Posted on 12/04/2009 8:07:39 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Okay. That's all you had to say. As far as the discussion about "God's word", I've already explained why I'm not going to entertain that discussion here.
His views published in 1793 were well known at the formation of the Republic in 1787? Explain how that time warp works. The near unanimous emphatically angry disapproval by the American people of the views expressed in Paine’s The Age of Reason make it painfully obvious these were not what they knew his religious views to be (to have been, as it apparently turns out). There’s no way you can put enough lipstick on that pig.
“Whatever his religious beliefs were, or his reasons for holding them does not detract from his contribution to or participation in that event, or pollute his political convictions.”
OK. Now . . . what protest will you be offering when I reference Paine’s 1776 writings of the Revolutionary Act on that same year. Think you can restrain yourself?
[[As far as the discussion about “God’s word”, I’ve already explained why I’m not going to entertain that discussion here.]]
Yep- you’ve made it clear that you are just a hit and runner- you don’t mind posting anti-Christian statements in non religious threads, but turn around and make it sem like you ‘don’t discuss religious topics in any but religious threads’? Quite disingenious and hypocritical of you- per usual- you’ve also proven you aren’t willing to back up your spurious accusations- Again- another reason why arguing with you is an excersize in futility- must be nice dissing someone’s religion, then hiding behind the ‘I don’t discuss religion in certain forums’- kinda cowardly if you ask me
post 602 Tactic logic: “If you’re simply here to tell me what’s wrong with my religious beliefs, then I’m here to tell you what’s wrong with yours. Fair enough?”
Post 606 Tactic Logic: “You mistake the words of the scripture for the ideas they represent, and you mistake walking around with a pie-hole full of stinkbait looking to start a fight about it for evangelism.”
Again- I made a statement about those hwo insinuate that the bible can’t be trusted, and include verses that show either the bible can be because both God and man said many times over it IS hte word of God- contrary to hte continual claims of liberals, who have one foot in one camp and hte other in another camp- wanting to be approved of bnoth camps- and you jump in and start an argument by generalizing that I ‘mistake the words of scriptuires for ideas” then go on to insult me- then you turn around and hide behind some arbitrary ‘rule’ that you live by whereby you afford yourself the luxury of insulting Christians, quesitoning their understanding of scriptures, but run and hide when they refute your claims and ask you to back up your false accusations? Swell- Whatever-
You started off accusing me of “misleading others about God’s intent”. I didn’t offer any criticism of how you practice your religion until it was explicilty requested. I don’t think I owe you any apologies.
mmmm no- not so much tactic- I made the comment to another poster’s insinuations that Christians suppsoedly don’t hold a monopoly on ‘itnerpretations of the bible’, insinuating that the bible is just a ‘good book’ written by fallible man’, and I put that silly liberal claim to rest- I unfortunately made the mistake of saying ‘all liberals’ which you jumped on- which was your right to- but it was a mistake as anyone that knows my stand here knows I don’t generalize like that intentionally- then you, out of nowhere, accused me of ‘not udnerstanding hte difference between scriptures ideas and the wording- which was what started al lthis crap with the following:
post 602 Tactic logic: “If you’re simply here to tell me what’s wrong with my religious beliefs, then I’m here to tell you what’s wrong with yours. Fair enough?”
Post 606 Tactic Logic: “You mistake the words of the scripture for the ideas they represent, and you mistake walking around with a pie-hole full of stinkbait looking to start a fight about it for evangelism.”
Again- I made a statement about those hwo insinuate that the bible can’t be trusted, and include verses that show either the bible can be because both God and man said many times over it IS hte word of God- contrary to hte continual claims of liberals, who have one foot in one camp and hte other in another camp- wanting to be approved of bnoth camps- and you jump in and start an argument by generalizing that I ‘mistake the words of scriptuires for ideas” then go on to insult me- then you turn around and hide behind some arbitrary ‘rule’ that you live by whereby you afford yourself the luxury of insulting Christians, quesitoning their understanding of scriptures, but run and hide when they refute your claims and ask you to back up your false accusations? Swell- Whatever-
You complain about ‘discussing religious matters in a public forum’ when you want to duck challenges to your accusations-
[[I don’t think I owe you any apologies.]]
I’m not askign you for any apology- infact- All I wanted was for you to back up your claim that I ‘misunderstand scriptures ideas. If you’re goign to disparage the word of God ,insinuate that it;’s not actually the word of God, or claim or insinuate that there are ‘many interpretations’, or make claism that are contrary to His word, IN a General Forum, then I’m goign to provide evidence that refutes those claims, IN a general forum- you accused me of not udnerstanding hte ideas behind scriptures- so let’s get specific instead of hiding behind “I don’t discuss religious issues in general forums’ -You certainly had to problem dissing me by claiming, without proof or evidence, that I msunderstand scriptures, and falsely accusing me in general forums- so back it up- I’m not askign for any apologies- just that you man up and back your false accusatiosn up if you’re goign to make them in public
[[I didn’t offer any criticism of how you practice your religion until it was explicilty requested.]]
That’s BS- You began with several pretty nasty insults and false allegations- I’ve posted them above one more time- I certainly didn’t request any such false accusations and nasty remarks- not sure what the heck you’re talking about there?
You started throwing insuults at 583. Show me anything insulting I posted to you before that, and I’ll apologize. If you can’t do that then we’re done.
it isn’t an insult to say that someone is ignorant of a subject when they are infact ignorant of a subject- your quote (and I assumed agreement with said quote) of payne showed an ignorance of our founding fathers and their reliance on God and Christian morals when framing our constitution, and showed an ignorance of the bible by claiming falsley that it was so error riddled as to be untrustworthy, and supposeldy making it the word of man as opposed to the word of God. I simpyl challenged you to check out hte care and serious reverence with which the scribes put toward transcribing God’s word which woudl have exposed the lie that God’s word is ‘full of errors’, and I stand by that challenge to you, as it seems you and others who continually make the false claims are unaware of how carefully and reverently the scribes did their jobs. For instance- I’m willing to bet that you are not aware that scribes who made even a 1 letter mistake threw the whole page away, and prayerfully asked God for guidance to avoid such mistakes again before takign up the task of transcribing again-
“All of those scribes were as careful as humans are capable of, and most of them truly believed that they would be banished to Hell if they made even a single copying error! But the Bible contains around 800,000 words and around three million characters. Extremely careful comparison between the thousands of different scribe copies that still exist have found some very minor copying errors in some of the existing copies of the earlier original Manuscripts. None of them have changed any significant wording or belief.”
“It truly is a remarkable achievement by the many hundreds of Scribes who had to copy the entire Bible that they made astoundingly few copying errors!”
The task of transcribing the bible was taken VERY seriously by these scribes, and it was a mssive undertaking and it was amazing how few errors there were in the end, and for payne to claim what he did, and for people/skeptics to claim what they do, is an unfounded accusation based on ignorance of just how carefully and error free the transcribed bible really is. Peoplel ike Merrit, who obviously have an aganda agaisnt hte bible have scoured God’s word looking, hoping, to find contradictions ,and wh3en they can’t find them, they simply make up false accusations that have been refuted time and time again, yet people who really could care less about the innerancy of God’s word glom onto spurious claims fro mthe likes of Merrit regardless of hte FACT that their claims have no truth to them- I’d hope you- a person who claims objectivity, would not fal linto that category, and for htem ost part you stear clear of generalizations, but by posting payne, it would seem you did so in approval of what he said, and hterefore, as a challenge to the innerancy of God’s word, I provide evidnece refuting such claims, and refutign his, and by extension your claim, that the bible isn’t supposedly God’s word- a statement which, when examined agaisnt hte actual evidence, shows an ignorance of the subject-
As for my comment about liberals and evos lack of ammunition by throwing htese false claism out there- I stand by that comment, and stand by the fact that even these comments thrown out as ammunition are weak and do not stand the test when the evidence is presented- which is why I challenged you to try to show how ‘error prone the bible was suppsoed to be’ and how it was suppsoedly the ‘word of man’ as opposed to hte word of God
cap- i always forget the link to hte quotes: http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/version7.htm
You couldn’t be a scribe. You can’t even use the spell checker.
Why did you make that assumption?
Exactly.
Where did all the fossil fish and ocean creatures come from?
Did you EVEN READ the post? Have you ever been evaluated for reading comprehension?
Because the flood did not extinguish sealife (Mmmmm, not surehow that would work) you opine there should be no evidence that individual creatures did in fact die, for whatever reason?
Man, evo’s can be tiresome.
But according to other creves, the waters boiled up from underground. All the sea life would have been killed. Or will you come up with another “just so” idea?
GGG won’t answer, maybe you will. Why are there no trilobite fossils above the Permian layer?
Read the account. I posted it, and it is available to you at Bible.com.
Waters coming out of the ground kills sealife? Waterlife? Spring fed rivers/ponds/lakes are devoid or deadly to life? Get a grip.
Answering your question would mean I buy into your arguement. I do not. There are fossils where they are. The flood was as described and did as is described. Any questions on that? read about it.
If it’s because of a big flood, why is there a cutoff at a certain strata? How would you get nice layering of fossils we see?
Saying “Poof! god did it” is not an explanation or proof.
Shouldn’t you find trilobites \mixed in with dinosaur fossils, with the fossils of human ancestors, such as Ardi
Eacka, is is wise to place your trust in God, not in man or his works. The Bible is Truth. Explain away all you wish.
Science may say “Evolution is the process” I say it is not.
Science may say “Strata! There are Strata why this or that?” I say the Flood happened.
Key here, Science says a man, dead 3 days will not rise and live. Yet, Our Savior, the Son od God, the Son of Man did just that.
We are to walk by Faith, that means to believe, not by sight, distrusting what man may say, especially in regards to God. Hope that helps.
The thing is “Creation Science” is not science.
It is religion, pure and simple. Calling it a science is lying.
Show me verifiable scientific data and I’ll believe it. Citing the bible is not scientific data.
Creationism should be taught in history classes where all the other religions are discussed, not science class.
Creation was. Creation Science is just that evidence which supports the fact of Creation.
The ‘religion’ is this belief that life ‘happens’. It just magically springs up.
By asking for ‘verifiable data’, you betray that you have no Faith, nor do you wish to have it.
There is science that supports Creation. But evo’s wish not to see it, lest they find themselves actually a Creation, subject to a Creator; instead of some sort of a cosmic accident, subject only to themselves.
Spin it all you wish. There is science that supports Creation; events, people, places in the Bible have been and are being confirmed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.