Why do you deny God's word?
You call yourself Christian, but don't believe the scripture? Earth is young.
It's not about believing in scripture it's about a public system being impartial and educating everyone equally even if they happen to be of a different faith. To do this it has to be secular and not affiliated with any one belief system in particular otherwise we would inevitably be leaving someone out and depriving them of their right to the public education they're enrolled in.
Science is just the middle least offensive least alienating road because the alternative forcefully has to alienate someone and what's more possibly indoctrinate them into believing they're bad and going to some religions hell.
>Bible literally says God speaks through prophets by sending them visions which they describe to the people in parables (Hosea 12:10)
>it's meant to be historicist documentation, guise!
Hey man, God made the universe, and Man assembled the Bible.
I know who I trust more.
Hint: It's God.
And let me guess, you use a protestant version of the script based on King James Bible? The one that was banned by pope(as an authority, obviously it was studied by theologians first) for having more than 400 errors?
practicaly no christians anywhere are seriously creationist other than american protestants
theres some catholics that are sort of hard line but even they arent openly creationist, maybe a few orthodox mainly in places like serbia, but they are all marginal and rarely get any publick space
the entire evolution vs creation debate is endemicaly american, it couldnt even have happened anywhere else, in some place like europe, russia or asia it couldnt occur, technicaly, just couldnt, people claiming young earth and creationism would simply be seen as disqualifying themselves, and anyone asking for it to be taught in school would get pointed towards proffesional help
I've never once met a Christian who would admit that Isahiah 7:14 isn't talking about Jesus, what with the third person masculine past tense verb used to describe the conception of our prophetic figure.
I always wonder what believers mean when they say that.
Surely you don’t mean that God did the actual writing? You must know that ultimately a man wrote down the words for the first time. Of course he could claim “divine” inspiration. But the only proof of that divine intervention is in the writing itself. Making it circular.
Isn’t it infinitely more likely that anyone who claims to write the word of God is just nuts?
Logia means oracles obtained, mainly by interpretation of God's messages. In the case of the prophets who wrote the OT, it's explicitly by visions (probably dreams, though also possibly visions from meditation), and related by those prophets in parables (Hosea 12:10).
I know what it means, but you're not explaining anything with that. You just say "the bible is divine, cos the bible says so"
Any man can write down shit and say it is divine. BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW?
Yes. There's two options.
1. Be stupid; live life with less stress and a not happier overall.
2. Put things together, lose faith/ motivation, alienate yourself from religious society.
Number two isn't a great choice when every establishment is based and you get seen as "one of those guys" for the rest of your life because you actually think with the brain in your head.
Also, fuck this world?
Not as in, "this world sucks, I refuse to participate", but more as, "I wish there was something that could be done, but mathematically, it seems futile the idea that people will, or even want to, 'wake up', because this would just make you sad."
>Jesus is CHRYSTAL clear when he is talking in parables
>God who is the same entity somehow can be as vague to the point you are not able to tell when he is speaking literally
Never supposed to start a sentence with "because".
Are you one of these new-age thiests that will reword anything they say to vilify your horrid learning's?
Are there any left that don't do mental gymnastics to get around their own rules?
I think they vilification of early marriage ultimately stems from kids conflicting with youthful hedonism, desu. It's seen as irresponsible, because it is assumed you will still be going through your hedonism until about thirty. As opposed to ending your hedonist phase by twenty.
Ah, in lies the problem.
The assumption of wrongdoing and of further continuances.
Can anything, done in moderation, be seen in a non-hedonist view?
Maybe we don't do these things just for the pleasure, but because it's all we know. Taught if it feels good, keep doing it.
The age itself.
I really don't mind to factor in financial stability at all because mental stability isn't there at that age. It's not there at 21 either, you should be at least 24 before you consider it.