"You say you believe in a Perfect God and from this Perfection only imperfection comes. Strange." -that's not what i said, or meant.
God is Perfect, point said. Not even God said the universe was perfect either. All his creation as he said was "good" or "very good". I get the feeling sometimes that if the world and the universe were perfect, there wouldn't need to be a God after that.
"At no point in time can God look at His reality and say oops I screwed up." -only half correct. He did, however look at the world and feel sorry for creating man, and thus flooded it.
Since you didn't point out what God you follow, it makes no sense to say you think he's better.
Gen 6:9-14 This is the account of Noah.
Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God. 10 Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.
11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. NIV
Noah was righteous, but he was the only one, so God saved him and his family, and told him that He was going to set up his covenant with Noah. God DID start us on the right track. Mankind's selfish nature led to its own demise.
If your god is the one of the Bible, i believe you need to read more.
"Only those who do not believe in Jesus believe that the end of this earth will be a cataclysmic culling of mankind."
-Those who don't believe in Jesus don't go to heaven. Doesn't matter what the end of the world is, if you aint In Him, you aint In the Kingdom.
The flood did not happen. God would not break His own law of killing man. If He were to adjust mankind I'm sure it would be successful. You believe He adjusted us with a genocidal act against His own creations and failed miserably in His efforts.
Why, if we are talking of the same God is tour version such a looser when mine wins?
If God is to cull as you say at end time then the Hell created would forever be a blemish on God's record. Is this realyy how you view God at end time.
Do you see Him tallying His Perfectly created souls two for me four for hell, 14 for me 19 for hell.
Look again at God for the first time and give Him a little ability to do things right the first time and every time.
One can't refute what he doesn't understand. So no one can claim the bible is errant until he first understands everything in the bible.
But as you admitted, the bible isn't understandable. Therefore it can't be refuted any more than one can claim to refute Einstein while at the same time claiming that Einstien didn't exist and/or that he doesn't undertand Einstein's theories.
Therefore it can't be refuted any more than one can claim to refute Einstein while at the same time claiming that Einstien didn't exist and/or that he doesn't undertand Einstein's theories.
If Einstein had said that the earth is flat, that could be refuted by somebody who doesn't understand Einstein's theories at all. Similarly, we can refute bits and pieces of the Bible without understanding the "big picture".
But this is false, isn't it? Different Christians have very different understandings of the Bible. The Catholics' understanding is very different from the Lutherans', Anglicans' understanding of the Bible is very different from that of Baptists, Mormons have a different understand than the Methodists, and so forth.
I suppose that one can claim that only one particular Christian sect has a "true" understanding of the Bible, but what would make this different than any other cult? Every cult claims that their understanding of their scriptures is the true understanding -- in fact, that is one of the signs of being a cult.
The difference with Einstein is that anyone can do the mathematics and anyone can check the results of the mathematics with actual observations. So, whether one has the "same understanding" of General Relativity as Einstein is really beside the point -- the Theory of Relativity makes definite statements about what we should actually see in the real world, regardless of what one's "understanding" is.
This is very different than what is being claimed here. Different Christian (and barely Christian) denominations have very different ideas of what the real world is going to look like based on their different understandings. Traditional Baptists see a world that is degenerating, filled with sinners who have the free will to choose to become Christians, Reformed Christians don't see any free will whatsoever, and Anglicans tend to have a more optimistic view of human progress.
So, not only is Christianity very different than General Relativity, but this claim that "the Bible is understandable to Christians" sounds more like a cult-like cop-out than a serious attempt to acknowledge theological difficulties.
I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
So then I can claim that Einstein's theories are wrong and also claim that Einstein didn't exist and claim that I don't understand math and physics and you would believe me. Is that correct? If so, then Einstein's theories are wrong because I say so. So that makes me right.
quote:So then I can claim that Einstein's theories are wrong and also claim that Einstein didn't exist and claim that I don't understand math and physics and you would believe me. Is that correct? If so, then Einstein's theories are wrong because I say so. So that makes me right.
No, Ringo said refute; not claim.
The point being that if I am talking with Einstein and he claims that the earth is flat, I don't have to understand Einstein's theories or any other science for that matter to prove him wrong. We just have to take a trip around the world. When we don't fall off, I have disproven his claim. We probably don't even need to go around the world.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
My point was that you don't have to understand everything to refute something.
For example, we can test the flood story by looking for a genetic bottleneck in every single species around 4500 years ago. If even one species doesn't show that bottleneck, the flood story is refuted. We don't have to understand the symbolism of the Revelation to do that.
1. If the Christian god (as defined in footnote ) exists, there is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. 2. If there is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, his revelation is error-free, unambiguously clear, and objectively verifiable as true. 3. The Bible is neither error-free, unambiguously clear, nor objectively verifiable. C. The Christian god does not exist.
Couldn't we also conclude, or instead, that the erroneous parts of the Bible are not god's revelation?
You assumption is based on the claim that one species came from another. But since evolutionists ignore the fact that most species have to have the following characteristics in order to survive in the world that God created, then they leap to the erroneous and impossible conclusion that one species bred another species which is IMPOSSIBLE as anyone who udnerstands the birds and the bees knows. So most species have to have:
1)A heart 2)lungs 3)Some form of digestive system 4)A brain 5)A circulatory system 6) A nervous system 7) An endocrine system 8) 4 limbs 9) 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose and a mouth 10) A reproductive system
And many, many, other similar characteristics, then their DNA is going to be much more similar than different. In fact, all one has to udnerstand is the reproductive system to see how impossible it is for one species to breed another species. Then they won't make the wrong conclusion about the similarities between animals and humans.
And more importantly, there are no historic accounts of ancient peoples who talk about their ancestors being apes ANYWHERE in the world. But there are accounts of over 300 cultures describing a global flood where only one family lived.
So claiming that the genes of animals being passed down exculdes the possibility of a flood is as ludicrous as claiming that there couldn't have been a flood since King Kong couldn't have then passed his genes along to my neighbor.