> i think you like thios one.
>
> 1. Why does the Bible teach that the sky is a solid dome of transparent material with water above it?14 (The water poured through the "windows of heaven" to cause Noahs flood, and then presumably poured off the edge of the disk-shaped earth into the abyss.)
Because the Bible is not a textbook for cosmology, meteorology, physics,
chemistry, etal. It's purpose is not to correct misunderstandings with
regard to such subjects. It is a book of theology.
>
> 2. Why does the Bible teach that goats will have striped offspring if they see stripes when they drink at the watering trough, when this has been discredited by modern genetics?
Because the Bible is not a genetics textbook. It's purpose is not to
rectify genetic misconceptions. Such concerns are incidental to the
real purpose of the Scriptures. It's a book of theology.
>
> 3. Why does the Bible record scientifically impossible events as factual?
Because the Bible is not a science textbook and events were recorded by
those of limited factual knowledge. The Bible is a book of theology.
>
> For example, the creation narrative, Noahs deluge, a solid dome over the sky, Earth supported by a foundation. Why has the evangelical church produced "Creation Science" explanations that are complete nonsense? Why is it that none of the more rational reconciliations of science and the Bible survives scrutiny?
Because some Christians like most atheists choose to take a very narrow
and strictly literal view of the Bible, expecting it to be perfect in
every way.
>
> 4. How can it be that Psalm 16 and Romans 1 teach that the creation is a reliable means of knowing God ("natural theology"), but the scientific study of biological and geological origins contradicts the creation narrative in Genesis?
Because the Bible is a book of theology. The creation narratives in
Genesis (there are two) tell us that God is the Source and ultimate
meaning of all that exists. It's the task of science to learn "How" God
created it. Genesis explains the "Why" of creation.
>
> Absurd Doctrines
>
> 1. Where is the justice in punishing us for Adams sin?
We are not punished for Adam's sin nor are we guilty for it, but we do
inherent from our earliest ancestors the tendency to go wrong.
Otherwise how do we explain man's inhumanity to man? "History is little
more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of
mankind," according to Edward Gibbon. How we deal with our human
darkside is what comes under judgment, for good or ill.
snip
> 3. How can sacrificing Jesus on behalf of the sinner atone for anothers sin? This would be like killing my child to reconcile for the misbehavior of my neighbors child. I have the capacity simply to forgive and forget without demanding compensation for small offenses. Why cant God do this? Does he simply want blood?
>
Alienation and distrust of God is itself the offense. How do you relate
to someone who breaks trust with you and has decided you are holding out
on them? As Man (Adam) is wont to do in his relationship with God. God
is not interested in penalties. His object is to reconcile an alienated
humanity and restore the broken relationship. "God was in Christ
reconciling the world to Himself." To assume God wanted satisfaction
for man's rebellion degrades Christ's sacrifice to a mere legalistic
transaction in some court of law. It was infinitely more than that. On
the cross the Almighty bared His heart before the whole world to let us
know how much we mean to Him. Otherwise why does the cross bring first
to Christian minds the love of God instead of a payment of some debt?
> 4. Why pray? If it changes Gods mind then he is not sovereign. If it does not change Gods mind then it is superfluous.
>
"The function of prayer is not to influence God, but rather to change
the nature of the one who prays." Soren Kierkegaard
> 5. How can the doctrine of the Trinity possibly be true? Any attempt to make sense of it leads to contradictions. If it is so important, why isnt it clearly taught in the Bible? Why shouldnt an objective student of the doctrine conclude that it was created by the church to hide biblical inconsistencies about the nature of Christ behind a shroud of mystery?
>
To be a Christian one must "Move beyond either-or thinking and learn to
live with paradox, unanswered questions, inner contradictions."
(Richard Rohr) To the person who insists on a God who can be explained
and understood rationally, the answer is that God refuses to become that
small.
> 6. Why is God concerned about humans at all? We are less than a speck in the universe. Christianity has the hallmarks of being a religion made by humans for humans.
>
So size and comparisons really matter? Great treasures never come in
small packages?
> 7. Why have all the rational arguments for the existence of God been successfully refuted? If God exists, is it unreasonable to suppose that there would be at least one irrefutable proof of his existence?
>
"God refuses to be known except by love." (John of the Cross) Thus He
is not known by rational argument or irrefutable proof, but only by
love.
Your objections "just keep going and going and going" like the Eveready
plush pink bunny. And if someone should answer every one of them, you
no doubt will create even more. That's all the time I have for this
little exercise in futility.
Denny
--
"There cannot be a God because, If there were one, I would
not believe that I were not He." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"My husband and I divorced over religious differences.
He thought he was God and I didn't." - Many-a-Spouse
|
|