Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[PsychoSarah]

Since you are speculating on events relating to the ark and the flood - I offer a Christian alternative - you may reject it - but you should at least know what it is.

THE FLOOD
1. Warning mankind and Building the ark 3 minutes ago#1412
2. The flood – the Storm Breaks - 4 minutes ago#1413

-_- nah, because explicitly Noah and his family did the construction, not god. Your explanation does not follow with your adherence to a literal biblical interpretation.

 

[BobRyan]

Darwin certainly was, he even went to higher education to be in the ministry. As for the others, it would not shock me if they were raised as Christian. Most atheists were, at some point in their life, religious. People like me that never were are uncommon, and I wasn't raised to be non religious either. Not intentionally, anyways..

That explains a lot. I have not seen the intense opposition to reason and logic in your posts that can sometimes be found from others (even Christians) posting against God and the acceptance of the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

-_- nah, because explicitly Noah and his family did the construction, not god. Your explanation does not follow with your adherence to a literal biblical interpretation.

What literal Bible statement says "no other being helped to build the ark other than Noah"???

Certainly we know that Noah and his sons built the ark - even the bible only mentions Noah. Even you know "instinctively" to add that "and his family" helped build the ark - even though there is no "and his family helped build the ark" statement in the Bible. But you know that it is not contrary to the text - and so even you add it.

And we all know that human nature being what it is - a fantastic message about the world coming to an end - and an escape plan to survive it - would have immediate appeal and some folk would be likely to want to escape certain death. So "for a time" at least it is most reasonable to suggest "believers" would be found and would participate. This is true even to this very day. So - again - life-proven details ... not to be ignored.

And we know that certain of the holy men of the OT were alive at the same time as Noah - and they are relatives of Noah. Enoch in the book of Jude is said to have had visions/messages from God. The same God that warns the world about the flood in the case of Noah.

Another form of creative-doubt is to "insert" restrictions that do not exist in the text as a way to build a straw man. Free will being what it is - you have the choice to do that -- but cannot insist we all follow.

And as we all know - -such "little tinkerings" as you have drawn the line here on the subject of (who did or did not help during that 120 years) - are far from "sufficient cause to reject the inspired Word of God and risk the loss of eternal life and face the fire and brimstone of the lake of fire".

 

[BobRyan]

I have presented those long posts detailing a loving God, perfect creation, fall of mankind, the flood... as a way to "explore" a Christia alternative to atheism's "god is mean" speculation about origins. IT is at least "an alternative".

 

[PsychoSarah]

Regardless of the name given - it is irrefutable logic. There is in fact no risk to 'not being atheist" -- so since you can only be at risk in the alternate conditions - it is "logical" to at least 'read' about that alternative, and be well informed about it. This is irrefutable.

I am well informed about not just Christianity, but a few religions. Knowing the full story of every religion would be unrealistic, though. And, if that is your take on it, I assume that you have read the Koran, the Hindu Vedas, the Odyssey and other Greek tales... if it is logical to read about the alternative YOU want people to believe, it is equally reasonable to be just as demanding that you read up on every other religion. Would it even be possible to convince you to read the Koran? If not, then you must abandon your own argument, because it would make you a hypocrite.

If you really are seeking - I have given you several avenues to "explore" -
Starting with one person's testimony who was not Christian at all Monday at 10:27 PM #1376

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ially-in-the-ot.7919979/page-69#post-69266611
Yeah, I don't understand why you think I would find another atheist more convincing than a theist. Stupidity is a disease that infects all creeds, races, genders, etc. There are also intelligent people in all of those groups.

And I have given these - on this same thread.

ORIGINS
1. The Creation , Adam and Eve in Eden- 23 minutes ago #1404
2. Satan and his angel after their fall 20 minutes ago #1405
3. Demons plot the fall of man 19 minutes ago #1407
4. Temptation and fall 15 minutes ago #1408
5. Eve becomes Tempter 14 minutes ago #1409
6. Adam is shown Gospel future 7 minutes ago #1410

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ially-in-the-ot.7919979/page-71#post-69279527

You do know that I have read the bible, right? Not memorized it, mind you, but I have read it.

That is not at all correct. Atheism has zero% of being correct.

That's your bias talking. Unless solid, repeatably demonstrable evidence for deities is found, it is possible that they do not exist.

Even atheists like Reese and Susskind know that "observations in nature" demand a "Designer" and you have to be willing to "imagine" an almost infinite number of entire universes when "doubling down on atheism" in a desperate attempt to "avoid the obvious". And THIS is from their own atheist POV it is not a Christian POV.

I disagree with those quote mines. If they actually thought that observations in nature demanded a designer, they wouldn't be atheists, think about how illogical it would be to have that kind of thinking, and not be a theist. Even if somehow they do have that really suspicious perspective that makes absolutely no sense, I don't have that perspective. I see no design in nature, and if it is designed, it is designed poorly. For example, what is up with black holes? Black holes aren't necessary for life to exist. They aren't necessary for anything to exist, and they actually destroy physical matter by converting it into energy, which shortens the "lifespan" of the universe as it needs to be for life to exist in it. Why does human junk DNA resemble functioning DNA in other species at all, when that junk could be any random noncoding sequence? Why can't cells reproduce DNA in a way that allows the lagging strand to remain the same size as the leading strand, a problem that eventually leaves cells unable to divide and the DNA to become useless, or even harmful? Why do we have bodies so poorly built for being bipedal, that back problems as we age are the norm? These easily fixable flaws are all over the place. Either this stuff is the result of natural processes, which make errors all the time, or god is not as omniscient as many Christians claim it is.

Which is another hugely flawed conclusion.

Every religion - including Islam - accomodates Christ as a divine or inspired being. In Islam - the virgin birth and the 2nd coming of Christ are BOTH affirmed.

No. If you generalize various denominations into their origin religion, there are only 3 religions that worship Yahweh. Hinduism is a good example of a modern, polytheistic religion that doesn't incorporate Jesus into it. Most of the religions in human history were polytheistic, and while many have martyrs in their stories, they are all distinctly not Jesus.

Thus the only "RISK" for the Christian - is that atheism is true - which means he/she will be welcomed to "oblivion" the same exact way "PsychoSarah" is welcomed or that he will be welcomed to "Reincarnation" and the world of many pagan gods the same way all the others are.

Technically, one of the many possibilities is that a deity does exist, but only allows skeptics into a good afterlife. It is just as probable as the religion you believe in. So, no, you have no less risk, if you assume deities exist, and place being wrong as not mattering if atheism is correct.

Logic alone demands giving the Christian Gospel and good hard look!

I already have, as a seeker. Do you not understand that 7 years means I have done quite a bit of investigation into this topic? People making arguments like Pascal's Wager as if it is valid make themselves look like fools for not understanding why it is invalid. For one thing, even if we were to assume that the only sides were atheism and Christianity, telling people it is more logical to believe just in case, won't serve as meeting their requirements of evidence necessary to believe. I want to believe, and have felt that way for many years. But belief is not fully a conscious choice. As the situation currently is, I couldn't force myself to be a theist to save my soul any more than you could force yourself to believe the sky is yellow with a green striped pattern to save your soul. There are limits on what people can believe, and I have spent a lot of time trying to find the evidence I need to make a believer out of me. No luck thus far, but I can tell you this much: your personal bible interpretation isn't going to do anything for me. If I couldn't get myself to be a general theist in 7 years, using all the resources at my disposal, what makes you think that rehashing a story I already know is going to make a biblical literalist Christian out of me?

(I stand corrected - there is ONE risk for the Christian option - and that is Satanism. If Satan worship is the real thing we are all supposed to be doing -- then Christ is the enemy and his followers are the enemy. Even so - I suggest you not go there.)

From what very little I know of Satanism, it doesn't literally worship Satan as if said being exists. It more is like worshiping anarchy. I'm not interested.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I have presented those long posts detailing a loving God, perfect creation, fall of mankind, the flood... as a way to "explore" the alternative to atheism's "god is mean" speculation about origins. IT is at least "an alternative".

I don't view the morality of god as relevant to whether or not said being exists. I also don't think that the bible accurately represents any deity likely to exist, at this point. Not if you take it literally. My lack of belief has nothing to do with how friendly I think the literal interpretation of the biblical god is. I have to wonder why you think that would be relevant.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't view the morality of god as relevant to whether or not said being exists. .

then you never took your own post seriously saying that you would rather believe in God but could not because of your view about Him being mean.

I have been a seeker for over 7 years now. I am not an atheist because I want to be one. I would much rather be wrong, and still end up in hell because I didn't believe, than face complete oblivion of nonexistence.

So then you would "rather" believe in God - but...

While Hoghead interprets the bible to be portraying hell incorrectly, or that hell is a mistake, I ended up interpreting that the loving qualities attributed to the Christian god are more to please it in a text that is supposed to encourage worship than an accurate depiction of how loving this being is. I base that on its actions of endorsing genocide of multiple cities, flooding the Earth because people expressed their free will in a way it didn't like, and inability to forgive people without getting worship from them. To me, a truly loving being would not punish people for the petty reason of not believing that deity exists.

Thus, to me, in order for the god of the bible to count as benign by any standard of it, the majority of the Old Testament and much of the New Testament would have to be completely wrong, and belief couldn't legitimately be the deciding factor of the quality of the afterlife people experience. In its own words, "I am an angry god, and a jealous god".

 

[PsychoSarah]

then you never took your own post seriously saying that you would rather believe in God but could not because of your view about Him being mean.



So then you would "rather" believe in God - but...

Yup, it all checks out to me. I would rather have a god that is a tyrant, and have an afterlife, than no afterlife at all. Also, I never said that I didn't believe because I thought god was mean, I said that when I interpret the bible literally, I perceive god as mean... which is an understatement. The major reason why I don't believe is a lack of indoctrination, and figuring out that the Tooth Fairy and all other such nonsense wasn't real on my own (despite my mother's insistence that it was. She found kids believing in that stuff cute, and was crushed every time I figured out the lies) at a very, very young age. It set me up to not trust people on their word; evidence is necessary to demonstrate that what they have to say is worth listening to.

How unfortunate, that even in knowing the "why" of my difficulty in finding faith, it doesn't help much.

Also, you cut off highlighting what I said at a weird spot, the more sensible highlight would have been "I ended up interpreting that the loving qualities attributed to the Christian god are more to please it in a text that is supposed to encourage worship than an accurate depiction of how loving this being is.", a statement which means that the biblical authors only say repeatedly that god is good and has good qualities because they feared what such a being would do if depicted accurately.

 

[BobRyan]

Yeah, I don't understand why you think I would find another atheist more convincing than a theist.

That video was not about an atheist at all. It is one of those things you have to allow yourself to "see" as in the other cases - allow yourself to "read".

I disagree with those quote mines. If they actually thought that observations in nature demanded a designer, they wouldn't be atheists,

Here again you "imagine" what you would do if you had actually seen or read what they said. I offer you the first hand option of actually looking at what they say about it.

As I stated in my post - they find an desperate-atheist solution that requires you to "imagine an almost infinite" number of "other entire universes" as a 'way out' of the "observations in nature". As atheists they are glad to have such a skimpy shred of an escape pod - no matter how unlikely.

think about how illogical it would be to have that kind of thinking, and not be a theist. Even if somehow they do have that really suspicious perspective that makes absolutely no sense, I don't have that perspective. I see no design in nature

Because you refuse to look even at the evidence your fellow atheists look at -- when it comes to "observations in nature".

By turning away from enough information it is possible to hold almost any view.

Why does human junk DNA resemble functioning DNA in other species at all,

A. look up epigenome.
B. only 1-2% of DNA directly codes for proteins. Try not to get too caught up in matching the non-coding DNA related to the epigenome to look like the coding DNA in corn.

No. If you generalize various denominations into their origin religion, there are only 3 religions that worship Yahweh. Hinduism is a good example of a modern, polytheistic religion that doesn't incorporate Jesus into it.

For the purposes of "risk" however - you're simply ignoring "the details". Hinduism provides no negative outcome for being Christian. Hindus do not tell Christians that they "cannot be re-incarnated". Hindus themselves have no idea if they are currently in their first re-incarnation or zillionth and they have no idea which one is coming up next for themselves OR for the Christian that they are eating lunch with. For all they know a former hindu was re-incarnated as the Christian they are eating lunch with. No negative outcome for being Christian when you die - in any religion-- other than Satanism. And even they think Christ will simply pick up his own followers and leave the earth to Satan when Christ returns.

Most of the religions in human history were polytheistic, and while many have martyrs in their stories, they are all distinctly not Jesus.

Irrelevant since the point was "the risk" of not being one thing or the other. None of them provide "risk" in the afterlife for being Christian. Which gets back to "you" - you have no alternative that shows a "risk" to the choice of investigating Christianity - yet "even you" will admit that Christianity defines great risk for not doing so... for 'turning from light' when it is provided.

Technically, one of the many possibilities is that a deity does exist, but only allows skeptics into a good afterlife.

You are free to "invent that religion" but we all know this is not one of the 'perplexing religions of the day' that you cannot decide between.

The point remains. It is - irrefutable.

I already have, as a seeker. Do you not understand that 7 years means I have done quite a bit of investigation into this topic?

It is entirely possible -- that you read all the material I just posted - before today. Is this your claim?? Really? Because I detect in your post - a reference to details indicating that you have not read that material at all.

People making arguments like Pascal's Wager as if it is valid make themselves look like fools

Utterly false - as you yourself demonstrated in your own "I invent a religion where only skeptics go to heaven" which as we all know - is a 'nonsense alternative' not taken seriously by anyone genuinely weighing the options. Yet this is all you have for the "risk" of choosing to investigate Christianity's alternative.

That is a pretty large "elephant" in your living room.

For one thing, even if we were to assume that the only sides were atheism and Christianity, telling people it is more logical to believe just in case, won't serve as meeting their requirements of evidence necessary to believe.

If you check my post - I never said it was an argument that 'you must believe in Christ' -- I said it was an argument for at least "reading" the material - and I gave some that I am quite certain you had not read at all.

My argument was for "allowing yourself to read" the material posted and take it seriously as "an alternative", given that the upside is 'eternal life' -- it is at the very least 'worth reading'.

I want to believe, and have felt that way for many years. But belief is not fully a conscious choice. As the situation currently is, I couldn't force myself to be a theist to save my soul any more than you could force yourself to believe the sky is yellow with a green striped pattern to save your soul.

I don't doubt that in the least. But you could 'choose' to read the material. AND since you would still have "free will" even after reading the material - you could if desired - 'choose' to ask God to do a miracle. Your argument is of the form "And if God does not do the miracle nothing I do would make me believe in God" - is not disputed.

but I can tell you this much: your personal bible interpretation isn't going to do anything for me. If I couldn't get myself to be a general theist in 7 years, using all the resources at my disposal, what makes you think that rehashing a story I already know is going to make a biblical literalist Christian out of me?

you are missing a lot of the basics in Christianity in your argument. To argue against Christianity you need to know what it is.

Christianity is not about making yourself a believer, or making yourself a Christian. Christianity is about choosing not to go to hell. Admitting that you are a sinner. Telling God that you are willing to accept His plan of salvation in your life sine He was kind enough to be tortured in your place for every sin you ever committed. The alternative is that you refuse that gift and insist on being tortured in the lake of fire "anyway" no matter that he took your punishment already for you.

Your argument has been in essence that if all you have is your own decision - if in fact after making that choice God does nothing - well then you get "nothing"... you remain a lost sinner. But that would be true if you are raised Lutheran, or Catholic or Atheist. Christianity requires a miracle - from the very start. Yet "Free will" as you have used it - is always there to prevent that miracle as long as that is what you wish.

God said that "He/she who comes to ME I will in no wise cast out" - but it takes a "miracle" to be a Christian - not just a choice on your part.

 

[BobRyan]

Yup, it all checks out to me. I would rather have a god that is a tyrant, and have an afterlife, than no afterlife at all.

Well then you owe it to yourself to allow yourself to read what I posted.

Starting with one person's testimony who was not Christian at all Monday at 10:27 PM #1376
(He was anti-Christian - but not atheist or agnostic... Muslim)

And I have given these - on this same thread.

ORIGINS
1. The Creation , Adam and Eve in Eden- 23 minutes ago #1404
2. Satan and his angel after their fall 20 minutes ago #1405
3. Demons plot the fall of man 19 minutes ago #1407
4. Temptation and fall 15 minutes ago #1408
5. Eve becomes Tempter 14 minutes ago #1409
6. Adam is shown Gospel future 7 minutes ago #1410

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well then you owe it to yourself to allow yourself to read what I posted.

Starting with one person's testimony who was not Christian at all Monday at 10:27 PM #1376
(He was anti-Christian - but not atheist or agnostic... Muslim)

And I have given these - on this same thread.

ORIGINS
1. The Creation , Adam and Eve in Eden- 23 minutes ago #1404
2. Satan and his angel after their fall 20 minutes ago #1405
3. Demons plot the fall of man 19 minutes ago #1407
4. Temptation and fall 15 minutes ago #1408
5. Eve becomes Tempter 14 minutes ago #1409
6. Adam is shown Gospel future 7 minutes ago #1410

Bob, a couple of helpful hints. Don't copy and past from other sources and act as if they are your own works. No one is going to read your posts when you do so. You can quote some salient points from them, but keep it brief. Linking to the source will allow others to read if you pique their interest.

And personal stories are never convincing since all religions have them. They only feed your own confirmation bias. Since this is a science oriented part of the forum it would be best if you can stick to scientific articles for support.

 

[46AND2]

Bob, a couple of helpful hints. Don't copy and past from other sources and act as if they are your own works. No one is going to read your posts when you do so. You can quote some salient points from them, but keep it brief. Linking to the source will allow others to read if you pique their interest.

And personal stories are never convincing since all religions have them. They only feed your own confirmation bias. Since this is a science oriented part of the forum it would be best if you can stick to scientific articles for support.

Indeed, it is against forum rules to post large swaths of external material like that.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, a couple of helpful hints. Don't copy and past from other sources and act as if they are your own works. No one is going to read your posts when you do so. You can quote some salient points from them, but keep it brief. Linking to the source will allow others to read if you pique their interest.

And personal stories are never convincing since all religions have them. They only feed your own confirmation bias. Since this is a science oriented part of the forum it would be best if you can stick to scientific articles for support.

So then you are saying that my giving the book and chapter and page at the very start and also providing the link in this post

5. Eve becomes Tempter #1409

Was the right way to go??

in any case - I was not posting that material for Christians that turned themselves into atheists - so much as for life-long atheists who may not really understand the "alternative" to the atheist myths about the Gospel, the Bible, the God of the Bible - when evaluating the "alternative".

It's one thing to be opposed to a certain world view - a certain POV - it is another thing "not to know what it is".

And so for atheists who have "elected" of their own free will to come to a Christian message board for discussion - there is at least some value in looking at the POV of the person you are debating or discussing with - so as to have a more informed discussion where the differences are defined so as to be discussed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So then you are saying that my giving the book and chapter at the very start and also providing the link in this post

5. Eve becomes Tempter #1409

Was the right way to go??

in any case - I was not posting that material for Christians that turned themselves into atheists - so much as for life-long atheists who may not really understand the "alternative" to the atheist myths about the Gospel, the Bible, the God of the Bible - when evaluating the "alternative".

It's one thing to be opposed to a certain world view - a certain POV - it is another thing "not to know what it is".

And so for atheists who have "elected" of their own free will to come to a Christian message board for discussion - there is at least some value in looking at the POV of the person you are debating or discussing with - so as to have a more informed discussion where the differences are defined so as to be discussed.

I am only trying to make you a better debater. Nonsense copied and pasted from another source will be ignored. If you only link other sources it will be ignored. What you need to do is to find a salient point from your sources, quote that, and then link it so that others can check out your source to see if it is valid or not.

And as 46AND2 pointed out you actually broke the forum rules by doing that long copy and paste.

I assume that you want others to read your posts. If you just copy and post almost no one will read them, both friend and foe will simply ignore them.

 

[BobRyan]

I am only trying to make you a better debater. Nonsense copied and pasted from another source will be ignored.

If all religious text is "nonsense" and all of it is to be "ignored by atheists" - what is the point of an atheist on a Christian discussion forum? The title of this thread is about the gap in logic between blind faith evolutionism's doctrine on origins and what the Bible says about origins of the form "for in SIX DAYS the LORD made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them" Ex 20:11 - in legal code.

If you only link other sources it will be ignored.

Granted - but those links were to posts on this same thread.

What you need to do is to find a salient point from your sources, quote that, and then link it so that others can check out your source to see if it is valid or not.

As demonstrated in that prior post for point 5. which is also the same link for all the text-posts.

And as 46AND2 pointed out you actually broke the forum rules by doing that long copy and paste.

I assume that you want others to read your posts. If you just copy and post almost no one will read them, both friend and foe will simply ignore them.

The reason for the quotes was that the atheist in question responds as if they don't know the POV on orgins (Genesis 1-3 and Genesis 6-8) that is the perspective of most Christians that accept the Bible "as it reads" -- when it comes to how it is that the God of the Bible is a kind loving God. I simply posted "more details" in support of the "kind loving God" POV of most Christians.

For those not interested in the Christian view at all - this is of little value, as you point out. I do not dispute that at all. But coming to a Christian message board with the attitude of "I don't want to read or hear anything about Christian beliefs on origins or God at all" is of "limited utility". And coming to a thread with this particular title - with that attitude requires logic that is "even more illusive".

Anyone is free to "guess" or "make stuff up" about God being mean - but it is still 'more useful' to have inspired writing given by God - provide a perspective rather than "one atheist guessing" as the only data to be evaluated or "one Christian POV" as the only data point.

But for those coming here to discuss, debate, or provide reasons for accepting/rejecting the Christian POV - how "nice" to have a reference point -- rather than having post after post be of the form "no that is not what we believe at all". Which seems like the endless cycle some have been using.

 

[BobRyan]

There has been some consistent well focused posts recently by atheists arguing that they should not be exposed to the Christian POV. And hence no texts / quotes providing "details" on Genesis 1-3, or Genesis 6-8. Certainly we might expect that of atheists in general. But atheists coming to a thread with this particular title - on a Christian Forum - would have to be a bit more open minded. Less "circle-the-wagons". Otherwise - what is the point??

(Other than - "we defend evolutionism because that in fact is the doctrine on origins found in atheism" -- which I will grant you.)

But even in that case - you could not expect to come to a thread with this title - and insist "And please - don't post any Christian text promoting the Christian view of a loving God in Genesis 1-3 or Genesis 6-8)

 

[Subduction Zone]

If all religious text is "nonsense" and all of it is to be "ignored by atheists" - what is the point of an atheist on a Christian discussion forum? The title of this thread is about the gap in logic between blind faith evolutionism's doctrine on origins and what the Bible says about origins of the form "for in SIX DAYS the LORD made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them" Ex 20:11 - in legal code.

Your goal should be to convince others. Otherwise you are simply wasting your time here. And referring to the Bible to support the Bible is called circular reasoning. It makes you look bad. In this part of the forum you need actual science to support your claims.

Granted - but those links were to posts on this same thread.



As demonstrated in that prior post for point 5. which is also the same link for all the text-posts.

No, there was no quotation of salient point, just a nonsensical phrase. Perhaps you should try to read some posts that other do from both sice.

The reason for the quotes was that the atheist in question responds as if they don't know the POV on orgins (Genesis 1-3 and Genesis 6-8) that is the perspective of most Christians that accept the Bible "as it reads" -- when it comes to how it is that the God of the Bible is a kind loving God. I simply posted "more details" in support of the "kind loving God" POV of most Christians.

What makes you think that atheists don't know that? Most atheists in the U.S. at least are former Christians that saw the light.

For those not interested in the Christian view at all - this is of little value, as you point out. I do not dispute that at all. But coming to a Christian message board with the attitude of "I don't want to read or hear anything about Christian beliefs on origins or God at all" is of "limited utility". And coming to a thread with this particular title - with that attitude requires logic that is "even more illusive".

Don't take false offense. I pointed out why no one from either side would read your nonsense. It was an attempt to help you. You should be thanking me.

Anyone is free to "guess" or "make stuff up" about God being mean - but it is still 'more useful' to have inspired writing given by God - provide a perspective rather than "one atheist guessing" as the only data to be evaluated or "one Christian POV" as the only data point.

Sorry but "inspired writing" is just guess work at best. You just contradicted yourself.

But for those coming here to discuss, debate, or provide reasons for accepting/rejecting the Christian POV - how "nice" to have a reference point -- rather than having post after post be of the form "no that is not what we believe at all". Which seems like the endless cycle some have been using.

No one is talking about rejecting the Christian point of view. Where did you get that crazy idea from? The theory of evolution is not contrary to Christianity, it is only contrary to a literal interpretation of Genesis. There are probably more Christians that accept the fact that life evolved than reject it. You are conflating having your own personal version of God shown to be wrong with refuting God himself. Please don't make that error. You are actually insulting your fellow Christians when you do so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There has been some consistent well focused posts recently by atheists arguing that they should not be exposed to the Christian POV. And hence no texts / quotes providing "details" on Genesis 1-3, or Genesis 6-8. Certainly we might expect that of atheists in general. But atheists coming to a thread with this particular title - on a Christian Forum - would have to be a bit more open minded. Less "circle-the-wagons". Otherwise - what is the point??

Your view of Christianity is not the only one. Again you are conflating all Christianity with your point of view. That is rather egotistical of you to say the least.

(Other than - "we defend evolutionism because that in fact is the doctrine on origins found in atheism" -- which I will grant you.)

Sorry, atheism is not dependent upon evolution. And there is no such thing as "evolutionism". Your spell checker should have warned you.

But even in that case - you could not expect to come to a thread with this title - and insist "And please - don't post anything promoting the Christian view of a loving God in Genesis 1-3 or Genesis 6-8)

I was pointing out that breaking the rules was contrary to your own interests. Atheists don't want to be lectured at and most of your fellow Christians probably don't care to be lectured at either with just your personal version of Christianity. I am sure that there are other parts of the forum for you to do so. Again, this part is focused on the sciences.

 

[BobRyan]

Your goal should be to convince others. Otherwise you are simply wasting your time here. And referring to the Bible to support the Bible is called circular reasoning.

A. those texts quoted were not from the Bible.
B. "What the Bible says" is the subject and title of the thread.
C. I am not arguing to dissuade someone from believing whatever their bias inclines them to believe. I am providing evidence for the "alternative" when it comes to Christianity and the Gospel - which is not exactly a math equation. Rather it is an appeal to the fact that God is right about the doctrine on origins. Some may prefer evolutionism as their doctrine on origins - but they should at least "know" what the alternative is.

It makes you look bad. In this part of the forum you need actual science to support your claims.

Creation vs evolution --> "
Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT.."

Is all about the 'text' you say you should not have to know about or read, to discuss the topic of this thread?.

Seems counter intuitive.

What makes you think that atheists don't know that? Most atheists in the U.S. at least are former Christians that saw the light.

Most former Christians don't have as much detail on Gen 1-3, and Gen 6-8 as I posted. Details that answer a lot of questions about 'and so how is that being a loving God' . In any case for the tiny few that might have read those texts before (which is almost zero) - I grant that I am more focused on the life-long atheist benefiting from knowing what the other POV is before rejecting it out of hand. I have stated this a few times already.

Don't take false offense. I pointed out why no one from either side would read your nonsense. It was an attempt to help you. You should be thanking me.

Those "on the other side" may choose not to allow themselves to look at the alternative.

Sorry but "inspired writing" is just guess work at best. You just contradicted yourself.

You just used circular reasoning.

Next comes self-conflicted reasoning.

No one is talking about rejecting the Christian point of view. Where did you get that crazy idea from?

Sorry but "inspired writing" is just guess work at best.

The theory of evolution is not contrary to Christianity,

Evolutionism is a religion about the doctrine on origins - Christian Bible starts off with the doctrine on origins. As Darwin observed they are competing. They are incompatible.

 

[BobRyan]

The theory of evolution is not contrary to Christianity,

Evolutionism is a religion about the doctrine on origins - Christian Bible starts off with the doctrine on origins. As Darwin observed they are competing. They are incompatible.

it is only contrary to a literal interpretation of Genesis. There are probably more Christians that accept the fact that life evolved than reject it. You are conflating having your own personal version of God shown to be wrong with refuting God himself. Please don't make that error. You are actually insulting your fellow Christians when you do so.

James Barr and pretty much all the "professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities" -- i.e. your fellow atheists and agnostics -- "beg to differ"

there are Bible details so glaringly obvious that even our atheist friends notice them --

for example - the "kind of literature" that it is - in Genesis 1:2-2:3

==================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.