Young earth vs old earth theory?

This is what religion sounds like.

 

No, that is what logic sounds like.

 

So the world used to be flat and the sun used to go around the earth? Cool stuff!

 

That statement is illogical.
Facts are not subject to the interpretation of two or any set number of peoples. . Facts are subject to the consensus of everyone institutionally involved at the highest level of expertise in the discussed area. . It’s ridiculous to say that only those involved in a discussion decide upon the facts. It’s worse then ridiculous, it’s down right insane. Deciding anything, including vaccine development is decided upon the “ truths” developed by those institutions most dedicated in that the area and all those preceding them. Anything less, is devoid of logic.

 

The old logic argument. The people I knew that use that, are the ones too lazy to study for a test, too inert to actually research truths. Just Logic, that’s funny.

 

Your reasoning is circular. Although Science reasoning is circular as well. You simply cannot break away from this idea that science is above God. That only science can prove the existence of something you don't believe exists. That's circular and convoluted. God is the one who established the universe and earth. It's his method of proof that is the only way you can know God lives and Jesus Christ atoned for our sins. But, I sincerely doubt that even if the Lord came into your room and let you handle his wounds in his hands and feet that you would believe. You are further away from understanding the things and ways of God that doubting Thomas was. I have my proof. The Holy Ghost has given me this knowledge that you can't have. And, it frustrates you so that I have something you can't have. Waaaaahhhhh!!!!

 

The bible is a record and we find it's actually true about the history as well. But, it's not to be read as a history book or and English book either. And, knowing it is actual history doesn't take away understanding the spiritual meanings and teaching. Quite the contrary. The two are mutually exclusive. Although, it is important to know Genesis account of the creation is true when it comes to Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden located approximately near Jackson County, Missouri. They were given the choices to choose for themselves and they did. They were punished for the first transgression. But, they were blessed with the second, to multiply the earth. The fall was real to them and the world. But, they built and alter and prayed to God, receiving guidance their entire lives. Because of the fall, we are all born into a world where we will eventually transgress the laws and sin. Not as little children, but eventually we obtain the age of accountability for our sins. Thus, Father in Heaven provided a Savior for us, Jesus Christ who would atone for our sins if we repent, be baptized and receive all necessary ordinances. Whether the miracles can be verified by science, doesn't matter. the Bible has persons who verify Jesus and his miracles. The Holy Ghost bears witness to me Jesus did so. I don't need some scientist to tell me it did. He can't.

 

Do you have a clue what you wrote? What's that have to do with what's in the Constitution? The Constitution doesn't say a thing about the free exercise to not believe or exercise their non-religious belief. Why? Because then you get nutcases like yourself that will try to shut down religion. As far as following the law of the land including state and local law, we are to do that. Jesus didn't teach to ignore Roman Law. He didn't say to ignore Jewish Law either. He just said the people had actually stopped properly following the Jewish Laws. He actually didn't attack Roman Laws, did he. And, we shouldn't attack our laws. We have methods given by the law to change bad laws. We should follow that and not ignore the proper ways to change laws, like the liberal Democrats are doing.

 

But, that isn't what the first amendment is about. Nada. It's only about giving the rights for people to practice their religion and not have that squashed by liberal atheists and Marxists. Yet, that's what Democrats and Marxists are attempting. Except for Islam because they are afraid of getting their heads chopped off.

 

That wasn't the question. You said he didn't exist. He did. There is record of him and there is the Bible that has record of his miracles. So, why would you believe the Roman records but not the Bible records? Do you have any proof that you should exclude one over the other?

 

No, it's not a record. It CONTAINS items of historical fact, but the real content of it, which is the magic of god and Jesus and the miracles and superhuman qualities and abilities, are myth, added onto a historical backdrop to lend the myths greater "believability" and to persuade new seekers of the holy nature of the man, Jesus. And all that is used by every religion to elevate the avatar to holy stature. This "method" is as old as dirt.

Oh boy. You're joking, right? I have to ask because I know there are some lost souls who do actually believe such crap.

Oh crap. You DO believe it!!!! AND you think the story of Genesis is a historical record of actual events!!!!!!!!!

YOU ENTIRELY MISSED EVERY SPIRITUAL LESSON IN IT!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!! Do you realize this "tradition" of taking the bible literally began in obedience to a .............. what do you call it ........ edict? ..... rule? ......law? ....... --issued by the Pope in the 15th century? How obedient of you! LOL!!!!!

 

Oh, and not being “squashed by liberal atheist “ IS in the first amendment ? Thanks for the clarification. There is NOTHING...
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”
that seemly means, Congress will not play any part in religion. Nothing, nada......it will not hinder not promote ANY religion, plain and simple.

 

You want to see your religion as supreme, countering even law.

I gave you an example of an attempt to do that.

Then, you pointed out that not even Jesus promoted this idea of religion being an excuse to igore the law. I'm glad you see that.

The law says that healthcare workers do have to provide assistance. Jesus says that believers in Jesus need to SEARCH OUT those who need help in poor houses, in hospitals, in prisons and find out what they need so that they may supply that need. And, Jesus underlines this duty by noting that even his followers may be rejected for failure to carry out this duty.

Yet there is that Christian movement today that, like in Arizona, want's to see their religion as giving them the right to not just fail to help, but to flat out ignore the law.

Similarly, they want to see their own religion as sufficient justification for denying marriage, imposing employment and public accommodation discrimination, etc.

The first amendment is clear about this stuff.

 

There are traces in Tacitus and perhaps other places suggest there was a person or persons who approximate an individual of that rough description.

The Bible records does not just suggest that such an idividual existed. It suggests that the person was one with God, executed miracles, was God's sacrificial lamb for the sins of all mankind, that he rose from the dead after being executed and buried, etc., etc., etc.

Suggesting that these other writings confirm the Bible is just plain nonsense. They do not.

 

Jesus was a historical figure based on other writings from Romans and Jewish accounts. To suggest Jesus is a myth is not supported by anything you suggest. You can have your opinions on whether he is the Father's Son, born of a Virgin, did miracles, atoned for our sins and was resurrected. That's your decision. But, your decisions and opinions don't have to be mine. See, what confirms the Bible to me is ultimately the gift of the Holy Ghost. I don't need you to prove the truth of the Bible, Book of Mormon or any other scriptures. I know for myself by confirmation by the Holy Ghost. Do you allow the Holy Ghost bear witness of the truth? If not, you will never know what I know. For, I'm not the Holy Ghost and therefore I can't give you proof of the life and purpose of Jesus Christ. Science cannot prove the the Gospel and it's truth. Because of this, you will be forever lost when it comes to the things of God.

 

Why do you ... the rest of the words? The "Free exercise of religion." clause. There is no free non-exercise of religion in the 1st amendment. Government cannot squash the rights of people to exercise their religion no matter what atheists and crybabies demand. Exercising their religion may include proselytizing as well.

 

You are good at conflating government law with commandments given by the Lord. As Christians, we are to individually separate of the Government to help the needy and feed the poor. His new commandments don't mean that we give up our covenants and hand them over to the government. We are to individually pay our offerings and tithing to help the poor, the needy and to build up the kingdom of God on the earth. We aren't to pay tithing to the government for the government to do our work for the poor and the needy. Jesus Christ never instituted socialism because socialism is a man made government operation to destroy liberty and freedom to worship God. Socialism only works when government institutes totalitarianism and forces people to spread the wealth around. Jesus Christ established his welfare program based on willfully giving to the poor and the needy without force. He was displeased with what the Jewish leaders had done with tithing and fast offerings. He didn't care what Rome was doing with tax money. He said, render to Cesar's that which is Cesar's and render to God that which is God's.

 

I've never disagreed on those points. You get to hold the religious beliefs you want to hold - just like everyone else, regardless of what those beliefs might be. We have people of all faiths in this country. They ALL get to be totally equal before the law.

I just pointed out that the secular indicators of such a person as Jesus do not confirm anything other than the possibility of existence - not a confirmation of anything he claimed.

And, I've never attacked your right to hold the religious beliefs you want to hold. In fact, I repeatedly confirm that science has nothing to say about your religion. Science can not address the supernatural/god/etc. What it CAN address is how this universe works - something that scinece has been OUTSTANDING at doing. On the other hand, religion has NO methoology for addressing how this physical universe works.

That is, the spiritual/supernatural and science are divided by a bright line. Even the Pope points this out. The two systems are designed to address very different issues.

Where I DO draw a line is that your religion can not be the justification for law. And, your religion is also not a justification for you to break the laws of this country.

 

OK, first of all what religious individuals are doing individually today is ABSOLUTELY NOT sufficient by any standard - including religious standards. So, your system failed so far. If it ever manages to NOT fail, then government will have less to do!!

I'd point out that Roman currency had Caesar's face on it. It wasn't hard to figure out whose currency that was.

Our system is NOT socialism. So, your comments on that don't pertain to the USA.

It is true that our government supports efforts that are beneficial to America and its people. We bankroll corporations. We invest in biomedical research. We fund our national defense.- fabulously! We build roads and facilitate transportation. We carry out wars and institute other penalties for oil.

And, we help those who are food and housing insecure - sometimes even through funding religious organizations to help with that!

You're probably aware that Mosaic law required the wealthy to loan moeny to those who were highly unlikely to be able to pay off the loan, with law requiring debt forgiveness. That was civil law supporting those with low income.

EVERY civilization that has EVER existed has had taxes. If you go back far enough you may find civilizations where individual contriutions were made in kind or through labor or other participation - but that is taxes.

Civilization is NEVER free.

 

I agree with almost all of what you post. The only thing I would say is not correct is that the Bible does address how the universe works. Not only that, but how it began including the earth. Whether or not a person chooses to try and understand it is up to each of us.

 

Funny how not a single person "understood it", until scientists came along and explained it. Then suddenly every religious people knew that it was exactly what then Bible meant. Give me a break. This level of proud dishonesty is not something to brag about.

 

The last couple popes have addressed that by pointing out that the two descriptions (Genesis and science) have different purpose. They don't address the same questions.

There is massive physical evidence that the Biblical creation story is an allegory rather than science. And, there is Biblical evidence that Genesis is attempting to convey religious rather than physical meaning - as seen in factors such as (but not limited to) the existence of two different creation stories. And, that is NOT an insult in any way. Allegories carry FAR more meaning in the realm of purpose, religion, etc., then do physical events - they just don't promise to be physics.

Deciding that all of physics is total garbage, that the evidence around us here on Earth and throughout our universe is nonsense on the grounds of Genesis is monumentally irrational.

And, the fact that YOU have to postulate a God who is actively working to fool us every hour of every day is a sad, sad thing for YOU to say about what YOUR god does in order to prop up Genesis as literal.

Why would your god lie that profoundly and cntinuously? Is he testing you to see if you will believe his lies?

As an atheist, I would propose that your religion is better than that.

 

Write down the exact wording of the first amendment. Don’t make up your own.
Or no religion. So you’re fine with schools beginning prayer to Islam 5 times a day.

 

Allow me to 'reset' to an ethics question:

If competing religions meet in the public square, all bearing their right to expression of public religion, and offer competing ideas on how laws should be written...

Which one wins, and why?

I think the best answer is that none of them win anything. All of them can get it all out of their systems and then go away. Their freedom of expression of their religion is, inherently, freedom FROM their religions, when arguing the force of laws, or when participating in the market. None of them can have dominion over any other among them, per freedom of expression of religion. Religions are simultaneously given free range acceptance (as long as they understand their right to swing their fists ends where everyone else's noses begin), while being neutered in terms of influence on laws or governance.