Evolution? How?

Lightwizard wrote:

RL is a diverter and not a very clever one. He's as transparant as Saran Wrap.

That's a flimsy argument.

0 Replies

Rex, That's filmsly; can't you get anything right?

0 Replies

0 Replies

What I am saying is that if people are going to doubt the Bible from a scientific stand point isn't it wise to at least know what it says?

Something cannot be proven or tested if it is ignored. Scientists cannot reject certain phenomenon (millions of believers) and then objectively draw valid conclusions about religion.

There is proof, we are living proof of creation of some sort... spiritually, physically and in design. The Bible is real.

One can't objectively speak authoritatively about any book that they don't read and study. People see contradictions because they ignore fundamental scriptures. They opt again for abstract views, thus the symmetry of the Bible suffers the consequences and it's meaning is broken into total contradiction.

The Bible does not fit with itself any longer when theists and rulers force arbitrary matters into it. Just because the Bible can become misconstrued does not mean that there is not a particular meaning meant for every word, why, where and how it was used and to whom it was addressed. The people who attempt to change it the least learn the most.

But when even clergy DECLARE the Bible to be imperfect (full of contradictions and FOLLOWERS swallow that.) then the Bible's true INTEGRITY is never or rarely sought, or thought too difficult to learn by most followers. They have no faith in the power of words to convey.

"Body, soul and spirit" is not a really hard concept to grasp but it is still virtually unknown in our culture. Even by devout "religious" people of most sects including the occult. They are confused on what is life (soul) and what is spirit and what differentiates the two.

It is a curiosity that they ancients seemed to have done a better job at teaching this particular doctrine (body, soul and spirit) to their own masses.

0 Replies

Nobody is able to "test" a two thousand year old book when there are so many mistakes, contradictions, and omissions.

But that doesn't matter to the people of religion, bcause no matter how much of the content is proved to be wrong, people has the ability to rationalize it away.

Take the six days of creation, for example. How can there be a first day, if there is no sun?

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

What I am saying is that if people are going to doubt the Bible from a scientific stand point isn't it wise to at least know what it says?

Aside from the fact that I have read the bible let me ask you:

Do I have to find every pig on the planet to know that pigs don't fly? Do I have to fly to Uranus to know there are no peanut butter cookies in ceramic bowls awaiting?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Nobody is able to "test" a two thousand year old book when there are so many mistakes, contradictions, and omissions.

But that doesn't matter to the people of religion, bcause no matter how much of the content is proved to be wrong, people has the ability to rationalize it away.

Take the six days of creation, for example. How can there be a first day, if there is no sun?

But why do you trust the theories of mankind over the word of your Creator?

God created it in six days, sun or no sun it doesn't matter. How can you doubt him and yet you do not doubt Darwin's theory - that is just plain ignorance. Confused

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

RexRed wrote:
What I am saying is that if people are going to doubt the Bible from a scientific stand point isn't it wise to at least know what it says?
Aside from the fact that I have read the bible let me ask you:

Do I have to find every pig on the planet to know that pigs don't fly? Do I have to fly to Uranus to know there are no peanut butter cookies in ceramic bowls awaiting?

How much is the truth worth to you?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Nobody is able to "test" a two thousand year old book when there are so many mistakes, contradictions, and omissions.

Again I ask: what relevance are 'omissions' ? If something was omitted, it's not there, so how does that somehow prove a fault in the Bible?

You are trying to prove a negative.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

What I am saying is that if people are going to doubt the Bible from a scientific stand point isn't it wise to at least know what it says?

Something cannot be proven or tested if it is ignored. Scientists cannot reject certain phenomenon (millions of believers) and then objectively draw valid conclusions about religion.

There is proof, we are living proof of creation of some sort... spiritually, physically and in design. The Bible is real.

All the same arguments can be (and have been) used to prove that the earth is flat, that the sun travels around the earth, and that there are many gods - some of which are animals.

The bible is real, certainly. The statements within are demonstrably not (as they are often contradictory). When you imply that the bible should be carefully examined by every scientist, it holds that every other religion and superstition should be equally examined and tested before being rejected.

That's just one reason why the burden of proof lies with those making extraordinary claims, such as the existence of gods and magic.

Having said that, reading the bible certainly made me a better atheist.

0 Replies

Given that it is claimed to be the immaculate word of god, how about explaining to us mere heathens why the numerous versions of the Christian bibles have so many:

Errors
Mistakes
Contradictions
Omissions
Different versions

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Nobody is able to "test" a two thousand year old book when there are so many mistakes, contradictions, and omissions.

But that doesn't matter to the people of religion, bcause no matter how much of the content is proved to be wrong, people has the ability to rationalize it away.

Take the six days of creation, for example. How can there be a first day, if there is no sun?

The Bible does not say God "created" the sun in Eden during the seven days it says God "made" the sun to shine... made, formed and created body, soul and spirit. This cannot be understood without understanding these concepts.

"Making the sun to shine" is easier than "creating the sun".. The sun would have to be created before it was made into anything. This is simple logic doesn't the Bible/God deserve even that?

Why did God only "make" the sun to shine in Eden? Because the sun had been "created" earlier. Making the sun to shine can be as easy as clearing the clouds away after an ice age... The answer is in the Bible but only for those who are meek to seek it. Once you see it you will see that the other writers of the Bible saw it too and numerous scriptures come to life as a result.

Words have meanings and if people treated each word in the Bible with reverence they would learn their wisdom...

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Given that it is claimed to be the immaculate word of god, how about explaining to us mere heathens why the numerous versions of the Christian bibles have so many:

Errors
Mistakes
Contradictions
Omissions
Different versions

Only truth would be attacked with such vehemence...

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Only truth would be attacked with such vehemence...

Why?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Chumly wrote:
Given that it is claimed to be the immaculate word of god, how about explaining to us mere heathens why the numerous versions of the Christian bibles have so many:

Errors
Mistakes
Contradictions
Omissions
Different versions

Only truth would be attacked with such vehemence...
Why?

Because the devil/evil is real... He was there when the word was written. The adversary's primary motive is the steal the word of God...

Luke 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved

Comment:
Could that be any more literal and clear? I love the word of God for this plain and rare truth... Smile

0 Replies

If you consider my rather mild challenge a so-called "vehement" "attack" pray tell what do you make of other posters stronger posts? Horrible debilitating outright warfare?

Is Chumly the devil incarnate then?

Are all those who do not agree with and/or in any way question your idiosyncratic religious beliefs the devil incarnate?

What about Jews are they against your god too?
What about Buddhists are they against your god too?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

If you consider my rather mild challenge a so-called "vehement" "attack" pray tell what do you make of other posters stronger posts? Horrible debilitating outright warfare?

Is Chumly the devil incarnate then?

I don't consider you being the attacker, I think you are a follower who is dangerously close to learning the truth... You are just repeating what you have been taught. I consider you as being the one attacked by the devil... This is the perspective the spirit gives me... I see the devil as trying to steal the word from you. He cannot steal the word from me because I already KNOW and BELIEVE it.

Joh 10:10
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

0 Replies

So the Jews are being "attacked by the devil"?
So the Buddhists are being "attacked by the devil"?
So all those who do not agree with and/or in any way question your idiosyncratic religious beliefs are being "attacked by the devil"?

So the Jews are all "followers who are dangerously close to learning the truth"?
So the Buddhists are all "followers who are dangerously close to learning the truth"?
So all those who do not agree with and/or in any way question your idiosyncratic religious beliefs are all "followers who are dangerously close to learning the truth"?

So all those who do not agree with and/or in any way question your idiosyncratic religious beliefs are all "just repeating what they have been taught"?

So only your idiosyncratic religious beliefs are correct and everyone else who does not agree with and/or in any way questions your idiosyncratic religious beliefs is being "attacked by the devil".

I thought other religionists to have climbed the highest peaks of hubris, but you my peculiar friend, now have the singular honor of outclassing them all, to set a new high in hubristic giddiness.

0 Replies

ah Chumly, you are making the mistake of thinking that Rex's opinion is his own idea. It's given to him by his God you see, making it unquestionable. As he says, that's the beauty of his "faith". You get absolute certainty without the responsibility of finding out if you are wrong. (in fact, you are made to feel "influenced by evil" for even questioning your certainty !!) Must be a lovely place to live Rex. Sad, from where I sit, but no doubt lovely in that warm safe cocoon of absolute truth.

0 Replies

The devil is metaphorical. The evil is within us, not outside of us. And I'd hardly call Chumly evil.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know