Well, being that you are an absolutists I’m not surprised at your response. Unfortunately the real world is not so black and white. As I say, this was very troublesome for many preachers I know. We’re not just talking about mental illness, we’re talking about anyone who is tempted to do bad things versus people who are not.

Given that life is supposedly a one-shot deal. No second chances. And it’s a judgmental scheme. Then men who have absolutely no desire to do bad things are getting a free ride. Whilst men who have to constantly fight against strong urges to do bad things are being given a very rigorous tests.

In short, it would be an extremely unfair system. Anyone who does bad things and is judged by God to be a sinner could just point over at me and say to God, “Well this isn’t fair because you didn’t give that many any temptations! He got a free ride! Why didn’t you make me like you made him?”

Do you see the problem Spider? If anyone gets a free ride through life than all those who don’t will have a legitimate right to claim foul. It wouldn’t have been fair to them that they were created with such great desires to do bad things. Had they not had that desire in the first place they would have never done them.

I’m, I’d have to agree with them! If a man is raping women, or molesting little children, I’m prepared to automatically say that he must be mentally ill. I certainly don’t have any desire to do those things. I can only imagine that people who do those things are mental ill.

We could actually carry that over to apply to any imaginable bad act. No one in their right mind would commit a bad act. Therefore all sin can be excused on grounds that the person who committed it couldn’t have possibly be thinking lucid.

So now we’re at an impasse that no one can ever be guilty of committing a sin whilst thinking clearly. All sin is a result of ignorance, stupidity, and/or mental illness and thus it is all excusable.

Well, being that you are an absolutists I’m not surprised at your response. Unfortunately the real world is not so black and white. As I say, this was very troublesome for many preachers I know. We’re not just talking about mental illness, we’re talking about anyone who is tempted to do bad things versus people who are not.

Given that life is supposedly a one-shot deal. No second chances. And it’s a judgmental scheme. Then men who have absolutely no desire to do bad things are getting a free ride. Whilst men who have to constantly fight against strong urges to do bad things are being given a very rigorous tests.

In short, it would be an extremely unfair system. Anyone who does bad things and is judged by God to be a sinner could just point over at me and say to God, “Well this isn’t fair because you didn’t give that many any temptations! He got a free ride! Why didn’t you make me like you made him?”

Do you see the problem Spider? If anyone gets a free ride through life than all those who don’t will have a legitimate right to claim foul. It wouldn’t have been fair to them that they were created with such great desires to do bad things. Had they not had that desire in the first place they would have never done them.

I’m, I’d have to agree with them! If a man is raping women, or molesting little children, I’m prepared to automatically say that he must be mentally ill. I certainly don’t have any desire to do those things. I can only imagine that people who do those things are mental ill.

We could actually carry that over to apply to any imaginable bad act. No one in their right mind would commit a bad act. Therefore all sin can be excused on grounds that the person who committed it couldn’t have possibly be thinking lucid.

So now we’re at an impasse that no one can ever be guilty of committing a sin whilst thinking clearly. All sin is a result of ignorance, stupidity, and/or mental illness and thus it is all excusable.

There is no man who is without sin, according to Jesus. Therefore, Jesus taught that the man who sins, but is repentant has a distinct advantage over the man who sins and believes he is sinless. According to the Bible, every thought and action will be judged. One can't hide any sins from the all knowing judge.

There is no such thing as a person is done and has no more work to do here on earth to improve himself and the world. There is pleeeeeenty to do.

The world isn’t perfect, and there is absolutely nothing human beings can do to make it perfect. Even if every human being on earth was capable of living a perfect life, the world still wouldn’t be perfect because nature isn’t perfect.

My question is this: Would your personal observations ever make you reject accepted science and instead embrace the Bible?

i am sure the earth is flat

i know it is

i just know it

yep flat

absolutely no doubt about it

uh huh flat yep

You don't trust science because of your personal observations, you trust it because it can be tested repeatedely in a consistent manner.
You believe the bible because you want to, not because it's true, it's called faith.

No "personal observation" can make you "reject science" your question makes no sense at all.

I have a question, which I would like to direct at those who are scientific minded.

First, some background on my thought process. If God appeared before the UN and supplied full documentation explaining each and every miracle described in the Bible, science would have to still deny that God exists and develope theories to explain what happened that day before the UN council. If we discovered that a copy of the entire Bible was written in 1,000 foot tall flaming letters on a planet a billion light years away, science would have to find a way to explain this that couldn't include God. I know that some find this notion comforting, but I find it disturbing. I see this mentality mentioned many times in Revelation, where the people will ignore all of the miracles happening around them and continue to deny God's existance.

My question is this: Would your personal observations ever make you reject accepted science and instead embrace the Bible?

SPQR,

Not all sciences are equal. Many have proven theories like Gravity and Photosynthesis. However other sciences are theory’s based on extrapolation and the notion that it’s the best theory that we currently have. That does not mean it’s proven. All it means that it’s the best current theory according to science.

Most people have no idea about this. They assume that all science is equal. Its not. Honestly, how many people have actually studied the details behind the “proof” of evolution or the age of the universe? Most folks just accept the notion without actually investigating for themselves.

Gravity and photosynthesys are not theories are "laws" if you came up with a better "gravity theory" let us all know please. Newton would be proud of you.

Details behind the LAW of evolution are in front of your face everyday, and you can study in a library, millions of volumes on the topic. New links found every month.
On the other side you trust a book written thousands of years ago and based on myths.
And you you mention investigating the truth? Why you ever investigated the bible?
LOL you guys are fun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

"Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring isotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years."

------------


Did you read it all or just the part that you liked better?
Keep it up! The geology and archeology community will be excited to see the results of your "work".

"Meanwhile suggestive evidence was dug out (literally) by the geochemist Wallace Broecker and collaborators. Ancient coral reefs were perched at various elevations above the present sea level on islands that geological forces were gradually uplifting. The fossil reefs gave witness to how sea level had risen and fallen as ice sheets built up on the continents and melted away. The coral could be dated by hacking out samples and measuring their uranium and other radioactive isotopes. These isotopes decayed over millennia on a timescale that had been accurately measured in nuclear laboratories.


Unlike carbon-14, the decay was slow enough so there was still enough left to measure after hundreds of thousands of years.

As a check, the sea level changes could be set alongside the oxygen-isotope temperature changes measured in deep-sea cores. Again the orbital cycles emerged, plainer than ever. At a conference on climate change held in Boulder, Colorado in 1965, Broecker announced that "The Milankovitch hypothesis can no longer be considered just an interesting curiosity."(20) People at the conference began to speculate on how the calculated changes in sunlight, although they seemed insignificantly small, might somehow trigger ice ages. That could happen if the climate system were so delicately balanced that a small push could prompt it to switch between different states.

<=>Chaos theory
<=>The oceans
<=>Rapid change

Emiliani improved his measurements, thanks to a fine set of cores that reached back more than 400,000 years. He announced he could not make the data fit the traditional ice ages timetable at all. He rejected the entire scheme, painstakingly worked out around the end of the 19th century in Europe and accepted by generations of geologists, of a Pleistocene epoch comprising four major glacial advances alternating with long and equable interglacial periods. Emiliani said the interglacials had been briefer, and had been complicated by irregular rises and falls of temperature, making dozens of ice ages.(21) Many other scientists found his chronology dubious, but he defended his position tenaciously. Most significantly, he believed the sequence correlated rather well with the complex Milankovitch curve of summer sunlight at high northern latitude. Calculating how the cycle should continue in the future, in 1966 Emiliani predicted that "a new glaciation will begin within a few thousand years."(22) It was a step toward what would soon become widespread public concern about future cooling.

You prove my point. 1. that he says that the HYPOTHESIS is no longer a curiosity. That still doesn't make it more then a HYPOTHESIS which is not the same thing as FACT.

Arguing about the age of the earth?

Believers are always harping about what can and cannot be proven or what is or is not a FACT.

That is really funny to me.

You can spend your entire life defending your chosen authority and it will have been wasted in the end.

None of that stuff matters really.

None of it matters.

Jeannie

To a person of faith believing in G-d feels with all his or her senses as true and connects with all of his or her life experiences. (In fact, I have discovered that by far the majority of atheists and agnostics have emotional issues (anger, hurt, negative experiences with people etc.) with religion and G-d - not logical ones.)