It's not my personal opinion that other men wrote the Bible. That's an actual a fact
Wouldst thou like the taste of butter? A pretty dress? Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?

Yes, you listen to what other man invented to explain what they didn't know.
thats your personal opinion

no, we dont invent something. We listen to what the Bible says.
Yes, you listen to what other man invented to explain what they didn't know.
Wouldst thou like the taste of butter? A pretty dress? Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?

You don't know something, so you invent something.
no, we dont invent something. We listen to what the Bible says.
Christians also have to deal with the fact that when a scientific discovery disproves something of theirs, they can't (if they want to stay intellectually honest) simply cast it aside and only acknowledge the convenient bits of science.
name 1 thing, where science has disproved God, or the Bible.
im waiting

Christians also have to deal with the fact that when a scientific discovery disproves something of theirs, they can't (if they want to stay intellectually honest) simply cast it aside and only acknowledge the convenient bits of science. (A lot of Christians do this, but at this moment it ceases to be science.) There is an attempted defense I have oft seen, where Christians will then claim that problematic Bible passages were written as metaphor, while convenient Bible passages are literal truth. This is by definition unscientific, as science is about following ALL evidence wherever it leads, not picking-and-choosing bits that are convenient to a preconceived notion.

Rather, an article written by a real Christian would affirm the truth that God's Word stands, and when the so-called "science" of man contradicts, that is because the science of man is wrong. That's the real defense of God and the Bible.
Ahahahaha, you beep moron. This is the same thought pattern that landed us the dark ages. The more we don't allow god's "wisdom" to lead society the more advanced the world becomes. I for one enjoy knowing that i don't have to worry about dying from simple diseases because evolution conflicts with god's word.
Panzer vor!

From the tone of that piece quoted in the OP, the author sounds as if he is a darwinist who is trying to tack God on in front of his beliefs in darwinism. And he is doing that in order to become approved in the eyes of men, rather than being unashamed of and standing up for the Bible, in which case other men would hate him just like they hated Jesus and just like they hate all true Christians.
An article written by a real Christian would not do that.
Rather, an article written by a real Christian would affirm the truth that God's Word stands, and when the so-called "science" of man contradicts, that is because the science of man is
wrong.
That's the
real
defense of God and the Bible.
That article KiBL quoted is
a defense of apostasy
which pretends as if calling God and the Bible liars in order not to offend Satan and ungodly men is the right thing to do.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman

For example, though we understand how rain happens,
The authors of the Bible didn't seem to understand how rain happens like we do today though
Genesis 1:6-8 "And God said, Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water. So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault sky. And there was evening, and there was morningthe second day"
Not to mention all the instances where God personally sends or withholds rain in the Bible on a whim.
So, if they were wrong about that, why couldn't they be wrong about more than that?

The article's argument is that God is the original and ultimate creator
That may be
part
of the argument, but that statement does not cover
the entirety
of the article. That is what
you've
missed, KiBL.
That article is
heavily laced
with pro-darwinism connotations to the effect that I've described in my previous posts in this thread, and which I will again reiterate in this very post.
though we understand how rain happens, that doesn't explain how the physical laws that govern it came to be. Without the universe and physical laws, rain wouldn't exist, so ultimately, God is the creator of rain.
Sure KiBL, I don't dispute that
but
my point is that the article
goes beyond just saying that
.
To wit, that article is implicitly endorsing all of darwinists' false claims as true, and telling darwinists to slap a "God did it" caveat in front of their false claims, and then all will be well, everything will be right with God, and everyone will go to Heaven.
By the same token, that article is also implicitly encouraging Christians to accept darwinists' false claims, again with the caveat that doing so is fine as long as the the caveat "God did it" is slapped in front of them. It is telling Christians that when darwinists make claims that contradict God & the Bible, to go ahead right ahead and accept darwinists' claims over God's.
God, however, disagrees with those evil messages. Hence, my posts come to this thread to articulate God's opposition.
Take care and God Bless too, KiBL.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman

The explanation in the OP is indeed useless. It asserts that one can just tack on a "God did it" caveat as an afterthought in front of any evil belief system, and then once that is done, anyone can do whatever they want and God will suddenly become A-OK with all of it.
That explanation is antithetical to everything God stands for. Contrary to what the explanation in the OP implies, God requires much more from man than just to pay him the empty lip service of saying, "You did it."
I think you missed the point of my OP, Nav. The article's argument is that God is the original and ultimate creator. For example, though we understand how rain happens, that doesn't explain how the physical laws that govern it came to be. Without the universe and physical laws, rain wouldn't exist, so ultimately, God is the creator of rain.
Take care and God bless
This is a faithful sayingJesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

An explanation that explains everything, explains nothing.
Wow, this is probably the first time ever that I sort-of agree with graham about anything! LOL
The explanation in the OP is indeed useless. It asserts that one can just tack on a "God did it" caveat as an afterthought in front of any evil belief system, and then once that is done, anyone can do whatever they want and God will suddenly become A-OK with all of it.
That explanation is antithetical to everything God stands for. Contrary to what the explanation in the OP implies, God requires
much more
from man than just to pay him the empty lip service of saying, "You did it."
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman

An explanation that explains everything, explains nothing.
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god.

I cannot quite figure out why he does that.
Because, like you, he is an idiot. You both have bought into this religion that you can't come to terms with things that do not align with it, hence all the apologetics and backflips done to somehow twist reality to fit with outdated views of an entirely different society with different views, morals, laws, and knowledge. If you gave one a ball point pen they'd think it was some magical/cursed device.
Kibs just doesn't read stuff he posts. He just looks for keywords when he finds this stuff on his favorite bullspit websites and brings it here.
But God's answer to the ungodly material that KiBL posts is this: it is evil and not one word of it should be believed.
Because if anyone knows god, it's some white bread moron on a forum who doesn't even understand his own religion, much less the different sects or anything else in the world
Panzer vor!

So I'll take it that you now accept evolution considering that that's scientifically explained phenomenon?
What you said there bespeaks the problem with KiBL. I believe he is a Bible-believing Christian (that's not the problem), yet (this is where the problem comes in) somehow despite him being a Bible-believing Christian, he still recklessly quotes/cites/endorses the ungodly works of non-Bible-believing a.k.a. fake Christians/evil men. I cannot quite figure out why he does that. I am pretty sure it has something to do with catholic indoctrinations which he has received and which he can't quite shake off.
But God's answer to the ungodly material that KiBL posts is this: it is evil and not one word of it should be believed.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman

Even if "that doesn't mean it was God," it still was God. So God wins either way.
That God of Gaps is getting smaller
By the way, did you know that Black Philip is another name for Satan, and Satan devolved from Lucifer, and Lucifer was created by God?
I didn't know that. I just took it from The Witch.
Wouldst thou like the taste of butter? A pretty dress? Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?

I don't know where the natural world came from but that doesn't mean it was god.
Even if "that doesn't mean it was God," it still was God. So God wins either way.
By the way, did you know that Black Philip is another name for Satan, and Satan devolved from Lucifer, and Lucifer was created by God?
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman

where did the "natural world" come from?
magic?
the natural world, just, decided 1 day, to create itself?
No.
God did it
This is the God of the Gaps the OP has mentioned. Also known as the argument from ignorance.
You don't know something, so you invent something.
I don't know where the natural world came from but that doesn't mean it was god.
Wouldst thou like the taste of butter? A pretty dress? Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?

So don't you feel strange to be rebuking your own ilk of fellow darwinists?
Not in the slightest. Unlike you, I don't take the view of "My side right or wrong, even if it means openly supporting lies and liars." I support truth, regardless.
I know that it debunks the fairy tale you are promoting in this thread
Any statement you make that begins with the words "I know that" is pretty much guaranteed to be wrong.
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god.

So what?
So don't you feel strange to be rebuking your own ilk of fellow darwinists?
And if you are admitting darwinists are full of crap about the big bang/start of the universe, then how much more are they
also
full of crap about?
So you don't know what Big Bang theory is either.
I know that it debunks the fairy tale you are promoting in this thread, which is a fairy tale that opposes the big bang fairy tale.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that.
What a shocker.
However, I am not necessarily destroying the idea that God is the First Cause
Yep, you did.
But you are the only darwinist in the universe who is asserting that.
So what?
Every other darwinist believes that that universe came from "the big bang" and that it happened at a specific point in time.
So you don't know what Big Bang theory is either. Another shocker!
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god.

Then you've destroyed the First Cause argument.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. I am destroying the pro-apostasy argument quoted in the OP. However, I am not necessarily destroying the idea that God is the First Cause (that idea is valid if & when it is not framed in ungodly/pro-darwinist terms, as the author quoted in the OP does).
The universe came from nowhere.
But you are the only darwinist in the universe who is asserting that.
Every other darwinist believes that that universe came from "the big bang" and that it happened at a specific point in time.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman

Nowhere.
Then you've destroyed the First Cause argument.
The universe came from nowhere.
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god.

Nowhere.
That question itself is loaded with a false premise.
God always was. He did not "come." He was just there, always.
How so? If everything must have a beginning, why does this not apply to god?
i suggest you learn what terms mean before you use them, too.
Nowhere.
That question itself is loaded with a false premise.
God always was. He did not "come." He was just there, always.
The beginning of the current universe we know of, yes. I don't know if you're playing stupid with this, which is rather dishonest, or if you really don't know what it is you rail against
So good job asking a question that assumes a premise to be true which your own darwinist ilk rejects! LOL
"I am so so clever because i used some big boy words LOL" = Nav
Panzer vor!

Where did god come from?
Nowhere.
That question itself is loaded with a false premise.
God always was. He did not "come." He was just there, always.
why can't you just save a step and apply it to the natural world?
Even your fellow darwinists don't believe in a similar explanation for the natural world. You darwinists think that it started at a specific point in time with "the big bang," for example.
So good job asking a question that assumes a premise to be true which your own darwinist ilk rejects! LOL
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman