Reasons to be thankful to God

Originally posted by RBHILL
I was being generous by only doing three so that others could share.

I'm sorry if you felt insulted by my comment. I didn't mean it that way. I support this thread.

Originally posted by Suzianne
What's comical is your response.

While I understand your antagonism, I still find it ridiculous that you would intentionally bad-mouth what is clearly an opinion piece.

God does exist, and I find it strange to limit oneself to only a few reasons to be thankful to God. But I am not bad-mouthing RBHILL's opinion, either.

You didn't have to reply if ...[text shortened]... ur thread and crapping all over your opinion.

Just a little respect, is that too much to ask?

Yes it's too much to ask.

He's claiming to be thankful that we are all descended from the incestuous offspring
of one family after god committed genocide and killed everyone else...

That deserves ridicule.

As does anybody saying god does exist, you included.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes it's too much to ask.

He's claiming to be thankful that we are all descended from the incestuous offspring
of one family after god committed genocide and killed everyone else...

That deserves ridicule.

As does anybody saying god does exist, you included.

That's some gall to expect to be respected when you're not willing to give respect in return, just because you disagree with a concept that you do not personally believe in.

If you do believe in antagonizing your fellow man by not respecting their beliefs, how can you expect to be respected in turn? How does this make sense?

This is not a war, so I offer that participating in warfare against people you merely disagree with is anti-social, at best, and hateful, at worst.

Originally posted by C Hess
So, what you're saying is that I should read the bible more carefully before I pass
judgement on its contents. Fair enough. As soon as I suspect this god of yours actually
exist I will do just that. As far as I'm concerned it's just another book, though this particular
one has been taken far too seriously, if anyone asks me.

One thing I just can't wr ...[text shortened]... l she doesn't appear to exist.
Seems a little too unstable and indecisive to me, your god.[/i]

The New Testament (or new covenant) explains that the Old Testament laws were given by Moses to a hard hearted people as an instruction and teaching tool until Christ came.

In the New Testament a woman caught in the very act of adultry was brought to Jesus to see what He would say about stoning her according to the Old Testament law given by Moses. It appears to be another attempt to trick Jesus, so they could condemn Him instead. However, Jesus did not condemn the women, but told her to go and sin no more.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Editing the Bible to be more "socially correct" or perhaps "politically correct" would heap even more derision upon it by unbelievers. Who are you kidding? This is what the world was like back then. I think that's an important message.

Try morally and scientifically correct. At the very least, the books could be put in order of
relevance. That way, if a morally and scientifically literate person reads it, (s)he won't put it
aside in disgust before getting to the supposedly good parts.

Just a marketing suggestion, nothing more.

Oh, and I really don't see any reason to keep books in the bible that clearly no longer
applies, though I see nothing wrong with keeping them for historical purposes, as texts
outside the bible. I'm told there are many scriptures not included in the first place, so
apparently that's not really a problem.

C Hess has spoken. You may commence your cleaning up of the bible.

Originally posted by C Hess
Try morally and scientifically correct. At the very least, the books could be put in order of
relevance. That way, if a morally and scientifically literate person reads it, (s)he won't put it
aside in disgust before getting to the supposedly good parts.

Just a marketing suggestion, nothing more.

Oh, and I really don't see any reason to keep books in ...[text shortened]... t really a problem.

C Hess has spoken. You may commence your cleaning up of the bible.

Genesis and Revelations are definitely in the correct order in my opinion.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Genesis and Revelations are definitely in the correct order in my opinion.

That's because you have no problem believing that a thick of water (enough to cover the
himalayas) was once held up by the ozonlayer, that the light of day is something entirely
different from the light of the sun, that the sun is on this side of the ozonlayer without
torching the atmosphere, that the moon is a separate, lesser light, and that darkness is not
by definition separated from light.

Of course, you find nothing wrong with starting there, since you actually believe that stuff.
Anyone with even the most basic acceptance of reality, however, is wriggling through that
entire section of the book in disbelief.

Originally posted by C Hess
That's because you have no problem believing that a thick of water (enough to cover the
himalayas) was once held up by the ozonlayer, that the light of day is something entirely
different from the light of the sun, that the sun is on this side of the ozonlayer without
torching the atmosphere, that the moon is a separate, lesser light, and that darkness ...[text shortened]... ptance of reality, however, is wriggling through that
entire section of the book in disbelief.

Your ignorance is showing in your comments. Anyone that has seen lighting inside a building should know that electric light or candle light is also different from the light of the sun. If you had studied Physics or astronomy in school, then you should have learned that the moon is a reflective light.

I don't know what translation of the Holy Bible you are reading, but I have never seen "ozonlayer" in any that I have read. I suggest you get another version that might be more correctly translated.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your ignorance is showing in your comments. Anyone that has seen lighting inside a building should know that electric light or candle light is also different from the light of the sun. If you had studied Physics or astronomy in school, then you should have learned that the moon is a reflective light.

I don't know what translation of the Holy Bible you ar ...[text shortened]... ny that I have read. I suggest you get another version that might be more correctly translated.

or just not bother pinch one from the next hotel you doss down in I pinch them from churches in winter to keep my log burner running saves me a bleeding fortune.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your ignorance is showing in your comments. Anyone that has seen lighting inside a building should know that electric light or candle light is also different from the light of the sun. If you had studied Physics or astronomy in school, then you should have learned that the moon is a reflective light.

I don't know what translation of the Holy Bible you ar ...[text shortened]... ny that I have read. I suggest you get another version that might be more correctly translated.

Are you suggesting that sunlight and daylight are two different things? Please tell me
you're not thinking that.

Ozonlayer or whatever else not solid was supposed to be the firmament of heaven, holding
entire oceans worth of water up there. I guess god was preparing for the flood, eh?

I couldn't help but notice you had no issue with the sun on this side of the firmament, or the
strange notion that light and dark needed separation.

I'm beginning to pity you.

Originally posted by C Hess
Are you suggesting that sunlight and daylight are two different things? Please tell me
you're not thinking that.

Ozonlayer or whatever else not solid was supposed to be the firmament of heaven, holding
entire oceans worth of water up there. I guess god was preparing for the flood, eh?

I couldn't help but notice you had no issue with the sun on this ...[text shortened]... nt, or the
strange notion that light and dark needed separation.

I'm beginning to pity you.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you don't know the first thing regarding the intent of the Bible--- although I don't consider that sentiment too much of a stretch.

I'll give you the Reader's Digest version of the issue: the means preys upon your arrogance, with an end result of your failure to hear the message.

Originally posted by RBHILL
1. Sending his one and only begotten son to sacrifice his life for us to spend an eternity with him.

2. Grateful for the ark of Noah because without that not everyone alive today would be here because we are all sons of his Noah's three sons.

3. And I'm grateful for the ability to use my arms and legs.

I'm thankful daily for Sovereign God's Perfect Plan which included gb.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you don't know the first thing regarding the intent of the Bible--- although I don't consider that sentiment too much of a stretch.

I'll give you the Reader's Digest version of the issue: the means preys upon your arrogance, with an end result of your failure to hear the message.

Isn't it true that creationists read genesis in a literal sense?

Originally posted by C Hess
Isn't it true that creationists read genesis in a literal sense?

We creationists are not limited to reading everything in Genesis in a strickly literal sense, but we believe we are able to understand the literal meaning from the text. For example, we are not required to believe that the Serpent was literally a talking snake, but instead believe Satan the devil had possessed this Dragon Serpent and spoke through it as explained in the book of Revelation.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We creationists are not limited to reading everything in Genesis in a strickly literal sense, but we believe we are able to understand the literal meaning from the text. For example, we are not required to believe that the Serpent was literally a talking snake, but instead believe Satan the devil had possessed this Dragon Serpent and spoke through it as explained in the book of Revelation.

If you don't have to take it literally, why insist that evolution is not real? Surely there's a
perfectly reasonable way to square evolution with a non-literal interpretation of the bible?