The scariest thing I've read in a while.

[Tayla]

Yikes.. lots of Creationism-hate going on in here. I, myself, do firmly believe that there is a higher power. I just don't see how a "primordial soup" can yield any kind of life without influence first. Ala not "lightning pulses". However. Though I live in the South, and go to a Baptist Church, evolution is definently fact for me. Not every Creationist believes that science is a whole lot of bologna, and to see almost every poster in this thread bashing Christianity is a little disturbing to me. Just because I believe in a God does not mean evolution is wrong, or that Darwin was a maniac. You might not believe in "higher power", or you might be an athiest, but that's no reason to defame anyone that believes.

Don't generalize all people of religion as idiots, please.

 

[J-man]

This logic proves that every religion is true, and that every holy book is true. I hope you can see the fallacies of your argument.

Did you even read the link i provided? I'll go through this again, since my mind is functioning more thoroughly now.

How do you know the Bible is true?
It begins with a base that says that it is true. History does not prove it to be false, and has shown us that a majority of the characters and events in the Bible actually were true.

How do you know it is the word of god?
Not only does it say it is the word of God, which is a start but not proof, It is the only logically sound word that claims to be God.

How do you know the Bible is infallible?
Just a repeat of the Bible is True question. If not, clarify.

How do you know that the Bible should be interpreted literally?
Once again, it should not be interpreted Literally.

 

[billymills]

How do you know it is the word of god?
Not only does it say it is the word of God, which is a start but not proof, It is the only logically sound word that claims to be God.

How do you know that the Bible should be interpreted literally?
Once again, it should not be interpreted Literally.

If it's logically sound and the word of god, why wouldn't you interpret it literally?

Do you hate logic so much that even God's logic isn't good enough?

 

[Obsessed]

Did you even read the link i provided? I'll go through this again, since my mind is functioning more thoroughly now.

How do you know the Bible is true?
It begins with a base that says that it is true. History does not prove it to be false, and has shown us that a majority of the characters and events in the Bible actually were true.

How do you know it is the word of god?
Not only does it say it is the word of God, which is a start but not proof, It is the only logically sound word that claims to be God.

How do you know the Bible is infallible?
Just a repeat of the Bible is True question. If not, clarify.

How do you know that the Bible should be interpreted literally?
Once again, it should not be interpreted Literally.

That link is lol. The Bible makes countless predictions. Some of those predictions are bound to end up being true based purely on chance. If I open up 100,000 fortune cookies at least one of those fortunes will come true. Am I to take that as evidence that whoever wrote those fortunes was divinely inspired?

Also the Jews had other options besides Israel. They specifically chose to settle in Israel because it was written in the Torah that Israel was their homeland. So the Jews going out and fulfilling a prophecy written about them is not strong evidence that the Bible accurately predicted the Jews would return.

It would be the same thing if my friend predicted I would wear a blue shirt tomorrow, and I specifically picked out a blue shirt to wear. Is my friend psychic?

History has not shown us that. Some characters in it might be real (historically, Jesus exists), but the events (I have yet to see historical evidence that Jesus cured the blind, rose from the dead, and was the son of god) have little/no historical evidence backing them. Exouds, the flood, the resurrection, and certain other large events have little evidence actually backing them. Archaeologists have not found anything that would lead one to believe a mass exodus from Egypt took place. No camps have been discovered. No artifacts from those millions of people that camped out in the desert have been uncovered. The flood has no geological evidence backing it.

Tell me, which events have been proven true? And don't use the Bible as your source.

And if it shouldn't be interpreted literally, then why do you believe in Creationism, and why do you feel that evolution and Christianity cannot coexist?

 

[popemobile]

The absolute best that "historical evidence" can do is prove that yes, some guy wrote about jesus (and the historical evidence that many people provide is still faulty), and it does nothing to say that anything in the bible is actually true. Also, fulfilling a prophecy in the bible that was mentioned earlier in the bible does not count as proof in any sense of the word.

 

[Firestorm]

Yikes.. lots of Creationism-hate going on in here. I, myself, do firmly believe that there is a higher power. I just don't see how a "primordial soup" can yield any kind of life without influence first. Ala not "lightning pulses". However. Though I live in the South, and go to a Baptist Church, evolution is definently fact for me. Not every Creationist believes that science is a whole lot of bologna, and to see almost every poster in this thread bashing Christianity is a little disturbing to me. Just because I believe in a God does not mean evolution is wrong, or that Darwin was a maniac. You might not believe in "higher power", or you might be an athiest, but that's no reason to defame anyone that believes.

Don't generalize all people of religion as idiots, please.

Nobody is hating on folks who follow any faith. All debate is between those who do and do not understand how science and scientific theories work. Nobody is generalizing. There are no problems with religious figures aside from those who use their faith to deliberately lower the quality of education in the United States.

That said, all posters should please stop trying to "disprove" Christianity. It, like any other religion, cannot be disproven (or proven). That is why a religious theory is not a scientific theory.

 

[Oddish On Fire]

Did you even read the link i provided? I'll go through this again, since my mind is functioning more thoroughly now.

How do you know the Bible is true?
It begins with a base that says that it is true. History does not prove it to be false, and has shown us that a majority of the characters and events in the Bible actually were true.

How do you know it is the word of god?
Not only does it say it is the word of God, which is a start but not proof, It is the only logically sound word that claims to be God.

How do you know the Bible is infallible?
Just a repeat of the Bible is True question. If not, clarify.

How do you know that the Bible should be interpreted literally?
Once again, it should not be interpreted Literally.

AAAAAAAAAAAAGH. This is why debating with religious people is impossible.

Question 1: How does History show us that everything in the Bible has been true? In fact, History (more specifically, the fossil record) gives evidence that points to a truth much different than that of the Bible's.

Question 2: I am God. I created the entire universe, and recently I have come back to Earth to watch over humanity. However, I will not use any of my power on Earth until I decide to leave.

Do you believe that I am God? Or, would you use logic to determine that it is unlikely that I am God? If I wrote a 1000 page essay over why I am God, would it make you believe me that I am God? By using your logic, because you cannot prove that I am not God, I must be God. Do you see how contrived your logic is?

Question 3: We have given hypocrisies in the Bible, and we have proven many parts of the Bible wrong already. However, you ignore them everytime, so bringing any evidence up again is pointless. If you choose to ignore our arguments, then why bother to debate? No matter what, you will never change your views. Even if Muhammed spoke to you personally and told you that a different religion was correct, you would still not believe it. Why? Because you are ingrained in your idiocy. Thank your parents and your church for raising you to believe at a young age that such silly things are true.

Question 4: If something cannot be interpreted literally, then it can be twisted and made into anything. This is why the Bible's "predictions" always come true. It is because, after an event has occurred, people find segments in the Bible, interpret them to fit their needs, and then cite them in debates. Anyone can do this with almost any book. When something is only symbolic, who decides what it means? Mankind gives the Bible its own meaning. And, assuming the existance of God, that meaning surely is different from that of God's true will. Those attempting to interpret the Bible are, themselves, becoming Gods. Because, their interpretations become the word of God. Sadly, God never spoke those words. Yet, people continue to cite the words of man and attribute them to God...

 

[NARFNra]

Guys, getting a bit anti-religious here, not the point of the topic.

 

[popemobile]

one could argue that the entire point of the topic is religion

 

[Tayla]

There's no basis to the reason Christianity and evolution cannot co-exist. Some parts of the Bible, in truth, should not be taken as their literal meaning. Parts in Genesis, for example. The literal taking of the words "seven days" is a little pointless, to be honest. Personally, I don't believe in the whole "swallowed by a whale" story, either. But that's just me.

And thanks Firestorm. :)

 

[Obsessed]

There's no basis to the reason Christianity and evolution cannot co-exist. Some parts of the Bible, in truth, should not be taken as their literal meaning. Parts in Genesis, for example. The literal taking of the words "seven days" is a little pointless, to be honest. Personally, I don't believe in the whole "swallowed by a whale" story, either. But that's just me.

And thanks Firestorm. :)

Yeah like I said: Creationism != Christianity.

Christianity can coexist with evolution if a Christian were to accept scientific theory, and say "I believe that is how god does it."

However Creationism 'All the animals were dropped here by god either millions of years ago, or 6000 years ago' is not compatible with evolution.

Nobody is bashing Christians besides Oddish On Fire.

People are bashing the unscientific hypothesis that is Creationism, and for good reason.

 

[Oddish On Fire]

There's no basis to the reason Christianity and evolution cannot co-exist. Some parts of the Bible, in truth, should not be taken as their literal meaning. Parts in Genesis, for example. The literal taking of the words "seven days" is a little pointless, to be honest. Personally, I don't believe in the whole "swallowed by a whale" story, either. But that's just me.

And thanks Firestorm. :)

I find this completely incorrect. The Bible and Evolution ARE opposing theories. The timelines and methods cannot co-exist, because they are different. The only way that the two can co-habitate is by ignoring certain sects of the Bible or by choosing which parts are symbolic. The Bible describes the method in which everything is created, and unless evolution can support women being a product of a mans spine (correct bone?), then the two DO oppose eachother. If you want to call "7 days" symbolic, then where do you draw the line? When anything can be called symbolic, nothing in the Bible holds true value because it will always be twisted. I just don't see how everyone expects these two theories to get along when they both propose COMPLETELY different origins of species. Sure, it's nice to think we can all get along, but the truth is much different.

edit: I'm sorry for disagreeing with the general opinion of unity, but I don't see how that translates into "attacking those who have a religious faith." I just have a very different opinion than the other posters. Furthermore, I don't see why the VERY mild insults in my previous posts (not this one since it lacks them) are not allowed when discussing religion. It especially does not make sense to me when I can skim through cong and find you an almost unlimited amount of insults directed at certain groups or individuals. Since I have been warned, does that mean that I am not allowed to respond to those who disagree with my dissenting opinion? Should I merely sit silent and watch this debate unfold? I'm confused.

 

[Firestorm]

You don't draw the line. Nothing in the bible should be taken literally and nothing in the bible should have any bearing on the education in a public school. Oddish on Fire, stop attacking those who have a religious faith. This is your last warning.

 

[Son of Disaster]

In my story, the moths were the same species. Their genetic assortment meant that each moth was a certain level of darkness/lightness. His mistake was that he argues that the gene for darkness already existed within each moth and each individual just changed dark when the trees darkened and vice-versa.

This is the same mistake as the dog-growing-gills. These moths were not chameleons, each individual changing their own colour. The percentage of dark moths within the population just changed related to the environment over time.

His problems stem from a lack of understanding of what evolution actually means.

I never said they changed their color just out of nowhere. I was refering to the fact that the black moths already existed and their numbers grew as white moths decreased. I used the gene to say that the black moths didn't come out of nowhere and that the black and white moths were not in fact a different species at all. I apologize if my original post was hazy.

As for not understanding evolution i think you have me mistaken. I'm well aware of the meaning of evolution and agree with many of it's points. The problem that i've expressed with it is it's claim on the origin of life and species. It is not a proven fact in anyway shape or form that bacteria and protozoa turned into a higher order to fish and plants and so forth. That's my problem with evolutionary theory. It is not backed up by the fossil record. The fossil record is being misread to try and support evolution but the gaps in the record that leave out huge transitional forms show the error of trying to utilize the fossil record to support evolution. It's these gaps that spawned the punctuated equilibrium theory to try and explain them away. And then people say fossilization is rare but if species were always changing then the chance for fossilization of transitionary forms would be the same if not more so. These gaps are what make me question the validity of such a theory.

 

[Quantumpencil]

That said, all posters should please stop trying to "disprove" Christianity. It, like any other religion, cannot be disproven (or proven). That is why a religious theory is not a scientific theory.

Correct of course, but I would be very wary of asserting that just because something contains a divine element (and therefore, doesn't admit that element being falsified), we cannot falsify other claims made by the doctrine. Many of the claims made concerning matters which now lie in the realm of science by the bible are falsifiable, for instance, the biblical account of the creation of the earth is falsifiable, as are the Bible's claims of a flat-earth, heliocentric astronomy, global floods, and so forth.

It's also not useless to present and discuss theories which do a better job of explaining the evidences we do have than a faith-based account is capable of doing; flood stories, savior tales, and many other mythical archetypes are littered throughout the bible, and it defies logic to say one cannot assert that these claims are mythical, when this is the best explanation available to us, simply because there are people who believe them to be literal truth. Another example that comes to mind, is the idea of the gospel of mark, and revelations emerging as symbolic literature in the post roman jewish literary tradition. These are the wonderful, powerfully explanatory ways of understanding these books.

 

[bleed4m3]

I read about this a while ago, actually. The irony is that I've gone to Catholic school for 13 years and my parents are very religious (Roman Catholic).

That being said, everybody I know (parents and teachers included) think this is the biggest joke they've ever seen. Not one informed person in my life truly believes the Bible is meant to be taken literally. In fact, if you take the Bible literally, then one of Christianity's core beliefs is destroyed (specifically the belief that Jesus, as the son of God, is free of sins. He sinned in the Bible when he flipped over those tables at the synagogue).

So yea... this is ridiculous. It is people like him that make the US government separate state and religion so vigorously. People like him are the reason children get in trouble for praying at a public school.

EDIT:

I find this completely incorrect. The Bible and Evolution ARE opposing theories. The timelines and methods cannot co-exist, because they are different. The only way that the two can co-habitate is by ignoring certain sects of the Bible or by choosing which parts are symbolic. The Bible describes the method in which everything is created, and unless evolution can support women being a product of a mans spine (correct bone?), then the two DO oppose eachother. If you want to call "7 days" symbolic, then where do you draw the line? When anything can be called symbolic, nothing in the Bible holds true value because it will always be twisted. I just don't see how everyone expects these two theories to get along when they both propose COMPLETELY different origins of species. Sure, it's nice to think we can all get along, but the truth is much different.

This is completely false, by the way. I am in no way a religious person. However, being raised a Catholic and going to a Catholic school for so long, I am very informed of the basis and beliefs of Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism.

The reason the Bible and evolution can co-exist and even coincide is indeed because the Bible is not a literal history book. The vast majority of the Bible is meant to teach life lessons, not to relay a history. When the Bible says Noah was "1,000 years old" it isn't actually saying he lived to be 1,000. That was actually a way of saying he was a very wise man. Or when it says God created everything in 7 days. He didn't do it in a week. The number 7 was considered to be a symbol for fullness, completeness, and holiness.

The reason why there is so much contradiction between people who take the Bible literally and evolution is because the people who take the Bible literally are misinformed. The Bible, when it was originally written, would not have been misinterpreted. Why? Because it was written for the people f that time to better understand their faith. It made perfect sense. 2000 years ago. A couple of millenniums have ways of distorting things. Common sayings back then are no longer common, and on top of that, there are parts of the Bible that are actually translated incorrectly, partially because you can't always perfectly translate some words or phrases, and partially because many words have multiple translations and the wrong ones were sometimes used.

So, in fact, the Bible and evolution can have perfect synergy... so long as those involved are open to the idea. So really the only one preventing the Bible and evolution from coexisting, in this case, is you.

 

[J-man]

If it's logically sound and the word of god, why wouldn't you interpret it literally?

Do you hate logic so much that even God's logic isn't good enough?

Ok, when i said Literally, i was thinking along the lines of- When Jesus said that he was the vine, and his disciples were the branches, obviously Jesus wasn't a vine, and his disciples weren't branches... That sort of thing. The Bible should be read in the correct context according to style of speech. Take Jesus's Symbolic speech for example, you can't interpret that literally.

That link is lol. The Bible makes countless predictions. Some of those predictions are bound to end up being true based purely on chance. If I open up 100,000 fortune cookies at least one of those fortunes will come true. Am I to take that as evidence that whoever wrote those fortunes was divinely inspired?

For someone who can't interpret the Bible correctly (the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac), that's a very bold claim. Why don't you read the prophecy of the destruction of Tyre in Ezekiel, then read about the actual destruction of Tyre, you'll find that said conquering by King Nebuchidnezzer and Alexander the Great matched the prophecy.

Also the Jews had other options besides Israel. They specifically chose to settle in Israel because it was written in the Torah that Israel was their homeland. So the Jews going out and fulfilling a prophecy written about them is not strong evidence that the Bible accurately predicted the Jews would return.

Yet, it was a fulfilled Prophecy. This makes your argument null and void.

History has not shown us that. Some characters in it might be real (historically, Jesus exists), but the events (I have yet to see historical evidence that Jesus cured the blind, rose from the dead, and was the son of god) have little/no historical evidence backing them. Exouds, the flood, the resurrection, and certain other large events have little evidence actually backing them.

A tomb was found baring the inscription "Lazarus, the friend of Christ", while it might be another Lazarus, for now it can be interpreted as the Lazarus whom rose from the grave. As for the resurrection, there were 500+ witnesses to it, as well as witnesses of the miracles, enough to cause a mass mob to refute any claim that Christ performed miracles

Archaeologists have not found anything that would lead one to believe a mass exodus from Egypt took place.

Under Pharaoh Neferhotep I, a mass of Semitic Slaves departed without reason and sudden, to add to that, Neferhotep's body was never found and his son did not replace him, which is pretty good evidence that he was the pharaoh ruling at the time of the Exodus.

No camps have been discovered. No artifacts from those millions of people that camped out in the desert have been uncovered.

Perhaps the Israelites werepretty good at remembering to pack up when they were migrating to the promised land?

The flood has no geological evidence backing it.

That's heavily based on presuppositions about science.

Tell me, which events have been proven true? And don't use the Bible as your source.

To ask me to not use the bible is to ask someone to fight you without any armor or sword, while you are heavily armed. No, that is horribly unreasonable. Which events do you want to know that happened?

And if it shouldn't be interpreted literally, then why do you believe in Creationism, and why do you feel that evolution and Christianity cannot coexist?

According to the context of the Bible, i can interpret Genesis one the way it is written, since there isn't things such as symbolic language that will cause logical and scientific conflict. Evolution and Christianity cannot co-exist, because according to the proper interpretation of The Bible, it conflicts with evolution.

The absolute best that "historical evidence" can do is prove that yes, some guy wrote about jesus (and the historical evidence that many people provide is still faulty), and it does nothing to say that anything in the bible is actually true. Also, fulfilling a prophecy in the bible that was mentioned earlier in the bible does not count as proof in any sense of the word.

There are five known factual people whose works in the Bible about Jesus were published (Mathew, John Mark, Luke the Doctor, John son of Zebedee, and Paul the Apostle) There were written accordingly 500 witnesses to Jesus' ressurection. At the time of the earliest remarks about Jesus (Paul) There were enough people who could have refuted any claims about Jesus' Supernatural Miracles, because they were there. Frankly, history has yet to report anything about angry people disgusted about the lies of christianity told by Jesus' followers. Now, if you desire extra biblical proof, do some researching on Josephus.

AAAAAAAAAAAAGH. This is why debating with religious people is impossible.

Maybe because they are educated in there own religion and you are not?

Question 1: How does History show us that everything in the Bible has been true? In fact, History (more specifically, the fossil record) gives evidence that points to a truth much different than that of the Bible's.

What history minus the highly debatable Fossil Record contradicts the Bible?

Question 2: I am God. I created the entire universe, and recently I have come back to Earth to watch over humanity. However, I will not use any of my power on Earth until I decide to leave.

Do you believe that I am God? Or, would you use logic to determine that it is unlikely that I am God? If I wrote a 1000 page essay over why I am God, would it make you believe me that I am God? By using your logic, because you cannot prove that I am not God, I must be God. Do you see how contrived your logic is?

The problem here, is that the Bible was written by men who did not claim to be God, but you are writing something to claim that you yourself are God.

Question 3: We have given hypocrisies in the Bible, and we have proven many parts of the Bible wrong already. However, you ignore them everytime, so bringing any evidence up again is pointless. If you choose to ignore our arguments, then why bother to debate? No matter what, you will never change your views. Even if Muhammed spoke to you personally and told you that a different religion was correct, you would still not believe it. Why? Because you are ingrained in your idiocy. Thank your parents and your church for raising you to believe at a young age that such silly things are true.

Would calling someone an idiot fall under the category of logical fallacies known as Ad Hominen? Indeed it is. Even if i am incorrect, name calling is a terrible debate tactic. In past threads i have provided links to websites that were designed to defend against the so called contradictions. You can't just claim "Oh, we already debunked christianity, why are you arguing about this? you must be an idiot." Tell me what exactly is wrong the Bible, and i will try to defend myself.

Question 4: If something cannot be interpreted literally, then it can be twisted and made into anything. This is why the Bible's "predictions" always come true. It is because, after an event has occurred, people find segments in the Bible, interpret them to fit their needs, and then cite them in debates. Anyone can do this with almost any book. When something is only symbolic, who decides what it means? Mankind gives the Bible its own meaning. And, assuming the existance of God, that meaning surely is different from that of God's true will. Those attempting to interpret the Bible are, themselves, becoming Gods. Because, their interpretations become the word of God. Sadly, God never spoke those words. Yet, people continue to cite the words of man and attribute them to God...

Once again, i misjudged my words as i am prone to do so. read my above statements concerning this matter. I was wrong, and i goofed up as i seem to do in every debate i get into.

I find this completely incorrect. The Bible and Evolution ARE opposing theories. The timelines and methods cannot co-exist, because they are different. The only way that the two can co-habitate is by ignoring certain sects of the Bible or by choosing which parts are symbolic. The Bible describes the method in which everything is created, and unless evolution can support women being a product of a mans spine (correct bone?), then the two DO oppose eachother. If you want to call "7 days" symbolic, then where do you draw the line? When anything can be called symbolic, nothing in the Bible holds true value because it will always be twisted. I just don't see how everyone expects these two theories to get along when they both propose COMPLETELY different origins of species. Sure, it's nice to think we can all get along, but the truth is much different.

For the bolded part, i agree. And i condemn those who twist the meanings of the Bible. goodness, this is so time consuming. From now on, i'm only going to respond to ONE poster, no more and no less.

 

[ghost]

Maybe because they are educated in there*their* own religion and you are not?

What is annoying about this is that while you claim to be knowledgeable, you can't even spell their right.

Also, you might as well be interpreting what the Bible says literally. "Oh lololo i don't interpret the bible literally because i don't think the symbolism is real". What? So what you're saying is that you believe in all the fancy, fluffy story-telling the bible does, but you don't literally believe in the symbolism? Well, of course the symbolism isn't real! That's why it's called figurative language!

You honestly need to rethink your arguments here, especially with the educated opponents you have.

 

[Obsessed]

J-man: In that case, my friend is psychic. He said I would wear a blue shirt, and I specifically picked out a blue shirt to wear because he said that! The Bible said the Jews would return to Israel, and they specifically chose Israel because of what it said in the Bible.

Also how do you know my interpretation of the Story of Abraham is incorrect? The only one that can give you the true interpretation is the original author. I could easily say your interpretation is incorrect. In fact, I have a question for you.

- If you do not interpret the Bible literally then how do you know which interpretation to follow? How can you be sure that your interpretation is the correct one?

Also when we say literally we don't mean "do you think Jesus was a tree branch?!"

We mean do you think the Earth was created in 7 seven 24 hour periods 6000 years ago (literal interpretation of Genesis), or that 2 of every single species of animal present today was able to fit inside a boat (literal interpretation of Noah's Ark), or that the Earth is flat (literal interpretation of several passages that contradict the idea that the Earth is round: ie, mentioning the corners of the Earth)?

 

[ghost]

Of any of those listed, the one proven glaring contradiction is that the Earth is spherical-we have satellite imagery, and, well, the Earth, to prove that incorrect.

 

[Obsessed]

Of any of those listed, the one proven glaring contradiction is that the Earth is spherical-we have satellite imagery, and, well, the Earth, to prove that incorrect.

A 6000 year old Earth has also been proven to be false, unless you believe that god simply made the Earth look far older than it actually is.

 

[Oddish On Fire]

Bolding responses. Hoping not to get banned.

Maybe because they are educated in there own religion and you are not?

Actually I have read the Bible multiple times, and was an avid Christian until the age of about twelve. During the time that I was, I had these same debates, and used the same arguments that you use. However, I eventually realized what I percieved to be errors in my logic. And, after examining my religion quite closely, I made a choice to stop going to church. Although it was a decision that many people did not like, I feel as though it was the best decision for me. So, I would consider myself educated in the religion that I used to follow.

What history minus the highly debatable Fossil Record contradicts the Bible?

Geological evidence indicates that many events in the Bible never occurred. I'll assume that you have already read over this thread. And, for that reason, I will not be specific since others have already done so.

The problem here, is that the Bible was written by men who did not claim to be God, but you are writing something to claim that you yourself are God.

Ah, correct. In that case, I will make a revision. My 10 closest friends believe that I am God, because I have told them that I am God. However, if you ask me to prove that I am God, I will not. Those 10 closest friends wrote a 1000 page essay describing why I am God. Prove that I am not God.

Would calling someone an idiot fall under the category of logical fallacies known as Ad Hominen? Indeed it is. Even if i am incorrect, name calling is a terrible debate tactic. In past threads i have provided links to websites that were designed to defend against the so called contradictions. You can't just claim "Oh, we already debunked christianity, why are you arguing about this? you must be an idiot." Tell me what exactly is wrong the Bible, and i will try to defend myself.

Would reading idiot when I said idiocy fall under the category of logical fallacies known as poor reading skills? The two words have similar bases, but very different meanings. If you do not know the difference, however, please use Google, as I am not going to spend my time telling such an "educated" person the difference between the words idiocy and idiot. But, if you feel the need to misquote me to make a point feel free to continue as long as it serves your needs. It's the same method that creates the base for most of your arguments.

Once again, i misjudged my words as i am prone to do so. read my above statements concerning this matter. I was wrong, and i goofed up as i seem to do in every debate i get into.

It's cool bro. The best of us make mistakes.

For the bolded part, i agree. And i condemn those who twist the meanings of the Bible. goodness, this is so time consuming. From now on, i'm only going to respond to ONE poster, no more and no less.

Alright, to finish this response, I really have a genuine question that is not intended to offend anyone. Who decides what is symbolic and what is concrete in the Bible? How can you know what is to be interpretted and what is to be taken literally? And, how do you know that your interpretation is correct when the Bible does not state what is?

My last paragraph is something that I have a really hard time understanding. So, if this is veering to far from the topic, feel free to VM/PM responses to the questions.

 

[J-man]

seeing as "there" are fewer responses, i will respond to your responses tomorrow because i need to save time for hockey tonight.

 

[Relictivity]

@Obcessed

Yah, that's kinda the problem... he has changed the world's appearance on purpose... so that faith can be used. After all, if we were just able to 'prove' things, we wouldn't have any reason to use faith.

@Oddish on Fire

Hmmm.... As for oneself claiming to be Christ, the problem would be that the Holy Ghost does not lead me to you, thus I cannot have faith in you, because my heart does not draw towards you. And since I can only trust my heart and the Holy Ghost, and since by the power of the Holy Ghost may you know the truth of all things, I cannot believe in you.

I have had many experiences in life, but perhaps, the most important one to me is the 'trial of faith'. The trial of faith is that point, where one has to choose to believe or not to believe - it is a turning point of sorts. I went through my trial of faith when I was 16. I had been inactive for several years, but life was tough. Very tough. And I started asking many questions. And there were days when I cried myself to sleep at night, looking for the answer.

I finally found it. "And now as I have said concerning faith - faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true" (Alma 32:21). I remember sitting there, stunned, running the words over in my head. I have had several other experiences since than (which I won't go into right now), but it has led me to see that personal experience and feeling are necessary in determining what to believe.

 

[Obsessed]

@ObcessedYah, that's kinda the problem... he has changed the world's appearance on purpose... so that faith can be used. After all, if we were just able to 'prove' things, we wouldn't have any reason to use faith.

So what you are saying is that he purposely made all evidence point to an old Earth just to see if some would reject scientific evidence in favor of myth?

Why does the Christian god need you have faith in his existence? Why does he simply not prove his existence instead of fabricating evidence against his existence? He is basically leading people astray, knowing that they will burn in hell forever.

If such a god really does exist, I cannot worship him when he does such seemingly awful things.

I could understand if he wanted people to discover him on their own, rather than telling people of his existence outright, but he fabricates evidence that leads people astray.