- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lord’s Prayer opening may be ‘problematic’, says archbishop
Posted on 7/10/23 at 1:59 pm to Squirrelmeister
Posted on 7/10/23 at 1:59 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:I'll make this (hopefully) quick and easy for you.
Squirrelmeister
Your argument is that other gods must have existed because God says not to worship those other gods.
I worship the God of the Bible, so according to you, He must exist.
If you deny that He exists, then you must acknowledge that one can worship something that doesn't exist, and if one can worship something that doesn't exist, then God can command that people not worship something that doesn't exist.
1
Posted on 7/10/23 at 2:01 pm to Smeg
He looks like a fruit
Posted on 7/10/23 at 2:08 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:It's not stupid at all.
That's a stupid argument.
It's a philosophical argument regarding epistemology, among other things. The materialistic atheist who denies God and accepts only the material has no basis for immaterial concepts, like the laws of logic and mathematics. They have no basis for the uniformity we see in nature, because they reject a personal God that upholds all things, so there is no explanation for why purposeless, unguided randomness results in uniformity and order necessary for the use of the scientific method and causation.
You have to assume uniformitarianism and laws of logic in order to even make sense of the world, and those two things cannot be accounted for rationally in an atheistic worldview. The best you can do is say, "well that's just how the universe works", which is begging the question.
And that doesn't even touch on morality, which requires an objective, personal, and invariant moral law giver for us to have an objective and unchanging moral "law" for us to judge actions as "right" and "wrong". When you deny that objective law giver exists, you make all morality into nothing more than personal opinion which objectively cannot be better or worse than any other opinions (such as Hitler's desire for genocide). While you can say "I don't like rape", you can't rationally say "rape is objectively morally wrong".
Posted on 7/10/23 at 2:25 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It's not stupid at all.
It is. Start with the fact that your assumptions aren't necessarily true.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 2:28 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The Bible teaches creation from a historical perspective, not poetry, as some claim in order to reject the narrative as being factual.
I notice you keep ignoring that there is genesis 1 account, and genesis 2-3 account. Each one is an account of sequential events. The sequence of events is different in both accounts. God can’t make plants then animals then man and women, and then make man then plants then animals then woman. At most only one can be a right. Which one of the divinely inspired myths is the wrong one?
quote:
God is the God of all nations and all peoples
Jacob and Jacob’s descendants are the lot of Yahweh’s inheritance during the “exodus” time period. Try again. Refer to Deuteronomy 32:8-9. The Israelites are Yahweh’s chosen people. Everyone knows this.
quote:
There is none like you among the gods, O Lord, nor are there any works like yours. All the nations you have made shall come and worship before you, O Lord, and shall glorify your name. For you are great and do wondrous things; you alone are God. -Psalm 86:8-10
Hilarious you choose a psalm that acknowledges the other gods, and how awesome and badass Yahweh is compared to the other gods! All the nations (who are worshipping all those other gods) will one day worship Yahweh! I like your choice of Psalm!
quote:
All the ends of the earth
Flat earth
quote:
God sent a famine to drive Jacob and his family to Egypt to set up the redemption that would come in the future by delivering the people from bondage in slavery 400 years later. God sent a famine, but didn't starve Jacob and his sons. That's why He sent Joseph into slavery in Egypt
You know what we call fire fighters who set fire to buildings - risking lives - so that they can be “heroes”? Psychos, nut jobs, evil, etc.
quote:
God hardened his heart, and he hardened his own heart. Pharaoh rejected God
Find me one reference at all where Yahweh attempted to be worshipped by the Egyptians. Just one. Moses didn’t even know Yahweh at all who made himself known in the burning bush scene. Pharaoh had no idea who Yahweh was (as I already listed all the “so that he’d know I am Yahweh” talk). Yahweh never once gave the Egyptians the opportunity to worship him. Yahweh told Pharaoh to “let my people go”. Egyptians were not his people.
Own up to Yahweh’s actions or inactions. When he causes evil, or removes purposely a means of preventing evil, it’s doing the same thing… anything else is mental gymnastics. Yahweh performs an action on purpose that results in evil… it’s undeniable but I’m sure you will deny it.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 2:33 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
So the link to the retards at answers in genesis you provided says the earth is 6000 years old.
Talk about hateful comments. Lol. Yes, they say that. And, I’m inclined to agree with them. My point is that, contrary to your claim, the Bible doesn’t specifically mention the age of the earth. And, that there are Christian scientists who have endeavored to answer these questions by using the Bible as the basis for their hypotheses (you know, the first step of the scientific method- formulate a hypothesis?). I find their work to be compelling enough to at least warrant some debate among the scientific community. Yet, anyone who so much as mentions Intelligent Design, or challenges Darwinian evolution, is ostracized, dismissed and blackballed- with extreme prejudice and without trial. What are you so afraid of? Let me guess, the science is settled? Lol.
quote:
Where do you think the “flat earthers” come from? They are religious nuts like you but with slightly different interpretations.
Again with the name calling. It doesn’t bother me. I just want you to realize what you are devolving to in the absence of a factual evidence based argument. U mad, bro? Regardless, does a misinterpretation of the truth negate the truth itself? Neither I, nor the “retards” at Answers in Genesis (who are real, actual scientists) believe that the earth is flat. Nor does the Bible proclaim it.
quote:
Certainly you must know about the earth being immovable, pillars/foundations of the earth, ends of the earth, four corners of the earth
Certainly, you must be aware of the different literary forms found in the Bible?
The Bible, as a unity in diversity, expresses its unique message in a rich variety of literary forms. The literature of the Bible is an aesthetically beautiful interpretation of human experience from a divine perspective. As we read, interpret, and seek to apply the truths of Scripture, we must be careful not to overlook this artistic dimension, or we will miss an important part of enjoying the Bible. In this section, we will take a brief look at the literary forms found in the pages of Scripture, including figurative language, narrative history, poetry, wisdom literature, prophetic literature, gospel, oratory, and epistle.
quote:
The “divinely inspired” text certainly leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
It most certainly does. If you are looking for reasons to doubt- you will find them. If you are looking for reasons to believe- you will find them as well. All in the same Book. Fascinating! It’s almost as though it was designed for the purpose of necessitating a personal declaration of faith; whether for or against, as neither position can be proven beyond doubt.
quote:
Yeah, screw science!
You love to twist words. Do you ever wonder where you get that from? I believe that science should be used to prove the existence of God, and to use the gifts He has given us to put the puzzle together, that He has laid out for us. I believe that notable scientists, such as Issac Newton, would agree with me on this.
quote:
quote: Intelligent Design
Really? Screw observable facts about biology!
More dismissive conjecture without evidence to substantiate your claims. Sigh.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 2:56 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I worship the God of the Bible, so according to you, He must exist.
Desperation is a stinky cologne. Very funny straw man you are building.
quote:
Your argument is that other gods must have existed because God says not to worship those other gods.
The god you believe in is telling you other gods exist but not to worship them. Take his words seriously else you’ll end up in the lake of fire.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 2:58 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I liken it to an example that I read a while back about assumptions: a scientist walks into a bathroom and sees a bathtub partially filled with water and a slow drip coming from the faucet.
The problem is there are a lot of slow-drip “bathtubs” in the natural world to cross check this stuff.
1. We know how fast light travels. We can see light from stars many millions of light years away. And the stars that give off that light do not form in an overnight process either.
2. The Hawaiian Islands were formed by the Hawaii hotspot. The further west you go in the island chain, the older the islands are. Kauai is about 5 million years old and Hawaii is less than a million years old. This process of island creation and movement did not happen within a few thousand years.
3. If the world’s oil reserves were created from scratch within the last few thousand years, I don’t think we would have to worry about them running out. But the formation of crude oil is a time consuming process taking millions of years.
There are many examples I could give you.
But let’s assume for a minute that every factor that points to an old Earth or Universe is somehow wildly errant. The stars, for example, were instantly snapped into existence with light in transit (which would display events that never actually happened) or that light was many multiples faster in the past than it is now and we just haven’t been able to pick up on it.
If things like that are true and your version of God exists and created all of these factors, then I would consider Him to be a very deceitful being.
But I think it’s more like the people who wrote the Bible didn’t really know anything about the world and that humans have fertile imaginations, as there are many religions out there.
quote:
If God can create all things (including those predators), could He not also have given them a nature that prevented them from desiring to kill other creatures?
There are countless organisms that make a living by feeding off other animals. Mammals, reptiles, birds, fish, insects, etc. Why in the world would something like a polar bear or mosquito exist in the Garden of Eden? God created animals like that to just hang out? Sharks just swam around aimlessly in the ocean?
And then Adam sinned by eating a forbidden fruit and God instilled predatory instincts into all these animals already equipped to rip apart flesh and they all got after it. Every predator in history on the prowl at the same time less than 10,000 years ago before I guess a lot of them were killed off in the Flood (for which there’s not enough water) but many survived in a boat built by a man several hundred years old.
frickin’ insane.
Okay, I’m out at this point. I’m not wasting my thoughts on this nonsense anymore.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 3:03 pm to Smeg
He is the problem...
Posted on 7/10/23 at 3:28 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
More dismissive conjecture without evidence to substantiate your claims. Sigh.
Look at how the human optic nerve (and most other animals for that matter) connect to the retina. Then look at an Octopus’ eye. God intelligently designed us a blind spot devoid of cones and rods?
Look at the path of the left side and right side recurrent laryngeal nerves in humans. One goes from the voice box to the brain. The other goes from the voice box down through the chest cavity and around the aorta to go back up to the brain.
Pick up a high school biology book for cheap on Amazon. Or pick up a book on evolution from a reputable scholar in academia.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 3:44 pm to Globetrotter747
quote:
frickin’ insane.
The guy is completely brainwashed, ignores all observational facts about nature, takes a dump on the scientific method, and believes only what it says in an ancient compilation of manuscripts written by goat herders constantly getting their asses kicked by larger more powerful and more knowledgeable nations.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 5:02 pm to Champagne
quote:Because you don't seem to want to make your own arguments, I'll address your article.
Champagne
quote:I don't honestly care if it's a "dogma or doctrine"--it's a command that puts unscriptural mandates on "officers" of the Church. I would hope that one day it would be reformed, but as of right now, it isn't.
The first and most basic confusion is thinking of priestly celibacy as a dogma or doctrine—a central and irreformable part of the faith, believed by Catholics to come from Jesus and the apostles.
quote:That's not the argument. The argument is that there is a contradiction in mandating something for the "successor of St. Peter" that didn't apply to Peter, himself, or that "officers" of the Church must fulfill obligations that are not only unbiblical, but contrary to biblical teaching.
Thus some Protestants make a great deal of a biblical reference to Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:30), apparently supposing that, if Catholics only knew that Peter had been married, they would be unable to regard him as the first pope. Again, Protestant time lines of “Catholic inventions” assign “mandatory priestly celibacy” to this or that year in Church history, as if prior to this requirement the Church could not have been Catholic.
quote:"All" is the key word here, as it is the rule for almost all Catholic Priests. But the exception merely proves the rule. There is an unbiblical requirement for "officers" of the Church in most instances. I would argue that it shouldn't exist for anyone.
These Protestants are often surprised to learn that even today celibacy is not the rule for all Catholic priests.
quote:And yet those priests are not allowed to become bishops. The Eastern churches (basically Eastern Orthodox churches that never denied the authority of the Western Popes, or those that recognized his authority afterwards) are a small minority that actually shows the inconsistency of the claims of unity within Catholicism (against the sectarian nature of Protestants).
In fact, for Eastern Rite Catholics, married priests are the norm, just as they are for Orthodox and Oriental Christians.
quote:Again, unbiblical restrictions. It's interesting to me that CA appeals to the Eastern churches to show that being celibate isn't required, it then goes on to explain the reasons why the exception is trying really hard to be the rule.
Even in the Eastern churches, though, there have always been some restrictions on marriage and ordination. Although married men may become priests, unmarried priests may not marry; and married priests, if widowed, may not remarry.
quote:I gave the dates for when this went into effect. The requirement started about 1000 years after Christ.
The tradition in the Western or Latin-Rite Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since the early Middle Ages.
quote:Again, whether or not it could change is not in question. It's a rule imposed on officers of the church that are not scriptural requirements.
As these variations and exceptions indicate, priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule.
quote:Again, I have no problem with a desire for celibacy or even a self-imposed restriction. The issue is about whether or not the Church can impose such a restriction on an office. I argue that it cannot, and it is unbiblical to require such a restriction.
Another, quite different Protestant confusion is the notion that celibacy is unbiblical, or even “unnatural.”...All of this is false. Although most people are called to the married state, the vocation of celibacy is explicitly advocated—as well as practiced—by both Jesus and Paul.
quote:That's fine if someone doesn't want to get married, but the question is whether or not the Church can mandate celibacy. It cannot.
So far from “commanding” marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it:
quote:He does, however Paul doesn't command celibacy, which is the point I'm addressing.
Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage
quote:It's not about "better", but what is "required".
Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, “better” than marriage
quote:I agree, and yet it isn't a requirement in the Scriptures for office.
Notice that this sort of celibacy “for the sake of the kingdom” is a gift, a call that is not granted to all, or even most people
quote:I agree that celibacy isn't. The requirement of celibacy for church office, is.
Celibacy is neither unnatural nor unbiblical.
quote:I don't hold to this argument.
Another Protestant argument, related to the last, is that marriage is mandatory for Church leaders.
quote:It's not "some of its clerics" but "the vast majority of its clerics", but even more to the point, forbidding any of clerics is a problem.
This brings us to Protestantism’s last line of attack: that, by requiring at least some of its clerics and its religious not to marry, the Catholic Church falls under Paul’s condemnation in 1 Timothy 4:3 against apostates who “forbid marriage.”
quote:This is a cop-out. There is a factual ban on marriage for priests (who are already not married), so of course only those who seek the priesthood will "voluntarily renounce marriage"; they have to to be priests. It's not like there is a choice for single men who want to be priests. It's either renounce marriage or stay away from the office. That's not what the Bible teaches regarding qualifications for Elders/Overseers.
In fact, the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They “renounce marriage” (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.
quote:It's not simply "a group", but an ordained office of the Church.
But is there scriptural precedent for this practice of restricting membership in a group to those who take a voluntary vow of celibacy? Yes. Paul, writing once again to Timothy, mentions an order of widows pledged not to remarry
Even if I were to grant that Paul in 1 Tim. 5 is talking about an order (not ordained office) of widows, the passage seems to be saying that the purpose of taking on older women (over 60) is so that they would be in a demographic that was able to serve and receive service/care of the Church as a "burden" without anyone else to support them (no husbands or the ability or desire to marry). Younger women were excluded precisely because they were encouraged to marry and not be a burden on the Church's finances. Whether you take these women to be prototypical "nuns" or not, they were not part of an "office" per se (like elder, requiring ordination), and were unique in their service, being of the circumstance of not having anyone else in the world who could care for them so they are cared for by God through the Church, and being too old to marry or even to desire marriage. That is very different from joining the priesthood (or seeking to be an elder/overseer) at a younger age, able to be married and have children.
Ultimately the "order of widows"--even if such a thing was what Paul was talking about--is not God imposing a requirement not to marry, but is an example of care being given only to those who absolutely needed it (those who were too old to marry and had no support from any family), for the sake of not burdening the Church unnecessarily and promoting godly piety in those who were receiving such care.
This post was edited on 7/10/23 at 8:35 pm
Posted on 7/10/23 at 5:03 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:Please explain which assumptions aren't necessarily true, and why you think that.
It is. Start with the fact that your assumptions aren't necessarily true.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 5:52 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:I haven't ignored this. I'm pretty sure I responded to you in a previous thread/post about Genesis 1 and 2 having a different focus, with Genesis 1 being the high level view of creation, covering all of the creation week, and Genesis 2 being the account of the 6th day in particular, where the focus was on God creating man and putting him in the Garden of Eden. There is no contradiction.
I notice you keep ignoring that there is genesis 1 account, and genesis 2-3 account. Each one is an account of sequential events. The sequence of events is different in both accounts. God can’t make plants then animals then man and women, and then make man then plants then animals then woman. At most only one can be a right. Which one of the divinely inspired myths is the wrong one?
quote:I think you're confusing ideas here. God is sovereign over all nations as God, and He has created all people in His image. In this sense, all nations and people's belong to God and He has authority over all people, yet God has chosen to redeem a chosen people (His "elect"), as represented in the OT by Israel.
Jacob and Jacob’s descendants are the lot of Yahweh’s inheritance during the “exodus” time period. Try again. Refer to Deuteronomy 32:8-9. The Israelites are Yahweh’s chosen people. Everyone knows this.
You're still falsely interpreting Deut. 32 as there being multiple gods, which God is just one of. God is God, and there is no one else. All things, whether in heaven or on earth, are created by God (Col. 1:16).
quote:I chose that one on purpose because of your false view that there were other gods. The more important thing to call out is that the psalmist says "you alone are God". The comparison is between the one, true God, and all so-called gods of the nations that had no existence, much less power.
Hilarious you choose a psalm that acknowledges the other gods, and how awesome and badass Yahweh is compared to the other gods! All the nations (who are worshipping all those other gods) will one day worship Yahweh! I like your choice of Psalm!
You should read Jeremiah 10. It's a great chapter (that wrongfully attacks Christmas trees
) that highlights the comparison of the one true and living God with the idols created by the hands of man, whom the nations worshipped as gods yet had no power to create or to destroy because they were not living. quote:Not quite. It's an idiom for all the earth. We use "the ends of the earth" in common parlance even today, when we are talking about the whole earth or the farther reaches of the earth from where we are.
Flat earth
quote:I suppose it's a good thing the situations aren't remotely similar, then. God has authority to burn everything up with fire (and He will, one day), and every day that He allows us to live is a day of mercy from the Lord, who owes us nothing but destruction.
You know what we call fire fighters who set fire to buildings - risking lives - so that they can be “heroes”? Psychos, nut jobs, evil, etc.
quote:See the above. All people are made in the image of God and are to worship Him as the one, true God. Israel was a type of Christians, who were God's chosen people to be saved from the midst of those who rejected God. Romans 1 explains this, as I said.
Find me one reference at all where Yahweh attempted to be worshipped by the Egyptians. Just one. Moses didn’t even know Yahweh at all who made himself known in the burning bush scene. Pharaoh had no idea who Yahweh was (as I already listed all the “so that he’d know I am Yahweh” talk). Yahweh never once gave the Egyptians the opportunity to worship him. Yahweh told Pharaoh to “let my people go”. Egyptians were not his people.
The Egyptians saw the power of God, and they should have repented of their idolatry and worshipped Him, but they didn't, and it wasn't just Pharaoh.
The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring out the people of Israel from among them. -Ex. 7:5
Then Pharaoh called Moses and Aaron and said, “Plead with the Lord to take away the frogs from me and from my people, and I will let the people go to sacrifice to the Lord.” -Ex. 8:8
Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God.” But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the Lord had said. -Ex. 8:19
So Pharaoh said, “I will let you go to sacrifice to the Lord your God in the wilderness; only you must not go very far away. Plead for me .” -Ex. 8:28
Then whoever feared the word of the Lord among the servants of Pharaoh hurried his slaves and his livestock into the houses -Ex. 9:20
Then Pharaoh sent and called Moses and Aaron and said to them, “This time I have sinned; the Lord is in the right, and I and my people are in the wrong. Plead with the Lord, for there has been enough of God's thunder and hail. I will let you go, and you shall stay no longer.” -Ex. 9:27-28
quote:God is not the author of evil; He doesn't perform evil. He allows evil to occur so that a greater good will happen. The greatest evil that ever occurred was the murder of the son of God, and yet that evil act was planned by God so that everlasting life would be granted to God's people.
Own up to Yahweh’s actions or inactions. When he causes evil, or removes purposely a means of preventing evil, it’s doing the same thing… anything else is mental gymnastics. Yahweh performs an action on purpose that results in evil… it’s undeniable but I’m sure you will deny it.
This post was edited on 7/10/23 at 9:01 pm
Posted on 7/10/23 at 6:46 pm to Globetrotter747
quote:It's clear you missed my point. When all of the "bathtubs" are assumed to be uniform and reject the possibility of anyone turning on the faucet, then all of the interpretations and conclusions are going to be equally wrong. The parable of sorts was meant to highlight the problem with assumptions, not evidence. When you assume naturalism, your conclusions are going to be uniformly different than if you interpret evidences in light of testimony that contradicts naturalistic assumptions.
The problem is there are a lot of slow-drip “bathtubs” in the natural world to cross check this stuff.
quote:There are a few different ways to explain the assumed "time" based on light traveling from distant stars, including time dilation and a very fast 1-way speed of light. Not having the answer right now does not exclude the answer being known, and big bang theorists have their own distant starlight problem to contend with, which is why inflation was hypothesized, which has been rejected by many over the past decade or two.
1. We know how fast light travels. We can see light from stars many millions of light years away. And the stars that give off that light do not form in an overnight process either.
quote:Rapid tectonic plate movements after the Flood. Like the constant drip parable, scientific understanding of the islands is based off of uniformitarian assumptions about speed of plate movements and radiometric decay rates. If a "cataclysmic" event happened to occur, turning on the faucet for a while, then uniformitarian assumptions are no good and the conclusions are off.
2. The Hawaiian Islands were formed by the Hawaii hotspot. The further west you go in the island chain, the older the islands are. Kauai is about 5 million years old and Hawaii is less than a million years old. This process of island creation and movement did not happen within a few thousand years.
quote:It only takes millions of years if you assume normal rates of organic decay via standard natural processes rather than rapid burial of material and high heats from a "cataclysmic" event that happened to occur.
3. If the world’s oil reserves were created from scratch within the last few thousand years, I don’t think we would have to worry about them running out. But the formation of crude oil is a time consuming process taking millions of years.
quote:You might be right, but perhaps not, too. Creating the universe "mature" in certain respects is a matter of function, not of deception. Let's forget about the stars for a second. If God created Adam in the 6th day of creation, and put him in a garden to live, the garden would need to be mature, with mature grasses, bushes, and trees, with fruit already in bloom for eating. Adam, himself, was created as a grown man, so he was created with appearance of age from our perception. Are those things deceptive just because "normally" we're born as babies and grow up, or that fruit trees take a lot longer than a few days to grow up and bear fruit? Not at all.
But let’s assume for a minute that every factor that points to an old Earth or Universe is somehow wildly errant. The stars, for example, were instantly snapped into existence with light in transit (which would display events that never actually happened) or that light was many multiples faster in the past than it is now and we just haven’t been able to pick up on it.
If things like that are true and your version of God exists and created all of these factors, then I would consider Him to be a very deceitful being.
With that said, I don't hold to the light-in-transit theory of starlight.
quote:Or perhaps you have naturalistic assumptions that force particular naturalistic conclusions.
But I think it’s more like the people who wrote the Bible didn’t really know anything about the world and that humans have fertile imaginations, as there are many religions out there.
quote:Who says all the animals in the world were located in the Garden immediately in the beginning? There was a river in Eden, but there wasn't an ocean, yet we're told about sea creatures and other things that swim in the waters and seas.
There are countless organisms that make a living by feeding off other animals. Mammals, reptiles, birds, fish, insects, etc. Why in the world would something like a polar bear or mosquito exist in the Garden of Eden? God created animals like that to just hang out? Sharks just swam around aimlessly in the ocean?
As to why would animals exist? For God's glory. The same reason why He created mankind.
quote:I think it's "insane" to believe that the universe was "created" by accident, where nothing existed and then nothing created something without any reason or purpose or even force acted upon it from something else that didn't exist. I think it's "insane" to reject the basis for objective moral reasoning (God) while incoherently telling others that they are acting immorally, as if that means anything in a world of subjective moral relativity with no objective standard to compare actions to.
And then Adam sinned by eating a forbidden fruit and God instilled predatory instincts into all these animals already equipped to rip apart flesh and they all got after it. Every predator in history on the prowl at the same time less than 10,000 years ago before I guess a lot of them were killed off in the Flood (for which there’s not enough water) but many survived in a boat built by a man several hundred years old.
frickin’ insane.
At least I have an explanation for everything you are mockingly saying. You are the one with truly blind faith.
quote:You are a thief, a liar, a murderer, and a covetous adulterer. You have violated God's holy law and deserve to receive God's wrath for eternity. You must repent of your sins against your creator and put your trust in Jesus Christ, the only son of God, who bore the penalty for sin on the cross to save sinners like you and me. Repent and believe before it is too late.
Okay, I’m out at this point. I’m not wasting my thoughts on this nonsense anymore.
This post was edited on 7/10/23 at 8:28 pm
Posted on 7/10/23 at 6:46 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Look at how the human optic nerve (and most other animals for that matter) connect to the retina. Then look at an Octopus’ eye. God intelligently designed us a blind spot devoid of cones and rods?
So, in your opinion, the human eye is somehow inferior to that of an octopus? It must be a miracle that we humans have managed to avoid extinction!
quote:
Look at the path of the left side and right side recurrent laryngeal nerves in humans. One goes from the voice box to the brain. The other goes from the voice box down through the chest cavity and around the aorta to go back up to the brain.
So, what’s your point?
This feature has sometimes been called "evidence of poor design" by scientists who study evolution because the left RLN is seven times longer than it would be if it traveled a direct course from the head to the neck.
On the other hand, some scientists point out that the RLN supplies numerous autonomic and sensory nerves as it travels back up toward the larynx, so the unusual U-turn, therefore, serves an important function.
quote:
Pick up a high school biology book
Are you a biologist?? Lol
quote:
Or pick up a book on evolution from a reputable scholar in academia.
Like who? Perhaps, Richard Dawkins?
Dawkins unraveled by Ben Stein
This is just a clip from the movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
which breaks down, in great detail, “academia’s” pathetic (yet successful) ploy to deprive the population of truth thru the elimination of intellectual debate.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 7:23 pm to Globetrotter747
quote:
1. We know how fast light travels. We can see light from stars many millions of light years away. And the stars that give off that light do not form in an overnight process either.
This question has been answered. By science. Distant starlight and the Biblical timeline
Less than 14 minutes of your time. The question is, are you willing to consider that you may be wrong?
Posted on 7/10/23 at 7:49 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
the human eye is somehow inferior to that of an octopus?
Yes.
quote:
some scientists point out that the RLN supplies numerous autonomic and sensory nerves as it travels back up toward the larynx
Both sides do this. The left side is way longer than it needs to be.
quote:
Are you a biologist??
No, but apparently I’m far more qualified on the subject matter than you.
quote:
Like who? Perhaps, Richard Dawkins?
Good start.
quote:
Ben Stein
Compare his education and resume to Richard Dawkins on the subject.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 7:51 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Genesis 1 being the high level view of creation, covering all of the creation week, and Genesis 2 being the account of the 6th day in particular, where the focus was on God creating man and putting him in the Garden of Eden. There is no contradiction.
How do you function in society? There’s no way you can be that deluded. Seek help, my friend.
Posted on 7/10/23 at 8:37 pm to Squirrelmeister
Your responses are getting weaker and lazier. Maybe you should take a break. Maybe watch and read some of the material I gave you in previous posts. Maybe, you should eat a snickers. You’ve got nothing but weak arguments, backed only by your propensity to twist words and quote half-truths. Sigmund Freud would be embarrassed.
Page 8 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News