any creationists about?

[ggazoo]

I've always been a supporter of creationism just by looking at the world around us. Everything looks... designed.

AHA, so rather than understanding evolution and taking a good hard look at the mountains of evidence supporting evolution as fact, you simply stood up, looked around and decided everything was designed.

So, why aren't you running the world? Stand up and look around.

No, I'm just asking WHY...

 

[spuriousmonkey]

For example, the stripes on a zebra. The complex pattern on a cougar. Or even sex - a shaft that fits into a hole. An utterly simple concept that had to be thought of, or designed by something.

Natural selection.

 

[Jan Ardena]

charles cure,

no, your premise remains false because first of all god would have had to have made itself known to and spoken through many different men (because we know that the bible started out as many different stories and then was assembled into one book), and so all of these men would have had gods word filtered through their imperfect understanding.

In what way does this make the premise false?

...that there is actually less than no proof that something like this ever happened to bring about the bible as it is known today.

If you're talking about modern-scientific proof, I agree, but I get the feeling if such proof were ever to surface, you would still deny it.

the earth being created pretty much as is in 6 days and being only 6,000 years old? yes it can.

Does it mention 6000 years in the bible?
6 days does not necessarily mean 6 twenty four hour days (we are discussing the bible not creationism).

its called "evidence", you know, that stuff that earth scientists and archaeologists and palentologists and anthropologists collect and analyze over and over again to prove or disprove a certain premise.

Yeah, I've heard of the stuff called evidence, but the evidence can be interpreted either way and as such, is not beyond any shadow of doubt.

theres an abundance of it out there running contradictory to the events described in genesis...

I'm sure the creation scientists would say the same, in favour of their presupposition.

its a problem because that is not the case in all situations.

So explain why the absolute truth would not be the same in all cases.

thats where youre wrong. the burden of proof rests on the person making the claim.

The only person making claims is you, I'm asking why you think the bible is flawed and not inspired by God.

for creationists, it is their responsibility to back up the claim that god created the earth and that the bible is an absolute truth.

They believe the earth to be a product of intelligence, and that the current scientific evidence backs that up, and as they are christians they believe the producer was God. The same way a naturalist believes the evidence supports his pressuposition that the earth is a product of natural forces. So they use the same evidence to support their belief.

people arent claiming the opposite, they are saying look, a lot of the observations we can make contradict these things,

These are interpretations, the same as creationists. But none can say for sure one way or the other, if they could we wouldn't be having this discussion.

so i choose to believe that they are not real.

And that's what it boils down to...belief.

people who think the bible isnt the word of god arent making a claim, they are denying one until proof is given to the contrary.

What kind of proof would they accept?
You see, if you want proof of something, you must know what to expect.

you judge by your own stadards of virtue and by the standards that are established by the society in which you choose to live.

I thought we were talking about the people in the bible.

the bible does not have a central theme, the new testament does. however, that is not the whole of the bible.

The central theme of the bible is God, period. To say otherwise is silly.

it may not be enough for you, but it is certainly enough for me. there has never even been so much as an inkling of evidence that human consciousness exists in any form whatsoever after the death of the body.

There is no evidence that it does not survive after the body, yet you believe that it doesn't.

we do know from studies of anatomy and biology and physiology however, that the mind and body are crucially linked and that a synthesis of sensory input and processing from these two parts forms consciousness. in such a case i would think that physical and "spiritual" torment must be linked if not be one in the same.

What is the synthesis of sensory input?
And what is consciousness, how is it sensed?

naturalist belief? i dont have any belief. i try to have knowledge. faith precludes knowledge and distorts it.

so i choose to believe that they are not real.

Everyone tries to have knowledge, to deny this is plain silly. Everyone must have faith in order to understand fully, nobody can obtain knowledge directly.

i can give you nothing but a personal view of why the bible is flawed.

That's fair enough, but it is only your opinion, and a creationist has his opinion.

i dont speak for millions and i cant provide any evidence that you will accept because you deny reason and support extreme improbability based on nothing more than personal opinion.

Denial is your business not mine. I am happy to embrace knowledge like the next man.

...and direct opposition to your insane superstition, you nullify the argument. we are clearly on different terms here.

You cannot get your way so you begin the slippery slide into personal insults?

wrong. it was written by dead men who conveniently died without ever leaving anything behind to justify or corroborate a claim that they were somehow divinely inspired.

What? Leave a letter with their lawyer with strict instuction to be opened onlyafter their death?
Come on. That's silly.
Try and get real here.

how convenient that now the premise must just stand on its own without the possibility of ever being supported with fact.

That's about the size of it.

it is up to those who claim that the bible is divinely inspired to come up with some acceptable reason or proof that it was if they ever expect that people should abide by its message and standard.

What would you accept as reason or proof?

since none of those things have ever materialized, yet the claim continues to be made, it is easily brushed aside as nonsense.

So you ask for proof while simultaneosly brushing it aside as nonsense, because nothing has materialised which you accept. You sound all mixed up to me.

it follows that the bible is flawed if not all material that was divinely inspired has been included.

No. It just means that the material was not included.

nearly everyone who wrote a gospel or a piece of apocrypha claimed to be divinely inspired. so the exclusion of any of this material at all would flaw and alter the message of god.

At this point I can tell you have not fully understood the point of the bible, which is understandable as you don't think the bible has an essential point.
If God is truly, fully accepted, then one fully understands the message, if one accepts partially, then he understands partially. If one doesn't accept then he doesn't understand. Whatever you put in, you get out.

.... im sure now you will say "oh well thats ok because the people who put the bible together were divinely inspired too and you cant prove that they werent", because that is the nature of your argument. accept it, the bible is not the word of god or at best the imperfect and incomplete word of god.

I am basing my view on the what the bible is claimed to be, I am being objective.

well, when you make a claim it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate why that claim should have credibility, since you cant, it has lost all credibility except what will be given to it by people who desire to believe in fantasy and fairy tales as a part of living reality.

I haven't made a claim.
And like anybody else, you are entitled to your opinion, but don't band it around as fact unless you can back it up.

Jan.

 

[mountainhare]

charles cure,

I strongly recommend that you don't bother with Jan.
Jan has plagued this board for years. His tiresome 'arguments' and distortions have been whooped down time and time again by the more knowledgable members of this forum. Yet Jan, like all Creationists, merely repeats the same old BS ad nauseum, as if it has never been addressed or refuted.

On the other hand, when you ask Jan to clarify his position, and give you examples of what would convince him of the validity of evolution, he just waves his hands and engages in a gymnastics event to avoid the question. Ergo... NOTHING will convince him that evolution is valid, because his little fairy book says otherwise.

You would be more successful at attempting to have a logical discussion with a retarded two year old, than with a Creationist like Jan. Seriously, don't waste your precious time or sanity. Everybody here knows that Jan is one brainwashed individual, which is why they rarely (if ever) dignify his shit with a response.

Let the fundamentalist filth spew its nonsense until it tires of doing so, and goes back to grovelling before is imaginary entity.

 

[Ophiolite]

Regardless of what you think, that is the actual claim, take that away and there is no argument. And more importantly, that claim is the basis of this discussion.

Exactly, There is no basis for discussion.

Charles, with slightly less invective than Mountainhare, I second his observations. I would add that I understand that Jan is a female.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

The claim is that God spoke through 'man' to reveal these works, so ultimately it is the word of God, so my premise remains in tact.

Yes, that is the claim, from people who knew nothing about the world, who lived in caves and believed in all kinds of superstitions.

You appear to be living out of your time, Jan.

The thing is though, you have to prove that the information in the bible purely man-made.

It must be. Nothing has ever been shown to show the information is valid, ever.

i wouldent count it as impossible for something to have created the planet earth. its so perfect, like the other planets they are works of art, but its also possible for it all to be random aswell.

oh and when did christians live in caves?


peace.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Exactly, There is no basis for discussion.

But as we are discussing it, we have to use the correct information about that which we are discussing.
But if you don't want to discuss it, then butt out.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

mountainhare,

I strongly recommend that you don't bother with Jan.
Jan has plagued this board for years. His tiresome 'arguments' and distortions have been whooped down time and time again by the more knowledgable members of this forum.

You're pissed because I don't accept Darwins idea of evolution, and your inability to give any real scientific evidence which unequivocaly supports his idea, has been revealed. I hope charles is not as childish as you (or your sidekick), and that he is able to make up his own mind. If however he is as daft as you are, then so be it.

Yet Jan, like all Creationists, merely repeats the same old BS ad nauseum, as if it has never been addressed or refuted.

Show me where my points and responses in this thread, have been repeated (ad-nauseum), in my last twenty posts.

On the other hand, when you ask Jan to clarify his position, and give you examples of what would convince him of the validity of evolution, he just waves his hands and engages in a gymnastics event to avoid the question.

That is your interpretation of my response, which is fair enough as I have no regard for what you think, after your distgusting behaviour.

Ergo... NOTHING will convince him that evolution is valid, because his little fairy book says otherwise.

I take it you mean scripture?
Please show me where it says evolution did not take place?

You would be more successful at attempting to have a logical discussion with a retarded two year old, than with a Creationist like Jan. Seriously, don't waste your precious time or sanity. Everybody here knows that Jan is one brainwashed individual, which is why they rarely (if ever) dignify his shit with a response.

James or Cris, is this kind of stalking and badgering allowed in these forums?
People have been banned for a lot less in the past.

Let the fundamentalist filth spew its nonsense until it tires of doing so, and goes back to grovelling before is imaginary entity.

You are one angry individual.
Please do not bother me again.

Jan.

 

[Ophiolite]

You are one angry individual.
Please do not bother me again.

You are one screwed up, delusional, unscientific, illogical, mean spirited, vile, provocative, uncaring, vindictive bitch.
Please do not bother any of us again.
You accuse Mountainhare of badgering and stalking, when that is all you have done for as long as I have witnessed your pathetic contributions to these forums. You do not stalk and badger individuals, you badger and stalk ideas, even though your arguments have been dismissed repeatedly. But with your head in the sand, and your brains on loan to the Smithsonian, you have failed to understand that.
Arrividerci..

 

[charles cure]

Exactly, There is no basis for discussion.

Charles, with slightly less invective than Mountainhare, I second his observations. I would add that I understand that Jan is a female.

yeah, i have dealt with Jan before, i guess i just thought that they (he or she) could bend their mind around the fact that their refusal to present any evidence to back up a claim and subsequent denial of the validity of clear evidence against it results in nothing but delusion. what really sucks about arguing with them is that no matter what you say the answer is "i dont accept that argument" or "i dont think that is valid" its impossible to debate someone who will not acknowledge living in the same reality that 99% of the rest of humanity does. i agree though, i'll probably stay away from this in the future.

 

[charles cure]

JAN


from merriamwebster.com

Main Entry: 2flaw
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, flake, probably of Scandinavian origin; akin to Swedish flaga flake, flaw; akin to Old English flOh flat stone
1 a : a defect in physical structure or form b : an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness <vanity was the flaw in his character> <a flaw in the book's plot>
2 obsolete : FRAGMENT


now, i would say the bible fits this definition quite nicely. it exclusion of material that claims to be divinely inspired and its choice to only include works that support a human agenda qulifies it as having a defect in physical structure or form as far as i am concerned. in addition to this, the lack of physical or other written historical evidence to corroborate the stories and claims of authority made by the bible constitute an imperfection or weakness that hinders effectiveness.
i would like to add that at least as far as im concerned its also obsolete. so, in terms of the definition of "flawed" i would think that the message of the bible most certainly fits one or more of those criteria.

 

[longlostlady]

crikey, let's be nice....i know i haven't been around for long but people let's live in merry peace

ggazoo, it's surely possible to accept that the universe is designed without embracing creationism - the anthropic principle, Paley and his watch etc? it's a fairly natural thing to look around us and think "this couldn't all be by chance" no matter how tenous the actual proof of such arguments gets but that wonderment isn't the same thing as creationist beliefs at all in my book...if you've made that leap please explain why!! the design argument has always seemed to me to be far more sensible in its initial premises....

as i understand it, the world is 10,000 years old according to the bible - this was found out by tracing back all the "someone begat someone, and someone lived for x amount of years after begetting someone, and all the days of someone were x amount of years, and someone died" bits in the old testament. the thing i don't get about creationism is that is flies in the face of scientific knowledge: do you not boil a kettle because the only proof we have that this makes water hot is scientific evidence? well, we've got evidence to support darwin's theories and the big bang theory as well - if you refute this, do you follow all the word of the bible to the letter? if your neighbour stole your cow, would you be forcing him to recompense you with 5 sheep?

 

[Jan Ardena]

charles cure,

yeah, i have dealt with Jan before, i guess i just thought that they (he or she) could bend their mind around the fact that their refusal to present any evidence to back up a claim and subsequent denial of the validity of clear evidence against it results in nothing but delusion.

What kind of evidence, that people were inspired by God, do you want presenting exactly? Nobody is saying that their inspiration is a scientific fact.
Most people live their life with a mixture of subjective and objection understanding including atheists. That one believes that there is God and He is capable of inspiring men is not delusional.

what really sucks about arguing with them is that no matter what you say the answer is "i dont accept that argument" or "i dont think that is valid"

You're the one who is denying, and you're the one who is presenting an argument through your claim. I am asking you to back up that claim. I understand your explanations, but in reality they only boil down to personal opinion.

its impossible to debate someone who will not acknowledge living in the same reality that 99% of the rest of humanity does.

What?
You believe that 99% of humanity believes that God does not exist therefore cannot possibly inspire anyone?
Or are you saying that 99% of humanity believes that the bible, due to mistranslation, is a flawed document(s), and as such dismiss it entirely?
Whichever one, that does not mean that the bible is flawed, only some interpretations of it.

i agree though, i'll probably stay away from this in the future.

Please don’t be weak.
This is a religion forum, and although it is on a science message board, the religious aspect of religion should be given fair hearing time, otherwise there is no point in having a religious forum, you may as well change it to atheist or evolutionist forum, then that way you don't have to worry about people scutinizing your claims.

now, i would say the bible fits this definition quite nicely. it exclusion of material that claims to be divinely inspired and its choice to only include works that support a human agenda qulifies it as having a defect in physical structure or form as far as i am concerned.

I for one am not disputing that, but it is not the physical aspect of the book that people believe in, whether Jesus Christ, or Moses become the focus, the central point is God, who is not physical, and is never described as a physical, nuts and bolts character. That aspect of the flawed physical document transcends all physical impediments.

in addition to this, the lack of physical or other written historical evidence to corroborate the stories and claims of authority made by the bible constitute an imperfection or weakness that hinders effectiveness.

Are you then claiming that the bible was purposely written by men and had nothing to do with the God of the bible?
That this was some elaborate conspiracy?

i would like to add that at least as far as im concerned its also obsolete. so, in terms of the definition of "flawed" i would think that the message of the bible most certainly fits one or more of those criteria.

I appreciate your opinion, and would like to add that the message in the bible means different things to different people and to an explicit atheist it can never be accepted as truth.

Thanks
Jan.

 

[Ophiolite]

crikey, let's be nice....i know i haven't been around for long but people let's live in merry peace

Welcome to the forum, and may I applaud your motives. However, when you have received the mean, offensive attacks, and intransigent obtuseness from Jan that I have, you might have some sympathy for my derogatory adjectival list in an earlier post.

I think you are saying that a creator would not necessarily create everything in a 'finished' state, especially if that finished state contained a record of a false history. But a creator could invoke a set of physical laws, of which we are one of the consequences.
That seems to me as reasonable as the initial formation of the Universe happening by chance.
Which is why I am a devout agnostic.

 

[charles cure]

charles cure,



What kind of evidence, that people were inspired by God, do you want presenting exactly? Nobody is saying that their inspiration is a scientific fact.
Most people live their life with a mixture of subjective and objection understanding including atheists. That one believes that there is God and He is capable of inspiring men is not delusional.

i believe that eating a certain kind of ice cream makes you invisible. i cant tell you what kind of ice cream it is because i dont know. i do know of a person that ate it and was turned invisible by it though, but you cant see him because he is invisible. in addition to that, he wont talk to anyone but me, unless you know how to approach him, but i cant tell you what that approach is. in addition to this, he stands in one spot all the time, so he does not effect the physical environment in any way that you can measure, and i have never been sure of which particular spot he is standing in, so i cant tell you where he might be. but hes there, i swear.

does that sound delusional? because thats basically the same thing as believing in god, except for that my invisible man doesnt claim to have created the earth and attempt to control the lives of all of humanity through authoritative pronouncements of morality and immorality.

Please don’t be weak.
This is a religion forum, and although it is on a science message board, the religious aspect of religion should be given fair hearing time, otherwise there is no point in having a religious forum, you may as well change it to atheist or evolutionist forum, then that way you don't have to worry about people scutinizing your claims.

actually evolutionary theory is constantly scrutinized not only on here (as if that matters) but also in scientific institutions across the globe every singel day. and you know what? it still stands up as a strong and cohesive explanation for a wide range of observable natural phenomena. people are constantly searching for new ways to apply it and test it to be sure that it is as sound as it can be in terms of providing explanations for processes by which life has developed on this planet, but it is only from people providing no evidence against it, or for their own claims, that it has been challenged. religion is being given fair hearing time here. religion is all that is talked about on this forum. however, if by "fair hearing time" you mean (which im sure you do) acceptance of its perposterous non-evidenciary claims, then you probably will never get it here. youre wasting your time and ours.

I for one am not disputing that, but it is not the physical aspect of the book that people believe in, whether Jesus Christ, or Moses become the focus, the central point is God, who is not physical, and is never described as a physical, nuts and bolts character. That aspect of the flawed physical document transcends all physical impediments.

this is what you said initially:

I am not a creationist (institutionally), but please state what you believe is flawed about the translated document, then we'll take it from there.

i attempted to do this, and i did it with relative skill i might add, until you then refused to accept any evidence except your own opinion, and changed the entire focus of the debate to "the document can be flawed without altering the perfect message of god". bullshit. your point fell by the wayside long ago, and by the way, you have not actually refuted anything that i have said beyond not-accepting what is a normally accepted standard of proof.

Are you then claiming that the bible was purposely written by men and had nothing to do with the God of the bible?
That this was some elaborate conspiracy?

no im not claiming that. i am claiming that it was written by men who believed what they said,in a time where they did not have the ability or intelligence to understand their environment in rational or scientific terms, and then manipulated by others centuries later to fulfill the ambitions and political goals of the early european church and the roman empire. not an elaborate conspiracy at all, just men twisting messages to fulfill their own ends, the timeless signature of human manipulation.

 

[mountainhare]

Ophiolite:

You are one screwed up, delusional, unscientific, illogical, mean spirited, vile, provocative, uncaring, vindictive bitch.
Please do not bother any of us again.

I don't think that we should get our hopes up.
Jan has some sort of sickness which prevents him from thinking rationally, and having the willpower to not bother freethinkers.

One of the symptoms of his illness seems to be 'hypocrisy'. It's perfectly fine for him to insult and treat others with sarcasm and condescension, but when others feed the dipstick his own medicine, he squeals "OH NOES, PLZ HELPS ME JAMES AND CRIS!!1111ONEONE". He seems to think that everyone (including the mods) are as naive and guillible as he is.

Quite simply, it is pointless to address Jan's claims. Jan's claims have been addressed time and time again, but through sheer willful ignorance, he refuses to grasp even the most basic concepts that the posters are putting forward.

Jan may complain that I'm 'stalking' him (waa waa waa, boo hoo hoo! The poor delicate Venus flytrap...), but I'm just giving some friendly advice to the n00bs here, so that they don't waste their precious time and energy. You have more hope of teaching a dog how to Mozart's Requiem than teaching Jan the basics of evolution.

 

[longlostlady]

lol wow i'm a noob

 

[(Q)]

James or Cris, is this kind of stalking and badgering allowed in these forums?
People have been banned for a lot less in the past.

Yes, but it's a good thing for you they don't ban members for stupidity and ignorance.

 

[Ophiolite]

I think the following, copied from another thread, remains pertinent.

Observe, with interest A Darn Jane's debating style:

Refuse to answer any question directly.
Refuse to study the evidence, whilst implying the evidence has been studied.
Characterise the evidence as opinion.
Deny everything.
Answer questions with another question.

The technique is effective on two levels.
a) It frustrates those presenting a counter argument, as they are unable to penetrate her obfuscation and misdirection. [Not that they need to.]
b) It allows A Darn Jane to comfortably maintain her own delusions. [Although even the casual observer can see, not the holes in her logic, but the entire absence of logic.]

In general though, A Darn Jane's views do provide an interesting illustration of the evolutionary limitations of intelligence.

 

[Jan Ardena]

charles cure,

i believe that eating a certain kind of ice cream makes you invisible. i cant tell you what kind of ice cream it is because i dont know. i do know of a person that ate it and was turned invisible by it though, but you cant see him because he is invisible. in addition to that, he wont talk to anyone but me, unless you know how to approach him, but i cant tell you what that approach is. in addition to this, he stands in one spot all the time, so he does not effect the physical environment in any way that you can measure, and i have never been sure of which particular spot he is standing in, so i cant tell you where he might be. but hes there, i swear.

does that sound delusional? because thats basically the same thing as believing in god, except for that my invisible man doesnt claim to have created the earth and attempt to control the lives of all of humanity through authoritative pronouncements of morality and immorality.

Why would you believe it can make you invisible and why would your reason be the same as those who believe in God? According to the bible, Adam and Eve could see God but due to man's fall he has become spiritually blind, so there is a reason why God is invisible, regardless of whether you believe it or not. Not that the authors decided He was invisible.
In your story the invisible person had no effect, not on people or atmosphere, he left no by-products (NOT EVEN THE ICE-CREAM), nor did he affect anyone to act as a go-between to relay any messages. In short he left absolutely nothing to go on, so for all intent and purpose he didn’t exist. The whole thing was made up by you, based on a whim, made evident by its simplicity. The bible is clearly not a whimsical or simple document.
If people believe in God through reading the bible, then they have a reason to believe, and if they believe in God because someone told them to, but they never, ever, read the bible or any scripture, or had any idea about what or who God is, then you may have a point.

religion is being given fair hearing time here. religion is all that is talked about on this forum.

In one sense your right, but there is no attempt to understand the actual religion itself, it is, more often than not, atheists asking for physical evidence of a spiritual being, not being bothered to understand the scriptural point of the scriptures, and then dismissing it as nonsense. Its almost as if they want to dismiss it as nonsense, regardless.

however, if by "fair hearing time" you mean (which im sure you do) acceptance of its perposterous non-evidenciary claims, then you probably will never get it here. youre wasting your time and ours.

This is my point, already you have labelled the scripture as preposterous, and are not prepared to give it the time of day. How can you possibly understand why people believe in God? What is your criticism and analysis worth?
At least have some idea about what it is you are rubbishing.
It is like a white racist claiming that he knows about all black people, and as such does not need to hear what they have to say in order for him to understand that he is in ignorance.

I am not a creationist (institutionally), but please state what you believe is flawed about the translated document, then we'll take it from there.

i attempted to do this, and i did it with relative skill i might add, until you then refused to accept any evidence except your own opinion, and changed the entire focus of the debate to "the document can be flawed without altering the perfect message of god". bullshit. your point fell by the wayside long ago, and by the way, you have not actually refuted anything that i have said beyond not-accepting what is a normally accepted standard of proof.

You haven't explained why the translated document is flawed.
Apologies...I thought that was obvious.

Using your definition;

'flaw’

1 a : a defect in physical structure or form b :

You need to point out the defect in the format of the translated documents. “Defect” means an imperfection that impairs worth or utility :

an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness

Again, you need to point out this imperfection, and show how it has become so different to the original, that its effectiveness has becomes hindered.

no im not claiming that. i am claiming that it was written by men who believed what they said, in a time where they did not have the ability or intelligence to understand their environment in rational or scientific terms,

How have you come to this conclusion as obviously you weren’t there at the time?
Why would they spend their time and energy writing such works, if they were indeed in that position. If you read the bible closely, there is no reason to think that it was written with a view to understanding their environment, because they lacked scientific knowledge. If there is, please point it out.
And how do you know they were irrational or bereft of scientific knowledge?

..and then manipulated by others centuries later to fulfill the ambitions and political goals of the early european church and the roman empire. not an elaborate conspiracy at all, just men twisting messages to fulfill their own ends, the timeless signature of human manipulation.

Whoa there! That is a pretty big step. How and why did it become so accepted over so many generation?
From a modern perspective we can also experience (non-religiouis) idol worship, fads and fashions, but nothing is as strong as this fad, fashion (according to your understanding).
Everything we do experience is usually on a short term basis, rarely being passed from one generation to another. So how do you explain the longevity, respect and reverance of the bible?

Jan.