Faith in Creation

[Kitty Chan]

Not sure what you mean by "actually it says", I wasnt being picky about exact wording my point was more to do with it saying that all the words can have a meaning of some sort if studied. I looked up the different translations and all have the same point.

I see I struck a chord with you regarding Lewis. He actually pondered long and addressed alot of the harder questions that one can find in the bible. At least he had the guts to actually speak about it. There was comment that christians tend not to discuss the "harder to understand" parts and leave them alone. Well Lewis didnt shy away so what am I to think with the contradictory statements made here, then?? On one hand a christian is made light of for forgetting the hard parts and then when one does remember the hard parts its the remainder of a bulls breakfast. One has to admit its confusing.

The point was the bible like anything else is only confusing because one hasnt studied it. I can say algebra is confusing after only glancing at it. Same with the bible, it gets bits pulled out and people wonder why it seems confused. Read the middle section of a Stephen King novel and see if it makes sense.

Now having addressed that I must say, three quarters of my previous comment was regarding people looking for signs, wonders, magic, wine, healings. Even Jesus said that stuff was not what was important. What was important was love one another and strive to do that. One may not be perfect at it, but thats the goal.

Sorta like Live8 wasnt about the music but about getting attention of a self serving people and their governments. And getting them involved in caring for others.

One has to get the mobs attention, to speak to them. Thus you have your signs, wonders, healings, wine, loaves which like the music, are secondary to the message. That message is love one another.

 

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan

(I will just say this about the flood, to date Ive not seen any "complete concrete" evidence for or against it. We just cannot say for sure, theres ideas but nothing 100% sure. So I will wait until something comes up, til then its moot)

What do you mean we don’t have any evidence against it? A global flood would leave some very definite evidence. Isn’t the total lack of any of that evidence enough?

As for something wrong in the bible. hmm scripture says "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching". Now, I am with CS Lewis on this and that if it says that there is something to get out of it then one simply has to dig until they find it. Granted some things are harder to understand than others. But so is alot of things in this world and life.

How do you propose to test what you ‘dig’ out of the bible to be the actual meaning or teaching? Especially when what you ‘dig’ out is in opposition to what others ‘dig’ out of the same passage?

He actually pondered long and addressed alot of the harder questions that one can find in the bible. At least he had the guts to actually speak about it. There was comment that christians tend not to discuss the "harder to understand" parts and leave them alone.

Have you actually bothered to real Lewis? He uses so many logical fallacies it’s amusing. He doesn’t address the issues he glosses over them.

Ossai

 

[Kitty Chan]

Kitty Chan

What do you mean we don’t have any evidence against it? A global flood would leave some very definite evidence. Isn’t the total lack of any of that evidence enough?

There is evidence on both sides, to say there is "total lack of evidence" (for creation) is unaccurate because there are many books on the topic. If you dont want to recognise them, thats your choice. So those authors could say oh I dont recognise evolution, but wait a lot of them do know both topics. They are recognizing both sides. So, you could say you have studied the evidence and find yourself not agreeing. But dont say that it doesnt exist, thats completely unaccurate.

This is why I said, "complete concrete" evidence for or against. Without question, no other "what about this then" to come up. Note I do not say either "side" has the answer, just a idea. So the jurys out on it when there is a verdit I will look at it.

How do you propose to test what you ‘dig’ out of the bible to be the actual meaning or teaching? Especially when what you ‘dig’ out is in opposition to what others ‘dig’ out of the same passage?

In the scriptures there is discussion about people not agreeing. What happened with them and their conclusions are there to read. There is nothing wrong with discussion, thats whats supposed to happen. As for dig what about study, compare, consult thats what I mean for dig. Some things are plain some require your thoughtfullness. If one looks at it one will find that most disagreements are not on key issues, only secondary ones. Its not all as mysterious as its made out to be. Scientists disagree on many things but you dont see them tossing Darwin out and science. They press on and dig for the answer.

Have you actually bothered to real Lewis? He uses so many logical fallacies it’s amusing. He doesn’t address the issues he glosses over them.
Ossai

You should be proud a skeptic was needed to sort through the coat hangers of doctrine. Lewis studied God not how the church in its tradition has seen God, but how the individual has and can see God. He was actually in trouble from mainstream church because he was in disagreement. Probably because of some digging on his part. Seems Martin Luther did some digging too and let the mainstream church know it.

If he was glossing over issues he would not have annoyed the mainsteam church. They would have kept quiet and not called him names. They didnt like Luther too much either.

 

[Mosquito]

Sorry for butting in again

The point was the bible like anything else is only confusing because one hasnt studied it. I can say algebra is confusing after only glancing at it. Same with the bible, it gets bits pulled out and people wonder why it seems confused. Read the middle section of a Stephen King novel and see if it makes sense.

You are making the "if you don't think the Bible says what I think it says, it is because you haven't studied it (enough)"-fallacy.

Some atheists become atheists exactly *because* they study it, and find that it does not make sense.

A lot of atheists know a lot more about the Bible than your average christian, because in order to be a christian, selecting the comfy parts of the Bible and reiterating these until your brain is as clean as an ox's intestines, is enough. While the atheist does not necessarily know which parts to read for comfort, so he reads it all. And then he thinks about what he read. All he read.

I know christians that do not *want* to read the whole Bible, because they've found their comfy spots, and don't want to know about the less comfy parts.

One has to get the mobs attention, to speak to them. Thus you have your signs, wonders, healings, wine, loaves which like the music, are secondary to the message. That message is love one another.

Umm, no. *Your* message is "love one another", I seem to recall that Jesus required some hating for accepting you into his gang. Something about hating your parents, I think.

Remember, Jesus didn't come to bring peace, but sword.


Mosquito

 

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan

There is evidence on both sides, to say there is "total lack of evidence" (for creation) is unaccurate because there are many books on the topic.

1. The original topic was global flood, not creationism.
2. A book does not constitute evidence

But dont say that it doesnt exist, thats completely unaccurate.

Because evidence for a global flood does not exist.

Note I do not say either "side" has the answer, just a idea. So the jurys out on it when there is a verdit I will look at it.

He’s a novel idea. Why not actually examine the evidence yourself, or at research it? Gather all of what you mistakenly call evidence you can find for a global flood and creationism, then actually do some research on their claims. It usually don’t take more than a day or so to debunk one of their claims, seeing as how most are unethical lies about data that has been tested/studied/discovered/etc.

If one looks at it one will find that most disagreements are not on key issues, only secondary ones.

Oh, like whether Jesus was real, i.e. flesh and blood, or merely spiritual. Or whether the resurrection was physical or spiritual. Nothing serious.

If he was glossing over issues he would not have annoyed the mainsteam church. They would have kept quiet and not called him names. They didnt like Luther too much either.

As for Luthor, I agree the church really didn’t like him. After all he attacked on of their moneymakers, selling indulgences.

With the sheer number of Christian sect, how could Lewis not annoy at least some of them? Admittedly I’ve only read bits and pieces of Lewis’s work but he did in fact gloss over large bits without ever trying to actually address them.

Seems Martin Luther did some digging too and let the mainstream church know it.

Yes but nothing they would cause disagreements “over key issues, only secondary ones.” Which is why there is only one Christian church today, Oops, looks like someone misspoke.

Ossai

 

[Kitty Chan]

Sorry for butting in again
You are making the "if you don't think the Bible says what I think it says, it is because you haven't studied it (enough)"-fallacy.
Some atheists become atheists exactly *because* they study it, and find that it does not make sense.

A lot of atheists know a lot more about the Bible than your average christian, because in order to be a christian, selecting the comfy parts of the Bible and reiterating these until your brain is as clean as an ox's intestines, is enough. While the atheist does not necessarily know which parts to read for comfort, so he reads it all. And then he thinks about what he read. All he read.

I know christians that do not *want* to read the whole Bible, because they've found their comfy spots, and don't want to know about the less comfy parts.

Your not butting in, its just called discussion.

Im trying very hard not to say "the you havent studied it bit" Not saying that one can know everything about any topic, just wont happen. But especially in the bibles case there is a history of people taking what they want and leaving the rest. There is alot of misinformation from lack of digging and avoiding hard parts and even taking what one wants from the easy parts.

Its not just christians who do that, its atheists or anyone reading the bible can take what is comfy or fits their needs and leave the rest. Thats why I said at least Lewis took the whole. This is why one is supposed to study the scripture, all parts of it. Thus the quote that it is useful so one needs to find out what is being said and to who and how it applies.

As a note study does not mean one started at page 1 and didnt stop until the end. Its a set of books, not necessarily in a series. So its not to be read like that. So if someone reads from front to back they are probably going to miss a whole lot. Thats why I say it gets studied wrong and ususally gets misquoted as a result.

Umm, no. *Your* message is "love one another", I seem to recall that Jesus required some hating for accepting you into his gang. Something about hating your parents, I think.

Remember, Jesus didn't come to bring peace, but sword.

Mosquito

When He spoke of the sword He was referring to the arguements arising from the hate. People hate because they dont want to give of theirselves to others. So they were mad at Jesus for calling them to a higher standard and He was recognizing the situation.

Jesus said A new commandment I give you, love one another as I have loved you. Not my message, His, and the one that gets swept under the carpet with issues. Because the issues can divert people from actually paying attention to the part of caring for one another. So, being diverted they dont need to try.

 

[Kitty Chan]

Kitty Chan
1. The original topic was global flood, not creationism.
2. A book does not constitute evidence

Because evidence for a global flood does not exist

When I put in brackets (creation) I was referring to the flood as in Moses and the flood. I put creation in there to indicate a biblical view, sorry for confusion you may have had.

Books discuss . . .? evidence? or, are all the science journals no evidence, too. Books compile data, evidence, for people to read, if they are inclined.

He’s a novel idea. Why not actually examine the evidence yourself, or at research it? Gather all of what you mistakenly call evidence you can find for a global flood and creationism, then actually do some research on their claims. It usually don’t take more than a day or so to debunk one of their claims, seeing as how most are unethical lies about data that has been tested/studied/discovered/etc.

Over the years Ive read, watched, listened, to different evidence for the flood. I have not seen a tie breaker for the evolution version or the creation version (theres that creation word) So not having a complete undisputed conclusion, I have said this from the beginning. All the research out there always has counter and counter claims by both sides. Neither side trusts the other and each side says the other is lying so that has zero bearing on any evidence. Cutting one down to make yourself large is pointless.

So if there is a earth shattering info not heard before or something new please share it with me. Until then my jurys out, thats all Im saying.

Oh, like whether Jesus was real, i.e. flesh and blood, or merely spiritual. Or whether the resurrection was physical or spiritual. Nothing serious.

No church is debated about this that I know of. I need a for instance to what you are speaking of.

As for Luthor, I agree the church really didn’t like him. After all he attacked on of their moneymakers, selling indulgences.

With the sheer number of Christian sect, how could Lewis not annoy at least some of them? Admittedly I’ve only read bits and pieces of Lewis’s work but he did in fact gloss over large bits without ever trying to actually address them.

Lewis had more sheer numbers so odds are someone would have disagreed? Martin Luther didnt have those odds so he was perhaps better? Ack both men were the bane of the pharisees of the church. You havent heard the things said against Lewis. And you gotta admit . . if you glossed over bits and pieces of his work, how can you say he glossed over things??

Lewis addressed infant and animal death, marriage and divorce, sex and sexuality, joy and suffering. He spoke openly of things no one else did. Especially for the times he lived.

Yes but nothing they would cause disagreements “over key issues, only secondary ones.” Which is why there is only one Christian church today, Oops, looks like someone misspoke.
Ossai

Key issue is the creed Luther and Lewis did believe in that. As does the catholic church and the rest of churches that claim Christ as Lord.

What's in disagreement is the secondary issue of money and a pharisee like corruption forming in the church government. Which goes against the creed, or the commandment of love one another.

If you wanna know why there is different churches, ask yourself why is there different anything. Different cars, cell phones, clothes, houses, buildings, tv shows, we all have different personalities. So those of particular personalities will want to worship God one way and others their way.

A child will make a drawing for her parents for a birthday, her brother may cut the grass for the birthday. Both ways are correct, just different methods. but BOTH show the same result.

To convey the love from the child to the parent. Thats why different churches. There was 7 churches Christ wrote to in Revelations, each with its own personality and its strengths and weaknessess. But all had the same agreement on the creed.

One but not the same.

 

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan

As a note study does not mean one started at page 1 and didnt stop until the end. Its a set of books, not necessarily in a series. So its not to be read like that. So if someone reads from front to back they are probably going to miss a whole lot. Thats why I say it gets studied wrong and ususally gets misquoted as a result.

You are saying not to read the bible in order so as not to put quotes in context within the larger whole.
How do you propose to study it then?

When He spoke of the sword He was referring to the arguements arising from the hate. People hate because they dont want to give of theirselves to others.

Huh?
From Matthew 10:32 - 42

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

Looks like Jesus was actually breaking up loving families. He came to sow dissent in families so that people would follow him.

When I put in brackets (creation) I was referring to the flood as in Moses and the flood.

psst – it was Noah and the flood. Moses was the baby in the bassinet floating down the river that later lead the Israelites from Egypt.

Books discuss . . .? evidence? or, are all the science journals no evidence, too. Books compile data, evidence, for people to read, if they are inclined.

The bible is in no way evidenced for a biblical flood.
Books can be and are on many occasions historical evidence, however when said book contradicts physical evidence it becomes suspect if not thrown out entirely.

Over the years Ive read, watched, listened, to different evidence for the flood. I have not seen a tie breaker for the evolution version or the creation version (theres that creation word)

Concentrate on the flood, you keep expanding the scope. There is no evidence of a global flood. The overwhelming lack of evidence indicates that there was in fact no global flood.

All the research out there always has counter and counter claims by both sides. Neither side trusts the other and each side says the other is lying so that has zero bearing on any evidence.

Really, so what are the counter claims of ‘no evidence’? Remember claims are meaningless without evidence. You’re claiming a global flood, it’s up to you to provide that evidence. That evidence would be a counter claim. In fact it would be the first evidence for a global flood.

Cutting one down to make yourself large is pointless.

Sorry but the world doesn’t work that way. Science is about disproving as well as proving hypothesis.

So if there is a earth shattering info not heard before or something new please share it with me. Until then my jurys out, thats all Im saying.

Waiting on you to present evidence of a global flood.

Oh, like whether Jesus was real, i.e. flesh and blood, or merely spiritual. Or whether the resurrection was physical or spiritual. Nothing serious.

No church is debated about this that I know of. I need a for instance to what you are speaking of.

Are you serious? Read some early church history or even the bible itself. The four accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) point to a physical Jesus. Paul’s later conversion points to a spiritual Jesus.

You want another major splitting point look up the Council of Nivencia (sp?). The Jesus movement was forcibly kept from attending in number. Thus ensuring the divine Jesus.

If you want a more modern split look up transubstantiation versus consubstantiation. Lutherans verses Catholicism.

You havent heard the things said against Lewis. And you gotta admit . . if you glossed over bits and pieces of his work, how can you say he glossed over things??

Because I’ve read large chunks of Lewis. He treats his audience as children and glosses over the ‘bad bits’. If you’ve got something specific to recommend, I’ll put it on my reading list (admittedly it’ll probably be months before I get to it – but I will read it). Lewis’s writings are full of fallacies, usually easily picked out.

What's in disagreement is the secondary issue of money and a pharisee like corruption forming in the church government. Which goes against the creed, or the commandment of love one another.

Your ignorance of church history is apparent here.

There was 7 churches Christ wrote to in Revelations, each with its own personality and its strengths and weaknessess. But all had the same agreement on the creed.

There are over 30,000 different Christian sects now. How does that translate to 7? Or is that just another example of god not being able to count?

Ossai

 

[Mosquito]

I'll keep this one "short", since Ossai had the nerve* to respond before I did.

Im trying very hard not to say "the you havent studied it bit" Not saying that one can know everything about any topic, just wont happen. But especially in the bibles case there is a history of people taking what they want and leaving the rest. There is alot of misinformation from lack of digging and avoiding hard parts and even taking what one wants from the easy parts.

Its not just christians who do that, its atheists or anyone reading the bible can take what is comfy or fits their needs and leave the rest. Thats why I said at least Lewis took the whole. This is why one is supposed to study the scripture, all parts of it. Thus the quote that it is useful so one needs to find out what is being said and to who and how it applies.

As a note study does not mean one started at page 1 and didnt stop until the end. Its a set of books, not necessarily in a series. So its not to be read like that. So if someone reads from front to back they are probably going to miss a whole lot. Thats why I say it gets studied wrong and ususally gets misquoted as a result.

So you start by saying that you try to avoid saying the "haven't studied it" bit, and later you say that reading it from start to finish to get the context and timeline is not "study it". So now you're saying that we're not studying it, only reading it, and thus we're clearly not doing things right. Especially since we get a different message from you, who seem to know exactly the correct order to read the biblical verses in.

If the Bible is not meant to be read from start to finish, where can I get one that is re-ordered to the order it IS supposed to be read? You'd think that after 2000 years somebody would have thought of making "The Easy Guide To The Bible" or something. Just think of all the different versions of the Bible out there, lots of different translations, old-style language, modern-style language, with footnotes, other footnotes, in Greek/Hebrew, with lots of footnotes and guides for "make your own translation".

Why not a "verses in the correct order for study"-version?

When He spoke of the sword He was referring to the arguements arising from the hate. People hate because they dont want to give of theirselves to others. So they were mad at Jesus for calling them to a higher standard and He was recognizing the situation.

Jesus said A new commandment I give you, love one another as I have loved you. Not my message, His, and the one that gets swept under the carpet with issues. Because the issues can divert people from actually paying attention to the part of caring for one another. So, being diverted they dont need to try.

Well, since Ossai's quote, to me, seems to contradict this (which does not mean you're wrong). I'm at a loss as to know how to deal with this. Are you sure you're not picking out the parts you like and glossing over the rest? Seek deep into your soul, and think about it

How do I know which parts to read and which parts to avoid? Which parts to take seriously and which parts to ignore? This is important for anybody trying to understand the Bible. And it rises as a result of the Bible being inconsistant.

Your idea that the Bible should be studied in a non-ordered way, while typical, is also very bad. It is a recipe for picking what you want and ignoring the rest. And it makes it very easy to take things out of context to make verses not really related seem to support your comfy needs.


Mosquito (Ok, not very short, I know)

*For which I'm thankful, especially since he(?) did such a good job of it.

 

[Mosquito]

To convey the love from the child to the parent. Thats why different churches. There was 7 churches Christ wrote to in Revelations, each with its own personality and its strengths and weaknessess. But all had the same agreement on the creed.

One but not the same.

Just out of curiosity, didn't some "John" character write the Revelations?


Mosquito

 

[Johnny Pneumatic]

The point was the bible like anything else is only confusing because one hasnt studied it. I can say algebra is confusing after only glancing at it. Same with the bible, it gets bits pulled out and people wonder why it seems confused. Read the middle section of a Stephen King novel and see if it makes sense.

One has to get the mobs attention, to speak to them. Thus you have your signs, wonders, healings, wine, loaves which like the music, are secondary to the message. That message is love one another.

I don't doubt there's good in the Bible. It's just the majority is stupid, racist, sexist, superstitious, mystical crap. If you dig deep enough in anything you'll probably find a little good. Mein Kampf might have some good stuff in it also, I haven't read that book yet to know though. I know quite a bit about the Bible, thanks for talking down to me. If the Bible's message is love, why isn't that how it starts then? Why didn't Jesus come when there were only a few humans on Earth? His job would have been a lot quicker, and the message would have gotten out in a few min. instead of thousands of years.

 

[Kitty Chan]

I'll keep this one "short", since Ossai had the nerve* to respond before I did.
So you start by saying that you try to avoid saying the "haven't studied it" bit, and later you say that reading it from start to finish to get the context and timeline is not "study it". So now you're saying that we're not studying it, only reading it, and thus we're clearly not doing things right. Especially since we get a different message from you, who seem to know exactly the correct order to read the biblical verses in.

and

Your idea that the Bible should be studied in a non-ordered way, while typical, is also very bad. It is a recipe for picking what you want and ignoring the rest. And it makes it very easy to take things out of context to make verses not really related seem to support your comfy needs.

Well thats Ossai, ya gotta love him.

Im trying not to be arrogant about it is what Im saying. Im attempting to avoid sterotypes, whether its working or not, dont know. But Im trying.

No Im not saying I "know" how to read the bible. I do know that when I try to start at page 1 and go to the end its terribly confusing. Then I look at it to see why? Its because like I said before it is not one book. It is a set of books and they are not in a series. It is not volume 1, 2, 3 etc.

They refer back and forth to each other, they dont acknowledge one another, they can have a common theme, they repeat and dont repeat each other.

All Im saying is one cannot start at page 1 and go to the end and hope it will all make sense in one read. Not that people are stupid, are unable to get it. Its just the way it is, probably because it was written over the years.

So to be clear the separate books are not in specific order like a series. They are in a general order I guess, but not series. Im not picking and choosing parts, maybe just picking the books in a general order then reading from there. All parts no missing. If one read a series of books out of order then it would be confusing. Same with the books of the bible, thus why they are called that.

the Bible is not meant to be read from start to finish, where can I get one that is re-ordered to the order it IS supposed to be read? You'd think that after 2000 years somebody would have thought of making "The Easy Guide To The Bible" or something. Just think of all the different versions of the Bible out there, lots of different translations, old-style language, modern-style language, with footnotes, other footnotes, in Greek/Hebrew, with lots of footnotes and guides for "make your own translation".

It would take a bit of time, and when one changes a bible to run chronological order theres alot of work. And footnotes to show what youve changed so people who read it can pour over your work to see if your correct. It would be a giant task.

But a bible scholar, attorney and classroom teacher Dr.Smith did complete the "Daily Bible" which I have a copy of. And it does read 10x better chronological for a read through. Then when one to dig out something there is the regular types to look at to see if he was right.

Thats also the purpose of different translations, if one wants to know about something then one compares the translations to find a understanding.

Well, since Ossai's quote, to me, seems to contradict this (which does not mean you're wrong). I'm at a loss as to know how to deal with this. Are you sure you're not picking out the parts you like and glossing over the rest? Seek deep into your soul, and think about it

How do I know which parts to read and which parts to avoid? Which parts to take seriously and which parts to ignore? This is important for anybody trying to understand the Bible. And it rises as a result of the Bible being inconsistant.

I dont pick out the best parts and leave the rest. Neither did Lewis thats why I liked him. (Now, Ive read a bit about Luther he had some ideas I want to read about too.) I like the parts that dont make sense. What do you think I wander around here for? Because everyones a yes man? What comfy parts am I allowed to get away with?

Which parts to read and avoid? none. One just has to look at the layout of the bible and notice its separate books. So if you want to get a overall snyopsis dont start at page 1. (The closest book to a gereral overview is John.) Unless one gets the chronological one, it just doesnt read like a novel. Thats how to know.

Mosquito (Ok, not very short, I know)

*For which I'm thankful, especially since he(?) did such a good job of it.

Im never short, ramble on.

 

[Kitty Chan]

I don't doubt there's good in the Bible. It's just the majority is stupid, racist, sexist, superstitious, mystical crap. If you dig deep enough in anything you'll probably find a little good. Mein Kampf might have some good stuff in it also, I haven't read that book yet to know though. I know quite a bit about the Bible, thanks for talking down to me. If the Bible's message is love, why isn't that how it starts then? Why didn't Jesus come when there were only a few humans on Earth? His job would have been a lot quicker, and the message would have gotten out in a few min. instead of thousands of years.

Sorry if you feel Im talking down to you wasnt trying to.

Jesus if He came today would still have the same result as before. People are still the same as they were. We think we are so advanced and have all the ideas. Those that came before had a couple ideas too and I notice alot of people forget that.

The last thing He did was leave it in the hands of his disiples to carry the message on. Just like care for one another. People are all too content for someone else (expecially Jesus) to take care of everything so they dont have to lift a finger. Thats why He said care and love one another.

Just a question about your comment on sexist, who defended the woman in adultry? Spoke to the woman at the well, Hung out with women, actually the bible records the women were the first to find the tomb empty. In those days womans testimony didnt matter but it wasnt excluded. It could have been stated the men found the tomb but it stated the women did.

Husbands love your wives, they are to put her ahead of themselves completely. She should be able to trust him so she can. Thats not sexist. Its been turned around to suit the mustard stained brats that want their dinner on the table. They convientely ignore the part they are to do. This is what I mean by people taking what they want and leaving the rest.

Another one is women listening to men and doing what they want. NO she will listen to HER man, NOT all men. And only if her man is trying to do what I said a moment ago. This one is abused completely too.

 

[Kitty Chan]

Ossai

For the last time I am saying that over the years I have seen and read various things about flood or no flood.

I havent seen new info on it, so Im leaving it out until I see something new to consider. This is not unreasonable, seems many wait for new info here. If you want to start a flood thread go ahead and I will look at it. But Im not derailing this one anymore with it as I feel Ive been clear.

Ive said the jurys out, Im going with the biblical account until I see new info that disputes it. Im not asking anyone to believe it, so I dont need to post anything about it.

In fact Im not even going with new creationists whatever they are, Captian Joes account or any church version. Just whats in the bible and thats it.

The only thing I know for sure about the flood is that this world will return to the attitude like those in the day of Noah.

That was the point of the flood story.

 

[jjramsey]

Ossai

For the last time I am saying that over the years I have seen and read various things about flood or no flood.

I havent seen new info on it, so Im leaving it out until I see something new to consider.

Have you read through this stuff:

http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

You might find it interesting to wade through this thread in the Dead Horses forum on Ship-of-Fools, although it's about far more than just the flood:

The thread deceptively titled The Death (*cough*) of Darwinism

Warning, this thread is loooooonnnnng. It's grown on and off for about four years now.

 

[Ryokan]

As a note study does not mean one started at page 1 and didnt stop until the end. Its a set of books, not necessarily in a series. So its not to be read like that. So if someone reads from front to back they are probably going to miss a whole lot. Thats why I say it gets studied wrong and ususally gets misquoted as a result.

I once discussed the bible with an Evangelical, and when I pointed out inconsistencies with what she believed and what was actually written in the bible, she claimed that I didn't understand the bible because I read it with my brain when I should've been reading it with my heart.

It's almost the same as what you're saying, and it's nothing but an ad hominem attack, claiming that we might've read the same thing, but I'm just not understanding it. So, tell me, Kitty-chan, what is the correct order to read the bible? Since you understand it so much better than me.

If you want to start a flood thread go ahead and I will look at it. But Im not derailing this one anymore with it as I feel Ive been clear.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59389

There you go! You're welcome to post the single most convincing evidence of a global flood.

For some reason, though, I doubt you will. For the same reasons you avoid answering bible questions regarding topics outside your biblical comfort zone, I believe.

Just a question about your comment on sexist, who defended the woman in adultry? Spoke to the woman at the well, Hung out with women, actually the bible records the women were the first to find the tomb empty. In those days womans testimony didnt matter but it wasnt excluded. It could have been stated the men found the tomb but it stated the women did.

Oh, oh, I know! Jesus! But we're discussing the bible, not just Jesus. The ten commandments certainly seem to imply that women are property, just to name one sexist bible issue.

Edit : Syntax errors

 

[Kitty Chan]

Ossai

Study the bible is answered in post to mosquito, hope thats ok.

(This is getting awfully long, and various topics. Im going to answer your questions without quotes and just refer to them to shorten it up a bit)
--------------
Yea I know Noah, its a old joke, just a attempt at humour.
-----------------------
Where is is written that if a book contradicts physical evidence it should be thrown out?
---------------------
Flood is in separate post.
------------------
Re the spiritual physical Jesus, I simply asked for a for instance so I understand what you are talking about, isnt that reasonable? After all I dont have pyschic powers or Id have a million dollars (humour again)

I did say there was no churches (I know of) that debate this. Isnt it alright to say I dont know??

As for Paul, he may of had a spiritual conversion but he didnt say that Jesus was only spiritual. The disiples accepted him as their own.

Ive not heard that the catholics and lutherns disagree about Jesus what is it they disagree on?

As for the Jesus movement I think Ive heard about this. But I dont believe they are a church? A group obviously of some sort. Once again here is several answers from you, thats why I asked for a instance that you were thinking of. Its kind of hard to speculate what you mean.
-------------------
As for Lewis, I have said I enjoyed reading what he said exactly because, of him dwelling in bad bits and not glossing. Obviously theres a perspective you have or some other thing. I would have to ask for a instance or some theme you mean as I cannot honestly imagine what you mean.

All I can think of, is it because he was a skeptic and he insults you for "turning over" to the dark side? (humour)
On christian topics I have not heard anyone speak so plainly and fairly looking at the uncomfortable bits than him. Like I said it took a skeptics gift of view to explain what was in front of christians eyes, you should be happy.
---------------------------
I said that what's in disagreement is the secondary issue of money and a pharisee like corruption forming in the church government. Which goes against the creed, or the commandment of love one another.

How does this statement make me "ignorance of church history" by stating the church is guilty of being corrupt and forgetting what it was formed to foster.
--------------------
My statement regarding the 7 churches had nothing to do with numbers. The point was each church starting from the beginning had strengths and weaknesses to deal with. But all agreed on for example the creed, even if they did some things different. Just like the child would show love different from its sibling, the child is still showing love. And it continues today for the churches, the same situation.

 

[Kitty Chan]

Kitty Chan
Huh?
From Matthew 10:32 - 42
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

Looks like Jesus was actually breaking up loving families. He came to sow dissent in families so that people would follow him.

This is directed to the 12 He is sending out on a mission, there is more before what you posted and it is a warning to the 12 what they may encounter. The persecution to come. Adding a bit more of the whole passage makes for better understanding once one knows who is being spoken to. It wasnt families.

Like I said before, because people will not enjoy being called to a higher standard of caring for one another to the exclusion of yourself. It will make them hate Christ and hate anyone who identifys with Him.

If a family is loving they will not separate, so there is no break up as you say.

When He speaks of giving a cup of cold water, Hes speaking to the smallest and a real easy way we can be nice to each other.

 

[Kitty Chan]

I once discussed the bible with an Evangelical, and when I pointed out inconsistencies with what she believed and what was actually written in the bible, she claimed that I didn't understand the bible because I read it with my brain when I should've been reading it with my heart.

It's almost the same as what you're saying, and it's nothing but an ad hominem attack, claiming that we might've read the same thing, but I'm just not understanding it. So, tell me, Kitty-chan, what is the correct order to read the bible? Since you understand it so much better than me.

Did I say read it with your heart?? Did I say it is not written in chronological order with the exception of the one bible I quoted above. Did I cover I dont mean you cant understand? Its a set of books not in a series is all I said, As such they simply wont make sense to read them that way, I cant be more plain. Please everyone quit assuming I am accusing someone of something.

As for your friend she means that its possible to read something in the bible and God will speak to your heart. Which means something will really hit home, and you will grow because of it. Now, this is not connected with my previous statement. Although I suppose its possible this could happen at any reading of the bible. God moves in those mysterious ways, right? (humour again

There you go! You're welcome to post the single most convincing evidence of a global flood.
For some reason, though, I doubt you will. For the same reasons you avoid answering bible questions regarding topics outside your biblical comfort zone, I believe.

There you go again assuming. I have changed my mind about just what skeptics believe and correct christians when they say unaccurate things. I will check out your pages, I dont have a milllion hours in a day. But if its good I will read it. By that if every second thing is insulting creation then it falls under cutting someone down to make themselves large. I wont even listen to the Bible Answer Man cause he does that.

Oh, oh, I know! Jesus! But we're discussing the bible, not just Jesus. The ten commandments certainly seem to imply that women are property, just to name one sexist bible issue.

Jesus was asked what is the greatest of the commandments. He replied a new commandment I give you which is love one another as I have loved you.

If we truly love one another then the rest are fullfilled and no longer needed.

And I covered the sexist issue of women being property already. One of those un comfy parts that I wanted to know the answer to that everybodys handy to say I dont look at.

 

[Ryokan]

Did I say read it with your heart?? Did I say it is not written in chronological order with the exception of the one bible I quoted above. Did I cover I dont mean you cant understand? Its a set of books not in a series is all I said, As such they simply wont make sense to read them that way, I cant be more plain. Please everyone quit assuming I am accusing someone of something.

I didn't say you said I had to read it with my heart. I said it was almost the same, i.e. that we didn't read the bible the 'right' way. But no-one seems to be able to show me the 'righ' way to read it, so I'll keep reading it the way you're supposed to read books.

Oh, and by the way, I know the bible is many books stuck together, sort of an anthology. I never thought each book was a sequel to the one preceeding it. I just assumed there was a reason they were arranged as they are, and have never before seen this 'you can't understand the bible if you read it from cover to cover' thing before. No matter how many times you make excuses about it (and for the record, I do believe you're sincere about it), to me it sounds like 'you're not reading the bible right, and therefore you don't understand it. Isn't this what you're saying?

I will check out your pages, I dont have a milllion hours in a day.

I'm lucky, I have a job that involves 8 hours of just surfing to make time go (nightshift at a hotel). But the thing is, from reading your posts in this forum, I think you're a very reasonable person, who happens to be a Christian. Yet, you're undecided when it comes to the evidence for/against a global flood. Therefore, I am VERY interested in what you think is the #1 evidence pointing to a flood, the evidence that makes you unsure what conclusion to draw.

Jesus was asked what is the greatest of the commandments. He replied a new commandment I give you which is love one another as I have loved you.

If we truly love one another then the rest are fullfilled and no longer needed.

So as long as we love each other, we can steal, whore, engage in homosexual activity, utter blasphemy, and enjoy life as we see fit? Cool, I think I like your version of Christendom