Originally posted by Bobbo1701
Ok I looked it up and my interpretation of it is not "go to church on the Sabbath day." Rather that we should meet and discuss and worship anywhere.
Actually, you are right. It ain't specifically mentioned to "go to Church on Sunday". The early church was not as structured as things are here today. The essential elements of what constituted "church" are what you said. But, as they church grew in numbers, a more organized way of "doing" church had to be instituted. But even today there are groups of believers that are trying to get "back to the way it used to be" in the early church. The concept is known as the "cell church", and they are a lot more informal, meet in people's houses, have a looser schedule, etc. My brother (a minister) has been involved in churches like this.
Originally posted by Bobbo1701
..please, where does it say this. i'd like to be informed on it before I reply to it.
Gen. 1:26 tells about creating mankind in His own image. Gen 3:15 tells how, after the fall, the serpent was told that ever afterwards, there would be enmity between him and the woman; between the serpent's "seed" (descendents) and hers. Finally, he was told " he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.". "He" and "you", as used in this last line, speaks of the woman's/serpent's
descendents.This is key because it refers, not to the general fear/enmity between mankind and snakes/reptiles, but rather to that of their ultimate descendants. The ultimate descendent of mankind is the same "Son of Man" that all Christians claim to worship. The ultimate descendent of the serpent is the Devil. And of course, in Revelation we see the utlimate culmination of this prophecy in the victory of good over evil, in Armageddon and its attendant events (Rev. 20). Thus, if one doesn't buy the "made in His image" bit, it is then hypocritical to say that you are a true believer in Christ. To hearken back to my old college philosophy courses, EACH of these conditions is necessary, but neither is in itself sufficient. One must "buy" the whole package in order to claim true faith. If you only "buy" one condition and not the other, you contradict your own claim... Hope that helps.
Originally posted by Bobbo1701... However, becasue we are given free will, and so were the writers, thus they could easily change anythign they wanted. In you're secretary example, let's say that you, while dictating a letter were to use poor grammer. Such as, without thinking about it, saying "gonna" instead of "going to."... He/She may just correct there on the letter and not say anything. Now with the writers of the Biblical verses, God may have told them, through inspirations, to say something about slaves that particular author may not like. So he either changes it or dosen't say it at all. The other thing to remember is that the Old Testement was verbally past down for many centuries before it was commeted to the page. Now add on to that that it has been translated and retranslated hundreds of times since then and discrepencies are bound to appear.
Yes, they *could* change what they wrote, but they didn't (my secretary better not, or she'd lose her job!). If my secretary were to correct me in what she wrote, it would be because she knew that I screwed up in using bad grammar the way I did; in short, she "knew better". Now who's gonna stand up and tell the Creator that they know better than He does? THAT, mi amigo, is the height of human arrogance... And lest you be misled, make no mistake about it that the Creator OFTEN told the prophets to write/do things they didn't wanna do/write, yet in the end, they went ahead and did as they were told (consider the book of Jonah, for example...).The Old Testament wasn't passed down in oral tradition the way you imply. The fact is, it was transmitted orally at the same time/after it was committed to parchment. Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible (there was no oral tradition we know about up to his time), and the majority of the rest of the OT books were also written during the authors lifetimes (that is, the authors being witnesses of the events they wrote about). And in the New Testament, it's much the same. In fact, the earliest Gospel was written within 30 years of the Crucifixion, and the last (by the apostle John) was written by John near the end of his life. This is in marked contrast to many other historical texts of antiquity, which were generally written after a far longer time gap than the scriptures. As for what few discrepancies have appeared, as I said elsewhere, they have largely been resolved as of now.
Originally posted by Bobbo1701
...Second, it just occured to me that I could be coming off as an absolute ass with all this. I don't mean to do that. I do consider your opinion vailed and who knows, maybe it will spark me to look nto something deeper to change my mind...
I can't speak for anyone else here, but I don't get that impression of you at all, so as far as I am concerned, no problem. The passion you spoke of is what indeed fuels me in this subject area as well. I hope you do get "sparked", young Padawan. To quote Mulder: "the truth is out there"; you need only seek in all sincerity to find it.
Hey Bobbo: I'm a bit confused: You said at the end that you're "only 10", and yet elsewhere, you said "since I was about 10" (which implies that you're past 10 years old). So what are you, like 10.5 yrs old, then, or is your last mention of it a typo, or what? Plz clarify. It's cool w/ me if yer only 10, it's just that you sound older by your writing.
Originally posted by Napoleon
...Intelligent design claims, that the complexity and "order" of the natural world, both in the realm of life and in the universe in general, can only have been brought about by a higher being, a god if you will, and thus all of modern biology, physics, astronomy, geology, and basically all of science is wrong.
No, not wrong per se. You must remember that relativity, evolution, etc., are just theories; this means we don't know for sure, they ain't been proven. Aside from a few theories like these that do so, there's nothing in science per se that is incompatible with the idea of a God being behind it. Science per se is simply mute on the subject, since science's job is to explain the reasons for things, not to explain (or even consider) "the Reason behind the reasons". The theist's premise, on the other hand, is that the various sciences and the natural world, not to mention the "laws of science", were created by a Deity.
Originally posted by Napoleon
Im sorry but if god is responsable for life then he is either an idiot or grossly incompetent. Since we are talking about complexity of design engineering may be a good thing to bring up...Life on earth is interdependant, complex, and generally flawed, a better example of jury rigging I have never seen. The "best" most "intelligently designed" system would be one with the least interdependacy, the least complex, and the least flawed.
Okay, so your idea of a better design for human beings would be, what, an intelligent slug (simpler) with tough, leathery skin and opposable thumbs? One who doesn't have a digestive system (thus less flawed because there's no such thing as indigestion or diarrhea) because they create their own energy (less interdependent on their environment) through photosynthesis?...
Originally posted by Napoleon
More improtantly is the human eye. Basically it is wired backwards, the neurons on the retina must obstruct the detection abilitiy of the eye inorder to relay data back to the brain, they reduce our visual accuity. ...however the Eye for the branch that contains the Squid and the Octapus has a properly wired eye...blah blah blah
Excuse me, bub, but "wiring" theories aside, between man's ability to see in 3D (eyes facing forward, no "snout" in between 'em to obscure overlapping visual fields, thus parallax view and depth perception), in color, and raw acuity, we happen to have among the best eyesights on the planet. Sure, Raptors have better vision than us, but not much of any other genus/species does
Originally posted by Napoleon
There is a word for when an engineer or designer uses a design that he knows is subpar that can lead to death and danger and a reduction in efficiency, it is called incompetant, or more often "criminally negligent".
Funny; I thought the name was "Dilbert"...
Originally posted by Napoleon
Answer: The laws of physics work well too
Exactly, Just as they were
designed to...
Originally posted by Napoleon Those laws of physics must have been created by a designer to work so perfectly.
...This once again is where Occams Razor as a philisophical concept comes into play, all other things being equal take the least complex..
Right again!:The concept of an omnipotent Creator being behind it all simplifies the whole equation considerably. It's been said elsewhere that it takes a whole lot less faith to believe in a God than to believe in all these other, not proven, and in many cases, highly improbable scientific "theories".
:Ah, sweet irony:: )
)