The Earth, according to the Bible, was created in a day. This is where creationism comes from. But, wait! The sun wasn't created until the fourth day. If the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, according to the bible that is, don't you suppose maybe that first day could have been. . . hmm. . Twenty-six hours? Or how about ten million years?
The Bible implies creationism, it did not create it.
The sun doesn't determine time, it's simply an indicator. And the first day would still have been Twenty-four hours because God would have designed the sun's gravitational pull to allow the earth to travel around it in Twenty-four hours.
Everything from the "Who should we kill" to the "Justice" sections are true. But I'll explain why they aren't necessarily carried out today.
Everyone of them still holds true and
should be the punishment of those who commit them. Then God sent down his son Jesus to forgive us of our sins. Why is that so significant? Before Jesus died on the cross for us, our sins were never forgiven. Everytime anyone made a burnt offering, it was to "roll-back" their sins. They would still be punished for them, and the punishment for all sin is death. It wasn't until Jesus took on all the sins that were made, have been made, and have yet to be made that we were truly forgiven and clean of our sins. He paid that price of death for us. We will still be convicted of our sins, but we won't be put to eternal death and have everlasting life.
As for the "Christ, what a role model...", the person who made this is just manipulating the Bible. I'll even point out some of the errors.
Luke 14:26 - Talks about how you cannot follow God fully without putting him first in your life. That includes your family and even yourself.
Matt 19:29 - That is only part of passage, here is the rest of it: And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for My sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. This is relating to Luke 14:26 by putting God first in your life.
Matt 10:35-6 - This is taking a portion out of what He is saying. If you read Matt 10:37-9 it says: "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. Again, relating to putting God first in your life.
Matt 10:34 - Again, another snippet from the same teaching as above.
Luke 22:36 - In The Message translation it reads: He said, "This is different. Get ready for trouble. Look to what you'll need; there are difficult times ahead. Pawn your coat and get a sword. What was written in Scripture, 'He was lumped in with the criminals,' gets its final meaning in me. He is warning them about His death and the hard times to follow afterwards.
Mark 11:12-4, 20-1 - I don't see how this is a problem.
Matt 15:22-8 - Again, read farther down. He original denies the girl, but the faith of her mother changed His mind and he healed her.
The only reason the author of this said that is that he/she knows that they would never be able to uphold those commands on their own. Yes, it does say "Thou shalt not kill". This includes self-defense. Jesus did not kill the men that were taking him to the cross to be killed. He even healed one of the guards that Peter injured. As for the national socialist/Jew example, even if you do lie, as long as you ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins, you won't be punished. But it is still a sin and Jesus isn't a "Get out of Jail" card.
Random mutations happen, very very slight chance, but it is still there. If there's a 1 in a billion chance, that does mean that after a couple of billion tries, it's bound to happen. Then there's a chance that the mutation will make the species be able to reproduce easier/better, thus making that mutation survive and stay in the species.
The mathematical challenges of this theory almost make it difficult to believe. The average number of mutations in an organism is 1 in 10 billion (10
7). To get 2 related mutations is 1 in 100 trillion (10
14). To get 3 related mutations is 1 in 1 billion-trillion (10
21). To get just 4 related mutations is 1 in 10
28. And just 4 mutations aren't enough to make any real, progressive structural changes. Not to mention you'd have to multiply the chances by 2 so that there would be 2 organisms with the same mutations. I'm not even going into detail on the chances of survival and the odds of the two mutated organisms meeting and having off-spring that would survive to carry on those traits and mate. Although it is possible, it's not probable.
Funny story though. In these technological times it's difficult for many religious sectors simply because science is pushing allot of what the classical religious beliefs were, so there is heavy competition between science and religion for beliefs. The funny thing is allot of religious scientists are using techniques like carbon dating for instance to help pinpoint religious dates and historical events. How do you think some people feel about their fellow religious friends working to turn over those forbidden rocks to find out more about their religion? These people ironically also help expand on the very technology that is slowly proving allot of classical religious beliefs to be false.
The whole process of Carbon Dating (Also know as C-14 dating) is a correct one, but there is one flaw in the starting assumptions on which it was created. Dr. Willard Libby (The man who came up with the method) ignored a simple, yet important fact. Assuming you know how the process works, if the input of Carbon into the atmosphere is equal to the decay of it, it's said to be in equilibrium. If it's not, it becomes extremely hard to calculate. Now in Dr. Libby's original work, he believed that the earth is billions of years old, but it wasn't in equilibrium. This offset him because he believed that the earth was old enough to reach it. His calculations showed that it would have take 30,000 years to reach that point. Dr. Libby chose to continue on with his work, but he was misinterpreting the data. If the atmosphere wasn't in equilibrium, then the earth could be a lot younger, meaning that all those billions of years could be reduced to mere thousands.
There's this thing that happens called mutation. The process of mutation is when DNA gets forgeted up while it's copied. This can happen while cells are multiplied, or when offspring is produced. This is what causes cancer as well, but that's a whole different story. It happens all the time. Make sense so far?
Okay so, let's say a rabbit is born. When it's conceived let's say the DNA gets forgeted up during the process. Is this possible? Of course, it happens all the time. Now let's say during this loving up, the trait for rabbits feet gets altered, and it's born with larger feet. Now let's say these larger feet help the rabbit to run faster. Wouldn't the rabbit have a better chance for survival than other rabbits if it can escape things like wolves easier? Of course it would. Now since this is true, then the rabbit would have a better chance of reproducing, and therefore all of its offspring would have larger feet as well. This is the process of Natural Selection.
Now, if this happens countless times over history, doesn't it make sense that different species could be made?
That's Evolution.
As I said before, mutations are somewhat improbable.
If the world is too complex to happen by chance and a god created it, how the hell was god made? If he was just "here", why couldn't life just be "here"? If someone full of infinite wisdom and power can be created by chance or was already here, why couldn't that be the same for us or at least life?
God wasn't made. He always has existed. Now, you make a good point by stating that life could just be "here", but science has already proven that there is a beginning. Now you could say that super molecule that started it has always been here, but then how would it have exploded if it was going on indefinitely? The only possible answer I've ever heard somewhat clearly answer this question is that the universe is slowly contracting to the size of a molecule, then exploding and expanding to what it is today, only to be sucked back in and start the process over again. Now I have some personal theories as to why this wouldn't work, but I won't state them because they'd be misinterpreted as fact.
Sure, Christianity is backed up by the bible and has no scientific facts
We all have the same facts. We have the same earth, the same stars, same universe, same bones, same dirt, same everything. It's how we interpret them that gives us different beliefs.
Warning - while you were typing 12 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post. Lol.
Hey Christians, answer this in a way that helps prove god's existance. Wait, you can't.
Already did.
I never understood that. The scientific method should have been enough to disprove that, if it can't be recreated in an experiment, then it is obviously false. You have one word and that's Bible, and there's no way of testing it. But no, people don't get it.
I have yet to see the "Big Bang" reproduced in an experiment.
So the world is so complex that it must have been created by someone, but that more complex thing/person was created by chance. That makes sense.
Read what I wrote.
