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

[Loudmouth]

In my opinion, if a person is going to shun Christianity ... in any of its 30,000 varieties ... because of said varieties, then that person should also shun atheism ... in any of its varieties ... because the aforementioned 30,000 varieties' unity over believing in God in Genesis 1:1.

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."
The Clergy Letter Project

That is signed by nearly 13,000 christian clergy. Are you saying that you disagree with them?

And how many varieties of "I don't believe in any deities" do you think there are?

And if Atheism is nothing more than skepticism in disguise,

It is just skepticism, no disguise. It is nothing more than a shared disbelief in deities. Anything outside of that disbelief is not atheism.

then according to their own logic, an Atheist has no business being skeptical about God.

So it is logical that a skeptic should not be skeptical? Really?

Christianity has twisted your mind so thoroughly that you think up is down.

 

[Loudmouth]

But those "facts" are based on scientific methodists mistaking miracles for magic.

You have never shown that they are mistaken. Not once.

 

[Loudmouth]

If Atheists don't want to believe in God, that's their prerogative.

But don't blame it on thirty thousand Christian sects.

God is not going to accept that at their judgment, and neither should we.

Really, it is about the hundreds of thousands of religions all claiming to have THE truth, and yet they all contradict each other. It is very strong evidence that religions are the inventions of man.

 

[AV1611VET]

Christianity has twisted your mind so thoroughly that you think up is down.

I'm just going to assume you guys don't have a clue as to what you're saying and let it go at that.

I think I've spent enough time and effort on trying to break down your mental blocks.

I'll leave it up to others ... including the Holy Spirit.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have never shown that they are mistaken. Not once.

I don't have to show it.

They show it -- with their word choices.

It stands out like a sore thumb.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm just going to assume you guys don't have a clue as to what you're saying and let it go at that.

You actually claimed that it is logical that a skeptic should not be skeptical. You actually said this, and did so thinking it would shelter your dogmatic beliefs.

I think I've spent enough time and effort on trying to break down your mental blocks.

Look in the mirror AV. You have such a serious mental block that you think skeptics, by the very nature of being a skeptic, should not be skeptical. That is a massive mental block.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't have to show it.

Yet another mental block that you have. You actually think that you can make claims and have no responsibility to support them.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If Atheists don't want to believe in God, that's their prerogative.

But don't blame it on thirty thousand Christian sects.

God is not going to accept that at their judgment, and neither should we.

Ah, but if one of the believers doesn't believe in a judgement...

 

[joeboonda]

The same science that allows us to tell if a person was innocent of a crime, that allows a day time TV host to say "You ARE the father!", is the same science that says there was no Noah's Ark, there was no Adam and Eve.

There is no scientific evidence that supports creationism or the Ark myth and all sorts that oppose it.

Why do you believe in myths?

Actually, its NOT the same science at all. You are speaking of operational science which experiments with things in the here and now. Origins science deals with the past and the "findings" are greatly influenced by one's worldview. Like the man said of the Deluge forming the Grand Canyon, "I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it."

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Psalm 19:1

By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. Psalm 33:6

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually, its NOT the same science at all. You are speaking of operational science which experiments with things in the here and now. Origins science deals with the past and the "findings" are greatly influenced by one's worldview. Like the man said of the Deluge forming the Grand Canyon, "I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it."

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Psalm 19:1

By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. Psalm 33:6

There is no difference between operational and historical science. It is a false dichotomy invented by creationists so they can run away from the evidence.

To find the age of a rock we use rocks in the here and now and run experiments on these rocks in the here and now. Past events leave evidence that we can examine in the present.

 

[Split Rock]

Actually, its NOT the same science at all. You are speaking of operational science which experiments with things in the here and now.

"Operational science" is a made up creationist weasel word. Tell me you were taught the term "operational science" in high school.

Origins science deals with the past and the "findings" are greatly influenced by one's worldview.

I guess that's why Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Shintos, Buddhists, Agnostics and Atheists all accept evolution... because it is dependent on one's "world view."

Like the man said of the Deluge forming the Grand Canyon, "I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it."

Someone watched the deluge form the Grand Canyon?? Do tell!

 

[KWCrazy]

No two people manage to find the same interpretation.

Perhaps that's because they are trying to interpret what they are reading into their preconceived notion of what the truth is. The simple truth doesn't take a lot of interpretation. "The evening and the morning" could not be a more specific definition of a day. "Thou shalt not" is pretty definitive in it's declaration.Perhaps if people stopped trying to interpret and tried to simply read, study and understand they would be more in agreement with each other.

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps that's because they are trying to interpret what they are reading into their preconceived notion of what the truth is.

Perfect description of what creationists do.

The simple truth doesn't take a lot of interpretation. "The evening and the morning" could not be a more specific definition of a day. "Thou shalt not" is pretty definitive in it's declaration.Perhaps if people stopped trying to interpret and tried to simply read, study and understand they would be more in agreement with each other.

The parableof the Prodigal Son was pretty definitive. Doesn't mean that the Prodigal Son was a real person.

 

[KWCrazy]

Are you saying that you disagree with them?

I am. Anyone who believes that God created the earth in six days and created man on the sixth while simultaneously believing that life evolved over millions of years is clearly misinformed. Two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be correct. Either they reject the Fourth Commandment or they reject evolution. I doubt, though, that they's go on record by signing a statement that said, "We the undersigned acknowledge that the Bible is untrue, that God lied when He dictated to Moses the fourth Commandment, and that natural law, not God, is lord of the universe.

Frankly, I'd have more respect for them if they did.

 

[KWCrazy]

The parable of the Prodigal Son was pretty definitive. Doesn't mean that the Prodigal Son was a real person.

It doesn't mean that it wasn't, either. The advantage that God has is that he has an entire world to draw illustrative stories from. We have only that to which we are exposed. It could have been real, it could have been a parable from the beginning. Regardless, it was used as a teaching aid. It was never a proclamation that such an event actually happened on a specific date.

 

[EternalDragon]

Really, it is about the hundreds of thousands of religions all claiming to have THE truth, and yet they all contradict each other. It is very strong evidence that religions are the inventions of man.

The main truth is that salvation and eternal life can only be given to a person from Jesus. Only Christianity has that in a risen savior, Jesus Christ.

 

[joeboonda]

There is no difference between operational and historical science. It is a false dichotomy invented by creationists so they can run away from the evidence.

To find the age of a rock we use rocks in the here and now and run experiments on these rocks in the here and now. Past events leave evidence that we can examine in the present.

"Operational science" is a made up creationist weasel word. Tell me you were taught the term "operational science" in high school.

I guess that's why Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Shintos, Buddhists, Agnostics and Atheists all accept evolution... because it is dependent on one's "world view."

Someone watched the deluge form the Grand Canyon?? Do tell!

Ok, believe in evolution if you like, I believe in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

[biggles53]

The main truth is that salvation and eternal life can only be given to a person from Jesus. Only Christianity has that in a risen savior, Jesus Christ.

....says a Christian.........and a Muslim says that the "truth" is something else.....and a Hindu, something else......

And, as Loudmouth indicates, NONE have more authority than any of the others....

 

[biggles53]

Ok, believe in evolution if you like, I believe in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

You don't have to "believe" to understand evolution.....you just have to look, listen and learn.......

 

[biggles53]

It doesn't mean that it wasn't, either. The advantage that God has is that he has an entire world to draw illustrative stories from. We have only that to which we are exposed. It could have been real, it could have been a parable from the beginning. Regardless, it was used as a teaching aid. It was never a proclamation that such an event actually happened on a specific date.

So....when it suits, passages are to be read as 'maybe real, maybe a parable', but other stuff MUST be read literally..............because.......??