(March 8, 2012 at 4:12 am)chipan Wrote: You don't understand what every refers to.

Yes he does, every means every. If it were as you said, there would be a qualifier but there is none, just the word every.

(March 8, 2012 at 4:12 am)chipan Wrote: When he said every animal he meant every kind of animal. He obviously did not mean every animal that exists today because they are being reproduced.

WTF, does anyone understand that this is an admission by chiapet that he accepts evolution? Not what he calls microevolution but full bore speciation or what the apologist crew calls macroevolution. Small steps chiapet, a long journey begins with just one small step. Now take the next ones.

(March 8, 2012 at 9:21 am)Phil Wrote: Maybe you should tell Undeceived the retard that if faith were reasonable or logical it would be called reason or logic. Last time I checked faith is called neither.

Thanks. That's what I was trying to get across. Faith is "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it". It not only has nothing to do with reason but it's a rejection of reason.

After all, if Jesus left proof of his divinity, it would require no faith to believe it any more than it would require faith to know the sky is blue or water is wet. And then where would Jesus be? He'd have no way of testing our faith on this world and thus no basis to decide who to torture for all eternity. DUH!

Apologetics is inherently hypocritical. It's trying to find reasons to believe what should be believed without reason and against all reason.

William Lane Craig said it best when he said the testimony of the Holy Spirit is such that he would continue to believe no matter how much evidence to the contrary was shown to him. What a shame he can't stop there and he has to indulge in the hypocrisy of pretending there are reasons to believe what he does.

(March 8, 2012 at 10:10 am)YahwehIsTheWay Wrote: Thanks. That's what I was trying to get across. Faith is "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it". It not only has nothing to do with reason but it's a rejection of reason.

After all, if Jesus left proof of his divinity, it would require no faith to believe it any more than it would require faith to know the sky is blue or water is wet.

Tell that to the christoholics, if there were any evidence then there would be no need for faith. So any attempt by a christoholic or even a plain vanilla, middle of the road, non-fundamentalist Christian to claim any evidence for Jesus or the teachings attributed to him stems from a very shaky or insecure faith .

(March 8, 2012 at 4:12 am)chipan Wrote: Don't tell me how my faith is. Matthew 7:1.

I'm not judging you. I'm telling you. Apologists don't write what they do to convert anyone. The Hellbound laugh at what they write. And why shouldn't they? Apologists are playing in the atheist's court, trying to use all that logic and science when all the answers we need are in the Bible.

They write for those wavering in their faith. Ask any atheist who used to be a so-called Christian and they'll tell you that Strobel was their last stop before their apostasy became official. They weren't True Christians ™ or they never would have wavered. Therefore, those who are now wavering and relying upon apologetics as a crutch for their faith are also not True Christians ™.

Don't get mad. Show me where my logic is wrong.

Quote:Being saved allows us to sin without losing salvation but it does not give us a right to sin. Ephesians 4:26. Matthew 5:29-30. Saying salvation gives us right of passage to sin all we want is blasphemy. I agree that sin is inevitable, but that doesn't mean we should live sinfully.

Martin Luther, the founder of one branch of Protestantism, once wrote "God does not work salvation for fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin vigorously.... Do not for a moment imagine that this life is the abiding place of justice; sin must be committed. ...Sin cannot tear you away from him [Christ], even though you commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many murders."

Christianity teaches us that we are wretched sinners, unworthy of God's love. This is why we deserve it if God tortures us for all eternity. It's kind of like the love that a wife-beater has for his spouse. God can set us on fire and then say "see what you made me do" and we must feel it is our fault. Praise the sweet name of Jesus. But I digress.

How can such fatalistic ideas of our own nature promote any serious efforts for self-improvement? Plus we have such an easy out. All we have to do is believe in the redemptive power of bloody sadistic sacrifice that was performed 2000 years ago and it's all good.

Quote:@YahwehIsTheWay
Just to be clear, I am not trying to be high and mighty nor am I trying to demean you. I am just correcting because I can't stand for false representation of Christianity.

You can't demean what the Lord has exhaled with His grace. I'm a True Christian ™ because I base my beliefs on the Bible, the Holy Bible and nothing but the Bible so help me God. If I make you mad, just remember where my beliefs come from and what you're really criticizing.

(March 8, 2012 at 10:10 am)YahwehIsTheWay Wrote: Thanks. That's what I was trying to get across. Faith is "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it". It not only has nothing to do with reason but it's a rejection of reason.

After all, if Jesus left proof of his divinity, it would require no faith to believe it any more than it would require faith to know the sky is blue or water is wet. And then where would Jesus be? He'd have no way of testing our faith on this world and thus no basis to decide who to torture for all eternity. DUH!

Apologetics is inherently hypocritical. It's trying to find reasons to believe what should be believed without reason and against all reason.

William Lane Craig said it best when he said the testimony of the Holy Spirit is such that he would continue to believe no matter how much evidence to the contrary was shown to him. What a shame he can't stop there and he has to indulge in the hypocrisy of pretending there are reasons to believe what he does.

Christians use reason too, just the Holy Spirit's reason instead of mankind's. The more you know Jesus, the more logical the Bible becomes. We never fully understand it, so we have to take it on faith with the Holy Spirit's help. If Christianity had no reason at all it would be called wishful thinking. It's not that you simply throw out contrary evidence. It's that, once you believe and put on spiritual goggles, you see the contrary evidence is nothing but lies. Apologetics is about eliminating hindrances that prevent people from finding faith--say, they read about God's love but want to ensure the verses about it were never altered.

Phil Wrote:WTF, does anyone understand that this is an admission by chiapet that he accepts evolution? Not what he calls microevolution but full bore speciation or what the apologist crew calls macroevolution. Small steps chiapet, a long journey begins with just one small step. Now take the next ones.

No, you don't see my point. I believe all the kinds of animals were created then. The only change would be variety of kinds such as a wolf and many kinds of dogs had a common ancestor. What I was saying is no animal back then is alive today and there are more animals in the wold today then back then. So obviously when he said "every" he did not mean every animal that exists today or even in Moses' time. He meant every kind of animal was made back then. Then he made at least 2 of every kind again for the garden so Adam could name them (no specific number is given).

(March 8, 2012 at 6:52 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Christians use reason too, just the Holy Spirit's reason instead of mankind's.

If that is the case, why does the Holy Spirits reason come out of the mouth of mankind in so many various forms. Is it inconsistent or badly susceptible to inaccurate interpretation.

Quote:The more you know Jesus, the more logical the Bible becomes. We never fully understand it, so we have to take it on faith with the Holy Spirit's help. If Christianity had no reason at all it would be called wishful thinking.

Maybe its rude to point out... but it already was wishful thinking. Nothing here displays reason, just faith and personal conviction.

Quote:It's not that you simply throw out contrary evidence. It's that, once you believe and put on spiritual goggles, you see the contrary evidence is nothing but lies.

If that was true, then it would not be evidence. I don't see how you relate "not throwing out contrary evidence" and dismissing it in the same sentence as lies.
Maybe your definition of lies and evidence differs on some magnitude to mine perhaps.

Quote:Apologetics is about eliminating hindrances that prevent people from finding faith--say, they read about God's love but want to ensure the verses about it were never altered.

So apologetics is about attempting to make the the inconsistencies just bearable enough and for long enough, for someone to delude themselves enough for personal conviction to take over and not worry about them any more.

Damn, that's the most sinister thing I've read all day.

I apologise if I clearly must have read that wrong.......... but damn.

Quote: I'm not judging you. I'm telling you. Apologists don't write what they do to convert anyone. The Hellbound laugh at what they write. And why shouldn't they? Apologists are playing in the atheist's court, trying to use all that logic and science when all the answers we need are in the Bible.

No, apologetics is specifically about the bible which is not in their court. Arguing science such as evolution, and cosmology (which I've done) is playing in their court.

Quote: Martin Luther, the founder of one branch of Protestantism, once wrote "God does not work salvation for fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin vigorously.... Do not for a moment imagine that this life is the abiding place of justice; sin must be committed. ...Sin cannot tear you away from him [Christ], even though you commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many murders."

Christianity teaches us that we are wretched sinners, unworthy of God's love. This is why we deserve it if God tortures us for all eternity. It's kind of like the love that a wife-beater has for his spouse. God can set us on fire and then say "see what you made me do" and we must feel it is our fault. Praise the sweet name of Jesus. But I digress.

I'm unfamiliar with your quote from Martin Luther but I imagine he meant that you should not be shameful of your sin but you shouldnt try to sin either. Regardless, Martin Luther was a revolutionary, not a prophet. We show our love for Jesus by keeping his commandments (John 14:15). You think it is fun to sin? If you had good wisdom, you would know that nothing in this world matters. When we die, all we get to take with us is our hearts. Gold, silver, good drinking times... They all don't matter. We need to live for God and obviously God does not approve of our sin. Its like if you have a wife and you have a drinking problem and she will stay with you regardless but she tells you she would like it if you; what do you do? If you tell her you don't want to stop how do you think she will feel about you compared to you saying "I'll try"? There are many who believe faith is all you need and you don't need to bother with works which is wrong. There are those on the other side who say you must repent and do no more and if you still sin you never truly repented. They are wrong too. I'm in the middle. I say salvation is free but if we don't change after salvation, something's wrong. Works comes naturally. You should despise sin, not say "I can sin all I want because I'm saved."

(March 8, 2012 at 9:54 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(March 8, 2012 at 4:12 am)chipan Wrote: You don't understand what every refers to. When he said every animal he meant every kind of animal. He obviously did not mean every animal that exists today because they are being reproduced. He made every kind of animal that existed, then he made every kind of animal again on the sixth day after Adam and before Eve.

But the Bible doesn't say "every KIND of animal" now does it? It says "every animal". You're inserting words to make it mean what you want it to mean. I just read what's actually there.

And I'm STILL waiting for you to answer the part about Job and the stars that weren't made yet that sang when the earth was made. I think this is request #4?

Actually, in Gen. 7 ( which is the second version of the story for the shitheads who insist there are no contradictions in their holy horseshit)
it says:

Quote:2Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Not any more or less stupid than the other version but just shows that this 'god' can't get his story straight.

(March 8, 2012 at 6:52 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Christians use reason too, just the Holy Spirit's reason instead of mankind's.

There is no such thing as The Holy Spirit.

Quote:The more you know Jesus, the more logical the Bible becomes.

The more you're indoctrinated, the more the indoctrination material makes sense to you.

Quote:If Christianity had no reason at all it would be called wishful thinking.

What a coincidence. That's exactly what I call it.

Quote:It's not that you simply throw out contrary evidence. It's that, once you believe and put on spiritual goggles, you see the contrary evidence is nothing but lies.

Translation: "La la la la la la la. I'm not listening!"

Quote:Apologetics is about eliminating hindrances that prevent people from finding faith--say, they read about God's love but want to ensure the verses about it were never altered.

I've yet to meet a single Christian that found faith through apologetics. The arguments of apologetics are unconvincing or even laughable to those who are not indoctrinated.

For example, yes, the scriptures WERE altered over time. A prominent example is Mark 16, his resurrection account. One would think the Christians would have gotten that story right the first time.

---

(March 8, 2012 at 7:00 pm)chipan Wrote: No, you don't see my point. I believe all the kinds of animals were created then. The only change would be variety of kinds such as a wolf and many kinds of dogs had a common ancestor.

Did you know that dogs don't exist in nature? They're the result of artificial selection (that is, they were bred from wolves).

Quote:What I was saying is no animal back then is alive today and there are more animals in the wold today then back then. So obviously when he said "every" he did not mean every animal that exists today or even in Moses' time. He meant every kind of animal was made back then. Then he made at least 2 of every kind again for the garden so Adam could name them (no specific number is given).

1. Can you define "kind" for me?
2. You do know that two of a given species isn't enough to sustain a species for more than one generation, right? After all, who do their children breed with? Each other?

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about Job!