Religion or Science - How do they compare?

Perhaps Paul can pick a controversy, and you can pick your favorite sermon or source that explains why the controversy does not involve a contradiction. That would advance the discussion beyond the yes it does/no it does not stage.

Couple Original Sin with Calvinism, and you've really got something monstrous. Not only are you born evil, but if you let Calvinists tell it, you are not even responsible for your own remorse and repentance and requests for salvation through grace.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Where does Coyote make any claim that anyone is perfect? Men have flaws as do all living things. You've missed the entire point.

So am I. Again, nobody has said anything about humans being perfect. You made that up.

For you, the Fall is a catchall for just about everything. You don't even bother to consult the Bible anymore when you invoke it. Any deviation from perfection as you see it is "Fall".What we can see in Genesis is that humans were never perfect. The idea that they had perfect minds before the Fall and could easily discern between right and wrong is non Biblical. Accordingly, any lack of ability humans have to do that now cannot be traced to the fall without ignoring the text.

Genesis has God give an explicit and direct answer to that question.

useless response removed.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

At the time the quoted verses were written, the Bible as a whole, did not exist. The use of these verses to justify inerrancy fails in many ways.Further, "thus says the Lord", is almost invariably used to quote words attributed directly to God within a particular passage.If there were better arguments, I have to assume that somebody would be using them.

You just told us differently. You said that you follow a "traditional Christian interpretation". Or something like that.

If that were the case, you would be able to defend your position based on the text alone. But you cannot do that. You always fall back on, "well, some old dudes said it means X."You are absolutely the least logical person here.

It does not matter what you say or claim without argument or evidence. You just demonstrated your inability to construct a case other than "X authority said so". Do you actually have an argument or are you going to add this thread to the examples of goofy creationists without a case?You simply don't have the ability to insult anyone.

Really? Can you cite a couple of what must be many examples of this word usage?Or are you just saying whatever?

1. No hurry, take your time.
2. Your examples are not even on point. Not sure why you posted them.
3. Your claim was about the "usual meeting". And then what you actually cited included counter-examples where "cloud" was used in a completely different way?Perhaps my point 1 is wrong. There is no point in citing the reference. You just proved that if, in fact, it says what you claim, that the reference is wrong.Covering things like a cloud alludes to something like a blanket, which in turn could imply a multitude if it were people doing the covering. But of course, in those other words, like crowd, numbers, or multitude were also used.So is it cloud, or the other words in the context that actually do the work?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

duplicateEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Wow. What a mighty God you serve.