Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

[Kellyvee]

If by objective evidence you mean scientific evidence, I have left science out of this.

Forget 'scientific evidence' and just show us what you have, but you can't can you? because you don't have any.

Just saying something is true does not make it true, creationists are told that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of Jesus and the happenings in the Bible, (I don't want to offend you so)
there is no evidence, they are telling you lies.

There are people who attack religion (try to restrict the practice thereof).

People do not attack religion they attack the stupidity of religion, who in their right mind would want to deliberately
keep their children dumb? children should be taught about everything.
Parents have always passed on their knowledge to their children in order to make them smarted and better able to cope with what life throws at them, the smarted the child the longer they are likely to live and the better their life,
they in turn will pass on more to their children, the smarter the parent the smarter the child, if you have brains you can make choices if you have fewer brains you end up having no choice, either way dumb is never good.

I didn't mean to imply an attack by you. However it gets tiresome when people who think their way is the only right way use belittling language simply because we have different standards for what is truth. If you truly have no issue, why speak down?

Please try to remember, you are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to you own facts.
If you say 12+12=25 and I tell you it's 24, am I correcting your mistake or am I talking down to you?
If you tell me you have evidence for something and I ask to see it am I belittling you by asking to see it?

 

[EternalDragon]

People do not attack religion they attack the stupidity of religion, who in their right mind would want to deliberately
keep their children dumb? children should be taught about everything.
Parents have always passed on their knowledge to their children in order to make them smarted and better able to cope with what life throws at them, the smarted the child the longer they are likely to live and the better their life,
they in turn will pass on more to their children, the smarter the parent the smarter the child, if you have brains you can make choices if you have fewer brains you end up having no choice, either way dumb is never good.

Is it your opinion that wanting to know about the history of Israel and wanting to know about the Christian God and Jesus is....dumb?

What is your definition of "dumb"? The statistics show that home schooled children have better educations than public schooled children. Most are from born again Christian families and are taught everything.

 

[Kellyvee]

Is it your opinion that wanting to know about the history of Israel and wanting to know about the Christian God and Jesus is....dumb?

That is the complete opposite to what I said, I said not teaching children about evolution (or anything) is dumb.

What is your definition of "dumb"? The statistics show that home schooled children have better educations than public schooled children.

So you even believe the lies put out by the home school advocates.
Why don't you take a look at both sides of the arguments? what are creationists afraid of?

Most are from born again Christian families and are taught everything.

Everything? everything except evolution of course, or subjects that would go against their given religion.

 

[lasthero]

The statistics show that home schooled children have better educations than public schooled children. Most are from born again Christian families and are taught everything.

If you had a teacher who focused on you 24/7 and you had no other students to compete with, you'd probably turn out pretty well, yeah. Generally speaking, the more involved parents are with their children's education, the better they'll do - public school children with parents who are heavily involved do similarly well in school. Parental involvement is the key factor.

You also have to keep in mind that while it's easy to get accurate statistics for public school children, getting them for homeschooled children is a bit more time-consuming and difficult, especially when there's no telling how many of them are 'off-the-grid'.

 

[Kellyvee]

The statistics show that home schooled children have better educations than public schooled children.

'Better education' what is a better education? is it how educated you are or how socially aware and rounded you are?
is it how much you know or how well you interact with others?
or is it simply how well equipped you are to cope with what life brings?
If I am university educated but tell people I believe in Santa Claus how will my education help me?
it won't because people will look at me as if I am dumb, one will outweigh the other.

Creationist no matter how educated they are are seen as being not quite right by everyone other than creationists.

 

[KWCrazy]

People do not attack religion they attack the stupidity of religion

And yet you have a religious icon as part of your profile. Should we then assume you embrace "stupidity," or do we consider you to be lying?

children should be taught about everything.

That would include honesty, proper use of punctuation etc.

The fact that you equate not believing the lie of evolution with not understanding the observable facts of nature indicates that you are clueless s well as dishonest. Honest people don't represent themselves as religious, go to religious websites and attack religion. I'm glad you don't believe in homeschooling, because I shudder to think what you would teach your children.

Please remove the religious icon from your profile. When you come here saying that religious people are dumb while using a religious icon it casts aspersions on your own intellect.

Perhaps had you been home schooled you would have realized that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please remove the religious icon from your profile. When you come here saying that religious people are dumb while using a religious icon it casts aspersions on your own intellect.

Maybe he thinks science is a religion?

 

[KWCrazy]

Maybe he thinks science is a religion?

Maybe, but it really speaks a lot about their claims or "evolved morality;" which denies that having a conscience to let you know good from evil comes from millions the fall of man. They contend it is the result of many thousand years of social interaction. And yet, these false teachers who repeatedly deny God's existence have no problem with donning a cross, coming to a Christian website, and trying to undermine the faith of others. I wonder if they even know who they serve? I wonder if the realize that the false teacher will be damned above others for leading (or attempting to lead) the faithful astray.

 

[BrianJK]

Forget 'scientific evidence' and just show us what you have, but you can't can you? because you don't have any.

I do have something... it just doesn't conform to your own requirements.

Just saying something is true does not make it true, creationists are told that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of Jesus and the happenings in the Bible, (I don't want to offend you so)
there is no evidence, they are telling you lies.

Just saying scientific evidence leads to truth doesn't make it true either. You spend your time calling any beliefs that aren't yours lies. What does this profit you?

People do not attack religion they attack the stupidity of religion, who in their right mind would want to deliberately
keep their children dumb? children should be taught about everything.
Parents have always passed on their knowledge to their children in order to make them smarted and better able to cope with what life throws at them, the smarted the child the longer they are likely to live and the better their life,
they in turn will pass on more to their children, the smarter the parent the smarter the child, if you have brains you can make choices if you have fewer brains you end up having no choice, either way dumb is never good.

Again, you are equating intelligence with simply believing what you believe. That is a bit arrogant, isn't it? An in making that equation, you insult the family of every religious person in the world. I have done nothing to insult you. Why do you do me this disrespect?

Please try to remember, you are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to you own facts.
If you say 12+12=25 and I tell you it's 24, am I correcting your mistake or am I talking down to you?
If you tell me you have evidence for something and I ask to see it am I belittling you by asking to see it?

You are saying that if I accept simple arithmetic I must also accept everything else you believe? How does that make sense? What you consider "fact" is whatever science tells you is fact. What gives you the right, just because you believe science, to insult people who disagree with you? I do not accept the "evidence" that your science provides. You do not accept the Bible as evidence. That is called a disagreement. They happen.

 

[Kellyvee]

Maybe, but it really speaks a lot about their claims or "evolved morality;" which denies that having a conscience to let you know good from evil comes from millions the fall of man. They contend it is the result of many thousand years of social interaction.

Tens of thousands of years.

And yet, these false teachers who repeatedly deny God's existence

How does one deny the existence of something that does not exist? do you deny the existence of Allah?

have no problem with donning a cross,

I to my shame once wore a cross, I sweat just thinking how I could have been such a fool for so long,
when all I had to do was open my eyes to hear the lies, that's right, I had to open my eyes to hear the lies,
by opening my eyes I could see the lips telling lies.

coming to a Christian website, and trying to undermine the faith of others.

No one undermines creationism better than creationists.

I wonder if they even know who they serve? I wonder if the realize that the false teacher will be damned above others for leading (or attempting to lead) the faithful astray.

I now serve no one and neither of us will be damned because there is nothing there to damn us,
when we die it's over for both of us, just as it was for our goldfish last week.

 

[bhsmte]

If by objective evidence you mean scientific evidence, I have left science out of this. There are people who attack religion (try to restrict the practice thereof). I didn't mean to imply an attack by you. However it gets tiresome when people who think their way is the only right way use belittling language simply because we have different standards for what is truth. If you truly have no issue, why speak down?

I am just talking about "evidence" and the type that would be considered "objective" by most logical and rational people. I am not trying to make a "science experiment" out of this.

I have been on this board about 5 months and I typically only see non-believers strengthen their language, when a christian makes a claim, states it is as true as the nose on their face, and then proceeds to state the bible is evidence, their personal experience is evidence and anyone who believes in evolution or relies on science is spiritually blind or something to that effect.

Like I have always stated; if someone wants to believe in a God and it truly makes them a better person, than by all means, don't stop believing. Problems enter, when that same person doesn't have the courage to state; what they believe is based on faith, not objective evidence and then they proceed to attack science because it has discoveries that disagree with the bible, etc. etc.

 

[lasthero]

Maybe, but it really speaks a lot about their claims or "evolved morality;" which denies that having a conscience to let you know good from evil comes from millions the fall of man. They contend it is the result of many thousand years of social interaction. And yet, these false teachers who repeatedly deny God's existence have no problem with donning a cross, coming to a Christian website, and trying to undermine the faith of others. I wonder if they even know who they serve? I wonder if the realize that the false teacher will be damned above others for leading (or attempting to lead) the faithful astray.

Who is 'they'?

 

[BrianJK]

Question: How are you labeling yourself as "agnostic" if you are steadfast in the belief that God does not exist? Seems to be well past agnostic...

And your is mostly just insulting the faith of anyone with religion. Not much substance. I can point fingers and call anything a lie...

 

[Etheri]

Can / Should we interpret the Bible as literal?

 

[KWCrazy]

I to my shame once wore a cross, I sweat just thinking how I could have been such a fool for so long.

You came to this forum with lies and misrepresentation, disrespected its members when we responded to your posts and have acted like spoiled child desperately in need of a spanking. I seriously hope you lose your account. Regardless, I have no time for trolls so I won't be seeing any more of your posts.
Bye.

 

[BrianJK]

I am just talking about "evidence" and the type that would be considered "objective" by most logical and rational people. I am not trying to make a "science experiment" out of this.

I have been on this board about 5 months and I typically only see non-believers strengthen their language, when a christian makes a claim, states it is as true as the nose on their face, and then proceeds to state the bible is evidence, their personal experience is evidence and anyone who believes in evolution or relies on science is spiritually blind or something to that effect.

Like I have always stated; if someone wants to believe in a God and it truly makes them a better person, than by all means, don't stop believing. Problems enter, when that same person doesn't have the courage to state; what they believe is based on faith, not objective evidence and then they proceed to attack science because it has discoveries that disagree with the bible, etc. etc.

So you consider "most logical and rational people" to be only "people who agree with you" right? Why not come out and say evidence that will be accepted by you? That's what this comes down to. You are denying anything that you do not accept. That is natural; it's what anyone does. But you are calling anyone who disagrees with what you accept, by that requirement, illogical and irrational.

I have said from the beginning that I believe in the Bible over scientific evidence. Sometimes they do not conflict and science can be useful. Other times, especially when calling things billions of years old, they do, and I am forced not to place my "faith" in the date that scientists assign things and instead to believe the Word of God, in Whom I do have faith.

I have not said anything against people who choose to disbelieve the Bible. I have simply said that I choose to disbelieve your faith, which is that science can override Scripture. You use words like "objective" and "rational" to describe your personal faith in the "truth" of scientific evidence. The problem comes when you apply those adjectives to everyone else and use their negative forms to describe anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[Etheri]

You came to this forum with lies and misrepresentation, disrespected its members when we responded to your posts and have acted like spoiled child desperately in need of a spanking. I seriously hope you lose your account. Regardless, I have no time for trolls so I won't be seeing any more of your posts.
Bye.

don't be so sharp, we are to love people as ourselves

 

[Kellyvee]

What gives you the right, just because you believe science, to insult people who disagree with you? I do not accept the "evidence" that your science provides. You do not accept the Bible as evidence. That is called a disagreement. They happen.

I am sorry if I came too close to where you live, I apologize.
That is the difference between us, you could never insult me no matter what you wrote, no matter what you wrote,
yet you are the ones who are so very sure of yourselves, that's obviously not true is it? and you know you're not.

Christians insult Atheists every day with hundreds of their billboards but when Atheists put up one they get threatened.
Which I'm sure most Christians will think is a great advertisement for Christianity.

PS. Words in a book is not evidence, if it was then every religions book would contain evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

So you consider "most logical and rational people" to be only "people who agree with you" right? Why not come out and say evidence that will be accepted by you? That's what this comes down to. You are denying anything that you do not accept. That is natural; it's what anyone does. But you are calling anyone who disagrees with what you accept, by that requirement, illogical and irrational.

I have said from the beginning that I believe in the Bible over scientific evidence. Sometimes they do not conflict and science can be useful. Other times, especially when calling things billions of years old, they do, and I am forced not to place my "faith" in the date that scientists assign things and instead to believe the Word of God, in Whom I do have faith.

I have not said anything against people who choose to disbelieve the Bible. I have simply said that I choose to disbelieve your faith, which is that science can override Scripture. You use words like "objective" and "rational" to describe your personal faith in the "truth" of scientific evidence. The problem comes when you apply those adjectives to everyone else and use their negative forms to describe anyone who disagrees with you.

I am stating what is rational and logical, not what I agree or disagree with. I think you would agree, that science has made many discoveries since the time of Jesus and science has a method which it uses that has proven to be reliable, when it comes to verifying each discovery. You wouldn't be using your computer right now, be able to drive a car, have lights in your house, have healthcare that can prevent disease, cure disease etc, if it were not for the discoveries of science.

If you choose to disregard science wherever it disagrees with a book written by men centuries ago, who had zero knowledge of what we have today, then I personally would have a fundamental problem with how you choose to form your opinions, because I believe they are seriously flawed. You have chosen to remove proven objective methods from the equation and replace them with a book that even most christian historians and scholars, don't claim to be a credible historically accurate document, as opposed to a book of theology.

With that said, that is your choice and I would imagine, you make your choice of disregarding science when it conflicts with the bible, on pure faith that you are making the right choice.

 

[KWCrazy]

Like I have always stated; if someone wants to believe in a God and it truly makes them a better person, than by all means, don't stop believing. Problems enter, when that same person doesn't have the courage to state; what they believe is based on faith, not objective evidence and then they proceed to attack science because it has discoveries that disagree with the bible, etc. etc.

The problem isn't with science, it's with "internet scientists" who really don't have a clue what they're talking about. Science is the study of the physical world around us. It can make theories about how these things originated, but since those theories cannot be conclusively proven or disproven they are still merely works in progress. Evolution is not a proven law of science. Those who claim it's a proven fact only demonstrate that they have no clue what they're talking about.

We can see a star that is a billion light years away. We can conclude that since the light we see is a billion years old, that scientifically speaking it must be at least a billion years old. Could God have created that star three days ago? Absolutely. What the internet scientists can't comprehend is that the laws of physics only apply to things that they govern; the natural workings of the physical world. If a supernatural entity intervenes and does things which are contrary to natural law, it doesn't eradicate that law or invalidate it. Natural law doesn't apply to God.

Could God have created a mature planet? Absolutely. He could make one exactly like this one tomorrow. Scientists would still look at that one day old planet and conclude it must be billions of years old because that's what geology tells us. Science takes the measurable and extrapolates it into the immeasurable. It uses inductive reasoning. Sometimes it is provably way off base and it makes corrections. Sometimes, however, there are things that it just can't measure. A yardstick can't measure the temperature. A thermometer can't measure distance. Both of these tools can be used to measure certain things, but neither can make any determination about the things they can't measure.

Science can make no determination about the supernatural. There is no proven reliable tool to measure it. It can't say that God exists or that He doesn't. It can't account for the creation of anything that didn't follow natural processes. It can make claims about the age of the earth, but it can't disprove a single thing written in the Bible. It comes down to where you put your faith. You can be confident that God is real and the Scriptures are real while maintaining faith in the provable laws of science. As for the unprovable? That's a matter of faith as well.

It would be nice of the "internet scientists" understood any of that. Without knowing the limitations of science they will never know the glory of God. Such a loss.