What is Truth? (1 Viewer)

[RetroMcBananaFace]

What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people’s faces.

 

[St. PJ]

i'm really not sure what you're trying to get at with macro/micro evolution stuff
if i'm going to wildly speculate, you're saying that there is an ultimate design in biology/species and that because cows don't evolve into goats, that implies a universal truth?

consider that, very similar to the "maps" quote i cited earlier "species" is more a label we placed on observable differences among animals, insects, etc - nature couldn't give a wet fart what labels we put on it
it will continue to operate responding to chaos by adapting, mutating or dying or maybe eve some other mechanism we don't even know about

I'll try to be brief here in what I mean, but it will be difficult. Macro evolution posits that man (and all life) evolved from a single cell source of life. Somehow, this single cell "first" instance of life, somehow, inexplicably came into existence from "not life", or non-living matter. Once it was "life", what did it eat, what sustained it? Every example we have in science of something living (at least in the animal kingdom) eats something else that is living. What gave it energy to reproduce? It is said (and observable) than a single cell organism can divide into two. We've all heard how one cell can divide into two, then eventually you get asexual reproduction which involves one parent, then that evolved into bisexual reproduction which involved two parents... but is it suggested that this original single cell organism just popped into existence with a fully functioning reproduction system? Even for a one cell organism, that's a very complex process. How did that happen?

Macro evolution is generally the belief that thousands of random mutations occur over millions of years that eventually result in a new species. How do you go from splitting in half to reproduce to asexual reproduction? And then to bisexual reproduction through a process of thousands of small mutations? Reproduction is kind of an all or nothing process. A cell either divides to reproduce, or it doesn't. There's no in-between here. So according to the theory evolution, at some point in time, an organism that divided into two to reproduce somehow gave birth to an offspring that reproduced asexually. How did that happen? Then at some point in time, an asexual parent gave birth to an offspring that reproduced bisexually. How did that happen? How can you be 3/4 asexual and 1/4 bisexual, and then 1/2 asexual and 1/2 bisexual until you get to fully bisexual? -- it just doesn't work. There are no intermediate stages here. The only solution is that at some point in time a fully asexual parent had to give birth to a fully bisexual offspring, and then that bisexual offspring would have to find some other bisexual offspring produced by another asexual parent that had the same sequence of random mutations so that it could mate. What is the probability of that happening?

Speaking of reproduction, can anyone give the process by which the umbilical cord evolved? I'm not saying their aren't any answers, but every evolutionist asked can't answer these questions... they are operating on faith more than fact. Think about it. The umbilical cord ties the baby to the mommy. Baby's body and mommy's body had to mutate and evolve thousands of times, each time in a complementary manner over millions of years to make the system work. What's the odds of that happening? And what about the complementarity of the male and female bodies? How do random genetic mutations occurring thousands of times over millions of years account for the complementarity of the male and female bodies? You want me to believe that happened randomly - that the male body and female body evolved independently of one another thousands of times over millions of years in such a way that they perfectly complement one another in the reproductive process - really? Is that Science or Faith (in a theory) to reach that conclusion?

What about sight? You either see or you don't see. Somewhere in the evolutionary chain, an un-seeing parent had to give birth to a seeing offspring. That's a HUGE leap that had to happen in ONE generation. Think about the "evolution" of sight - from the antenna of an ant to the eye of a fly. In order to go from the antenna of an ant, which receives various sensory inputs from the environment but does not see, to the eye of a fly, which does see, each part of the antenna system - the antenna, to the nerves leading from the antenna to the brain or central nervous system, the sensory receptors and sensory nervous system and so on would ALL have had to randomly mutate, in the direction of the eye, at the same time, thousands of times, over millions of years. The odds of that happening even once are rather minuscule...the odds of it happening thousands of times over millions of years seems rather impossible.

Flying - you can either fly, or you cant - there's no inbetween. At some point in the evolutionary chain, a non-flying parent had to give birth to a flying offspring. The first flying creature had to have evolved the instinct to fly before it actually evolved the mechanisms to fly. If instinct wasn't already in place, how would it know how to fly? Why would it ever jump out of a tree in the first place? Why would it evolve the instinct to fly before it could fly? Makes no sense.

At some point in the evolutionary chain, an egg laying parent had to give birth to an offspring that didn't lay eggs, with the help of an umbilical cord. There are thousands of questions like this that not one evolutionist has given any credible evidence nor answer nor theory as to how this actually occurred.

For the record, I believe in micro-evolution. Science and observation have demonstrated without a doubt species evolve and adapt over time. But there is not one example or evidence that even evolutionist can agree upon of one species evolving into anther.

For those who claim to go by just science, these are some major leaps of faith in the theory of evolution with zero evidence or answers to any of these questions. I'm open to believing in evolution, but someone, anyone needs to make the case for me and answer some of these questions. The scientific method is all about observation and experimentation, and no one has ever seen nor do they have fossil evidence of any of these particular evolutions taking place. What we have is a ton of scientific speculation. Specualtion based on SOME evidence. But the amount of evidence we have in terms of bone fragments and skulls and so forth for the evolution of man between 4 million and 2 million years ago fits in a small box -- that's from an evolutionist. So the theories we have are speculations, and there are disagreements over how to interpret the various fossil evidence; not all evolutionist agree on interpretations of what a bone fragment is or means.

Again, science can and has observed bacteria involve into tens of thousands different strands of bacteria... but it is still bacteria. There is zero evidence, observation, or experimentation that give even the smallest bit of credence to something evolving into a different species. From all life having origin in a single cell that eventually mutated and became fish, reptiles, mammals, man. If evolution occurs over random genetic mutations occurring thousands of times over millions of years, why has the house fly stayed the same the last 65 million years, yet we believe with millions FEWER opportunities for mutations in the same time frame, we've gone from reptile to human. Yet despite having exponentially more opportunities, the house fly is exactly the same. why didn't it evolve into some higher form of life?

The lack of answers to questions like these is why i no longer believe in evolution. Nothing to do with faith. Though because of my belief in A Creator, I do believe if it somehow could be proved evolution on the macro scale did occur, i believe it could have only happened if it was, in essence, pre-programmed into our genetic code by the Author of life (intelligent design). Atheist would have to believe all of this happened randomly: matter came into being from nothing by random chance, that life originated from non-life, that lower species evolved into higher species, and with so many great gaps in evidence, many many things the scientific method has not and can not demonstrate -- never seen it, but believe it -- is that science, or faith? Just from a probability standpoint, the chance of one of those things happening is infinitesimally small... so to believe all these things randomly happened, is that science or faith? (just to clarify - faith in science or faith in the theory of evolution)

Maybe some scientist 20 years from now might read this and think "what an idiot", and maybe so... I'll readily accept that criticism or statement. But, if you are reading this and you do say that, I'd greatly appreciate answers to some of these questions. I am open to whatever science proves because I know there can be no contradiction nor any conflict between authentic faith and authentic science. Science is actually moving closer and closer to what the Church has taught for 2,000 years - that the universe had a beginning, and that it will have an end, and that all of mankind has descended from one man and one woman. Science used to teach the universe was infinite, no beginning, no end. It used to teach than man descended from many lines of pre-human hominids in various places throughout the world. Science now speaks of Y chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve, from whom all mankind descended. Recent studies suggest that Y chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve just might have lived at the same time.

Peace out; I'm going play nintendo.

 

[St. PJ]

What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people’s faces.

Jesus might not have used the phrase forked in the head, but He did call people out, on numerous occasions, for believing something ridiculous - and the last thing He did was water it down or try to speak Truth in a way that cuased no offense. He is God, and does it with much more love and grace than I possess. I'm like a Peter with no filter and very little desire to be PC or sugarcoat. And I don't hide behind some made up name. You can easily look me up and join me for a beer, coffee, rice and gravy, or a Saints game. I'm blunt in person, but in most cases not in a way that offends people... moreso in a goofy unexpected funny and welcome way. Writing is something different though, where neither you nor I see or sense how the other person is receiving words as they come out.

 

[RetroMcBananaFace]

What you are missing is that when Jesus "called people out" it was invariably members of the corrupt establishment who were causing harm or difficulty to others. Pharisees, hypocrites, false teachers, blind men, etc. were not criticisms pointed to individual so-called "sinners" - prostitutes, alcoholics, adulterers. etc. The former, he rebuked. The latter, he embraced. Why do you think that is?

Here's a perfect example: Zaccheus and Matthew were tax collectors, embraced by Jesus, at the very same time he railed against tax collectors as a group authority. Why? Because tax collectors as a collective were working to oppress people.

This is why I say I am not frustrated with you personally. I am frustrated with the establishment of the church and religious dogma that works very hard to marginalize those they find "wanting," such as gay and transgender people - and doesn't do jack squat to love them, help them, or even just be nice to them. And I find it disheartening how many people who call themselves "Christians" are very so eager to go along with that.

How do we know they are false teachers? Because they are openly flouting what Jesus called the greatest commandment of all: To love thy neighbor. Instead, they shut the doors to the Kingdom in their faces.

So, you can choose to act as Jesus would, or you can choose to follow the false teachers. It seems to me the OP of this thread is very focused on following the false teachers.

But I can only guess from that. Only you know what's truly in your heart, that's not for me to say.

 

[SystemShock]

Macro evolution does NOT contradict my faith.

How can it not contradict your faith? In the very beginning of Genesis, Yahweh creates man in his own image, then makes woman from a rib of the man.

I don't believe in macro evolution because every evolutionist i've asked - both thiestic and athiestic - can not answer simple fundamental questions or give ANY examples or logical answer to very very basic questions concerning the theory of evolution.

And what are these basic, fundamental questions you have? Are they the same as the myriad of "questions evolutionists/atheists can't answer" videos on YouTube that have been answered over and over again?

The fossil record is out there. The DNA record is out there. It is not hard to find if you are truly looking for it.

To be honest, I actually used to believe in evolution until I studied it, and not that you would know, but it is perfectly acceptable and does not contradict church teaching nor any aspect of my faith to believe (or not) believe in evolution.

I wouldn't know? Did you miss the part about me growing up Catholic?

As for "apparent contradictions" - this is usually something that 2000 years later in english, seems to contradict something else. For example - "she remained childless until she died" or the two creation accounts given in Genesis, or Jesus having brothers and sisters, or any other number of instances. All of these "contradictions" are simply due to our misunderstanding or erroneous translations, and examples can easily illustrate why and how those misunderstandings and erroneous translations occur. I'ts not a matter of "convenience"; rather, it's a matter of understanding what those words meant to the original audience and culture they were addressed to. If you have no clue what something meant to the original, historical audience, you probably have no idea what the hell it means period and see contradictions everywhere.

But why don't you apply the same reasoning to the other parts? Why is it only the contradictions that get that treatment, so you can conveniently dismiss them?

"I saw you praying under a fig tree" makes Nathaniel do a 180 and go from "yeah right, what good can come from Nazareth" to fully bought in. 2,000 years later, in english, it's very difficult to understand how THOSE words could cause a complete reversal.

Again, why don't you give the other, non-contradictory parts the same treatment? It is only those parts that contradict the Bible's narrative that conveniently get the "oh, that may have meant something else 2000 years ago" treatment. It is only the obvious contradictions the ones people are getting wrong or don't understand.

Out of curiosity, what prompted you to start this tread? Seems you are posting straight from PragerU/answersingenesis.org, and this stuff has been debunked many times over.

 

[SystemShock]

This is going off on a slight tangent, but something you said about what your son said brought this to mind. I heard something a few weeks ago that, theologically, really made me ponder a circumstance where "old earth creationism" and "young earth creationism" could simultaneously be correct, without contradiction. This is probably only relavant to monotheists who believe in the 9 tenents of faith found in the genesis creation accounts.

It was put forth that "time" did not enter the world until original sin. Before original sin, there was no need for the dimension of time, as man was immortal. Once original sin occurred, "time" as we know it began - as death occurs in time. In terms of theology, this is nothing new or revolutionary, but it does offer a bridge between "old earth creationism" that posits the earth is 4.7 billion years old with "young earth creationism" that posits the earth is only 6-7,000 years old.

... and this is the type of BS rationalization and mental gymnastics that people go through, in an attempt to validate their faith.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I'll try to be brief here in what I mean, but it will be difficult. Macro evolution posits that man (and all life) evolved from a single cell source of life. Somehow, this single cell "first" instance of life, somehow, inexplicably came into existence from "not life", or non-living matter. Once it was "life", what did it eat, what sustained it? Every example we have in science of something living (at least in the animal kingdom) eats something else that is living. What gave it energy to reproduce? It is said (and observable) than a single cell organism can divide into two. We've all heard how one cell can divide into two, then eventually you get asexual reproduction which involves one parent, then that evolved into bisexual reproduction which involved two parents... but is it suggested that this original single cell organism just popped into existence with a fully functioning reproduction system? Even for a one cell organism, that's a very complex process. How did that happen?

Macro evolution is generally the belief that thousands of random mutations occur over millions of years that eventually result in a new species. How do you go from splitting in half to reproduce to asexual reproduction? And then to bisexual reproduction through a process of thousands of small mutations? Reproduction is kind of an all or nothing process. A cell either divides to reproduce, or it doesn't. There's no in-between here. So according to the theory evolution, at some point in time, an organism that divided into two to reproduce somehow gave birth to an offspring that reproduced asexually. How did that happen? Then at some point in time, an asexual parent gave birth to an offspring that reproduced bisexually. How did that happen? How can you be 3/4 asexual and 1/4 bisexual, and then 1/2 asexual and 1/2 bisexual until you get to fully bisexual? -- it just doesn't work. There are no intermediate stages here. The only solution is that at some point in time a fully asexual parent had to give birth to a fully bisexual offspring, and then that bisexual offspring would have to find some other bisexual offspring produced by another asexual parent that had the same sequence of random mutations so that it could mate. What is the probability of that happening?

Speaking of reproduction, can anyone give the process by which the umbilical cord evolved? I'm not saying their aren't any answers, but every evolutionist asked can't answer these questions... they are operating on faith more than fact. Think about it. The umbilical cord ties the baby to the mommy. Baby's body and mommy's body had to mutate and evolve thousands of times, each time in a complementary manner over millions of years to make the system work. What's the odds of that happening? And what about the complementarity of the male and female bodies? How do random genetic mutations occurring thousands of times over millions of years account for the complementarity of the male and female bodies? You want me to believe that happened randomly - that the male body and female body evolved independently of one another thousands of times over millions of years in such a way that they perfectly complement one another in the reproductive process - really? Is that Science or Faith (in a theory) to reach that conclusion?

What about sight? You either see or you don't see. Somewhere in the evolutionary chain, an un-seeing parent had to give birth to a seeing offspring. That's a HUGE leap that had to happen in ONE generation. Think about the "evolution" of sight - from the antenna of an ant to the eye of a fly. In order to go from the antenna of an ant, which receives various sensory inputs from the environment but does not see, to the eye of a fly, which does see, each part of the antenna system - the antenna, to the nerves leading from the antenna to the brain or central nervous system, the sensory receptors and sensory nervous system and so on would ALL have had to randomly mutate, in the direction of the eye, at the same time, thousands of times, over millions of years. The odds of that happening even once are rather minuscule...the odds of it happening thousands of times over millions of years seems rather impossible.

Flying - you can either fly, or you cant - there's no inbetween. At some point in the evolutionary chain, a non-flying parent had to give birth to a flying offspring. The first flying creature had to have evolved the instinct to fly before it actually evolved the mechanisms to fly. If instinct wasn't already in place, how would it know how to fly? Why would it ever jump out of a tree in the first place? Why would it evolve the instinct to fly before it could fly? Makes no sense.

At some point in the evolutionary chain, an egg laying parent had to give birth to an offspring that didn't lay eggs, with the help of an umbilical cord. There are thousands of questions like this that not one evolutionist has given any credible evidence nor answer nor theory as to how this actually occurred.

For the record, I believe in micro-evolution. Science and observation have demonstrated without a doubt species evolve and adapt over time. But there is not one example or evidence that even evolutionist can agree upon of one species evolving into anther.

For those who claim to go by just science, these are some major leaps of faith in the theory of evolution with zero evidence or answers to any of these questions. I'm open to believing in evolution, but someone, anyone needs to make the case for me and answer some of these questions. The scientific method is all about observation and experimentation, and no one has ever seen nor do they have fossil evidence of any of these particular evolutions taking place. What we have is a ton of scientific speculation. Specualtion based on SOME evidence. But the amount of evidence we have in terms of bone fragments and skulls and so forth for the evolution of man between 4 million and 2 million years ago fits in a small box -- that's from an evolutionist. So the theories we have are speculations, and there are disagreements over how to interpret the various fossil evidence; not all evolutionist agree on interpretations of what a bone fragment is or means.

Again, science can and has observed bacteria involve into tens of thousands different strands of bacteria... but it is still bacteria. There is zero evidence, observation, or experimentation that give even the smallest bit of credence to something evolving into a different species. From all life having origin in a single cell that eventually mutated and became fish, reptiles, mammals, man. If evolution occurs over random genetic mutations occurring thousands of times over millions of years, why has the house fly stayed the same the last 65 million years, yet we believe with millions FEWER opportunities for mutations in the same time frame, we've gone from reptile to human. Yet despite having exponentially more opportunities, the house fly is exactly the same. why didn't it evolve into some higher form of life?

The lack of answers to questions like these is why i no longer believe in evolution. Nothing to do with faith. Though because of my belief in A Creator, I do believe if it somehow could be proved evolution on the macro scale did occur, i believe it could have only happened if it was, in essence, pre-programmed into our genetic code by the Author of life (intelligent design). Atheist would have to believe all of this happened randomly: matter came into being from nothing by random chance, that life originated from non-life, that lower species evolved into higher species, and with so many great gaps in evidence, many many things the scientific method has not and can not demonstrate -- never seen it, but believe it -- is that science, or faith? Just from a probability standpoint, the chance of one of those things happening is infinitesimally small... so to believe all these things randomly happened, is that science or faith? (just to clarify - faith in science or faith in the theory of evolution)

Maybe some scientist 20 years from now might read this and think "what an idiot", and maybe so... I'll readily accept that criticism or statement. But, if you are reading this and you do say that, I'd greatly appreciate answers to some of these questions. I am open to whatever science proves because I know there can be no contradiction nor any conflict between authentic faith and authentic science. Science is actually moving closer and closer to what the Church has taught for 2,000 years - that the universe had a beginning, and that it will have an end, and that all of mankind has descended from one man and one woman. Science used to teach the universe was infinite, no beginning, no end. It used to teach than man descended from many lines of pre-human hominids in various places throughout the world. Science now speaks of Y chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve, from whom all mankind descended. Recent studies suggest that Y chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve just might have lived at the same time.

Peace out; I'm going play nintendo.

Billions

 

[Zack Lee]

Ok PJ, you have convinced me. I'm all in.

The only thing I am missing is my reason to take interest. I mean, I can't do it for religious reasons. I can't use my Eastern religion interests because they don't give me anything but compassion and concern for enlightening myself. And I sure as heck can't use the teachings of Jesus because I can't look beyond the log in my own eye. Its always the log not the splinter as far as I can see.

So I try to find a reason that isn't religious. First off, how do I know that Jenner ever even had male junk? I haven't been interested enough to see if he has ever confirmed he had it. For all I know, he always had female parts and is just now dressing the part. Why can't I muster care about this? I think it is because I've never been sexually attracted to Jenner and that includes as Bruce and as Caitlyn (God that is a cute spelling though) And the thing is I can't find one single other reason that I would even care if he ever had male junk outside of sexual interest. Can you help me on this? Not one single reason I can come up with for me to be interested in what junk he/she had before/after the surgery outside of sexual fascination. Maybe its this log in my eye again, dunno.

And the biggest resistance I have for it internally is that I am a deeply spiritual person and it is religious peoples involvement in these types of issues that has pushed most people away from ever experiencing the benefits of a spiritual life. It feels like I am helping kill God when I get involved in this.

So help me help you. I need to get past the feeling that I am killing God and I need to develop a deeper fascination with male junk. Can you give a brother (or sister) a hand?

 

[rajncajn]

And I don't hide behind some made up name.

This is, at least, the 2nd time I've seen you say this and you say it as if people here are a bunch of cowards trying to "hide" behind a username. Yet I just tried to "look you up," St. PJ from Lafayette (which is the only thing I had to go by. Is you name really Saint PJ?), and the only thing I could find was PJ's Dance and Arts School. Let me just say, you look much better in tights and a tan.

Seriously, I don't think anybody here is trying to hide behind anything and calling people out for using a username that is not their own just comes across as trying to make yourself look macho when really all it does is make you look insecure. My name is Justin, I live in Ocean Springs, Ms but I'm from Biloxi. I'm Cajun/German and Catholic. I have kids, a wife and two dogs. You'll have to excuse me if I don't provide you, someone I know absolutely nothing about, on an anonymous and open message board, my full name, address and phone number & I wouldn't expect any half-intelligent person to do that either. Just because I use a made up name doesn't mean I'm trying to hide. I use it because it's part of my personality and I've been using it for nearly 30 years.

 

[CRESS_137]

This is, at least, the 2nd time I've seen you say this and you say it as if people here are a bunch of cowards trying to "hide" behind a username. Yet I just tried to "look you up," St. PJ from Lafayette (which is the only thing I had to go by. Is you name really Saint PJ?), and the only thing I could find was PJ's Dance and Arts School. Let me just say, you look much better in tights and a tan.

Seriously, I don't think anybody here is trying to hide behind anything and calling people out for using a username that is not their own just comes across as trying to make yourself look macho when really all it does is make you look insecure. My name is Justin, I live in Ocean Springs, Ms but I'm from Biloxi. I'm Cajun/German and Catholic. I have kids, a wife and two dogs. You'll have to excuse me if I don't provide you, someone I know absolutely nothing about, on an anonymous and open message board, my full name, address and phone number & I wouldn't expect any half-intelligent person to do that either. Just because I use a made up name doesn't mean I'm trying to hide. I use it because it's part of my personality and I've been using it for nearly 30 years.

As if giving away your identity on the internet is something prudent to do that should be praised.
This whole thread is just another opportunity for St PJ to posture.

 

[antipop]

This whole thread is just another opportunity for St PJ to posture.

come here, son

 

[SaintSpyNDallas]

It seems we are all getting caught up in the minutiae and falling into various irrelevant points. As far as the differences between creationism and evolutionism, if you go back to the origins of life discussed by each, both take faith. Either you have faith in an all-knowing creator with grand designs or you have faith in inexplicable happenstances randomly tripping through time, both to arrive at this point. Both will claim to have scientific evidence proving their beliefs to be true. Personally, based on my Christian theistic view, I would say it takes less faith to believe in a creator vs coincidence on that scale.

I would like to throw a few things out there....just a "$.02" kinda thing. Take them as you will: Given my belief structure, I trust that the Bible is true. If there is a "flaw" it is because I don't yet understand what the author is really saying and I should further study. I agree with several of our atheistic friends here that Christians often seem to lean towards exclusivity rather than inclusiveness and that's not what is Biblically taught. We are to love one another as Christ loved the church ( also as we love ourselves). Again that is love one another...not accept each other's sins. I can love a person who is gay or trans (or any other "sinful" person) without accepting their behavior. There's a difference. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I hate you or wish ill will towards you. We are each individuals with God given free will. Yes, even God says you can do whatever you want with your life. He also says there's only one way to Heaven, so you have a choice. God doesn't condemn people to Hell, we make that choice. Sorry, I tend to get lost i tangents.

Everyone love each other just because they are human and deserve love. Christians, that goes double for us. On top of my previous statement, WE WERE COMMANDED TO. Double whammy. I hope at least some of this was helpful for someone.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

It seems we are all getting caught up in the minutiae and falling into various irrelevant points. As far as the differences between creationism and evolutionism, if you go back to the origins of life discussed by each, both take faith. Either you have faith in an all-knowing creator with grand designs or you have faith in inexplicable happenstances randomly tripping through time, both to arrive at this point. Both will claim to have scientific evidence proving their beliefs to be true. Personally, based on my Christian theistic view, I would say it takes less faith to believe in a creator vs coincidence on that scale.

difference being verifablity - can you draw provable conclusions based on observation?
in biology you can, but there is no testable/provable theory about the Arc & flood or almost any of the other myths in the bible
i am not saying myths to be disparaging - i love myths - but the myths of the bible are not 'scientifically' different than the myths of any other religion

I would like to throw a few things out there....just a "$.02" kinda thing. Take them as you will: Given my belief structure, I trust that the Bible is true. If there is a "flaw" it is because I don't yet understand what the author is really saying and I should further study. I agree with several of our atheistic friends here that Christians often seem to lean towards exclusivity rather than inclusiveness and that's not what is Biblically taught. We are to love one another as Christ loved the church ( also as we love ourselves). Again that is love one another...not accept each other's sins. I can love a person who is gay or trans (or any other "sinful" person) without accepting their behavior. There's a difference. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I hate you or wish ill will towards you. We are each individuals with God given free will. Yes, even God says you can do whatever you want with your life. He also says there's only one way to Heaven, so you have a choice. God doesn't condemn people to Hell, we make that choice. Sorry, I tend to get lost i tangents.

Everyone love each other just because they are human and deserve love. Christians, that goes double for us. On top of my previous statement, WE WERE COMMANDED TO. Double whammy. I hope at least some of this was helpful for someone.

we are natural story tellers - at the beginning of the school year, i often put random objects together (coffee cup, basket ball, tape dispenser) and ask my students to tell me the story of those objects together - and as you might guess, they come up with some pretty interesting stories
if i want to plant a suggestion: these objects tell the story of a lost boy or they tell the story of a great empire, they can create tales to fit the prompt

 

[Booker]

Maybe some scientist 20 years from now might read this and think "what an idiot"...

Oh, I don't think they'll have to wait.

 

[rajncajn]

I would like to throw a few things out there....just a "$.02" kinda thing. Take them as you will: Given my belief structure, I trust that the Bible is true. If there is a "flaw" it is because I don't yet understand what the author is really saying and I should further study.

Unlike many in the Christian religion, including & especially those of my own faith, I believe that the Bible, as written and interpreted by man, is capable of having flaws. I feel that it is up to myself and my faith in God to be able to determine what is the true Word of God and what is not. Many people will point to that as an example of only taking the parts that I like and not being a true Christian or even a hypocrite as it would seem. So be it, that's the way I've chosen to practice my faith and only God has the right to tell me if I'm worthy or not. I pray that I am and I pray God's forgiveness if I am not.

I agree with several of our atheistic friends here that Christians often seem to lean towards exclusivity rather than inclusiveness and that's not what is Biblically taught. We are to love one another as Christ loved the church ( also as we love ourselves). Again that is love one another...not accept each other's sins. I can love a person who is gay or trans (or any other "sinful" person) without accepting their behavior. There's a difference. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I hate you or wish ill will towards you. We are each individuals with God given free will. Yes, even God says you can do whatever you want with your life. He also says there's only one way to Heaven, so you have a choice. God doesn't condemn people to Hell, we make that choice. Sorry, I tend to get lost I tangents.

I think this is another sticking point among non-Christians. Christians need to get away from calling people "sinners." We are all sinners in God's eye, true, so in fact none of us are better than the other. However, when we call non-Christians or even non-repentant Christians sinners we are in fact telling them that they are condemned to hell and putting ourselves upon a pedestal as being "saved." The problem with this is that, while that may be what we believe based on our teachings, it is not our place to judge and anyone who is a non-believer simply sees this as being offensive and judgmental.