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.
You use words that are definitive. Fine, that doesn't mean that you couldn't be wrong. If we find works of English written hundreds of years ago difficult to understand, how much more ancient Hebrew and worse, Koine Greek, which ceased being used after a few centuries A.D. Translators and experts themselves dare not be definitive. They translate to the best of their existing knowledge, but they know that modifications will be necessary with new knowledge.When I speak of the Bible, I use words that are definitive not ambiguous. God's Word is sure not to be guessed on.
You are way, way off base here in what you are saying about TE. Apparently you haven't bothered to study much of the literature. If you had, you would realize the design argument is proposed as one of the arguments for God.Apparently they refuse to.
It doesn't make sense...
Exactly. You didn't, because you made the statement, "only blind people..." If you thought of alternatives, you would have said, "My first recourse is to wonder why you make such statements since it seems obvious to me, but maybe I'm missing something." But instead, you seem to say, "I see it. You don't. You must be blind."Read Genesis. 'nuff said.You just assume that.
Get busy and study the history of Christianity. Read that. It is very clear there has been debate over what exactly the Imago Dei is.Read Genesis 1:26-27
It's there, can you see it ?
Indeed He did.Yes God is a creationist....since he created the world
Because blind people can not see.Exactly. You didn't, because you made the statement, "only blind people..."
Yes, but whether your interpretation is right is to be guessed on. The Bible is subject to many interpretations in Christianity. Yours is not the only one, nor necessarily the best.When I speak of the Bible, I use words that are definitive not ambiguous. God's Word is sure not to be guessed on.
So here's more evidence that you don't believe the claims of the Bible, yet your username sure looks like you do... ahhh, the psychology of deception.But he is right in the fact that various human groups pre-date Noah's Flood....and kept on living.
You should explore the background of the native americans.
Hint they used this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringia
So the race of Men were not FloodNuked.
Maybe he's uncertain, but gets polarised by the discussion.So here's more evidence that you don't believe the claims of the Bible, yet your username sure looks like you do... ahhh, the psychology of deception.
A Jesuit priest... yeah, that's who you want to trust Biblical teaching to....Try reading Pere Teilhard de Chardin.
The Bible is not in question here. Your interpretation thereof is. It's your claims that are under fire, not the Bible.So here's more evidence that you don't believe the claims of the Bible, yet your username sure looks like you do... ahhh, the psychology of deception.
Then EastCoast said..."If you do not agree with me....then you are not Christian", and I say "only a Sith deals in absolutes....I will do what I must". Btw it's an interpretation of humans that the Noah's flood story is intended to be factual history. Me disagreeing with that does not make me unchristian. Also stop disrespecting forum rules.So here's more evidence that you don't believe the claims of the Bible, yet your username sure looks like you do... ahhh, the psychology of deception.
I know you keep blowing but haven't produce one piece of observable evidence since you started. It's like your computer is stuck on rhetorical reply...Of course, it is a power statement. It is stating how evolution has real power simply because it is based on solid scientific observation. Now maybe in hour opinion modern astronomy is all wet. But big deal, so what? You are no astronomer or scientist, so what do you really know anyway?
Then why should I believe any of it Hog? I mean if one part can be reinterpreted from what it plainly says and what has been the understanding of for centuries, why can't it all be blown up and disregarded??The Bible is not in question here. Your interpretation thereof is. It's your claims that are under fire, not the Bible.
You have no evidenc for that.Then EastCoast said..."If you do not agree with me....then you are not Christian", and I say "only a Sith deals in absolutes....I will do what I must". Btw it's an interpretation of humans that the Noah's flood story is intended to be factual history.
Yes it does, because you contradict and thus dismiss the Bible.Me disagreeing with that does not make me anti-bible.
This is what you get when you want to see God through naturalistic glasses.Also stop disrespecting forum rules.
Do you think you might get around to telling me when the image of god was placed on man? Thanx...Wow, you make statements like "only blind people don't" as a bare assertion. You don't think of other alternatives.
Many, many Christian scholars and scientists do not read it that way, especially after researching the original context and audience of the passages. It only presents a problem if you read it one way (as an informer of science), and that's putting a burden on Genesis it was never meant to bear.
The earth and universe have been well dated by science as being unbelievably old. No question about it. Science is not equipped to deal with questions of God. Science is neutral on this question. So the date of the earth and universe have got nothing to do with whether there is or isn't a God.It's a naturalistic model.
This means there is no room for a possible supernatural God, so it proves nothing to who has reason to believe in God.
So God can't preserve His Word?You use words that are definitive. Fine, that doesn't mean that you couldn't be wrong. If we find works of English written hundreds of years ago difficult to understand, how much more ancient Hebrew and worse, Koine Greek, which ceased being used after a few centuries A.D. Translators and experts themselves dare not be definitive. They translate to the best of their existing knowledge, but they know that modifications will be necessary with new knowledge.
And why not? Jesuit priests are very fine Christians.A Jesuit priest... yeah, that's who you want to trust Biblical teaching to....
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?