Parts of the Bible theists on this board ignore

[orangebox21]

However the bible "calls a Christian to live" is a non-issue. The problem arises when a given Christian starts using scripture to justify their hatred of my friends and family from one line in a book they don't take any other commandment seriously from, or violate every rule stipulated on avoiding damnation, and use my apistavism as the #1 reason I can't judge their lack of moral fortitude.

So your issue is that you see great hypocrisy in certain Christians? (could you please define 'apistavism' so I can fully understand you post).

Agreed. I can disagree with 95% of what you have to say, but respect your fortitude. I don't understand one part of why you think your beliefs are opposed to science, because I honestly do not think you don't understand why science does not contradict any of your beliefs, outside of biblical literalism, at all,

Often when a creationist argues agains evolution it gives the impression that he/she opposes science. This is unfortunate and generally speaking untrue. I do not oppose science, I oppose the theory of evolution. Much like any scientist who would challenge a scientific theory wouldn't be said to be opposing science, but rather it would be understood he/she opposed one specific theory.

or why abiogenesis should be taken for anything other than proof that God created man "from dirt."

That's a good point, I've never really thought of it that way. It's probably because I've never seen abiogenesis divorced from evolution. Generally speaking if we agree that the definition of abiogenesis is living material coming from non-living material I would agree that abiogenesis could be a scientific term used to describe God creating man from dust. One difference lies in where the credit is given. Creationists would say that abiogenesis is the term used to define the observation of God creating living material from non-living material (man from dust). The evolutionist would say that abiogenesis is the term used to define non-living material becoming living material through natural processes. One credits a creator, the other natural processes, or nature. Another difference is the timeline of abiogenesis and the Biblical account of creation. Given that abiogenesis (as a non-creationist scientist term) would end with a cell (and I realize there may be scientific debate over what the smallest unit of "life" is), abiogenesis (as a creation scientist term) would end with a full grown man. How are these differences reconciled?

If any part of scripture can be used to shame the nonbeliever, those same scriptures should be equally applicable to those who claim to live by them.

If I understand you correctly I would agree, scripture applies to us all. Although I hope you would agree not equally applicable in all circumstances. For example you wouldn't say that scriptures that give promises to believers would be also giving those same promises to unbelievers.

An omniscient being would have known the extent of Abraham's faith without having to test it by asking Abraham to sacrifice his child. He already knew the outcome by definition.

I agree that God did know the extent of Abraham's faith, Abraham however did not.

---

1 Kings 22:23
Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
2 Chronicles 18:22
Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.
Jeremiah 4:10
Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.
Jeremiah 20:7
O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.
Ezekiel 14:9
And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.
2 Thessalonians 2:11
For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.


In addition, any instance where a supposedly omniscient being "changed his mind" is also by definition, lying:

Exodus 32:14
14 So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

---