<YouRang: Understandable. It was a hard question.>

to go in and prepare something for myself and my son;

when we have eaten it, we shall die.”

Elijah said to her, “Do not be afraid.

Go and do as you propose.

But first make me a little cake and bring it to me.

Then you can prepare something for yourself and your son.

For the LORD, the God of Israel, says,

‘The jar of flour shall not go empty,

nor the jug of oil run dry,

until the day when the LORD sends rain upon the earth.’”

She left and did as Elijah had said.

She was able to eat for a year, and Elijah and her son as well;

the jar of flour did not go empty,

nor the jug of oil run dry,

<OCF: I know. And the answers were even harder.>>

I didn't think you would like any of the three answers I suggested, and I didn't see any viable alternatives (although you are welcome to offer one if you think one exists).

We might all agree that "rebellion against God is bad", and yet disagree about what constitutes rebellion.

But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned?

It is no longer good for anything

but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

You are the light of the world.

A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.

Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket;

it is set on a lampstand,

where it gives light to all in the house.

Just so, your light must shine before others,

that they may see your good deeds

<OCF: Are you seriously the same person who was complaining about my sarcasm? Just because your words aren't overtly sarcastic doesn't mean the post wasn't.>>

There was no sarcasm at all. You may take that post at face value.

<Offer me 3 choices you knew I wouldn't like and insist I pick one?>

Of course I knew you wouldn't like any of the three I offered. The first two sound ridiculous and the third requires you to admit that your position is wrong. Also, please notice that I didn't "insist" that you pick one since I suggested that you offer an alternative if you had one. It was your choice to decline.

That question that I posed to you was a perfectly honest and logical argument tactic: I constructed a dilemma that reveals the illogical consequences of your position. You, in turn would be expected to either (1) choose one of the answers I gave you, (2) reveal a better answer that I had not considered, or (3) explain how I have misrepresented your position.

It's not unlike a game of chess. If you think you have a winning position, you press your advantage and simplify such that the superiority of your position is made evident to your opponent. If your opponent can't come up with a surprisingly good defense, he may as well resign.

<I didn't think it was worthy of a response so I didn't.>

It was a perfectly straight-forward question. YOU made a decision to take offense and blow it off.

In chess this would be like flipping the board over.

<I also was hard pressed to formulate a response that didn't return the innate sarcasm and decided to pass. Thereupon you mock my non-response by suggesting it was too tough for me to handle.>

Well, if you hard pressed to formulate a rational (non-sarcastic) response, then you seem to be admitting yourself that it was too tough for you to handle.

<I guess since you can't see any response, then I can't either?>

Apparently. But that's a question for you to answer, not me.

< It's really tough to describe what you think of a negative situation without going further down the path of negativity, so I'll let this go. You can say what you want on my forum, but don't expect much, if anything, in way of responses from me.>

I haven't been getting much in the way of responses from you for quite some time now.

You alone have taken this debate into the realm of negativity with your sarcasm, non-responsiveness, obstinacy, inconsistency, and more recently, paranoia and unsupported accusations.

BTW, on a number of occasions, you've expressed that you think your intelligence is being demeaned, so let me be explicit about that: I've known you long enough to know that you are not lacking in intelligence. If I thought you were an idiot, I wouldn't have spent so much time trying to reason with you.

However, I think you have been intellectually lazy in the sense that you uncritically absorb the stuff you read from your creation-science sources, and yet make little effort to even comprehend the opposing arguments.

Hence, in your mind you have allowed the creation-science proponents to present both sides of the debate, which predictably makes the opposing side (science) appear silly and dishonest. This is just as biased as someone who allows an atheist to present both sides of a religion debate in a way that makes the Christian side look silly and dishonest. Either way, it's clear-cut bias, but you fail to see the bias in your case.

you who relieve me when I am in distress;

Have pity on me, and hear my prayer!

Men of rank, how long will you be dull of heart?

Why do you love what is vain and seek after falsehood?

Know that the LORD does wonders for his faithful one;

the LORD will hear me when I call upon him.

Tremble, and sin not;

reflect, upon your beds, in silence.

O LORD, let the light of your countenance shine upon us!

You put gladness into my heart,

more than when grain and wine abound.

the prophet Elijah came forward and said,

“LORD, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel,

let it be known this day that you are God in Israel

and that I am your servant

and have done all these things by your command.

Answer me, LORD!

Answer me, that this people may know that you, LORD, are God

and that you have brought them back to their senses.”

The LORD’s fire came down

and consumed the burnt offering, wood, stones, and dust,

and it lapped up the water in the trench.

Seeing this, all the people fell prostrate and said,

I used to think it was hogwash back when I had a closed mind. Since then, I've become more convinced that it's the most likely explanation. And I don't think that it excludes God.

Everything around you is the way it is because it evolved from something simpler. Cities evolve, languages evolve, computers evolve, cars evolve, law evolves, building materials evolve, cultures evolve, etc. etc. Why not life?

Scientists have demonstrated that the mechanisms for life to evolve do exist. It has been observed in the laboratory. Evolution of life nicely explains many observations in biology. Over long periods of time, many slight changes accumulate to produce enormous changes. There are things not yet understood, but it is certainly not hogwash.

However, I don't complain about people who doubt evolution. If evolution is true, their numbers will decline over time, and they will go the way of geocentrists. Interestingly, evolution will take care of itself. ;-)

I do complain about people who accuse scientists of being liars, and call people fools if they accept evolution. These are false accusations which are particularly hypocritical when coming from Christians.

<Meanwhile, the Bible makes it perfectly clear what constitutes rebellion against God--especially the Prophets. If you don't know what rebellion is after reading Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and all the rest, you'll never know.>

Well, as you know, people will disagree over what the Bible says.

and there recall that your brother

has anything against you,

leave your gift there at the altar,

go first and be reconciled with your brother,

and then come and offer your gift.

Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him.

Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge,

and the judge will hand you over to the guard,

and you will be thrown into prison.

Amen, I say to you,