By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[YoursTrue]

thanks for the reply. but a mutations is not the same as an "adaptation" (in the same area). but a longer leg, or narrow nose is an adaptation. but if something come without a leg... or nose, now you got a new creature.

now as for man. recent development? which man. Fallen man, that one? the regression one's. no, man has been on earth since CREATION DAY 3.

all "adaptation" of man is by God, John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

the EARTH can or cannot tell us nothing, a whole ocean of water was just discovered under the earth crust. Massive ocean discovered beneath the Earth's crust containing more water than on the surface

so that want work try again.

101G

I find it interesting that some would argue about the description in the Genesis account about the springs under the earth that were unleashed during the flood, not just the heavenly rains. Scientists are now predicting dire consequences if these newly discovered "under the ocean" type waters are unleashed, but I wonder, why would those worry if they really believe in evolution, because according to the theory we're all going to disintegrate, so why would believers in the theory without God worry (be alarmed, scared, etc.). Gorillas and tortoises do not worry or fret about these things for the future.
I do believe that since God made (created) the heavens and the earth, He also has in control the earth's future as well as a wonderful future for obedient ones.
The psalmist wrote, "Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth, And the heavens are the work of your hands." (Psalm 102)
Therefore I trust that God can and will control the elements as He desires.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I find it interesting that some would argue about the description in the Genesis account about the springs under the earth that were unleashed during the flood, not just the heavenly rains. Scientists are now predicting dire consequences if these newly discovered "under the ocean" type waters are unleashed, but I wonder, why would those worry if they really believe in evolution, because according to the theory we're all going to disintegrate, so why would believers in the theory without God worry (be alarmed, scared, etc.). Gorillas and tortoises do not worry or fret about these things for the future.
I do believe that since God made (created) the heavens and the earth, He also has in control the earth's future as well as a wonderful future for obedient ones.
The psalmist wrote, "Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth, And the heavens are the work of your hands." (Psalm 102)
Therefore I trust that God can and will control the elements as He desires.

No, they really are not The "water" that you are talking about could not come out. You are merely misinterpreting articles.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is quite a large request... can I start with The Word became flesh, died and resurrected to bring man back into full relationship with God?

yup. That's a good start.

 

[Kenny]

That’s not my take-away from the verse you refer to…

To me, it says that if you do things half heartedly and doubt that you should do them at all, perhaps you should not do them?

It’s about living attentively and true to your faith but it’s not about “unbelief” in general being a sin, is it? That would be strange, I think.

Humbly,
Hermit

I'm not sure... if, as Hebrews 11:6 says its true, "Without faith it is impossible to please God", the literal interpretation of Romans 14 would be correct.

However, we still should also remember that sin is paid for.

 

[Kenny]

The difference is explicit, in that the "message (tare seed) of the enemy" is related to the "tares" (Mt 13:41) in that the "tares" will "commit lawlessness", as in the message of the "enemy", is the false gospel of grace, whereas the "law" has been nailed to a cross, whereupon lawlessness prevails.

What is the false gospel of grace?

 

[Kenny]

The prophets are poetry, but what they do is search for meaning in the law. They view the law mystically, like it is a map or microcosm of the world. This is because it is a system for living in the world. As a map of the world it should hold secrets. The prophets, then, view the law similarly to the way that ancient astronomers try to read the stars. The prophets, however, have much better luck since the law actually does represent a workable and intimate living system while the stars are just random objects in the sky.

The bible is written to lawyers. The law is the center, but the center of that is the covenant between people, which we ignorantly call 'The LORD'. (my opinion) I view the LORD as I view scripture or as I view the holy spirit, an emanation of the divine but not the divine itself. Its like a piece of a hologram, containing the entire picture that the hologram does but not the actual thing and not the most detail. Still, you can examine a piece of a hologram with a magnifying glass to get some more detail. Thus it makes sense to examine the ways of the LORD very closely. Everything in the bible that has to do with fellowship and avoiding violence is meant to be taken very seriously and is about the ways of the LORD. Everything else is dealing with these things, tangent to them, celebrating them, interpreting them, finding out about them. As some have stated the greatest two commands are to love the covenant and to love your neighbor. This sums up the law and the prophets.

What is not true: superstitions such as the belief that putting ink onto goats will make them bear spotted young. This does not work, ever; nor would anyone in any age believe that it would. The unbelievable and obviously wrong passage is included on purpose to let you know something: that the story is not the point.

Very interesting.

Not to debate it, but how do you view the passion of the Christ?

 

[Kenny]

You are not taking any of those in context and you are twisting them. For example the verse from 2 Timothy refutes your claim if you understand it. But then you are probably a Bible literalist and they can rarely understand the Bible. If you try to read the Bible literally you only refute it, if you are honest.

Could you explain "why" instead of just making a statement? (On how it refutes the claim)

 

[Kenny]

What's your favorite moral precept original to Jesus, his most important contribution to moral theory in your estimation? Love one another is all well and good, but not original with Jesus. How about considering marrying a divorcee or finding somebody sexually attractive adultery? How about, "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it." Be a eunuch might be original, but is it really a valuable contribution to moral theory?


If they followed those rules, people would be more manageable anyway, which I believe was the point. I see slave ethics there. Why do you suppose that Constantine made Christianity his state religion. I'm guessing Matthew 5. Those are words you tell somebody whom you intend to exploit but whom want to passively absorb it rather than rise up. Be meek, Be longsuffering. Love enemies. Turn the other cheek. Accept your present situation, for there will be a great reward after death if you do, a mansion of many rooms waiting for you where you will be an equal - unless you resist your enemies. That used to be called pie in the sky for obvious reasons.

"How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." - Napoleon Bonaparte

I expect that you see both of those opinions negatively, but if you think they're wrong, please explain where and how, that is, falsify them if you can.

Personally, I see this as more opinions than anything else.

The position of "eunuchs". Why does that have to be a position of morality vs just a statement of fact? (I'm not sure I am grasping what you are trying to say)

On Constantine, you may be right or maybe not since I don't think it is expressed succinctly by him. What if it was because he became a Christian?

Bonaparte - an atheist dictator can still have order in a state. I think it was his personal viewpoint.

As a side note, I don't think Jesus had an "original" moral code but simply came to reinstitute the code that was from the beginning.

Thanks for your contribution to the thread. (sincerely)

 

[Kenny]

How can that be? Do they have the Bible perhaps read to them? Or are you saying they have visions, etc. or visitations from spirits and claim to know God that way?

I think there is a potential. Abraham didn't have a written message. Yet he came to know God. But, as an example, one can relearn the concepts of Algebra on your own or you can read a book and spring from the knowledge someone else had or has.

Apollos had some understanding but Aquila and Priscilla helped sharpen his skills. Apollos might have eventually got it right but the other two hastened his capacity. IMV

 

[Kenny]

Baptists used to say dancing was a sin. Were they correct? Or did they get it wrong?

I think Romans 14 deals with those types of questions and then it can change over time. IMV.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think Romans 14 deals with those types of questions and then it can change over time. IMV.

But that stops with you, because you don't do change, because your worldview is the worldview and not a worldview. Your view is the view, right?

 

[Kenny]

That's why intimate familiarity is valuable prior to marriage, and not just physical intimacy. You need to live together first to have the best chance of success in marriage assuming that one has behavioral requirements for a roomate.

I'm not sure what you mean by "intimate familiarity" vs physical intimacy. Can you expound?

 

[Kenny]

But that stops with you, because you don't do change, because your worldview is the worldview and not a worldview. Your view is the view, right?

I'm so sorry... I am really lost in what you are trying to convey.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm so sorry... I am really lost in what you are trying to convey.

The "fight" is, how God is done, if that ends with you or it can even change beyond you or me.

 

[101G]

I find it interesting that some would argue about the description in the Genesis account about the springs under the earth that were unleashed during the flood, not just the heavenly rains. Scientists are now predicting dire consequences if these newly discovered "under the ocean" type waters are unleashed, but I wonder, why would those worry if they really believe in evolution, because according to the theory we're all going to disintegrate, so why would believers in the theory without God worry (be alarmed, scared, etc.). Gorillas and tortoises do not worry or fret about these things for the future.
I do believe that since God made (created) the heavens and the earth, He also has in control the earth's future as well as a wonderful future for obedient ones.
The psalmist wrote, "Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth, And the heavens are the work of your hands." (Psalm 102)
Therefore I trust that God can and will control the elements as He desires.

GINOLJC, to all.
Agreed,
A new heaven and a new earth is coming. supportive scripture, Isaiah 65:17 "For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind." this is the "LORD", all cap speaking, second witness, Isaiah 66:22 "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain."

now this,2 Peter 3:13 "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." and that promise from Isaiah is made by God again, Revelation 21:5 "And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful."

the "LORD" in the OT made the promise, and it is the "Lord" of the NT who fulfills it. the same ONE person.

101G.

 

[Kenny]

The "fight" is, how God is done, if that ends with you or it can even change beyond you or me.

Let me explain Rom 14 in another translation:

14 I know and am convinced on the authority of the Lord Jesus that no food, in and of itself, is wrong to eat. But if someone believes it is wrong, then for that person it is wrong.

If we change "food" to "dancing" we can see that there are some things that can go either way and then ones understanding and viewpoint can change.

8 If we live, it’s to honor the Lord. And if we die, it’s to honor the Lord. So whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

So, if for that person they are doing it because they believe it is honoring God, they do it for Him and they do it to honor Him. It isn't a big deal to God unless it expressly violates God's love command.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am thinking Baptist would be glad to have sex in any fashion it could be obtained

Correct. They like it with goats.

A Marxist gains power by creating division, as between the proletariat and the manager class, as in class warfare.

But it's you creating division with comments like that one.

The term "liberal" is not a fixed target

That's a telling use of language.

I don't know if anyone with a modicum of common sense will agree with your definition of a woman being anyone who wants to live like one.

Do you know anyone with a modicum of common sense?

Everything in the Bible is truly Stated, but not everything is a STATEMENT of Truth

That's why I reject it all. There's no test for identifying true parts if any.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

That's the beginning? Then where did "God" come from?

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

OK, the Word came before "the beginning." If the Word was God, why say that it was with God? Why are all of these books problematic in their first sentences? And the Word is what? The Bible's message? The Holy Spirit? The future of the universe? Whatever the reader chooses it to mean? This is your example of truth? It has no specific meaning?

if Adam and Eve was not the First man and woman who was?

There was no first man or woman. People appeared in a gradual transition, like baldness, or daylight in the morning. There is no first moment for any of that.

Scientists are now predicting dire consequences if these newly discovered "under the ocean" type waters are unleashed

Do you think that's credible? What waters under the oceans can be unleashed? How does one do that?

why would those worry if they really believe in evolution, because according to the theory we're all going to disintegrate, so why would believers in the theory without God worry (be alarmed, scared, etc.)

The theory of evolution does not predict that we will all disintegrate.

 

[F1fan]

I'm not sure... if, as Hebrews 11:6 says its true, "Without faith it is impossible to please God", the literal interpretation of Romans 14 would be correct.

That's OK, because without faith fallible humans, like you, won't end up deciding any of the many gods exist. That's because faith is unreliable, and reasoning is reliable.

However, we still should also remember that sin is paid for.

This can lead to Christians behaving badly because they have a Golden Ticket for Heaven and don't have to reflect on their actions and conserquences. Christians seem to think they alone are saved, but the Bible says Jesus was executed and sacrificed for the sins of mankind, so it looks as though we are all covered and going to heaven, even atheists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let me explain Rom 14 in another translation:

14 I know and am convinced on the authority of the Lord Jesus that no food, in and of itself, is wrong to eat. But if someone believes it is wrong, then for that person it is wrong.

If we change "food" to "dancing" we can see that there are some things that can go either way and then ones understanding and viewpoint can change.

8 If we live, it’s to honor the Lord. And if we die, it’s to honor the Lord. So whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

So, if for that person they are doing it because they believe it is honoring God, they do it for Him and they do it to honor Him. It isn't a big deal to God unless it expressly violates God's love command.

Yeah, I get it. You have your view of God's love. But other Christians do that differently. To your support is that it make sense to you and theirs that it makes sense to them.

 

[Kathryn]

That's OK, because without faith fallible humans, like you, won't end up deciding any of the many gods exist. That's because faith is unreliable, and reasoning is reliable.

This can lead to Christians behaving badly because they have a Golden Ticket for Heaven and don't have to reflect on their actions and conserquences. Christians seem to think they alone are saved, but the Bible says Jesus was executed and sacrificed for the sins of mankind, so it looks as though we are all covered and going to heaven, even atheists.

Well, I DO believe that we have to accept His sacrifice. But I also think that all of us are in for some surprises.