The Tension of Faith

What it says is:
1. Don't let fools get away with broadcasting foolishness.
2. Don't be foolish in refuting foolishness.

Most of us do both in the same day. You can donate to charity and buy yourself a new toy with the same chequebook.There are not two separate groups of people, which is why God choosing one group makes no sense.

Even Noah had to build his own ark.

And neither do you. You can choose to drown.But if Noah didn't want to drown he !@#$ing well DID have to build his own ark - and so do you.

How can you know whether the Bible is true or not if you don't understand it? You can't look at anything honestly without doubting that it's true.

Why would you start from that premise? But you are starting from the attitude that your own judgement is true. You've judged a priori that the Bible is God's word - and you've gone in circles from there.

The idea of "fallen minds" is the most grotesque lie in the pack of lies that is the Fall doctrine. It's a direct contradiction of what God said. Adam and Eve used their minds for the first time when they disobeyed God.The only way to have a "fallen mind" is to park it at the door.

I suppose it could be reverse-engineered that way - but what it actually says is that God magically poofed the material objects into existence with His words. Notice that in verse 5 Enoch was magically poofed out of existence instead of dying. That doesn't imply anything about atoms.

It may make sense now but the question is: Did the concept of atoms even occur to the writers of the New Testament? It seems unlikely.As I pointed out, verse 3 says that the universe was created by God's words, which are unseen. And as New Cat's Eye pointed out, the broader context is about faith, which is unseen.

You're contradicting God. He said that Adam and Eve had become more like Him. That's an increase in understanding, not a decrease. Since your premise is wrong, your conclusion is unreliable - a sure sign of an "unregenerated" mind. It's funny how self-styled Christians claim to have a superior understanding when they can't even read their own Book.

Sure I am. The premise is a direct contradiction of your own Book, which you claim is inerrant. If the Book is right, there was no Fall; there was no degeneration to regenerate. The Fall was made up by humans. Since the premise is wrong, it doesn't even matter if the logic is correct. You might as well say, "Since all dogs are black, France doesn't exist." Garbage in, garbage out.

That doesn't work. Lots of people honestly believe things that are not true.I would say rather that truth is verifiable. If you can't show "the truth" to somebody else and have them agree that it's true, you can't claim that it is true, no matter how honestly you wish it was true. (And you can't pick and choose who agrees with you either. It has to be a transparent process.)

That has nothing to do with truth. Sure, sometimes you have to choose a road - and sometimes you'll choose the wrong road.We're talking about faith here - i.e. people refusing to accept the road signs because of their faith.

You're just muddying the water. Lazarus did resurrect but he didn't ascend. Enoch ascended without resurrecting because he didn't die.

I was just pointing out what the words actually mean. Your made-up special meaning for Jesus' resurrection is not valid.