So what's your view on the whole creation/evolution thing?

Personally, I go literal. I figure God's smarter then any scientist.

For thouse science heads out there:

www.drdino.com
www.answersingenesis.com

Personally I'm of the opinion that any scientific "fact" can be proven wrong at any given time but that's just me.

tbh, i think that the genesis story is one like the 'How the Leopard got it's spots' stories. Not actually true, but it does explain it.

I really don't care about it; it doesn't have any say in eternal matters, so it isn't worth arguing about.

Oh yeah, would you mind notifying me when the first couple laws of thermodynamics are proven wrong? Thanks.

[sarcasm] we're not really here [/sarcasm]

I ditto The Fly on this. I DO think it has eternal value though, b/c to call yourself a Christian and not believe everything the Bible says is hypocritical.

Unless you are Episcopal, for then I pity your false Christianity.

I don't see how it's hypocritical. Faith in Jesus as died and risen Lord is the only requirement that I've seen for one to be a Christian.

Now, I'm the last person you'll see spouting "Dudeyouneedtoletgoofurh8andlettheluvofChristn2urhart" and mean it; but come now, how does not taking every word of the Bible as literal make one a false Christian?

I didn't say it made you a false Christian, I just said it makes you a hypocrite. Christians believe what God says right? The Bible is God's written word, right?

I said the EPISCOPALS are hyprocrites. They are for the murdering of babies && the allowing of Adam&Steve's marriage.

Christians believe in Jesus' deity; the belief in God's word is not mentioned as a prerequisite for salvation.
Granted, it wouldn’t hurt to believe it, and I’m sure a great deal of professing believers take God’s word as truth; but that doesn’t make a difference in their eternal situation.

TheFly wrote:

Personally, I go literal. I figure God's smarter then any scientist.

For thouse science heads out there:

www.drdino.com
www.answersingenesis.com

Personally I'm of the opinion that any scientific "fact" can be proven wrong at any given time but that's just me.

Ditto literal.

Quote :

Oh yeah, would you mind notifying me when the first couple laws of thermodynamics are proven wrong? Thanks.

Actually anyone who believes in the big bang and that it happened without God would have to say that. Simply put: Energy cannot be created or destroyed. The amount of USABLE energy in the universe is decreasing. The big bang theory extends time into an infinite loop. You have a finite amount of a deceasing resource, yet no starting point. Doesn't work. And no I'm not saying you believe this, just illustrating a point.

Quote :

Christians believe in Jesus' deity; the belief in God's word is not mentioned as a prerequisite for salvation.

Ok, but here's the big question: What are you gonna base your beliefs on if it's not on the Bible? I could get into an accuracy argument if you want, but first I honestly want to know how you can claim any of your values are true if you don't have something to base it off of.

I believe it was you who said that you believe things based of if they feel right.
And don't waste time pointing out things that don't apply to any parties present.

As far as what do I base it on: I base it on the Bible as a whole, but that doesn't mean that someone who finds a few inaccuracies is damned to hell?
And even if I did, how would I know that some council in the 2nd century knew what they were doing when the compiled those books? And how do I know translators didn't take any liberties with their work?
Gee, I'm glad I'm not trusting my eternal soul on whether or not Noah sailed at 30,000 feet above sea level for a year.

Zenblend wrote:

As far as what do I base it on: I base it on the Bible as a whole, but that doesn't mean that someone who finds a few inaccuracies is damned to hell?

The problem with that, Zen, is that the Bible claims to be completely 100% accurate. If that claim is true, then you have to believe that it is God's Word and there is no error in it. If that claim is false, then the entire Bible is untrustworthy, because we won't know which part is true and which part is false.

Assuming you're referring to the verse in II Timothy, I'd like to point out the previous verses' focus on the Old Testament. In addition to the fact that the New Testament, as we know it, wasn't compiled until at least 367, it strikes me as unlikely that a statement made, whilst discussing the Old Scriptures, 300 years prior could be referring to a collection of writings that wouldn't be compiled while anyone then living were still alive.

So under that line of thinking, why would the Bible in its entirety depend upon those verses for claims authority?
And on that note, what makes a book "inspired" or not? The book of Clement claims its authenticity; why shouldn’t we have it in the canon as well?
While we're at it, the book of Jude cites two books totally unrelated to the Bible for some points it makes (The Assumption of Moses & The Book of Enoch). Ergo (oh, big word), I find your argument somewhat lacking.

The error in that reasoning is the fact that the non-canononical books do not line up with the inspired Scriptures. Rather, they are contradictory to the Bible as a whole, therefore we determine that since God would not contradict Himself, neither would His Word contradict itself, especially since it is written by God.

And actually, the Council of Nicea, composed of between 250 and 318 men, (the number is debateable) determined which books were God-inspired and which were not based upon how well each book agreed with the others in doctrine etc. This took place in the year 325, not post 367 as you assumed.

There are also other verses that speak of the innerrancy of Scripture, not just the passage in II Timothy. However, one verse is easily sufficient.

Very good, the Nicean Council indeed took place in 325; and Dr Pepper was first served in 1885.
But neither of those has anything to do with the content and order of the New Testament; so let's not waste text, yes?

As for the "error" in my argument, you ignore the times that these "contradictory" books are quoted by the Apostles. Gee, did God just miss those few? The Bible is such a big book... Oh wait, since God wrote it, maybe he had a few things in mind for the other books that Athanasius and company left out (Quick, go Wiki him and then act like you've known of his work for years).

With that cleared up, do you have anything else to say about my post?

Only that you're really good at taking the wrong side and making it sound good.

However, you were the first to bring up the putting together of certain books to make the Scriptures... so don't dog me on that one.

So they were quoted by the Apostles in the Bible. I read books by authors who are writing about the Scriptures that quote other books which were written by non-believers. Just because the Apostles quoted other books which were not God-inspired has no bearing on whether or not those certain books were God-inspired or not. Quoting it does not make it accurate or false.

I also find your mockery of God to be rather offensive. "Gee, did God just miss those few?" (etc.) is not exactly something which is God-honoring, which I am sure you, as one who claims to be a Christian, wishes to accomplish.

What I wish to accomplish is for you to open your mind a little.
Do you know why? Not so you can be all tolerant, loving, or what have you; but so in the case, no matter how unlikely, that you were taught incorrectly, you take the time to at least listen to someone else's viewpoint.

Furthermore, I wasn't dogging you on account of you bringing up the order of books, I was pointing out that the Nicean council had nothing to do with it, whilst Athanasius (c 367) was the first to put the New Testament together as we know it.

I still don't think you understand my reasons for bringing up the other books. Isn't it possible that the various groups who put the Bible together could be wrong? Just what make The Book of Clement wrong when it claims to be God breathed? Why is Paul allowed to call his books inspired whilst Clement isn't?

Yes, I play devil's advocate frequently; but I do so in order that people might step away from their dogmatic roots for a moment and look at things in a new light.
I'm fairly confident that you know where I stand regarding spiritual issues, so I'm fairly certain that you'll keep that in mind when I act like Quas.

If your true concern is for my mind and how open it is, there are better ways of doing it.

Speaking of having an open mind, I have already considered everything you brought up in years past. I have weighed most major religions, ideas, and inspirations and pitted them against each other to determine which I believed is most accurate. Therefore, the beliefs I now hold to are those which I have found to be reliable against all others. So, until something else is discovered that is proven to be more accurate, I will stick with my beliefs. Plus, nothing you have said is convincing to me... so there is no reason to abandon the boat I am currently sailing in.

Well, I'm glad you've obtained such nirvana at the ripe old age of 19.

In which case:

[/discussion]

Lol!

Quote :

As far as what do I base it on: I base it on the Bible as a whole, but that doesn't mean that someone who finds a few inaccuracies is damned to hell?

The problem with that belief system is pretty easy to pick out. How do you know your actually dismissing something because you think it's inaccurate, and not because you don't want to believe it?

It's kinda funny actually. I'm a history buff as I've said in another thread, and I've actually convinced teachers that something they believed VERY strongly about a historical event could easily be called into question. I'm under the philosophy that if you base your beliefs on human knowledge, chances are no matter how much the evidence seems to point to or against something, someone is gonna be proven wrong eventually. And then proven right again. And then proven wrong again. Do I believe "sensory experience and evidence is untrustworthy? Yep. The problem is that's the only way I have to understand the world around me, so I have to trust it to some extent, but am I willing to trust something so fallible to bet eternity on it? Ya right. I believe there is a God, and that the Bible is the infallible word of God not based on evidence or logic. I could easily get into such things as many people aren’t satisfied with my philosophy, but only to indulge others. I think it's plain arrogance to think any human can discover "truth" on such limited experiences, and things so open to interpretation. I believe, simply because I gave up and gave it to God. I basically said let the powers that be guide my beliefs, because nothing I can do will even get me to a fraction of truth. This is where it led me. I've learned very quickly that the first step to being intelligent is to realize you know very little. Could it be I actually chose this because of social brainwashing? Possibly but I don't believe it is, and even IF that's the case, if it has that much influence over me I'm screwed anyway.

I watched EXPERT after EXPERT with MDs, years of experience, and complete confidence set up their point for an hour to get completely shredded within five minutes of a counter argument. Usually when both sides were evenly matched on knowledge and logic, anyone really paying attention and looking passed the cover-ups and face saves would notice it ended in a stalemate. Just about any piece of evidence you throw out can be twisted to mean just about anything if someone has a decent logical mind.

I'll give an example I use in the Creation/Evo argument as an example just because that was the original topic

Most old Earth believers think of each layer in the Earth's crust represents millions of years, and it would be expected to find billions of remains of dead animals in those layers.

A Creationist could just as easily say: Said layers were laid down by the global flood, and it would be expended that we would find the remains of the billions of animals that died in it.

Both arguments have some inconsistencies, but both are also easily defensible.

The whole point is you can analyze, scrutinize, and pick apart all you want, but that doesn't mean you’re so much as a step closer to the truth. Sometimes it can even mean a step backwards.

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:22

Slightly out of context but the point still applies. I'm a fool professing to be a fool. God please guide me, cause every time I've tried to guide myself I realized I turned into an idiot.

Yes I got into a rant. Sorry.

This guy rocks.

I wish, but thanks anyway. And by the way Zen, I liked this discussion. It's boring if everyone always agrees with me.

I like to stay away from discussions like this, for it tends to make me think- something I find dangerous and uncomfortable.

*serious tone*

Gentlemen... we have an admin who does not think.

*runs*

Quote :

I like to stay away from discussions like this, for it tends to make me think- something I find dangerous and uncomfortable.

See, that's a bad thing. God gave you a brain for a reason.

1 Peter
3: 15But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear