Torah, or Old Testament, did not use Hebrew vowel sounds) for me. If anyone knows why this is a contradiction, or doesn't accept this explanation and would explain to me what I'm missing, please do. As it stands, I don't see described what the website's author claimed was there, even in the King James Version.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   


so the catholic church now believes some of the bible may not be truth, as it does hold innacuracies. crystalsword, who is a christian also thinks the bible is flawed and innacurate. for something that is being accepted as flawed and innacurate, doesn't half have a lot of people living by it.


Excuse me? I may say I am "SORT OF" a christian... but I am more a Gnostic/Dualist and a flavor of my own beliefs. I am an ecclectic Christian if at all. I don't have a denomination, but the closest I have found is Gnostic tradition, which is less traditional religion and more spiritual practice. My beliefs go outside of what ((most)) Christians might accept.

Just thought I should clarify.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Excuse me? I may say I am "SORT OF" a christian... but I am more a Gnostic/Dualist and a flavor of my own beliefs.


I'm just wondering what you mean as being a dualist. I have found that Gnosis is to break free from dualism, from the opposites, where things just ARE, and not judged.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Ladies and gentlemen, we bring you the eighth part in our ongoing series of inconsistencies and contradictions of the Bible! >Cricket chirp< Hmm. Well, let's get started, then!


GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.


To open this one, I'm going to quote both scriptures, since it's only a verse each so we can get that out there. Like several of the others, this one looks as though it is a direct contradiction.

Genesis 2:17

17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."


The reason for the quotation mark at the end of that is because it is the tail end of God talking with Adam, letting him know that he can eat from any tree but the Tree of Knowledge.

Genesis 5:5

5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.


We know from Genesis 3:6-7 that Adam had eaten the fruit, but he doesn't die in Genesis 3:8. How can this be? Did God not say directly to Adam that if he ate from the tree, he would die?

First, we must look at that first passage, Genesis 2:17, in more depth. If you'll notice, God never says specifically when Adam would die. He says "when you eat of it, you will surely die," but that could mean one of two things (probably more, but I'm going to just use the two). It could be that as soon as Adam takes a bite, thump he ded. The other option would be that Adam would be immortal unless he were to eat from the tree, thereby sinning, or going against God's will. So how do we establish which of these interpretations God meant when He said to Adam that he would die if he ate from the tree? To understand God's intention, we will have to look at scripture.

On the surface, that may seem like a circular argument. God said this, but when we look at scripture, it says Adam lived to be 930, and continued to live in Genesis 3:8, after he ate from the fruit, and I would agree. That's not how I'm approaching this, but rather using other scripture to establish what God said here. You have heard the phrase, "the wages of sin is death", I'm sure, but does that come from the Bible, or is that something that is just said by Christians today? It comes from the Bible, Romans 6:23, to be exact. It is sin that causes us to die. Adam lived to be 930 years old; though he originally sinned, he did not sin to the extent people later did. We can see this prevalence of sin through age through Genesis 5. People keep dying younger and younger (extremely old, by our standards today, though).

Now this opens a contradiction of its own, though. If the wages of sin is death, that would imply living a life without sin would mean everlasting life. In Adam's case, it was actual, physical life here on Earth. Today, through Christ, Christians recognize that this everlasting life is different. We do not live lives perfectly in the will of God, because as I said in an earlier post to Charlie Murphey, even doing something so petty as sneaking a cookie out of the cookie jar when you were 5 is against God's will. We are forgiven for our going against God's will, but we did go against it.

So here we have the contradiction. If sinning is what causes death, and Christ never sinned, how could he have died? This can be answered in Joshua 7 and First Chronicles 2:7. You may know of the story, and you may not. To summarize it, Israel just conquered Jericho. This is the city where they marched around the walls and the walls collapsed. God commanded the Israelis not to take any of the treasures of the city, but to burn it instead. Obviously from Exodus, we know God hates false idols, and Jericho was filled with them. So the Jews were to leave everything there, and simply destroy the city. However, one man, Achan, did not do this. When he went against God's will, and took something he shouldn't have, it brought trouble on all of Israel. Israel suffered from one man's sin, though the others didn't.

This may seem bizarre, holding people accountable for other's actions, but God's laws were designed to protect His people, not to make life really hard for them. In this case, it was to keep Israel separate from the other cultures of the world. He would punish them not as an act of vengeance, but as an act of mercy to keep them on the path they were to walk. To give you an idea of how well this worked, how many Babylonians do you know? How many Assyrians do you know? How many Vikings do you know? Byzantines? None, because as they were captured or conquered, they intermarried with the controlling civilization and adopted their new heritage after a few generations. Not so with the Jews, though. They were and are. Yes, there was intermarrying, but aspects of their culture they would not set aside (see the book of Daniel for an FAQ on how to do this
) even after being captured or conquered. The Jews continued to be Jews, because they followed God's law. When they would get out of line, God would slap them on the wrist and they would get back to where they should be. Yes, in Achan's case, 3000 Jews killed in a battle is a pretty strong slap on the wrist, but compare that with the loss of an entire people!

So Christ was not killed for His own sin, as He had none, but someone else's. Whose, then? There are several answers. First, the Pharisees sinned by not accepting God's will, and instead trying to maintain their lofty position and also be right in their interpretation of Torah. Why would a high priest of the temple accept a carpenter from a pathetic little town called Nazareth? What right does this nobody have to correct a Pharisee?! A Pharisee, by the way, was a studier of Jewish law, and they were very well versed in the Torah and Talmud (the Jewish Oral Tradition).

Then there's Pilate. His position was very precarious at the time the Jews brought one of their own before him, demanding execution. He knew what was right and wrong, and even told the people gathered that Christ had done no wrong. Yet, he, a Roman official, caved to mob rule because he was afraid news of yet another Jewish uprising under his watch getting to Caesar. So instead of doing what he knew was right, he protected himself and bent knee to the mob.

Then there's Judas, the man who betrayed Jesus Christ with a kiss. It appears from scripture that Judas really did believe Jesus was the Son of God. He had followed Him for 3 years. Jewish tradition and interpretation of the Torah, however, is that the messiah will be a great conqueror as David was. He would be a military man. The following is just my interpretation, but I believe that Judas expected that of Jesus. I don't think Judas believed Christ would allow the Roman authorities to take Him, and this would bring about the great revolution and rising of the kingdom of Israel, as the Jews at the time understood it. Remember, too, that the disciples despaired when what Christ was crucified. They lost hope; now thinking this couldn't be their messiah because He had been killed. It really appears they all believed this to one degree or another.

I can only imagine what Judas was thinking when Christ said at the Last Supper that someone would betray him, and it would be His last supper. "Yeah...we'll see, Jesus," is along the lines of what I think Judas thought. Judas wanted God to move in Judas' time, in Judas' way, because Judas believed Judas knew best.

From the sins of these, and more, Christ was killed. He was a sacrifice for all of our sins, past, present and future. He, the sinless, was killed for the sins of the world, from Eve's first bite of that fruit to today and beyond. So really, there is no contradiction there.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Well, I've rested my poor hands after that last post, and am now ready for the next! You know, that website is pretty long...Going through all of these may take a while. Anyway, let's address 9umber 9ine.


GE 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil.
HE 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil.


This should be a bit shorter, especially since I won't be creating a possible contradiction in explaining it
The assumption from the first passages, that it is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil, is taken from God commanding Adam not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Saying it is immature to be unable to tell the difference comes from a letter to the Hebrews that says it is maturity to be able to distinguish good from evil. The actual quote from Hebrews 5:14 is,


But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.


In the time of Adam, before the fall, there was no evil because Adam hadn't yet disobeyed God. Quite simply, the garden of Eden was, essentially, milk. Adam was an infant, unaware of evil until he ate from the tree. Now that evil is in the world, though, we have to be aware of it. As the author of Hebrews says, discernment between good and evil comes from training. Adam couldn't have trained to see the difference between good and evil because there was no evil. In our time, there is. It is by going through, learning by our mistakes and becoming resolute in not repeating them (aka repenting), we become more mature in Christ. A child is unaware of dangers that a parent, someone who is more mature, is aware of. For instance, an adult knows not to stick their finger into an outlet, but a child does not (I did it
), so they protect the children from that danger by sticking those caps into the outlet. Same with locking up those good smelling poisons that clean our stuff (never drank those, though
). This is the type of maturity being referred to here. Because it's there, we must be aware of it. God would have preferred it not to be there, but we invited it in. Therefore, we must be aware of it. Had we not originally fallen, it would still be wrong to want to know the difference between good and evil, because that would mean we wanted to eat the fruit from the tree.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
I'm just wondering what you mean as being a dualist. I have found that Gnosis is to break free from dualism, from the opposites, where things just ARE, and not judged.


Certainly, you are correct. My version of Dualism ties in with my own spiritual beliefs rather than with a concept of good and evil. I believe there is a Creator being whose sole desire is to preserve creation, to keep creation going as it were. There is also the Unmaker, whose sole desire is to cease being.

Due to the interaction of Creation upon the Void, things "Came to be" out of the Void. The portion of Void trapped within creation, that which all things were made of, wishes to return to pre-existence, where there was only void and no creation.

This is the eternal battle of renewal and entropy mirrored in the fundamentals of reality itself. Notice I don't make comment of either being good or evil, merely being the way we came to be.

That is how I am a dualist. As for judgment, never have believed in it.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
it's a bit stupid to try and prove, and even to defend that the bible does or doesn't have any innacuracies. it's pretty much a fact that it does have many. there are a vast amount on that website...sure you can get out of a few with some technicalities, but matter of fact there are still innacuracies. the only problem is that christian see these as not a big deal (but insist on defending them), but athiests usually do think it is..as to them it proves god doesn't exists, or the likelyhood is less.

so you could go on arguing all day about these innacuracies, but you'll never come to a conclusion.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
christian see these as not a big deal (but insist on defending them), but athiests usually do think it is..as to them it proves god doesn't exists, or the likelyhood is less.


How does a book with historical innacuracies reinforce your concept of there not being a God?

If I made a religion, which praised God, and in our revered book "The Akashic Records", there were 100 historical innacuracies, I do not think I would have too many people convert to Atheism because of it...

If indeed the bible has many innacuracies, then you can say it was not written by God through people, but rather through misinformed people, and as such any innacuracies within it should not reinforce beliefs of there being no God.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
it's a bit stupid to try and prove, and even to defend that the bible does or doesn't have any innacuracies. it's pretty much a fact that it does have many. there are a vast amount on that website...sure you can get out of a few with some technicalities, but matter of fact there are still innacuracies. the only problem is that christian see these as not a big deal (but insist on defending them), but athiests usually do think it is..as to them it proves god doesn't exists, or the likelyhood is less.


As I said in one of those posts, if my logic is inaccurate, please point it out, but do so specifically, as I obviously didn't think of it when I wrote it. I also have not skipped any, and will continue to work through every one of the things the author of that site points out. I don't recall saying inaccuracies were not a big deal. For me, they'd be a big deal, if they were there. I have said that I have yet to find one, though. If I do as I read through that website (I just started at the top and am addressing every one of them before moving on to the next, with the exception of sending an email to a buddy where I scrolled down to the last to see if they got any deeper). So I don't see it as a fact that there are inaccuracies yet. I don't think I ever will.

What really baffles me, though, is why you think it is stupid for me to address them.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
it's a bit stupid to try and prove, and even to defend that the bible does or doesn't have any innacuracies.


Ad Hominem.



so you could go on arguing all day about these innacuracies, but you'll never come to a conclusion.


Statement of Fact reliant upon little to no basis other than personal view, irrelevant and illogical.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
How does a book with historical innacuracies reinforce your concept of there not being a God?


Logically speaking, it doesn't.



If I made a religion, which praised God, and in our revered book "The Akashic Records", there were 100 historical innacuracies, I do not think I would have too many people convert to Atheism because of it...


Speaking strictly from a numbers standpoint, you would have some convert due to discovered inaccuracies. These people tend to look at an imperfect thing as a reflection upon a fictional perfect being.



If indeed the bible has many innacuracies, then you can say it was not written by God through people, but rather through misinformed people, and as such any innacuracies within it should not reinforce beliefs of there being no God.


Exactly. Well mannered and logical response. I'd love to hear if you think the terms "Trash", "Inaccurate" and "Flawed" mean the same thing and how the latter two are less offensive than the first when referring to holy books.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
I assume you did not raise yourself on a deserted island. Even if you had no religious upbringing, you have been inundated with god talk your entire life from the society around you. Assuming you grew up in the US or UK, you have also been immersed in Christian culture. There's no way you found him personally. You simply adopted the predominant meme of the society around you.


There are other countries in the world besides the US and UK,Australia for one though you could be right if you assumed that Australia is a desert Island


But because they have a Christian culture does`nt make God any less real simply because people talk about Him.Its you with the faith problem in this area.

Also to assume again in your opinion(though you did`nt state it as being such)that" there`s no way i could have done this personally"so you dont believe in originality as well?I find it funny sometimes frustrating that if i`ve pondered on something and come up with a thought based purely on my own concentration,someone has already thought of it,wrote it,spoke it,invented it etc,but it does`nt make it any less original.

I believed and believe that God sent His Son to die for me,and because of that he revealed Himself to me in a physical and spiritual sense,i could`nt deny this if i wanted to,thats what makes it personal.I can leave God or better try to leave Him that does`nt make Him any less real either.Which is something you have done, BUT God has`nt left YOU,simply Christ wants you back to when you saw Him for who He is.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by gps777
There are other countries in the world besides the US and UK,Australia for one though you could be right if you assumed that Australia is a desert Island


G'day. Didn't mean any slight by that. It just seems that most people on this board are US or UK. Although the UK is an island, it's more dessert island than desert island.


Originally posted by gps777
Its you with the faith problem in this area.


Interestingly, I don't consider myself to have much of a faith problem. I've managed to dispose of a good deal of it.


Originally posted by gps777
Also to assume again in your opinion(though you did`nt state it as being such)that" there`s no way i could have done this personally"so you dont believe in originality as well?


It depends on what you mean by "original". Our wetware seeems capable of synthesizing from preexisting experience, but not so much spontaneously from nothing.


Originally posted by gps777
I believed and believe that God sent His Son to die for me,and because of that he revealed Himself to me in a physical and spiritual sense,i could`nt deny this if i wanted to,


Of course you could, which is why you don't live your life as if you really truly honestly believed what you claim you believe. There is no discordance between my professed belief in gravity and my actions, because I honestly, truly believe in gravity. Can you say the same for your professed beliefs in Jesus and your actions? I thought not. You believe you believe, nothing more.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
There is no discordance between my professed belief in gravity and my actions, because I honestly, truly believe in gravity.


Talking about gravity...

What is it?


Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
I'd love to hear if you think the terms "Trash", "Inaccurate" and "Flawed" mean the same thing and how the latter two are less offensive than the first when referring to holy books.


Before I answer that, may I ask, why?

[edit on 7/10/2005 by AkashicWanderer]



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
I'd love to hear if you think the terms "Trash", "Inaccurate" and "Flawed" mean the same thing and how the latter two are less offensive than the first when referring to holy books.


Woohoo! An exercise in linguistics! Of course...This one is kinda dull, as Webster clearly defines it...


Main Entry: 1trash
Pronunciation: 'trash
Function: noun
Etymology: of Scandinavian origin; akin to Norwegian trask trash; akin to Old Norse tros fallen leaves and twigs, Old English trus
1 : something worth little or nothing: as a : JUNK, RUBBISH b (1) : empty talk : NONSENSE (2) : inferior or worthless writing or artistic matter; also : such material intended purely for entertainment



Main Entry: in•ac•cu•rate
Pronunciation: -'a-ky&-r&t, -k(&-)r&t
Function: adjective
: not accurate : FAULTY



Main Entry: 2flaw
1 a : a defect in physical structure or form b : an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer




Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
I'd love to hear if you think the terms "Trash", "Inaccurate" and "Flawed" mean the same thing and how the latter two are less offensive than the first when referring to holy books.


Before I answer that, may I ask, why?


I contend that Trash has an entirely different etymological meaning than inaccurate and flawed. I referred to the bible as inaccurate and flawed, another contended I was just saying it is trash. Mostly because they felt it was trash.

As far as I'm aware, one is meant to convey no worth, the others are generally critical but not dismissive.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
How does a book with historical innacuracies reinforce your concept of there not being a God?


i never claimed it reinforced my concept of there not being a god.

the reason athiests might think it reinforces their concept of no god, is because the bible is supposed to be the word of god, or devinely inspired by god, but innacuracies may make them doubt this. however, we have to remember it was written and put together by man, hence it is very likely to have mistakes. even books today you can find a few mistakes, mispelled words etc. and well movies...some have hundreds of mistakes. so it is unlikely that the bible would have none.

that is why saying the bible has no innacuracies or mistakes is stupid.


Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
If I made a religion, which praised God, and in our revered book "The Akashic Records", there were 100 historical innacuracies, I do not think I would have too many people convert to Atheism because of it...


again...i never said people would convert to athiesm because of innacuracies. if anyone convert to atheism it might be because the roman catholic church has decided to openly state than the whole bible isn't true, some bits are indeed false or innacurate...including the genesis account of creation (the church's words...not mine).


Originally posted by junglejake
As I said in one of those posts, if my logic is inaccurate, please point it out, but do so specifically, as I obviously didn't think of it when I wrote it.


well if you can logically tell me why in genesis there are two accounts of creation: trees being created before man, but in the next account man is created before trees, then go for it. because so far no one has.


Originally posted by junglejake
So I don't see it as a fact that there are inaccuracies yet. I don't think I ever will.


so there are absolutly no innacuracies at all? not one? i just put one. genesis 1: trees before man, genesis 2: man before trees. perfect example. the reason...you tell me.


Originally posted by junglejake
What really baffles me, though, is why you think it is stupid for me to address them.


because obviously you feel that innacuracies somehow would make the concept of god less believable, and vice versa for athiests. why else would athiests bring up innacuracies? and why else would a christian defend them?



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer

Originally posted by spamandham
There is no discordance between my professed belief in gravity and my actions, because I honestly, truly believe in gravity.


Talking about gravity...

What is it?


The name we give to the phenomenon we observe that things accelerate toward eachother. Why do things accelerate toward eachother? No-one knows.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join