Evolution The Other Religion 2013

[agua.]

Yes, I understand the gospel message. Why is my difference of opinion on what Adam knew so troublesome to you?

I don't find your summation logical. If I say to you " Hey Hatuey if you play on the freeway you'll get unbigumbied " how could I expect you to know it's a bad thing?

Can you tell me what the Gospel message is ? Humour me

Most Christians I know consider Genesis 3: 17 and 18 to cover the animals and the rest of creation with the ground and plants. There is at least one more scripture that I partly remember that confirms the reading of those believers, but I am not motivated to find it, now. I assume you could do so if it was of that much interest to you?

No I'm comfortable Adam knew what death was. If you want to make the case he didn't I'd like to see your reasoning from the Bible.

 

[Hatuey]

I don't find your summation logical. If I say to you " Hey Hatuey if you play on the freeway you'll get unbigumbied " how could I expect you to know it's a bad thing?

Perhaps you should stop asking me questions, then? Yes, I don't believe it would bode well for my membership, here, to describe how I actually judge the situation biblegod put Adam into with the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil.

Can you tell me what the Gospel message is ? Humour me

No. Your previous replies do not offer sufficient motivation. If you would like to ask me about something in particular, I will answer honestly.

No I'm comfortable Adam knew what death was. If you want to make the case he didn't I'd like to see your reasoning from the Bible.

I'm not interested in "putting forth a case" on the matter. I simply answered your questions about my evaluation of the story. I do not feel the need to convince you of anything that I believe or do not believe. It is against the rules for me to do such a thing, anyway, since I am not part of your belief-club.

 

[agua.]

Perhaps you should stop asking me questions, then? Yes, I don't believe it would bode well for my membership, here, to describe how I actually judge the situation biblegod put Adam into with the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil.

Oky doky no worries

No. Your previous replies do not offer sufficient motivation. If you would like to ask me about something in particular, I will answer honestly.

No I don't have any questions on this atm. If you have any questions feel free to ask.

I'm not interested in "putting forth a case" on the matter. I simply answered your questions about my evaluation of the story. I do not feel the need to convince you of anything that I believe or do not believe. It is against the rules for me to do such a thing, anyway, since I am not part of your belief-club.

Oky doky I thought you may like to support your premise but thanks for the discussion and remember the offer of salvation is always available. God bless.

 

[Rick W]

For me I wasn't looking for Him.
And no, there was no "upset" in my life at the time.
But that's neither here nor there.



Thing is one can't expect God to force His love on anyone any more than forcing someone to be somewhere they don't want to be in the first place. With Him.
Love is a two-way street. The relationship built upon both as any relationship we know or experience.
I read of the legend of Hatuey. I was curious of your name. He declared gold the god of the Spaniards and today we know that as, "The love of money is the root of all evil". So, here again love comes to the forefront. And Hatuey didn't want to be where such evil men could exist. But then, that judgment wasn't up to the priest he inquired of.

I too adhere to a scientific method in my profession. If what I claim is not repeatable then my conclusions are worthless. But the scientific method is only valid where applicable. And that's my point. One cannot apply that reasoning, that logic, with matters of the heart. So whether scripture is true or not depends solely on the love relationship between God and one's heart. Does the testimony fit the one I know? For without the relationship the testimony is simply a story with no viable support or evidence that the relationship truly exists.

 

[reba]

Hatuey If you are not interested the Christian God why are you here?

 

[Hatuey]

messed up this post/reply. Trying again...

 

[Hatuey]

Hatuey If you are not interested the Christian God why are you here?

I am interested in the Christian god, and I am here for other reasons, too.

 

[agua.]

I too adhere to a scientific method in my profession. If what I claim is not repeatable then my conclusions are worthless. But the scientific method is only valid where applicable. And that's my point. One cannot apply that reasoning, that logic, with matters of the heart. So whether scripture is true or not depends solely on the love relationship between God and one's heart. Does the testimony fit the one I know? For without the relationship the testimony is simply a story with no viable support or evidence that the love is real.

I agree Rick aside from one thing. The historicity of Jesus and the Bible is available for anyone who wants to investigate and the life,death, and resurrection of Jesus is supported by evidence; although this won't necessarily provide faith.

 

[Hatuey]

Thing is one can't expect God to force His love on anyone any more than forcing someone to be somewhere they don't want to be in the first place. With Him.

No. My issue is his existence. Nothing in my experience leads me to believe that the god of the bible might exist. As for his love, I would not want it because I do respect his nature/decisions/behavior.

I too adhere to a scientific method in my profession. If what I claim is not repeatable then my conclusions are worthless. But the scientific method is only valid where applicable. And that's my point. One cannot apply that reasoning, that logic, with matters of the heart.

Correct, but I would used different terminology than "heart." The conclusions that the scientific method does provide are evidence against the god of the bible, though, not for him. I would expect science to have reached some very, very different conclusions if the bible were accurate.

So whether scripture is true or not depends solely on the love relationship between God and one's heart. Does the testimony fit the one I know? For without the relationship the testimony is simply a story with no viable support or evidence that the relationship truly exists.

I can't agree with your first sentence's claim.

 

[Hatuey]

I agree Rick aside from one thing. The historicity of Jesus and the Bible is available for anyone who wants to investigate and the life,death, and resurrection of Jesus is supported by evidence; although this won't necessarily provide faith.

I have done the research and completely disagree. Certainly there were many prophets with common Jewish names like "Yeshua" who performed miracles and claimed to be the messiah around the time and place in question.

 

[reba]

Hatuey, Are you interesting in the Christian God the only true God for reasons of salvation?

 

[Rick W]

I agree Rick aside from one thing. The historicity of Jesus and the Bible is available for anyone who wants to investigate and the life,death, and resurrection of Jesus is supported by evidence; although this won't necessarily provide faith.

True enough.
Depends if one is willing to accept the evidence though. I've been in debates where evidence is presented but not accepted. For some reason or another the evidence is made out to be invalid, the one presenting it or declaring it is belittled by character assassination or in some way the "evidence" made to be untrue or just plain irrelevant.
There are many ways to reject evidence.

 

[Hatuey]

True enough.
Depends if one is willing to accept the evidence though. I've been in debates where evidence is presented but not accepted. For some reason or another the evidence is invalid, the one presenting it or declaring it is belittled by character assassination or in some way the "evidence" made to be untrue or just plain irrelevant.

If the evidence can be verified, it is undeniable. Many a muslim has told me that certain elements of Islam are proven by evidence that none of you here would accept and which the scientific community cannot verify.

 

[Hatuey]

Hatuey, Are you interesting in the Christian God the only true God for reasons of salvation?

No, but I don't rule it out. I am interested in most gods believed by more than a few million people.

 

[agua.]

True enough.
Depends if one is willing to accept the evidence though. I've been in debates where evidence is presented but not accepted. For some reason or another the evidence is made out to be invalid, the one presenting it or declaring it is belittled by character assassination or in some way the "evidence" made to be untrue or just plain irrelevant.
There are many ways to reject evidence.

Yeah true it depends on the level of proof required by a person. I recall recently a person who didn't believe the Holocaust was verifiable and so any history discussion was futile.

 

[Rick W]

If the evidence can be verified, it is undeniable. Many a muslim has told me that certain elements of Islam are proven by evidence that none of you here would accept and which the scientific community cannot verify.

So again we're back to the scientific method to attempt validation of a relationship. Can't work. Never will. Many had presented their evidence and it did little good to convince me. But things changed August19, 1998. Can I prove the changes were founded or based in logic to rationalize my acceptance? Of course not. Can I testify of those changes? Yes but I can't prove a thing.
Again, the bible is the story of God's pursuit of the hearts of men. Whether His advances succeed or not depends on the heart and not on evidence or anything a scientist can prove.

 

[Rick W]

Yeah true it depends on the level of proof required by a person. I recall recently a person who didn't believe the Holocaust was verifiable and so any history discussion was futile.

Exactly.

Nice example by the way.

 

[Hatuey]

Yeah true it depends on the level of proof required by a person. I recall recently a person who didn't believe the Holocaust was verifiable and so any history discussion was futile.

I'm fairly gullible. My "level of proof" isn't that much.

 

[Hatuey]

So again we're back to the scientific method to attempt validation of a relationship. Can't work. Never will. Many had presented their evidence and it did little good to convince me. But things changed August19, 1998. Can I prove the changes were founded or based in logic to rationalize my acceptance? Of course not. Can I testify of those changes? Yes but I can't prove a thing.
Again, the bible is the story of God's pursuit of the hearts of men. Whether His advances succeed or not depends on the heart and not on evidence or anything a scientist can prove.

No, we were talking about proof/evidence of the historicity of Christ. Nothing about relationship.

Again, 'heart' isn't a term that does us much good, here. It only works on people in your club who all agree on a mystical definition of a piece of jargon.

The reason I disbelieve in your god is the same reason I disbelieve other gods. I remain unconvinced by any evidence that has been offered to me, and the same results can be attained through certain chemicals or obsessions or hobbies, and I would never say that just because a person is happy with a particular philosophy that it must therefore be true.

 

[Rick W]

If the evidence can be verified, it is undeniable. Many a muslim has told me that certain elements of Islam are proven by evidence that none of you here would accept and which the scientific community cannot verify.

But the conclusions made based on undeniable evidence aren't necessarily undeniable themselves. I can present undeniable evidence and more than one conclusion can be made. Science generates data. The scientist generates the conclusion. Science itself makes no conclusions.
Many times throughout history evidence was declared but the conclusions were off target.

No, science cannot prove the relationship with Christ. And relying on it to do so is an exercise in futility.