Evidence for God from Science

I've been accused plenty of times -- right Here in fact -- of believing in a book that is full of errors but Does have Some merit for moral / ethical issues. But, I've never had any reason To doubt the reliability Of God's Word.

And I've shared with someone about Jesus Christ being the Perfect Lamb of God. And why it Is true -- As well as Jesus being the Door, etc. And , no He's Not a literal lamb or literal door. As smart a person as you are, you recognize symbolism when you come across it.

Can't help it if no geologist thinks there was a flood. There have been Plenty of floods -- but only One world-wide flood.

So, you've never Denied God? or His authority? Yet you mock everything you've come across within it. Maybe you've said that you group 'God' along with all the other many 'god's' found in other cultures / mythological ones.

Okay -- so You don't do 'infallible' -- you apparently have No problem finding errors in most anything you read. You are So determined that You are correct and the profs, texts are mistaken. How have the profs reacted to the mistakes you find?

Well -- there are Also scholars who Agree with that interpretation. And people In those other fields who Do agree.

Obviously I Don't agree with you. I'm used to people Not agreeing with me. I Also know plenty of people who Do agree. There apparently is validity on Both sides or there wouldn't be so much discussion about it.

The God of the Bible -- there really isn't any other real God -- is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent. He is God Almighty.

crochet1949 wrote:I've been accused plenty of times -- right Here in fact -- of believing in a book that is full of errors but Does have Some merit for moral / ethical issues. But, I've never had any reason To doubt the reliability Of God's Word.

And I've shared with someone about Jesus Christ being the Perfect Lamb of God. And why it Is true -- As well as Jesus being the Door, etc. And , no He's Not a literal lamb or literal door. As smart a person as you are, you recognize symbolism when you come across it.

Can't help it if no geologist thinks there was a flood. There have been Plenty of floods -- but only One world-wide flood.

So, you've never Denied God? or His authority? Yet you mock everything you've come across within it. Maybe you've said that you group 'God' along with all the other many 'god's' found in other cultures / mythological ones.

Okay -- so You don't do 'infallible' -- you apparently have No problem finding errors in most anything you read. You are So determined that You are correct and the profs, texts are mistaken. How have the profs reacted to the mistakes you find?

Well -- there are Also scholars who Agree with that interpretation. And people In those other fields who Do agree.

Obviously I Don't agree with you. I'm used to people Not agreeing with me. I Also know plenty of people who Do agree. There apparently is validity on Both sides or there wouldn't be so much discussion about it.

The God of the Bible -- there really isn't any other real God -- is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent. He is God Almighty.

Ah now C you are doing it again. "Mock everything". Not true. What besides "flood" do I mention?
"Everything"? False. "Mock"? I never ever have mocked the bible. If you find that my response to ab's
or other people's silliness is "mocking", that is fine. I do make fun of stupid ideas. To call that mocking the bible though is completely unfair and unreasonable.

Would you consider it to be showing respect for the bible to say that god sent all excess flood water to Neptune, where it shines as a warning beacon against incoming rogue angels? You might respond however suits you if someone said that. I respond to abs equally deranged idea about stuck-down glacier not with mockery but with matn and facts. You call that mockery? Do you?

"Errors in most everything you read" . Not so at all, nor any of the rest of that.
It appears to be that you are just lashing out at me. Certainly making no perceptible
effort to understand anything about me or what I say.

So best to cool it for a while.

What is Your definition of 'mock/ing'? Derogatory comments , then.

Yes, you Do make fun of what YOU consider to be stupid ideas. And, No, that is Not "completely unfair and unreasonable."

You refer to it as intellectual honesty or dishonesty. I call 'it' rationalizing Your reaction to acb's comments and mine as being okay because You KNOW that you're information is correct - beyond a shadow of a doubt - but Our information - obviously has problems because You choose to Not take Bible seriously.

Well -- you do that same with me and my ideas.

What about the comments about Jesus Christ being the Lamb of God or the Door. It's being Symbolism. Jesus, obviously was not a real sheep or a wooden door. But He WAS the Perfect Lamb of God who Did die on the cross For payment of mankind's sins. Jesus Christ was here to show us , by His actions, that there was something 'bigger' than you and me. The miracles that He performed to show Evidence Of that 'something bigger' going on. He prayed to His Father in heaven before He went to the cross -- for Us.

Okay -- your thoughts about the birth of Jesus?

You've shared on PM's about yourself -- I Do/ Have made an effort to understand about your and what you say.

A bit of that came up a while back by another poster. Lots of us have 'stuff' we deal with.

crochet1949 wrote:What is Your definition of 'mock/ing'? Derogatory comments , then.

Yes, you Do make fun of what YOU consider to be stupid ideas. And, No, that is Not "completely unfair and unreasonable."

You refer to it as intellectual honesty or dishonesty. I call 'it' rationalizing Your reaction to acb's comments and mine as being okay because You KNOW that you're information is correct - beyond a shadow of a doubt - but Our information - obviously has problems because You choose to Not take Bible seriously.

Well -- you do that same with me and my ideas.

What about the comments about Jesus Christ being the Lamb of God or the Door. It's being Symbolism. Jesus, obviously was not a real sheep or a wooden door. But He WAS the Perfect Lamb of God who Did die on the cross For payment of mankind's sins. Jesus Christ was here to show us , by His actions, that there was something 'bigger' than you and me. The miracles that He performed to show Evidence Of that 'something bigger' going on. He prayed to His Father in heaven before He went to the cross -- for Us.

Okay -- your thoughts about the birth of Jesus?

You've shared on PM's about yourself -- I Do/ Have made an effort to understand about your and what you say.

A bit of that came up a while back by another poster. Lots of us have 'stuff' we deal with.

I did suggest just cooling it.

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:What is Your definition of 'mock/ing'? Derogatory comments , then.

Yes, you Do make fun of what YOU consider to be stupid ideas. And, No, that is Not "completely unfair and unreasonable."

You refer to it as intellectual honesty or dishonesty. I call 'it' rationalizing Your reaction to acb's comments and mine as being okay because You KNOW that you're information is correct - beyond a shadow of a doubt - but Our information - obviously has problems because You choose to Not take Bible seriously.

Well -- you do that same with me and my ideas.

What about the comments about Jesus Christ being the Lamb of God or the Door. It's being Symbolism. Jesus, obviously was not a real sheep or a wooden door. But He WAS the Perfect Lamb of God who Did die on the cross For payment of mankind's sins. Jesus Christ was here to show us , by His actions, that there was something 'bigger' than you and me. The miracles that He performed to show Evidence Of that 'something bigger' going on. He prayed to His Father in heaven before He went to the cross -- for Us.

Okay -- your thoughts about the birth of Jesus?

You've shared on PM's about yourself -- I Do/ Have made an effort to understand about your and what you say.

A bit of that came up a while back by another poster. Lots of us have 'stuff' we deal with.

I did suggest just cooling it.

Ah, yes you did. The question would Be -- for how Long? An hour, day, week? I've already been on another thread answering some other questions. So, I'm all 'cool' now.

crochet1949 wrote:

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:What is Your definition of 'mock/ing'? Derogatory comments , then.

Yes, you Do make fun of what YOU consider to be stupid ideas. And, No, that is Not "completely unfair and unreasonable."

You refer to it as intellectual honesty or dishonesty. I call 'it' rationalizing Your reaction to acb's comments and mine as being okay because You KNOW that you're information is correct - beyond a shadow of a doubt - but Our information - obviously has problems because You choose to Not take Bible seriously.

Well -- you do that same with me and my ideas.

What about the comments about Jesus Christ being the Lamb of God or the Door. It's being Symbolism. Jesus, obviously was not a real sheep or a wooden door. But He WAS the Perfect Lamb of God who Did die on the cross For payment of mankind's sins. Jesus Christ was here to show us , by His actions, that there was something 'bigger' than you and me. The miracles that He performed to show Evidence Of that 'something bigger' going on. He prayed to His Father in heaven before He went to the cross -- for Us.

Okay -- your thoughts about the birth of Jesus?

You've shared on PM's about yourself -- I Do/ Have made an effort to understand about your and what you say.

A bit of that came up a while back by another poster. Lots of us have 'stuff' we deal with.

I did suggest just cooling it.

Ah, yes you did. The question would Be -- for how Long? An hour, day, week? I've already been on another thread answering some other questions. So, I'm all 'cool' now.

Long enuf I hope.

Lets see if you actually get what II was talking about

What point was I illustrating with "Jesus is a lamb"?

What is an example of what I referred to as intellectual dishonesty?

Oh and what, besides "flood" did I dispute? You cant just throw that " mock everything" at me and expect me to accept it. I dont mock the story, or the bible, in any case.

Your reaction if someone came up with a lamebrain idea like " water to Neptune"
would no doubt be stylistically dissimilar to mine, but you might find fault with it.

And your reaction when they accused you of mocking the bible?

Hi -- first off -- "Let's see if you actually get what I was talking about" is a bit condescending from My perspective.

Your point was in relation to taking Everything in the bible Literally. And My point has been -- there Are various types of literature In the Bible -- some history-- some poetry -- etc. -- and some is symbolic -- and there are parables. And as a person is Reading various portions -- it's apparently What they are reading.

My point has been that Jesus obviously is a person BUT He is Also the Son of God. And As the Son of God -- He came to earth in order to die for the sins of mankind. "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" -- throughout the Old Testament -- sacrifices had to be made once a year by the Priest - which meant killing an animal / shedding blood/ sacrificial to cover the sins of the people. The death of Jesus Christ was the Final sacrificial death. In the New Testament - on the cross - He said "It is Finished' and Gave up His life.

The intellectual dishonesty was regarding a person who was Not willing to accept 'intellectually sound' information -- was Not being 'intellectually honest' in acknowledging that just Maybe he was wrong -- that Maybe a person Should be willing to change their mind in the midst of such overwhelming evidence that goes contrary to their beliefs that they have long held in high esteem. Because they Might just Be wrong -- about God and about the flood.

You've stated that you don't take much of Anything at face value. That, I'm thinking, after high school you Didn't especially rely on textbooks -- even challenged a prof. as to the accuracy of His material.

And you've used the term 'lamebrain' in referring to the concept of the water after the flood ending up in Neptune. Cause it's not really being respectful to those with that concept. Even though it's definitely Not Biblical -- water recedes and evaporates. But someone could Probably come up with some explanation for how that Could Possibly happen. People who make sci-fi movies for instance. The make-up artists / clothes designers come up with WOW looking characters.

I've Not Been accused Of mocking the Bible. People have mocked Me for holding on to Biblical principals / concepts. The facts that the Bible Does present. So - how do I react to That? Depends on the situation. How have I responded back to You? But you don't Call it 'mocking' -- it's poking fun at. Using terms like 'lamebrain'.

Have a responded to your satisfaction?

So - now - your thoughts concerning the birth of Jesus Christ.

crochet1949 wrote:What is Your definition of 'mock/ing'? Derogatory comments , then.

Yes, you Do make fun of what YOU consider to be stupid ideas. And, No, that is Not "completely unfair and unreasonable."

You refer to it as intellectual honesty or dishonesty. I call 'it' rationalizing Your reaction to acb's comments and mine as being okay because You KNOW that you're information is correct - beyond a shadow of a doubt - but Our information - obviously has problems because You choose to Not take Bible seriously.

Well -- you do that same with me and my ideas.

What about the comments about Jesus Christ being the Lamb of God or the Door. It's being Symbolism. Jesus, obviously was not a real sheep or a wooden door. But He WAS the Perfect Lamb of God who Did die on the cross For payment of mankind's sins. Jesus Christ was here to show us , by His actions, that there was something 'bigger' than you and me. The miracles that He performed to show Evidence Of that 'something bigger' going on. He prayed to His Father in heaven before He went to the cross -- for Us.

Okay -- your thoughts about the birth of Jesus?

You've shared on PM's about yourself -- I Do/ Have made an effort to understand about your and what you say.

A bit of that came up a while back by another poster. Lots of us have 'stuff' we deal with.

1.
I pointed out that your "mosr everything", twice stated is false. You cannot provide examples,
and cannot simply retract it?

2. Pointing to the laws of physics to show a particular bibke interpretation is dumb is not mocking the bible.
You need to acknowledge that, and quit saying it is mocking. I dont mock thd bible and dont care to be so accused.

You might even consider that a person who
actually thinks about what the bible is and what it says is showing more respect for it than one who
just concocts whatever meaning they likr, then says God backs them, "it is God's words."

Surely you dont think all resdings are correct, that none are thoughtless and stupid?

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:What is Your definition of 'mock/ing'? Derogatory comments , then.

Yes, you Do make fun of what YOU consider to be stupid ideas. And, No, that is Not "completely unfair and unreasonable."

You refer to it as intellectual honesty or dishonesty. I call 'it' rationalizing Your reaction to acb's comments and mine as being okay because You KNOW that you're information is correct - beyond a shadow of a doubt - but Our information - obviously has problems because You choose to Not take Bible seriously.

Well -- you do that same with me and my ideas.

What about the comments about Jesus Christ being the Lamb of God or the Door. It's being Symbolism. Jesus, obviously was not a real sheep or a wooden door. But He WAS the Perfect Lamb of God who Did die on the cross For payment of mankind's sins. Jesus Christ was here to show us , by His actions, that there was something 'bigger' than you and me. The miracles that He performed to show Evidence Of that 'something bigger' going on. He prayed to His Father in heaven before He went to the cross -- for Us.

Okay -- your thoughts about the birth of Jesus?

You've shared on PM's about yourself -- I Do/ Have made an effort to understand about your and what you say.

A bit of that came up a while back by another poster. Lots of us have 'stuff' we deal with.

1.
I pointed out that your "mosr everything", twice stated is false. You cannot provide examples,
and cannot simply retract it?

2. Pointing to the laws of physics to show a particular bibke interpretation is dumb is not mocking the bible.
You need to acknowledge that, and quit saying it is mocking. I dont mock thd bible and dont care to be so accused.

You might even consider that a person who
actually thinks about what the bible is and what it says is showing more respect for it than one who
just concocts whatever meaning they likr, then says God backs them, "it is God's words."

Surely you dont think all resdings are correct, that none are thoughtless and stupid?

"Mosr, bibke, likr, resdings", what is this language you speak? Audie maybe you are anointed with the gift of tongues!

crochet1949 wrote:Hi -- first off -- "Let's see if you actually get what I was talking about" is a bit condescending from My perspective.

Your point was in relation to taking Everything in the bible Literally. And My point has been -- there Are various types of literature In the Bible -- some history-- some poetry -- etc. -- and some is symbolic -- and there are parables. And as a person is Reading various portions -- it's apparently What they are reading.

My point has been that Jesus obviously is a person BUT He is Also the Son of God. And As the Son of God -- He came to earth in order to die for the sins of mankind. "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" -- throughout the Old Testament -- sacrifices had to be made once a year by the Priest - which meant killing an animal / shedding blood/ sacrificial to cover the sins of the people. The death of Jesus Christ was the Final sacrificial death. In the New Testament - on the cross - He said "It is Finished' and Gave up His life.

The intellectual dishonesty was regarding a person who was Not willing to accept 'intellectually sound' information -- was Not being 'intellectually honest' in acknowledging that just Maybe he was wrong -- that Maybe a person Should be willing to change their mind in the midst of such overwhelming evidence that goes contrary to their beliefs that they have long held in high esteem. Because they Might just Be wrong -- about God and about the flood.

You've stated that you don't take much of Anything at face value. That, I'm thinking, after high school you Didn't especially rely on textbooks -- even challenged a prof. as to the accuracy of His material.

And you've used the term 'lamebrain' in referring to the concept of the water after the flood ending up in Neptune. Cause it's not really being respectful to those with that concept. Even though it's definitely Not Biblical -- water recedes and evaporates. But someone could Probably come up with some explanation for how that Could Possibly happen. People who make sci-fi movies for instance. The make-up artists / clothes designers come up with WOW looking characters.

I've Not Been accused Of mocking the Bible. People have mocked Me for holding on to Biblical principals / concepts. The facts that the Bible Does present. So - how do I react to That? Depends on the situation. How have I responded back to You? But you don't Call it 'mocking' -- it's poking fun at. Using terms like 'lamebrain'.

Have a responded to your satisfaction?

So - now - your thoughts concerning the birth of Jesus Christ.

Keeping it simple..you avknowledge that some things in the bible are not to be taken litrrally.
So, what device tells you when it is and when not? This has to be a perfect method.
What is it?

How might one unerringly know that "world wide flood" is it, contrsry to thd resding of manyba bible svholar, and contrary to every single bit of relevant evidence wrutten into thd very earth itself?

I can say this, rigorous intellectual honesty wont go that way.

Intellectual honesty involves among other things recognizing that one could be wrong. You seem to acknowledge that.

Science and law donr do absolutes. It is percents, probabilities. Data.

Now, if we have, say, ten thousand bits of evidence that thd Butler did it in
the parlour, and no evidence whatever to the contrary, well, we'd say thst we can showbeyond z reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

What might we think of the lone holdout in the jury who thinks it could have been Mf. Green because there were, yes, green curtains in the room. Never mind that Mr. Green was bedridden in Budapest at the time. Lamebrain, maybe?

Intellectual honesty in science or any other aspect of life is not about clinging no matter what to a preconceived idea.

I say "no flood". Skipping all the impossibilities that might be glossed over with appeal to miracles,
we end up with, say, ten thousand data points that directly contradict "flood"
(There would be a whole lot more than that). Nothing to favour it.

Which is the intellectually honest response?

A. There certainly was a flood, no possible doubt

B. There almost certainly was no flood.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:What is Your definition of 'mock/ing'? Derogatory comments , then.

Yes, you Do make fun of what YOU consider to be stupid ideas. And, No, that is Not "completely unfair and unreasonable."

You refer to it as intellectual honesty or dishonesty. I call 'it' rationalizing Your reaction to acb's comments and mine as being okay because You KNOW that you're information is correct - beyond a shadow of a doubt - but Our information - obviously has problems because You choose to Not take Bible seriously.

Well -- you do that same with me and my ideas.

What about the comments about Jesus Christ being the Lamb of God or the Door. It's being Symbolism. Jesus, obviously was not a real sheep or a wooden door. But He WAS the Perfect Lamb of God who Did die on the cross For payment of mankind's sins. Jesus Christ was here to show us , by His actions, that there was something 'bigger' than you and me. The miracles that He performed to show Evidence Of that 'something bigger' going on. He prayed to His Father in heaven before He went to the cross -- for Us.

Okay -- your thoughts about the birth of Jesus?

You've shared on PM's about yourself -- I Do/ Have made an effort to understand about your and what you say.

A bit of that came up a while back by another poster. Lots of us have 'stuff' we deal with.

1.
I pointed out that your "mosr everything", twice stated is false. You cannot provide examples,
and cannot simply retract it?

2. Pointing to the laws of physics to show a particular bibke interpretation is dumb is not mocking the bible.
You need to acknowledge that, and quit saying it is mocking. I dont mock thd bible and dont care to be so accused.

You might even consider that a person who
actually thinks about what the bible is and what it says is showing more respect for it than one who
just concocts whatever meaning they likr, then says God backs them, "it is God's words."

Surely you dont think all resdings are correct, that none are thoughtless and stupid?

"Mosr, bibke, likr, resdings", what is this language you speak? Audie maybe you are anointed with the gift of tongues!

May I reccomend that you eat some dirt? It could only imorove you.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:What is Your definition of 'mock/ing'? Derogatory comments , then.

Yes, you Do make fun of what YOU consider to be stupid ideas. And, No, that is Not "completely unfair and unreasonable."

You refer to it as intellectual honesty or dishonesty. I call 'it' rationalizing Your reaction to acb's comments and mine as being okay because You KNOW that you're information is correct - beyond a shadow of a doubt - but Our information - obviously has problems because You choose to Not take Bible seriously.

Well -- you do that same with me and my ideas.

What about the comments about Jesus Christ being the Lamb of God or the Door. It's being Symbolism. Jesus, obviously was not a real sheep or a wooden door. But He WAS the Perfect Lamb of God who Did die on the cross For payment of mankind's sins. Jesus Christ was here to show us , by His actions, that there was something 'bigger' than you and me. The miracles that He performed to show Evidence Of that 'something bigger' going on. He prayed to His Father in heaven before He went to the cross -- for Us.

Okay -- your thoughts about the birth of Jesus?

You've shared on PM's about yourself -- I Do/ Have made an effort to understand about your and what you say.

A bit of that came up a while back by another poster. Lots of us have 'stuff' we deal with.

1.
I pointed out that your "mosr everything", twice stated is false. You cannot provide examples,
and cannot simply retract it?

2. Pointing to the laws of physics to show a particular bibke interpretation is dumb is not mocking the bible.
You need to acknowledge that, and quit saying it is mocking. I dont mock thd bible and dont care to be so accused.

You might even consider that a person who
actually thinks about what the bible is and what it says is showing more respect for it than one who
just concocts whatever meaning they likr, then says God backs them, "it is God's words."

Surely you dont think all resdings are correct, that none are thoughtless and stupid?

"Mosr, bibke, likr, resdings", what is this language you speak? Audie maybe you are anointed with the gift of tongues!

May I reccomend that you eat some dirt? It could only imorove you.

"Imorove"? I'm not familiar with that term.

I think she's trying to be affectionate.

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:What is Your definition of 'mock/ing'? Derogatory comments , then.

Yes, you Do make fun of what YOU consider to be stupid ideas. And, No, that is Not "completely unfair and unreasonable."

You refer to it as intellectual honesty or dishonesty. I call 'it' rationalizing Your reaction to acb's comments and mine as being okay because You KNOW that you're information is correct - beyond a shadow of a doubt - but Our information - obviously has problems because You choose to Not take Bible seriously.

Well -- you do that same with me and my ideas.

What about the comments about Jesus Christ being the Lamb of God or the Door. It's being Symbolism. Jesus, obviously was not a real sheep or a wooden door. But He WAS the Perfect Lamb of God who Did die on the cross For payment of mankind's sins. Jesus Christ was here to show us , by His actions, that there was something 'bigger' than you and me. The miracles that He performed to show Evidence Of that 'something bigger' going on. He prayed to His Father in heaven before He went to the cross -- for Us.

Okay -- your thoughts about the birth of Jesus?

You've shared on PM's about yourself -- I Do/ Have made an effort to understand about your and what you say.

A bit of that came up a while back by another poster. Lots of us have 'stuff' we deal with.

1.
I pointed out that your "mosr everything", twice stated is false. You cannot provide examples,
and cannot simply retract it?

2. Pointing to the laws of physics to show a particular bibke interpretation is dumb is not mocking the bible.
You need to acknowledge that, and quit saying it is mocking. I dont mock thd bible and dont care to be so accused

You might even consider that a person who
actually thinks about what the bible is and what it says is showing more respect for it than one who
just concocts whatever meaning they likr, then says God backs them, "it is God's words."

Surely you dont think all resdings are correct, that none are thoughtless and stupid?

I was asking before -- what is Your definition of 'mocking' / and I changed to the word 'derogatory' comments. So -- what is your definition Of. Because you come across as being offended by such an accusation.

I was using the phrase 'most everything' as a generalization. I think it's an accurate assessment, so No I'm Not going to retract it.

Again -- what Is your definition of 'mocking'. And No you Don't show respect for the Bible -- You DO think about what the Bible is and what it says , but Not showing it much respect.

And I Don't concoct whatever meaning I like, to God's Word , and then say "It's God's Word'. I DO share God's Word --specific passages -- God's Word IS telling mankind about the flood, for instance, since that's been the topic. It's There, in plain English -- or whatever language a person is reading it in.

No part of God's Word is stupid or thoughtless. Segments of 'society' might not Like God's Word's view of morals / ethics. Segments of society don't especially like marriage being between one man and one woman. They feel that physical intimacy between two of the same sex is really okay. When God's Word tells us differently. Which is a whole different topic.

Again --what do You think about the birth of Jesus?

And I DID click into one of the articles about glaciers and ice ages. The author suggests that old earth people assume that the top layers of a glacier are just like the lower layers -- but they aren't necessarily And the comparison to the age rings of a tree to determine it's age. But Those rings and the space between them are not consistent -- depending on what all has happened to the tree - the given climate changes, etc. So - it Apparently depends on the bias of the examiner Of the evidence. Not Everything is as it appears to be.

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Hi -- first off -- "Let's see if you actually get what I was talking about" is a bit condescending from My perspective.

Your point was in relation to taking Everything in the bible Literally. And My point has been -- there Are various types of literature In the Bible -- some history-- some poetry -- etc. -- and some is symbolic -- and there are parables. And as a person is Reading various portions -- it's apparently What they are reading.

My point has been that Jesus obviously is a person BUT He is Also the Son of God. And As the Son of God -- He came to earth in order to die for the sins of mankind. "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" -- throughout the Old Testament -- sacrifices had to be made once a year by the Priest - which meant killing an animal / shedding blood/ sacrificial to cover the sins of the people. The death of Jesus Christ was the Final sacrificial death. In the New Testament - on the cross - He said "It is Finished' and Gave up His life.

The intellectual dishonesty was regarding a person who was Not willing to accept 'intellectually sound' information -- was Not being 'intellectually honest' in acknowledging that just Maybe he was wrong -- that Maybe a person Should be willing to change their mind in the midst of such overwhelming evidence that goes contrary to their beliefs that they have long held in high esteem. Because they Might just Be wrong -- about God and about the flood.

You've stated that you don't take much of Anything at face value. That, I'm thinking, after high school you Didn't especially rely on textbooks -- even challenged a prof. as to the accuracy of His material.

And you've used the term 'lamebrain' in referring to the concept of the water after the flood ending up in Neptune. Cause it's not really being respectful to those with that concept. Even though it's definitely Not Biblical -- water recedes and evaporates. But someone could Probably come up with some explanation for how that Could Possibly happen. People who make sci-fi movies for instance. The make-up artists / clothes designers come up with WOW looking characters.

I've Not Been accused Of mocking the Bible. People have mocked Me for holding on to Biblical principals / concepts. The facts that the Bible Does present. So - how do I react to That? Depends on the situation. How have I responded back to You? But you don't Call it 'mocking' -- it's poking fun at. Using terms like 'lamebrain'.

Have a responded to your satisfaction?

So - now - your thoughts concerning the birth of Jesus Christ.

Keeping it simple..you avknowledge that some things in the bible are not to be taken litrrally.
So, what device tells you when it is and when not? This has to be a perfect method.
What is it?

How might one unerringly know that "world wide flood" is it, contrsry to thd resding of manyba bible svholar, and contrary to every single bit of relevant evidence wrutten into thd very earth itself?

I can say this, rigorous intellectual honesty wont go that way.

Intellectual honesty involves among other things recognizing that one could be wrong. You seem to acknowledge that.

Science and law donr do absolutes. It is percents, probabilities. Data.

Now, if we have, say, ten thousand bits of evidence that thd Butler did it in
the parlour, and no evidence whatever to the contrary, well, we'd say thst we can showbeyond z reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

What might we think of the lone holdout in the jury who thinks it could have been Mf. Green because there were, yes, green curtains in the room. Never mind that Mr. Green was bedridden in Budapest at the time. Lamebrain, maybe?

Intellectual honesty in science or any other aspect of life is not about clinging no matter what to a preconceived idea.

I say "no flood". Skipping all the impossibilities that might be glossed over with appeal to miracles,
we end up with, say, ten thousand data points that directly contradict "flood"
(There would be a whole lot more than that). Nothing to favour it.

Which is the intellectually honest response?

A. There certainly was a flood, no possible doubt

B. There almost certainly was no flood.

Audie -- I Know that you're an intelligent person -- you Do recognize 'history' when you read it. And poetry when you read it. And in reading Anything , there is 'context' -- like, which is the correct the use of 'two, too, or to'. The context tells you. God has given you a wonderful brain, Use it. You can tell what it literal and what isn't. Sometimes we simply don't like what 'literal' is saying.

There has only been one world-wide flood recorded in God's Word -- and God even gave us the rainbow as a promise that He'd never Do that again. And, yes, I've Also heard a wonderful scientific explanation of the rainbow.

How about all the evidence that you'd consider as Irrelevant. But others would see as Relevant.

Since when have I acknowledged that I might be wrong about something in the Bible. I Have acknowledged Symbolism.

And science and law DO absolutes. You Do 'scientific absolutes' all the time -- especially to discredit a global flood.

And how many people on the jury have been a 'hold out' Because they were voting their conscience based on the evidence and Later it Was proven that the person on trial Was In Fact Innocent. If he'd caved in and voted Against his conscience , then what would have happened to the Innocent person. And if YOU were that innocent person and Would have gone to prison Except for that one 'hold-out'.

Okay -- what about the birth of Jesus --( a young woman who'd never had sex , getting pregnant by the Holy Spirit and giving birth to Jesus). You've ignored that question.

You already Know my response -- A.