Existence

[Ludi]

Of course it is mythical. The stories in it were refuted a long time ago. You are making the error of being overly literal when it comes to the Bible.

You should be asking how we know that it is mythical. But if you want to continue to believe that God is a liar you have that right too. I am not sure if he would appreciate it if he were real.

Of course it is mythical. The stories in it were refuted a long time ago. You are making the error of being overly literal when it comes to the Bible.

You should be asking how we know that it is mythical. But if you want to continue to believe that God is a liar you have that right too. I am not sure if he would appreciate it if he were real.

I am not sure how you took what I wrote as calling God a liar as I was actually explaining the truth about what He said. And I am 100 percent on His side because He does exist. So I'm sorry if what I said didn't make sense. And hope you have a nice day.

 

[Ludi]

I am not sure how you took what I wrote as calling God a liar as I was actually explaining the truth about what He said. And I am 100 percent on His side because He does exist. So I'm sorry if what I said didn't make sense. And hope you have a nice day.

And the reason I can't ask the question, how you know it's mythical, because it can't be, when it is based on truth

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not sure how you took what I wrote as calling God a liar as I was actually explaining the truth about what He said. And I am 100 percent on His side because He does exist. So I'm sorry if what I said didn't make sense. And hope you have a nice day.

You are probably rather uneducated in the sciences. One that understands the sciences can see how there is massive evidence against the myths of Genesis. So much so that God would have had to plant false evidence to cover up his acts. That is a form of lying. That is why the Noah's Ark myth was first refuted by Christian geologists. The evidence tells us that there simply was no flood. That started the ball rolling and the whole of Genesis and Exodus is thought to be myth right now. They do work as morality tales, but they clearly did not happen as told.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And the reason I can't ask the question, how you know it's mythical, because it can't be, when it is based on truth

What makes you think that? How would you prove that without the Bible? If all you have is the Bible then you are using circular reasoning.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well I think there is a difference in understanding as to what the elements are, and as to where they are created (mostly in stars from what I gather), and some text from long ago citing the earth as being the origin for anything. Just flowery language to explain roughly the same thing (but being different) to not-so-knowledgeable folk of the time, and not being a scientific description or the truth. No idea where life arose. It may have come from off Earth or from our planet. And I might never know.

None of us may ever know, but do you think you may guess what element is supposed to be the first on earth that bloomed, blossomed, grew, or evolved to something else? Let's go over that basically in your words, please, not a link.

 

[Subduction Zone]

None of us may ever know, but do you think you may guess what element is supposed to be the first on earth that bloomed, blossomed, grew, or evolved to something else? Let's go over that basically in your words, please, not a link.

Elements did not grow on the Earth. Elements were formed in stars. Do you know what the word "element" means?

The Big Bang produced a heck of a lot of hydrogen, a fair amount of helium, and just a smidge of lithium and beryllium. Everything after that was formed inside of stars.

 

[Ludi]

What makes you think that? How would you prove that without the Bible? If all you have is the Bible then you are using circular reasoning.

You are probably rather uneducated in the sciences. One that understands the sciences can see how there is massive evidence against the myths of Genesis. So much so that God would have had to plant false evidence to cover up his acts. That is a form of lying. That is why the Noah's Ark myth was first refuted by Christian geologists. The evidence tells us that there simply was no flood. That started the ball rolling and the whole of Genesis and Exodus is thought to be myth right now. They do work as morality tales, but they clearly did not happen as told.

But science does support some of what I said. One being how we cannot find the origin of consciousness. Where it comes from are where it goes. Which supports what Jesus said, about the spirit being like the wind, and what is born of flesh is flesh, and it is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. And I thank you for your polite response, it means a great deal to me, so again thanks and have a great day.

 

[Ludi]

What makes you think that? How would you prove that without the Bible? If all you have is the Bible then you are using circular reasoning.

That is a very good point. I will have to think about this for a bit before I can respond to it. Thank you.

 

[Ludi]

And all I meant by not calling them liars is I was simply defending what they said, and in no way was a reference to anything you said.Just so you did't take that the wrong way. So again sorry I should have been more carefull with my use of words.

And if I could just ask one thing of from you, I ask for your forgiveness, and if you could it would mean a lot to me. I wasn't trying to offend anyone in anyway, so I'm sorry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is a very good point. I will have to think about this for a bit before I can respond to it. Thank you.

It is better to take one's time and try to think things through. Be careful. There are quite a few dishonest sites out there that pretend to be sciences base but are not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And if I could just ask one thing of from you, I ask for your forgiveness, and if you could it would mean a lot to me. I wasn't trying to offend anyone in anyway, so I'm sorry.

There is nothing to forgive. I can understand how one sometimes feels that he must defend his religion.

One thing that people who read Genesis literally cannot deal with is the fact that the Bible portrays God as the one at fault if one thinks the Genesis story through. As a Christian it should be a relief that God was not as inept as portrayed in the Adam and Eve myth.

 

[Ludi]

There is nothing to forgive. I can understand how one sometimes feels that he must defend his religion.

One thing that people who read Genesis literally cannot deal with is the fact that the Bible portrays God as the one at fault if one thinks the Genesis story through. As a Christian it should be a relief that God was not as inept as portrayed in the Adam and Eve myth.

thank you for this, it means a lot to me and I feel good inside again, so again thanks and I hope you have a wonderful day

 

[blü 2]

I would think Jesus half brother James, met him. Also, the historian Josephus spoke about that as well.

There are problems with "James the brother of the Lord". First, Paul called other followers of Jesus "brothers of the Lord". Second, Paul quotes James on zero occasions, so if there was information there it was never transferred. Third is Galatians 1:12, Paul's claim that everything he tells you about Jesus comes out of his own head.

And Josephus wasn't born till some years after the traditional date of Jesus' death, so what he was reporting was the belief of his sources and informants. As it stands, we have no first-hand evidence of Jesus anywhere.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are problems with "James the brother of the Lord". First, Paul called other followers of Jesus "brothers of the Lord". Second, Paul quotes James on zero occasions, so if there was information there it was never transferred. Third is Galatians 1:12, Paul's claim that everything he tells you about Jesus comes out of his own head.

And Josephus wasn't born till some years after the traditional date of Jesus' death, so what he was reporting was the belief of his sources and informants. As it stands, we have no first-hand evidence of Jesus anywhere.

Also many Christians believe that almost all of the disciples died a martyrs death. If that was the case then who could Josephus have interviewed? It is rather clear that he was writing about beliefs at best. And some contend that both of his "Jesus" statements are forgeries. The other one is thought to be a forgery and there are growing doubts about this rather weak one.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are problems with "James the brother of the Lord". First, Paul called other followers of Jesus "brothers of the Lord". Second, Paul quotes James on zero occasions, so if there was information there it was never transferred. Third is Galatians 1:12, Paul's claim that everything he tells you about Jesus comes out of his own head.

And Josephus wasn't born till some years after the traditional date of Jesus' death, so what he was reporting was the belief of his sources and informants. As it stands, we have no first-hand evidence of Jesus anywhere.

It doesn't matter that Paul does not quote James. He didn't quote everyone he knew of and came across. Doesn't mean they weren't there. Paul had a vision that stopped him from persecuting the Christians, and there is no reason for me to believe that the Paul'ls account of the vision was not true. There are theories and there are theories. Everything Paul wrote tells me he was telling the truth, as it happened. Now let me ask you a question since you speak of first-hand experiences as if that's the closing matter on these things. Do you have first-hand information about evolution in reference to existence? The more I read, the more I see there are many things I never knew about, not well publicized, but they're there. Interestingly, not all civilizations in the world have been documented. Historians just don't know what happened. (Stonehenge, for example. That's a famous one.) It makes sense to me that Paul travelled to spread the good news about Jesus, it was that important to him. It's well documented in the scriptures. I don't ask you to believe it. I believe it as written. I also think that each one that hears about it will have to decide what he puts faith in.
There are historical references to Jesus' existence, also the persecution of the early Christians. The Jews exist, and did exist. Many people would argue that the account in the wilderness is pure fiction. Yet the account itself has existed for a long, long time. And it is well documented in its own self, names and places. If you don't believe it, that's you. I have no reason to not believe it.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are problems with "James the brother of the Lord". First, Paul called other followers of Jesus "brothers of the Lord". Second, Paul quotes James on zero occasions, so if there was information there it was never transferred. Third is Galatians 1:12, Paul's claim that everything he tells you about Jesus comes out of his own head.

And Josephus wasn't born till some years after the traditional date of Jesus' death, so what he was reporting was the belief of his sources and informants. As it stands, we have no first-hand evidence of Jesus anywhere.

Question: whether you believe it or not, some believe Mary never had any other children and was the "eternal virgin." How do you feel about that?

 

[rational experiences]

Science. A human thinker theist. A chosen practice. In human life by humans.

No humans no stories no themes.

Basic human intelligence.

A human is a human as a human living owning their status a human.

Basic human advice

If you the thinker theist just human wants to preach stories then you choose the behaviour.

Basic advice

The claim my behaviour and my beliefs I apply by my choice.

So the human storyteller likes to tell us that somehow they know everything.

And says the created forms told them.

Basic advice I chose to study and thesis about creation.

Then is the applied human ego. What I know is exact and what you know is less.

In natural life a non egotist says I never chose to think like you did. How is your thinking correct?

The answer my science thesis allowed me to build machines. Control machines. React natural created forms then I proved to you all my human god choices got us life sacrificed.

Pretty basic human advice for humans about humans. Who were taught our brother the original theist scientist never listened to natural father's human spiritual advice.

Science proved that science the practice was wrong.

How a human behaves is group supported. The group became the bully. A basic advice.

Preaching means a human chooses the subject and the topic. Then preaches by intent of subject and topic.

Normally the subject or topic is present and studied. Which means I chose to discuss the topic. Just as a human.

Now I have a choice. I don't want to listen to you preaching and expressing your human ego. Where is my natural human right for my life to state keep your thoughts for yourself expression!

In fact you over ruled natural and forced all your ego preaching upon me.

Pretty basic human advice for human egotists.

 

[gnostic]

I believe God created the earth. I don’t believe it was formed over billions of years despite the evidence. I’ve always thought most believers rejected the theory of evolution but I’ve come to learn many accept it. If you fall into this group feel free to share how you got there. Personally I didn’t really give the TOE much thought growing up and only rejected it outright about 13 years ago when I had a spiritual awakening.

Going back to review the OP, I see that you accepted Evolution, but rejected the age of the Earth.

I don't want to wade through 530 posts to find all your replies.

So I'd like to apologise if you have already answered questions, so I'd appreciate your patience here.

If you don't think the Earth is billions of years old, how old do you think the Earth is?

Do you have valid reasons why you would reject the scientific evidence?

 

[Ludi]

It is better to take one's time and try to think things through. Be careful. There are quite a few dishonest sites out there that pretend to be sciences base but are not.

You are so right about that to. I think scientist may be the only profession where you can say things and since no average person has access to the information we usually just take their word for it. This bug is 500 million years old. Two years later it was oops screwed up it's only 30 years old, than we believe them again. Lol

 

[Ludi]

You are so right about that to. I think scientist may be the only profession where you can say things and since no average person has access to the information we usually just take their word for it. This bug is 500 million years old. Two years later it was oops screwed up it's only 30 years old, than we believe them again. Lol

And I will take your advice and think twice post once. Thank you. Good advice.