Hi Steve,
Unfortunately my newness to the board, i have no idea how to do quotes from your post and able to post my comment under neither, so please bear with me.
It's easy. Just highlight the text you want in quotes and then click on the "white cloud" next to the smiling face in the tool bar and it will put what you highlighted in a quote. But obviously, that's after the text gets on your page. Thus you must block and copy what you want to quote and then paste that into your new REPLY post. Then you can do as I noted above to make a quote. I'll explain further if that wasn't understandable -- you never know how much computer experience a person has.
"But some things are to be believed in by faith. "
Not so, things that require faith ( look up the definition of faith, are things that run contrary to evidence and logic an reasoning, now as God apparently gave us these tools doesn't it seem strange to them ask us to suspend them. Faith is a trump card that can be played any any religion to justify its dogma,,,,, i.e it requires faith to believe that Mohammad went up to heaven on a white horse. even though some claims a hoof print on a certain temple roof is evidence of this.
It may indeed be a trump card, but I think there is "blind faith" and "faith" that has some foundation. But still, one is required to have faith in some things the Bible says that you are not going to get a video confirmation of. Some people don't believe a thing unless they see it themselves, which excludes everything in the past that happened before they were born. So yes, it could be a trump card for some, but I think that's a wide range. I can't PROVE what Abraham said. The Bible says he said some things. I trust the Bible so have "faith" that it's true. "Faith is not a possesion of all people."
OK next point,
"But it's a moot question now because I've actually had an experience where I spoke with God personally, so I'm sort of out of that loop."
My question is how do you know that wasn't Satan just pretending to be God to fool you into leaving the 'real' religion? and also your claim is echoed by thousands of others in a variety of different religions throughout the world,. a great many claims it to be Allah, so just because someone tells you they are God, doesn't mean that they are. I will concede that the bible does contain some historical evidence, however a Book from a god that created the universe would need to be far different, and certainly the bible when read from a critical standpoint, shows it human failing, in matters of science, geography etc etc, something i would expect the god of the universe being the inventor of those things would be Right on the mark.
You make a good point. But again, it's just my own collective assessment that this is a real god AND the god of the Bible. He had features that were mentioned in the Bible, so there was some consistency. For instance the Bible says God has wooly hair. My god had what we'd call today a "natural", a rather medium-sized rounded one, finely combed. So when I saw that, it registered, "Oh, yeah, hair like 'fine wool' that's how they described it when others saw it. So again, people will question and doubt but I'm convinced it was real and this was the God of the Bible.
OK next issue.
"Eve was made from Adam's rib, so I would say she was a bit closer than a sister. "
Complete statement of faith..period, considering this 'Eve' and bear in mind their is no evidence for a Eden eve, came from Adam which of come again a statement of faith. Yes their is a evidence for a ultimate what is called mtEve eve, but this is not to be confused with the eve of the bible, i would go into detail here but go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html
Aha! You are wanting PROOF before you believe. Jesus said, "“A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking for a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jo´nah the prophet." So I admit there are those who doubt and first want to see some proof before they believe the Bible. Others believe the Bible first and then check to see if there is anything that can absolutely disprove it. So there are two groups. But now, of late, those who first had faith, those thus who had "much" are given "more." The signs that perhaps would convince the nonbelievers are given to those who already believe. That's how it is set up. In fact, God has made it so that even if you knew the details it would be too hard to believe:
" 41 ‘Behold it, YOU scorners, and wonder at it, and vanish away, because I am working a work in YOUR days, a work that YOU will by no means believe even if anyone relates it to YOU in detail.’ ”
I think some people think God owes them some somersaults and magic tricks before they believe the Bible. It's not like. It's more like if you show a tendency to doubt and disbelieve the Bible, especially when no sign beyond the Bible basically is to be given, then God is really just interested in those people who can accommodate the Bible, have faith and then he gives them more confidence that what they believe is true. But for those who reject from the beginning and don't want to believe, God casts them into darkness, leads them to a steep cliff and then Jesus comes up from behind and pushes them over. So while yes, there is an intense effort to gather a certain type of individual into the kingdom and there may need to be some persuasion, there is little interest in another type, the "weeds", the "goats." They are like chaff on the threshing floor which Christ cleans up. So those without the right garments don't get into the kingdom and some that might get in by accident and found lacking are thrown outside.
OK rich dark sailor has nothing to do with adman skin colour, pigmentation and soil colour are apart as far apart as saying fire is hot water ( oilthigh i would say they are probably closer) Are we originally from dust,,well kind of, we are made up of basic compound , hence we are sometimes reference to as carbon life forms.
Adam being MALE and from the EARTH (dark brown) and dominant and Eve being FEMALE and from the bone white bone of Adam is an esoteric reference that Eve was "bone white" and Adam was the color of the earth, red/brown. So you are free to reject that interpretation if you wish. It seems reasonable since genetics breaks down genes into dominant and recessive genes that the male would carry the dominant genes and the female the recessive ones. That's where that comes from.
Your comment about Eve is purely speculative, and actually the blue eye reference is incorrect as all human are start with brown eyes and a error in causes the blue eye effect. So suggesting that would be claiming that God created EVE with errors from day one. http://www.earthlife.net/insects/evolve.html about half way down the page, their are better information resources but from this it gives you an overview of how eye color is determined and why the idea of an Eve with blue eyes is false.
Everybody knows who studies genetics that brown eyes are dominant compared to blue eyes. Brown skin is dominant compared to white skin. It's academic. For instance. If you have one black man and one white man, 200 white women and 200 black women. If the black man marries all the white women, all the children will be mullato. If the white man marries all the black women, all the children will be mullato. The black genes are dominant compared to white. That's what "ethnic cleansing" is all about. The only way a white man can foster a whilte child is with a white woman. Any children he has with any woman other than a white woman will be non-white. A black man will always have black children no matter whom he marries. His children will always be black, no matter what. Blonde hair, pale skin and blue eyes are all considered "recessive" genes compared to dark hair, curly hair or brown eyes. That's just the facts of genetics.
Your comment about incest, sates in effect that morality is relative and if God allows incest one day and out laws it the other, then you have this scenario, Murder is wrong today, but tomorrow if god says its OK , then its no longer wrong.
Well now you're getting philosophical here. Satan likes philosophical arguments. God is defined by the "four living creatures" and Christ has the dominant features of the bull (power/virility) and the man (love), whereas Satan (before he rebelled) carried the primary features of the eagle (wisdom/knowledge) and the Lion (justice/legal issues). So Satan brings up some of the same issues. For instance, in order to get rid of Satan, God decided to just kill everybody, including his primary son, Jesus/Michael. That removes any "legal" issues, because God has a right to limit the lifespan of his gift of life. If he kills everybody, then there is no legal challenge. But Satan didn't like this idea so to mock God, Satan inspired infantacide, where worshippers caused their children to "pass through the fire" just as God made all his children "pass through the fire" as well to test them. This turned out an effective means to get rid of Satan, however, without hearing any long, drawn-out legal and philosophical arguments from Satan, though some were permitted at the time of the "battle in heaven" during which I was present via a vision. But it turns out Satan got tricked. You see, God created man with laws to abide by with the penalty of death for disobedience. But death is a relative thing, just as you brought up "murder". Murder is actually a LEGAL term. Killing someone is the actual act, but whether it is murder or not depends on the circumstances. Killing in self defense is not considered murder. When the state executes someone, it is not considered "murder." At any rate, the penalty of death is a subjective thing as well. Because it is only an incredibly horrid thing if you never come back. But if you come back the next day, it's not that big of a deal, is it? That's how God tricked Satan. Satan was willing to die for his cause, but so was Jesus for God's cause. As long as everybody was going to die, that made Satan happy. But he got tricked because God decided he would bring certain of his favorites back to life, making their death only temporary. So ultimately, it's just a little pain. Like a bruise in the heel. Permanent death is like a bruise in the head of a serpent. By the way, Satan was condemned to death not necessarily because of any of his issues he had against god, perhaps similar to yours where you see God's inconsistencies here and there. It was because no matter what Satan was going through, however unhappy or justified, what excuse was there to extend that to mankind and kill billions of innocent people? None. That's where the line was drawn. Satan was the ultimate hypocrit. He was unwilling to die honorably if that was his philosophical position. No instead, he had to kill others in order to hurt God and Christ, thinking he would force god to be consistent with his own laws. He was. Mankind was condemned to death, but Satan at the same time. Only with the Ransom Sacrifice, all those who might have been granted everlasting life, will have that chance again, regardless of what Satan has done.
That's why really, with this second-chance, God views rather prejudicially at someone who would throw away their own life, seeking to find fault with God and his decisions. So for those, those who are looking at the LEGAL issues, yes God comes through. Ultimately I call that group those who believe that "Might Makes Right." If that's what someone wishes, then fine. God has the power, the ultimate power to follow-up on his moral code, so Might Does Make Right, if one insists. Likewise, the LEGAL premise here is does God have a right to create the universe the way he wants if it's his universe.
It's like you. You buy a house. It's a nice house with a nice yard. You decide you will make a rose garden. So you dig up the earth and find the roses you want to plant in it and make it just as you wish. That's the privilege of owning a home, right? But then what if your neighbor looks over the fence and starts criticizing your choices? Or while you're inside looking at Oprah, comes over and pulls up your roses and puts in some marijuana plants that he likes without your permission. What are you going to do? Say, "Oh, wow! If I had known you didn't like roses I would never have planted them. I see you've planted some weed so I guess I'll just have to accept that." Is that what you would do? I don't think so. That's the legal premise in regard to the universe. Ultimately, whether we like it or not, God has a right to do what he pleases.
But because he also understands freedom of choice increases happiness, he made angels and man free moral agents, so that those who liked his way of running the universe would be happier because they chose that. There is a built-in understanding that there is going to be a failure rate for some. In the heavens that was one-third of the angels. But that was a sacrifice god was willing to make in order that the two-thirds that remained BY CHOICE would be at a higher level of hapiness.
Now technically, someone like Satan would say: That's no real choice! And maybe it's not. But if you are given something that you know already that you would have chosen, then why do you care? The government has sentenced me because of speaking about the Bible. As punishment, I will be sent to Hawaii and made to go to the beach everyday and shop and spend at least $100 every day on the homeless. Oh WOW, what a penalty to pay! I'm a slave! On the other hand, I already had on a Hawaiian shirt and my surf board packed so, I ain't gonna complain. The government then comes to me and says, "hey, we reviewed your case and you can appeal." I say, "Ohhhhh, nooooo, thanks, but no appeal! I think the court were just and I deserve this penalty for what I did! I plead guilty and I'd only repeat my offenses, so send me to Hawaii to get what I deserve!!!" It's great. It is said that true freedom does not exist without responsibility.
This unfortunalty leads you into a paradox about morality and god and it is this
For you. Not for me. And that might be the issue with the one-third of the angels who rebelled. They had issues with this god. I'm sure he was disappointed to some extent, but it's not an issue. God basically acquiesces and says, okay. Create your own universe and do what you want. But in mine, this is what I prefer so I'm just exercising my divine right. Hope you don't mind. But without LIFE, there is nothing. So it's rather nice if one is the sort of person that really likes this particular god and the way he does things. But he's not everybody's cup of tea.
God has the type of personality, if I might just say quite superficially, of someone who will just walk up to you and get involved with your personal business. For instance, you're in a bar, sitting alone drinking your drink, and all of a sudden this extremely gregarious person comes over and starts talking to you, complementing you and starts to get into your personal affairs. Some people hate that type of individual. But I like that type of person with the outgoing personality. I collect people like that in my life. But I'm careful not to mix more than one at the same dinner table. They are the kind of people who have charm and are fun and can't just deal with the people at their own table, but has to be involved with the table next to them. It's starts with a nice compliment, then asking them what they are having, then recommending what to have, while everybody else just sits back in wonderment. But generally feels its entertaining. It might seem entrusive to some, but suddenly, dinner is an event! Some people can't stand people like that, but others don't mind. Now I'm not like that generally, I tend to be shy and quiet but not all the time. I'm the kind of person, for some reason, if we're in Vegas and you hit a jackpot, I come over to experience it with you and congratulate you. That irritates the hell out of some people who didn't ask for that. But some people don't mind and wish you luck! So it DOES depend upon what you like. Satan is this stuck-up, upper class diva kind of person who doesn't want to give you the time of day and would be insulted is approached by someone not invited. Some people have that "common touch" so that everybody, rich or poor, just likes them. But some people who are jealous of that, don't like that type of person and feel they are treading on their space.
Does God say something is wrong because it is wrong or does he say its wrong just because God deems it to be wrong?
It's God's choice. He decides. It's his yard, his universe, his right. So its like a good marriage. It's all in the match-up. Some people who are boring to one is simply amazing and fascinating to another.
Now,
if you say things are wrong because God says so , then morality has no value, because right or wrong can be anything, God changes his mind and all of sudden Murder is OK...or incest. whihc makes morality shallow.
Well, I wouldn't say that. If anything, God is consistent with his own program. Though he does trip up people he doesn't like. So one thing that is important, if you want life, is to find out as much as you can about this god and what he likes and what buttons to avoid for the things he doesn't like.
NOW the claims about perfection again is pure faith statement, no examples in nature exist or any evidence does, so the claims that nearer perfection this wouldn't cause harm is a groundless claim due to the fact that nature doesn't allow it. NOW if you gonna claim that perfection is real, then you need to concede you are believing this against all the evidence and more important because its validates your faith, whihc means your view if no more valid that that of a buddhist or pagan.
I have supernatural proof that my god is real: This is the "sign of the son of man" that appears to the anointed. God displayed this to a skyscape photographer so I'd have a photo of it. If a Budhist or Catholic came up with something like this, I'd be impressed.
I have no doubt my god is real and the god of the Bible. This imagery relates to things in the Bible.
One final point on this matter, your statement as the laws were not in place, i would understand from that that this is reference to the exodus commandants not being given at this time, if so my comment would be, did that mean before the 10 commandments murder, rape and incest were something that were permitted by God?
ROFL! Where did murder and rape come in? I don't think rape was ever permitted by God and certainly the wrongness of murder were established when Cain killed Abel. So we are just talking about incest in the early times when the human family first started. God permitted incest at that time, but not later. But God's laws do change with the circumstances. For instance, once the world has reached population zero, obviously because people will not die, then there will be no need for marriage, no need for children. But also no need for the indiviual sexes. So while women are consider the "weaker vessel" compared to men, eventually everyone will be like the angels, being androgynous, with both sexes. And with no fidelity issues for marriage, you can have sex with whomever you want on the planet, every single individual. So laws against adultery will be banished, and since everybody will have the same sex, obviously everybody will be homosexual. See how that works? It's going to be a great time to be had by one and all!
So my final points about DNA, sorry i was a little vague, but here is the issue about the records in our DNA, from the gnome project and extended project since a DNA map of our origin has been laid out
National geographic march 2006 DNA linking to every human in the earth can be traced back to central Africa as you know, now are their some tribes there that although have been isolated from civilisation until now, are shown o be are ancestors and their are the same, (their is a video of a documentary on your tube, although cant find the reference which i will post which explains this in great detail from the leads scientist in this project)
Now if Noah had restarted the human race ( and his sons) what would we expect to find in our DNA well, a areas close to where the ark rested of people sharing DNA that is present is all living humans, but this is not the case, you need to travel much further into Africa and more importantly much further back in time. i will try and find the NG march 2006 on line for you to read, i only have it in written form , although i would be happy to photocopy it for you and send them to you. Also again you statement about in never rained before the flood again
Yes, I would like to look at the information just out of curiosity. But obviously, certain presumptions are being made that don't fit the historical scenario presented in the Bible. So usually that means there is some unseen error the scientists are making or there are exceptions they can't see around. So it won't go that far. My position would be to look for an obvious explanation and suggest the theory be revised to accommodate what actually happened (what I believe actually happened). But I would like to see what information is there. But obviously, the anomalies or differences might have a very natural explanation. I wouldn't know.
is a statement that is faith based, the evidence opposes this completely, that as well as the suggested water canopy http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH310.html
First of all, tropical plants found under the artic ice is all the evidence needed to substantiate the canopy. My position is that it was solid ice and created sort of a glass bubble around the earth. There would be no pressure issues involved. Here's what your article noted:
- A vapor canopy with more than twelve inches of precipitable water would raise the temperature of the earth above boiling (Morton 1979). A vapor canopy of only four inches of water would raise the temperature of the earth to 144 degrees F. It is worth noting that several prominent creationists agree with this conclusion, yet their close colleagues continue to teach that there was a vapor canopy (Morton 2000).
- A vapor canopy capable of producing the global flood would have increased earth's atmospheric pressure from 15 PSI to 970 PSI.
- Some creationists try to solve the vapor canopy problems by moving the canopy out of the earth's atmosphere and into orbit. A canopy of orbiting ice would have been unstable (it could only exist in a ring much like Saturn's). It would have cooled the climate (probably just slightly) until it somehow collapsed to cause the flood. Then the release of its gravitational potential energy would have converted all the ice into superheated steam, not into a flood.
#1 and #2 are eliminated because the canopy was ice, so we need only to deal with #3. It says the ice would have been "unstable" but there is not enough specific information about how it was formed to make that presumption. He also suggests one scenario of some. My scenario is that it was solid ice, clear, that would let the sunlight through, and created the same effect as a greenhouse. From the time Noah entered the ark there were seven days before the rains started. I believe that the ice was being superheated at this time and formed rain clouds, think. Thus it was completely dark by the time it started raining. The clouds were think enough to rain for 40 days and 40 nights with enough water to cover the tops of the then known mountains. Whether they were as high as our current ones are not, I don't know. But the tallest mountain peak in the world is under water, even now. So we just don't know enough details. After the flood, the Bible says "winds" were used to help dissipate the water. That could include water spouts that funneled the excess water into outer space. And we know from comets that there is water in outer space because they are covered with ice. Again, as I noted, the tropical plants found under the ice in the artic is consistent with the earth being a tropical place all over which is consistent with the canopy.
As so far as your statement about being anointed and have spoken to god, doesn't it concern you that so many other claims exactly the same but with different Gods, and let they all believe to the point of death some of them that their experience is true and their god is the only true God.
Not really. What I have going for me, besides the physical evidence above for the "sign of the son of man", which is not just something that happened that I think was supernatural, but is mentioned in the Bible, but also the Bible itself and Bible chronology relates that these things would happen in our time. We are in a very unique time in Bible history. For instance, you may have heard of the 70 weeks. 70 weeks is 490 years. If you make up a week of 70 weeks, you'll have seven days that are 490 years each. So in a 3430-year period, you'll have a 7th-70th week. That is, you have one 70th week for each of the seven 490-year periods, but the 7th, which would be a repeat of the theme of sevens, occurs only once in 3430 years. Well the pattern of 70 weeks is FIXED, with the third day of this week being from 455BCE to 36CE, the 70 weeks related to the first coming. IF that is the third day, then the entire week would begin in 1435BCE, but it would end in 1996! So the 7th-70th week of this week is from 1989-1996. So if God starts talking to people during this week, especially in line with some things that are supposed to be happening at this time, then it adds to a person's personal belief that this is credible. 3430 years earlier takes you back to the time of Moses.
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/jcovwk1996G.GIF The Jewish Covenant Week Chart.
MY final comment about your post, and firstly let me thank you for spending the time is this:
Many claim to see Elvis on a daily basis, we tend to lock them up, why?
Because they are likely hallucinating, that's why. But in the case of God, some people look out and see the stars and know from that that there must be a god since they see intelligent design and a "BIG BANG" accident just seems less likely to them. Since the Bible's gives an explanation of what we see today, the plants and animals and man, etc. There is reason to consider it might be God's book. It's a judgment call, but for me personally, I have more reason to believe the Bible is true than simply a book of stories of the Jewish people that has no basis in truth. But on that point, even if Armageddon came, which is prophesied in the Bible, you still could claim that nothing in the Bible is true, since Armageddon wouldn't really PROVE that Adam and Eve ever existed. But it would add credibility to the story.
The light is something many in all different beliefs see, and to statement that yours is the correct ones is groundless as all the other claims the same, now, think of it this way, God in the OT ordered the death of over 2.5 million people, for his people and his nation, a nation that he no longer cares about, so all those people died in vain. God in the OT had no problems killing children ( a quick read of Lev,deut & number ). SO if you want to service a god that i Happy to create you then visit the mistake of your forefather's on you time and again (i.,e Adam) i would hope you don't punish your children's children for the father mistakes, and if you don't, does that make you more moral that the God you serve?
Your take on this is interesting. But in God's defense as far the the legal premise. Yes God does bring the error of the parents on the children, but that rule was necessary to apply the Ransom Sacrifice. Thus though through one man all mankind had sinned, it would only take the death of one righteous man to correct that. So while we inherit sin from Adam, we inherit a second chance by Christ's death. If God did not bring the sin upon the children, he could not save them through the Ransom Sacrifice. So you have a choice. To bring the error of the parents onto the children and let all 20 billion children of Adam die without a chance. Or create a rule that connects the error of the father to the children and save them through the ransom sacrifice? As I said, in this way, only one perfect man had to die and give up his right to have his own children and adopt Adam's to save mankind. But that is not possible until the error of the parent is applied to the children. Even the Holocaust mimics what the Jewis women were doing thousands of years ago. They were burning children alive so a time would come when their children in the distant future would experience the same thing. So the message there is that if God would do this to his own people, the Jews, then certainly he's not going to give the gentile rebels any slack. He starts with his own house first and works outward. So the wrath of God is coming and it is a sure thing, just as sure as the holocaust was long ago prophesied.
I did believe, I was a regular pioneer for many years, and did as i was told and stay away from anything that could damage my faith. Then I saw a gaping whole in the entire biblical story and the more i looked into it the bigger it came. .
Again thanks for taking the time to post, and sorry i can't do that clever thing with including your posts in my post...i will learn!..lol
regards
I didn't realize you were a pioneer! Wow! So was I at one point. So I know about that. I can understand your doubts and all that and I don't have much of an answer other than the closer we get to Armageddon the more things the Bible says will affect people on a global level. Right now things are happening in a focussed way with the anointed, with the Jews and with Jehovah's witnesses, but that will expand. Soon Babylon the Great will be affected and that will involve the destruction of all the organized religions, and then after that the political entities ruling today will be destroyed and Christ's kingdom will take over. Now if that really happened, I think most people would not question anything that's in the Bible. But it's great if you can believe before that. I'm glad I'm one who was able to have faith. But I'm quite curious and skeptical in the opposite direction. Just as you doubt the Bible, I doubt anything that is contrary to the Bible, including often mistaken scientists and their theories.
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate understanding your point of view. I'm sure you represent a certain demographic out there. A sort of skeptical and frustrated demongraphic trying to sort out everything. It's not easy. But I wouldn't give up hope or close my eyes. Just keep on the watch and don't go to sleep. Our times are too urgent!
JCanon
