Johnny Skeptic

You are missing the main issue. The main issue is that since God is not a moral being according to his own standards, which means that he is a hypocrite, moral people are not able to accept him. You would not be able to love God is he told lies, proving that risk assessment has nothing whatsoever to do with it, but yet you ask people to love a God who has committed numerous atrocities that are much worse than lying is. Is it your position that God has never done or allowed anything that is morally worse than lying is? You would never be able to love any being who did what God sometimes does and allows. Why is that?

God could not possibly have instituted a judicial system to protect the innocent. If he wanted to protect innocent people he would protect innocent women from rapists, and protect innocent people from being injured and killed in automobile accidents that are not their fault.

What system has God instituted to protect innocent people from himself? I discuss this issue in detail in my post #646.

It appears that you do not know what the Bible is, or rather was. The Bible was a group of ORIGINAL writings, none of which exist today. No one knows which writings originally comprised the Bible, how often the original writings have been changed, and whether the writings that were chosen to be in the Bible were chosen by men using their own judgment, or by God.

Are you aware that if one of your chief desires is to reveal yourself to people, requiring faith greatly limits the number of people who will become aware of your existence?

Angra Mainyu

While the “punishment” would be, in fact, a relief, from your perspective, it seems it should be considered a punishment, since those people will be tortured forever in Hell.

So, why would you oppose leaving them alone?
As far as you know, they will have what’s coming to them: eternal torment, and that will be another example of Biblegod’s infinite justice.

Of course, in reality, they would be much better off and will not go to Hell, but again, you believe that they will go to Hell, so why oppose?


While her idea cannot actually be implemented as a law, I see no reason why people with beliefs similar to yours couldn’t leave gay people alone, on those grounds.

If your argument is that God wants to execute them, so that they go to Hell immediately, you’ll have to concede that you’re in favor of the execution of gay people – something I thought you have already conceded to, but now I have the impression you might be reconsidering (sorry if I misread).

Berggy

Just because you have the capacity to die doesnt mean that its evil or immoral. Christ calls is sleeping, because death is not the end of all things. God made these things the way they are because thats the way they were made, but your equating danger and death to be evil simply because its not "positive" or "happy" aspects of life, because its the opposite in an equation to where you only wish to experience one side.

You cannot have one without the other just as you cannot have light without darkness or hot without cold. Its natural law. Even more so, punishment is not the same as murder.

You are "still" responsible for bringing them into a world to where they could experience either physical or emotion pain. You either reproduce, or not. THerefore, you are just as much responsible if your going to say that just because there are these things in the world, that God themselves are responsible.

Oh, I see, so because God created a world to where human beings could choose to do what they will, which would lead to suffering if they so decided to do, then that is wrong. Ahh, that basically amounts to God creating mind-less automatons. So its better to create a robot than to create human beings with the capacity for good or evil and to hurt or to please.

I see, so robot, which cannot choose their own path, will do only as their specific programming will allow, therefore, God would have had to make them to where they could only feel or do this and that eliminates everything from the equation and therefore, existence is pointless.

It doesnt matter if they knew or not that a specific thing such as an earthquake would hit their area. They chose to live there, so they must "accept" whatever consequences that may arise whethor they knew about them or not, from the invading of another people to conquer them, or from the scarcity of food because they didnt scout the land properly, or from techtonic pressures of the crust shifting around beneath them.

Alright, fine, your definition of "evil" only refers to "intentional" actions. I suppose that suffering and imperfection, from your definition, would be that which results from "evil" intentional actions.

Therefore, according to this concept, it would be evil for a man to point a gun to a child and pull the trigger, because it would kill the child and cause the child's relatives pain and suffering, that what the man did was "Evil".

Alright, God created all life on the planet, created the laws of the universe and put mankind onto this planet as well. This includes the ability to feel physical and emotional pain. Therefore, because God allowed people to be able to feel such a thing, their actions are considered "evil" because that would mean that the human beings would inevitable feel suffering and pain from the actions of creating them capable of feeling such a thing.

My response to this is that the ability to feel pain and suffering is not the same as intentionally causing suffering and pain. Have the ability to feel bruises within your body or a broken bone is not the same as me punching you intentionally, to cause either breakage of your bones or causing you bruises. There is a difference.

THe difference in morality is defined by people who intentionally do things that hurt other people, such as murderers, rapists, theives, con artists and liars. However, just because the potentional for such things are there does not warrant evil because evil is the result of deliberate actions, which in turn will cause pain and suffering.

This is why the Bible contains God's Laws. They are there to define such things that are fair and just and unfair and unjust, so that evil-doeers, those that harm others because of direct actions either out of malice or selfish-ness, are punished accordingly.

The key word there is the word "perfect". You are defining the word "perfect" by presenting a situation that is entirely un-applicable to what the Bible states and to what we have as the natural laws of the universe. It is also modified by what you feel it should be.

A universe can be perfect in the laws that govern it simply because thats the way things were meant to be created. You have light, you have dark, you have hot, you have cold, you have the ability to feel pain, you have the ability to feel pleasure. There are always two sides to the equation - you cannot have one without the other.

Even more so, the Bible defines what Good is by God's Law. God does not contradict their own law and their nature is defined by it.

Knowing the language of something doesnt mean that you are defining, yourself, what you are reading.

1 John 3:4: Whosoever sinneth transgresseth the law; for sin is the transgression of the law.

This verse doesnt need to be interpreted to find out what "sin" is according to the Biblical definition. For you to say that you cant read anything without you yourself interpreting it is one of the most absurd notions that I have ever heard.

You are grasping at straws to keep from acknowledging the fact that is can be quite clear that something is saying something without "you" defining it for yourself when the person or thing is already defining it for you.

Even more so, I would debate any of this people concerning what the Bible states about homosexuality and I would win, because I have "evidence". Let me say that again - "evidence", that "proves" what the Bible clearly states concerning such a thing.

That is the difference - prove against supposition and "personal" interpretation.

The Catholics used the Bible to justify saying what they say about their own church, so because of that, if you show that their roots for what they say and teach about themselves is wrong, then they are wrong and not right.

Secondly, there are "differences" between what these people teach concerning Christ and what I can prove from the Bible of what it actually states. Their Christ taught that you dont have to keep God's Law in order to be a Christian and have Eternal Life. I can prove from the Bible that Christ DID teach that you have to keep God's Law in order to follow him and have Eternal Life.

Therefore, that is the difference. Its based upon "proof", not blind faith and/or personal interpretation.

My position on that is defined by who Christ stated to go to in what is called "The Great Commission", which was to go to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, but that is another subject.

No, by creating, God introduced a "choice" that people have to make, whether to follow God or not. The creation of having the ability to die or experience pain has nothing to do with so-called perfection. Its what we have in this world. You need to have sides of the equation to truly see how and why about those two same sides. You need the cycle of life and death to appreciate death or even life. You need pain to appreciate pleasure, you need illumination from the sun, to know and understand and see the darkness. You have God's Law to define what is Good and therefore, what is evil and therefore, that defines how you are going to be in this world.

The thing is though, you wouldnt know the difference between pain and suffering if you didnt have pleasure or luxury. You moan about one side of the equation and call God evil, but dont take into consideration that you would never know what that is if you didnt have the opposite.

You "cannot" know what things are without having their opposite to show you the reverse. Since you cannot know or have pain without knowing or having pleasure, you cannot be biased towards pleasure and say that pain is evil. Your arguement is biased and lop-sided.

No, God didnt specifically single out suffering, pain and evil and imperfection when they created everything. You got both at the same time. Because you are able to experience joy, you cannot know what that is without being able to experience pain. You cannot have a one-sided equation here.

It results in credibility if you can "prove" such a thing. From the way your talking, you are obviously under the impression that its not possible for the Bible to state what it states and therefor proove beyond a shaodow of a doubt what it speaks about a given thing.

However, you wouldnt mind sitting there and telling me that you can prove that Atheism and Agnosticism are two completely different beliefs. Why should I be able to say that its according to "your" interpretation when its so obviously not because there is proof to the contrary?

I cant. Therefore, if I can proove that the Bible states what it states, regardless of what people want it to say, then that lends enormous amounts of credibility to its.

It would be any type of homosexual relations between either male/male and woman/woman.

Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE

taken from www.m-w.com

Evolution is the convoluted attempt of scientists to explain the the origin of the species because they are not willing to acknowledge the creation account of the Bible "BECAUSE" they have not studied it and completely and utterly proven it wrong.

Through their ignorance, they teach that the Bible is un-scientific and because of that, they labor to show differently.

Also, when I speak of "Evolution", I speak of macro-evolution, not micro-evolution.

Humans have all the characteristics of sentient intelligence and they are able to choose in any given circumstance and/or situation based on a number of factors that must be considered. Ergo, animals are unable to do so. They may have aspects/qualities that are similar to humans, but they are "not" humans.

You have no evidence to say that the writers of the Bible interpreted anything previous before writing it down.

It wouldnt be the same because you must consider the entire result of the equation as with the equation itself. Homosexuality between two men never results in the propogation of the species. It results in sexual pleasure based in lust that is with the unnatural use of human sexuality.

Man + woman = together, true sexual potential to genuine re-production. Female = Male counterpart and vice versa.

Anyone who looks at a human male and a female, analyzing all components involved can plainly see that they go together, just like they can for a male and female of any other species.

Anyone who puts two females side by side (or males if you prefer) with the context that they have seen of male + female, can see on how they do not go together. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the sexual factor between these equations is that its supposed to be between a man and woman.

Animals may do things that are in the realm of homosexuality, but that is because they are animals. They are not humans. Humans "know" the difference and they have lusts within them that suggests the posibility of acting in a homosexaul manner, even though they see the natural thing to do, which is be with the opposite sex. They "choose" to act upon them to fulfill those lusts and therefore, decide to commit an act that they know is not natural, but for their own lusftul and sexual gratification.

It resides completely within the fact that human beings can specifically reason, deliberate, "think" and can make an informed descision concerning any action that they might take. They can choose a moral code that they can live their life by or they can choose to go with their instincts. This is the seperation between humans and animals. Therefore, when in regards to humans, it is unlawful, but there is no such law dictating the difference between animals, for the law concerning homosexuality is found on a intellectual basis and not an instinctual one.

With the question concerning masturbation; that equals self sexual gratification, not between a member of the same sex.

I think we should both be pefectly clear on the manner. I think I might have led to you believing something that I didnt mean to have you believe; I contend that there are two creation accounts within the Bible concerning the planet and the universe. I contend that the Bible states that the planet and the universe was created as a whole, first, in the beginning, and then was "re-created" or "reformed/repaired" afterwards in seven literal days, as stated in Genesis 1:1-31.

If you are prepared to take this challenge, then lets do it

I would say that the first step in this process is to show that the BIble doesnt contradict science, yes?

No, it would be "your" fault. First you must establish what laws exist in the universe that can be proven scientifically. Then, once those have been established, you then start looking for evidence in the different books of the different religions that the God that the profess doesnt contradict science. That would be the first step and then it would go from there

If you have seen more than enough to show that its wrong, then lets have a formal debate about it, so all the evidence that you supposedly have can be brough to the table in a concise manner, to where there can be no more intrustions and/or interruptions and I can then bring my evidence.

Ive started to, yes. I have a copy of the Quran at home, which I find interesting and I have been looking at Evolution online. I have not studied that as much, but it is a continual process as you would imagine

Oh, I see. Willful ignorance is much more bliss-full than being knowledgable.

You can teach a lie without knowing that it is a lie. That is not a contradiction. If someone knows the truth of a matter but teaches the opposite of that truth to other people and keeps doing it until those people believe that person and then they go out and teach the same lie that they were taught - that makes them responsible for teaching lies, although they were ignorant about it.

"Mistaken"? Oh, Im sorry, is the word "lie" too much of a mouthful? Beliefs cannot be a mistake unless you can prove that they are wrong. If someone teachs me Judaism while being familiar with the subject, but claims it comes from the Quran, although it can be proven that it doesnt, that is not a mistake, it is a lie.

It depends on the situation. If your talking about killing a gay person because he stole something, then no. If your talking about killing a gay person because he slapped a woman in the face, no. If your talking about killing a gay person because he murdered someone else cold blood, then yes.

If your talking about executing gay people because of their choice to act sexually unlawful, which is a by-product of acting in a manner contrary to natural sexual relations between humans, then no, I wouldnt. Its unnatural, its evil and evil should be destroyed.

No, this is proof of what I have stated in context. You call it interpretation, but the "fact" of the matter is, this is the truth of what the Bible states concerning this matter for there is "no evidence" to show to the contrary.

No, this would not be indisputable evidence that the BIble is wrong, it would be indisputable evidence that everyone at one time has "chosen" to comitt sin as sin is a choice. You "choose" whether or not to steal. You "choose" whether or not to murder someone else. You "choose" whether or not your going to keep God's Law or not. Sin is a choice, not an inevitability and those who contend otherwise only wish to name it so to demonize and call the Bible a lie because they have no evidence to the contrary that proves differently.

I dont have a "personal" interpretation of the Bible. I let the Bible define its own terminology. I let the Bible define its own context.

As with regards to your questions, I already gave you my answer. My answer is what the Bible states. If you are refuse to let the Bible tell you what it states on its own, then that is your problem, not mine.

Johnny Skeptic

Well sure you do. You believe that hell does not exist in the afterlife. Rhutchin and millions of other Christians disagree with you. Millions of Christians do not believe that the stories of Adam and Eve, the global flood, and the plagues in Egypt, actually happened. Martin Luther did not believe that the book of Revelation belongs in the Bible. The Roman Catholic Bible contains books that Protestant Bibles do not contain.

But didn't Adam and Eve have one without the other before they ate the forbidden fruit? If Adam and Eve had never sinned, which must have been God's desire, and if they never had children, and were the only two people that ever lived, they would not have had a balanced equation. In such a case, what in the world would they have had to talk about in a perfect world with no good days to compare against bad days?

That is false. After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, by genetics or by some other means, God ensured that everyone must commit sins at least some of the time by passing down a sinful nature to all successive generations. Otherwise, some people would be perfect and would not need to become saved.

Animals never sinned. Why does God injure and kill some of them with hurricanes, and allow some of them to starve to death? Why doesn't God protect women from rapists? Why doesn't God protect people from having automobile accidents that are not their fault?

You claim that there isn’t any credible evidence that God creates hurricanes, and created the bacteria (Bubonic Plague) that killed one fourth of the people in Europe? Well, who do you suppose originally created the weather? Who do you suppose controls the weather today? Who do you suppose created microorganisms? If the Devil created the Bubonic Plague, who gave him the power to do it? Who do you suppose created the Ten Plagues in Egypt, one of which killed all of the firstborn males in Egypt? Some of the firstborn males must have been young children, right? You said that there is not any evidence that God killed unborn children and babies at Sodom and Gormorrah. Are you suggesting that people at Sodom and Gomorrah might have stopped having sex? Are you suggesting that God did not kill many thousands of unborn children and babies in the global flood, or should I say the mythical global flood?

But you do not know what the Bible is, or rather was. The Bible was a collection of ORIGINAL writings, none of which survive today. No one knows which writings originally comprised the Bible, how many times the original writings have been changed, and whether the writings were chosen by God, or by men based upon their own personal preference.

There is most certainly not enough evidence if it is God's desire to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. Surely God is able to convince more people to people Christians but refuses to do so. It is a question of how badly he wants people to go to heaven and not to hell.

It is not possible to reject a God unless you know that he exists. If the God of the Bible exists, the majority of the people in the world are not aware of it. Under our legal system, a man can be punished for breaking a law that he is not aware of, but no man can (or should) be sentenced to life in prison or death for breaking a law that he is not aware of. Millions of people are not certain whether or not at least one being exists who can instantly create a planet. If God has the power to do that, he could easily show up and demonstrate to everyone that he can do it. If he did do it, surely some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. It is question of how badly God wants people to go to heaven, and not to hell. Logically, spiritual AND tangible evidence are much more convincing than spiritual evidence alone. That is just plain old common sense. Many people would become Christians if God provided them with additional tangible evidence. In those cases, people reject Christianity out of ignorance of the facts, not out of rejecting what they know are the facts. I am not aware of any skeptic in the world who would not like to be 100% certain whether or not there is at least on being in the universe who is able to instantly create planets. If you want to convince people that you exist, the last thing that you would do is require faith. Requiring faith greatly limits the number of people who will believe that you exist.

In the first century, it is probable that no one who died in China had heard the Gospel message. That happened because God deliberately withheld the Gospel message from those people. This means that there was no way that Jesus gave the disciples the Great Commission. Human effort alone is a poor means of spreading the supposedly most important and helpful message in history. The Gospel message was spread by the grossly inefficient prevailing means of communication, transportation, printing, and translation, which is exactly what was to be expected if God does not exist. If you discovered a cure for cancer, if you we able to immediately provide it to everyone in the world, would you do so? Do you believe that spreading the Gospel message is more important than discovering and disseminating a cure for cancer?

Where is God today in tangible ways? What tangible benefits can you ask God for and be assured that you will receive? Do you believe that today, all tangible benefits are distributed entirely at random according to the laws of physics, or by God?

But you don't know what God's law is regarding homosexuality, only what the Bible writers say it is. That is one the problems that comes when a God uses human proxies to tell people what to do instead of telling them himself. It is not at all difficult to change the Bible. Today, it would be a simple matter for some skeptics to change parts of the Bible, take it to some remote jungle regions, and deceive at least a few people at least some of the time.

It is a well-established fact that the Bible in not inerrant. Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../4evide92.html

Farrell Till

Despite the editing process by which the canonical books were selected, the biblical text is still fraught with inconsistencies that make Mr. Miller's claim of "unequaled internal harmony" a myth that is believed only by gullible bibliolaters who haven't bothered to investigate the claim. As noted in an earlier article ("A Perfect Work of Harmony?" TSR, Spring 1990, p. 12), whoever wrote 2 Kings 10:30 obviously believed that Jehu's massacre of the Israelite royal family was the will of Yahweh, but the prophet Hosea just as obviously disagreed and pronounced a curse upon the house of Jehu to avenge the "blood of Jezreel" that Jehu shed in the massacre (Hosea 1:4). Apparently, the "inspired" prophets and biblical writers had their theological and political differences as much as modern-day religious leaders.

Any present day inerrantist would affirm with his dying breath that the book of Ezekiel was unquestionably inspired of God, yet the rabbis who made the canonical selection were of a different mind. A bitter controversy surrounded this book before it was finally selected for inclusion in the Hebrew canon. The rabbis were bothered by chapters 40-48, which contained information that was difficult to reconcile with the Torah. Ezekiel 46:6 is just one example of the problems the rabbis had to deal with in these chapters. Here Ezekiel said that the sacrifice for the new moon should consist of "a [one] young bullock without blemish, six lambs, and a ram," but the instructions for this same sacrificial ceremony in Numbers 28:11 stipulated two young bullocks, seven lambs, and a ram." The discrepancy or, if you please, lack of "internal harmony" is readily apparent to anyone who wants to see it.

At least it was apparent to the rabbis who had to decide whether the book should be considered canonical. According to Hebrew tradition, Rabbi Haniniah ben Hezekiah retired to a room with 300 "measures of oil" and worked day and night until he arrived at explanations that would "dispose of the discrepancies" (The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, Cambridge University press, 1970, p. 134). One wonders why such an undertaking as this was necessary to decide the canonicity of a book that exhibits "unequaled internal harmony." Could it be that Rabbi Haniniah ben Hezekiah was merely the Bible inerrantist of his day, who rather than accepting the face value of what was written spent several days searching for innovative interpretations that would make doctrinally embarrassing passages not mean what they obviously were intended to mean?

As an example of an "alleged" Bible contradiction that has been "successfully explained," let's just review one that was recently noted in "The Resurrection Maze" (TSR, Spring 1992, p. 13). According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Mary Magdalene was in the group of women who were told by angels at the empty tomb that Jesus had risen "even as he said," and Luke even said that when the women heard this, "they remembered his words" (24:9). Such statements as these (aside from the fact that Matthew even claimed that the women saw Jesus, held him, and worshipped him as they were running from the tomb to tell the disciples what they had seen, 28:9) definitely indicate that the women left the tomb convinced that Jesus has risen from the dead. Despite the clarity of these statements, John's account of the resurrection had Mary saying, after she had found the disciples, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him" (20:1).

Johnny: By the way, Farrell Till invites Christians to post their arguments about inerracy at the Skeptical Review. The Skeptical Review is at http://www.infidels.org/library/maga...sr/index.shtml. If you go there and participate in debates about inerrancy, you will get much more than you bargained for.

From a Christian perspective, there is no such thing as a natural disaster. If God created the earth, the weather, earthquakes, and tornados, he did so supernaturally.

It is evil for God to refuse to protect women from rapists, and to refuse to protect people from being killed in traffic accidents that are not their fault. Have you ever heard of negligence? We have laws against negligence. I assume that you approve of those laws. Loving humans try to prevent crime and traffic accidents. There is no evidence that God consistently prevents crime and traffic accidents, if at all. The simple truth is that Christians do not receive any more tangible benefits than anyone else does, often much less. One million people died of starvation in the Irish Potato Famine, most of whom were Christians. If you had been alive back then, if you had had enough food to feed those people, would you have fed them, or would you have conducted months of research to try to determine whether or not they were Christians? How could James possibly have known which Christians were brothers and sisters? Many people masquerade as Christians. The Bible tells Christians to help everyone, not just Christians.

Angra Mainyu

If you cannot have one without the other, then will people suffer and die after resurrection?
That aside, destroying a city and killing all its inhabitants because of their sexuality is mass-murder, and so is drowning everyone with a flood.

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah would count as mass-murder, regardless of the sexual orientation of their inhabitants. As for the Flood, would you also argue that God didn’t massacre children, babies, etc.?
No, if I brought them into the world, it would be a world in which they would experience pain, etc., but also happiness and positive things, and it’d be the only world I could bring them to. On the other hand, God could choose to bring people to a world in which they would not experience said suffering, but chooses the world with suffering instead.

No, what will lead to suffering and death in a lake of fire, is the fact that God will throw people there, not the actions of those people.


You are arguing that part of the blame resides on the people who lived there, even if they didn’t know and could not have known about the disaster. That seems to be an odd idea of “blame”.
They chose to live there… they had to live somewhere! And, by the way, not all of them chose to live there. Many had no choice (babies, children, refugees, etc.).

What would be evil would be the fact that God would have chosen to create a world in which people would so suffer, [b]when he had the alternative not to make it so[b].

Furthermore, it’s not only the capability for suffering pain, but He would make sure that pain occurs, and He would engage in mass-murder and genocide Himself – He’d kill most people by throwing them into a lake of fire.

Again, God put humans in the situation of suffering, where he had an option. Further, he Himself murders people who have done no harm to others, on account of their sexuality or their beliefs or a variety of things that shouldn’t result in punishment, let alone execution.


That answer doesn’t seem to address my point. Again, yes, if God existed, there could be one without the other. Before creation existed, that was the case.


Absurd as it may seem to you, my point stands. Again, whenever you read something, you’re interpreting it. However, in many cases, that goes unnoticed because most people with a certain cultural background (including, again, the language, knowledge of the references made in the text, etc.), will interpret the text similarly, so it’s reasonable to say that a given book “says” something.

However, that’s not always the case, and it’s clearly not the case when it comes to the Bible. But I’m repeating myself, as my previous argument should have been sufficient.

Of course, the verse you mention needs interpreting. Now, it is possible that that particular part of the Bible would lead to a similar interpretation by most readers (though some would argue about context, etc., but let’s say it does lead to a similar interpretation).

The fact remains that many other parts of the Bible do not share that property, and as a result, the Bible as a whole does not share that property. There are multiple interpretations, and in fact, in this thread, there seems to be almost as many different Christian interpretations of homosexuality and Christianity as there are Christians.

Yet, you have only replied to the arguments made by unbelievers. Other Christians have posted alternative views of homosexuality (namely, Gamera argued it’s not wrong, and rhutchin argued that they will burn for eternity in Hell), but you have not challenged them.

Of course, you don’t have to , but my point is, when Christians start challenging one another’s interpretations of the Bible, things tend to go on indefinitely. That is very clear, and history proves it: after two millennia! there seems to be little agreement on a variety of issues that pertain to Christian dogma(s).


Actually, Catholics use the Bible as one of the sources of dogma; it’s not the only source they use to justify what they say about their own church.


That depends on what “they” you’re talking about, as some of them require that you keep God’s Law (as interpreted by them), but others do not.

Again, you say you can prove it, but they make the same claims, and their views are different from one another and from yours. And again, two millennia and there’s still great disagreement, so it seems people have not been very successful at “proving” things.

Incidentally, can you point to some (known) Christian who, in your view, had what you consider to be the right interpretation, apart from you?

So you claim, and so each of them claims.

Maybe we could agree to disagree, because as I see it, my point stands.

Again, there’s no reason to believe so.
A person wouldn’t have to experience pain or death.
Consider the angels. Are they exposed to disease, hunger, natural disasters, aging, death, and death in a lake of fire? I think not.
Consider the people after resurrection. Did they all experience pain in their lives? What if they did in the womb, before they had pain receptors?
Consider God Himself. Does He have to experience pain, death, illness, etc.? If your argument is that He did, as Christ, I’d counter that God didn’t need that, so the answer would still be negative.

But the basic argument is of a different kind, and it’s what I explained earlier: God would be introducing all that, making the universe worse.

I refer you to my previous post and my previous arguments in this post.


Apart from the fact that the Bible states different things according to different readers (and again, that’s an easily verifiable fact), the fact is that if you can somehow “prove” that your interpretation is better (whatever that means), that neither suggests nor proves that it’s divinely inspired. Frankly, I see no connection between the two.


Again, I was asking for a definition of unnatural that would apply to other things, apart from homosexuality – a general definition, from which you would derive this particular case.

“Evolution” usually can refer to both the theory that explains how it occurs (i.e., the mechanisms of evolution), and the observable facts that it has, indeed, occur.
But that aside, your claim that scientists are wrong is simply that, a claim. Incidentally, they don’t need to study the Bible to know evolution. If they also read the Bible, then they know that the Bible is wrong.

If you want to prove that evolution is not science, well, you’d have to publish papers proving your claim. Further, if you want to prove that the Bible is right…actually, none of that is possible. Someone could claim that Quantum Mechanics or Relativity aren’t science, for that matter.

Your argument is merely an unsubstantiated claim, and a particularly bad one, since the evidence of evolution is overwhelming. But a moderator have asked not to discuss evolution/creation in this thread, so I’ll leave it there. If you want, I could post a couple of links.

The fact that humans are more intelligent than chimpanzees and bonobos doesn’t set them apart as “non-animals”. Bonobos are more intelligent than flies, yet they’re all animals.

In fact, humans are much more similar to chimps than chimps are to, say, flees.

Of course, I never claimed that other primates were humans, but that humans are animals.

Still, that’s beside the point. The argument is: homosexual intercourse naturally happens in nature. What’s your argument to conclude that it’s “unnatural”.


I was talking about the people who translated each of the current versions of the Bible.
My point was that the original texts may not have condemned homosexuality, but the translations may have changed that. Your argument is that “The translators condemned homosexuality becuase they knew that it was unnatural and completely against everything was designed for.”

Then, my question is: how did the translators knew?

If your argument is that the original books also condemned homosexuality in all cases, I would then accept that that is your interpretation, even though I’m not sure whether you have read the originals. However, I will point out that not all people would interpret the originals in the way you do or the translators of the currently most common translations did. For example: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

Man + woman over a certain age = no potential for reproduction.
Man + woman + condom + pill = almost zero potential for reproduction. And again, I should stress that the idea is to prevent reproduction.
Man + woman, a variety of sexual activities not including vaginal penetration = no potential for reproduction.

Man or woman, alone, no potential for reproduction.

Male + male, not humans, no potential for reproduction.
Female + female, not humans, no potential for reproduction.

And what’s the big deal about reproduction anyway?
In the vast majority of cases, people have sex with no intent to reproduce, and in fact, contraceptives are precisely to prevent reproduction.
So, why the emphasis again gay sex?

I disagree. Anyone can see that they cannot reproduce together…so?

And “supposed to be”, again presupposes that sex is “supposed to be” in a certain manner…supposed by whose decision?

But again, the point is, other animals do it. It’s natural.

The moral code based on which humans would refrain would be against their natural instincts. How can you argue that homosexuality is, then, unnatural?
If anything, it would seem to follow from this particular argument of yours that natural instincts are wrong (according to said moral code), and thus people should refrain from following them.

That’s precisely my point!

If homosexuality is “unnatural” because there is no potential for reproduction, then the same would apply to masturbation. Is it unnatural as well?

If not, if seeking sexual gratification is not unnatural, then why homosexuality?

Is self-masturbation natural, but masturbation by someone else, unnatural if they are of the same gender? What’s the basis for that?
Formal debates take a lot of time, since you’re the one making the claim, I think that you could make a proposal in the forum for formal debates proposals.

Also, in that case, someone with much more expertise on the issue might accept, in which case you’ll probably get much more interesting answers. Still, if no one else accepts, or if you prefer to debate with me, I’ll debate, as long as we make rules allowing some time to reply, since I might not have enough time everyday.

However, I have to say, there doesn’t seem to be much to debate: it’s a fact that the Earth wasn’t created in seven days, and I’m not a geologist, anyway, so I might have to simply post a couple of links, which won’t be much of a debate. Still, under the aforementioned stated conditions, I would debate.

I’m not sure it’s a necessary first step (If the Bible, in your interpretation, didn’t contradict science, then that wouldn’t prove that the God of the Bible exists. It would simply mean that one of the many interpretations of the Bible doesn’t contradict science).

That said, if you want to debate whether the Bible contradicts science first, that’s fine, and I think you’d find much better replies in the Evolution/Creation forum than in a formal debate with me (you oppose evolution, so you’ll find plenty of people willing to show that the Bible contradicts science - at least your interpretation of the Bible).

Still, if you prefer a formal debate, I guess you could start a thread on that too. If you can’t find a more knowledgeable and willing opponent, I’ll debate …though I won’t have time for more than one debate at a time, so if you’re going to argue that God created the world in seven days and that the Bible doesn’t contradict science, and I’m going to argue for the other side in both cases, one of the debates would have to wait until the other is over.

ETA: If you like formal debates, I just noticed a thread where an atheist is challenges Christians who would want to engage on such debates. He probably has sufficient time, and he's looking for a Christian to argue the points.

Anyway, I'll debate formally if you prefer, but I'll need some time between posts.

But there are many different religions and different interpretations. After studying them all… but I don’t have enough time in a lifetime to study them all. Even if I did, most Biblical interpretations I know do contradict science (Catholicism probably doesn’t, but that doesn’t make it probable; it fails for internal problems).
Now, you argue that I have to look at the Bible, not at what denominations say, and dedicate to it as much time and effort as a math student dedicates to math, etc. But again, I don’t have time to do that with all the religions – no one has –, and I cannot know beforehand which one is right. In fact, there’s no reason to believe any of them is right.
Again, those debates take a lot of time, and I’m not sure I’ll have enough time to adequately participate. Still, I’ll try if there are no other opponents or if you prefer to debate with me, but first we have to establish the basis for that debate.

I’ve seen why the Bible, according to a number of interpretations, doesn’t work. But I don’t know all the arguments against your interpretation, because I don’t know all of your interpretation. Still, I’d simply argue that it’s wrong because it consists in a number of claims with no evidence to back them other than the claims themselves. That alone makes it's likelihood zero.
No, the argument is that the people who never heard of the Bible, didn’t know that those actions were sins, yet Biblegod would through them into a lake of fire.

You said earlier, “If I can prove that one they were teaching is not what the Bible teaches, they they are lieing, whethor knowingly or unknowingly.”

Again, no one can lie unknowingly (by definition of lie) (see http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary, for example).

Now, you say that they’re unknowingly teaching a lie. Well, in the scenario you present, it would be a lie on the part of the original liar, not on the part of the others. In any case, they would not be responsible, unless they’ve been negligent – and even in that casa, they wouldn’t be responsible of lying.

No, the word “lie” is erroneous here, and frankly, if I were to use it, I’d have to say that you’re telling lies. But that would be a mistake too, as you seem to be sincere, so I’ll only say that you’re mistaken, and so are the other people who teach religion to their children.

As for the “proof”, the thing is, what you see as proof, they don’t, and vice verse. Assuming malicious intent on the other side is, in general, mistaken, even if you would get it right in some cases, by chance.

I’m not sure what you mean.

You would consider that killing gay people for murdering someone is murder, but killing them for stealing is not?

At first, I thought you meant to say that in the first two cases they shouldn’t be killed, to which I would reply that the first three cases are not related to homosexuality. My question was about killing gay people for their sexuality, as supported by the Bible, as interpreted by some.

However, by the rest of your reply, I’m not sure what to interpret.

Anyway, in the case I was talking about, you seem to believe it wouldn’t be murder to kill them, because of their “unnatural” behavior (which is clearly an invalid argument, as I’ve shown).

I hope you're not planning to kill any gay people as a way of destroying "evil".

Assuming it’s proof that the Bible says so, then we have evidence that the claim is wrong: no one has ever not become a sinner. Further, we can predict (based on the Bible), with certainty, that everyone will sin.

A law that everyone will certainly break, is clearly an undue burden and much more than what one could ask from a reasonable person.

Anyone has also chosen to drink water, out of their free will. Would it be fair to establish the death penalty to those who drink water or any hydrating beverage.

The fact is, if a law is such that everyone has broken it, and we can predict that everyone will break it, it’s clearly an absurd law that imposes an unacceptable burden on humans.

Incidentally, you have no evidence to prove the Bible, and I criticize the Bible on many, many different grounds. Your contention about the intent of other posters, myself included, that, “those who contend otherwise only wish to name it so to demonize and call the Bible a lie because they have no evidence to the contrary that proves differently” is baseless, and wrong.

I’m afraid that that still doesn’t answer my questions.
My questions were:

Would you support a law that would criminalize homosexuality?
If so, what should the punishment be, in your view, any why?
If not, why not? Should “evil” not be destroyed

Your first reply was:

Which version of Leviticus 20:13?
Would you accept KJV?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leviticus 20:13 (KJV) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Would it be correct to interpret that you think gay men should be put to death, or do you prefer another translation?
If you like this translation, do you interpret that it refers to all sexual acts between two men, or "as he lieth with a woman" imposes some restrictions, and in that case, which restrictions?

If you support killing all gay men (that's my impression for now), that would still not respond the question, with regard to gay women. Would you apply the same punishment, or not (and why)?

rhutchin

I am not sure that such is what djrafikie meant. If djrafikie believes in hell, then you are correct. If that is the case, then no one should favor such punishment. Who would be in favor of denying a person the knowledge of salvation. Those who do not believe in hell would favor this, but that would make the "punishment" a reward would it not?

I don't think anyone should die without knowing that which will happen to them. I am willing for any person to escape hell no matter what their sin.

I doubt that anyone who has some conception of hell would want to leave any sinner alone. No one should die not knowing what awaits them.

What is certain is that homosexuality is a sin that is punishable by eternal death (hell). In the OT, the law mirrored that punishment. The NT seems to have modified that punishment somewhat. Where the OT mirrored eternal death by requiring a punishment of physical death, the NT seems to mirror separation from God by requirirng separation from society. The purpose is to make it clear to the person who sins that there are terrible consequences from that sin.

rhutchin

I understand your argument to be that God is not a moral being according to Johnny Skeptic's standards, and this is based on the proposition that God lies. Regardless, you are free to exclude God from your heaven just as He is free to exclude you from His.

Angra Mainyu

I don’t know if that’s what she meant, and no, she doesn’t believe in Hell.
But it works. :devil3:

I’m not sure I can further clarify my argument, regarding how it works, so I’d have to refer you back to my previous response.

As for denying a person the knowledge of salvation, given that you seem to support the death penalty in a variety of cases, I didn’t think it’d be much of a problem.

Also, if Hell is a just punishment, then what’s the problem?

Do you oppose the death penalty, in all cases?
Anyway, if Hell is an acceptable punishment, and an example of perfect justice, why not let God handle the situation?

Why not, if Hell is acceptable?
What would be wrong with that?
You have to consider that we’re talking about people who have heard of Christianity: they just don’t believe.

If you use free will as an argument, and they want to be left alone, should they not have the right to make that choice?

It would not work, because shunning them from society will not make them straight or believers, so they would go to Hell for that reason anyway, if Hell existed.

Incidentally, if the OT punishment was execution, then how would they be given the chance to escape Hell?

Amaleq13

Discussions about evolution which are unconnected to biblical texts are inappropriate in this forum. Please take any such discussions to the appropriate venue.

Thanks in advance,

Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

Berggy

Murder does not equal punishment for a violation of Law

Oh really? Would executing a murderer be murder? I think not, it would be justice and punishment.

Oh, I see, so you wouldnt be to blame in this regard because "now" you take into equation the positive aspects life. I see, thats not a contradiction, is it? Yeah, really, because the point of this argument is to put the blame on God and not yourself.

Having a world to where you can experience emotional and/or physical pain is not evil as you have made it out to be. Its life, besides, as I have pointed out - you would never know the difference and therefore, because of this, your argument is invalidated.

You equate suffering to be the result of intentional evil actions, but then in order to cast entirety of blame onto God, you ignore the other aspects of life and only speak of them to suit your fancy. That shows you that you are inherently being biased. Thats not objective.


Oh, I see, so I bring into the equation the rest of what you do not talk about and then you immediately go back to this subject, from where, obviously, you have no idea the context of the situation.

Grasping for straws arent we?

If your going to be casting blame, then you have to include "all" aspects of any given situation. It doesnt matter if people are ignorant, people know that dangerous things can happen. Its part of life, but just because we have them doesnt mean that God is evil for creating a world where it can definately be a possibility.

To further my previous point - you wouldnt even know the difference between and so-called "natural disaster" if there wasnt anything to the contrary either. Therefore, in order to understand anything that might happen or to experience anything that might happen - you need to have both sides of the equation.

Those people wouldnt even know the difference without having the opposite of such said suffering to begin with. You wouldnt even know what your own definition of evil is if you didnt have something to compare it to, which means that all things must be compared to something else, which means that existence is meaningless and pointless if you create something with only just one side of the equation.

You cannot have gravity without objects to be pulled by such said gravity as you can neither have pleasure without pain to know the difference. Therefore, since you cannot know anything without knowing both sides, creation cannot be creation without both sides.

Therefore, God is not evil, God is God and creation is just that, creation. Evil would then be defined by Law.

Oh really? Let me put it to you this way - thats your "interpretation" Even more so, the harm to others is presenting a mentality and actions that completely defy morality as people know it to be deep within themselves. A murderer knows he/she is doing wrong, a theif knows they are doing wrong, a liar knows they are doing wrong

It answers your point perfectly, because it destroys the root of your argument because your arguement is based upon a definition of the word "perfect" that is not applicable to the situation.

Whenever I read something, I am interpreting it? That is simply not true and your adherance to such a fallible statement is completely mind-boggling. You say that whenever I read something that I cant let what Im reading tell me what it is. That is false.

You can read what Im typing now, but you know what I mean, you dont have to personally put your own explanation into what Im saying to find out what I mean. I say the execution of murderers is punishment for their crimes - there is no need for you to interpret that.

For you to say that there is is completely rubbish and is not true to the situation. Its a weak cop-out excuse to ignore the truth of the matter and that matter is that things can tell you what they are without "YOU" defining their words when they have already defined them.

Oh, I see, so here is the kicker. "You" are the one who says that it needs interpreting. Contextually, that means by people defining it themselves. That is your problem. You are not willing to believe nor even begin to show by your actions that the Bible can define itself.

You are ever so willing to believe in something else in this life to the contrary when it doesnt concern the Bible, for when it does, you immediately harp on "It needs to be interpreted by human beings, else you cannot understand what its saying!"

Not true. Words have meaning. Passages are defined by the context of the other passages - its called "studying".

You study math in school and you learn from everything combined what math is and how we arrive at it. Well Im going to say that its your interpretation. Math needs to be defined by you. 2+2 does not = 4 because math equations say it does, but because "you" or someone else says that it does.

Of course, I would laughed to scorn because it can be "proven" that 2+2 equals 4. Yet, when it comes to the Bible, you have a rediculous, absurd notion that it could never be the same thing when you are obviously ignoring the fact that words have meaning and therefore, given into the context fo letting the Bible define itself, that the BIble can state what it states without you putting your ideas into it.

Bottom-line - your being biased because its the Bible.

Oh really? Well, thats your "interpretation" and not fact. Therefore, what your saying is not true. Its your personal opinion.

Disagreement is not the same as proof that can be proven without people's biased personal interpretations of a Book that can prove by what it states alone, in context of its other scriptures, that it doesnt need your interpretation.

But oh, what a foreign concept when it concerns the BIble. Not so with other things, but just the Bible. Such rediculous non-sense.

It was the first source that they started from, with passage of Matthew 16:18. This is what started it all.

Oh really? I have evidence from scholarly books that have stood the test of time concerning the Hebrew and Greek Languages, the languages that the Law and the Prophets and the New Testament were originally written in. I have books that show me what the original text of the Bible states on the matter and because of that, it allows me to show forth evidence concerning the Bible and therefore, proof of what it states for a given matter.

I have this evidence and I use it to show the truth of the Bible. Thats the key.

And so "you" claim because "your" claim is based upon "your" interpretation on the matter because "you" have no evidence to state to the contrary anything of what I have said that I can prove from the BIble.

Your statements are based on convoluted attempts of saying there can be no proof because I have no evidence and then you try to shoot down the possibility of evidence by saying its my personal interpretation when it can be shown otherwise, but then you choose to ignore even that possibility of it not being my interpretation when the fact of the matter shows that with other things in the life, there is no personal interpretation that is required.

Your argument is circular, biased and one-sided.

Oh, lets introduce another subject into the equation! But then, based in context, you would consider what I say to be "personal interpretation", even though I could show from the Bible that its not.

Your arguements are completely circular. You want to bring in aspects of certain things from the BIble to try to prove a point but when I answer that point with "facts" that can be "proven", its "personal interpretation".

You have such a twisted, biased and lop-sided way of doing things.

You see no connection because you believe that things that people say concerning the Bible cannot possibly be proven, its on personal interpretation. You are hinging yourself into a corner when it concerns the Bible and when anyone would give you a rope to pull yourself out into the open "NO! Its what you believe would happen! Your interpretaion of events!"

Oh no, did you just use the word "evidence"? Well, Im sorry sir, you have made an un-substantiated claim because all of it is based on "YOUR" personal interpretation.

If your going to argue the point to that a LOT of people believe it to be true because of so-called "evidence" that they have, I would merely say that its still "their" personal interpretation that that is the way it is for in the past, a LOT of people believed that the earth was flat. Therefore, because people believe it, it MUST have been true!

Like I have pointed out earlier. You twist the meaning of any given situation to fit what you say to be the truth of the matter, but then when I present "evidence", its based on personal interpretation and therefore cannot be proven

Ill say it as many times as I have to; your arguement is biased, circuler, one-sided and completely absurd.

No, you cannot use one side of the equation. I said sentient intelligence; ALL sides of the equation. Not just one. Animals cannot deliberate, reason, think and analyze all factors of a given situation and do something according to what either needs to be done or "should" be done. Therefore animals are not humans and humans are not animals, period.

Main Entry: 1nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: 'na-ch&-r&l, 'nach-r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French naturel, from Latin naturalis of nature, from natura nature
1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>
2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
3 a (1) : begotten as distinguished from adopted; also : LEGITIMATE (2) : being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption <natural parents> b : ILLEGITIMATE <a natural child>
4 : having an essential relation with someone or something : following from the nature of the one in question <his guilt is a natural deduction from the evidence>
5 : implanted or being as if implanted by nature : seemingly inborn <a natural talent for art>
6 : of or relating to nature as an object of study and research
7 : having a specified character by nature <a natural athlete>
8 a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural <natural causes> b : formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation <natural religion> <natural rights> c : having a normal or usual character <events followed their natural course>
9 : possessing or exhibiting the higher qualities (as kindliness and affection) of human nature <a noble...brother...ever most kind and natural -- Shakespeare>
10 a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated <natural prairie unbroken by the plow> b : existing in or produced by nature : not artificial <natural turf> <natural curiosities> c : relating to or being natural food
11 a : being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment : UNREGENERATE <natural man> b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society
12 a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a natural person> b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>
13 a : closely resembling an original : true to nature b : marked by easy simplicity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or constraint c : having a form or appearance found in nature
14 a : having neither flats nor sharps <the natural scale of C major> b : being neither sharp nor flat c : having the pitch modified by the natural sign
15 : of an off-white or beige color

taken from www.m-w.com - first definition.

Oh really? So "now" we come into the realm to where we need to bring forth "evidence" to "prove" something? You talk of how did the translators know what the original text meant? Because we have scholarly books concerning the Hebrew and Greek Languages that show what any given word means in said language.

Go out and look for them, they are called The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament, Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Thayer's Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, The Theological Dictiony of the New Testament and Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.

Evidence, according to the Hebrew and Greek Languages. They all coincide with each other and no scholar of the Hebrew and Greek Languages would question them.

Oh, but I see! Lets not consider "this" to be evidence. Oh no! We cant have that! Here we have books on the Hebrew and Greek Language, that have been verifed countless times and have stood the test of time itself! Oh no! Facts, evidence! Can't be! It "MUST" therefore be personal interpretation of the Hebrew and Greek Languages, which were the original text of the Bible, therefore it cannot be true!

Rubbish. How much longer are you going to be deliberately ignorant of the workings of the things of this world and twist the meaning of things to suit your fancy so that you wont have to acknowledge facts from something that you cannot prove to unaccurate and untrue?

It is because reproduction and families and sexual unity made through the proper way is what counts here, not the gratification of lusts inherent in an immoral society with no regard to sexual morality.

Supposed by a God that is spoken about in a BIble that you continue to hold to the disallusioned view that cannot be evidence, in any form, because you believe its based on personal interpretation when you have no conclusive "evidence" to say so.

Im sorry, maybe I should do things your way. You have made an un-substantiated claim concerning the BIble because what you say is your personal interpretation that has nothing to do with facts or evidence because its something that I refuse to acknowledge.

You are putting Humans in the catagory of animals when there is no evidence to do so because of the inherent intellectual differences between humans and animals.

It is an instinct of a man to protect his family from danger. However, if his family are murderers and they are being taken to be executed for those crimes, then the acting on that instinct is against moral law because murderers must be punished and therefore, because the man labors to protect his family, a family of murderers, he has partaken of their evil deeds.

Therefore, there are "two" sides to "every" equation. You continue to use only one-side of them.

A fact? Did you use the word "fact"?! Oh come now! Why should it be considered a fact when its "YOUR...PERSONAL...INTERPRETATION"? Ahh, I see! When in regards to "you", it cannot possibily be so, but for others, oh yes indeed, it MUST be so.

Your arguments are riddled with nothing but contradicts and bias to fit your ends rather than acknowledge that facts are facts and if they "ARE" facts, then they can be proven, which is the case with the Bible.

Even more so, I "NEVER" said that the earth was created in seven days. I said that the Bible states that the planet and the universe was created as a whole, first, in the beginning, and then was "re-created" or "reformed/repaired" afterwards in seven literal days, as stated in Genesis 1:1-31.

Uh-huh, but said science cannot be based on personal interpretation could it? Oh no, we dont want to talk about that, because when it concerns things other than the BIble, there cannot be personal interpretation.

On restrospect, whats the point? You refuse to acknowledge that there can be facts about the Bible that dont require a personal interpretation. However, based on all your actions thus far, I can say with absolute certainty that no matter what evidence and facts that I can show, from even scholarly sources such as the books mentioned to you previously concerning the Hebrew and Greek languages, you would just claim its personal interpretation.

Even more so, obviously, in order to show "evidence", it would have to be considered "evidence" that is not biased when regards to what "you" would argue for. Therefore, according to you, you would have evidence and that it would be based on facts and it could never be considered personal interpretation.

What a load of contradictory rubbish. Since that is the case, I dont see the point. You cant do anything if the one your talking to refuses to be objective about a matter and only considers things to be evidence when it suits their argument.

Oh really? No time? Thats an excuse. Secondly, as I have stated numerous times, you consider everything that has something to do with the Bible personal interpretation, but are not willing to acknowledge facts and evidence that show that the Bible states what it says because of the Original Text of Hebrew and Greek, to which we have lexicons and study aids for.

There is no excuse for you to say such a thing. You have the tools available for study, to find out. You just dont wish to, because you are content in the mentality of everything else aside from what you believe is fact or evidence, is not evidence, but personal interpretation.

No other opponents? So you will just do it to do it, even though you will consider everything that I say to be personal interpretation regardless? Rubbish.

Oh really? Well, here is a clue for ya - what you say concerning what "you" say are personal interpretations, although its can be proven that they arent, is nothing but personal interpretation as well. Therefore, using your own argument, there can be no facts at all. Nothing can be proven. Its all personal interpretation.

Therefore, this conclusively shows that your argument is biased, completely circular and has no basis in objectivity on any such thing if it is against what you think is to be the truth.

Therefore, nothing you say can be trusted, at all. Nothing. Ergo, there is no point in even listening to you or continuing this discussion.

Im sorry, but all of this is your personal interpretation.

What I have stated, you have personally interpreted, therefore, nothing negative of what you say about my comments can be construed as wrong- its your personal interpretation.

This is your interpretion, therefore, not fact. Therefore, your argument is meaningless.

Your entire contention is based on you claiming that everything I saw is personal interpretation, but using your own argument, you saying what your saying is not the truth either, but your own personal interpretation.

So there can be no facts and therefore, there can be no truth in anything and therefore, people are free to believe what they want regardless.

Anyone with a shred of common sense and intelligence can see the loop-hole in your entire arguement, based on personal interpretation. Your arguement is there non-existent because its based on such a thing that your arguing against.


Your questions cannot be answered truthfully and accurately, according to your own argument, because what you will believe is not based on evidence or facts, but personal interpretation on what you already call of what I say to be personal interpretation.

Therefore, since there can be no facts, nor evidence, nor truth, according to your own arguement, then there is no point in continuing this discussion further with you. I have no desire to bandy words with someone who refuses to acknowledge that facts and evidence can be shown about the Bible that you refuse to allow to be considered evidence but you will then twist the tables and therefore, things that you say are to the contrary of the Bible could only be the truth because "you" have evidence that it is "truth" and that evidence cannot possibily be "your", or anyone else that agrees with you, "personal interpretation".

In other words - your argument is circular, contradictory, biased and not objective.

Good Day.