The links of knowledge

Five minutes. Maybe you are a new reader or a young believer, if you glean just one crumb it will be an invaluable tool for you first, then to share with others. If you are a simple unbeliever, please consider the possibility that a man named Adam lived. If you are an atheist, please consider your own rules, and try to follow the lin ks.

To set the table: This is the first of twin posts to draw attention to the clever but nearly insane requests that appear daily. They are demanded of believers,  and they are incessant, but the appeal is singular: to try to cast aspersion on God and His word, (yea, good luck with that) and the obvious ancillary result is the mocking of believers. While presenting itself as harmless, there is the dark side of the moon ya know, and there is always the angel of light…

Certain folks demand answers from scripture, Sola scriptura! they shout,  while at the same time deny the authority from scripture which gives the answers their only merit. Look at the supreme lack of logic being engaged, where the precursor to the question, guarantees ANY answer as completely unacceptable.

There is no correct answer to the atheist under his own terms.

Would it be wrong of me to laugh at such a statement?  Hoop jumping, fact twisting, and logic avoiding are all used to justify further unbelief, while at the same time charging the believer with malfeasance.  Indeed, it is the believers fault the truth is vague! Yea, there’s a chuckle in there somewhere.

Watch for the patterns to emerge. Emphasis mine.

These are a few recent comments:

‘ Moses is a fictional character.
You have no evidence for anything you promote on this blog.
And your intransigence is only matched by either your ignorance based indoctrination or blatant stupidity.’

‘The “Word of God” is what mortal, superstitious Bronze Age men SAY it is.’

‘I don’t mock the Bible. I don’t despise it. But I do recognize myth when I see it.’

‘Adam and Eve aren’t historical figures. They were never real people and they were never our founding couple. We did not descend from them. We did not ‘inherit’ anything from them. They are characters in a story. That’s it. They had to make the choice they did because that’s the choice the author made for them. The characters are not accountable; the author is.’

‘I saw Law and Moses and Jesus and pretty much switched off after this as you are referencing a fictitious character and what is to be gained from that.’

‘There is nothing you can say about the Bible, including all of the supposed “Words of god.” that weren’t written by mortal, superstitious, ignorant, Bronze Age men, except for the NT, which was written by mortal, superstitious, ignorant, Iron Age men.’

‘First, I would need to see testable, verifiable proof that your “god” exists.’

‘ What on earth are you talking about? The story is fiction. It  (the ark of Noah) was never built.’  ‘It has been established through science that Noah’s flood, for example, is pure myth. What more is there to defend?

‘Your “Lord,” your “Son of god,” knew no more about the flood than the anonymous, scientifically-ignorant Bronze Age men who invented it, and says a LOT about him.’

‘He broke the law by not stoning both adulterer and adulteress… but chose, instead to forgive the woman. Clearly, this goes against the law that he said wouldn’t have the slightest correction to it.’

They then ask for proof: 

‘And I am still waiting for one damn link for the recognition of the veracity of the John pericope re the adulteress woman. Have you not a single shred of honesty or are you little more than a Benny Hinn charlatan?

Got a link for me to read so’s we can clear this up?

So, do you have links for me regarding scholarly opinion re: the passage in John?

This is nothing more than a defensive dodge – a typical tactic of believers – to avoid facing what’s actually true: that you are fooling yourself because you have no means at your disposal to defend your beliefs from the charges that they are simply self produced foolishness.

Others said: 

‘All stories told by superstitious, scientifically-ignorant Bronze and Iron Age men.’

‘Are you aware that a full 85% of the Academy of Science are atheists?’                                             (Hmmm, that low? -CS)

‘In fact, in practice, the word of God fails.’

‘A Levitical priest, sitting in captivity in Babylon in the 500’s BCE, SAID that his god said, “Let there be light.”

Describing the apostle Peter’s testimony of the Lord of glory:

That’s right, the ignorant fisherman penned these wonderful words of inspiration and infallible proof.” (CS)  – ‘And clearly a superstitious, scientifically-ignorant Iron Age illiterate fisherman was basing his supposition – and that’s all it could have been – on misinformation – the words of superstitious, scientifically-ignorant, Bronze Age men.’

I had asked why do you think God is not raining fire down from heaven today: 

‘Because imaginary entities are incapable of doing that.’

With a finger pointed at me (and all others like-minded):

My ‘arrogance and foolishness can be successfully treated.’  ‘My trust and truth is misplaced.’  There is ‘contrary and compelling evidence from reality.’  ‘You have fooled yourself utterly’.

Would it be mild if I said there is a disconnect here? 

Who in their right mind seeks answers from people who are ‘arrogant, not trustworthy, untruthful,  who are utterly foolish, and are disjointed from reality? Who then would be more at fault, the ‘delusional person,’ or a person who persists in drawing answers from the deluded.   Hmmmm?

They who say the word of God is a book of myths and lies, ask you to defend their charges, and when you do, their only inescapable logic according to the rules they have set up is, your answer is bogus. Double Hmmmm.

After reading, pondering,and understanding the interest of the commenters, do you think there is even the slimmest chance that a ‘new’ link of information will be helpful? Do you think if we posted a hundred links of WHY John’s account of the adulterous woman is scripture, it will serve any purpose to a person who thinks Christ did not live?

If we included a hundred sources WHY the last verses of Mark 16 are scripture, will it make any difference to a person who says Moses and Abraham were myths?  Will it really matter to a person who says Nazareth did not exist?

Will it matter one whit to a person who says Peter, James, and John were hallucinating when they saw the majesty of the Lord on the holy mountain?

Can you see why I have no interest in link-pong with any who believes God’s word is not authoritative? As if a new link can add worth to the intrinsic eternal perfection of God and His word. You may as well try to make the sun hotter with a match, or to add color to the rainbow with a crayon. You want a link? Read the next verse of the one you are questioning. Then read the chapter, then maybe you will be so enrapt with scripture, you will agree they are indeed the links of truth and knowledge.

It is insulting to ask for the dry works of men to prove God’s word, as it needs no defense. The atheist is the master magician, using the truth right in front of him and making it disappear, yet it does not go away, he is simply good at creating delays and endless diversions.

Read any thread from any blog concerning creation, Adam, Moses, Daniel, the exodus, Calvary, take your pick, and note the opposition. Links, videos, back and forth, day after day of nothing being settled, and the believer is pressed for ‘more links?’ The ‘missing link’ is not a url, or Darwin, but the simple understanding of God and His word.

If a person does not believe Moses lived, if a person does not believe ‘In the beginning God…’it is irrelevant to explain sections of scripture that the devil has greatly used to cast more doubt.

I enjoy seeing other believers who answer in the same way by not engaging the petty requests of they who have absolutely no interest in truth. Yea there is a word for that:

‘Shun profane and vain babblings.’

I have no desire to ‘scrutinize’ your references of God haters, word of God doubters,   pseudo scholars, and all the perpetual assaults on truth, which by the way are simple cloaks for the real issue: a rejection of the God of heaven, the Lord of redemption, and His very word.

 

P.s.  -as far as the atheist or so called scholar having credibility with a bible in hand, they have disqualified themselves for promoting the word of God as myths. It’s not an insult, just a verifiable and incontrovertible fact.

 

The second post is below

https://thenakedtruth2.wordpress.com/2015/01/23/higher-education/

Advertisements

About ColorStorm

Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture.
Gallery | This entry was posted in Unbelief (ahem: atheism) and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to The links of knowledge

  1. Wally Fry says:

    You put a lot of thought into all of that. And looking at all that from the outside in…seems the relentlessness of that would just wear you out…thank God for the strength of God huh? Because it is wearing, the constant hammering.

    Just this morning, after incessant badgering, I said the following to the person doing it:

    “That is by far the stupidest argument I have ever heard….simply absurd on face value. How can one say in one breath that the OT is fiction and with the next breath condemn the actions in it? Duh….duh…and more duh.

    Ok..take your next shot. ..then that’s your last on one this thread. ”

    Nice to see you have felt the same way, ColorStorm.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. There are also atheists who ask for proof outside of the Bible, and we are consistently given the song and dance routine around that too.

    Your post here cuts both ways. There isn’t a lack of integrity when an atheist asks for proof outside of the Bible. And it shows a lack of integrity when the proof is claimed to have existed, yet it still is not brought forward. This is a critical flaw of Christian apology and argument. As this is done more and more, and others who doubt and do not believe see it for what it is, you will find that if Christianity has an end, this will be its biggest contributor.

    Or, to put it another way, this intellectual dishonesty will take the nails from Christ’s cross and put it into Christianity’s coffin.

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      I do like the literary quality of your last sentence, but I do not believe it. Are you forgetting, in spite of all shortcomings, ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it?’

      Liked by 2 people

      • That’s if the gates of hell are there, and “it” is there to prevail against.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Well SB

          It does appear there is plenty of evidence that this ‘building of his church,’ is prevailing. Take a look across the world and consider people hiding so they can study scripture apart from the boots of persecution. God’s word is appreciated in the most dark of circumstances, and thrives.

          There is the prevailing on blog sites, where believers are as ib says ‘living epistles, known and read of men.’ Surely you know this.

          There is a unity that cannot be man made.

          Then there is always the word of God………..

          Like

        • Likewise, CS, there is evidence that more people do not believe in the tenets of the faith. The “Rise of the Nones,” who have no faith, it is called. These people who eschew adherence to dogma, instead they opt for what humanity can prove.

          If I am right, CS, the Bible will not die with a bang. It will be put down calmly. And from hence it can be used as an example for many different things. Such a legacy of the Good Book will be more glorious than in its current form, for humanity can finally read it for what it is, rather than what others allege it might be.

          I probably will not live to see that day, sadly. But I am happy enough to contribute to it nonetheless.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          I can’t answer for others who do not believe in the tenets of the faith.

          God’s word put down calmly? I just showed you that it prevails, as God always has a witness.

          Humanity will read it for what it is????

          It will always be read the same.

          A savor of life,
          or a savor of death. Its all about the heart.

          Like

        • It’s already read differently, CS. There are so many different versions of the Bible. There are so many different versions of Christianity. There are so many different perceptions of God.

          And it’s already getting put down calmly.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          And so many people being blessed with all the versions of the bible…

          And so many versions of Christianity?? Sure, ‘in my Fathers house are many mansions.’

          So many perceptions of God?
          And?

          Your excuses aren’t good enough sb

          You can change the tide in your world. He’ll take you back with open arms.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Then let me also let you know you can change the tide in your world too, CS.

          There are plenty of atheists who might be willing to give out free hugs for free thinkers.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          I’ll pass, but stay tuned for pt 2.

          Liked by 1 person

    • “There are also atheists who ask for proof outside of the Bible, and we are consistently given the song and dance routine around that too.”

      Serius, I am the proof. All believers are “the proof” many atheists seek. To be Chrsitian means to be a little Christ, a rather poor imitation of Him perhaps, but that is what we all strive for.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Okay, IB. But what exactly do you mean that you are “the proof”? Is it your existence at all? Is it how you managed to follow Christianity despite an upbringing that tried to condition you against it? Is it some mixture of these? If so, in what amounts?

        Or is there another reason? If so, what is that other reason?

        Like

        • All of the above, Sirius. Christians are living proof of Christ, of His power to transform our lives, of His power to bring out our higher selves, of teaching us how to love other people.

          When atheists try to ridicule, mock, shame us, that’s what you are doing trying to dismantle the evidence of Christ that is right before your eyes.

          Liked by 1 person

        • By your same reasoning, then, I and every other deconvert are living proof that there is no higher power out there. It’s a one-sided offering, IB. Are you willing to admit that people who leave the faith are proof that there isn’t a faith? That Christ does not have the power to transform lives?

          Like

        • Sirius, as much as I like and respect a few atheists, there is no doubt in my mind that without the presence of Christ in our lives, human beings are simply lost. Yes, I know that idea is offensive to many atheists, the same atheists who relentlessly label Christians crazy, ignorant, misguided, delusional etc, etc. The same atheists who visit blogs and spend countless hours trying to take something beautiful about somebody’s faith and make it ugly.

          So yes, deconverts are living proof of why we need Christ in our lives.

          Liked by 1 person

        • That’s not what I asked, IB.

          This exchange is becoming another example of how discussions between atheists and Christians can devolve into frustration. By your earlier reasoning, I am living proof that Christ is powerless. Instead of discussing that, the issue is shifted to “why we need Christ in our lives.”

          What I don’t think you realize is that there are plenty of doubting Christians out there. They are doubters like I once was. And they read these comments. They devour them. And what they see is that an atheist is trying to have an honest, but emotionally charged, conversation. And then they’re going to see how a Christian cannot even meet him with the same honesty.

          And you know what? Then they’re going to question things even more. You won’t see them because they are quiet people who want to live, love, and share life as best they can with those they meet. But they are there.

          So in the end, I cannot stop you from running people away from your faith.

          Like

        • “So in the end, I cannot stop you from running people away from your faith”

          So says the former Christian who spends all his time attempting to evangelize deconversion. That is a complete attempt to project your own self onto me.

          Regardless Sirius, peace. We’ve taken up enough space on this blog.

          Like

    • madblog says:

      This would be true of atheists who are looking for an honest exchange of thoughts, who are open to entertaining new challenges to their chosen premise. But I have found this to be rare. Just follow a thread. Not one will actually respond to the questions, answers, or challenges provided. They will almost invariably ignore the offerings made toward a conversation and bloviate on a new point instead. They simply will not converse, respond, exchange. No doubt there are atheists who will do this in a real way but alas, they are not the ones wandering the blogosphere I travel.

      Liked by 4 people

  3. Well said, colorstorm. One thing that fascinates me, non believers often cannot see their own behavior or the nature of their own selves. I don’t know why, it’s a riddle I’ve been following for a long time. All I can say is that eyes to see and ears to hear, appears to be a real truth in scripture.

    One thing I’m pretty sure of, you cannot really knowledge your way to God. You cannot follow the links of your own reasoning to find Him. It’s a bit more like, “come unto me like a little child,” open minded, aware of your own ignorance, wanting to learn.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. lang3063 says:

    “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'” John 5:31. This is why I rarely mix it up with atheists of the intractable, duckspeaking variety. They actually can’t imagine a transcendent God; they don’t have that simple capacity. At least that’s what one of them told me. They literally can’t (won’t) understand what we’re talking about. They demand proof from within the “box” of nature for that which is by definition supernatural, beyond nature. And they’re proud robots. Any answer to any question they pose triggers the defaults you’ve outlined. They can’t bring themselves to admit something as obvious as the fact that intelligent, critically minded people can arrive at different conclusions regarding the same issues. Now and then one might engage in debate and politely agree to disagree but usually (almost always, in my experience) they start off calm and rational then quickly reach some unpredictable boiling point. Then all bets are off and it’s seek and destroy. No thanks. I enjoy life and don’t need their nonsense.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      You are right big time. (Did you take a peek at my next post?)

      You can’t underestimate though a simple comment like yours here, stated so well, you never know who is in the bleachers

      Tkx for thinking enough to post.

      (no tkx-nonsense–;)

      Liked by 1 person

  5. tellthetruth1 says:

    Reblogged this on The love of God and commented:
    We can’t deny Him. Since we have His Holy Spirit, we just cannot deny Him. Case closed.

    Like

  6. madblog says:

    ” Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.…”
    “Do not speak to fools, for they will scorn your prudent words.”
    “If a wise person goes to court with a fool, the fool rages and scoffs, and there is no peace.”

    My policy is to not play, not to engage when a commenter is clearly looking to pontificate on his own pet rant or is only spoiling for a fight.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. tildeb says:

    CS, I didn’t use the term ‘myth’ to mean a lie. I have far, far too much respect for mythology to make that mistake. I said I recognized myth when I saw it because I am student of mythology and understand that these narratives following a prescribed form for an aural audience are (probably) the very best ‘teachers’ we have at our disposal to gain wisdom from those who have lived before us.

    And this is true of the Genesis myth(s)… (altered to serve a very Jewish political cause but, hey, that’s another story).

    I recognize all the signposts that scream ‘Myth ahead!’ when I read Genesis. And so I take the story very seriously… not as an historical account (which is about as stupid as stupid can be considering the lunacy of pretending that snakes can talk and people can be POOF!ed into existence) but as a creation myth.

    And valuable AS A MYTH.

    if you could read this myth unencumbered by the Christianized version (so backwards a rendition that it boggles the mind anyone with two neurons to rub together would fall for it), you would see how it comes laden with profound meaning on how to live YOUR life to vastly improve its meaning and value.

    But what religious idiots have done is try to make this obvious myth a literal account of origins! I <know! How stupid is that?! Well, so stupid that people try to make it historical, make it scientific. This is just brutally asinine. This approach guts the myth entirely and renders its symbolic language undecipherable (talking snakes that have no cheeks, a created man with an umbilical chord!

    I mean, duh!

    But nope. These clues are treated by a LaStradian stupidity and obtuseness that leaves one breathless in wonder.

    We’re left with morons trying to pretend there really was this garden, you see, and there really was a man and then a POOF!ed woman (umm… usually men come from women, you see..) and a talking snake and an apple and special trees and magical guardians and an angry creator making the curious nature he imbedded in one species of his creatures – not the man at first, of course, but that darned selfish woman POOF!ed into existence to be the real cause of HIS problems – when exercised to be ‘disobedience’. That the creator said they’d die is a lie (oh wait… here comes the ‘figurative’ defenders all of a sudden in the midst of defending a literal account… ahem!) but the snake who tells the truth is the ‘evil’ one!. It’s such a stupid and dull reading that it is simply ludicrous to take seriously…

    …except by those so intellectually dulled by religious mumbo jumbo that all of this POOF!ing and magical properties and evictions from some divine Disneyland are really quite rational… so rational, in fact, that these clues indicate a reasonable historical and literal account…

    Good grief.

    sigh

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Tildeb said regarding the ‘stupid’ account of Genesis, and whether it is to be believed:-

      ‘— I have far, far too much respect for mythology to make that mistake.———–‘

      Nice work, takes a Goliath of a man to slay God’s word so easily. Is your conscience broke?

      You do not believe a word of scripture, yet you try to teach it? Do you have any idea of how foolish you present yourself?

      Always amuses me the length the atheist will travel to disparage scripture, the Creator, and people of the book.

      The great and mighty Oz, excuse me, Tildeb has said that believers are ‘intellectually dulled’ for believing in ‘some divine Disneyland,……………’

      Hmmm, there’s a new one, but still at the end of the day, God is God, and while your paltry attempts try to dismiss Him, He still offers you grace.

      You see, He is much better than your petulance.

      Liked by 1 person

      • tildeb says:

        In your colossal arrogance, you presume the myth of Genesis is not worth your consideration as a myth but an historical account. This is very stupid because you don’t even pay attention to the myth and don’t know what it means. You turn away an opportunity to learn something about yourself and, instead, try to use the myth as a blueprint for human origins. In all cases of claims made in Genesis, any that are knowable are demonstrably false. But you don’t care because you believe and thus rob yourself of what this atheist can help you recognize is a very valuable lesson on what it means to be human.

        Try to read the myth as someone from 3000 years ago might read it…. without any Christian baggage whatsoever (that’s a much later interpretation, which is why we know it’s has to be bass ackwards… how did people understand and pass on the myth a millennia before any Jesus Christ supposedly came along?) See what you find. But you have to do your part. This begins by recognizing that supernatural elements – always an essential feature of myths – are actually costumed human archetypes, elementary ideas, the same symbolic language as our dreams.

        Once you cast off the shackles of the Christian interpretation, only then can you start to experience this myth and experience first hand what these ancients are trying to teach you about being human. If you do this successfully, you will experience a transformation. And that’s the awesome power of myth.

        To drive my point home, consider the last book, the culmination, the conclusion of Plato’s The Republic. If you don;t have it handy, I will tell you it’s called the Myth of Er. Why would Plato present his final chapter in this form? What is it about myth that convinced such a big brained guy to utilize it in this way if myth means ‘lie’ or ‘allegory’ or ‘history’?

        Maybe, just maybe, you can learn something here, CS. And if you do, you’ll better understand why those who treat myth in these ways (Plato also used allegory intentionally with the Allegory of the Cave so it’s not like the guy was confused about which is which) are deserving of contempt for an utter failure to use the faculties you believe your god gave you. Again, consider this first nail in the Christian version: how on earth did the myth survive more than a thousand years without any savior figure to bring about redemption that the Christian dogma insists is the right interpretation of this narrative? There are more nails, in that every component when examined historically and scientifically are demonstrably and factually wrong.

        There are better answers to what Genesis means and they are right there in front of you… if you only have the intellectual integrity to try to engage it on its terms and try to understand what it is saying outside the framework of your ignorant and superstitious religious indoctrination.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Tildeb

          You are doing many people a huge favor. God’s word speaks to your comment far better than I:

          ‘murmurers
          wandering stars
          clouds without water
          these filthy dreamers
          speaking lies in hypocrisy
          foaming out their own shame
          mouths that speak great swelling words
          these people speak evil of things that they do not know’

          So thank you, God’s word is always light years ahead.

          (and by the way, God still offers you grace in spite of your insolence and petty
          ascriptions)

          Liked by 1 person

        • tildeb says:

          So, in other words, you aren’t interested in learning anything but that which appears to support your religious beliefs, which are true because you believe them to be true. And, like the napkin religion, it’s must be true because it says so right here on this napkin.

          CS, what’s the matter with you? Why do you not recognize the vortex of religious belief that has enslaved your mind… demonstrated by how often you must utilize this circular reasoning? Surely if what you believed were true, reality would support it. That it doesn’t seems of no consequence to you, which is really and truly bizarre for anyone the least bit concerned with respecting what’s true.

          So, again, how can you explain the existence of this myth (what you consider ‘history’) to be a meaningful narrative to dozens and dozens of previous generations long before any hint of any ‘redeemer’ was ever presented as the ‘explanation’ for it?

          Rather than spout of about how evil someone must be to point out what I think is a rather important counter point to your literal beliefs in the historical truth value of Genesis – a point I suspect you not only can’t but absolutely refuse to think about – why not take a different tack entirely and actually consider whether or not the question itself is an important one.

          If so, why?

          If not, why?

          See how that works? It’s a component of critical thinking I have yet to see you utilize. So… notice that this consideration is not about answering or explaining the question; it’s about considering if the question is worthwhile to pursue.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          ‘Let God be true, and every man a liar.’

          You may want to investigate WHY God would say such a thing.

          Liked by 1 person

        • tildeb says:

          Another dodge, CS. That’s all you’re doing… trying to avoid having to think for yourself..

          Like

        • David says:

          “These filthy dreamers speaking lies in hypocrisy foaming out their own shame mouths that speak great swelling words these people speak evil of things that they do not know.”

          Remind me to pass this along at the next Geological Society of America meeting.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Until one of the ‘God mocking esteemed members’ can make a gram of dirt using nothing,

          their analysis of the nature of ‘things’ is suspect.

          So yea, go ahead and listen to the ‘great swelling words’ of skepticism cloaked as intellect.

          Like

        • David says:

          “Until one of the ‘esteemed members’ can make a gram of dirt using nothing, their analysis of the nature of ‘things’ is suspect.”

          This argument is utter nonsense. It makes no sense at all.

          You offer a perfect example of how religious belief can sustain ignorance.

          To quote tildeb…”sigh.”

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          And to quote God:

          Where where YOU when the foundation of heaven was made? Hmmm?

          The argument is utter nonsense? Of course you MUST say that when you are unaccountable to He who gives you your next breath.

          A geological meeting that leaves out the Creator? Now that is funny. Not logical.

          David, your answers are expected, and they are vapid. Maybe you should wait till the next post..

          Like

        • David says:

          Ok, you reject geology.

          What about medical science? Doctors and medical scientists can’t create dirt from nothing and they weren’t there when the foundation of heaven was made, so are their analyses of nature suspect, too?

          According to the Bible, why do humans get sick?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Nobody is ‘rejecting’ geology, any more than medicine.

          Sick? That’s easy. Death is the better question. Now you are getting somewhere.

          Like

        • David says:

          “Nobody is ‘rejecting’ geology, any more than medicine.”

          Yes, you are rejecting geology. This is very, very clear. You just did this in your latest comments (Until one of the ‘God mocking esteemed members’ can make a gram of dirt using nothing, their analysis of the nature of ‘things’ is suspect.). If you were truly confident in your beliefs, you would be able to acknowledge at least this much.

          Geology says there was no global flood. You reject this. Why are you afraid to acknowledge what you are doing here?

          “Sick? That’s easy. Death is the better question. Now you are getting somewhere.”

          Ok, it’s an easy question. What’s the answer? Why do we get sick?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          David-
          You are being incorrigible also.

          When I say ”nobody is rejecting geology,’ I speak of True science, not your speculation.

          The flood topic is off the table here. I believe it because God said so. You do not believe it because man has convinced you.

          As to sickness, another time.

          Like

        • David says:

          “I speak of True science, not your speculation.”

          Oh..right…of course…”True science.” I forgot about “True science.”

          “I believe it because God said so.”

          Hate to break the news to you, old boy, but this is not how true science works.

          “As to sickness, another time.”

          Hey, you said was was an easy answer, so it can’t take that long for you to fill me in. Probably just takes a sentence or two, right? Or maybe this isn’t so easy after all.

          I’ve been waiting for the big “second half” post, but it’s been slow in coming. So, in the meantime, why do we get sick?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          There is no ‘big’ post. Your words. Slow in coming, yes.

          Btw, if you do not believe there is sin, then its a waste of time to explain (your question about sickness). If you do believe there is sin, you will have answered your own question.

          Liked by 1 person

        • David says:

          In the absence of correction, I will assume that you would say that sickness is a consequence of sin or a punishment for sin.

          Problem is, I guessing that this is what you would say, but I know that you don’t really believe this, so I’m not really sure what you believe about why we get sick. Not sure why you don’t want to be clear about this, but in the end, I don’t think that you really believe that sickness is a consequence of sin.

          Liked by 1 person

  8. Pingback: Higher education? | ColorStorm

  9. Pingback: Peat and repeat… | The Lions Den

Comments are closed.