[quote:2uyg4u07]Why the silly questions? (Mr. LARoberts)[/quote:2uyg4u07]
Since your habit has been to attack with short outbursts and withold information, it is important to know where you stand. By your curt remark, I could simply use your tact, and ask you if you think some discussions on the Bible are silly? I asked you because of your strange denyal of diansours in a previous post, and as some Biblical literalists still hold to the flat earth theory. They would brand you as a heretic for holding that the world is round, as it to their private interpretation denies as truth what the Bible teaches about the world.
I asked you about the different stories of the creation which tell a differing account of the sequence of creation to find out if there was anything at all that you agreed with as taught by the Catholic Church. I also commend you with citing another author, as your usual approach is to withold that information and attempt to foster “your” articles as entirely your own, which aside from plagerism makes fact checking a difficult task. Back to the point, as your MO is to attack without giving any reasonable reply, or backing up your outbursts, I felt that I needed to know where you stand. In the past your postings have implied that the Bible was a scientific texts, I think it is important to find out where there are commonalities and where we diverge so we can focus on what separates us, and see if there is a solution (on either side) While I think you are wrong in your attacks on the Catholic Church, and they are based (in what you have copied from others in your prior postings) on the same arguments that I have thought about, prayed for guidance from the Holy Ghost when I was a “Bible Christian” and found to be untrue, dishonest or simply historically inaccurate, I’d rather deal with the errors (from my perspective) you perpetuate, than deal with debates with people who hold shifting or no religious conviction.
I also wanted to see based on previous postings if you believed that there where no dinasours in the Bible that they are a hoax, if the Bible only accounts for X amount of years since creation than the age of the earth from the point of view of modern science is a lie, as you have thus far not tipped your hand at any portion of the Bible being allegorical or not, except when the Catholic viewpoint on a subject is supported, or when you want to discount alternative points of view or original language discussions.
[quote:2uyg4u07]they do not contradict. As Henry M Morris says in his book – The Genesis Record – The second chapter of Genesis describes in greater detail certain of the events of the sixth day of creation, dOEs not contradict the account in the first chapter, but is complementary to it.
How elaborate do you want me to detail this? [/quote:2uyg4u07]
I want you to elaborate as much as you can. It may end up that Morris is in complete agreement with what the Catholic Church holds is permissible to believe about the stories of creation. We won’t know for two reasons if you don’t elaborate, first I’ve not read Morris, secondly your dismissive answers in the past have not evoked any desire to learn about the Jesus you seem to preach who appears to be a vengeful evil Savior rather than one who came out of love for His Creatures.
You have been very open about your Parkinsons in the past, which is why I have been open about the Chemo, I’ve also mentioned it because you have in the past been very impatient when someone has not jumped to it and given a quick answer rather than wait for a thoughtful answer.
I’m going to take a little rest now, I’ve got more things I have been reading that I will post later, but the medicine for the control of nausea sure wipes you out.