Bible verse by verse

[_LittleNipper]

And the very same cannot be said of the atheists and agnostics who unabashedly admit that they start out from the point that there can be no God, and what is visible is all that exists?

I don't know many atheists or agnostics who started from that point. Most of the ones I know start from a suspension of judgment and arrive at their position after finding a complete lack of evidence. As I pointed out, evidence is very, very important to religious folks when it comes to showing that other religions are wrong, so don't pretend that you start from a position of belief. You start from a position of arbitrary dogmatism and then pick and choose which evidence you're going to promote and which evidence you're going to reject.

Isn't this the very epitome of irrational bias, dogmatism and bigotry?

The sectarian and fundamentalist position is absolutely that. The agnostic or atheist position is usually not that, but there are certainly exceptions.

Or does this only play one way in your mind? The reality is that Answers in Genesis makes some very valid points that evolutionists and uniformitarians hate to admit.

They make absolutely no such points, and I defy you to quote a single one here on this board. I'm not inviting you to just link to an entire website, I want you to quote a single point, along with evidence or rationale, in your post. Can you do that, or is your claim just a flippant and broad one you make only because you know no one is going to go investigate an entire website?

And additionally, as long as Christians only sat around and left all the imaginings & theorizing to evolutionists & uniformitarians, the latter were very content to simply promote their theories as the absolute truth using tax dollars as funding and public education as their temple.

What mindless and uninformed dogmatism.

Well, perhaps you don't know any honest ones. However, I would suggest that most start from a point that is already academically accepted in college and the universities and build on that. And perhaps you are mindless, uninformed, and dogmatic in your opinion of people who disagree and have very good sound reasons to. I did read the Book of Mormon and it certainly didn't take much for me to realize that it wasn't biblical except were verses were copied in King James right out of the Bible.

[_maklelan]

Well, perhaps you don't know any honest ones. However, I would suggest that most start from a point that is already academically accepted in college and the universities and build on that. And perhaps you are mindless, uninformed, and dogmatic in your opinion of people who disagree and have very good sound reasons to. I did read the Book of Mormon and it certainly didn't take much for me to realize that it wasn't biblical except were verses were copied in King James right out of the Bible.

I don't believe that there are good and informed reasons to disagree, but I am giving you an opportunity to make your case. You're refusing to do so. When I'm asked to make my case I do so, and you refuse to address it. Who do you think has the bigger problem in light of that?

[_huckelberry]

And the very same cannot be said of the atheists and agnostics who unabashedly admit that they start out from the point that there can be no God, and what is visible is all that exists? Isn't this the very epitome of irrational bias, dogmatism and bigotry? Or does this only play one way in your mind? The reality is that Answers in Genesis makes some very valid points that evolutionists and uniformitarians hate to admit. And additionally, as long as Christians only sat around and left all the imaginings & theorizing to evolutionists & uniformitarians, the latter were very content to simply promote their theories as the absolute truth using tax dollars as funding and public education as their temple.

Job 38:4

New International Version
"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.

where were we? the record of the past is contained in the shape of the present.

Nipper, there are scientists who are hostile to religious belief . There are others who do not care much about it and there are some who value faith in God. All of those try to study how the workings of reality fit together in order to further understanding for all of us.

You may very well not agree with me but my understanding of geological history is seen through my understanding, not an atheist's. I am a Christain who believes in the statements of Nicene creed, that God created all things, that what we see in the real world is the outflowing of his will. I believe God cares for creation and has not left it alone but nurtures and guides it on its path. I believe life on earth has been developing over millions of years. I see all of that as a result of Gods plan, power and love. He laid the foundations and cares for the steps on the way. Some of this is not visible to science. When God touches the variations in life there is nothing which identifies Gods action because it all has God as its source. My belief in creation lies within faith in that sense. That does not create a blanket of invisibity over the events which have happened by Gods will. Dinosaurs were a result of Gods love and lived under Gods care for millions of years. There is no need to trim Gods care to the small span of time known to people living before scientific investigation of our world found Gods creation to be bigger and grander than people ever before imagined.

[_Gunnar]

And the very same cannot be said of the atheists and agnostics who unabashedly admit that they start out from the point that there can be no God, and what is visible is all that exists? Isn't this the very epitome of irrational bias, dogmatism and bigotry? Or does this only play one way in your mind? The reality is that Answers in Genesis makes some very valid points that evolutionists and uniformitarians hate to admit. And additionally, as long as Christians only sat around and left all the imaginings & theorizing to evolutionists & uniformitarians, the latter were very content to simply promote their theories as the absolute truth using tax dollars as funding and public education as their temple.

Job 38:4

New International Version
"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.

where were we? the record of the past is contained in the shape of the present.

Nipper, there are scientists who are hostile to religious belief . There are others who do not care much about it and there are some who value faith in God. All of those try to study how the workings of reality fit together in order to further understanding for all of us.

You may very well not agree with me but my understanding of geological history is seen through my understanding, not an atheist's. I am a Christain who believes in the statements of Nicene creed, that God created all things, that what we see in the real world is the outflowing of his will. I believe God cares for creation and has not left it alone but nurtures and guides it on its path. I believe life on earth has been developing over millions of years. I see all of that as a result of Gods plan, power and love. He laid the foundations and cares for the steps on the way. Some of this is not visible to science. When God touches the variations in life there is nothing which identifies Gods action because it all has God as its source. My belief in creation lies within faith in that sense. That does not create a blanket of invisibity over the events which have happened by Gods will. Dinosaurs were a result of Gods love and lived under Gods care for millions of years. There is no need to trim Gods care to the small span of time known to people living before scientific investigation of our world found Gods creation to be bigger and grander than people ever before imagined.

Yet another great post, huckleberry! Your attitude is almost infinitely more rational, humble and admirable than that expressed by LittleNipper. It is too bad he is incapable of understanding or realizing that. If all Christians were like you and Ceeboo, the world would be a much better, safer and even more prosperous place!

[_Gunnar]

And the very same cannot be said of the atheists and agnostics who unabashedly admit that they start out from the point that there can be no God, and what is visible is all that exists?

I don't know many atheists or agnostics who started from that point. Most of the ones I know start from a suspension of judgment and arrive at their position after finding a complete lack of evidence. As I pointed out, evidence is very, very important to religious folks when it comes to showing that other religions are wrong, so don't pretend that you start from a position of belief. You start from a position of arbitrary dogmatism and then pick and choose which evidence you're going to promote and which evidence you're going to reject.

Isn't this the very epitome of irrational bias, dogmatism and bigotry?

The sectarian and fundamentalist position is absolutely that. The agnostic or atheist position is usually not that, but there are certainly exceptions.

Well, perhaps you don't know any honest ones. However, I would suggest that most start from a point that is already academically accepted in college and the universities and build on that. And perhaps you are mindless, uninformed, and dogmatic in your opinion of people who disagree and have very good sound reasons to. I did read the Book of Mormon and it certainly didn't take much for me to realize that it wasn't biblical except were verses were copied in King James right out of the Bible.

LittleNipper, don't you see the inherent, irrational bias and bigotry in your response here? You are in effect insisting, a priori, that the only honest atheists and agnostics are those who happen to fit your bigoted, derogatory, stereotype of them. In other words, you maintain that the only honest atheists are those who irrationally and dishonestly start out with the a priori and dogmatic assumption that there cannot be any such thing as God, regardless of what may or not be indicated by the evidence. This is an inherently self-contradictory characterization!

It is certainly an inaccurate characterization of me and any of the few other atheists and agnostics I have ever personally met and interacted with. I used to be a strong believer in God (though never as mindlessly dogmatic and intolerant as you are). I only gradually lost that belief because the more I learned about the world and how it works, and how religion often directly conflicts with reality, the more I realized (reluctantly) how scarce and inconclusive was the supporting evidence for God. I still can't honestly say I know with certainty that there is no God, and may never achieve such certainty in what remains of my life. I am still open to the possibility that evidence of which I am yet unaware may change my mind about the existence of a divine, supreme being. What I am certain of, however, is that I can never believe in, respect, much less worship a God as mindlessly cruel, malicious and sadistic as the god portrayed in the Old Testament! The most important thing I want you to realize, however, is that my disbelief was most emphatically NOT due to any initial bias on my part, as you continue to falsely claim. My initial bias was precisely the opposite of that!

I would certainly agree with you that there is much very sound justification for doubting the veracity of the Book of Mormon, but very little of that has to do with whether or not it is Biblical. If anything, the extent to which it is biblical tends to only further discredit it in my mind. For example: it accepts the literal reality of the Biblical myths of Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel, which are as thoroughly disproven by history, science and archaeology as anything can be.

[_LittleNipper]

And the very same cannot be said of the atheists and agnostics who unabashedly admit that they start out from the point that there can be no God, and what is visible is all that exists? Isn't this the very epitome of irrational bias, dogmatism and bigotry? Or does this only play one way in your mind? The reality is that Answers in Genesis makes some very valid points that evolutionists and uniformitarians hate to admit. And additionally, as long as Christians only sat around and left all the imaginings & theorizing to evolutionists & uniformitarians, the latter were very content to simply promote their theories as the absolute truth using tax dollars as funding and public education as their temple.

Job 38:4

New International Version
"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.

where were we? the record of the past is contained in the shape of the present.

Nipper, there are scientists who are hostile to religious belief . There are others who do not care much about it and there are some who value faith in God. All of those try to study how the workings of reality fit together in order to further understanding for all of us.

You may very well not agree with me but my understanding of geological history is seen through my understanding, not an atheist's. I am a Christain who believes in the statements of Nicene creed, that God created all things, that what we see in the real world is the outflowing of his will. I believe God cares for creation and has not left it alone but nurtures and guides it on its path. I believe life on earth has been developing over millions of years. I see all of that as a result of Gods plan, power and love. He laid the foundations and cares for the steps on the way. Some of this is not visible to science. When God touches the variations in life there is nothing which identifies Gods action because it all has God as its source. My belief in creation lies within faith in that sense. That does not create a blanket of invisibity over the events which have happened by Gods will. Dinosaurs were a result of Gods love and lived under Gods care for millions of years. There is no need to trim Gods care to the small span of time known to people living before scientific investigation of our world found Gods creation to be bigger and grander than people ever before imagined.

All this and you cannot imagine that God would or could create a finished and complete ecological system, where everything ate fruit and plants, and that represented the eternal aspects of God in 6 days????????????????? The whole theory of evolution is entirely based in the SURVIVAL of the Fittest. SURVIVAL, that doesn't sound at all like a lion laying with a lamb. What it does sound like is violence ---- continually.

[Guest]

z

[_LittleNipper]

The sectarian and fundamentalist position is absolutely that. The agnostic or atheist position is usually not that, but there are certainly exceptions.

Well, perhaps you don't know any honest ones. However, I would suggest that most start from a point that is already academically accepted in college and the universities and build on that. And perhaps you are mindless, uninformed, and dogmatic in your opinion of people who disagree and have very good sound reasons to. I did read the Book of Mormon and it certainly didn't take much for me to realize that it wasn't biblical except were verses were copied in King James right out of the Bible.

LittleNipper, don't you see the inherent, irrational bias and bigotry in your response here? You are in effect insisting, a priori, that the only honest atheists and agnostics are those who happen to fit your bigoted, derogatory, stereotype of them. In other words, you maintain that the only honest atheists are those who irrationally and dishonestly start out with the a priori and dogmatic assumption that there cannot be any such thing as God, regardless of what may or not be indicated by the evidence. This is an inherently self-contradictory characterization!

It is certainly an inaccurate characterization of me and any of the few other atheists and agnostics I have ever personally met and interacted with. I used to be a strong believer in God (though never as mindlessly dogmatic and intolerant as you are). I only gradually lost that belief because the more I learned about the world and how it works, and how religion often directly conflicts with reality, the more I realized (reluctantly) how scarce and inconclusive was the supporting evidence for God. I still can't honestly say I know with certainty that there is no God, and may never achieve such certainty in what remains of my life. I am still open to the possibility that evidence of which I am yet unaware may change my mind about the existence of a divine, supreme being. What I am certain of, however, is that I can never believe in, respect, much less worship a God as mindlessly cruel, malicious and sadistic as the god portrayed in the Old Testament! The most important thing I want you to realize, however, is that my disbelief was most emphatically NOT due to any initial bias on my part, as you continue to falsely claim. My initial bias was precisely the opposite of that!

I would certainly agree with you that there is much very sound justification for doubting the veracity of the Book of Mormon, but very little of that has to do with whether or not it is Biblical. If anything, the extent to which it is biblical tends to only further discredit it in my mind. For example: it accepts the literal reality of the Biblical myths of Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel, which are as thoroughly disproven by history, science and archaeology as anything can be.

The fact is that Jesus was also rejected by men who saw Him heal, raise people from the dead, and calm storms. The Book of Mormon is based on lies and deceit and has as much to do with the Bible as does the Quran. It becomes very hard for individuals to separate truth from fantasy when they realize that they have been suckered by a man made religion... God treated people under the LAW exactly as they treated others and the environment. Presently, God is looking at man through the eyes of Christ. Christ covers all sin, but only if one believes in Christ and is sorry for their sins. People who believe that God tells them to lie, cheat, steal, and murder in the name of God ----- are not God's children. The Flood was a natural, sin induced catastrophic event. And God saved a righteous (not perfect) man and his family. There is every indication that language originated from one area of the world and spread out, so I will not go into that. And everyone knows about ziggurats. So, no, I do not know what you are talking about.

[_huckelberry]

All this and you cannot imagine that God would or could create a finished and complete ecological system, where everything ate fruit and plants, and that represented the eternal aspects of God in 6 days????????????????? The whole theory of evolution is entirely based in the SURVIVAL of the Fittest. SURVIVAL, that doesn't sound at all like a lion laying with a lamb. What it does sound like is violence ---- continually.

Nipper, I think my imagination works ok and I can imagine such a thing as you propose but I have no reason to think that it is real. I realize that I do not find your imagination attractive. I cannot conceive of why God would want to create in six days. I think creation's huge expanse of time is a wonder and a beauty. It is true that the natural process can be harsh. At the same time there is a sense to the arrangement where coyotes eat mice, it keeps the mouse population in check. Without cats and coyotes my imaginations says that the mice would eat us out of house and home.

I do not share your dark view of survival. I think life is a challenge and a gift. I thank God each day for survival. I feel quite sure that lions and lambs is an image for the Kingdom of God, the goal of Gods creation not creations first steps.

[_Gunnar]

All this and you cannot imagine that God would or could create a finished and complete ecological system, where everything ate fruit and plants, and that represented the eternal aspects of God in 6 days????????????????? The whole theory of evolution is entirely based in the SURVIVAL of the Fittest. SURVIVAL, that doesn't sound at all like a lion laying with a lamb. What it does sound like is violence ---- continually.

What we can or cannot imagine has no relevant bearing on what is or is not true, except to the extent that our imagination or understanding is informed by honest and rational evaluation of the available evidence that we can perceive or discover. What we are endeavoring to show you is that the idea of a universe less than 10,000 years old created in 6 literal, 24 hour days simply cannot be supported by any honest and reasonable evaluation of the now available evidence. The original writers of Genesis were not yet aware of that evidence, and cannot be blamed for believing in the validity of the creation myth they created (and make no mistake--they, or the originators of the oral traditions they eventually wrote down, created that myth, not God, unless He was intentionally trying to deceive them). With the enormous advances in knowledge and scientific understanding that have occurred since those ancient writings were compiled into what we now know as the Book of Genesis, we no longer have any valid excuse whatsoever to take them literally.

Another seriously misinformed conception you have is that modern concepts of geology and evolution were the result of evil atheists deliberately setting out to destroy belief in God. Lyell, Hutton, Darwin and others were most definitely not irreligious men. They were dragged and forced to their conclusions about the extreme age of the earth and biological evolution, sometimes reluctantly and resisting all the way, by the sheer weight of the evidence they, themselves discovered. Darwin, before setting out on his famous adventure and odyssey on the Beagle, was a divinity student training for the ministry, with every intention of returning to England and taking up a career as a country pastor, and Hutton and Lyell, If I recall correctly, remained devoutly religious until they died--despite their discoveries.