Grammar

They're not both scientists. Only one starts with a predetermined conclusion and forces all data to comply with it, or rejects that data. Science is an open-minded search for the truth, not a desperate manipulation of whatever scraps you can find to support something you believed before you saw any evidence.

quote:

---

'not a desperate manipulation of whatever scraps you can find to support something you believed before you saw any evidence. '
But where is this desperation where I see common sense you see problems. All evo's do is start swearing and ridicule people, untill they stop this (as proved in this topic) why should I listen to these rude people?

---

The rudeness is unfortunate. I hope you don't think what I just said was rude - but it does sound somewhat harsh, and I only feel justified in saying it for one reason: in retrospect, it is the best way to describe what I myself did for many years. I wanted my parents and pastors to be right, wanted all those dinosaur books to be wrong (even though I always loved dinosaurs) and I was thrilled to be able to hand-wave away mountains of well-supported evidence with the aid of a couple of "creation science" books and a sermon or two. I now realize I was unnecessarily fed a load of half-truths and bad science in the name of preserving my faith, and I am not happy about it. When I see it happening to other people, it brings out my frustration with the whole experience, and I think that the same is true of others here.

quote:

---

Thats not what I said, the law on earth is unjust, therefore even with evidence I could not be certain the man arrested was guilty that is why I totally disagree with the death penalty.That is why I would never be on a jury and that is why I trust in God, as I said I would look to God for justice.

---

But the death penalty is part of the OT law. Are you saying it's wrong?

quote:

---

Ofcourse as I said earlier or in a similar post I take the whole bible as truth : Thou shalt not kill. Also 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. As I am a follower of Christ and he says we are all with sin , who then has the right to kill someone? because thats what the death penalty IS, killing someone!

---

You're contradicting quite a few Bible verses when you say that. The death penalty is commanded by God for many, many crimes.I'd also like to add that the staunchest supporters of the death penalty in the US seem to be Christians who believe the Old Testament Law, because Jesus did say that it would remain in effect even after his coming.

Are you still claiming that all the Bible is true? Your logic is sound when you dismiss the death penalty based on what Jesus said, in my opinion, but you're avoiding the fact that it invalidates other portions of scripture commanding death for various offenses. How do you reconcile that?

Don't hide behind human fallibility. If you're going to say the Bible is inerrant then your claim depends on the ability of God's people to read it and correctly understand it. It seems a more reasonable path to accept that some of it is, rather than historical and literal, figurative and poetic. A vast number of Christians think exactly that. I'm not telling you not to believe, I'm telling you that you have the right to use your brain to its full potential and think critically even when it comes to a text you consider sacred. If you're here to defend your beliefs, you should really take that to heart.

quote:

---

OR we can win by first reading the OT then if we are concerned about killing someone, we can look at the 'main' law, 'Thou shalt not kill'
and if we are still concerned then we can look at what God himself said when he came to fulfill the scripture, 'let he without sin cast the first stone'. S o if we think for a minute- 'hang on a minute, God said when with us, no eye for an eye anymore? no killing but loving? And since he is the fullfilling of the OT ? do we listen or follow his previous teaching? and even if we do follow the previous teaching we are not without sin to do this? Do you know what I am getting at?

---

I think the main point here is that you're being sensible in your approach to the Bible, but you're not being a literalist. You're using your (God-given, you might say) reasoning abilities to take input from the text, evaluate and weigh various parts, prioritize them (i.e. discard those that are contradicted and outweighed by others) and assemble a coherent whole, a set of beliefs, in your head. This is such a natural human action that you don't even seem to realize you're doing it. But you are.

We have a variation of that one here - just a slightly different story, and b!+ch instead of a-hole. If someone ends a sentence with "at," you just complete it by adding said word to the end. If you catch yourself, you can just kinda tack it onto the end of your own sentence and prevent someone else from doing it. =)