(September 5, 2013 at 12:20 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Interesting. So do we need to believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that the sky is actually a firmament (dome) and that plants (day three) were created before the sun (day four)?

The Hebrew word for Firament is "raqiya" it means, an extended surface, expanse, Firmament. In short something used to support or hold back something else. The orginal defination say nothing to the shape.

In context it is used to describe the space between the ground and the place where the 'water from above'/clouds are kept.

and do you really need me to explain how light is possiable with out the sun?

Nope, but you need to explain how plants are possible without the sun.

(September 5, 2013 at 12:35 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Let's examine this for a second. If there is some kind of morality that exceeds what is found in the NT, then we should follow that, right?

No. A righteousness that exceeds the righteousness/morality of trying to keep all of the law. (Because as it has already been pointed out all have sin and all fall short from the requirement of keeping ALL of the law.)

Quote:As Jesus apparently still adhered to OT teachings and even told everyone that not a jot nor tittle of that law would be done away with, then we can't even say for certain that Jesus' teachings were actually more moral/righteous.

Jesus taught the old covenant because while He was alive He was under the old covenant. it wasn't till his death, burial and resurection that He Himself established a new covenant.

Quote:Returning, for a second, to what you said about discontinuing what is taught in the OT if it is found to be less moral, what makes you think that people aren't doing exactly that by discarding the book itself? By doing this, most atheists here (I'll presume for a moment) are more moral than what is described in the OT, they don't follow that book, and are therefore following your suggestion.

'morality' is man's scale or man's version of righteousness, based on nothing more than what we collectivly find acceptable in this soceity at this particular time.

I simply borrowed the term so as to help you gain perspective. that is why I paired it with Righteousness which is God's 'version' of our standard. (which BTW is what we are actually going to be judged by, and not this generations version of morality)

That said your reasoning fails because the only "Righteousness" that exceeds the Law is the Righteousness offered through Christ's attonement. Again, we have to use God's standard of judgement/'morality.' and not our own, because it is to Him we must give an account of our time here not the other way around.

Quote:Going a little further than this, you are also more moral than what is described in the OT; you don't practice slavery,you don't kill those who transgress the law, and you are somewhat tolerant of other beliefs despite your god's jealous nature. Why do you then urge us to follow something that even you do not? You are not following Jesus according to his own thoughts on the writings of the OT, or you would be a lot worse off than you truly are.

When did I push the old testament as a means to righteousness?
In Mat 5 Christ 'completes the Law of moses' to include though ensuring that it is absolutly impossiable for one to completely follow the law and find true righteousness before God. He/Christ sealed this 'completeion of the Law' by saying "you must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." Which is not possiable, laying the way for us to seek a righteousness that "Exceeds the righteousness of the scripbes and pharasees." As Christ puts it in that Chapter. (Which is/was not possiable by following the law as they did.)

This makes the Law only good for showing one that it is impossiable to find righeousness before God through the Law. Thus pushing one to the gospel of attonement for sin, rather than sin avoidance.

---

(September 5, 2013 at 12:40 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Nope, but you need to explain how plants are possible without the sun.

Do you know what hydroponics is?

In short it is growing plants with artifical light/Non sun light. Is it your belief that only man can create light?

Did you know that certain plants and certain coral grow better under certain blends of artifical light than they do in the sun? How is that possiable if they all 'evolved' with the sun as their only source of light?

On the first Day God created 'Light.' Possiably meaning the light spectrum in general or maybe just the three visiable wave lengths we can see. Then later on the sun became the primary source of our visiable light. It doesn't mean God Himself was not the orginal source.

Why did it need to create the Sun, then, if this protolight managed to do its job perfectly well on its own?

So all the plants created on that day had no use for the sun? God used Hydroponics?

Drich Wrote:Did you know that certain plants and certain coral grow better under certain blends of artifical light than they do in the sun? How is that possiable if they all 'evolved' with the sun as their only source of light?

You should just leave evolution alone, Drich.

Yes, asking how something is possible in an evolutionary context will inevitably lead to a whole slew of responses detailing precisely how that thing is possible. The exchanges will continue, one side deflecting the answers of the other out of sheer ignorance, until a point is reached where the only answer is "we don't know yet" or similar; whereupon the other person will declare victory. It's a battle so formulaic and annoying for all concerned that it's best not fought at all.

(September 5, 2013 at 3:23 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

Drich Wrote:Did you know that certain plants and certain coral grow better under certain blends of artifical light than they do in the sun? How is that possiable if they all 'evolved' with the sun as their only source of light?

You should just leave evolution alone, Drich.

Apparently he has. He seems to know nothing about it.

So, then, how in God's name do you personally decide which words to take seriously and live by, and which are just there to fill up space,.... or what the hell are they there for? Surely, surely you don't claim that even close to ALL of the ideas and directives in there are to be used as a guide to live by.

(September 5, 2013 at 2:07 pm)Drich Wrote: Do you know what hydroponics is?

In short it is growing plants with artifical light/Non sun light. Is it your belief that only man can create light?

Did you know that certain plants and certain coral grow better under certain blends of artifical light than they do in the sun? How is that possiable if they all 'evolved' with the sun as their only source of light?

On the first Day God created 'Light.' Possiably meaning the light spectrum in general or maybe just the three visiable wave lengths we can see. Then later on the sun became the primary source of our visiable light. It doesn't mean God Himself was not the orginal source.

Well. I'm convinced.

[end sarcasm]

The mental gymnastics is strong with this one.