4th Grade Quiz in SC

[lightsout]

Please provide me with these scriptures including the context

You can literally google any of those ideas and put "bible" next to it and pull them up yourself. I don't have time nor care if you believe that it is in there. BUT, just to give ONE example (just to show that I could pull it up if I didn't have better things to do), here you go:

The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Samuel 15:1-3)

Of course, that contradicts the teachings back in Ezekiel and 2 Kings that says children shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers, or vice versa. But, then again, the bible is rife with inconsistency and contradiction.

[lightsout]

Oh really please repeat the big bang sir. Theories are repeatable right?

The evidence FOR the theory is repeatable (because the theory is the collection of facts to point to the most likely outcome, based on the facts). It never fails. These evidences/facts are used together to form the theory. As long as there is no internal contradiction when all of the facts are used together, it works.

[Lumps]

[pstall]

ahh yes. the dreaded old testament lock and load argument. then of course someone mentions new testament and then the inconsistency card gets played.

now why after Malachi would the same God who did order Saul to do what was just posted(btw he didn't and was punished but i'm sure you know that) now offer his son and the focus be more about love and forgiveness and redemption and grace?

and leaper is correct on the theory aspect so no need to bristle at that. they don't have a tv show called The Big Bang Truth.

i would also counter not every single facet of life is determined or driven by religion either.

take tv and radio. what % on either is religious?

[kman72]

This is actually the test Bob Jones University gives as part of the entrance requirements!!

You cannot argue theology if we cannot agree that a Dinosaurs roamed the earth and one argues that Satan planted demon bones in the ground to decieve humans..

Can we just go ahead and take away the tax breaks churches get?

LOL me and a few friends (as a joke) went on visit to inquire attending there a few yrs ago...

We showed up and were listening to quote (violent) music lol and they were like we give you music to listen to here and we were walking around and just started smoking and they freaked out on us lol

funniest part was apparently if it is a rainy day, girls are excused from class because if they come to class with wet hair it is sexually arising to the males in the classroom that force evil thoughts, I'm not even kidding. should have seen their face when my friend asked what he should do since he was gay lol

we did a lot of other stuff but way too much to explain, but we have wanted to go back and secretly video our experience for all to enjoy

[pstall]

too bad there isn't a Bob Evans Univ. I bet the cafe rocks.

[PhillyB]

this discussion can't be had without red faces unless the evolution deniers in this thread learn what a theory is and how it differentiates from hypothesis.

i'm amazed at how literal ignorance of entire aspects of a debate is so often both willfully and gleefully wielded as the strongest aspect of an argument. i was discussing matters of this sort with a couple of close friends that are huge skeptics of the idea that earth is more the 7k years old and when i brought up the archaeological record one of them went "wellllll... supposedly" and did the finger quotes and laughed and the rest of the group of them chuckled and nodded their agreement. and it made me realize that an entire facet of their argument is "i don't know anything about X Y and Z, therefore A must not be true even though A is bolstered by X Y and Z."

so poisonous.

[toldozer]

This was retribution against Amalek for what he had done to Israel. God is a vengeful(sp) god. The Bible makes no secret of that. The amalekites were not an innocent people. They had ambushed the isrealites on there way out of Egypt.

[PhillyB]

This was retribution against Amalek for what he had done to Israel. God is a vengeful(sp) god. The Bible makes no secret of that. The amalekites were not an innocent people. They had ambushed the isrealites on there way out of Egypt.

yeah and those meddling kids in 2nd kings totally deserved to get eaten by those bears that god sent after them as punishment!!!!!!!

23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. 25 And he went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.

[lightsout]

ahh yes. the dreaded old testament lock and load argument. then of course someone mentions new testament and then the inconsistency card gets played.

Because that is inconsistent. An all-powerful, all-knowing god who changes his mind? What? How? If you know all and have unlimited power, you don't change your mind. Pure and simple. You have the right answer. God of the OT is a spiteful, angry, murderous being, and in the NT he seems more about "grace" and what have you (which I would argue is false, because the NT is the creation of the concept of hell and god being all gleeful about hearing the gnashing of teeth and whatnot). Just because it makes you uncomfortable to realize that the entirety of the bible, from start to finish, DOES have inconsistency.

now why after Malachi would the same God who did order Saul to do what was just posted(btw he didn't and was punished but i'm sure you know that) now offer his son and the focus be more about love and forgiveness and redemption and grace?

Saul first gently warned them, and then waged the war he was ordered (but didn't do so precisely as ordered). He took cattle, for instance, and explained that he was going to use them for sacrifice. Basically, because he didn't kill and destroy the Amalekites the way god wanted, he was removed from his kingship. Why would he go into the NT and tone down SOME (not entirely, because Jesus says things such as "bring he who would not have me rule over him and kill him in front of me")? Because it is inconsistent. And because the point of Jesus is to eliminate the whole need for blood sacrifice for sin (apparently, the god who loved the smell of burning flesh and blood had his fill in the OT), which is the payment for the thing that god created.

and leaper is correct on the theory aspect so no need to bristle at that. they don't have a tv show called The Big Bang Truth.

No, he isn't. Layman's theory and scientific theory are NOT the same. Go talk to a scientist so he can laugh at you, because you are just wrong.

[PhillyB]

p.s.

[lightsout]

This was retribution against Amalek for what he had done to Israel. God is a vengeful(sp) god. The Bible makes no secret of that. The amalekites were not an innocent people. They had ambushed the isrealites on there way out of Egypt.

God ordered the killing of INFANTS. That was the point.

[pstall]

Because that is inconsistent. An all-powerful, all-knowing god who changes his mind? What? How? If you know all and have unlimited power, you don't change your mind. Pure and simple. You have the right answer. God of the OT is a spiteful, angry, murderous being, and in the NT he seems more about "grace" and what have you (which I would argue is false, because the NT is the creation of the concept of hell and god being all gleeful about hearing the gnashing of teeth and whatnot). Just because it makes you uncomfortable to realize that the entirety of the bible, from start to finish, DOES have inconsistency.

uncomfortable? im not the one uncomfortable here.

Saul first gently warned them, and then waged the war he was ordered (but didn't do so precisely as ordered). He took cattle, for instance, and explained that he was going to use them for sacrifice. Basically, because he didn't kill and destroy the Amalekites the way god wanted, he was removed from his kingship. Why would he go into the NT and tone down SOME (not entirely, because Jesus says things such as "bring he who would not have me rule over him and kill him in front of me")? Because it is inconsistent. And because the point of Jesus is to eliminate the whole need for blood sacrifice for sin (apparently, the god who loved the smell of burning flesh and blood had his fill in the OT), which is the payment for the thing that god created.

not bad. i do guess the smell of ox was getting rather old.

No, he isn't. Layman's theory and scientific theory are NOT the same. Go talk to a scientist so he can laugh at you, because you are just wrong.

correct on the dif between layman theory and scientific. very astute.

would you say it would also require faith to accept that from nothingness, a bang happened and from that bang every form was created from the vast universe down to the hairs on the antenae of an ant?

for those that usually ask well who created God. the same could be said for a bang.

and as one who does believe i have never heard someone mention/teach/suggest dinosaurs and humans or the yeti being in the bible.

there are more advance species of christians out there than the honey boo versions you guys seem to stalk to confirm your religious axe to grind.

im with belding on science and it being able to viewed in a way where i dont start thread after thread after thread after thread on evolution. i mean if i were immensely insecure i guess i would do that.

[toldozer]

No its not faith, its FACT!!!

No its really not its faith either way.

No one has proved the way the earth was created. Point blank, period.