Humans did NOT evolve from Apes...

[Bungle_Bear]

Everyone can see that you have nothing of importance to offer. I hate to beat a dead horse so I think I will find someone with more knowledge to discuss the matter with. God Bless you and good luck.

Good luck with what? Getting you to admit you're wrong? It'll never happen because you're too emotionally committed to your beliefs.

 

[dad]

Looks to me that you already have. If it says what was made that Day, that doesn't mean that it was made that Day, you say?

What was made that day refers to...well..what was made that day.

Come on Dad and catch up. Our world has NEVER suffered a Global Flood.

Jesus talked about the flood taking men away.
Peter talked about it too

2Pe 2:5 -And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Our Earth is a Rock covered in water. That's WHY it will be burned. ll Peter 3:10

?? Because water covers it it must burn? I would have thought the burning was a judgment from God.

Apes don't need to be "created" since they came forth from the water already "created" by the Trinity.

Another poster already pointed out it was from the earth..the land actually. Please try not to blame your confused groanings on the 'trinity'.

By the way, is it not time to learn how to post properly?

 

[Halbhh]

He's basically saying that if the story is false, then a lot of people were duped into believing it.

Well... yeah. Isn't that always the case with false religions?



Except the religion you happen to follow, I bet?

The infamous Hitchslap comes to mind, where he says "All these religions make mutually exclusive claims . They can't all be right... At best only one is right. But they CAN all be wrong. Most likely, since they all make the same kind of claims, all of them are wrong."



That idea is far older then christianity OR judaism and several cultures around the world independently came up with that very basic and simple idea.

A basic human truth, if good, should be echoed everywhere. Truth isn't original to an innovator, like art.... it's independent of all. Truth endures also, timeless. If it is true, it doesn't fade out, but gets refined and perfected. But notice exact wording. We have something a lot more than just 'refrain from doing to others' here. Do you think you should love all of your neighbors as yourself? Even today, after He reshaped human culture with things He said, His full teaching is still radical. It can utterly remake your life into something so much better than you have known.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A basic human truth, if good, should be echoed everywhere.

The problem is that you are trying to give your particular religion credit for that simple idea. While the idea is actually older then your religion. Clearly, your religion isn't a pre-requisite to come up with that idea.

Do you think you should love all of your neighbors as yourself?

"love"? No.

Even today, after He reshaped human culture with things He said, His full teaching is still radical.

Every time a new religion, any religion, spreads throughout a culture, that culture is being reshaped.

It can utterly remake your life into something so much better than you have known.

Again not exclusive to your religion (or religion, full stop).

 

[Halbhh]

The problem is that you are trying to give your particular religion credit for that simple idea. While the idea is actually older then your religion. Clearly, your religion isn't a pre-requisite to come up with that idea.




"love"? No.



Every time a new religion, any religion, spreads throughout a culture, that culture is being reshaped.



Again not exclusive to your religion (or religion, full stop).

Try and see. I even did this with things like "love your neighbor (people around you) as yourself":

1) Test
2) repeat test
3) observations
4) alternative hypothesis
5) more testing
6) observations
7) conclusion -- I concluded, 'It works, consistently, to make my life better'

 

[DogmaHunter]

Try and see. I even did this with things like "love your neighbor (people around you) as yourself":

1) Test
2) repeat test
3) observations
4) alternative hypothesis
5) more testing
6) observations
7) conclusion -- I concluded, 'It works, consistently, to make my life better'

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

I can only tell you that in my immediate environment, ironically my actual literal neighbour in particular - a horrible person, there are plenty of people that I could not "love like I love myself", trust or even just respect.

It's in fact so bad that it's only a matter of time before I sell the house and move elsewhere.

My life definatly would not improve by "loving" that horrible person.
Nore do I consider it particularly wise to "turn the other cheeck" either.

I don't consider those things good ideas to live by.
Some people simply don't deserve my love, trust and respect.

I'll respect their rights as citizens and human beings - but it ends there.

 

[Aman777]

Good luck with what? Getting you to admit you're wrong? It'll never happen because you're too emotionally committed to your beliefs.

The rest of my life depends on what I believe and so does yours. A million years from now, I will try to remember your next words, but I can't promise. God bless you

 

[Halbhh]

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

I can only tell you that in my immediate environment, ironically my actual literal neighbour in particular - a horrible person, there are plenty of people that I could not "love like I love myself", trust or even just respect.

It's in fact so bad that it's only a matter of time before I sell the house and move elsewhere.

My life definatly would not improve by "loving" that horrible person.
Nore do I consider it particularly wise to "turn the other cheeck" either.

I don't consider those things good ideas to live by.
Some people simply don't deserve my love, trust and respect.

I'll respect their rights as citizens and human beings - but it ends there.

ah, yes, the 'that horrible person' neighbor. That's when I experimented with the "love your neighbor" in the situation where you *don't already like them*.... That's the hard test. That's when the results get interesting. For some the results take a few days (if you see them often like out on sidewalk), for some it takes weeks. Some I might see only every month or two. But....what happened is they began acting quite differently, after I broke the ice by treating them with respect and a friendly greeting, to their real surprise. Often I notice, they might just be totally caught off guard by that first hello. It's not what they are used to from strangers.

 

[Aman777]

What was made that day refers to...well..what was made that day.

Jesus talked about the flood taking men away.
Peter talked about it too

2Pe 2:5 -And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

↑
Thanks for posting the verse which clearly tell us that God spared NOT the old world (Grk-Kosmos). You believe He just washed it off. Don't you?

*** ?? Because water covers it it must burn? I would have thought the burning was a judgment from God

It's two separate worlds dad. Adam's was totally destroyed in WATER 2Pe 3:6 and the present Universe/heaven will be BURNED. 2Pe 3:10

That is WHY God made the THIRD Heaven. 2Co 12:2 Anyone can read and understand that our Cosmos will be BURNED in the end. Can you?

2Pe 3:10 ¶ But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

*** Another poster already pointed out it was from the earth..the land actually. Please try not to blame your confused groanings on the 'trinity'.

False, since Adam, the first Human, was formed from the dust, on the 3rd Day by Jesus/Lord God. Gen 2:4-7 EVERY other living creature was "created" from the water on the 5th Day by God the TRINITY. Gen 1:21 Adam wasn't "created by the TRINITY until the present 6th Day, the Day of Salvation. Gen 1:27 and Gen 5:1-2 The common ancestors, which Jesus made from the dust of the ground at the beginning of the 6th Day, were temporary beings. Gen 2:19

*** By the way, is it not time to learn how to post properly?

If so, I wouldn't do it the way you do. God Bless you dad.

 

[dad]

↑
Thanks for posting the verse which clearly tell us that God spared NOT the old world (Grk-Cosmos). You believe He just washed it off. Don't you?

Here is the meaning from the greek

1. an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2. ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:
3. the world, the universe
4. the circle of the earth, the earth
5. the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6. the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7. world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
   1. the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8. any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
   1. the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
   2. of believers only, John 1:29;

It's two separate worlds dad. Adam's was totally destroyed in WATER 2Pe 3:6 and the present Universe/heaven will be BURNED. 2Pe 3:10

Yes I know...the flood destroyed the folks in the flood. Fire will purge the earth in the future. Nothing to do with anything you are trying to communicate here.

That is WHY God made the THIRD Heaven. 2Co 12:2 Anyone can read and understand that our Cosmos will be BURNED in the end. Can you?

That verse says nothing about the third heaven needing to be made because of some event on earth actually. Gong.

False, since Adam, the first Human, was formed from the dust, on the 3rd Day by Jesus/Lord God.

Your whole case rests on the order of creation in Gen 1 being wrong. Think about it.

The common ancestors, which Jesus made from the dust of the ground at the beginning of the 6th Day, were temporary beings. Gen 2:19

Common ancestors? Paaleeeese.

If so, I wouldn't do it the way you do. God Bless you dad.

Quote tags. Look it up.

 

[Aman777]

Here is the meaning from the greek

1. an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2. ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:
3. the world, the universe
4. the circle of the earth, the earth
5. the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6. the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7. world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
   1. the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8. any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
   1. the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
   2. of believers only, John 1:29;

Yes I know...the flood destroyed the folks in the flood. Fire will purge the earth in the future. Nothing to do with anything you are trying to communicate here.
That verse says nothing about the third heaven needing to be made because of some event on earth actually. Gong.

Your whole case rests on the order of creation in Gen 1 being wrong. Think about it.


Common ancestors? Paaleeeese.

Quote tags. Look it up.

Sorry, but I don't reply to people who are auditioning for a comedy gig. Especially those who aren't funny.

 

[dad]

Sorry, but I don't reply to people who are auditioning for a comedy gig. Especially those who aren't funny.

I don't blame you. The Greek obviously refers to people...and it was people that died in the flood. Your fables are based on nothing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

ah, yes, the 'that horrible person' neighbor. That's when I experimented with the "love your neighbor" in the situation where you *don't already like them*.... That's the hard test.

It's a dumb test. Don't act like you understand the situation I was talking about, because you don't. How could you, from the little details I shared with you?

That's when the results get interesting. For some the results take a few days (if you see them often like out on sidewalk), for some it takes weeks. Some I might see only every month or two. But....what happened is they began acting quite differently, after I broke the ice by treating them with respect and a friendly greeting, to their real surprise. Often I notice, they might just be totally caught off guard by that first hello. It's not what they are used to from strangers.

I'm not talking about people with whom you got off on the wrong foot or where the issue is that they "aren't nice" or whatever.

Having said that, let's not turn a single reference into a single example as some kind of case that represents all possible situations.

I was merely stating that I do not agree, at all, that it is smart or good to follow these dogmatic rules blindly all the time.

I consider them good ideas concerning how you treat people, especially people you meet for the first time.

But a social contract goes both ways.

I would never draw "first blood", in a matter if speaking. I just see no reason at all to give my love, respect and friendship to people who aren't willing to return the favor / simply don't deserve such treatment.

Nore do I consider it particularly wise either.

 

[Speedwell]

It's a dumb test. Don't act like you understand the situation I was talking about, because you don't. How could you, from the little details I shared with you?



I'm not talking about people with whom you got off on the wrong foot or where the issue is that they "aren't nice" or whatever.

Having said that, let's not turn a single reference into a single example as some kind of case that represents all possible situations.

I was merely stating that I do not agree, at all, that it is smart or good to follow these dogmatic rules blindly all the time.

I consider them good ideas concerning how you treat people, especially people you meet for the first time.

But a social contract goes both ways.

I would never draw "first blood", in a matter if speaking. I just see no reason at all to give my love, respect and friendship to people who aren't willing to return the favor / simply don't deserve such treatment.

Nore do I consider it particularly wise either.

LOL! Look at it another way: as Christians we are enjoined to treat other people as we wish to be treated ourselves. So if I meet another Christian who treats me badly, it is only my Christian duty to return the favor!

 

[Aman777]

I don't blame you. The Greek obviously refers to people...and it was people that died in the flood. Your fables are based on nothing.

False. The only way you can get such a notion is to take the word "world" completely out of context as written.

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that THEN WAS, being overflowed with water, perished: (destroyed totally)

Adam's world, the world that THEN WAS was totally destroyed in the flood. Read the next verse:

2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, WHICH ARE NOW, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

God must have known some would take the word "world" out of context so FIRST He shows that the world that then was was destroyed totally. Then He refers to the heavens and the earth, WHICH ARE NOW (the Universe in Peter's time) being reserved unto fire. Don't look now dad, but you've just been defeated, Scripturally. God Bless you

 

[Halbhh]

It's a dumb test. Don't act like you understand the situation I was talking about, because you don't. How could you, from the little details I shared with you?



I'm not talking about people with whom you got off on the wrong foot or where the issue is that they "aren't nice" or whatever.

Having said that, let's not turn a single reference into a single example as some kind of case that represents all possible situations.

I was merely stating that I do not agree, at all, that it is smart or good to follow these dogmatic rules blindly all the time.

I consider them good ideas concerning how you treat people, especially people you meet for the first time.

But a social contract goes both ways.

I would never draw "first blood", in a matter if speaking. I just see no reason at all to give my love, respect and friendship to people who aren't willing to return the favor / simply don't deserve such treatment.

Nore do I consider it particularly wise either.

Totally agree I can't be in your shoes to perfectly know a situation. Instead, I can remember of course my own situation, which was so difficult that I finally had to pray for help. It was not at all 'wrong foot' which frankly doesn't even slow me down. I fix that one without effort, typically.

This was to me something highly offensive, and I could not fully forgive it even after a few days.

But after I finally prayed, then everything was different on the very next day when I saw the neighbor. What had been uncomfortable avoidance became a neighborly friendliness. Just overnight, with no interaction until that next day. Like flipping a switch.

Sometimes I've pointed out that almost anyone can do the Golden Rule when it is easy, much of the time.

It's when it is hard that we need some kind of resource that is effective. Sometimes, in my experience, there is only one resource alone that is effective enough. Divine aid.

I think the Camp David Accords is an example of an amazing outcome (after 3 hot wars) of enemies coming together into friendship. The photos are simply surprising, with the former enemies shaking hands, and even partly embracing.

It's.....otherworldly.

Search up a photo of Camp David Accords

Carter is a Christian.

 

[pshun2404]

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

I can only tell you that in my immediate environment, ironically my actual literal neighbour in particular - a horrible person, there are plenty of people that I could not "love like I love myself", trust or even just respect.

It's in fact so bad that it's only a matter of time before I sell the house and move elsewhere.

My life definatly would not improve by "loving" that horrible person.
Nore do I consider it particularly wise to "turn the other cheeck" either.

I don't consider those things good ideas to live by.
Some people simply don't deserve my love, trust and respect.

I'll respect their rights as citizens and human beings - but it ends there.

Well somethings are laws and these are immutable. Other things are ordinances which are culturally applied. And lastly there are principles which in general are good ideas but not always applicable or true.

Where turning the other cheek is an ordinance familiar to business agreements in that culture when a person wrongly accuses another of cheating them. Jesus is saying if you are innocent turn the other cheek. All onlookers in that culture and time would understand (and besides this would not have been getting slugged but rather slapped). A better example of a principle is like when Solomon said "A soft answer turns away wrath" (which is generally a good principle to live by but not always). Sometimes it won't, and the butt head you are dealing with would just slug you, interpreting your "soft answer" as weakness or fear.

 

[DogmaHunter]

LOL! Look at it another way: as Christians we are enjoined to treat other people as we wish to be treated ourselves. So if I meet another Christian who treats me badly, it is only my Christian duty to return the favor!

Well, I DO treat people like I wish to be treated - including my horrible neighbour.

I treat him "correctly". I wouldn't trust him for or with ANYTHING though.
But I treat him "correctly". I will not harras him, I will not trap him and then call the cops on him, I will respect his rights as a fellow citizen and human being. I will nod when I see him and I will "keep the peace" in a sort of "live and let live" thingy.

However, that doesn't mean, at all, that I will do him any favors or "love" him or what-have-you.

I'll only treat him "correctly" in the sense that he'll never be able to accuse me of something... like playing loud music at night or damaging his property or some such. And if there's a problem, like he's in an accident or his house is on fire or whatever, I'll help him out like any responsible citizen would do.

But that's it. I will never regard him as a "friend", because he isn't. And while I'll respect him as a fellow citizen, I won't respect him as a person.

For any and all intents - the guy is a piece of poo.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Totally agree I can't be in your shoes to perfectly know a situation. Instead, I can remember of course my own situation, which was so difficult that I finally had to pray for help. It was not at all 'wrong foot' which frankly doesn't even slow me down. I fix that one without effort, typically.

This was to me something highly offensive, and I could not fully forgive it even after a few days.

But after I finally prayed, then everything was different on the very next day when I saw the neighbor. What had been uncomfortable avoidance became a neighborly friendliness. Just overnight, with no interaction until that next day. Like flipping a switch.

Sometimes I've pointed out that almost anyone can do the Golden Rule when it is easy, much of the time.

It's when it is hard that we need some kind of resource that is effective. Sometimes, in my experience, there is only one resource alone that is effective enough. Divine aid.

I think the Camp David Accords is an example of an amazing outcome (after 3 hot wars) of enemies coming together into friendship. The photos are simply surprising, with the former enemies shaking hands, and even partly embracing.

It's.....otherworldly.

Search up a photo of Camp David Accords

Carter is a Christian.

I'm not at "war" with my neighbour.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well somethings are laws and these are immutable. Other things are ordinances which are culturally applied. And lastly there are principles which in general are good ideas but not always applicable or true.

Where turning the other cheek is an ordinance familiar to business agreements in that culture when a person wrongly accuses another of cheating them. Jesus is saying if you are innocent turn the other cheek. All onlookers in that culture and time would understand (and besides this would not have been getting slugged but rather slapped). A better example of a principle is like when Solomon said "A soft answer turns away wrath" (which is generally a good principle to live by but not always). Sometimes it won't, and the butt head you are dealing with would just slug you, interpreting your "soft answer" as weakness or fear.

I think the important point here, is that clearly none of these "christian" ideas are exclusive to christianity in any way - nore did they originate in that culture.

Like I said, most cultures around the world came up with these ideas all by themselves, independely from one another. Especially the "golden rule", which shows up in ALL major cultures around the world (long before any abrahamic religion existed).

It's a rather obvious idea one stumbles upon in any social setting where cooperation is important.