(December 6, 2019 at 4:05 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(December 6, 2019 at 3:49 pm)Drich Wrote: Because again I have indeed tested out most of those religions and have only found the one God to fulfill what their holy book promised.

How do you test a religion? Especially one from another? Promises are a vague thing, but whatever.

All relgions have a quid pro quoe. you do ABC the deity provides XYZ..

Find out the ABC do it and see what happens.

If the ABC has to happen through and indivisual/preist whatever then the test is tainted. if the result of your ABC has to be interpreted by a priest or what ever the test is tainted.

The God of the bible works with people directly.

(December 6, 2019 at 4:43 pm)Drich Wrote:

(December 6, 2019 at 4:05 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: How do you test a religion? Especially one from another? Promises are a vague thing, but whatever.

All relgions have a quid pro quoe. you do ABC the deity provides XYZ..

Find out the ABC do it and see what happens.

If the ABC has to happen through and indivisual/preist whatever then the test is tainted. if the result of your ABC has to be interpreted by a priest or what ever the test is tainted.

The God of the bible works with people directly.

But a lot of gods (notably the Greek franchise) work directly with people.  And - based on the stories - sometimes came through for them in a pretty stunning fashion.

Boru

I've never gotten the conflict between the Bible and evolution. So God created a man out of dust and breathed life (or a soul?) into him. If you're not committed to it happened in an instant like magic, evolution gets you from dust (microbes) to people. The Catholics are (officially) fine with evolution being 'how God did it' starting the clock for being human at the point when God added souls. If Catholics can reconcile the Bible and evolution, evangelicals ought to be able to pull it off too.

(December 6, 2019 at 6:07 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I've never gotten the conflict between the Bible and evolution. So God created a man out of dust and breathed life (or a soul?) into him. If you're not committed to it happened in an instant like magic, evolution gets you from dust (microbes) to people. The Catholics are (officially) fine with evolution being 'how God did it' starting the clock for being human at the point when God added souls. If Catholics can reconcile the Bible and evolution, evangelicals ought to be able to pull it off too.

Well, that's the issue, isn't it? An alarmingly large number of Christians are committed to interpreting the Bible in a totally literal way, thereby forcing them to assume that Adam truly was, literally, born of dust. The Bible doesn't say that he eventually came from dust and evolved into other things that evolved into other things that eventually became a man.... he was made from dust, in god's image. Plain and simple.

Oh please do Slavery.

(December 6, 2019 at 12:51 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: You have very nice handwriting.

Boru

I feel you fall short in complimenting Drich.

He has a very soothing, narrating voice. Not quite Orson Wells but nice.

His choice of colors provides good contrast.

The cut of the construction paper suggests the use of rounded scissors, thus making a statement of non-violence.

He makes an honest attempt to answer critiques of Genesis - even if that attempt is at the level of a 5-year-old.

It's a good start.

(December 7, 2019 at 2:25 am)AFTT47 Wrote: He makes an honest attempt to answer critiques of Genesis - even if that attempt is at the level of a 5-year-old.

It's a good start.

He's on a sinking ship; evangelical Christian fundamentalism is in decline.

(December 9, 2019 at 11:35 am)Drich Wrote: Again Gen 1 shows man outside of the Garden and he was not said to be made of dust. He is said to be made in the image of God... From that it is possible he evolved.

Chapter 2 was a garden only narrative and a specific person Adam was created from mud and fast tracked into a fully developed homosapien. As such his given a soul.

And who is to say which creation story we're to give credence to? In the time that Genesis was written, it's said there was no need for consistency in story-telling; that the narrative was more than just a linear recounting of events. But does that hold up today? I'd say not. If we're to take the creation story as literal, then which one was it? Was it Chapter One or Chapter Two that defined the true creation? Or are we not to take the creation story as literal? And in that case, why pay it any attention at all, as scientific thinkers? Surely, if you're interested in understanding that period of time, the stories in Genesis can provide something for you. But if you're looking for an account of things that actually happened, is Genesis helpful at all?

That's the real question at the bottom of all of this.