Time stopped for Joshua, and it ran backwards for Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:9-11). Is that an example of “god” preserving the “uniformity ” of nature? How about people rising from the dead or feeding crowds with magical fish and loaves?

“all science is based upon the law of induction, the validity of which cannot be accounted for apart from the Bible.”

Magical, untestable tinkering with reality isn’t any example of uniformity” It’s the opposite of it!

I guess you’re used to that… and must enjoy it! Hell – look at the beating you’re taking on this thread and you still keep coming back… like I said… short bus.

I said: “all science is based upon the law of induction, the validity of which cannot be accounted for apart from the Bible.”

You said: “”I should’ve known better than engaging anyone on the short bus… (sigh).”"

Don’t feel bad, you can’t win ‘em all.

I should’ve known better than engaging anyone on the short bus… (sigh).

Happy New Year. Glad to see you are well. Regarding your comments:

I said: “the ‘scientific facts’ you speak of which contradict the Bible are not ‘facts’, but simply conclusions formed about the world around us derived from the assumption (presupposition) that the Bible is not literally true”.

You said: “”Not quite – most scientists don’t give your little book a moments thought.”"

Actually, all science is based upon the law of induction, the validity of which cannot be accounted for apart from the Bible. No doubt, many scientists may suppress this truth, but they cannot live consistently with their professed beliefs (just as you cannot).

You said: “”It’s not that the bible is presupposed to be false any more than presupposing Harry Potter is false has anything to do with science.”"

The difference is, Harry Potter cannot account for the validity of the scientific method, whereas the Bible can and does (by the impossibility of the contrary).

I said: “It is only because the Bible is literally true that one has any basis for expecting the future to resemble the past.”

You said: “”Huge fail. Huge.

We expect the future to resemble the past NOT because some ancient book says it but because in our recorded history it’s ALWAYS been that way! Your bible has NOTHING to do with it!”"

Speak for yourself. As I pointed out to you way back on December 3 (1:27 PM), saying that the future will be like the past because it has been like the past is hopelessly circular and, therefore, irrational.

Not to mention the fact that you have zero basis for the claim that ‘it’s always been that way’, as you have admitted that you can’t know anything for certain, in which case, it could be false for all you know.

You said: “”Rain clouds yesterday produced rain. Last week they produced rain also.”"

Again, though, you have admitted that you could be mistaken about all of this. Not to mention, you have no way of knowing that the senses, reasoning, and memory you used to form this conclusion are reliable.

Believing something and acting upon it with no justification for doing so is the very definition of blind faith and the very epitome of irrationality. You should give this some serious thought, Joe.

You said: “”It’s a pretty good bet that rain clouds in the future will produce rain. I didn’t think about the bible once in making that deduction.”"

So let’s get this straight, you weren’t thinking about the Bible when you stated that you made the above deduction without thinking about the Bible? Okayyyyyy.

You said: “”That the bible might mention this (past/future relationship) means that the goat herders that wrote it noticed this ‘fact of life’ too – NOT that the bible is literally true.”"

Not that I agree with your erroneous assessment of the Bible, but what does it say about your position when those alleged ‘goat herders’ can logically account for the validity of the scientific method while you cannot?

Not quite – most scientists don’t give your little book a moments thought. It’s not that the bible is presupposed to be false any more than presupposing Harry Potter is false has anything to do with science.

The bible is irrelevant to science, it doesn’t come up.

scmike continued: “It is only because the Bible is literally true that one has any basis for expecting the future to resemble the past.”

Huge fail. Huge.

We expect the future to resemble the past NOT because some ancient book says it but because in our recorded history it’s ALWAYS been that way! Your bible has NOTHING to do with it!
Rain clouds yesterday produced rain. Last week they produced rain also. It’s a pretty good bet that rain clouds in the future will produce rain. I didn’t think about the bible once in making that deduction.

That the bible might mention this (past/future relationship) means that the goat herders that wrote it noticed this ‘fact of life’ too – NOT that the bible is literally true.

I said: “You may call this a word game all you like, but if you would ever answer my questions, you would see that it is not.”

You said: “”I’ve read your responses above. That you are engaged in word games is apparent. Would your response to me be any different than your response to any of them?”"

If you’ve read the responses above, then you have no doubt seen that no one has even come close to answering THAT question, as it is unanswerable. One cannot know something that could be false, as I hope you realize by now.

I said: “You claim to test the validity of your senses and reasoning with your brain, but you could never do that unless you knew that your brain was functioning properly and yielding correct results. How do you know that it is?”

You said: “”Because if were not, it would not give the type of results that are given, nor would they be mutually reinforcing. That was the point previously”"

You’re arguing that you verify the reliability of your senses and reasoning with your brain, which you in turn validate with your senses and reasoning. This is hopelessly circular, and still gives you zero justification for trusting the reliability of your senses and reasoning. As I stated before, if you don’t know that they are reliable, you can’t know anything.

I said: “Then, you should have no problem refuting me by giving an example of something you know to be true that could also be false.”

You said: “”Again, given the demonstrated idiosyncratic meanings you append to these words, doing so would be pointless, like talking about the evidence which establishes the fact of evolution and the falsehood of Genesis taken literally.”"

Look, Golumpki, if you can’t give an example to back up your claim regarding knowledge, just say so, as that is my point.
It is ironic that you mention ‘facts’, and ‘evidence’ (both of which allude to the concept of proof) in your above statement, as absolute certainty is a necessary precondition for proving anything.

You said: “”You would presumably simply trot out your idiosyncratic “facts” which you believe support your position, ignore the things that do not, garnish it with empty rhetoric about “preconceptions” or “worldviews” or some such nonsense. What would be the point for me even doing so?”"

To demonstrate that YOUR argument is more than just a baseless assertion (i.e. ‘empty rhetoric’). Well?

You said: “”Here is exactly the word play I mentioned above. You are including a notion of certainty here, with regard to truth and knowledge which simply is incongruent with the generally accepted meanings to those words.”"

Here is another example of your inconsistency. Are you 100% certain that the notion of certainty provided is incongruent with the ‘generally accepted’ meanings? If so, how? If not, couldn’t the exact opposite be true?

You said: “”It is as if you argued that 5 is smaller than 2, and based your argument on the claim that “5” means “a single thing.””"

I disagree with your analysis of my argument. Nevertheless, this raises a good question with regards to your professed beliefs–why can 5 absolutely not be smaller than 2, and why can 5 absolutely not mean ‘a single thing’? Based on your stated position, you are forced to admit that both of these scenarios COULD be, and you have no way of knowing with 100% certainty that they are not so right now. Surely you can see the absurdity of such a position by now, no?

I asked: “So, you know the Lord then?”

You said: “”Depends on what you mean by the expression. Sounds vaguely Protestant to me.”"

I mean exactly what I asked. Do you know the Lord? That is the Biblical definition of a Christian.

I said: “Interesting and Biblical (Rom. 1:18-20).”

You said: “”That’s one way of looking at it, but not the only way, and certainly not the best way given the fact that it is incongruous with the experience of most of humanity and goes against the very notion of faith, itself.”"

How do you know for certain that this is ‘incongruous with the experience of most of humanity’? That very claim demonstrates the Biblical truth that God has revealed some things to us so that we can know them to absolutely objectively true, as the only way anyone can know anything for certain is through revelation from One who knows everything, otherwise the argument goes on forever in an infinite regress of ‘how do you know’ (as we are seeing right now).

You continue to confirm that you do not hold God or his Word as your ultimate authority, but instead, base your entire position on your own ability to reason apart from God (and in contradiction to Him). Amazingly, this is the same position that the atheists on this thread have taken, as well. Surely you can see the problem with that, no?

I asked: “So you don’t know the Lord then?”

You said: “”Again, I think this is a Protestant notion. “”

No, it is a Biblical notion. Well, do you?

I asked: “Is it your position that Mother Theresa knew the Lord?”

You said: “”It is my position that Blessed Mother Teresa was a Christian who had doubts about faith, as most people of faith have.”"

You previously stated that Mother Theresa doubted the existence of God. Are you arguing that she both knew and Lord and also did not know the Lord at the same time and in the same way? How is that possible?

You said: “”That would, in my mind, especially given the view of her life held by the Holy Father and by Pope John Paul II, that such doubts about faith and even the existence of God are not only normal, but can be experience by those most in the service to God.”"

Not if they KNOW God. Unless, of course, you’d care to explain the process of knowing Him and not knowing him at the same time and in the same way.

You said: “”It is part of the tragedy of humanity and the challenge and mystery of faith. As I said before, if you have problems with these ideas, please contact your local parish. I’m certain they can get you in touch with a priest or theologian who can do a better job than I in discussing these matters.”"

Look Golumpki, I understand that Christians may sometimes fail to trust God like they should (this is perfectly consistent with what the Bible says), but Christians do not EVER doubt His existence, as a Christian is someone who knows the Lord and has been regenerated by His Spirit dwelling within them.

What would you think of someone who claimed to doubt the existence of their parents?

I asked: “Are you certain? If so, how?”

You said: “”I am certain beyond any reasonable doubt, as a result of the billions of data points which have demonstrated this.”"

Could you be wrong about that?

I said: “What you don’t realize is that you destroy your own position with your ‘rigid belief’ that they are not literal”

You said: “”I do not have a “rigid belief” that they are not literal. If you were to establish through scientific means that they were literally true, and not merely literary and, perhaps, liturgical, then I would change my position.”"

The problem is, any evidence presented to you will be interpreted via your presupposition that the Biblical accounts we are discussing are NOT literal. Even providing you with Biblical justification that they should be taken literally (such as Jesus Himself declaring them to be literal historical accounts: Matt. 12:39-41, Matt. 19:4, Mark 10:6) would never convince you, as you deny the authority of the Bible. It is impossible to convince someone who does not want to be convinced. That only comes through submission.

I suspect that your response to this evidence will no doubt confirm my point.

I said: “…and should not be taken as such, as it is only because the Bible is absolutely true that one can know anything to be true at all.”

You said: “”Again, nice theology, but one that most would disagree with.”"

Thankfully, their agreement is not needed. What people believe to be true has nothing to do with what actually is true.

This again serves to demonstrate though that your ultimate authority is not the Bible, but your own and others’ autonomous reasoning apart from God. I pray that you will come to see the folly of such a position and repent of it.

You said: “”Moreover, at least three pontiffs are on record noting the truth, with caveats, of the science of evolution. Given the choice between peasant theology and the Vicar of Christ, I’ll choose the latter.”"

Fine by me. I’ll stick with Christ Himself.

I said: “Yet, it is you who has been arguing AGAINST my claim that God has made Himself known to us, all along. Don’t you find that a little bit odd?”

You said: “”No. I have no quarrel with the notion that God has made himself known to us. I quarrel with the notion that that knowledge is absolute and certain.”"

Here is another inconsistency Golumpki. Are you absolutely certain that your quarrel is with the notion that knowledge is absolute and certain, or could you be mistaken?

You see, if your position were correct, nothing (least of all my position) could be known to be absolutely true or false, and ‘quarrels’ would be meaningless, as there would be no way of resolving ANY quarrel. The fact that you are arguing with me, as if to arrive at truth defeats your position.

I said: “What is your Biblical justification for assuming that Genesis and Jonah were parables?”

You said: “”Whose to say that such justification has to be Biblical? Again, as the Church has made clear, there is no conflict between accepting the factual truth of evolution, with caveats, and the Christian faith.”"

Actually, Christianity and evolution are 100% incompatible with one another. I would argue that those who profess Christianity and hold to evolution don’t truly understand either, as one must completely lay aside the authority of the Bible in order to do so, as you have just demonstrated.

I said: “Well, feel free to tell how you account for knowledge, truth, logic, and the preconditions of intelligibility without presupposing the truth of the Bible.”

You said: “”Actually, I’m much more interested in hearing how you explain how a literal acceptance of Genesis and Noah’s flood is a necessary precondition for knowledge, truth and logic.”"

Because if one can arbitrarily reject Biblical accounts as they wish, then no Biblical account can be known to be true. If the Bible is not true, then we have no basis for any truth, knowledge, or the validity of human reasoning, as the Bible is the ONLY ‘holy book’ which makes sense of these things.

Likewise, if the Bible doesn’t mean what it says, we have the same problem. How could we know that God really did create the universe, our senses, and our minds, and thus that our senses are basically reliable? Granted, the Bible says this, but how would we know that it means this, if the Bible doesn’t mean what it says? A straightforward reading of the Bible is necessary in order to make sense of anything else.

I said: “You seem to misunderstand what a Christian is.”

You said: “”LOL. No, as a baptized and confirmed Catholic, I know I am a Christian.”"

How do you know this?

I said: “A Christian is someone who holds God and His Word to be their ULTIMATE authority and who lives in submission to that authority, having repented of their sins and been regenerated by the Spirit of Jesus Christ.”

You said: “”Again, while the Bible is one key authority, it is not the only one. Absent the Church and Sacred Tradition, you’re left with people turning the Bible into an idol.”"

Actually, when you deny the Bible as your ultimate authority, the god that you are worshipping IS an idol of your own making.

For instance, if you accept that the doctrines of the Catholic Church and Sacred Tradition should be adhered to over the authority of Bible (even when they contradict it), then they have become your god. One cannot be in total submission to God and His Word and also not totally submitted to Him. We either are or we aren’t (Matthew 6:24).

You said: “”While taking away nothing from the glory of the Gospels and the majesty of scripture, it is important to remember that Christ, himself, did not write a word, but his did found a Church – the Catholic Church.”"

Does the Catholic Church have the authority to contradict Scripture?

I said: “The more that I discuss this with you, the more concerned I am that this does not describe you. I pray that I am mistaken.”

You said: “”Well, while I appreciate your concern, it is misguided. I am happily a member of Christ’s One True Church.”"

Are you born again (John 3:3-7)?

I said: “I agree that God speaks through His creation and that our reasoning is a precious gift from God, but it is only through the lens of the Bible that we are able to make sense of our ability to reason or have any grounds for rational thought.”

You said: “”No, no, no, no, false.”"

If you scroll up, you will see the truth of my statement when you admitted to sensing and reasoning that your senses and reasoning are valid. As I said, it is only because the Bible is absolutely true that we have any basis for the validity of our reasoning. Holding one’s own reasoning above Scripture as an ultimate authority will always end up in absurdity and foolishness. Please give this some thought Golumpki.

God and His Word must be our ultimate authority, else He is not our God, we are.

You said: “”You cannot say that God speaks through His creation and praise Him for our reasoning abilities and then deny them completely when applying the latter reveals that what was, in a more ignorant age, taken to be a literal historical lesson is, in fact, a beautiful and poetic parable and allegory, teaching essential matters of faith and God’s love.”"

Again, what is the justification for your assumption? Scriptural analysis should always be done in light of the authority of other Scripture (i.e. rightly dividing the Word of Truth). This is difficult when you have admitted that the Bible is NOT your ultimate authority.

I said: “Again Golumpki, it is only because the Bible is literally true that we have any basis for knowledge, science, or the validity of human reasoning.”

You said: “”Again, I’d love for you to try to explain the validity of human reasoning, itself, is dependant upon Jonah being swallowed by a sea creature for three days, as a historical matter and not as a literary and teaching device and prefigurement of Christ’s passion and resurrection.”"

As I said before, if one can arbitrarily dismiss Biblical accounts as not being literal (when they clearly are), then ANY Biblical account can be dismissed, including the virgin birth, the crucifixion, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If the Bible does not literally mean what it says, then none of it can be known to be true.

I said: “To hold our ability to reason above the authority of Scripture is to ’spit’ upon the authority of God and to be reduced to foolishness, as that position ALWAYS leads to absurdity”

You said: “”But we are not holding our ability to reason above the authority of Scripture, we are merely denying a literal reading to certain portions of Scripture – which were sufficient in a less knowledgeable age – in favor of one that, in the fullness of the knowledge that God’s gift of learning and reasoning has revealed, has revealed a richness and meaning which makes the literal reading of Genesis weak soup in comparison.”"

But you have zero scriptural basis for any of the above assumptions, which means you have reasoned to them independently of the Word of God. That is the very definition of holding your reason above the authority of Scripture.

You said: “”When one discovers, truly discovers, the wonders of God’s vast and billions-year-old universe and the long and amazing evolutionary history of life on Earth, it only makes God’s glory all the more magnificent and makes the lessons from the proper, non-literal, reading of Genesis all the more meaningful.”"

Here is a perfect example; Did you reason to this conclusion with Scripture as your foundation, or did you reach it by some other means?

I said: “If God and His Word are to be our ultimate authority, we must reason FROM the truth of scripture, not TO it.”

You said: “”But, again, you are presupposing that a literal view IS the truth of Scripture.”"

And my presupposition is justified by the impossibility of the contrary, as I have explained.

I said: “I presuppose that the Bible is absolutely true in ALL of it’s accounts, while you do not.”

You said: “”No, you presuppose it is literally true. I presuppose that it is absolutely true, but not always literally so.”"

So we are in agreement now that absolute truth exists? Isn’t this the very concept you’ve been arguing against all this time? How do you explain that?

You said: “”To use an overly simplistic expression, if someone in a monsoon said that “it’s raining cats and dogs” I could say that the statement was true, but you would require falling felines and canines before pronouncing truth.”"

No doubt. It is not my position that the Bible contains no figurative language, allegories, or parables, but that a straightforward, literal reading of the Bible is required to make sense of any of it (even the instances where such language is used). If the same non-literal approach that you are applying to Genesis and Jonah were applied to all of the Bible, then one could conclude that Jesus’ parables were not literally parables, and should not be taken as such. I’m sure that you would disagree with such an analysis of Scripture, no?

I said: “Whereas you seek to reconcile perceived contradictions between ‘reality’ and the Bible by laying aside the authority of Scripture, I reconcile them based upon the authority of Scripture.”

You said: “”From what I’ve seen, you don’t actually reconcile them at all. You simply ignore the scientific facts which are at the foundation of the contradictions, in favor of the literal reading.”"

What you fail to realize , is that the ‘scientific facts’ you speak of which contradict the Bible are not ‘facts’, but simply conclusions formed about the world around us derived from the assumption (presupposition) that the Bible is not literally true, which is clearly question begging.

Besides, the very basis of all science is induction (i.e. the uniformity of nature), which makes no sense apart from the literal truth of the Bible. It is only because the Bible is literally true that one has any basis for expecting the future to resemble the past, since it is in Genesis that it is revealed that God sustains the universe in a uniform fashion so that man may have dominion over the earth and subdue it. It would be impossible to do so otherwise.

I said: “Look Golumpki, if you can show me where Joe provided an absolute standard of morality by which he condemns any action in his worldview, I will gladly issue an apology.”

You said: “”But, again, you may believe that there needs to be an absolutely objective basis for morality (however you define these words), but not everyone does. And simply because Joe does not conform to your definitions and preconceptions does not mean that he did not give you a basis. His answer may have been unsatisfying to you, but you can’t say he didn’t give you an answer.”"

You are forgetting that I asked specifically for an absolute standard. Please show me where Joe provided one, and I will be more than happy to offer that apology.

I said: “I must confess that I find it rather strange (and contradictory) that you profess Christianity, while continuing to argue from and defend an atheistic position. Surely you can see the problem with that, no?”

You said: “”I’m not defending an “atheistic position,” merely noting that it appears to me that you skirt darn close to accusing him of something he has not committed. Preventing that is a very Christian position.”"

Actually, I was not referring to your defense of Joe, but the arguments that you have been using to try and defend your position regarding knowledge, etc. If you scroll up, they are nearly identical to the arguments that the professed atheists on this blog have attempted to use AGAINST Christianity. As a professing Christian, you should find that extremely troubling.

I’ve read your responses above. That you are engaged in word games is apparent. Would your response to me be any different than your response to any of them?

- “You claim to test the validity of your senses and reasoning with your brain, but you could never do that unless you knew that your brain was functioning properly and yielding correct results. How do you know that it is?”

Because if were not, it would not give the type of results that are given, nor would they be mutually reinforcing. That was the point previously

- “Then, you should have no problem refuting me by giving an example of something you know to be true that could also be false.”

Again, given the demonstrated idiosyncratic meanings you append to these words, doing so would be pointless, like talking about the evidence which establishes the fact of evolution and the falsehood of Genesis taken literally. You would presumably simply trot out your idiosyncratic “facts” which you believe support your position, ignore the things that do not, garnish it with empty rhetoric about “preconceptions” or “worldviews” or some such nonsense. What would be the point for me even doing so?

- “ “”(as well as “true”””
- ‘Certain’.
- “”and “know” as well.)””
- ‘to apprehend clearly and with certainty’. “

- “Know–’to apprehend clearly and with certainty’
- Certain–’true’
- Exist–’to have actual being’
- There. Now please answer the question, Golumpki.”

Here is exactly the word play I mentioned above. You are including a notion of certainty here, with regard to truth and knowledge which simply is incongruent with the generally accepted meanings to those words. It is as if you argued that 5 is smaller than 2, and based your argument on the claim that “5” means “a single thing.”

“So, you know the Lord then?”

Depends on what you mean by the expression. Sounds vaguely Protestant to me.

- “Interesting and Biblical (Rom. 1:18-20).”

That’s one way of looking at it, but not the only way, and certainly not the best way given the fact that it is incongruous with the experience of most of humanity and goes against the very notion of faith, itself.

- “So you don’t know the Lord then?”

Again, I think this is a Protestant notion.

- “Is it your position that Mother Theresa knew the Lord?”

It is my position that Blessed Mother Teresa was a Christian who had doubts about faith, as most people of faith have. That would, in my mind, especially given the view of her life held by the Holy Father and by Pope John Paul II, that such doubts about faith and even the existence of God are not only normal, but can be experience by those most in the service to God. It is part of the tragedy of humanity and the challenge and mystery of faith. As I said before, if you have problems with these ideas, please contact your local parish. I’m certain they can get you in touch with a priest or theologian who can do a better job than I in discussing these matters.

- “Are you certain? If so, how?”

I am certain beyond any reasonable doubt, as a result of the billions of data points which have demonstrated this.

- “What you don’t realize is that you destroy your own position with your ‘rigid belief’ that they are not literal”

I do not have a “rigid belief” that they are not literal. If you were to establish through scientific means that they were literally true, and not merely literary and, perhaps, liturgical, then I would change my position. That’s not literal.

- “…and should not be taken as such, as it is only because the Bible is absolutely true that one can know anything to be true at all.”

Again, nice theology, but one that most would disagree with. Moreover, at least three pontiffs are on record noting the truth, with caveats, of the science of evolution. Given the choice between peasant theology and the Vicar of Christ, I’ll choose the latter.

- “Yet, it is you who has been arguing AGAINST my claim that God has made Himself known to us, all along. Don’t you find that a little bit odd?”

No. I have no quarrel with the notion that God has made himself known to us. I quarrel with the notion that that knowledge is absolute and certain.

- “What is your Biblical justification for assuming that Genesis and Jonah were parables?”

Whose to say that such justification has to be Biblical? Again, as the Church has made clear, there is no conflict between accepting the factual truth of evolution, with caveats, and the Christian faith.

- “Well, feel free to tell how you account for knowledge, truth, logic, and the preconditions of intelligibility without presupposing the truth of the Bible.”

Actually, I’m much more interested in hearing how you explain how a literal acceptance of Genesis and Noah’s flood is a necessary precondition for knowledge, truth and logic.

- “You seem to misunderstand what a Christian is.”

LOL. No, as a baptized and confirmed Catholic, I know I am a Christian.

- “A Christian is someone who holds God and His Word to be their ULTIMATE authority and who lives in submission to that authority, having repented of their sins and been regenerated by the Spirit of Jesus Christ.”

Again, while the Bible is one key authority, it is not the only one. Absent the Church and Sacred Tradition, you’re left with people turning the Bible into an idol. While taking away nothing from the glory of the Gospels and the majesty of scripture, it is important to remember that Christ, himself, did not write a word, but his did found a Church – the Catholic Church.

- “The more that I discuss this with you, the more concerned I am that this does not describe you. I pray that I am mistaken.”

Well, while I appreciate your concern, it is misguided. I am happily a member of Christ’s One True Church.

- “I agree that God speaks through His creation and that our reasoning is a precious gift from God, but it is only through the lens of the Bible that we are able to make sense of our ability to reason or have any grounds for rational thought.”

No, no, no, no, false. You cannot say that God speaks through His creation and praise Him for our reasoning abilities and then deny them completely when applying the latter reveals that what was, in a more ignorant age, taken to be a literal historical lesson is, in fact, a beautiful and poetic parable and allegory, teaching essential matters of faith and God’s love.

- “Again Golumpki, it is only because the Bible is literally true that we have any basis for knowledge, science, or the validity of human reasoning.”

Again, I’d love for you to try to explain the validity of human reasoning, itself, is dependant upon Jonah being swallowed by a sea creature for three days, as a historical matter and not as a literary and teaching device and prefigurement of Christ’s passion and resurrection.

- “ To hold our ability to reason above the authority of Scripture is to ’spit’ upon the authority of God and to be reduced to foolishness, as that position ALWAYS leads to absurdity”

But we are not holding our ability to reason above the authority of Scripture, we are merely denying a literal reading to certain portions of Scripture – which were sufficient in a less knowledgeable age – in favor of one that, in the fullness of the knowledge that God’s gift of learning and reasoning has revealed, has revealed a richness and meaning which makes the literal reading of Genesis weak soup in comparison. When one discovers, truly discovers, the wonders of God’s vast and billions-year-old universe and the long and amazing evolutionary history of life on Earth, it only makes God’s glory all the more magnificent and makes the lessons from the proper, non-literal, reading of Genesis all the more meaningful.

- “If God and His Word are to be our ultimate authority, we must reason FROM the truth of scripture, not TO it.”

But, again, you are presupposing that a literal view IS the truth of Scripture.

- “Only if you first assume that the Bible is not correct in its accounts”

One need not assume that. Once can assume that a literal view of certain accounts is not the proper manner to look at Scripture.

- “We will interpret any evidence and the world around us based on our respective presuppositions.”

While this is true only in the grossest sense, that does not mean that the results of those interpretations are equally likely.

- “I presuppose that the Bible is absolutely true in ALL of it’s accounts, while you do not.”

No, you presuppose it is literally true. I presuppose that it is absolutely true, but not always literally so. To use an overly simplistic expression, if someone in a monsoon said that “it’s raining cats and dogs” I could say that the statement was true, but you would require falling felines and canines before pronouncing truth.

- “Whereas you seek to reconcile perceived contradictions between ‘reality’ and the Bible by laying aside the authority of Scripture, I reconcile them based upon the authority of Scripture.”

From what I’ve seen, you don’t actually reconcile them at all. You simply ignore the scientific facts which are at the foundation of the contradictions, in favor of the literal reading.

- “Look Golumpki, if you can show me where Joe provided an absolute standard of morality by which he condemns any action in his worldview, I will gladly issue an apology.”

But, again, you may believe that there needs to be an absolutely objective basis for morality (however you define these words), but not everyone does. And simply because Joe does not conform to your definitions and preconceptions does not mean that he did not give you a basis. His answer may have been unsatisfying to you, but you can’t say he didn’t give you an answer.

- “However, the record is there for all to see that, when I challenged him on his position, he provided no answer. Surely you’re not suggesting that he should not have to provide justification for his claims against Christianity, are you?”

But the point is that he did provide an answer. It was just one that you didn’t like. But that fact does not change reality into one where he provided no answer.

- “I must confess that I find it rather strange (and contradictory) that you profess Christianity, while continuing to argue from and defend an atheistic position. Surely you can see the problem with that, no?”

I’m not defending an “atheistic position,” merely noting that it appears to me that you skirt darn close to accusing him of something he has not committed. Preventing that is a very Christian position.

I have and will continue to pray for you. Take care.

Nah, I have other more important things to think about. Though keep preaching, you’ve surely gotten your point across.