6 Literal Days

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've thought about this a lot, 6 days seem just as reasonable to me as any other number to
a God who speaks things into being. There is quiet a bit about scripture that in my opinion
that if you lose the reasons for, like the fall of man into sin, the rest has no meaning so in that
Ken Hamm and I agree. Why would Jesus have to come and die if there were ...[text shortened]... ave us from death it were nothing but a natural part of life.

You didn't answer my questions.

I've thought about this a lot, 6 days seem just as reasonable
to me as any other number to a God who speaks things into being

This is true... The problem is that it is not reasonable to suppose that there is a god or gods who
spoke anything into being.
If such a being exists, then it's just as possible thy could have created the entire universe last Thursday,
and done so with all of us having memories and physical evidence of everything we think happened
before that...
The objection to that is of course that we have absolutely no reason to suppose that any such being/s
actually exist or can possibly exist.

Why would Jesus have to come and die if there were no sin,
and why save us from death it were nothing but a natural part of life.

Again, what you say is not completely unreasonable... Except there is again
no reason to suppose that Jesus ever existed to do any of those things.

The problem is [almost] always that you skip ahead and assume a whole bunch of stuff
is true, and then think about the world from that point.
You are however building castles on the sand [or thin air really].
You need to actually demonstrate that these things you are assuming are
actually true.

And we have not got sufficient evidence [quite the reverse] to demonstrate that
god or Jesus actually exist/ed.

Originally posted by googlefudge

I've thought about this a lot, 6 days seem just as reasonable
to me as any other number to a God who speaks things into being

This is true... The problem is that it is not reasonable to suppose that there is a god or gods who
spoke anything into being.
If such a being exists, then it's just as possible thy could have created the en ...[text shortened]... ot sufficient evidence [quite the reverse] to demonstrate that
god or Jesus actually exist/ed.

If you want to debate the evidence about a last Thursday god, go for it, I think there is more
'evidence' around the God of the OT and NT than that god, but feel free you may find
a believer willing to enter into that discussion with you.

I've been to the place where Jesus walked, been to the place that He was judged and
killed, and rose from the dead, I've been in the country where all of that happen. I don't
have an issue one if someone wants to deny the OT even though many of the people
that were in it have relatives running around the world today shooting at each other.

What foot print do you see in our history for the god of that made everything last
Thursday?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've been to the place where Jesus walked, been to the place that He was judged and
killed, and rose from the dead, I've been in the country where all of that happen. I don't
have an issue one if someone wants to deny the OT even though many of the people
that were in it have relatives running around the world today shooting at each other.

What foot print do you see in our history for the god of that made everything last
Thursday?

Nobody is saying the place/country isn't real, but the fact that the place exists doesn't
prove that Jesus did. Or that any events claimed to have happened actually did.

The only 'evidence' I see is of the actions of believers, followers of religion.

I see absolutely none whatsoever at all in any way shape or form for the object of their
belief/s. [god / Jesus]

There is no evident 'god footprint' in history.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've thought about this a lot, 6 days seem just as reasonable to me as any other number to
a God who speaks things into being. There is quiet a bit about scripture that in my opinion
that if you lose the reasons for, like the fall of man into sin, the rest has no meaning so in that
Ken Hamm and I agree. Why would Jesus have to come and die if there were ...[text shortened]... ave us from death it were nothing but a natural part of life.

You didn't answer my questions.

Why would Jesus have to come and die if there were no sin,
and why save us from death it were nothing but a natural part of life.

So to be a Christian it is essential to promote the notion of sin and the fear of death. Guilt and fear - not very healthy emotions to focus on at the centre of a religion but as you ask, the interesting question is why is Christianity built on this negative and disturbed foundation?

Originally posted by CalJust
Your problem is that you are not even prepared to look at the massive evidence for evolution that anybody here mentions - as I did myself.

Also, I am quite familiar with the so-called scientific discoveries supposedly pointing to a young earth, mostly quoted by AiG. Some are, admittedly, quite interesting, but not one of them counters the basic facts of evolutionary science.

Edit: Why am I even holding this conversation? 😛

It has been said that the gap theory from the 1800's was created to add long periods of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 in order to compromise with the scientific theories of evolution and an old universe. However, it does not really reconcile the Holy Bible with these theories, because they would place the fossil record long before man. And this fossil record shows evidence of death and suffering which seems to contradict the idea that just after man was made the creation was declared very good (Genesis 1:31) and that death was a result of man's sin according to the apostle Paul (Romans 5:12).

Mistranslations and changes in word meaning has also added to the confusion. For example the Hebrew word that means "to fill" was translated "replenish" in the KJV. The word "replenish" did mean "fill' at one time, but not today.

"The Gap Theory" "Theistic Evolution" & "The Day Age Theory" DEBUNKED!

YouTube

Originally posted by finnegan

Why would Jesus have to come and die if there were no sin,
and why save us from death it were nothing but a natural part of life.

So to be a Christian it is essential to promote the notion of sin and the fear of death. Guilt and fear - not very healthy emotions to focus on at the centre of a religion but as you ask, the interesting question is why is Christianity built on this negative and disturbed foundation?

No to be a Christian you need Jesus Christ in your life, nothing more.

If you don't think there is such a thing as sin, so be it. I guess that means that all things that
take place here are just normal actions with none being any more good than the next, or for
that matter evil. Sin in order for it to be real has to have a "supposed to" with man where
we need to be doing the right thing, if there isn't a right thing other than what we want,
then all things we do are right, because that is what we want.

We die, along with ever thing else, if you think that is good and is natural, fine by me.
Yes, the foundation is supposed to be good and right now it is not.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you don't think there is such a thing as sin, so be it. I guess that means that all things that take place here are just normal actions with none being any more good than the next, or for that matter evil.

Do you feel your fear of "sin" the only thing stopping you from doing "evil" things?

Originally posted by KellyJay
No to be a Christian you need Jesus Christ in your life, nothing more.

If you don't think there is such a thing as sin, so be it. I guess that means that all things that
take place here are just normal actions with none being any more good than the next, or for
that matter evil. Sin in order for it to be real has to have a "supposed to" with man where ...[text shortened]... and is natural, fine by me.
Yes, the foundation is supposed to be good and right now it is not.

Sin and morality are not the same thing, even even close to being the same thing.
They are barely overlapping sets.

A sin is a crime against [a] god or gods, a violation of their rules/words/or commands.
It is doing something they do not approve of, sanction, or that they forbid.
Being good or bad [moral judgements] is entirely irrelevant, a sin good be either, or
it could be morally neutral [amoral].

Morality, ethics, this is where you find determinations of good, bad, or indifferent.

And you can have morality without god/s... In fact it's not possible to build a valid
objective moral system based on any god/s.
If there is no god or gods... [and there are none, and atheists believe in none] then
sin is obviously a null concept. There is no point considering whether or not you
are following the rules of a non-existent god or gods. [excepting possibly in terms of
what the believers in this non-existent god might do]
However that doesn't mean that we do not have morals, or that we cannot build a good
moral system and framework.
In point of fact we can build [and have done so] a far better moral code than you can.


AND YOU KNOW THIS ALREADY having posted here for years.

So please stop making such utterly nonsense claims such as this.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sin and morality are not the same thing, even even close to being the same thing.
They are barely overlapping sets.

A sin is a crime against [a] god or gods, a violation of their rules/words/or commands.
It is doing something they do not approve of, sanction, or that they forbid.
Being good or bad [moral judgements] is entirely irrelevant, a sin go ...[text shortened]... aving posted here for years.

So please stop making such utterly nonsense claims such as this.

I didn't say morality did I?
I said sin can only be real if there is a standard by which we fall short, if there isn't a way
we are supposed to act than there can be no sin. If we get to pick and choose to do what
we do, because we want to do it, then all of our actions are simply us doing what is in our
very nature to do just as a lion kills a zebra simply because he wants to eat, we act just
because we want too.

If there is no power above us, we are the power that sets the standards and those will
always change as we change, there can never really be a wrong, because we are always
doing what we want. If there is a power above us that we will answer to, than it does not
matter if we reject it, accept it, we will answer as that power chooses, not us.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If we get to pick and choose to do what we do, because we want to do it, then all of our actions are simply us doing what is in our very nature to do just as a lion kills a zebra simply because he wants to eat, we act just because we want too.

Is this what you think people who don't believe in "sin" do?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I didn't say morality did I?
I said sin can only be real if there is a standard by which we fall short, if there isn't a way
we are supposed to act than there can be no sin. If we get to pick and choose to do what
we do, because we want to do it, then all of our actions are simply us doing what is in our
very nature to do just as a lion kills a zebra si ...[text shortened]... an it does not
matter if we reject it, accept it, we will answer as that power chooses, not us.

sin can only be real if there is a standard by which we fall short,

To start with, the standard in Christianity is not objective or based on ethics. It is entirely concerned with being subject to the arbitrary and unaccountable will of God. Indeed, if there were an objective or ethical basis for this, God would be bound to comply with it, which is blasphemous. Read your Book of Job more carefully before you argue this. God does not accept being bound by any criterion or standard that Man might devise. An excellent illustration of how this works out in practice is in the exposition by Christopher Hitchins of the celebrity saint Mother Theresa.

One of the most salient examples of people's willingness to believe anything if it is garbed in the appearance of holiness is the uncritical acceptance of the idea of Mother Teresa as a saint by people who would normally be thinking - however lazily - in a secular or rational manner. In other words, in every sense it is an unexamined claim.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html

To continue, the point about "sin" is not the need for morality (which is demonstrably not what happens anyway) but the importance of provoking guilt, with which to manipulate people. It is an exercise in power.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've thought about this a lot, 6 days seem just as reasonable to me as any other number to
a God who speaks things into being. There is quiet a bit about scripture that in my opinion
that if you lose the reasons for, like the fall of man into sin, the rest has no meaning so in that
Ken Hamm and I agree. Why would Jesus have to come and die if there were ...[text shortened]... ave us from death it were nothing but a natural part of life.

You didn't answer my questions.

Of course I answered your question: YES, it makes a big difference.

A similar question would be: Does it REALLY matter whether the earth is flat or round?

Ahem, I think it DOES matter...

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sin and morality are not the same thing, even even close to being the same thing.
They are barely overlapping sets.

A sin is a crime against [a] god or gods, a violation of their rules/words/or commands.
It is doing something they do not approve of, sanction, or that they forbid.
Being good or bad [moral judgements] is entirely irrelevant, a sin go ...[text shortened]... aving posted here for years.

So please stop making such utterly nonsense claims such as this.

What gives you the authority to tell someone what they can or cannot post? What about all the nonsense you post?

Originally posted by CalJust
Of course I answered your question: YES, it makes a big difference.

A similar question would be: Does it REALLY matter whether the earth is flat or round?

Ahem, I think it DOES matter...

Why would it be a big deal in your opinion?
Everything would be here as is either way, and you could still would not really know the
difference.

Originally posted by finnegan

sin can only be real if there is a standard by which we fall short,

To start with, the standard in Christianity is not objective or based on ethics. It is entirely concerned with being subject to the arbitrary and unaccountable will of God. Indeed, if there were an objective or ethical basis for this, God would be bound to comply with it, wh ...[text shortened]... the importance of provoking guilt, with which to manipulate people. It is an exercise in power.

If you want to give a lesson on secular humanism feel free.
If there is a (should behave) that is binding to all of us all the time, it cannot come from
us, we change our views on a dime as it suits us, what looks good yesterday does not
today, and odds are what is good today will sour on some tomorrow, we are fickle like
that. A (should have) that is binding to all of us would have to come from a source we
are both responsible too, and under, only One fits that description I'm aware of, and you
are quiet right He is not bound by, or accountable to anything we can do or say.

I again did not bring up the word morality, that is someone else' topic of discussion.
If there is sin, than we are sinners, it is in our nature, if we all feel there is some notion of
right and wrong we are all subject too.