CANADIEN

YOUR problem is that you can't cope with the fact that I read it and I DO understand it. Perhaps you could explain how that can be done. After all, you keep elevating that art to new heights.

Teacher bambino: 1+1 equals? Six year old betsy (and no, I am not claiming that you are a six year old, although it is tempting - just imagining you when you were six): What's your argument? Teacher bambino: No argument here. 1+1 equals? Six year old betsy: what's your argument, so I can respond to it. Teacher bambino: No argument. 1+1 equals? Six year old betsy: I want to know your argument, so that I can respond to it. (one hour later) Teacher bambino: You can't admit you don't know the answer to the question. Six year old betsy: See, you can't explain your argument. I've won.

Except for the burying part (which is not what is happening, actually), sounds a lot like the repetitive betsy.

Let's see, you cannot answer a simple question, but you can respond to an argument.

Gotta love betsy's own particular brand of literalism. Taking a whole text as if it needs to be taken literally, then whenever it doesn't work chosing parts of the text, declaring that THOSE should not be taken literally, and cry out "See, I am not saying that we should take this literally", while continuing to oppose any non-literalist interpretation.

See, you already know that. and you didn't need two texts explaning what they are (mind you, I don't think you read them anyway). One less excuse not to answer the question that was asked.

It has already been settled. Any claim that I haven't settled it by stating clearly what I believe is a lie.

Want to know what a Christian is? I'll show you Christians. A couple who, because of their faith in the creating God, left heir confortable life and are serving the poor in a Third World country. A man who, because of his faith in the creating God, spends one evening a week providing security at a Out of the Cold location. A women who, because of her faith in the creating God, has pledged to live her life in a religious community in a foreign country. People who, because of their faith in the creating God, have shared the lives of people with developmenttal disabilities. Men and women who, because of their faith in the creating God, live the best that they can, in their ordinary lives, with successes and with failures, the call to serve God and love others. THAT,s how one recognizes a Christian.

Came across some interesting comments which I agree with (even though some of the theological stuff is a bit beyond my areas of knowledge). (note: I for one, do not expect that other will automatically agree with them as well, and that failure to do so means that one didn't read it correctly ) Full textAnd for those who may tempted to argue that the person who wrote these words is not a Christian... The guy was a Polish theologian and Catholic bishop of an Italian town...

Careful for what you wish. Because the more one scrolls back to what you post, the more evident your lack of understanding of the Bible, faith, and science becomes. As for what I think about the FACTS of God's creation and macro-evolution being compatible. Yes, indeed, they are compatible. Never said otherwise.

I have said firmly and crearly where I stand. Your claim that I did otherwise is a lie. Don't worry, by now it odesn't offend me as much as it amuses me. Interesting, btw, that you claim that creation excludes macro-evolution, then when I say that these two FACTS are not mutually exclusive you try to weasel out by saying that, oh well, Creation doesn't exclude my beloief in evolution. And yes, I will call you to task when you keep changing your own rules about what should be taken literally and what shouldn't. sounds to me like an apt discussion of what you do. I said what I believe in. And I have also said that the FACT that I am a christian is not open to debate, or discussion, with anyone but God. Period. You are the one who keep trying to dictate what I should discuss with you. Now, you are putting words in my mouth, and revealing your lack of understanding of what I say, and what I mean (note: I didn't say lack of agreement, but lack of understanding). I have said time and time again that I consider the creation text of Genesis to be an allegory about God's creation. An allegory is not a lie. Don't worry, I do not expect you to understand this.

You didn't need to say it. More seriously. Your intellectual dishonesty shines throughout. A simple question has been asked; a clarification has even been posted for your benefit, and I quote: ¸ A link to a description of what a trilobite was has been provided and here is another one in case you have problems with wikipedia from the Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Couldn't be clearer. But hey, don't worry, seeing you squirm is entertaining. PS.: Does 1+1 = 2? And no, I am not saying what my point is in asking that question.

Let me see here. You are not claiming that the Genesis creation story should be taken literally, but you claim that science supports some of Genesis verses literally. Does that include the creation verses? If so, desn't that mean we should take the creation verses literally? If not, why should we reject macro-evolution on the basis that it contradicts the text of the verses. See, not trying to put any word in your mouth here. I don't need to. You have digged yourself in a hole here, and you didn't need any help doing it.

Yet, the unavoidable conclusion about everyone draws from your postings is that you want us to believe creation unfolded the way dscribed in Genesis. Especially when it comes to the part about life having been created each according to its kind. No matter how one puts it, and no matter whether you are able to recognize it or not, that's a literal approach. In case you didn't realize it, it is EXACTLY because of this that I am calling you to task. If one is to take the text literally (which is what you are doing and ask us to do, whether or not you are capable of realizing it), one doesn't get to pick and choose was is to be taken as it was written and what is subject to interpretation. If I have to believe that each of animal species and the Human being were created separtely because it's written in the Bible, then I have to believe that it was created in seven days because it is also written. No place for interpretations. The text comes as a whole package, to be taken either as what it is, an allegory, or as being a factual description of what happens. And that means that the claim that the text is talking about "God's days" doesn't wash out it either cases. The texts you quote and "explain" do NOT say that what is a day for God lasts one thousand of our years. They say that for God one day is like a thousand year - a difference, and not just one in semantics. The meaning to a person of faith is pretty evident - time is of no object to God. If God has wanted us to know that his days are longer than our days, He would have said it so clearly, not that way. Besides, isn't the Sabbath command clear, about resting on the 7th day because God rested on the 7th day? (like God needs a rest anyways). It doesn't say that we should rest on the 7th of our days because God rested on the 7th of His days. What you posts looks like Old Earth Creationism to me. And to me, Old Earth creationism sounds like an attempt by its proponents to have their cake and eat it to, namely to insist that Genesis should be taken at face value, but subject to interpretation when scientific knowledge doesn't fit.

In my case, it's not fortitude. I do it for the comedic relief.

You have made it quite clear previously that science "proves" the veracity of statements in the Bbile that the number of stars cannot be measured. Yet, it CAN be measured. So, what you claim proves the veracity of the Bible is not even factual in the first place. Of course, most people of faith with understanding of science know that whether or not we can count the number of stars is irrelevant when it comes to acknowledge the Bible as the Word of God.

You should follow his example.

No no no no betsy. You insist that the Genesis creation text be taken literally, you gotta take it literally. The text is quite clear: seven days. Seven 24-hours days. Anything else is interpretation, something incompatible with a literal reading. Or are we in a presence of yet another betsy fact?

It is quite clear that the Genesis text talks about a GLOBAL deluge. Not a regional one (even though the story is not to be taken literally, and is inspired by catastrophic inundations that have occured times and times again in the Mesopotamian plains). BTW, I have two questions. When dix the Déluge occur? Are we all Noah's descendants? The betsy fact is proven once again. The Bible is to be taken literally... except when it contradicts betsy's sayings, in which case what is written is subject to interpretation.

One is left to wonder how closely you read what you post. Here we have a quotation from an author who recognizes the multiplicity of literary genres, including allegories, in the Bible, and you yell "Here's the proof! Here's the proof!" Yet, you persist in treating the most obvious allegory, the beginning of Genesis, like if it was to be taken literally.

It,s called... evolution.

The creating God and macro-evolution are not contradictory. Most people of faith understand that. You don't.

There is no evidence about evolution. Except of course, the evidence that has been found. Including by faithful Christian scientists. Pity that some are missing one of the most beautiful allegory ever written, the opening phrases of Genesis.

Trying my best betsy imitation possible (but without the anooying formating): FACT. The Bible is to be taken literally... except when it contradicts betsy's sayings, in which case what is written is subject to interpretation.

Let me see here. The Earth is at least one billion years. Homo sapiens is a lot younger than that. Yet, the Bible is to be taken literally. Good thing I have my faith. Becuase this kind of "science" would be enough to turn me into an atheist. Oops, I forgot - I am one.