how can you be sure that the devil is evil and the bible is correct?

[juvenissun]

I certainly can. Personally, I think a strict "all or nothing" perspective taught by a lot of Uber-Evangelical groups is the primary method of making atheists.

If you accept one error in the Bible, then you are likely to fine more, and more. It does not take long before your faith collapsed on these errors.

Unless you are not serious about your faith and let those errors go with a closing eyes.

For a simple example: If the Genesis is fiction, then Adam is a function, then original sin is in doubt, and Jesus does not have to die.... So, are you still a "Christian"?

If Gen. 1 is fictional, then Gen 2-11 are also fictional, then how much trust would you give to the rest of Genesis? If Genesis is in doubt, would you trust Exodus again?

Don't kid yourself.

 

[Ken-1122]

It should be longer than the tallest tree. Somehow two or more logs have to be connected to form a beam. By just taking a few more such operation, Noah could do the same.

What about all those smaller pieces of wood attached to the beam? What's to stop them from flexing?

A flexible Ark is fine, as long as it does not disintegrate.

But it will disintergrate.

And, the rising ocean might be significantly quiet. Noah might not even see a big wave during his whole journey.

even the most calm ocean is still moving.

K

 

[Ken-1122]

It should be longer than the tallest tree. Somehow two or more logs have to be connected to form a beam. By just taking a few more such operation, Noah could do the same.

What about all those smaller pieces of wood attached to the beam? What's to stop them from flexing?

A flexible Ark is fine, as long as it does not disintegrate.

But it will disintergrate.

And, the rising ocean might be significantly quiet. Noah might not even see a big wave during his whole journey.

even the most calm ocean is still moving. Let's face it; logically it's impossible. As I said before, faith is required to believe such a story.

K

 

[Ken-1122]

I certainly can. Personally, I think a strict "all or nothing" perspective taught by a lot of Uber-Evangelical groups is the primary method of making atheists.

I agree! That's how I got started.

Ken

 

[PhantomGaze]

If you accept one error in the Bible, then you are likely to fine more, and more. It does not take long before your faith collapsed on these errors.

Unless you are not serious about your faith and let those errors go with a closing eyes.

For a simple example: If the Genesis is fiction, then Adam is a function, then original sin is in doubt, and Jesus does not have to die.... So, are you still a "Christian"?

If Gen. 1 is fictional, then Gen 2-11 are also fictional, then how much trust would you give to the rest of Genesis? If Genesis is in doubt, would you trust Exodus again?

Don't kid yourself.

If it comes to that, I don't think we need the doctrine of Original Sin to know that:

1. We do bad stuff.
2. We're responsible for the bad stuff we do.
3. Therefore we need a savior.

Genesis and Exodus are different books written in different genres. In fact, Genesis is written in several different genres, and is not just one story. I see no reason to assume they're inextricably connected.

That said, I think these stories are important, and that we can learn a lot about ourselves and God through them, but I see no reason that we'd need them to be magically inerrant in terms of history, science, blah blah blah.

 

[stevenfrancis]

No.

At Moses' time, thou shall not kill, unless God calls you to war.

Yes, and moreover, the sense of the Hebrew, Greek and Latin words used in ancient texts are more closely translated as "murder". Not "kill" (as in all instances of killing, justified or otherwise). Of course we kill. There is defense (just war). There is hunting and fishing for food with intent of feeding family. There is capital punishment. At the time of this writing, there was even animal sacrifice. In all these circumstances though, with the properly catechized conscience, we are not "murdering", which is different. Killing with malice and forethought.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, and moreover, the sense of the Hebrew, Greek and Latin words used in ancient texts are more closely translated as "murder". Not "kill" (as in all instances of killing, justified or otherwise). Of course we kill. There is defense (just war). There is hunting and fishing for food with intent of feeding family. There is capital punishment. At the time of this writing, there was even animal sacrifice. In all these circumstances though, with the properly catechized conscience, we are not "murdering", which is different. Killing with malice and forethought.

Fine. What Moses did during war was murder.

Ken

 

[juvenissun]

What about all those smaller pieces of wood attached to the beam? What's to stop them from flexing?


But it will disintergrate.


even the most calm ocean is still moving.

K

The sides of the Ark is much easier to fasten when compare to the beam.

I don't feel comfortable to talk about things that I don't know and you don't know either. It is meaningless. So I will stop on this Ark structure issue. It is not a logic issue, it is an engineering issue.

 

[juvenissun]

If it comes to that, I don't think we need the doctrine of Original Sin to know that:

1. We do bad stuff.
2. We're responsible for the bad stuff we do.
3. Therefore we need a savior.

Genesis and Exodus are different books written in different genres. In fact, Genesis is written in several different genres, and is not just one story. I see no reason to assume they're inextricably connected.

That said, I think these stories are important, and that we can learn a lot about ourselves and God through them, but I see no reason that we'd need them to be magically inerrant in terms of history, science, blah blah blah.

How could be treat a story which is , for example, scientifically wrong as an important message? I don't care about how fascinating is the theology, if something is obviously wrong in the scripture, then I won't believe in it. This is an important way to tell if the scripture is man's words or God's words.

 

[PhantomGaze]

How could be treat a story which is , for example, scientifically wrong as an important message?

Because there's like... more to the world than science?

I don't care about how fascinating is the theology, if something is obviously wrong in the scripture, then I won't believe in it. This is an important way to tell if the scripture is man's words or God's words.

So we know that man's words must be wrong. So if scripture is man's words, it's wrong. Now science that's right, and that's... oh... that's man's words too. Something's not adding up here.

 

[juvenissun]

Because there's like... more to the world than science?



So we know that man's words must be wrong. So if scripture is man's words, it's wrong. Now science that's right, and that's... oh... that's man's words too. Something's not adding up here.

No. Science is not man's word. It is God's word. Science is one significant component in the way to tell good from evil.

 

[PhantomGaze]

No. Science is not man's word. It is God's word. Science is one significant component in the way to tell good from evil.

I could see nature being God's word in some sense, but certainly not science.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

No. Science is not man's word. It is God's word. Science is one significant component in the way to tell good from evil.

If Science is God's word, why do you argue against its discoveries?

 

[Ken-1122]

The sides of the Ark is much easier to fasten when compare to the beam.

I don't feel comfortable to talk about things that I don't know and you don't know either. It is meaningless. So I will stop on this Ark structure issue. It is not a logic issue, it is an engineering issue.

I may not be an engineer, but it is obvious from our conversations that I know a lot more about boat building than you do. However, if you are done with that topic, let's move to the next.

Joshua: Do you agree the only way to stop the sun from setting would be to stop the Earth from rotating? and because the Earth rotates at more than 10,000 mph, momentum would destroy everything on the planet?

Ken

 

[juvenissun]

I may not be an engineer, but it is obvious from our conversations that I know a lot more about boat building than you do. However, if you are done with that topic, let's move to the next.

Joshua: Do you agree the only way to stop the sun from setting would be to stop the Earth from rotating? and because the Earth rotates at more than 10,000 mph, momentum would destroy everything on the planet?

Ken

No. That is not the only way.

There are many parameters:

The sun is moving (orbiting);
The earth is moving (rotating and orbiting);
The time may also change in scale and direction on itself.

 

[juvenissun]

If Science is God's word, why do you argue against its discoveries?

The argument is part of the science and is the language of science. The discovery is not the word of God, the science is.

 

[juvenissun]

I could see nature being God's word in some sense, but certainly not science.

Science is logic plus data.
The data is what you said the nature.
The logic is the grammar to string the data together.

 

[Ken-1122]

No. That is not the only way.

There are many parameters:

The sun is moving (orbiting);
The earth is moving (rotating and orbiting);
The time may also change in scale and direction on itself.

Care to rephrase that in a way that makes sense?

Ken

 

[juvenissun]

Care to rephrase that in a way that makes sense?

Ken

Do you know the geostationary satellite? That is the picture of sun staying in the sky.

 

[PhantomGaze]

Science is logic plus data.
The data is what you said the nature.
The logic is the grammar to string the data together.

Science isn't a list of facts, it's a method for acquiring them. This method was invented by men, and the facts and theories discovered by it are consistently revised.