LittleNipper wrote: Well, face the fact. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. The style of and storyline of the Book of Mormon contradicts that of the Bible. Cearly, there are exceptions to the what is and isn't historical and true. That said, God says He created the entire Universe including space and matter in a 6 day period. He put into place natural law ---- not for God to follow, but so man had a regularity of time and seasons. It is illogical for someone to attempt to limit the scope of God. It isn't illogical to accept what seems impossible for man to figure out. It is actually illogical for man to tell God what He may and may not be capable of accomplishing... PS> I'm as old as dirt.
The Bible is riddled with contradictions (you can do the Google as easily as I).
Your definition of 'God' may be quite different than mine. When you say 'God' I don't really have any reference as to what you mean. Even if you were to say that you mean the God of the Bible, there are so many differing portraits in the Bible that the answer would be of no value.
It would be illogical for man to tell God what he/ she /or it is capable of doing. First, though, one would have to establish the existence of God. This is something that may be beyond even you right now.
I'm just a little older than dirt.
Despite our irreconcilable differences, I quite like you, Nipper. You are always polite and enjoyable to read.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
LittleNipper wrote:It is illogical for someone to attempt to limit the scope of God. It isn't illogical to accept what seems impossible for man to figure out. It is actually illogical for man to tell God what He may and may not be capable of accomplishing.
Perhaps it is illogical for someone to attempt to limit the scope of God, but not nearly as illogical as making oneself oblivious to any distinction between questioning the Word of God and questioning whether one's own deeply held convictions really are the Word of God.
There is nothing the slightest bit illogical (or immoral) about questioning whether highly remarkable and fantastic claims that are unsupported by any credible evidence, and even flatly contradicted by the best available evidence really are from God.
As I said in my "Bottom Line" thread, the more fantastic and questionable some false claim is, the more likely it is that some solemn idiot will claim divine authority for it and threaten hell and damnation for anyone who rejects it.
You can't deny that claiming divine or scriptural authority for something has long been a favorite ploy of religious charlatans. I will never be favorably impressed by any claim that can only be supported by an appeal to divine or scriptural authority, no matter who or what claims such authority--especially if they try to intimidate me into believing by threatening me with divine displeasure merely for honest skepticism! I can't believe that a just God would condemn anyone for having honest doubts about something that is unsupported by or contrary to the best currently available evidence--even if new and better or more complete evidence eventually turns up that justifies belief in it.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Themis wrote: Feel free to provide one piece of evidence you think suggests a global flood, and how it is evidence for a global flood. Just saying fossils on mountain tops explains nothing, especially when other explanations have so much evidence to support it.
My friend,
There is another thread going on right now about the flood. Every piece of evidence presented that does not support your conclusion you have dismissed with one excuse or another. Franktalk and I have studied the same evidences; I particularly feel the book by Lester C. King, "Wandering Continents and Spreading Sea Floors on an Expanding Earth", is good. Neither "side" has proven a thing.
You have not heard anything I said. You are so fixed on your agenda that you cannot see or hear anything else.
There is another thread going on right now about the flood. Every piece of evidence presented that does not support your conclusion you have dismissed with one excuse or another. Franktalk and I have studied the same evidences; I particularly feel the book by Lester C. King, "Wandering Continents and Spreading Sea Floors on an Expanding Earth", is good. Neither "side" has proven a thing.
You have not heard anything I said. You are so fixed on your agenda that you cannot see or hear anything else.
Blessings,
jo
Is that your excuse. How many times have I suggested you talk to LDS scientists, yet I bet you never even considered it. See how many of them think these claimed evidences are actually evidence of a global flood. See how many of them think Noah's flood was global. You might want to open your mind and ask yourself these kinds of questions. You think some of us have not spent anytime studying these things. Like many LDS, I changed my view on the earth being young and a global flood long before realizing the church was not what it claimed to be. You have to wonder if the claimed evidence is so good why so many Christians don't view it so literally. I find it somewhat humorous that people who would have many reasons to believe in a young earth and global flood are the ones told they have an agenda. You might want to look in the mirror, but I still think you are a great person.
Also What do you think BYU geology department teaches?
Sethbag wrote:As far as I can tell, Subgenius copied and pasted his wall of gibberish and junk "science" in favor of the Flood from the following website: http://unmaskingevolution.com/18-flood.htm
I knew he had used some site, but never felt like taking the time to find it. Nice job though. I don't think I wanted to take that much time to respond to his post, since we both know it wont change his mind, but then it might be good for some lurker who really wonders.
LittleNipper wrote:It is illogical for someone to attempt to limit the scope of God. It isn't illogical to accept what seems impossible for man to figure out. It is actually illogical for man to tell God what He may and may not be capable of accomplishing.
Perhaps it is illogical for someone to attempt to limit the scope of God, but not nearly as illogical as making oneself oblivious to any distinction between questioning the Word of God and questioning whether one's own deeply held convictions really are the Word of God.
There is nothing the slightest bit illogical (or immoral) about questioning whether highly remarkable and fantastic claims that are unsupported by any credible evidence, and even flatly contradicted by the best available evidence really are from God.
As I said in my "Bottom Line" thread, the more fantastic and questionable some false claim is, the more likely it is that some solemn idiot will claim divine authority for it and threaten hell and damnation for anyone who rejects it.
You can't deny that claiming divine or scriptural authority for something has long been a favorite ploy of religious charlatans. I will never be favorably impressed by any claim that can only be supported by an appeal to divine or scriptural authority, no matter who or what claims such authority--especially if they try to intimidate me into believing by threatening me with divine displeasure merely for honest skepticism! I can't believe that a just God would condemn anyone for having honest doubts about something that is unsupported by or contrary to the best currently available evidence--even if new and better or more complete evidence eventually turns up that justifies belief in it.
The real Bottom Line is that both the Old Testament and Jesus Christ speak of Noah. And yet there are those that insist Noah is not real.
LittleNipper wrote:The real Bottom Line is that both the Old Testament and Jesus Christ speak of Noah. And yet there are those that insist Noah is not real.
Well why didn't you just say so? I mean, how could the Old Testament and Jesus Christ both be wrong?
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Again, you have not heard anything I said. It is not even on a list anywhere real or imagined that you need to hear me or agree with me. I hope it is the same for you when you think about me (which I think it is). You have a beautiful spirit; and I love you.
Jo, my first 2-3 years at BYU I studied a hard science (Physics), and saw what the geology department was teaching too. It's all Old Earth stuff. The biologists are teaching evolution. Of all the things that are wrong with the church, the science taught at BYU isn't one of them. They actually teach the real deal.
Do you think the PhD physics, biology, and geology professors at BYU just don't get it? Have they not looked at the evidence? Perhaps if you wrote the BYU natural science departments and pointed them toward the Answers in Genesis folks, you could straighten them all out.
Here's the deal: the Creationism stuff you've studied is not good science. It doesn't reflect what actually happened in Earth's past. It reflects the best efforts of a group of people whose beliefs don't reflect reality, to find ways of interpreting the evidence that supports their continued belief. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Sethbag wrote:Jo, my first 2-3 years at BYU I studied a hard science (Physics), and saw what the geology department was teaching too. It's all Old Earth stuff. The biologists are teaching evolution. Of all the things that are wrong with the church, the science taught at BYU isn't one of them. They actually teach the real deal.
Do you think the PhD physics, biology, and geology professors at BYU just don't get it? Have they not looked at the evidence? Perhaps if you wrote the BYU natural science departments and pointed them toward the Answers in Genesis folks, you could straighten them all out.
Here's the deal: the Creationism stuff you've studied is not good science. It doesn't reflect what actually happened in Earth's past. It reflects the best efforts of a group of people whose beliefs don't reflect reality, to find ways of interpreting the evidence that supports their continued belief. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.
The Bible is real and God created what is real. The Book of Mormon is not genuine, and so the faith of those who accept Mormonism is terribly flawed and in union with the material world that is yet under satan's spell. Oh, that spell has been broken by Christ Jesus ---- but only for those who place their faith in Christ and not in their own understanding. Satan has lost the war ---- but he is still able to confound, confuse, and distort things for those seeking shortcuts and by-passes of their own design. Satan is always happy to assist.
