Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How so, meet my friend So-How.
What you mean is that we do not get our morals from the bible.
As i have tried to demonstrate, the morals of the old testament are rape, pillage, slavery, muder, infantacide and make-beleive.
Oh, I guess a little love thy neighbour (or love thy fellow Jew, I believe is the literal translation) and eye for an eye....
Humans get their morality from mankind, from the society they grow up in - that is your biggest conditioner.
Obviously, you got away with asking silly questions over and over again which must have got you out of trouble as a child because you can't seem the break the habit.
And can't see the point of Ken Miller's presentation?
Now that's got to be a fairy story.
It is as compelling as can be.
He is a big gun because he destroyed Behe's lies with evidence - and changed his mind in the process.
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Professor Richard Dawkins.
No, as a matter of fact it follows my explanation quite well, and you act as if I had never thought of it before and this is some startling revelation for me. No, the existence of copious amounts of water in the clouds is probably due to the thicker atmosphere I postulated previously.so later in Genesis when it talks about God opening the windows in the firmament to let the water through to cause the flood... hmmm... maybe you want to rethink your previous
IM sorry you dont like my explanation, however in cases such as this, where everyone's opinion is subjective, it doesnt really matter what you think of it.Oh, and also, you're wrong anyway. Genesis is in no practical way correct or accurate
I personally dont have time to watch 117 minutes of his bragging, there was very little science (in the first 46 minutes I watched), there was no opposing viewpoint, just him bragging over his own overblown sense of success.That was why I didn't think it was such a great presentation. He stated things which he never verified but as I said, with his audience of followers he probably didn't need to.
IM sorry you dont like my explanation, however in cases such as this, where everyone's opinion is subjective, it doesnt really matter what you think of it.
Oh OK! Alright. There you go.The evidence is not subjective, and the evidence shows Genesis to be wrong
The Earth formed from the solar dust that surrounded the Sun after its formation. The Sun came first.[/COLOR]
The Sun existed before the Earth, so clearly it existed before plants did. Furthermore, plants cannot survive without sunlight, so the Sun has to be present for plants to exist.
[/COLOR]
For starters, whales evolved from land mammals, as evidenced by the fossil record. So land mammals had to exist prior to whales. And birds evolved from reptiles, so reptiles had to exist before birds. This is all shown by various lines of evidence, including fossils and genetics.
Light is produced by the Sun and by stars. If the Sun and stars did not yet exist, light did not exist. There is no firmament above the Earth for the stars to be embedded into, and even if you take a broad definition of firmament to just mean sky or heavens, the stars still are not embedded in it. Finally, nobody has ever detected a huge mass of water above the Earth, much less any sort of firmament holding it up.
[/COLOR]
Were you there?
Then where did the sun come from
and what is the generally accepted scientific view of the Theory of Cosmology?
Can plants live at least a day with out sunshine?
Especially if they have been infused with the Life of a Creator
So says science's seemingly "best" accepted conclusion but we know that science is not proven
and as to Cosmology it really doesn't have (nor could it) a general acceptance of how it all came about, now does it?
These fossil evidences or genetics are so limited that they really can't prove any of that. They show something no doubt but as to the the existence they barely scratch the surface. You could study it all for several lifetimes and yet not come to the whole truth of it.
NO...That is limited thinking.
God is Light and because of that, light exists in the natural. Light is much greater than the Sun and the stars.
That would be like saying that light bulbs were powered to light on their own and that the were just there without anyone putting them there.
Allegedly.God is Light, Life, Spirit and Love. All that is, finds its origin and existence in and from Him.
Were you there? Then where did the sun come from and what is the generally accepted scientific view of the Theory of Cosmology?
Can plants live at least a day with out sunshine? Especially if they have been infused with the Life of a Creator who is so ingenious as to design it all beyond what man could ever discover. Especially with the natural mind. He and His design is so complex that you are never going to figure it out unless you get on His side and then it still wouldn't be with this finite mortal mind.
So says science's seemingly "best" accepted conclusion but we know that science is not proven and as to Cosmology it really doesn't have (nor could it) a general acceptance of how it all came about, now does it?
These fossil evidences or genetics are so limited that they really can't prove any of that. They show something no doubt but as to the the existence they barely scratch the surface. You could study it all for several lifetimes and yet not come to the whole truth of it.
NO...That is limited thinking. God is Light and because of that, light exists in the natural. Light is much greater than the Sun and the stars. That would be like saying that light bulbs were powered to light on their own and that the were just there without anyone putting them there. God is Light, Life, Spirit and Love. All that is, finds its origin and existence in and from Him.
You know what, even if all of what you say is true (which it's not), the core of this discussion is whether Genesis is literal. It clearly isn't, even by your explanations.
I'm sorry, I don't see your point here. do you mind explaining?
I'm not sure how I got your last point: the Resurrection may have happened whether or not Genesis did (I don't believe either did, but anyway).My point is that a literal Genesis story is demonstrably wrong. As such, it can not be literal. Following from that, if Genesis is not literal, none of the rest of the Bible can be considered such.
My point is that a literal Genesis story is demonstrably wrong. As such, it can not be literal. Following from that, if Genesis is not literal, none of the rest of the Bible can be considered such.
I'm not a Christian, but I'm going to disagree with this statement too. It is clear that the first 3 chapters of Genesis are not literal (at least, it is clear to me) but that doesn't mean that other section of the Bible can't be taken literally.
They don't. But this isn't reason to call the entire Bible unliteral. It is irrational to take the Bible as true (beyond the trivial, of course), so why should they justify thier arbitrary distinction between 'literal' and 'metaphorical'?Sure, parts of it may be accurate. But how is that decided? Some parts of the Bible could be literal, but which parts? If Genesis is wrong, how is anyone to know whether other parts are wrong?
When the Bible says, "This happened and that happened," that information should be taken literally. When the Bible says, "This is like or as that," that information should be taken as figurative.Sure, parts of it may be accurate. But how is that decided? Some parts of the Bible could be literal, but which parts? If Genesis is wrong, how is anyone to know whether other parts are wrong?
Unfortunately, Jesus calls himself a door without using such a qualifier. Do we take this literally, and believe that Jesus thought himself to be a literal door?When the Bible says, "This happened and that happened," that information should be taken literally. When the Bible says, "This is like or as that," that information should be taken as figurative.
When the Bible says, "This happened and that happened," that information should be taken literally. When the Bible says, "This is like or as that," that information should be taken as figurative.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?