• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Question for all religions on here

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Yes, the "days" are symbolic, theological language, for events. Seven being
the symbol of completeness.
Likewise Jesus is often called the "lamb of God", but that's just similar language.

Genesis doesn't mention the Decan Traps or the Mexican meteorite either - nor
the Neanderthals, the Ming Dynasty, the Aztecs, DNA, viruses, quasars, how
the heart works, Egyptian hieroglyphics of the mystery of the crystal skulls.
That's not the purpose of Genesis. Bringing any of these up serves the sole
purpose of muddying the waters.

Your muddying the waters to justify a religious agena. A few severely stretched interpretive similarities from ancient texts, which is true for ALL ancient texts does not give Genesis any scientific credibility.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Your muddying the waters to justify a religious agena. A few severely stretched interpretive similarities from ancient texts, which is true for ALL ancient texts does not give Genesis any scientific credibility.

True. What you need to do is ask
1 - how true is this?
2 - what's the chances of getting all this right?
3 - how close do other religious texts come to this?

It's interesting that the Shunyadragons of past generations openly mocked the bible
for such verses as stating God commanded the waters to bring forth life - so mockery
has been a staple for a long long time.

I myself, going back to the 1980's felt that the first Genesis account wasn't credible
as the early earth was molten, and then bone dry. And (before NASA and the Titan
mission) the earth was never a cloud planet. And life came from the sea first etc..
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Why is it important?

Because it has a message about people who enjoy the good things of this
life and care little about the life to come, or the lives of other people. Jesus
spoke several times about people who have their reward - already, for things
they do or enjoy. And are not entitled to any reward from God.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Absolutely no as previously documented with references.
Bogus unethical dishonest science without references. Mid ocean ridges and coastal regions with volcanics have been always been highly concentrated chemical environments today as billions of years ago.
There has been tidal zones since the time life is known to have formed and mid ocean ridges .existed. The evidence is clear as long as the moon existed and oceans existed there has been tidal zones. There is factual objective verifiable evidence of tidal zones and mid ocean rides at the time life has been found in the geologic strat billions of years ago.
What you lack entirely is scientific references to support your assertions based on a religious agenda. Nthing cited so far.
Yes there is no evidence of global Tsunamis, an no evidence of "strange matter" punching through the earth and orbiting the earth's core, and no scientific references cited documented your ridiculous claims.
No scientific references to support these assertions. There is objective verifiable evidence that ice ages have existed through out the history of the earth, and huge impacts of many meteorites all over the globe at different ages over the past billions of years. The huge deposits of Basalt are evidence of the volcanism of the Decan trapes
Then you continue to live the life of ancient monasteries rejecting science for ancient worldview not supported by the evidence.
Need some scientific references, which you have never cited.

Just two points. Tidal zones and organics.
My understanding is that the term "tidal zone" means an area that experiences the tides.
When there was no landfall there were tides, and quite strong ones given the proximity
of the moon to earth, but no "tidal zones."
Tides would just be a bulge in the dark, sterile, global ocean.
Life emerging in mid ocean ridges has gone out of favor, for the reasons I gave above.
A key part of life organics is "concentration" and drying does this quite well. It's the new
theory.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Because it has a message about people who enjoy the good things of this
life and care little about the life to come, or the lives of other people. Jesus
spoke several times about people who have their reward - already, for things
they do or enjoy. And are not entitled to any reward from God.
Well, you got that wrong.
Jesus and the Baptist had one and the same mission, against priesthood and temple corruption. It was all about care and justice on their world, for their folks.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS (Luke 16) IS NOT A PARABLE

This website says the story of lazarus and the rich man is NOT a parable.I lean more to the jehovah witness religion so I believe it IS a parable.What do you think?Do you believe this website backs up the idea of it not being a parable or not?

Which of the four points on that website do you disbelieve, and why?

At issue here, is how JW friends "go with what our religion teaches" rather than examine a truth claim in the light of Bible teaching.
 

David1967

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
...and David1967 I find that Scripture agrees with you because of Jesus' words found at Matthew 13:34.
KJV says, ' All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them.'
Mark 4:34 continues with without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they (Jesus and his disciples) were alone he expounded all thing to his disciples - see also Matthew 13:36.

So, what was real, a real happening is what occurred at John 11:11-14.
Whereas, Luke 16 is a parable or illustration story.

I think (and no offense intended here at all) that some with a more fundamentalist mindset like the idea of it being a real event because it illustrates a place of fiery torture.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Just two points. Tidal zones and organics.
My understanding is that the term "tidal zone" means an area that experiences the tides.
When there was no landfall there were tides, and quite strong ones given the proximity
of the moon to earth, but no "tidal zones."
Tides would just be a bulge in the dark, sterile, global ocean.

First neither tidal zones with volcanics, nor mid ocean ridges are sterile environments in fact. We still have very fertile volcanic hydrothermals on land in tidal zones and at mid ocean ridges.

Life emerging in mid ocean ridges has gone out of favor, for the reasons I gave above.
A key part of life organics is "concentration" and drying does this quite well. It's the new
theory.

No it is not, the mid ocean ridges are now on of the dominant possible environments. Concentration of nutrient hydrothermal vents is not problem for the waters arising from mid ocean ridges and volcanics. HydrothermaI vents on land, tidal zones and mid ocean ridges are candidates, and the source is not yet determined. I have provided sources in the past that proved you wrong, and you ignored them.

I believe I have cited this reference before, and I will cite more again, again and again . . .

For beginning: Life's Origins by Land or Sea? Debate Gets Hot

"The question ‘How did life begin?’ is closely linked to the question ‘Where did life begin?’ Most experts agree over ‘when’: 3.8–4 billion years ago. But there is still no consensus as to the environment that could have fostered this event. Since their discovery, deep sea hydrothermal vents have been suggested as the birthplace of life, particularly alkaline vents, like those found at ‘the Lost City’ field in the mid-Atlantic. But not everyone is convinced that life started in the sea – many say the chemistry just won’t work and are looking for a land-based birthplace. With several hypotheses in play, the race is on to replicate the conditions that allowed life to emerge."
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
True. What you need to do is ask
1 - how true is this?
2 - what's the chances of getting all this right?
3 - how close do other religious texts come to this?

All this is not right, including the description in Genesis of the order of Creation of life.

The interpretations of all ancient scriptures is not science, and actually none of the ancient scriptures come up with contemporary science.

It's interesting that the Shunyadragon's of past generations openly mocked the bible
for such verses as stating God commanded the waters to bring forth life - so mockery
has been a staple for a long long time.

I have not mocked anything. I just object to the misuse of I believe by the evidence you are mocking science. and misusing scripture to justify your beliefs.

I myself, going back to the 1980's felt that the first Genesis account wasn't credible
as the early earth was molten, and then bone dry. And (before NASA and the Titan
mission) the earth was never a cloud planet. And life came from the sea first etc..

You were more correct in the 1980's and you have been going down hill ever since.
 
Last edited:

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Well, you got that wrong.
Jesus and the Baptist had one and the same mission, against priesthood and temple corruption. It was all about care and justice on their world, for their folks.

Am I wrong? You are agreeing with me, no?
Jesus said of the rich man that he had ALREADY RECEIVED HIS REWARD,
that is, the reward of the good life in this world.

Jesus and John were not focused upon temple corruption - you could clean
up the temple and it still wouldn't change the fact there was to be no further
temple worship - God doesn't dwell in temples, Jesus said.
They weren't "against" the priesthood - the priesthood was from the Old
Testament teachings. They preached the New Covenant where Christ is
our great high priest.
So a perfect temple, perfect priesthood would still not be acceptable.

The Gospel isn't about justice per se. Jesus wasn't some Social Justice
Warrior. His kingdom is not of this world.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
First neither tidal zones with volcanics, nor mid ocean ridges are sterile environments in fact. We still have very fertile volcanics arrising



No it is not, the mid ocean ridges are now on of the dominant possible environments. Concentration of nutrient hydrothermal vents is not problem for the waters arising from mid ocean ridges and volcanics. HydrothermaI vents on land, tidal zones and mid ocean ridges are candidates, and the source is not yet determined. I have provided sources in the past that proved you wrong, and you ignored them.

I believe I have cited this reference before, and I will cite more again, again and again . . .

For beginning: Life's Origins by Land or Sea? Debate Gets Hot

"The question ‘How did life begin?’ is closely linked to the question ‘Where did life begin?’ Most experts agree over ‘when’: 3.8–4 billion years ago. But there is still no consensus as to the environment that could have fostered this event. Since their discovery, deep sea hydrothermal vents have been suggested as the birthplace of life, particularly alkaline vents, like those found at ‘the Lost City’ field in the mid-Atlantic. But not everyone is convinced that life started in the sea – many say the chemistry just won’t work and are looking for a land-based birthplace. With several hypotheses in play, the race is on to replicate the conditions that allowed life to emerge."

Take it from me, if you will. There's an understanding that cell membranes won't develop in saline
conditions, and organics cannot concentrate in ocean water. Hydrothermals can provide nutrients,
but that's not life. Organics are not life either.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
The interpretations of all ancient scriptures is not science, and actually none of the ancient scriptures come up with contemporary science.
I have not mocked anything. I just object to the misuse of I believe by the evidence you are mocking science. and misusing scripture to justify your beliefs.
You were more correct in the 1980's and you have been going down hill ever since.

Genesis - earth was dark and oceanic at one stage
Science - earth was an ocean and cloud planet

Genesis - God said let there be light
Science - earth's organic haze cleared and atmosphere became transparent

Genesis - God separated the land from the sea
Science - the granite continents rose above the water line

Genesis - God commanded the earth to bring forth life
Science - life emerged from fresh water environment

Genesis - God commanded the sea to bring forth life
Science - the sea became the cradle of much of earth's life

Genesis - God created man
Science - man arrived only 200,000 or so years ago.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Am I wrong? You are agreeing with me, no?
Not agreeing. See below.....

Jesus and John were not focused upon temple corruption -
Why do think John and Jesus were 'cleansing and redeeming' folks in the river and then sending them on home with their hard earned money still in their bags?
Why do you think Antipas was ordered to arrest them all?

you could clean
up the temple and it still wouldn't change the fact there was to be no further
temple worship - God doesn't dwell in temples, Jesus said.
They weren't "against" the priesthood - the priesthood was from the Old
Testament teachings. They preached the New Covenant where Christ is
our great high priest.
So a perfect temple, perfect priesthood would still not be acceptable.[/QUOTE
The priesthood was a corrupt disloyal bunch of hypocrisy. John made that clear.

The Gospel isn't about justice per se. Jesus wasn't some Social Justice
Warrior. His kingdom is not of this world.
That is exactly what Jesus was about.
[/QUOTE]
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Not agreeing. See below.....


Why do think John and Jesus were 'cleansing and redeeming' folks in the river and then sending them on home with their hard earned money still in their bags?
Why do you think Antipas was ordered to arrest them all?
[/QUOTE]

The theory that Jesus just wanted to clean up a corrupt system makes no sense.
And that he died trying to do this is without facts.
He was sent as the Redeemer, one who pays the price for our sins - the lamb of
God. His death signified that the way unto God was through Christ - the veil of the
temple was torn to signify this. Jesus is "our great high priest", we are "the temple
of the living God."

Cleaning up some corruption (and not all priests were corrupt) would make Jesus
an Old Testament figure, one who failed trying. And we would be left to honor Him
by becoming observant Jews.

This was no Jesus' mission.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
The theory that Jesus just wanted to clean up a corrupt system makes no sense.
Yes it does. And the Baptist started it, not Jesus.
Just read about it and research the background facts.....

And that he died trying to do this is without facts.
He arrested for the Temple demonstrations and picketing.
It's all there to read about.

He was sent as the Redeemer, one who pays the price for our sins - the lamb of
God. His death signified that the way unto God was through Christ - the veil of the
temple was torn to signify this. Jesus is "our great high priest", we are "the temple
of the living God."
Look, if that is what you believe, then fine, but I believe that the Baptist and Jesus (and their disciples) were redeeming folks in the river for nothing because redemtion in the Temple was a complete rip off. Hence the word.... redeemer.

Cleaning up some corruption (and not all priests were corrupt) would make Jesus
an Old Testament figure, one who failed trying. And we would be left to honor Him
by becoming observant Jews.
A few decent priests could not make the whole lot decent.
It seems that the whole Levite clan has everything tied up from junior positions right up to the top, and everyone else was kept down. There was no middle class.

The Baptist reckoned that the whole bunch were a nest of vipers, and I believe him.

This was no Jesus' mission.
Yes it was.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Yes it does. And the Baptist started it, not Jesus.
Just read about it and research the background facts.....


He arrested for the Temple demonstrations and picketing.
It's all there to read about.


Look, if that is what you believe, then fine, but I believe that the Baptist and Jesus (and their disciples) were redeeming folks in the river for nothing because redemtion in the Temple was a complete rip off. Hence the word.... redeemer.


A few decent priests could not make the whole lot decent.
It seems that the whole Levite clan has everything tied up from junior positions right up to the top, and everyone else was kept down. There was no middle class.

The Baptist reckoned that the whole bunch were a nest of vipers, and I believe him.


Yes it was.

Really? So Jesus/John were just observant Jews wanting to restore Judaism?
The baptisms; the bread and wine; the tearing of the veil; the healings; the two
by two ministry; the rejection of the idea of God even being in the temple; the
rejection of the role of a priesthood; the rejection of the old Passover rites; the
rejection of a role as a new Jewish king; the rejection of wealth; the rejection of
all Old Testament symbols and so, so forth - was to purify Judaism?

Wow. Do you thinking this "picketing" and "demonstrations" was to promote
equality, gay rights, transgender operations for 5 year old boys?
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Yes it does. And the Baptist started it, not Jesus.

One of my favorite references to the Messiah is found in Genesis. Jacob blesses
his sons. He had special words for Judah. From Judah would spring the Messiah.
There would one day be a Hebrew nation with a monarchy. But with the coming
of the Messiah the nation and its law would end. And the Messiah would be
believed upon by the Gentiles.

Job said "I know my Redeemer lives and he shall stand upon the earth in the
latter days." This Redeemer was alive in Job's time, but not upon the earth.
The latter times, as Daniel pointed out, would be before Rome destroyed the
nation of Israel and its temple.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Really? So Jesus/John were just observant Jews wanting to restore Judaism?
Do read G-Mark.
The Baptist was short-circuiting the Temple money-go-round. Read what he said about the priesthood.

The baptisms;
That's what they were doing....... redeeming and cleansing by immersion in the river....... for free.

the bread and wine;
We often take food and drink together, before we part. So did they.

the tearing of the veil;
A squall could well have ripped a Temple veil, but who exactly saw that happen? How do you tie in such a coincidence ?

the healings;
I have known amazing healers in my lifetime. Harry Edwards was one of them. I have no problem with Jesus as a healer.

the two
by two ministry;
Those failed....... that's why they went to Jerusalem to demonstrate in the Temple. Maybe that could work better.

the rejection of the idea of God even being in the temple; the
rejection of the role of a priesthood; the rejection of the old Passover rites; the
rejection of a role as a new Jewish king; the rejection of wealth; the rejection of
all Old Testament symbols and so, so forth - was to purify Judaism?
Jesus sais it........ 'I will have mercy and not sacrifice'.

Wow. Do you thinking this "picketing" and "demonstrations"
Jesus demonstrated in the Temple on his second visit, hhe picketed the Temple courts during his second and third visits.

You must have read about this.

was to promote
equality, gay rights, transgender operations for 5 year old boys?
That's very muddled and very strange, imo, ....... that is.
But Jesus DID promote equality.

Just how did you mangle all those present day issues in to Jesus's actions in the Temple? That looks very weird to me.
 
Top