hee hee 2

[dlamberth]

How did I evade it? Which statement are you talking about that disproves that God's word is God? The Bible was breathed out by God, it is God.

For me, the ONLY Holy Text directly written by the very hand of God can ONLY be found with in life itself. All other text has passed through the hands and minds of man and thus are not God breathed.

A critical analyst of the Books of the New Testament, the social context and times in which they were written and the religious biases and influenced on the unknown writers of the those books puts into question the image that they are truly "God Breathed".

.

 

[awstar]

Right, so let me get this straight - the Bible's right except where you don't like it or where you can understand the science behind why the position you would otherwise have to adopt interpreting it literally makes you look stupid, and there it's had errors introduced. That sounds like a mighty convenient text on which to base any prejudices or lobbying to make sure things are the way you like them.

I'm saying the Bible can be trusted when it comes to the important things like:

" For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

And when something something trivial like 4,000 vs 40,000 comes up you consider it might be a typo. I think even a evol scientist would do that when he's reading his sacred text.

The fact that Jesus rose from the dead "according to scripture" gives us the assurance that everything else in scripture is true also. Such as: "God created man" It also gives the reason God created man, which is a whole lot more promising than the evol's hope.

 

[dlamberth]

Right, so let me get this straight - the Bible's right except where you don't like it or where you can understand the science behind why the position you would otherwise have to adopt interpreting it literally makes you look stupid, and there it's had errors introduced. That sounds like a mighty convenient text on which to base any prejudices or lobbying to make sure things are the way you like them.

Here's my take on this....The Bible is right where it teaches us human beings on how to be more fully human and where it teaches us to make God a reality right now in our lives where He is needed the most.

All the rest, in my humble opinion, are man made myths or has passed through the lenses of the religious biases of those who pinned the books and thus are not of God.


.

 

[corvus_corax]

How did I evade it? Which statement are you talking about that disproves that God's word is God?

You said-

And please don't call the Bible that. It is more then a history text to me, and I don't like people calling it that. God's word is God.

...
Thereby seeming to say that the collected works of the bible are God Himself.
So I asked you-

Are you calling the Bible "God's word"?

To which you replied-

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1

This verse is generally understood to apply (in the Christian context) to Jesus, not the Bible.
IOW, you didnt answer the question- Are you calling the Bible "God's word"?

But now, you have answered the question even more fully than most Christians do (at least the ones that believe the Bible is "The Word of God" in the following statement-

The Bible was breathed out by God, it is God.

But then you come along and contradict yourself in a way, by saying-

I don't worship the Bible. I listen to it and obey it. I obey the word of God, God Himself, I worship God Himself.

You see, you just said that the Bible IS God (see your statement above). Then you say that you dont worship the Bible (or the Word of God), but rather obey it.
Do you worship Jesus (The Word Of God spoken of in The Gospel of John)? If so, then why arent you worshipping the Word of God (which, despite being God, according to you, you dont actually worship?

Are you beginning to understand my confusion?

 

[TheBear]

You said-
...
Thereby seeming to say that the collected works of the bible are God Himself.
So I asked you-

To which you replied-

This verse is generally understood to apply (in the Christian context) to Jesus, not the Bible.
IOW, you didnt answer the question- Are you calling the Bible "God's word"?

But now, you have answered the question even more fully than most Christians do (at least the ones that believe the Bible is "The Word of God" in the following statement-

But then you come along and contradict yourself in a way, by saying-

You see, you just said that the Bible IS God (see your statement above). Then you say that you dont worship the Bible (or the Word of God), but rather obey it.
Do you worship Jesus (The Word Of God spoken of in The Gospel of John)? If so, then why arent you worshipping the Word of God (which, despite being God, according to you, you dont actually worship?

Are you beginning to understand my confusion?

"The wheels on the bus go round and round!"

 

[Baggins]

I I think even a evol scientist would do that when he's reading his sacred text.

.

Do you believe such things exist, because I am a scientist and I don't have any sacred texts, they would go against everything that science is.

You should stop tarring science with your own errors.

 

[awstar]

Do you believe such things exist, because I am a scientist and I don't have any sacred texts, they would go against everything that science is.

You should stop tarring science with your own errors.

The high priests of science won't let the creation story be told in science class, even though it better explains the evidence for origin of life and the classification of living things better than evolution does. And their argument for such intolerance is that the Bible isn't based on science -- which is like saying television pictures aren't worth considering when studying reality because they aren't received on radio.

You're blind to the light of truth and either you don't know it, or you like it that way.

 

[dlamberth]

And their argument for such intolerance is that the Bible isn't based on science

Rant all you want, but science makes no comment either for or against God. And that's the way it should be.

.

 

[NPH]

The high priests of science won't let the creation story be told in science class, even though it better explains the evidence for origin of life and the classification of living things better than evolution does. And their argument for such intolerance is that the Bible isn't based on science -- which is like saying television pictures aren't worth considering when studying reality because they aren't received on radio.

You're blind to the light of truth and either you don't know it, or you like it that way.

I've highlighted the one thing that is actually correct in this entire post, that the biblical creation story is just that ... a story, and nothing more.

 

[Valkhorn]

The fact that Jesus rose from the dead "according to scripture" gives us the assurance that everything else in scripture is true also.

Say what? That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[corvus_corax]

The high priests of science won't let the creation story be told in science class

No.
You are wrong
Yes, I said it, you are wrong.
Scientists present their case in a court of law. They do NOT dictate the courts decision.
Judges (those who interpret the law as it applies to our lives) wont allow the (Christian) Creation story (or any religiously-based Creation story) be taught in science class
Why?
Because Creationism (or Creation Science, or Scientific Creationism, or Intelligent Design, or whatever label the Christians are giving their account of Genesis nowadays) has been demonstrated to be nothing more than religious dogma with not a hint of "science" involved.
Witness Michael Behe's explanation of "science" and how Astrology fits into that category... <intended links here>

Aw forget it. Most people here wont read links anyway. I'll just directly quote the statements, and then provide the link, how'z about that?
From newscientist.com-
"Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of &#8220;theory&#8221; was so broad it would also include astrology."
Gotta love that
Now, to the specific statement in question-
"Rothschild (the plaintiffs attorney)suggested that Behe&#8217;s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe&#8217;s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS&#8217;s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions."

Bolded italicized notation mine for clarification and understanding.
Bold, italicized red addition mine, to show what the creator of IC actually believes (a lie)

Both of the above are from THIS LINK


Intelligent Design, which has been shoved forth by none other than the creator of Irreducible Complexity (Behe), is just as (or no more) scientific than Astrology.

You may have read it elsewhere
You may have read it here first
But the the MAIN proponent of ID and IC admits, under oath, that ID is no more scientific than Astrology.
Do you accept Astrology as a legitimate science?

I think not
Neither should you accept ID or "Creationism" (in the commonly accepted form), unless you are willingly intellectually dishonest with yourself and your God
I hope you dont lie to yourself and your God

even though it better explains the evidence for origin of life and the classification of living things better than evolution does.

It does, in its way
Its "way" of course, is lack of investigation and research
Check this out-
Evolution (both "micro" and speciation) is a FACT.
It's been observed.
Plain and simple
That's right....speciation has been OBSERVED.
The only way standard "creationism" (or, to use the new fangled lying term, Intelligent Design) explains things "better" is to appeal to ignorance (NOTE- I did not say appeal to stupidity...look up the difference between the words), or through shifting their goalposts(a famous Creationist tactic)

And their argument for such intolerance is that the Bible isn't based on science -- which is like saying television pictures aren't worth considering when studying reality because they aren't received on radio.

Flawed analogy.
Saying the Bible is based on science (or, rather, the scientific method) is like saying that Astrology is based on science.
Oh, wait
Behe, one of the main proponents of Creationism, already stated that Astrology is just as much a science as Intelligent Design.
No offence to you, but this ID argument is lazy idiocy at its finest (and a Post Hoc fallacy at it's worst). And Behe (the one spreading the Gospel of Creationism) is guilty of just that.
Do you want to count yourself amongst his camp?

You're blind to the light of truth and either you don't know it, or you like it that way.

Some dont know truth
Some do.
For this debate, that's irrelevant
We are talking about EVIDENCE.
You are blind (perhaps willingly so) to the objective empirical evidence that surrounds us.

I hope and pray that you aren't willingly blind. Take off your blinders and research the testament of God that surrounds you (as opposed to taking a myth as the only evidence)

 

[Baggins]

The high priests of science

These don't exist

won't let the creation story be told in science class,

I suppose you are all in favour of genetics being taught at sunday morning service?

The creation story is not science, therefore it should not be taught in science class

even though it better explains the evidence for origin of life and the classification of living things better than evolution does.

You're just being ignorant now

And their argument for such intolerance is that the Bible isn't based on science -- which is like saying television pictures aren't worth considering when studying reality because they aren't received on radio.

Which is like saying you haven't really thought this fatuous analogy through have you?

You're blind to the light of truth and either you don't know it, or you like it that way

I have learnt the truth through physical evidence, and I like it that way.

You continue to see science as a mirror to your own closed mindedness and bigotry.

Science is nothing like that

 

[Mayflower1]

You said-
...
Thereby seeming to say that the collected works of the bible are God Himself.
So I asked you-

To which you replied-

This verse is generally understood to apply (in the Christian context) to Jesus, not the Bible.
IOW, you didnt answer the question- Are you calling the Bible "God's word"?

But now, you have answered the question even more fully than most Christians do (at least the ones that believe the Bible is "The Word of God" in the following statement-

But then you come along and contradict yourself in a way, by saying-

You see, you just said that the Bible IS God (see your statement above). Then you say that you dont worship the Bible (or the Word of God), but rather obey it.
Do you worship Jesus (The Word Of God spoken of in The Gospel of John)? If so, then why arent you worshipping the Word of God (which, despite being God, according to you, you dont actually worship?

Are you beginning to understand my confusion?

I'm beginning to get confused myself. I don't know how to answer your questions. I am really bad at debating but for some reason I got curious because someone made me mad awhile ago and drew me here.

 

[corvus_corax]

I'm beginning to get confused myself. I don't know how to answer your questions.

Hey that's cool
It's better to admit to not knowing how to do something than jumping in and making a mistake

Thank you for your honesty

 

[TheBear]

...I got curious because someone made me mad awhile ago and drew me here.

 

[TheBear]

bump

 

[Mayflower1]

Ooh, I forgot about this thread when I couldn't reply. I wanted to respond to something but I forgot.

 

[Mayflower1]

Alright, I think this is what I was trying to say.

God's word is God because what He tells us shows who He is, just as what we say make up who we are. You'll can't see me but in a way you'll know who I am by my words. Thus my words are me. Also though, do people really worship God's words, or God Himself? They are both the same but you worship the builder of the house, not the house itself.

Think of the builder as God and the house as the words He says. The two in themself really are one because the house portrays who the builder is but at the same time you praise the builder, not the house.

With that, I worship God, not His words, though I do listen and obey His words.

 

[Abongil]

How do you know they are his words?

 

[Mayflower1]

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1


I feel that this verse along with others are correct in God's word. The reason is I can't explain it, but I feel God when I read His word. I feel Him in the words, telling me what I should do, and what I should learn. That is why God's word has such an effect on people's lives.