Unknown Soldier
Well-known member
You speak of the Bible as if it has a will of its own. Some people refer to that view as "Bibliolatry." Anyway, the Bible in so many ways is so confusing that it "isn't even errant." We can't say for sure if it's right or wrong.I dont, it has proven itself to be inerrant.
True, so let me say that there is no evidence for demonic possession yet there is abundant evidence for mental illness. It then seems wise to me to conclude that alleged cases of possession are actually cases of mental illness.There have been many things that have never been proven by science. Science has not proven that your wife loves you but you think she does.
True, but it does prove that those intelligent judges and lawmakers can be disorderly. And being disorderly, appealing to order doesn't prove they exist. So your "order in the cosmos" argument for God is fallacious.In some legal cases the judge or lawmakers have to suspend a law, but that doesnt prove that the judge or lawmakers dont exist.
So for instance murder is necessary to destroy murder. Brilliant logic!No, the freedom to do evil is necessary to destroy evil.
Actually, I really can't choose to love anybody. And love can actually create evil. For instance, the Stalinists loved Stalin, and we all know how that ended up. Anyway, here we have the reason evil exists.Evil can only be destroyed by love, and in order to truly love God you have to freely choose to do so.
Remember, your Bible cannot err. Now you know why evil exists. God created it.Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
So when did you sell all you have, gave to the poor, and then followed Jesus? (Luke 18:22)God has said that the only way to destroy evil forever is to love and obey Him. That has to be done freely.
Those laws allow for disorder.No, auto accidents dont violate the laws of physics.
Hooray for the Protestants! You keep shaping the evidence to fit your position. Why not shape your position to fit the evidence?They didnt invent the first modern scientific organization to systematically study nature. Protestants did, the Royal Society of London.
No doubt you define "essential" as what most Christian sects agree on. So you're arguing in a circle.Yes, but that separated the wheat from the chaff. And all churches that accept the infallible authority of the Bible agree on the essentials.
Most sects agree on the essentials.
The essentials are what most sects agree on.
I prefer Italy. That's where the Vatican is, and it was the seat of the Roman Empire. Italy is arguably the most culturally influential nation on earth.And if the Reformation had not occurred, all the good things about Western civilization would not have occurred including the formation of the greatest nation on earth the USA.
So did Jesus appoint Peter the first pope? That is an "essential" for Roman Catholics.Not the essential teachings, they are obvious.
I never could understand how small change can occur over short periods of time yet large change cannot occur over a long period of time. Maybe you can explain it.It doesnt. But Darwin never found evidence for macroevolution, only microevolution. His finches never turned into anything but finches with different beaks...No, macroevolution has never been empirically observed, it is just an unwarranted historical extrapolation of microevolution.
Evolution works just fine within limits. Your fallacy is to conclude that constrained change cannot exist.He didnt know about genetic entropy, we now know that over time genes lose information so that major body structure changes are not unlimited.
Asa sounds like a sensible guy.The great botanist Asa Gray was a devout Presbyterian who eventually accepted evolution as Gods method to create living things. And he was a friend of Darwin and there were others.
Then maybe you can explain why those who read the "original language" disagree as much as those who can't read those languages.Huh? That is the best way to understand ancient documents you have to read them in the original language. Not english translations.
How can the atmosphere hold up that mythological ocean that the Bible speaks of?It can also mean open space like the atmosphere. So that means the Bible is not wrong. Try again.