Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:This here speaks volumes:

I dont think he was
anything like what the self- appointed "apostle" Paul concocted as having been

I think I understand where you are getting your badly informed view on the bible, Christianity and Christ.

Again, prease exprain?

Audie,

when you speak like that I cant help but think of this hilarious scene from A Christmas Story.

One horse open sray

That's funny! Including that they are Japanese,

Anyway here is Chinese doing "jingle bells" and , "wish you a merry Christmas" light uh right...

Youtube, Hong kong merry christmas 2011, awesome timelapse

A plane leaves Los Angeles airport under the control of a Jewish captain.

His copilot is Chinese. It's the first time they've flown together, and an awkward silence between the two seems to indicate a mutual dislike.


Once they reach cruising altitude, the Jewish captain activates the auto-pilot, leans back in his seat, and mutters, 'I don't like Chinese.'


'No rike Chinese?' asks the copilot, '....why not?'

'You people bombed Pearl Harbor, that's why !'

'No, no,' the co-pilot protests, 'Chinese not bomb Peahl Hahbah! That Japanese, not Chinese.'


'Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese... doesn't matter, you're all alike!'

There's a few minutes of silence.


'I no rike Jews either!' the copilot suddenly announces.


'Oh yeah, why not?' asks the captain.


'Jews sink Titanic.'


'What? That's insane! Jews didn't sink the Titanic!' exclaims the captain, 'It was an iceberg!'

'Iceberg, Goldberg, Greenberg, Rosenberg ...no mattah... all same.'

MrSpock wrote:Here is my short answer to the OP

I think the TOE bullies people to "have to" believe it in order to not appear backwards, stupid, and weak minded. Does this keep people from examining the word of God? Probably, but chances are these people wouldn't be interested anyhow in what God has to say (at that point in time, maybe later).

I can't help but believe many people in the TOE camp need this theory because they want to totally remove God from the picture. Or, at the very least, they want people to admit the book of Genesis are all nice fairy tales to read at night to your children, much like Cinderella.

As for theistic evolution, while it may sound like a nice compromise, to me it is totally unsubstantiated and two, it forces one to conclude the book of Genesis is not to be take literally. I for one find the latter totally unacceptable. I'm convinced God wants to communicate his word and will to man and inspired Moses to write that book. I see no reason to not believe Adam was a real person as was Eve and their beginning was that abrupt and not from primordial soup. To support this for me, Paul cites Adam in his writings (book of Romans). Do you think he would site Adam if there were no such Adam? I don't think so.

I hope this helps.
Spock out

neo-x wrote:

MrSpock wrote:Here is my short answer to the OP

I think the TOE bullies people to "have to" believe it in order to not appear backwards, stupid, and weak minded. Does this keep people from examining the word of God? Probably, but chances are these people wouldn't be interested anyhow in what God has to say (at that point in time, maybe later).

I can't help but believe many people in the TOE camp need this theory because they want to totally remove God from the picture. Or, at the very least, they want people to admit the book of Genesis are all nice fairy tales to read at night to your children, much like Cinderella.

As for theistic evolution, while it may sound like a nice compromise, to me it is totally unsubstantiated and two, it forces one to conclude the book of Genesis is not to be take literally. I for one find the latter totally unacceptable. I'm convinced God wants to communicate his word and will to man and inspired Moses to write that book. I see no reason to not believe Adam was a real person as was Eve and their beginning was that abrupt and not from primordial soup. To support this for me, Paul cites Adam in his writings (book of Romans). Do you think he would site Adam if there were no such Adam? I don't think so.

I hope this helps.
Spock out

For a christian to wholly accept evolution and all that it may entail is a not an easy task. You essentially end up with HUGH problems.

MrSpock wrote:Here is my short answer to the OP

I think the TOE bullies people to "have to" believe it in order to not appear backwards, stupid, and weak minded. Does this keep people from examining the word of God? Probably, but chances are these people wouldn't be interested anyhow in what God has to say (at that point in time, maybe later).

I can't help but believe many people in the TOE camp need this theory because they want to totally remove God from the picture. Or, at the very least, they want people to admit the book of Genesis are all nice fairy tales to read at night to your children, much like Cinderella.

As for theistic evolution, while it may sound like a nice compromise, to me it is totally unsubstantiated and two, it forces one to conclude the book of Genesis is not to be take literally. I for one find the latter totally unacceptable. I'm convinced God wants to communicate his word and will to man and inspired Moses to write that book. I see no reason to not believe Adam was a real person as was Eve and their beginning was that abrupt and not from primordial soup. To support this for me, Paul cites Adam in his writings (book of Romans). Do you think he would site Adam if there were no such Adam? I don't think so.

I hope this helps.
Spock out

As an atheist in a Xtian nation, i kinda get the idea.

And some Christians who feel that to get a life saving transfusion for their child is against God's law.

Nobody takes the bible literally, of course, so that seems a non-issue to me.

The KJV for example says Paul was bitten by a viper on Malta. Well, there are no vipers on Malta. So maybe it wasnt a viper and maybe its not Malta.

MrSpock wrote:Audie,
Oh, and the viper in Malta....

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/vi ... ta-.507396

Maybe?

MrSpock wrote:Audie,

Two things you said that got my attention:

1). "This is a Christian nation." I wonder? Are you certain? I think there is a difference between church goer and the true born again believer. Sure, there seem to be plenty of the former, but not nearly as many of the latter.

2). "No one takes the bible literally anymore." Really? News to me. I believe God has a remnant of people who believe in a real Adam and eve, the flood, the parting of the Red Sea, and of course the resurrection of Jesus CHRIST.

Oh, and the viper in Malta....

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/vi ... ta-.507396

Maybe?

RickD wrote:

As an atheist in a Xtian nation, i kinda get the idea.

And some Christians who feel that to get a life saving transfusion for their child is against God's law.

Nobody takes the bible literally, of course, so that seems a non-issue to me.

The KJV for example says Paul was bitten by a viper on Malta. Well, there are no vipers on Malta. So maybe it wasnt a viper and maybe its not Malta.

Audie, the above quotes from you lead me to believe you are not educated enough to be talking about Christianity or the bible.

First,
The US is not a Christian nation. Its is a free nation that allows all religions to practice.

Second,
Jehovah's Witnesses are the ones you are referring to that are against blood transfusions. FYI, JWs ARE NOT Christians. They are a cult.

Third,
Plenty of people "take the bible literally".

Fourth,
Jac already addressed the issue of the viper here.

Audie wrote:

MrSpock wrote:Audie,

Two things you said that got my attention:

1). "This is a Christian nation." I wonder? Are you certain? I think there is a difference between church goer and the true born again believer. Sure, there seem to be plenty of the former, but not nearly as many of the latter.

2). "No one takes the bible literally anymore." Really? News to me. I believe God has a remnant of people who believe in a real Adam and eve, the flood, the parting of the Red Sea, and of course the resurrection of Jesus CHRIST.

Oh, and the viper in Malta....

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/vi ... ta-.507396

Maybe?

"Christian nation" is just shorthand for saying they are everywhere here. Dont lose sight of the point. If you've felt beset by the minority of people who accept ToE as good science, then I can empathize, living in a majority Christian mileau.

Unless you take "Jesus is a lamb" as, you know, baa baa, then you dont take it literally either. (I didnt say 'anymore" btw)

As for the viper, if he'd been bitten by a viper, it would not have "clung".
The dont do that. Too many improbabilities piled atop eachother for the story to be true.

Others say 'viper" is a wrong translation. Or that Malta is, or both.

It gets to being kind of a "George Washington's hatchet" kind of story.

Any comment on the substance of my post tho?

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

As an atheist in a Xtian nation, i kinda get the idea.

And some Christians who feel that to get a life saving transfusion for their child is against God's law.

Nobody takes the bible literally, of course, so that seems a non-issue to me.

The KJV for example says Paul was bitten by a viper on Malta. Well, there are no vipers on Malta. So maybe it wasnt a viper and maybe its not Malta.

Audie, the above quotes from you lead me to believe you are not educated enough to be talking about Christianity or the bible.

First,
The US is not a Christian nation. Its is a free nation that allows all religions to practice.

Second,
Jehovah's Witnesses are the ones you are referring to that are against blood transfusions. FYI, JWs ARE NOT Christians. They are a cult.

Third,
Plenty of people "take the bible literally".

Fourth,
Jac already addressed the issue of the viper here.

Cute, but full of it.