Question for our Christian visitors

Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Question for our Christian visitors

Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Do you think

Vastet wrote:
Do you think that incest has no impact on genetic variation through eons? Sorry, but if all humanity stemmed from one family, there'd be a lot more defects in a larger portion of society than has been observed.

If that were true, then the this would also have to apply to the Evolution theory stating that we all came from a single celled organism.  Again, one common ancestor, just further back in the timeline and through much more evolving.  Is it not possible that the incest defects is an evolved flaw and that might not have applied back then?

redneF wrote:

 Actually, it supports the theory of evolution. Which refutes the hypothesis of creation. If the garden of eden were true, we'd have found evidence in DNA by now, never minding archeology. Also, as I recall, traces actually pointed to South Africa. Nowhere near the middle East.

I've heard of the Middle East, I've heard of North Eastern Africa, I have yet to hear teh South Africa claim.  Where is this from?  do you have a source, something I could look up?

Migration patterns apply whether darwinist evolution is true or not... how doesthis refute the hypothesis of creation?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:No one is

Old Seer wrote:

No one is ever going to find forensic evidence that Adam existed. As we see it, what makes Adam is an enlightenment of something. The Europeans did a #1 hack job on the whole book. All the church building, organ grinding, bell tinkling,  smoke and water throwing didn't change anything. Today they added guitar strumming, drum beating, foot stomping and flashing light shows and not a one in the world is any better than 5500 years ago. Christianity is supposed to make different folks, didn't happen. I'm looking for a different word to replace Christianity, so far haven't found anything. If I use htjihegbf no body's going to know what I'm referring to. But, material evidence of Adam will never be found. The Adamites were a very simple people and for a long time (probably) didn't have any different means then the Bushmen that remained in Africa. What made then different is how they thought and their social values,

I agree the Christian name has been sorely tainted.  I agree completely with what you are saying.  I call myself currently a Christ follower.  If you come up with a better name, let me know.  I'm contemplating htjihegbf...  If I can figure out how to pronounce that, I might just take it


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 854
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The book of revelation

has one spot that deals with that. He acquires a new name. But that means "reputation" not an actual surname.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence

caposkia wrote:

 

BobSpence wrote:

 

Note that at each stage, Genesis says "And the evening and the morning were the [first/second/...] day". The reference to evening and morning makes it more than just a "period of time".

 

 

yes it does... but again, how long ago was this?  What was a day like during that time?  Did the Earth always spin at the exact same speed or did it speed up at a certain point then slow down as it is now?  Science supports the idea that the day on Earth is not consistent.  Currently, we are aware that the spin is slowing down.  Way back when... creation... is it 6000 years?  likely not, 6,000,000 years?  6,000,000,000 years?  As far as we know, this might have been reference to before Earth was even in orbit with our sun... which would open a much greater possibility that a day does not reference specifically a 24 hour period..

 

 

The day did vary particularly, as the moon got further away due to tidal drag. It was originally shorter, maybe 10 hours of so. Never anything much longer than today, if at all. The laws of conservation of angular momentum would have seen to that. It couldn't change significantly without interaction with another body of significant mass. Earth formed in orbit.

 

So, no, none of that speculation will work. Why should it? The people who wrote that stuff had no access to our modern theories and the instruments and mathematical formula used to form our modern understanding of the origins of Earth and the Sin and Moon.

 

Quote:

 

I'd also have to look at the Hebrew, but I'm pretty sure there's a reason why they say Hebrew does not imply a day as we understand it beyond what I just explained.  

 

One more thing we have to keep in mind is that whoever wrote Genesis would not have an understanding of this creation story as we would today.  Therefore, even if the Hebrew was talking about a literal day, they'd have to be referencing only to what they understand.  As far as even we know, a period of time that has light then darkness in only one wave is considered a day.  Therefore it is completely reasonable to consider that the author could reference to a specific day even if it wasn't literally a day.  All we know is that the author was given information that he knew he needed to write down in such a way that others would understand it.

The literal text clearly implies a regular day, and there is no reason to try and re-interpret it.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

It also gets the order wrong, in that the stars came first, then the Sun, then the Moon, then the Land (no water), then the Waters, then ocean life, then land plants, then land animals, then birds. 

Genesis has the waters, then light, then dry land, then land plants, then stars, then the Sun and Moon, then Ocean life and birds, then land animals.

didn't you and I already have a conversation about this? or was this someone else?  I know I had confronted this already

BobSpence wrote:

Not very accurate, but entirely reasonable as something imagined by pre-scientific people. Why would a God feed people a fable that was such a poor correspondence to the truth?

If God did feed it to the people, then why would you automatically assume it was fable?  It is generally understood God knows all and therefore it would be likely that we were mistaken.  if in fact God did create everything then regardless of how we think it should have been done, he could have done it in any way he wanted to.

Again assuming the Earth wasn't in orbit yet, through the chaos of the universe, it is possible that the Earth was floating through a point where there were no visible stars, then they were seen.  

Too many assumptions to fully conclude truth or fable strictly by science on this story.

Assuming for the sake of argument that God existed, He was either feeding them a fable, since the story is so wildly at odds with reality, no assumption required, or He has been manipulating many aspects of reality since then so that when we study the Universe scientifically, we will get a different story.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

The lesson of the Garden of Eden is that one must always obey the arbitrary commands of authority figures, thus endorsing every dictator figure in history, at least to that extent, and that it is OK to punish people for the crimes of their ancestors, thus endorsing every ongoing ethnic war where the frequent justification is what the grandfathers of one side did to the other side.

So, the story is bad information about how the world formed, and bad 'moral' lessons.

By opinion of course.. reading carefully, the decision was never left up to the people to decide..  that doesn't mean that people didn't do something so drastic on their own accord, but it does mean that such a decision should have been run by God first.

I love how blaming people for their stupidity is an excuse for discrediting the Bible.  This is where it becomes subjective due to understanding.  If you want to go there, we would need to sit down and analyze every alleged battle ordained by God and the possible reasons behind them and why they might have gone onto future generations.  I believe PJTS and I have covered that breifly in our historical walkthrough already.

In a sense, all morality is a matter of opinion, but tend to have a consensus about many basics.

So you don't agree there is anything wrong about his obedience policy or punishing people for the sins of their fathers?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
caposkia wrote:Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Do you think that incest has no impact on genetic variation through eons? Sorry, but if all humanity stemmed from one family, there'd be a lot more defects in a larger portion of society than has been observed.

If that were true, then the this would also have to apply to the Evolution theory stating that we all came from a single celled organism.  Again, one common ancestor, just further back in the timeline and through much more evolving.  Is it not possible that the incest defects is an evolved flaw and that might not have applied back then?

There is no evidence or assumption in science that life started with a single cell. It would have been in a pool of many, many chemicals, forming whole collections of pre-cursor to cells.

In any case once a few self-replicating systems formed, they would multiply until there were many of them, and evolution would work by the simple process that those whose structure 'worked' better would naturally come to dominate. Mutation would eventually ensure there were many variations.

And bear in mind that the genetic problems of inbreeding only apply in sexual reproduction. Single-celled organisms have a separate method for swapping genetic materlal around.

There never would have been just a single pair of humans. That could not possibly account for all the different versions of our genes that we know are around.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Minor nit -- the Bible gets

Minor nit -- the Bible gets the order of formation correct.  Planets must begin to form =before= stellar fusion ignition.  Once the solar winds start, the dust cloud is blown out of the inner solar system until light pressure and gravity reach equilibrium.

Note that there is a difference between protostars giving off light from gravitational collapse (Jupiter does ...) and actual stellar fusion.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 854
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Whoa, hold it

caposkia wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

No one is ever going to find forensic evidence that Adam existed. As we see it, what makes Adam is an enlightenment of something. The Europeans did a #1 hack job on the whole book. All the church building, organ grinding, bell tinkling,  smoke and water throwing didn't change anything. Today they added guitar strumming, drum beating, foot stomping and flashing light shows and not a one in the world is any better than 5500 years ago. Christianity is supposed to make different folks, didn't happen. I'm looking for a different word to replace Christianity, so far haven't found anything. If I use htjihegbf no body's going to know what I'm referring to. But, material evidence of Adam will never be found. The Adamites were a very simple people and for a long time (probably) didn't have any different means then the Bushmen that remained in Africa. What made then different is how they thought and their social values,

I agree the Christian name has been sorely tainted.  I agree completely with what you are saying.  I call myself currently a Christ follower.  If you come up with a better name, let me know.  I'm contemplating htjihegbf...  If I can figure out how to pronounce that, I might just take it

I didn't notice that before on your post. That does the trick-"Christian follower." That's understandable. That means one isn't necessarily an accomplished Christian but one who strives to be. I can go with that. I'll give that to the "guys" next opportunity. Thanques.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Minor

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Minor nit -- the Bible gets the order of formation correct.  Planets must begin to form =before= stellar fusion ignition.  Once the solar winds start, the dust cloud is blown out of the inner solar system until light pressure and gravity reach equilibrium.

Note that there is a difference between protostars giving off light from gravitational collapse (Jupiter does ...) and actual stellar fusion.

I think this point about the solar wind came up on your earlier visit here.

The Sun and the planets formed out of the original collapsing cloud.

The planets would have started to form before the sun ignited, but would have still been growing as the Solar Wind started to clear out the dust.

So the Sun was shining before the planets had reached their final size. The Solar Wind determined the end of planet formation

The stars still way preceded everything, not just as a final decoration. They would have been visible as soon as the dust had been cleared.

So, the Sun, the Earth, and the stars all appeared roughly together, but the stars , in fact, were there long before. The Earth certainly did not precede the Sun in any meaningful way.

And the moon was there long before life appeared. 

And the sequence in which water and dry land, and the different forms of life, is still stuffed up.

So no, fail... Genesis is wrong. Get over it. It is made-up myth.

And of course the history in the OT is also stuffed up. No jews in Egypt, no Exodus, Jericho didn't have walls when they were supposed to have been knocked down, the timing is out by about 400 years, etc, etc. The Jews seem to have come from a tribe in Canaan.

It's mostly self-serving fairy tales, with only a tenuous connection with real events.

EDIT: Nit pick: Jupiter does not emit light, just excess heat (ie IR):

Wiki wrote:

This additional heat radiation is generated by the Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism through adiabatic contraction.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:caposkia

Old Seer wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

No one is ever going to find forensic evidence that Adam existed. As we see it, what makes Adam is an enlightenment of something. The Europeans did a #1 hack job on the whole book. All the church building, organ grinding, bell tinkling,  smoke and water throwing didn't change anything. Today they added guitar strumming, drum beating, foot stomping and flashing light shows and not a one in the world is any better than 5500 years ago. Christianity is supposed to make different folks, didn't happen. I'm looking for a different word to replace Christianity, so far haven't found anything. If I use htjihegbf no body's going to know what I'm referring to. But, material evidence of Adam will never be found. The Adamites were a very simple people and for a long time (probably) didn't have any different means then the Bushmen that remained in Africa. What made then different is how they thought and their social values,

I agree the Christian name has been sorely tainted.  I agree completely with what you are saying.  I call myself currently a Christ follower.  If you come up with a better name, let me know.  I'm contemplating htjihegbf...  If I can figure out how to pronounce that, I might just take it

I didn't notice that before on your post. That does the trick-"Christian follower." That's understandable. That means one isn't necessarily an accomplished Christian but one who strives to be. I can go with that. I'll give that to the "guys" next opportunity. Thanques.

Which Christ do you and cap follow? The one created in the Gospels or the one that Paul built in his epistles? Or do you alternate depending on which one you need more?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
On Adam and Eve

In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam ( Y-MRCA) is the theoretical most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back only along the paternal lines of their family tree). Many studies report that Y-chromosomal Adam lived as early as around 142,000 years ago and possibly as recently as 60,000 years ago. All living humans are also descended matrilineally from Mitochondrial Eve who is thought to have lived earlier about 190,000 - 200,000 years ago. Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve need not have lived at the same time.

Just sayin'

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote: The day

BobSpence wrote:

 

The day did vary particularly, as the moon got further away due to tidal drag. It was originally shorter, maybe 10 hours of so. Never anything much longer than today, if at all. The laws of conservation of angular momentum would have seen to that. It couldn't change significantly without interaction with another body of significant mass. Earth formed in orbit.

 

So, no, none of that speculation will work. Why should it? The people who wrote that stuff had no access to our modern theories and the instruments and mathematical formula used to form our modern understanding of the origins of Earth and the Sin and Moon.

 

Bob, I'm just giving alternate perspectives.  I still stick to the point that the Hebrew written as is is not necessarily referring to a day as we understand it.  It was a period of time in reference to no particular length.  Speculation or not, this is one you can research yourself.

BobSpence wrote:

The literal text clearly implies a regular day, and there is no reason to try and re-interpret it.

reinterpret what?  Did you research this?  if so, did you research the word or the context or both?  I'm hoping your answer is both... if it is, then why the difference in reference to the 6th day?  I'm looking for your understanding on this.  If day is in fact literal and consecutive, then I see no reason to refer to the 6th day any different than the rest.  

Notice that the reference to day is not "the" but "a" in the English referring to any day rather than specific days until the 6th.  This is NASB reference.

BobSpence wrote:

Assuming for the sake of argument that God existed, He was either feeding them a fable, since the story is so wildly at odds with reality, no assumption required, or He has been manipulating many aspects of reality since then so that when we study the Universe scientifically, we will get a different story.

If in fact we are assuming God exists for the sake of argument, then what exactly is your reference of reality under this assumption?   What a man made study of our surroundings suggests without concrete proof?  Science is dependent on constants for concrete proof.  It is based on constants and upward causation to assume any particular order.

Beyond that, you're also assuming that the creation in Genesis is in reference to a literal beginning and not visualization.  You'd also have to take into consideration the author and how much of this they'd actually understand... assuming God is real still and has actually given this information to the author.  In the process of writing stuff down it is very possible comprehension took control over order and therefore just got misplaced in the final draft.  Easy to do if you don't know how it should have happened... again many logical possibilities without automatically assuming by any means that this story is false.  

BobSpence wrote:

In a sense, all morality is a matter of opinion, but tend to have a consensus about many basics.

So you don't agree there is anything wrong about his obedience policy or punishing people for the sins of their fathers?

 

Well, that's a whole new direction of topic, do you want to go there?

If so, lemme ask you this.  do you not have aspects of your life that are due to the life your parents or ancestors lived?  Are some of your understandings or outlooks on life due to their comprehension or representation of it to you?  How responsible are you in retaining/changing any of this regardless whether it was conscious or not and are you responsible for your own actions?  

You're looking at the statement through a peephole.  Open the door and you might see that the punishment is because of what their children and children's children would become because of what they had done.  

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:There never

BobSpence wrote:

There never would have been just a single pair of humans. That could not possibly account for all the different versions of our genes that we know are around.

 

Interesting angle... and how have you come to determine this?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Which Christ

jcgadfly wrote:

Which Christ do you and cap follow? The one created in the Gospels or the one that Paul built in his epistles? Or do you alternate depending on which one you need more?

You know where I stand on that... which reminds me, I don't think we ever sat down and really discussed the differences as I had suggested we do... you still up for it?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Which Christ do you and cap follow? The one created in the Gospels or the one that Paul built in his epistles? Or do you alternate depending on which one you need more?

You know where I stand on that... which reminds me, I don't think we ever sat down and really discussed the differences as I had suggested we do... you still up for it?

I know where you stand. As you've bounced back and forth in the past I wonder if you do.

We can discuss it by PM if you don't want others jumping in.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I know where

jcgadfly wrote:

I know where you stand. As you've bounced back and forth in the past I wonder if you do.

We can discuss it by PM if you don't want others jumping in.

I've been somehow locked out of my inbox for a few years now and no one seems to know how or why... unless you know of another way to PM... either way really works for me.  It might be fun as an open discussion.   We can set up guidelines to keep it on the topic for anyone who wants to add to it.  Or we can ask the mods to set up a 1 to 1... whatever works.   I think it'd be important for others to at least be able to follow it. 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 854
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Back, hi guys.

Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

I'm not sure your question is asked correctly. You say the law of the "Old Testament". I'm going to check for sure but I think the book says he "finished/completed  the law and the prophecies. In our understanding it wouldn't be the laws of the Old Testament - that would include what is referred to as the ten commandments. In "proper or true" Christianity the law he's referring to is Creation under which Adam was created. That is--the law is Creation itself. (we don't have the same interpretations that Christians do). (understand-we go by our interpretations, not theirs) 1- the ten commandments are not Christian in origin, They are Hebrew from after they left Egypt and had no civil law, but yet, are an adaptation of Egyptian laws and common laws synonymous with the middle east regions.

OK, Why do they object to removal of religious signs etc on public property.  Answer--they shouldn't because proper Christianity has  no signs, plaques, pictures to put on public property. Putting such items on public property shows they are not proper Christians. More-over, Christians shouldn't be caring about public property one way or another, or, what gets put there.

The simplest answer is--because they,re not Christians. There are no "real" Christians on the planet today.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

BobSpence wrote:

There is no evidence or assumption in science that life started with a single cell. It would have been in a pool of many, many chemicals, forming whole collections of pre-cursor to cells.

In any case once a few self-replicating systems formed, they would multiply until there were many of them, and evolution would work by the simple process that those whose structure 'worked' better would naturally come to dominate. Mutation would eventually ensure there were many variations. 

Wouldn't there have had to have been an original DNA molecule?  It's unlikely that more than one replicator on earth would have convergently evolved into DNA.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I disagree. I'd say it's

I disagree. I'd say it's very likely that millions formed nearly simultaneously. Many with slight differences. Perhaps no two were quite alike, or perhaps they were. But when things happen in chemistry, they tend to happen in droves. Once the conditions are right for a reaction, the reaction will happen almost, if not, instantaneously. Everywhere and anywhere that it can.

I find this the biggest flaw in any calculation designed to suggest evolution doesn't happen fast enough to explain life as observed. The calculation always starts with, presupposing, one original life form. It never starts with two or a billion, when it very well could have, and probably did.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 854
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The biblical Adam isn't

Louis_Cypher wrote:

In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam ( Y-MRCA) is the theoretical most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back only along the paternal lines of their family tree). Many studies report that Y-chromosomal Adam lived as early as around 142,000 years ago and possibly as recently as 60,000 years ago. All living humans are also descended matrilineally from Mitochondrial Eve who is thought to have lived earlier about 190,000 - 200,000 years ago. Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve need not have lived at the same time.

Just sayin'

about genetics-it's about "what" manner of person one/he/it is. We find biblical creation to be a forming of a personage rather then a material universe. It's the inner elements,or personage  that makes up Adam-the same as an enlightened person. A person with an understanding of one's/their self. The end result id the 7th- a peaceful person.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Vastet wrote:
I disagree. I'd say it's very likely that millions formed nearly simultaneously. Many with slight differences. Perhaps no two were quite alike, or perhaps they were. But when things happen in chemistry, they tend to happen in droves. Once the conditions are right for a reaction, the reaction will happen almost, if not, instantaneously. Everywhere and anywhere that it can.

That's true.  Once the conditions are right for one replicator, it's probably enough for at least thousands, maybe millions.  It seems more unlikely that the conditions would produce just one replicator -- it would be too delicate of a job.  Then the other variations could have gotten eaten or destroyed by the other replicators or the environment, or gotten fused together.

 

 


TheFallenAngel
TheFallenAngel's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2012-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Christians won't be coming

Christians won't be coming to debate this any time soon,-They know they will not win.


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:about

Old Seer wrote:

about genetics-it's about "what" manner of person one/he/it is. We find biblical creation to be a forming of a personage rather then a material universe. It's the inner elements,or personage  that makes up Adam-the same as an enlightened person. A person with an understanding of one's/their self. The end result id the 7th- a peaceful person.

I thought what makes a person unique is their experiences and memories. Also, are you saying these things are separate from the material universe?

I'm kind of confused by your statements; I'm just not really sure what you're trying to communicate.

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 854
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I replyed to

Louis_Cypher wrote:

In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam ( Y-MRCA) is the theoretical most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back only along the paternal lines of their family tree). Many studies report that Y-chromosomal Adam lived as early as around 142,000 years ago and possibly as recently as 60,000 years ago. All living humans are also descended matrilineally from Mitochondrial Eve who is thought to have lived earlier about 190,000 - 200,000 years ago. Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve need not have lived at the same time.

Just sayin'

this post.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 854
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
We say you are correct

blacklight915 wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

about genetics-it's about "what" manner of person one/he/it is. We find biblical creation to be a forming of a personage rather then a material universe. It's the inner elements,or personage  that makes up Adam-the same as an enlightened person. A person with an understanding of one's/their self. The end result id the 7th- a peaceful person.

I thought what makes a person unique is their experiences and memories. Also, are you saying these things are separate from the material universe?

I'm kind of confused by your statements; I'm just not really sure what you're trying to communicate.

 

It's memories and experiences that make one different, but the basics are the same. What one had at the time of birth is what everyone else has at birtm and that remains the same throughout ones existence. What really makes the difference is "intensity".  a same experience may have more of an impression one one more so then another. An example would be--- as the BIOS in a computor. They can be all the same but what gets put into the computor is different from one to the other, but the BIOS remains the same.


 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TheFallenAngel

TheFallenAngel wrote:

Christians won't be coming to debate this any time soon,-They know they will not win.

based on what exactly?  Anyone who knows me from this site knows I debate anything worth debating.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

TheFallenAngel wrote:

Christians won't be coming to debate this any time soon,-They know they will not win.

based on what exactly?  Anyone who knows me from this site knows I debate anything worth debating.

Okay, so you're hard-headed.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:EDIT: Nit

BobSpence wrote:
EDIT: Nit pick: Jupiter does not emit light, just excess heat (ie IR):

Wiki wrote:

This additional heat radiation is generated by the Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism through adiabatic contraction.

Don't be a wavelength bigot, Bob.  Longwave radiation needs love too.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Okay,

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Okay, so you're hard-headed.

Not going to deny that... but I also like to learn.  Anyone worth debating is going to be challenging my understanding and forcing me to do some homework on the subject. 

I'm curious, of what following are you?  Are you religious or a follower?  Your tag seems to indicate "theist" but my experience with you so far seems more oppositional to theism vs. supportive.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Okay, so you're hard-headed.

Not going to deny that... but I also like to learn.  Anyone worth debating is going to be challenging my understanding and forcing me to do some homework on the subject. 

I'm curious, of what following are you?  Are you religious or a follower?  Your tag seems to indicate "theist" but my experience with you so far seems more oppositional to theism vs. supportive.

I'm a Jew, but I was raised Christian.

Not sure why you'd think I'm opposed to believing in G-d.  You =have= read my signature, right?!?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:I'm a

FurryCatHerder wrote:

I'm a Jew, but I was raised Christian.

Not sure why you'd think I'm opposed to believing in G-d.  You =have= read my signature, right?!?

yes, that's why i was confused.  Again, you seemed more oppositional than supportive.  That's why I wasn't sure.  

I'd love to hear your story... you don't hear of too many Christians converting to Judaism.  

Perhaps on a separate thread so as to not pull from the purpose of this one


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:It's memories

Old Seer wrote:

It's memories and experiences that make one different, but the basics are the same. What one had at the time of birth is what everyone else has at birtm and that remains the same throughout ones existence. What really makes the difference is "intensity".  a same experience may have more of an impression one one more so then another. An example would be--- as the BIOS in a computor. They can be all the same but what gets put into the computor is different from one to the other, but the BIOS remains the same.

What exactly are you referring to with this statement: "What one had at the time of birth is what everyone else has at birth and that remains the same throughout ones existence."

The only thing I can think of is our subatomic structure: all humans are composed of the exact same subatomic particles and the composition of these particles doesn't ever change.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 854
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
When one is creates/formed

blacklight915 wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

It's memories and experiences that make one different, but the basics are the same. What one had at the time of birth is what everyone else has at birtm and that remains the same throughout ones existence. What really makes the difference is "intensity".  a same experience may have more of an impression one one more so then another. An example would be--- as the BIOS in a computor. They can be all the same but what gets put into the computor is different from one to the other, but the BIOS remains the same.

What exactly are you referring to with this statement: "What one had at the time of birth is what everyone else has at birth and that remains the same throughout ones existence."

The only thing I can think of is our subatomic structure: all humans are composed of the exact same subatomic particles and the composition of these particles doesn't ever change.

There comes to exist an automatic process for survival or life. A comparison is the BIOS in a computor. It allows information to be admitted into the computor, but at the same time it operated things that are not taught but inherited. IE-to suckle from the mother, movements the processes to learn. Each is born knowing nothing, that means we all start off equal. In time we become a bit different to others but we all basically remain the same. What we learn is Just addition to what was at birth. I can't say that at birth we have the ability to learn or if if that ability forms later. We all start off the same and form love and hate, joy and sadness etc. What I'm referring to here is the mentals not the physical. It is clear that we all aren't formed physically equal, but all have the same contents of personality traits. I have to use the term "spiritual" in this explanation. We all start off spiritually the same, or, the spiritual (person) contents are the same in all, whether they are present at birth and develop later I can't say. But after the development is complete we are the same---After that its the experiences that make us different. The apostles say that all are created equal, but there are things that can be disputed. We do not all have equal intellect, and we disagree on the total. The only way to put it is---in being formed there is a point that we are the same. I'm not intending stating anything as fact, but what it means is all contain the same spiritual make up, but may not be equal in the amounts. The "statement" all are created equal doesn't' mean physical but spiritual. What you are referring to is the physical, what I'm referring to is the mental. What we think is that the spiritual/pesonal contents in all is the same but the quantity isn't.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:There comes

Old Seer wrote:

There comes to exist an automatic process for survival or life. A comparison is the BIOS in a computor. It allows information to be admitted into the computor, but at the same time it operated things that are not taught but inherited. IE-to suckle from the mother, movements the processes to learn. Each is born knowing nothing, that means we all start off equal. In time we become a bit different to others but we all basically remain the same. What we learn is Just addition to what was at birth. I can't say that at birth we have the ability to learn or if if that ability forms later. We all start off the same and form love and hate, joy and sadness etc. What I'm referring to here is the mentals not the physical. It is clear that we all aren't formed physically equal, but all have the same contents of personality traits. I have to use the term "spiritual" in this explanation. We all start off spiritually the same, or, the spiritual (person) contents are the same in all, whether they are present at birth and develop later I can't say. But after the development is complete we are the same---After that its the experiences that make us different. The apostles say that all are created equal, but there are things that can be disputed. We do not all have equal intellect, and we disagree on the total. The only way to put it is---in being formed there is a point that we are the same. I'm not intending stating anything as fact, but what it means is all contain the same spiritual make up, but may not be equal in the amounts. The "statement" all are created equal doesn't' mean physical but spiritual. What you are referring to is the physical, what I'm referring to is the mental. What we think is that the spiritual/pesonal contents in all is the same but the quantity isn't.

As far as I know, our minds are physical processes located in our brains. Our brains are all slightly different because our genes are all slightly different. Therefore, I think our minds would all be slightly different as well. I generally take the the statement "all people are created equal" to mean "all people are equally valuable as human beings". In other words, while we all have very different interests and abilities, all of us are capable of being loved and valued by our family and friends.

 

Wait, who is this "we" you're referring to?

 


elijah2
elijah2's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2012-02-07
User is offlineOffline
question for our christian visitors

We get upset because we know that without any moral compass, then anything goes.  although we as christians are not under the old testament law, we still have god's law written on our hearts. the unsaved do not have that internal moral compass. 

best

martin

 

 

elijah2


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2399
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Realy??

elijah2 wrote:

We get upset because we know that without any moral compass, then anything goes.  although we as christians are not under the old testament law, we still have god's law written on our hearts. the unsaved do not have that internal moral compass. 

best

martin

 

 

 

 

                        Aesop had better morals without the insest and genocide, rape and murder. You'd better read up on Matt: 5:17 that's where the Jesus charactor makes it clear he did not come to  change the old laws but to fulfill  them.   I am getting tired of bible waving cafateria christians.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


6444 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
elijah2 wrote:We get upset

elijah2 wrote:

We get upset because we know that without any moral compass, then anything goes.  although we as christians are not under the old testament law, we still have god's law written on our hearts. the unsaved do not have that internal moral compass. 

best

martin

Personally, I think you guys get upset because it's getting blindingly obvious, even to the most indoctrinated, that you can't really slap a brand on morality and expect it to stick.

Also, how exactly do you know what's "written" on anybody's "heart" ? Be honest, that really doesn't mean anything, does it ?

And what does "unsaved" even mean ?


JP (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Not under the law, but under grace

Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

 

Today we are living in the age of grace, a time when God is calling out a people for His name and making them members of Christ's Church. Now, I understand that this may sound confusing to you and you may not quite get it, but I will do my best to explain. In Old Testament times, when the law was in effect, the penalty for breaking even just one of the Ten Commandments was death. Children were stoned just for disobeying their parents and others were burned at the stake, crucified, etc. The price you had to pay for sin in the Old Testament was huge.

 

Now, in this present time, Christ has risen back to Heaven and sits at the right hand of God. Christ's death on the cross broke the penalty of sin and we are now free from that bondage because of what He did for us on the cross. Now, as followers of Christ, we are to still keep His Commandments because even in the age of grace, we can still sin. But because we are not under the law anymore, we do not have to fear death when we sin. If you have truly accepted Christ and acknowledge Him as the ONLY way to eternal life, He will forgive you of your sins and will wash you clean and will restore your personal relationship with Him. That is the wonderful promise from God that we have today!

 

The reason we Christians get upset when you atheists try to remove the Ten Commandments is because even though we are in the age of grace and not the law, we still must keep our lives clean and presentable before a HOLY and RIGHTEOUS God! We can still sin, but there is no penalty of death, although it is true that if a true follower of Christ is stuck commiting the same sin(s) over and over again, God will have no choice but to take that believer's life so as to save him from his wickedness.

 

If you have not accepted Christ as your Savior and the ONLY way to Heaven, then it is impossible to have the comfort and happiness that we believers have in Christ. You cannot have your sins forgiven as an unbeliever. God does not hear anyone's prayers unless they are truly saved. Soften your hearts before God today and invite Christ and the Holy Spirit into your life. You will be amazed at how much your life will change! God has a plan for everyone's life, even the murderers and the rapists and the thieves and the abominable and the blasphemers (that's you, atheists). God has a plan for everyone of you, so stop denying and stop blaspheming and stop trying to make Christianity look like a load of garbage, because you know it's not! You will never make it to Heaven on your own and you DO NOT want to go to Hell. Christ taught that it would be much better to have your eyes plucked out than go to Hell and there are many more illustrations in God's Holy, UNDENIABLE Word!


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello,

Look, if you have any questions just ask me. This question is absolutely retarded.

Answer 1a.

First off we have to define what we mean by law. Since there are distinctions of various types of law. Typically speaking scholars throughout the years have referenced the law in three types.

Civil

Ceremonial

Moral

For example, the civil law in Leviticus was to put a fence around your roof. Obviously we do not need to do this since most people who are educated in carpentery don't have flat roofs in areas where it rains and 2nd, because it is silent in the New Testament.

Since the morals are taught to use in the New Testament, we are to have them for today.

Answer 1b.

There is another aspect to what we mean by law.

By law in this sense one had to follow the levitical code for salvation. The Holy spirit came and went and and was not permanent in the believer at that time, thus they were bound by the law for salvation and damned for the betrayal of it.

When we say Christ fulfilled the law, this does not mean He did away with it but rather did away with the yoke of burden it has on the believer in reference to justification.

Now, we do not HAVE TO  do 123 to be saved, but under grace when the holy spirit dwells in us we will have the desire to to those things that are righteous and moral.

2. mentioned in 1a. when the New Testament states a doctrine of the Old Testament , then that is to be applied, though not in law of burden, but grace of desire. The only things of the old that apply are the morals as seen in the New Testament.

Thus, since the 10 commandments are in the area of ethics, they apply.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


TRUECRISTIAN
TRUECRISTIAN's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2008-11-27
User is offlineOffline
go suck your chode while

go suck your chode while having a lesbian lick your lumpy little tits, you hermaphrodite. And also please, I beg you, destroy your computer and never have contact with another human being in any way shape or form.

Thanks you, and have a great fucking day.

JESUS IS LOVE


buddyd
Theist
buddyd's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2012-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote:Most

Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

 

There are a few reasons why many Christians fight for the 10 commandments. Some see it as a patriotic battle they say that the nation was founded on Judaeo-Christian values. Some see it as a fight on religion and they say that have to fight back at some point or it will keep creeping closer and closer to keeping God out of the church. Most Christians do not have an understanding of Jesus fulfilling the Law and therefore see themselves as under the 10 Commandments. The most common mistake you see is the average Christian thinking that the Sabbath is on Sunday (it is on Saturday). There is a big fight in the town I live over the 10 Commandments on the court house steps. As a pastor I am not harping on the subject in the church, but many of my members think it is a huge deal. The ACLU is suing over the matter and I do agree that we have to fight back at some point, because I do believe that the ACLU wants God out completely. In the end most Christians see it as the intentions of those trying to remove the 10 Commandments are trying to disrespect God.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

Perhaps because they are in God's language, English, instead of the original Egyptian.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


mobius (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 I am a christian and have

 I am a christian and have absolutely no idea what the OP is talking about. Admittedly i'm not a very good christian, but still, I was under no impression that christians were exempt from the commandments, as they outline what is now referred to as Mortal Sin. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote:Most

Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

I would say it's because that perspective is not completely accurate and that they are still relevant

 

 


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Randalllord

caposkia wrote:

Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

I would say it's because that perspective is not completely accurate and that they are still relevant

 

 

I am glad some other theists show up from time to time. Years ago it seemed there was one theist vs 99 atheists or agnostics ratio here.  I don't come back often these days but I respect this site for having listened in the past to a few things i've had to say. (I didn't say they agreed with me.)  I apologize that in comming back to this thread I have not taken the time to re-read it although if your search I have participated in the past in the thread.  I may solicit a yawn or perhaps some of you wonder what I have been up to. I have been studying Greek and Hebrew so that I can produce a modern renditon of hte KJV Bible that I would be happy to use for my own memorization purposes. One that reflects some modernity of our language but at the same time represents the manuscript base that the KJV Bible was translated from.  I am calling it the SKJV.  I intend to answer the "Skeptics Annotated Bible" in the margins of this version perhaps a year from now. But I wanted to ensure that the version of the Bible I use was the most accurate possible. This has been an 8 year quest so far overall when you include my language studies.  This week I was reviewing hte verses in Galatians as one of the passages in which Christians get this doctrine from.  I would like to share with you the SKJV rendering of the verses in question. I encourage you to look up what other versions of the Bible say for these verses. Perhaps the doctrine in question gets varying answers based on varying versions of the Bible floating around.  I would be curious if others would comment on whether the rendering i am about to quote here sheds any light on the topic or clarifies the Christian position, perhaps in a way that hadn't been thought of before.

I quote:

Quote:

Galatians 3 - 19 Then why is there the law? It was added because of transgressions (wicked deeds), until “The seed” should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Let it not be! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has enclosed (included) all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were protected under the law, hemmed in to the faith which would afterwards be revealed. 24 Because of this the law has become our instructor [schoolmaster] bringing us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But since faith has come, we are no longer under an instructor.

I think the idea here is that the Law guides us to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The absence of Law (Let me qualify, God's Law). Reckless abandonment of Gods moral code of ethics causes man to careen out of control and aimlessly away from accepting the "truth" of Gods desire to reveal Himself personally to them via the message of the good news of Jesus Christ. Why would you allow yourself to come to Jesus on God's terms if you do not wish to obey God's moral codes?  It is the desire and the "protection" provided by living within God's moral codes that ought to attract a person to want to submit to the bondage of allowing Christ to own you going forward.  People who don't want the law subsequently do not want Christ. So as the passage says God uses the law to hem us in to protect us and prepare us as a schoolmaster teaches his student to make us ready to receive Christ. Christians often emphasise the superiority of knowing Christ over knowing the law. There is some truth to this but the law prepares us for Christ. There is some truth to that also. The Christian who comes to "faith in Christ" still obey's Gods laws but the instructor now for them is the indwelling presence of God in their lives telling them what to do.  They are not outwardly conformed by the law or "enclosed" as the passages says. Instead they are now inwardly conformed to Christ and he guides them still to follow God's moral codes.  In no case does God give anyone permission to disobey his TEN Commandments whether they have faith in Christ or not. The Bible however makes it clear that the basis of salvation for the Christian is trusting in the resurrection of Christ from the dead not in trusting the adherence to the TEN Commandments. That does not however mean the Ten Commandments as a moral code has dissapeared. The hope is that when people study the 10 commandments that God will convict them of their failure to follow it and that they will admit their need of a Saviour. The purpose of the Ten Commandments is to lead you to the logical conclusion which is the need for Christ in your life as you will never be good enough to make it by the law without Christs forgiveness of sin in your life.......... (I know the gospel in a nutshell. Hopefully familliar to all whether you agree with it or not I just want to clarify what it is here.)

I look forward to hearing other comments.  Including comparison of what I quoted to other versions of the Bible.  I realize it may seem odd to use a private version of the Bible as I have done. However plans are comming into place to start printing this version overseas in Africa and South America to assist in lands where English is a second language and where KJV Bible influence is the dominant factor currently, which this version is very similar but updated from KJV in some ways. So I hope in a few years to come this version will not seem so odd to those that try it.

If anyone would like to obtain an SKJV Bible i am currently willing to email the first four gospels to anyone who asks me.  Later more will be released. I wish to have print versions comming off the press prior to internet based ones of the entire Bible. You may find this version interesting to compare with as great care has been being excercised to clarify points that people tend to doubt about the scripture in the commentary and in the effort of precisely relaying the meaning of the TR based Greek Manuscripts (In relation to the New Testament).  Send your email request to bibledoor@rogers.com if you wish the pdf of the four gospels.

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

I would say it's because that perspective is not completely accurate and that they are still relevant
 

To children and the simple-minded perhaps. 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Mere
Mere's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-05-11
User is offlineOffline
I am not sure about the

I am not sure about the "upset when..." however the Old Testament Commandments are summarized- to love God, and love your neighbors. These commandments have not changed.

Caduceus


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Mere wrote:
I am not sure about the "upset when..." however the Old Testament Commandments are summarized- to love God, and love your neighbors. These commandments have not changed

What is truly incredible is you can sumarize like that when there is not a single commandment in any variation or translation that says a damned thing about love. If you care to disagree you need simply QUOTE the commandments you are pretending to summarize. I'm willing to learn if you are. BTW i reject a priori argumentation as to what it "really means" as opposed to what the words actually say.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:caposkia

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

I would say it's because that perspective is not completely accurate and that they are still relevant
 

To children and the simple-minded perhaps. 

 

took me a while to read this one... 

simple minded would be to accept the claim that you were told to accept... you know... like children.  Children or simple minded ones can't say it's not completely accurate because they can't back themselves up and have no comprehension of the law in the first place and what Jesus actually did.  

I like how you attempt to downplay anything that might get somewhere, but in this case you made yourself look.... well... simple minded...


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

I would say it's because that perspective is not completely accurate and that they are still relevant
 

To children and the simple-minded perhaps. 

took me a while to read this one... 

simple minded would be to accept the claim that you were told to accept... you know... like children.  Children or simple minded ones can't say it's not completely accurate because they can't back themselves up and have no comprehension of the law in the first place and what Jesus actually did.  

I like how you attempt to downplay anything that might get somewhere, but in this case you made yourself look.... well... simple minded...

I have no interest in flattery so that you like it has no particular interest to me.

But if you would like to recite a single commandment to love you be sure to do that when you have the free time. Until then, I call bullshit.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Jeremiah
Theist
Posts: 29
Joined: 2012-06-14
User is offlineOffline
Reply to Question about Law Vs Grace

 

 

Jesus didn't come to do away with the Law but to fulfill it.  He warned His followers that many will come to him in that day saying Lord!  Lord! Did we not do this in your name and that in your name and he will respond, Depart from me, thou workers of iniquity, I never knew you.  Knew is an intimate word in this context as in describing a marriage union.  They were never united with Jesus and that is why you see this Grace message has gone off the rails as it were.  The truth is Jesus said, If you love me, you'll keep my Commandments.  MINE.  He didn't say Gods he said MINE because He IS God.  Get it? 

The world will do what it has alway done which is go the wrong way, do the wrong thing and defile anything that even slightly references God because the god of this world ( who has blinded their eyes to see the truth ) is in control over them.  He isn't in control over any born again believer as we have dominion but for the non believer it is open season I am afraid.  So in answer to your question you are correct.  Any person claiming Grace is covering their right to sin to their hearts content has no right to complain about the ten commandments being taken off a courthouse wall.  On the other hand, the definition of Grace is God giving you the ability to obey him when otherwise you couldn't.  That is why Jesus went to the cross.  Before he went you couldn't obey and didn't have the grace to do it either.  After he went to the cross you could.  There it is.   That is why Grace abounds to the believer.  Jesus said, If you love me, Keep my Commandments.  He didn't say, I'll keep them for you and you go do whatever you feel like doing in my name.  No.  He said, YOU Keep them.  The Problem with most of the Grace crowd is they are not.  They have laid their head in the lap of the world every bit as much as Sampson laid his in Delilah's and therein the reason they have become as powerless as he did.  If you want to see some great miracles head over to Darfur or Nigeria where the persecution is off the charts.  It's like the book of Acts over there.  Have a nice day.  - Jeremiah