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

 

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.

 

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

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.

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?

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):

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'

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

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.

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.

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

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

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.

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 ?

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).

 

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.

 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. 

 

 

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.

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...

 

 

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