"The Ten Commandments" some are pretty good. Law of the land? What do you think?

[melon]

To say to burn it is callous and offensive to those people.

Considering I was writing to an audience of Christians here, it didn't cross my mind. And, of course, it was more of a metaphor than an actual incitement to combustion.

So, to prevent a diversion, I apologize to any Jews who might find that statement to be offensive.

Melon

 

[womanfish]

I know where you are coming from, by my religious past is rooted in that. I no longer am an "old testament guy" but I know there are those people out there. Does it make the most sense to me? Not really, but there are a lot of religions out there that don't make a lot of sense to me. It doesn't invalidate them.

______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President

 

[stagman]

Hang on guys...please don't ignore the Old Testament. It's the Foundation of Christian belief! Once you take away the foundation, whatever you are left with is not so strong anymore.
The biggest threat against the bible's foundation is Evolution.
If you start to disregared the first 10 Chapters of Genisis then Evolution is too easy to accept.

Anyways there are some highly interesting stories in the Old testament that apply to today.... My favorite being the story of Daniel

 

[deep]

are you are talking about the lion's den?



they tried a reenactment in the region recently
and it did not turn out so good for the lion this time.

 

[pub crawler]

Hang on guys...please don't ignore the Old Testament. It's the Foundation of Christian belief!

Oh really? How so?

 

[stagman]

Because Christ was phrophecied in the old testament. sorry can't spell at the moment

Many old testament prophecies were fulfilled while Christ was on Earth. There are many referances to the old testament in the new testament. If you don't believe Abraham or Moses or King David or Daniel then what's the point.... how can you then believe in the reserection??!
You'll end up believing that Jesus was just a plain person who died, created a cult following and nothing else.

There is so much more to Daniel than the Lions den too!!
Infact that book has just as many end time prochicies as Revelation.

If you deny the fall of Adam and Eve, then what would your belief of sin be??

 

[melon]

Hang on guys...please don't ignore the Old Testament. It's the Foundation of Christian belief! Once you take away the foundation, whatever you are left with is not so strong anymore.
The biggest threat against the bible's foundation is Evolution.
If you start to disregared the first 10 Chapters of Genisis then Evolution is too easy to accept.

The early Church fathers considered throwing out the entire Old Testament, because they believed that Jesus was the fulfillment of it. They kept it, however, because they realized that the New Testament alluded to it, so its main purpose, to them, was for historical context. The crux of morality is supposed to come from the New Testament, and St. Paul would be spinning in his tomb, if he realized that we were putting Jesus' commandment, "Love one another," subordinate to the Ten Commandments.

Secondly, your argument in support of creationism is precisely why most rational people feel thrown out of Christianity. There are plenty of people who believe that the creation myths were merely metaphors and that evolution was initiated by God. Those who cry the loudest against evolution, I think, are the greatest purveyors of false prophetry. After all, what's more important: loving one another or having a stance on creationism or evolution? It seems like the latter certainly gets more attention, merely because loving one another would put a crimp on their homophobic tirades.

Melon

 

[melon]

If you deny the fall of Adam and Eve, then what would your belief of sin be??

The inevitable outcome of free will. If we are not as free to choose evil as we are free to choose good, then we do not have free will.

I'd also beware of supposed "end time prophesies." Keep in mind that, in interpreting the Old Testament literally, the Pharisees expected a warrior Messiah who would vanquish their enemies and exult them as the greatest material "kingdom" on Earth. As we can see, Jesus certainly did not meet their expectations.

So, rather than learn from the Pharisees mistakes, how do we expect Jesus' Second Coming? A warrior Messiah who will come down from Heaven to vanquish our enemies and exult His believers to create a "Heaven on Earth." So if Jesus returns and equally doesn't meet our expectations, I'm sure that He'll be equally rejected by the religious mainstream, merely because He won't be violent and hateful enough for them.

Melon

 

[pub crawler]

Originally posted by stagman
Hang on guys...please don't ignore the Old Testament. It's the Foundation of Christian belief!

Originally posted by pub crawler
Oh really? How so?

Because Christ was phrophecied in the old testament...

Many old testament prophecies were fulfilled while Christ was on Earth. There are many referances to the old testament in the new testament.

Yes and, unfortunately, many Christians curiously seem to ignore or place less importance on Jesus' words than they do the stories and the Law of the Old Testament. They abuse the O.T. I have heard MANY Christians use the saying 'an eye for an eye' as justification for revenge while ignoring Christ's dismissal of that particular saying. I'm not saying you do that, but many Christians do. That is where I have a problem with saying the Old Testament is "the foundation of Christian Belief." The sayings and actions of Christ are the foundation of Christian belief.

If you don't believe Abraham or Moses or King David or Daniel then what's the point.... how can you then believe in the reserection??!
You'll end up believing that Jesus was just a plain person who died, created a cult following and nothing else.

I don't subscribe to most literal interpretations of the Bible but I do try to follow the sayings of Jesus, to some extent anyway.

There is so much more to Daniel than the Lions den too!!
Infact that book has just as many end time prochicies as Revelation.

The interpretations of the so-called "end time prophecies" of the book of Revelation are nothing more than speculation. I don't believe in the Evangelical Church's notion of the meaning of the so-called "end time prophecies."

If you deny the fall of Adam and Eve, then what would your belief of sin be??

"Sin" is our darker nature. Said darker nature exists regardless of the story of Adam and Eve.


*edited for typo

 

[stagman]

You're absolutley right, the Religous mainstream will ignore Christ's second coming. Many people have been and will be fooled by false teaching.
Loving one another is very,very important, but you must also be right with god yourself. If you ignore his word (that does include "7 day Creation" and "The Fall") then you are dishonouring him. Your own relationship with god can end up being meaningless if your not carefull.

When I get the time I will go into the truths of Creation and the Lies of Evolution. Can you really believe Evolution?? They change their thoeries every month. They've created their own religion or cult.



That Eye for an Eye quote... I hate when scripture is taken out of context.

I'm Evangelical. I believe those of us that know Jesus should be sharing the word of God to anyone we can.
That is the crux of being a so called Evangelical.

So, where did this dark nature come from???

It's gettin to late for this.. i gotta go to bed.

 

[nbcrusader]

The inevitable outcome of free will. If we are not as free to choose evil as we are free to choose good, then we do not have free will.

We are incapable of choosing good all the time. That is the price of sin.

"There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23



A discussion of eschatology would be interesting.

 

[womanfish]

You're absolutley right, the Religous mainstream will ignore Christ's second coming. Many people have been and will be fooled by false teaching.
Loving one another is very,very important, but you must also be right with god yourself. If you ignore his word (that does include "7 day Creation" and "The Fall") then you are dishonouring him. Your own relationship with god can end up being meaningless if your not carefull.

When I get the time I will go into the truths of Creation and the Lies of Evolution. Can you really believe Evolution?? They change their thoeries every month. They've created their own religion or cult.



That Eye for an Eye quote... I hate when scripture is taken out of context.

I'm Evangelical. I believe those of us that know Jesus should be sharing the word of God to anyone we can.
That is the crux of being a so called Evangelical.

So, where did this dark nature come from???

It's gettin to late for this.. i gotta go to bed.

Bring on another reason for me to turn further away from organized religion. I really feel sorry for people who state their small religous belief system as if it were the one and only truth. Wake up, travel the world, open your eyes and your mind, study OTHER people's cultures, OTHER people's religions, OTHER people's beliefs and embrace the bigger picture of what "religion" and "belief" is for everyone on this planet - a longing for belonging and support through something bigger than themselves.

IMO, regailing us with what your personal view is of the "myths of evolution" brings no one any closer to the true meaning of what Christianity is (which I assume is your purpose), which is to do good to others. Most people I know that do go out and "evangelize" go about it so backwards and negativly that it's effect is usually degrading, belittling and just plain irritating to the people they are trying to attract. I'm not saying this applies to you stagman, but it's been my overall experience.

______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President

 

[nbcrusader]

Bring on another reason for me to turn further away from organized religion. I really feel sorry for people who state their small religous belief system as if it were the one and only truth. Wake up, travel the world, open your eyes and your mind, study OTHER people's cultures, OTHER people's religions, OTHER people's beliefs and embrace the bigger picture of what "religion" and "belief" is for everyone on this planet - a longing for belonging and support through something bigger than themselves.

These are not mutually exclusive. I believe it is very important to understand other faiths and their tenets.

What should someone do, however, when his or her God or god states explicitly (or implies) exclusivity? Should they reject their faith or is it reasonable to allow them to follow their faith?

 

[womanfish]

I understand that.

You can follow your faith, but not ignore everyone elses. The problem being, when you state yours as "the truth" and others as just some flights of fancy, it totally invalidates the other persons belief system. I have my set of spiritual beliefs. But i know I have them because they work for me, not because they are some divine truth that is better than everyone elses.

______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President

 

[melon]

Loving one another is very,very important, but you must also be right with god yourself. If you ignore his word (that does include "7 day Creation" and "The Fall") then you are dishonouring him. Your own relationship with god can end up being meaningless if your not carefull.

You're entitled to your opinion, but that's it...your opinion. Evangelical sects believe that about "ignoring His word"; not all of Christianity does. But I also know how "evangelical" sects operate, as in trying to monopolize Christianity and try and say that everyone who doesn't agree with their interpretation of Christianity is evil. Well, frankly, evangelical Christians weren't the first Christians nor will they be the last...and nor do I think they are correct. Period. But, as I have said, you're certainly entitled to your beliefs.

When I get the time I will go into the truths of Creation and the Lies of Evolution. Can you really believe Evolution?? They change their thoeries every month. They've created their own religion or cult.

No, a "religion or cult" has fixed beliefs that are immovable and forced upon its believers, no matter how preposterous they are and no matter how much these beliefs are disproven. A scientific theory, by nature, changes and evolves, according to scientific evidence. Parts of the scientific theory that are disproven are thus altered.

Literal creationism is about as preposterous and disproven as it gets, but I do believe that God certainly had His hand at creation...through evolution.

I'm Evangelical. I believe those of us that know Jesus should be sharing the word of God to anyone we can.
That is the crux of being a so called Evangelical.

I'm Melon. I share the Word of God as well. It usually causes arguments in here, but I hope no one takes it personally.

Melon

 

[stagman]

Ok bear with me, I'll ramble on about a few topics..

The following is from Creation magazine.

Stick Insect Research Upsets one of Evolutionists long-held beliefs.

Evolution is not meant to run in reverse - at least, this is a basic principle of evolution that is widely accepted. Evolutionists believe that complex genetic instructions, once encoded in a creatures DNA (by natural selection of random mutations), are unlikely to be undone, even less likely to be regained later on. A recent report on stick insects in the prestigious journal "Nature" is forcing evolutionists to rethink this fundamental belief.
Today's stick insects (or phasmids, as scientists call them) show great variations; eg. some have wings and some do not. The conventional idea holds that a winged stick insect ancestor gave rise to different groups of winged stick insects, with many of these later evolving to a wingless condition. From their studies of DNA in 59 stick insect species, the authors of this latest research came to a completley different conclusion: wings were lost in a "primitive" ancestor of stick insects, reappeared at least four times (independently), then were lost yet again on two more occasions!
So these exquisitely complex structures we call wings (not to mention the associated muscles, ligaments and nervous control systems) are now said to have evolved, devolved and "re-evolved" several times. Moreover, these ups and downs in the evolution of insect flight allegedly spanned 300 million years, with periods of winglessness lasting upto 100 million years. No wonder that this "re-evolution" in evolutionary thinking is being described as a "revolution"! Genetic information for wings, no longer serving any selective purpose, should be lost and/or should degenerate through disuse by virtue of mutations.
Aware of this, the authors speculate that the instructions for wings were somehow linked to those for legs, so they could be switched on again later. Shoe-horned by their unquestioning belief in evolution, they fail to question whether these non-functioning genes could really have existed for so long!
Of course, this demonstrates just how 'plastic' evolutionary theory is, as contradictory data are turned into evidence FOR THEORY! As stated in precious articles, a loss of information (wings in this case) is not evolution, which would require NEW information. Switching on existing information (even if this had occured) would not explain where those instructions for making wings came from in the first place.

 

[stagman]

A small note on Fossils:

The neo-Darwinian model requires that every one of the groups has descended from a single, unidentified, small land mammal. Huge numbers of intermediate species in the direct line of transition would have had to exist, but the fossil record fails to reveal any of them. Of all the thousands upon thousands of intermediates that should exist, a mere handful of questionable examples such as the ?mammal-like reptiles? for the mammals, and Archaeopteryx for the birds ? are held forth as ?proof?.

I mean how do evolutionists sleep at night knowing this sort of thing?
Can anyone come up with an explanation for the above, other than creation??

 

[stagman]

The following part of text taken from a reply to an Evolutionary finding about the Law of Thermodynamics.

It may help give an answer of how things started. From Nothing or from God. I know Melon and Co probably believe that God started off the evolutionary process, but really why would he?
Just so some bunch of intelectuals could be happy with some amazing long plan. He gave his word in Genisis just the same as he did in any book of the New Testament.
We don't really need to understand what happened, we just need to have faith! Faith in his Power. Power of Love. Power of Forgiveness and Grace. Power of Life. Power of Creation.

The growth of a child from an embryo, or a plant from a seed, does not contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics because all the information required for this process is present in the genomic ?blueprint?. This, with the cellular machinery to harness energy, causes the formation of the complex organism, just as an automobile is made in a factory by machines which direct energy (with information) to construct a car. The machinery in the living cells drives the living organism to grow, directing energy to do it. Energy will not produce specified complexity unless it is harnessed by a machine to do so. Energy + matter alone will not produce a machine, or a cell. It needs information (a blueprint) and machinery to direct energy to arrange matter according to the information. And such information comes from intelligence, not energy and matter.

 

[BVS]

I'm not sure how we got into this subject again. This thread was about the Ten Commandments. There was a pretty good debate awhile back in this forum. You could run a search and take a look at where people in this forum stand.

 

[womanfish]

A bit off topic and just to throw this out there. Creationists believe that the world is life is only about 5 to 6, 000 years old. Now tell me how THEY can sleep at night believing this??

 

[nbcrusader]

A bit off topic and just to throw this out there. Creationists believe that the world is life is only about 5 to 6, 000 years old. Now tell me how THEY can sleep at night believing this??

Only a very narrow group of creationists follow a "young earth" doctrine. My guess is that they can sleep at night believing it is not beyond God's power to create the appearance of an old earth (i.e., where carbon dating suggests hundreds of thousands of years). But that's just my guess.

 

[womanfish]

So Stagman's assumption that Creationist all believe the same thing and are consistent and unchanging and Evolutionists are full of crap because they change theories and models as they learn is indeed false. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[nbcrusader]

Satan has managed to create schisms in Christianity since its inception.

 

[womanfish]

Satan has managed to create schisms in Christianity since its inception.

Uhhhhh... yeah.....
anyway

I'm not saying I don't believe in creation. I just think it's much more logical that evolution was part of God's plan of creation, than say, God's plan to "create the appearance of an old earth"

 

[melon]

Satan has managed to create schisms in Christianity since its inception.

Uniformity only leads to tyranny. Schisms are the only thing that have prevented Christianity from formally killing itself. Democracy, for instance, would never have existed.

Melon

 

[melon]

I know Melon and Co probably believe that God started off the evolutionary process, but really why would he?
Just so some bunch of intelectuals could be happy with some amazing long plan.

Quite honestly, why not? In revealing the order of the universe, what seems like "chaos" operates under an incredibly intricate structure. When I see the beauty of this seeming chaos, then I see the power of a God. Maybe it is a sort of beauty that only an intellectual could love, but, IMO, the seven day theory is far too simplistic.

Aesthetics aside, there is no evidence for creationism and any supposed "evidence" for creationism is in the realm of pseudoscience. If the Bible never existed, creationism would be considered as much of a myth as the Japanese phallic creation myths.

Melon