100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Throw down | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Kayaker138
on
Fri 08/01/08 07:00 PM
|
|
Why would god need to rest... if he doesn't get tired? Isaiah 40:28 - Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. (P.S. This does not reflect my beliefs, just my curiosity.) again He does not need to rest. It was a way of saying that we need to keep the seventh day in His honor. That's all. It looks to me like he might have rested. GEN 2:2-3 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Maybe we need to agree on the same bible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's no need to vote folks.
I concede defeat. 
I offered no evidence for my position. Spider has proven that his God is consistent. The war is over. God and Jesus have risen to victory.
Spider has won the debate. The war is over. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What war?????
what did i miss??? did bush start it?? dam* bushes!! all i see is comment, response - comment response - vote - ? boy i wish all wars were over that quick! hmmm? well really i wish there were no wars at all. if wishes were fishes huh?
i do agree though it's not worth the effort to try to figure out who's really right or wrong. no matter what it wont change anyone's opinion here, certainly not mine, nor yours either guys. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's no need to vote folks. I concede defeat.
I offered no evidence for my position. Spider has proven that his God is consistent. The war is over. God and Jesus have risen to victory.
Spider has won the debate. The war is over.
I contend that Abra's position is tenable. So, Im going to vote with Abra. Aye |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider wrote:
That's the difference between the two times, many of the Jews in the time of Jesus were repentant for their sins and sought salvation, but during Noah's days, the hearts of men were turned towards wickedness. This is precisely the argument I expected. The reason that I personally reject this argument is because it only looks at the precise moment in the times of the actual stories. However, we can't do that. That's not the full picture. There had to have been a time prior to the flood when all men were not evil and many indeed were seeking to serve God. Therefore the argument that, because every man was evil at the time of the flood the situation on the ground was different, doesn't hold water (if you'll excuse the pun). It doesn't hold water, because that's merely the pinnacle of the story, but there must have been times earlier, prior to the flood, when all men were not evil and therefore those times would have been equal opportunities for God to have offered salvation before he allowed the whole world to become corrupt. I've thought of all these possibilities before Spider. This explanation does not hold water IMHO. I realized that I quoted the wrong post. This is the post I intended to quote. This is what you are voting on. We have one Yay. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider wrote:
That's the difference between the two times, many of the Jews in the time of Jesus were repentant for their sins and sought salvation, but during Noah's days, the hearts of men were turned towards wickedness. This is precisely the argument I expected. The reason that I personally reject this argument is because it only looks at the precise moment in the times of the actual stories. However, we can't do that. That's not the full picture. There had to have been a time prior to the flood when all men were not evil and many indeed were seeking to serve God. Therefore the argument that, because every man was evil at the time of the flood the situation on the ground was different, doesn't hold water (if you'll excuse the pun). It doesn't hold water, because that's merely the pinnacle of the story, but there must have been times earlier, prior to the flood, when all men were not evil and therefore those times would have been equal opportunities for God to have offered salvation before he allowed the whole world to become corrupt. I've thought of all these possibilities before Spider. This explanation does not hold water IMHO. I realized that I quoted the wrong post. This is the post I intended to quote. This is what you are voting on. We have one Yay. ok, im lost?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"When Martin Luther countered the authority of the infallible pope, he did so in the name of his new authority, the infallible Scriptures. This point of view was generally embraced by all of the Reformation churches. The Bible thus became the paper pope of Protestantism."- Bishop John Shelby Spong
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider wrote:
That's the difference between the two times, many of the Jews in the time of Jesus were repentant for their sins and sought salvation, but during Noah's days, the hearts of men were turned towards wickedness. This is precisely the argument I expected. The reason that I personally reject this argument is because it only looks at the precise moment in the times of the actual stories. However, we can't do that. That's not the full picture. There had to have been a time prior to the flood when all men were not evil and many indeed were seeking to serve God. Therefore the argument that, because every man was evil at the time of the flood the situation on the ground was different, doesn't hold water (if you'll excuse the pun). It doesn't hold water, because that's merely the pinnacle of the story, but there must have been times earlier, prior to the flood, when all men were not evil and therefore those times would have been equal opportunities for God to have offered salvation before he allowed the whole world to become corrupt. I've thought of all these possibilities before Spider. This explanation does not hold water IMHO. I realized that I quoted the wrong post. This is the post I intended to quote. This is what you are voting on. We have one Yay. ok, im lost?? At the moment the Yay's have it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"When Martin Luther countered the authority of the infallible pope, he did so in the name of his new authority, the infallible Scriptures. This point of view was generally embraced by all of the Reformation churches. The Bible thus became the paper pope of Protestantism."- Bishop John Shelby Spong That's a very good point, and I'd like to take that a little further. If a doctrine is claimed to only be understood by those who have been anointed by the Holy Spirit, then we can't have preachers going around arguing about what the book means. Clearly they can't all have been guided by the Holy Spirit to come to different conclusions. Yet this is precisely what Protestantism is, a whole bunch of different denominations who differ on what the supposed word of God means. The idea behind the Catholic Church is that the pope is supposed to be in good with the Holy Spirit. After all, if the pope isn't in good with the Holy Spirit how can anyone else hope to be? However, we know that church itself has apologized for having made harsh and incorrect judgments against scientists in the past. That can only mean one of two things. Either the clergy in charge at that time where not being guided by the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit itself guided them wrongly. I think every is going to reject the latter, thus leaving us with only the conclusion that the clergy is not being guided by the Holy Spirit. But if we can't even trust the Holy Spirit to guide the holiest of men, then what good is religion? Of course, the argument can be made that the clergy of the church were obviously not Holy then. But if we make that conclusion, all that says is that we can't trust anyone to be guided by the Holy Spirit. If we can't trust the Pope himself (which history has revealed we can't) then why would anyone trust some unknown person on an Internet forum to deliver the word of God? Trying to preach the word of God on an Internet forum doesn't even make sense. Especially if the person who is doing the preaching is attempting to assert absolute fundamentalism with such rigid criteria that he's willing to even clobber Christians over the head and dismiss them as having disappointed him. Clearly such accusations are coming from someone who feels that they are in a position of authority so powerful, that they even have the right to judge fellow Christians as being 'disappointing in their representation of "Christianity". Clearly we can't have people going around becoming independent Paper Popes putting everyone down who doesn't agree with their conclusions of what Christianity should be about. That denies the Holy Spirit its right to guide people in its own way. If Christianity is going to work at all, it must be a "personal relationship" with God. But that also means that people shouldn't be going around telling other people that they don't have a personal relationship with God just because they don't believe in certain things including the Bible itself, or even Jesus for that matter.
It's not our place to judge whether someone else has a personal relationship with God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice try spider...but no one wants to be confused with facts.
The only thing the replies reveal are those who put down & argue with their own ignorant perseptions of God. I'd say that's WIN WIN enough. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice try spider...but no one wants to be confused with facts. The only thing the replies reveal are those who put down & argue with their own ignorant perseptions of God. I'd say that's WIN WIN enough.
"The theory that you should always treat the religious convictions of other people with respect finds no support in the Gospels." -- Arnold Lunn (1888-1974), British author |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
TheLonelyWalker
on
Sat 08/02/08 09:54 AM
|
|
"When Martin Luther countered the authority of the infallible pope, he did so in the name of his new authority, the infallible Scriptures. This point of view was generally embraced by all of the Reformation churches. The Bible thus became the paper pope of Protestantism."- Bishop John Shelby Spong I like the term "the paper pope." Even though is misused. with regard James assertions, I would agree with him to the point that if the Church have committed the mistakes he mentioned it's because the individuals in charge at the time were far from the Holy Spirit. In that my dear friend you are right. However, the Catholic Church it's an institution that has too many faces which are not seen in contrast with the Popes and all those sick priests who have molested children (which BTW are a extreme minority) who are in the media everyday. These unseen faces are the groundworkers the priests in small parishes, in small towns, and in small countries as mine. Those who kill themselves working for the well being of everybody in the community regardless the fact they are christian or not. This is the reason why I preach that we all are God's children I grew up working in these small parishes loving and helping people regardless of their beliefs. Father Hugo never told anybody I won't help you because you are not a christian or you are not a catholic. He never judge anybody for not being christian he just loved them and helped them as much as our resources allowed. This is the Catholic Church I know regardless of all the bad apples. This is the Catholic Church which stands still after 2000 years, regardless of all the mistakes and atrocities committed. Now it's my duty to grow in my faith and the doctrinal knowledge of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sat 08/02/08 10:43 AM
|
|
On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Which is it then? First day or 4th day? The sun, which separates night and day, was not created till the 4th day. Did whoever wrote this just forget what was going on? You also did not say "she" could offer up any biblical contradictions and only he. Thats bound to cause resentment from certain members... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice try spider...but no one wants to be confused with facts. The only thing the replies reveal are those who put down & argue with their own ignorant perseptions of God. I'd say that's WIN WIN enough.
Formal operational stage The formal operational period is the fourth and final of the periods of cognitive development in Piaget's theory. This stage, which follows the Concrete Operational stage, commences at around 12 years of age (puberty) and continues into adulthood. It is characterized by acquisition of the ability to think abstractly, reason logically and draw conclusions from the information available. During this stage the young adult is able to understand such things as love, "shades of gray", logical proofs, and values. Lucidly, biological factors may be traced to this stage as it occurs during puberty (the time at which another period of neural pruning occurs), marking the entry to adulthood in Physiology, cognition, moral judgement (Kohlberg), Psychosexual development (Freud), and psychosocial development (Erikson). Some two-thirds of people do not develop this form of reasoning fully enough that it becomes their normal mode for cognition, and so they remain, even as adults, concrete operational thinkers. In other words, 2/3s of the people in the world continue thinking with the capacity that they had at the age of 11. Such people have a great deal of difficulty thinking logically and rationally unless all concepts are concrete. Such people find arguments like "Your beliefs are stupid, because your face is ugly!" to be perfectly valid. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im still waiting....krimsa looks at her watch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Sat 08/02/08 01:59 PM
|
|
Good point Krimsa,
The bible has grass and fruit trees growing on the earth on the third day, and then creating the stars in the heavens on the fourth day. Clearly whoever wrote the Bible didn't have a clue how the universe actually works. The very elements that make up our bodies came from ancient stars that went nova long before the Earth was ever here. That had to be the case, because the Earth itself is formed from those elements. So even if we allow for abstract time limits for the so-called 'days' they are still out of order. HERE HERE! OUT OF ORDER! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is out of order. To be fair to the Bible, perhaps there were a LOT of people making these entries? Is that possible? Could one person write a little and then another write some more? Maybe sometimes one author blew off another and just started on day 4 or reversed something or whatever. Perhaps these inconsistencies were just normal for books in that time period? I dunno. Maybe people were disappointed if there was too much rationalization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Which is it then? First day or 4th day? The sun, which separates night and day, was not created till the 4th day. Did whoever wrote this just forget what was going on? You also did not say "she" could offer up any biblical contradictions and only he. Thats bound to cause resentment from certain members...
I don't see the contradiction. Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also. Light exists separately from the sun, doesn't it? Genesis 1:3, light is called "'owr", which means "light" in general. Like daylight or moonlight. It doesn't mean a source of light, it just means LIGHT. Now we are discussing God creating the universe, right? Does light exist necessarily? By necessarily, I mean does light have to exist? Would it be possible for a universe to exist without light? Light is composed of tiny particles called photons. Do photons have to exist? Obviously not, because there is no light in the deepest oceans and caves. Genesis 1:1-2 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. There was no light when God created the universe, because light does not exist necessarily, then God created light in Genesis 1:3. In Genesis 1:16, God created "ma'owr", which is "a light", a source of light. "ma'owr" can apply to any light source, including the sun and moon. So Genesis 1:3 indicates that God filled the heavens with diffused light, which didn't necessarily have a source or perhaps the source was God. In Genesis 1:16, God created sources for light. In Genesis 1:16, we see the creation of all stars, not just our own. But the word "kowkab" (here translated as star) doesn't just mean stars, it means celestial bodies, which would include moons, stars, planets, comets, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Sat 08/02/08 02:24 PM
|
|
Im still waiting....krimsa looks at her watch. Sorry, it wasn't immediately obvious that you were offering an assertion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sat 08/02/08 02:47 PM
|
|
You dont see the contradiction?
Genesis 1:3-5 (King James Version) King James Version "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Compared to: Genesis 1:14-19 (King James Version) King James Version "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day." I went ahead and actually put the complete Vs. there for member's to read. Aside from photons and your rationalizations for the discrepancy. Can you tell me was it the first day, or the 4th? That is the question. The sun was not created until the 4th day. What gives? Im holding with Abras feeling. It is OUT OF ORDER to some degree. Not to mention that would god (or the respective author(s) have been writing about photons at this time? Would that have been a consideration? Was he expecting these peoples to understand quantum physics so he thought he would just toss it in there? That doenst seem likley spider.... |
|
|
|
|
