Conservative Christian

[Vance]

Pious?

I am not the one questioning other's Christianity. I am not the one with the arrogance to say that my interpretation is the only possible one and that a failure to follow it is to disbelieve Scripture. I am not the one with this level of religious hubris, which is the definition of improper piousness that Jesus condemned.

 

[Ark Guy]

You have questioned my christianity simply because I read the bible for what it is and don't filter it through your religion of evolutionISM

 

[Vance]

Where? Point to where I have ever questioned whether anyone on this forum was a true Christian, or didn't believe the Bible? I have definitely questioned your interpretation, that is for sure. But my point is that having a different interpretation of Genesis does not equate to a disbelief in the Bible, much less Christianity. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly said that a disbelief in YOUR interpretation of Scripture was a disbelief in the Bible.

You just within the last half hour have called us "so-called Christians". This proves my point.

 

[Ark Guy]

Wow, care to present a reference to that ..so-called quote of mine?

or retract.

 

[Vance]

Here:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1321602#post1321602

"What a sorry group of ...so-called christians."

 

[Ark Guy]

I like the way you conviently left out the post just previous to that.

 

[Vance]

And, so who exactly are the "so-called Christians"?

And are you denying that you have stated that if you believe in evolution you don't believe in the Bible or that the Bible is God's Word?

Heading out for the day. I will check back later to see whether you have addressed all the quotes in the other thread to show that they all can be shown to be non-contradictory based solely on a plain, simple reading of the text.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I like the way you conviently left out the post just previous to that.

But I won't - here it is - http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1321589&postcount=46

In which you break the ninth commandment.

 

[Buck72]

Literalism falls down at every almost every challenge it faces.
It is only a minority of Christians that believe that.

Some 90% + of the world's Christians do not believe a literal Bible.

90%? - I doubt that is correct. Did you take that poll yourself? Where did this figure come from?

In fact I could not be a Christian if I had to accept a literal (every word) Bible.

Why? Christ quotes scripture literally, He authored the scriptures...all of them.

I mean seriously how does literalism get around the fact of stating hares being ruminants? (when they are not)

For those needing a definition of "ruminant" (as I did):

Main Entry: 2ruminant
Function: adjective
Date: 1691
1 a (1) : chewing the cud (2) : characterized by chewing again what has been swallowed b : of or relating to a suborder (Ruminantia) of even-toed hoofed mammals (as sheep, giraffes, deer, and camels) that chew the cud and have a complex usually 4-chambered stomach
2 : given to or engaged in contemplation : [size=-1]MEDITATIVE[/size] <stood there with her hands clasped in this attitude of ruminant relish -- Thomas Wolfe>
- ru·mi·nant·ly adverb

Do rabbits not chew the cud? They look like they're chewing on something the way their little mouths are always moving.

There are so many errors in the biblical geneologies, mathematical errors, scientific nonsense.

Where? Please show us, and we'll discuss them.

To rest your faith on Biblical literalism is to pin in on a mist of fantasies.
The twists of logic and downright lies needed to maintain a literal Bible goes not only against the tenets of the faith BUT it makes the individual perform mental machinations that they would not do in everyday life.

Where are these fantasies? How about mental machinations...I don't see any.

If a supposedly non-ficiton book on just about any subject required you to do the mental gymnastics the literal reading of the Bible requires, everyone would throw the book away as being worthless.

I'll agree with you here. I've done before with science journals, books, videos, and articles on evolutionary nonsense; ape-ancestry, the age of the earth, the "big bang" and other unsubstantiated, notional ridiculousness.

Yet when it comes to the Bible, people employ different standards of reason that they don't apply to anything else.

Like what?

*** News just in ***

You don't need a literal Bible to be a Christian, in fact a literal Bible I think requires you to actually act in a non-Christian manner - it is a fine line between literal Bible and Bible worship becoming your false idol

News from where? "Chi News"?

You're welcome to your opinion there Chi, but you cannot back up anything that you just posted here.

I do not get how you can possibly say these things and with the same breath claim Christ. You fail to understand the Bible because it doesn't fit with Chi's understanding of the world - obviously the Bible is wrong in that case since Chi is infallible, and wholly correct...that is what you are saying if I read you correctly.

As I've asked you before, please state the errors that we may discuss them rather than trumpeting "LIES!, FALSEHOOD!" without any empirical backup.

I'm curious to find out what you consider the tenants of the faith to be, if not the Bible?

Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Pro 13:13 The one who despises the word will be in debt to it, But the one who fears the commandment will be rewarded.

 

[Ark Guy]

It seem to be the opinion of the Theo-evo crowd that the bible is chocked full of errors.

Often answers, simple answers are given to these individuals...and they turn a deaf ear to them..

It's like they want to find a bible full of errors.

Perhaps it allows them to filter their bible through the dogmatic religion of evolutionISM

 

[Buck72]

You and your Pius attitude have made me sick.....

Are you sure your not a Mormon?

(for jay the censor..that's not a cut...got it pal?)

Ark Guy, please brother...we're to follow Christ in all things:

2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men], apt to teach, patient,

Eph 4:1 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called,

Eph 4:2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love,

Phi 2:3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;

Col 3:12 So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience;

Jam 4:10 Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you.

1Pe 3:8 To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit;

1Pe 3:9 not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Buck72,

You have shown repeatedly on here that you just don't understand scientific issues. You seem incapable of following even the basics.

That's OK, some people are just not cut out for doing the math and reasoning required, just like I am not cut out for painting or being a carpenter.

But I don't tell a carpenter how to make a chest of drawers. He/she would rapidly know I am talking out of my rear end on his area of expertise.

The same thing applies to people like you, who quite clearly are incapable of understanding science. That is what I do for a living and I can spot the clueless a mile away.

You even showed a good example above. You just don't get it that rabbits and hares are not ruminants and you even provided a definition. My advice to you is 'don't quit your day job'. Science just isn't in your skill set.

PS - Are you serious when you say that you did not know the word ruminant. Wow - what an education. And you seriously expect me to take your scientific arguments with anything more than a laugh.

Which makes it even more laughable that you claim scientific journals for their ridiculousness. Since you don't understand the articles how can you make the distinction between the cogent and the foolish. The internal combustion engine would have been 'magic' to people 20 centuries ago but that doesn't mean it works by the supernatural.

You can find refutations to the science nonsense you have posted on here. Many threads contain this material. I am not going to take the time to repost the obvious.

About the 90% figure. Take a look at the denominational breakdown of Christianity. 90% of the Christians in the world are made up of Catholics, Anglicans and the Orthodox Church. These churches are not literalists. The vast majority of literalists are in the North American Protestant denominations that are relatively recent groups. These churches seem to have made a cult of the Bible more than anything else. And at the risk of offending, whenever I have seen commentary on these groups they don't posess the most educated of members. (obviously thats a sweeping statement but there is some truth to it).

[noflame]

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Chi mate - lets leave the personal put-downs (and anything approaching it) to those with no actual argument. I think we can address Buck's scientific shortcomings without demeaning his ability to understand the material.

 

[TheBear]

Karl is right. Let's discuss our differences without resorting to personal attacks.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

90%? - I doubt that is correct. Did you take that poll yourself? Where did this figure come from?

I think the UK survey of clergy put it at 97%

I have to say that as far as my country is concerned, YEC is a tiny minority. To be frank, often considered an embarrassing extreme fringe.

Why? Christ quotes scripture literally,

He quoted it period. How would He have quoted it differently were it non-literal?

Have you ever looked into the usages made of OT Scripture by NT writers - it is extremely figurative! John, for example, takes the OT law that the Passover lamb should not have its bones broken (the literal reading) and applies it as a prediction that Jesus' legs would not be broken on the cross!

He authored the scriptures...all of them.

Not directly. The Holy Spirit inspired the human, mortal authors, but it was the authors' own words that were written down

Do rabbits not chew the cud? They look like they're chewing on something the way their little mouths are always moving.

No. They do not chew the cud. Whatever they look like, they are not chewing.

I'll agree with you here. I've done before with science journals, books, videos, and articles on evolutionary nonsense; ape-ancestry, the age of the earth, the "big bang" and other unsubstantiated, notional ridiculousness.

But it is strongly substantiated. I've raised, for example, Human Chromosome 2 on Joel's new thread. If that doesn't substantiate human/ape common ancestry, why not?

I'm curious to find out what you consider the tenants of the faith to be, if not the Bible?

Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Pro 13:13 The one who despises the word will be in debt to it, But the one who fears the commandment will be rewarded.

The tenets of the faith are the creeds.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

I see where you think it is a personal attack BUT

the stated reason of 'Not understanding the material' is the biggest cause of these scientific errors. That is why I made the statement about carpentry. I am terrible at that, always shall be. The same is true of Buck72. He has not got the education or seemingly the werewithal to follow scientific arguments. To not say this would be tantamount to avoiding the root cause of his errors.

I don't mean to offend, but I tend to have a cutting sarcasm/cynicism. Sorry.

But I still think what I typed was correct in fact if not in tone.

 

[Ark Guy]

Rabbits re-chew their poop.

They eat, poop it out then eat it again.

Some consider this as chewing cud...not exactly the same as a cow, but still performing a similar function.


O course if you're anti-bible then you will argue this point...untill the "cud chewers" come home.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

But by definition of a ruminant (cud chewer) the Bible is wrong.

In attempts to get around this the literalists are adding their interpretation to the literal word. Something other Christians are told by them we are not allowed to do. Interesting.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Rabbits re-chew their poop.

They eat, poop it out then eat it again.

Some consider this as chewing cud...not exactly the same as a cow, but still performing a similar function.

Actually, the only people who consider this "chewing the cud" are those desperate to ensure total accuracy of the Bible

O course if you're anti-bible then you will argue this point...untill the "cud chewers" come home.

I'm not anti Bible - I have enough of them. How much hint do you need to give up on the attacks on your fellow Christians' faith?

 

[Ark Guy]

Your ...christian faith...is damning to many people.

Many people who accept evolution as fact, then deny the bible.
Because of that a lot of thoose people deny Christ and His free gift of salvation because Christ also becomes a ....myth.