₦airaland Forum

christains have failed to tell us why jehova is a better god than allah, buddah or skivanah

christians have failed to tell u why Jehovah is a better God because you don't see the christian God as God. You don't think the Christian God could be God because you already have your own idea of what God should be.

You went on to talk about how the God of the Bible does this and that, you pointed out things that you don't think a god should do.

You expect a god to be so good that anyone should be able to get to heaven, so even if you make a covenant and don't carry your end of it, he should simply say I love you, you don't have to worry.

Well, you have to carry your end of the deal. It is simply called Justice.

Look at it this way.

You have the government and when you choose to live in a certain area you agree to adhere to the rules of that place and pay the taxes and all, well when you don't hold true to your end of the deal what happens? the government will just say oh it's ok you can break the rules, i still love you.
even your parents don't do that. they love you but they won't let you get away with not doing what you're supposed to do.

It is called justice, get over it. And stop using today's standards of punishment to measure the way punishment should have been in the past. The punishment in the past is just what it is, it was meant for those people.

The sabbath still stands today, but how many people have you seen stoned to death for breaking the sabbath law.

i live in an atheist country and is better than most of the godly countries i have ever visited

what is better? finland is better than the U.S. or England? How so?

One could lay the exact same accusation at the door of Christians. You guys want him to be like the deity depicted in the Bible and you use the Bible to define him.

This could be true if most of us actually put the Bible together. I know muslims who became Christians just because they read the Bible. God revealed himself to them, so your statement holds no ground. People come to believe in God by reading the Bible, not by believing in God and then reading the Bible to make him fit.
The Bible is used as a measure of standard, not the other way around. We conform ourselves to fit and not conform God to fit us.
You have conformed God to fit you.

What makes you now think that your monotheistic God is the real deal?

Why should I tell you when you and I already know you won't believe? You are not asking to know, you are asking to refute, no matter what I say you already have it in mind that you have been enlightened and you know the truth and you are reasonable and are trying to get us to be reasonable too. You already have it in mind that no matter what we say it has to be wrong. You don't care to know my view, you only care to advance yours.

If you actually cared to know my views you would not be asking me this question, because we already went through this. It's like it kills you that we're still believing in God, and you are hell bent on making us see things your way.

So you have to explain to me why should bother this time around. I don't care play ring around the rosy. I have already told you why God is real in so many words and so many ways.

And no this isn't me running because we've convos about God for a while and it all boils down to you wanting to believe in God in the first place, and we've gone through that. So it's like you have this itch that hasn't been scratched and will never be scratched by me.

So why should I bother?

Sorry to rain on your own parade but not even you and david can agree as to what hell and heaven is, just ask david if there is purgatory.

oh david and I can agree as to what hell and heaven is, he just doesn't agree that there's a purgatory, and purgatory is neither heaven nor hell.

What you have is just a belief nothing more nothing less, give us evidence to support that there is life after death simple.

And what's wrong with having a belief? Don't you have a belief that there is no life after death? Can you prove that there is no life after death? Can you prove that there is no heaven or hell?
Can you prove your own belief?

Quote from: Bastage on Yesterday at 11:11:17 PM

One could lay the exact same accusation at the door of Christians. You guys want him to be like the deity depicted in the Bible and you use the Bible to define him.

Quote from: DavidDylan:

How else would you define your own idea of God?

Most certainly not by taking everything that is written in the Bible at face value. And definitely not by having Him defined by organised religion and by other men.

Odd thing is, I see Lady's point. And Bastage's. When what you believe, which defines you in very fundamental ways, has long been determined by other men,when your faith and your God has been clumsily laid out by other people and  experienced second-hand for years, there is nothing more daunting,scarier and more refreshing than searching for the truth yourself, and making that truth your own,because what you find of God by yourself can never be taken away from you.

Davidylan's journey is different from Lady's which is different from Bastage which is different from Chris's (who is very like me and is searching,but wants God  to be found[i] for[/i] him, in the definitions of people who believe, and the rationalisations of those who don't.) We may find God in different ways but mere semantics doesn't invalidate that journey, and there is no reason why someone's experience and definition of God should be the same as another's. Some people do create God in their own image. But believing in God is such an intensely individual quest that it's possible there are as many definitions of God as there are people who know him. He may be different things to different people. Like the story of the three blind men who feel different parts of an elephant, and come up with dissimilar ideas of what an elephant is like, and argue,each absolutely convinced he's right.

Bastage believes in Christ,but doesn't like the Old Testament God. Er, he isn't very likeable (We judge him by human standards because we don't have any other standards by which to filter his actions). He sees the Bible as the handiwork of men and so riddled with error. He says I like Jesus but given that you can't believe everything you read in the Bible, the portrayal of God is incomplete.

Who is to say the God defined in the Bible,whose traits vary,isn't merely how the men who wrote those books experienced  God? What's wrong with defining what God is to you? If,in your journey, He exhibits a particular biblical trait, say anger or jealousy, then those traits are true and you may agree with the Biblical writer and other people who define God as jealous. If he doesn't exhibit jealousy, then for you, it isn't true of God. Our journeys are different. I think.  No reason why God should adhere strictly to some formula of being, and accomodate anyone's preconceived notions of what he should be like.

@lady
I took time to reply because I really wanted to ponder on a point you raised.
I actually had to pause and ask myself some serious questions, why am I here when I really don't give a rats ass about God(pardon my lang) or just maybe I do, why am I here at all why not just live my life. Why am I asking you to tell me why your God is superior when I know I am going to put holes through your answer.
As I walked into the office this morning a heard a colleague talking about how his uncle lost his kids in the jos crisis, he was talking to a very good muslim colleague of mine.
I walked in on the conversation and by the time we were done talking I realised something, this is the reason I am here, not to change your beliefs but for us to make sense out of them.
In the end we all came to one conclusion, like you did at the end of your own posts, they are beliefs, thats the only thing they are.
They are not etched in stone and cannot withstand the rigors of serious rational reasoning.
I also come here to
show the skeptic and the confused that things can be seen from the other way, I may not believe but your answer may touch someone out there and so will my reply reinforce whoever thinks that there is more to it.
Thus lady I say to you today what you have is a belief and there is nothing wrong with that, I have beliefs too, heck I believe in a car enough to drive one to work every morning but its a different ball game when I think my beliefs are universal and as close to the truth as possible. Then I have to go the extra mile to give you evidence beyond reasonable doubt I mean we are talking about God here!
That is the reason I ask you for supports for your assertions, the burden of proof is on you. If you provide supports then the burden shifts to me and I will do my best to see why it does not fit and leave the judgement for whoever is reading it.
Thank you.

@max
Sweetness if you had just said a quest for spirituality then it would have made a lot of sense. If I am to follow your line of reasoning what is and who is God, I have to define what I am looking for before carting off to look for it don't you think?

Bastage:
Most certainly not by taking everything that is written in the Bible at face value. And definitely not by having Him defined by organised religion and by other men.

How do you know what is defined by organised religion and what is not?

People come to believe in God by reading the Bible, not by believing in God and then reading the Bible to make him fit.
The Bible is used as a measure of standard, not the other way around. We conform ourselves to fit and not conform God to fit us.
You have conformed God to fit you.

Which is exactly what the Bible authors did. They made their god conform to their way of life back then. So you may be conforming yourself to fit but all you are conforming to are the ideas put forward by other men (the authors). You've conformed God to fit by proxy.

@DavidDylan.
Research. Lots and lots of research. Some of what stands out is obvious (like politics) some not so obvious (like ritual) - but I study everything and anything that I think may be relevant - from Mathematics to History, from Science to my own personal sense of spirituality.

Most certainly not by taking everything that is written in the Bible at face value. And definitely not by having Him defined by organised religion and by other men

You know I keep thinking about this, and I was just pondering. Then looking into the Bible I see that God communicates to us through the way we would understand. If God didn't use nature, man, earth, wind, breeze, whispers, how would we understand him?

If God doesn't use the things we know to explain things to us, how would we get the message?

Everyone wants to condemn man for being used by God and say that unless you listen to Jesus you won't get the message. It's funny but those people are missing the message that Jesus is man. He is God, but fully man too.

I also thought about how God communicated to the Israelites his message, and one thing that came to mind was when the people were challenging Moses and they told him that they want God to speak to them directly. They were kind of jealous that God was using Moses, they wanted to be 'important' too.

So God said ok, He told Moses to gather the people around the Mount but that they couldn't come too close. SO the people gather and God appears as a cloud and all the people could hear were thunder claps, and they got afraid. Immediately they turned to Moses and said he should go to the Mount and that they'll listen to him.

I just thought about that. God has a sense of humor. He does things his way, and quite frankly he uses what man understands to get the message to man. See God wanted the people to trust Moses, God wanted the people to trust his way, and his way is using the things we know to speak to us.

So I don't see why it is we would condemn the Bible because men wrote it, or diminish it because men wrote it or come to conclusions that we won't follow it because men wrote it. Because really you wouldn't know God to follow, if he didn't communicate through man.

You wouldn't understand him if he didn't use what you understand to speak to you. SO instead of looking down on the fact that men penned the Bible, how about you appreciate it. Because that is how you know of salvation.

We're so quick to condemn man because man dared to allow God to use them.

So bastage instead of looking at the Bible as something that man wrote to conform God to himself, why don't you try to appreciate it. Because if man didn't write, you wouldn't know. You are confident in your salvation because man dared to listen to God and let God use him.

I don't condemn the Bible per se in the same way that I don't condemn the Qu'ran.
They are just books. Pieces of paper. They are worthless until they are read. Then they are either great or disastrous depending on interpretation. Unfortunately, it seems that disastrous is making a return.

Scriptures do not make a religion until they are read by men. And that is where the problem occurs.
You say to appreciate the fact that men penned the Bible, but the problem is that once it was penned, to a large degree it became immovable. This meant that errors became dogma. Also, there are so many contradictions, interpretation becomes very, very difficult. Putting the religions to paper means that they aren't flexible and I honestly believe that this is a big failure. I personally prefer the old ways of oral tradition and editing as you go along as with many of the Buddhist and Hindu scripts. Unfortunately, Biblical editing has been very slap-dash and sometimes even compounded errors (not to mention influenced by politics).

You are confident in your salvation because man dared to listen to God and let God use him.

No. Salvation is totally and utterly irrelevant to me. Concentrating on it is at odds with everything I believe in.

Bastage:
@DavidDylan.
Research. Lots and lots of research. Some of what stands out is obvious (like politics) some not so obvious (like ritual) - but I study everything and anything that I think may be relevant - from Mathematics to History, from Science to my own personal sense of spirituality.

what type of "research"? One geared towards understanding God more or one that is already predicated on picking out none existent holes in the bible?

the idea that you have some extra knowledge of the bible because you've carried out "lots of research" is laughable. There are more renowned men than you, more intelligent scientists who have done way more "research" than you would ever do shld you live your life 5 times over . . . if they could believe the bible as God's Word revealed to man then ur opinion is nothing to me.

Bastage:
No. Salvation is totally and utterly irrelevant to me. Concentrating on it is at odds with everything I believe in.

this problem has been highlighted from time immemorial. The REAL ISSUE with many of you "researchers" is that you want a God that is flexible, one that is amenable to your own fleshly desires. You have no wish to abide by His rules but want Him to welcome you with open arms into heaven.

"lots of research". . . . this should win an award for tautology.

Q:What makes your opinion anymore valid than others

A: I did lots of research

No sh*t. . . had you not said that, I would have thought you arrived at your opinion after indulging in some spliff.

@ Chris

Thank you. There are many things in my life that have happened that has shaped my life and my belief. I can assure you there is nothing one can say that will change my belief. I really wish I could put it into words for you, I can't make mush sense of it myself, but I can't shake it off, it's like some fuse that just can't be separated. I hope I'm somehow making sense. There is an event in my life in which I encountered God and it is very personal to me. I have never explained my encounter with anyone out there, not even my Priest. Mostly for fear of the human mind, I don't want to tell a story that is not meant for others. You know about the saints in the Church, and you know that a lot of them have memoirs, and that we read them. But the Church warns and states that just because someone had an encounter does not mean that you will have that too. Actually one saint warned that we shouldn't be wanting these encounters, even though they may be proof of our beliefs, and they may help us on the path to holiness. But to be wanting these encounters one may start hallucinating, and start believing in these hallucinations. The devil may even start taunting the mind of such a person, and because this person is desperate he or she will believe anything. If the devil tried to haunt the minds of those who were devout while on earth, how much more will he the mind of those who are desperate to see.

Do you understand what I mean by see? Doubting Thomas had to see too.

I do want you to know, oh believe me I desperately want you to know, I already told you that I am praying for you, I don't know if you remember when I told you that. But I really am.

I cannot tell you what I encountered, all I can tell you is that my encounter involved the rosary.

All I can tell you about God is exactly what Jesus himself said in the Bible

"Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed. Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet believed." John 20:29

Chris, instead of asking man about God, why don't you ask God himself. You will not believe if man tells you, you will only believe if God tells you. That is what I have observed from the convos I have had with you.

~Lady~:
Chris, instead of asking man about God, why don't you ask God himself. You will not believe if man tells you, you will only believe if God tells you. That is what I have observed from the convos I have had with you.

Chris isnt really interested in asking God anything. All he is wants is a "God" who will turn a blind eye to his sins but still guarantee him heaven. That is what he and is ilk mean when they tell you God is wicked.

Bastage:
I don't condemn the Bible per se in the same way that I don't condemn the Qu'ran.
They are just books. Pieces of paper. They are worthless until they are read. Then they are either great or disastrous depending on interpretation. Unfortunately, it seems that disastrous is making a return.

Scriptures do not make a religion until they are read by men. And that is where the problem occurs.
You say to appreciate the fact that men penned the Bible, but the problem is that once it was penned, to a large degree it became immovable. This meant that errors became dogma. Also, there are so many contradictions, interpretation becomes very, very difficult. Putting the religions to paper means that they aren't flexible and I honestly believe that this is a big failure. I personally prefer the old ways of oral tradition and editing as you go along as with many of the Buddhist and Hindu scripts. Unfortunately, Biblical editing has been very slap-dash and sometimes even compounded errors (not to mention influenced by politics).

There is so much written here . . . garnished of course in flowery language . . . that is ultimately meant to decieve. A careful analysis of the points made expose them to be nothing but a desperate attempt to play down the significance of righteous christian living.

The soul that sinneth it shall die. You can crow about the "injustice" of it from now till next yr.

@4Play.

Don't be an asshole.
I explained what the research involved.
OK. Maybe not being an asshole is difficult for you but at least try to read what I wrote before commenting with trivial crap.

@DavidDylan.

You have no wish to abide by His rules but want Him to welcome you with open arms into heaven.

They are the rules of men. Period.
And how many times do you want me to type that I don't give a crap about heaven?

One geared towards understanding God more or one that is already predicated on picking out none existent holes in the bible?

Actually, I aim for the former, but often that will mean discrediting Biblical source. Not where it's "non-existent" but where it exists.

There are more renowned men than you, more intelligent scientists who have done way more "research" than you would ever do shld you live your life 5 times over . . . if they could believe the bible as God's Word revealed to man,

Name them. Go on. Who are these "intelligent scientists"? And don't go pulling up names from hundreds of years ago when professing not to be a Christian would have got you your balls cut off. Name some contemporary, modern-day geniuses who believe in the bible as "God's Word revealed to man".


Go for it.

A careful analysis of the points made expose them to be nothing but a desperate attempt to play down the significance of righteous christian living.

Then analyse and expose.
Go for it.

Bastage:
@DavidDylan.
They are the rules of men. Period.

- You claim to at least believe in a "god" . . . what are His/Her rules?

- Why are they "rules of men"? How did you arrive at that conclusion and why? Because they are not compatible with your fleshly desires?

Bastage:
And how many times do you want me to type that I don't give a crap about heaven?

If you truly didnt the religion section would be the last place to waste your time. I've heard it 1000 times, the very people who claim "god", heaven and hell dont matter to them seem to live exclusively on the religion sections.

Bastage:
Name them. Go on. Who are these "intelligent scientists"? And don't go pulling up names from hundreds of years ago when professing not to be a Christian would have got you your balls cut off. Name some contemporary, modern-day geniuses who believe in the bible as "God's Word revealed to man".

this in highlights is the ready excuse you and your ilk bandy around as an excuse when we mention the likes of Isaac Newton. Sorry but there are many contemporary scientists here whom you dont know who profess a staunch belief in the bible.

Bastage:
Then analyse and expose.
Go for it.

I already did. There was nothing to analyse there. Filing a thread with endless grammar with little substance seems to be the stock in trade of a lot of you.

this in highlights is the ready excuse you and your ilk bandy around as an excuse when we mention the likes of Isaac Newton. Sorry but there are many contemporary scientists here whom you don't know who profess a staunch belief in the bible.

It's like arguing with a Muslim. They'll never give you a straight answer either.
Isaac Newton was born almost 400 years ago. 400 years ago he was considered a heretic. By your standards of "judgement" today he would still be considered a heretic.
Try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views

Bastage:
@4Play.
Don't be an asshole.
I explained what the research involved.
OK. Maybe not being an asshole is difficult for you but at least try to read what I wrote before commenting with trivial crap.

Thanks for the invite. Now, let me illustrate why you are a slowpoke.

Firstly, to state that you have researched the subject is besides the point, it's not assumed here that you arrived at your opinion after bumping your head, albeit, given your crassness,it is not far fetched. Nobody but an idiot responds to the question of what makes their opinion more valid by stating they researched it.

Now,you now claim you have told us what your ''research'' involves. What a knob. . . .you merely told us your areas of interest. The irony is that the self-assured bumpkins who castigate religion are often people who sorely lack the ability to reason.

Let me illustrate why you're an ignorant asshole.

Nobody but an idiot responds to the question of what makes their opinion more valid by stating they researched it.

I haven't once stated that my opinion is "more valid".

I would add as well that claiming to have researched a subject is not the ignorant reply that you claim it to be - especially when the majority of you Bible-bashers don't even have the balls to do it yourself but merely swallow the party line like gimps wearing gag-balls. All you do is bury yourself in the Bible, listen to your pastors and then bleat like sheep.

"Baa baa baa".

Bastage:
Quote from: Bastage on Yesterday at 11:11:17 PM


Most certainly not by taking everything that is written in the Bible at face value. And definitely not by having Him defined by organised religion and by other men.

There is one thing that I do agree with you on, and that is taking the Bible at face value. And when I say this I don't mean that the Bible is anymore irrelevant. I mean that people do not understand the background of the Bible. If they did, they would understand the Bible even more. The Bible is more than just a book you can open and read that Bible is a culture, a law, a civilization, it is so much more. I started studying the Bible, and when I discovered things about it, it surprisingly didn't kill my faith but made it stronger. Actually if I were to say some of these things to nairalanders some might loose faith. That is the problem, people don't get what the Bible is.
You have to understand the guardian of the Bible in order to understand the Bible, for the Bible was made for the guardian, Israel, not Israel for the Bible.

Scriptures do not make a religion until they are read by men. And that is where the problem occurs.
You say to appreciate the fact that men penned the Bible, but the problem is that once it was penned, to a large degree it became immovable. This meant that errors became dogma. Also, there are so many contradictions, interpretation becomes very, very difficult. Putting the religions to paper means that they aren't flexible and I honestly believe that this is a big failure. I personally prefer the old ways of oral tradition and editing as you go along as with many of the Buddhist and Hindu scripts. Unfortunately, Biblical editing has been very slap-dash and sometimes even compounded errors (not to mention influenced by politics).

On the contrary that is not where the problem occurs, the problem occurs the other way around. When man doesn't care to believe in the way God works and wants to force God to work in the way he thinks God should work. God has shown us many times that the way he wants to work is through what we know and understand. If God were to speak to me in portugese, I wouldn't know what he's saying, therefore God's language is my language.
God's isn't supposed to be immovable, he isn't supposed to be flexible, you may want him that way, but that is not how he works. Man is flexible, but God won't be.
That is why there are dogmas, so that God won't become what man wants him to be, he will be who he is. What you are asking for is a God that moves and thinks like man does. Well this doesn't work so let me try something else. If that is how God works he wouldn't be God. He would be you and me.
You want God to be movable, changeable as time changes, when in fact he is constant in time. Man's understanding of God can change and can get better, but that is not to say that God himself should be changeable and movable.

See this is why I am so thankful for the Church. I am thankful that God promised that the Church would be guided through time by the Holy Spirit into all truth.

No one can just walk up and try to change God into what they think God should be. No one should try to change God to fit the times. Oh this the hip thing and this is how society is being run therefore God's laws should be twirked to accomodate people. It's ridiculous.

By the way, there are no contradictions in the Bible, there are contradictory interpretations though. Don't mistake contradictory interpretations to be contradictions of the Bible.

The Bible shouldn't be edited. So you shouldn't be looking forward to editions here and there.

DavidDylan:
Chris isnt really interested in asking God anything. All he is wants is a "God" who will turn a blind eye to his sins but still guarantee him heaven. That is what he and is ilk mean when they tell you God is wicked.

David unless you wish to tell me that you are mind reader please don't assume that Chris only wants a God who will turn a blind eye to his sins. You can hope, and I can hope that he doesn't want that, but that he truly wants to know God. He may be atheist today, but tomorrow is pregnant.

The Bible shouldn't be edited. So you shouldn't be looking forward to editions here and there.

The Bible has been edited hundreds of times.

I have a dozen different editions sitting on my book-shelf right now. My favourite is what is known as a Parallel Bible. It has the King James version on one side of the page and the 1881 revision on the other side. It's amazing looking at the same page and seeing just how many differences there are.

4 Play:
The irony is that the self-assured bumpkins who castigate religion are often people who sorely lack the ability to reason.

I cant count the number of times i have had to reach this same conclusion.

Bastage:
It's like arguing with a Muslim. They'll never give you a straight answer either.
Isaac Newton was born almost 400 years ago. 400 years ago he was considered a heretic. By your standards of "judgement" today he would still be considered a heretic.
Try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views

I never get a straight answer from you either besides the tired old excuse of "research", the bone-headed obstinacy that is based on a gross negligence of facts and the over reliance on dubious websites put up by people with an agenda.

James Joule, Gregor Mendel, John Dalton, Blaise Pascal . . . were all devout christians.

Nobel Laureates who were devout christians - Richard Smalley, Walter Kohn, Nevill Mott, John Eccles and many more.

You're nothing but an intellectual midget besides these men . . . i dont blame you . . . Earnest Hemmingway it was who attempted to fool the world when he famously made this stupid claim - "All thinking men are atheists."

Bastage:
The Bible has been edited hundreds of times.

I have a dozen different editions sitting on my book-shelf right now. My favourite is what is known as a Parallel Bible. It has the King James version on one side of the page and the 1881 revision on the other side. It's amazing looking at the same page and seeing just how many differences there are.

your chemistry textbook has been edited so many times . . . it has thus become unreliable. Maybe you can stop studying chemistry too.

DavidDylan:
I can't count the number of times i have had to reach this same conclusion.

seconded

The Bible has been edited hundreds of times

I said that the Bible shouldn't be edited, not that it hasn't been edited.

your chemistry textbook has been edited so many times . . . it has thus become unreliable. Maybe you can stop studying chemistry too

um David sorry o, but this isn't the perfect come back. Chemistry and the Bible are not on the same page o. Chemistry has been changed over time as understanding and findings have come underway, so chemistry should be edited and changed when there are new findings, but not the Bible.

But I do get the point you were trying to make sha.

Bastage:
Let me illustrate why you're an ignorant asshole.

I haven't once stated that my opinion is "more valid".

The crass triangulations of a knobhead. Asserting that you never made the above statement is again besides the point, for I never even attributed such a statement to you. However, discounting the fact that you dumb as a stump, you must realise that the crux of your argument is that your opinion is more valid than David's or his co-religionist.

I would add as well that claiming to have researched a subject is not the ignorant reply that you claim it to be - especially when the majority of you Bible-bashers don't even have the balls to do it yourself but merely swallow the party line like gimps wearing gag-balls. All you do is bury yourself in the Bible, listen to your pastors and then bleat like sheep.

I recognise the problem. Folks like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have made "anti-religion" seem like the only intellectually defensible viewpoint any lucid thinker can hold. What you now have is this contellation of cretins, like Bastage and Huxley, who seem to think that by agreeing with such luminaries, they are neccesarily intelligent.

To assert that you have researched this subject is not a valid answer. People who hold contrary opinion have also conducted their research. The real question is what makes the conclusions you have drawn from your research any more valid. That, slowpoke, is the only intelligible response you could have made.

~Lady~:
um David sorry o, but this isn't the perfect come back. Chemistry and the Bible are not on the same page o. Chemistry has been changed over time as understanding and findings have come underway, so chemistry should be edited and changed when there are new findings, but not the Bible.

But I do get the point you were trying to make sha.

I know but i had to use an analogy he could comprehend much better.

I know but i had to use an analogy he could comprehend much better.

gotcha.

DavidDylan:
James Joule, Gregor Mendel, John Dalton, Blaise Pascal . . . were all devout christians.

Nobel Laureates who were devout christians - Richard Smalley, Walter Kohn, Nevill Mott, John Eccles and many more.

You're nothing but an intellectual midget besides these men . . . i don't blame you . . . Earnest Hemmingway it was who attempted to fool the world when he famously made this stupid claim - "All thinking men are atheists."

To supplement your list of contemporary scientists who are devout Christians and who also believe in the Bible's account of creation as literal, not allegorical but as the undiluted Word of God.  Here are a few of them listed below:

Danny Faulkner         Ph.D.  Astronomy
John Byl                     Ph.D.  Astronomy
Tom Greene               Ph.D.  Astronomy
James Dire                 Ph.D.  Astrophysics
Dave Harrison            Ph.D. Astrophysics
Steven Boyd               Ph.D. Hebraic and Cognitive Studies
Floyd Nolen Jones     Th.D., Ph.D.  Author of Chronology of the Old Testament
Herb Hirt                    Ph.D.  Biblical Exposition
Robert Cole                Ph.D.  Semitic languages
Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon
Georgia Purdon          Ph.D. Molecular Genetics
Duane Gish                Ph.D. Biochemistry
David Menton            Ph.D. Cell Biology
Donald Chittick          Ph.D.  Physical Chemistry
Tom Greene              Ph.D.  Astronomy
Jason Lisle                Ph.D.  Astrophysics
Russell Humphreys   Ph.D  Physics
Don DeYoung            Ph.D.  Physics
Terry Mortenson       Ph.D. History of Geology
John baumgardner   Ph.D. Geophysics
Bob Compton            Ph.D. Physiology, DVM
Andy McIntosh         Ph.D.  Combustion Theory
John Johnson           Ph.D. Mathematics
Tommy Mitchel          M.D.
Andrew Snelling       Ph.D. Geology
Emil Silvestre           Ph.D. Geology
Esther Su                 Ph.D. Biochemistry
David DeWitt           Ph.D. Neuroscience

You can check the weblink below for the list of a few other Christian creationists, read about the early and modern Christians as well as their biographies of interest:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

@lady
I loved your reply, you see that's the thing I am saying, you and I can be so convinced about what we believe that we take it to be reality, in fact that is the first definition of certainty - a belief beyond doubt.
The point I try to hammer across on nairaland is that our beliefs can not hold for all unless it has well grounded proof in reality. You had an experience which is personal and strengthened your faith, there a billion others who have not had and may not ever have that revelation are they to just take your word for it?
All that said I appreciate that we have had this discussion.
Take care.
@david
Whatever you do in life never ever try to make a living by being a mind reader you totally suck at it. I told you a million times that I do not reach your conclusions about God does not make me wrong and make you right. Personally I don't think anyone can have a rational discussion with you, you are peacock who thinks that your salvation was made for david and anyone with a contrary opinion is wrong, so take a chill pill and keep your nose out of chris's thingy.
@4play
You are one of the people who bring shame to christianity, you zoom in here and start throwing curses like a wizard whose wand caught a mechanical fault.
Stick to the issue we are discussing and leave characters alone, for a christain there has been nothing christ like about your posts. FYI if one is rational God reduces to zero or just a prime mover.
@olaadegbu
And did any of your scientists apply the religious method to any of their findings?