Part 25 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

What's the oldest celestial object in the cosmos?

 

Patting people on the back for making ignorant claims again ? Do you know enough about quantum mechanics to be able to state why Cupids claim is true or false ?

Anyhow ... why are you ignoring post #2 ?

 

I have an old book here which claims a giant serpent created the universe as a jewel for her beloved. And another book of creation myths which details about 100 different ancient claims of who or what created the universe (and everything in it - including us).

How is that so many different gods all created the one universe? Did they all make different bits of it, and agreed to share the credit?

 

Isn't Einstein's statement: "I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details"...the same as acknowledging he believed in the Creator God?

He might have never said the exact words of, "A God must exist because so does the universe" but the fact remains that in a point in Einstein's life he finally realized that the universe was not eternal which he had falsely believed at one time, that's why he called the universe a God, a God that wasn't a personable God. He was a pantheist and that's what those pantheist believe in.

But when he came to the realization that the universe had a beginning, that it was not eternal, something had caused it to come into existence, at that point that's when he uttered the statement, "I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details"

Makes you wonder, did he convert over to Christianity before he passed? If he did that would have been the wisest decision he had ever made in his entire life.

Mitt Ryan

 

The only conflict I see is the same old thing. You're having another conflict of interpetating Scripture correctly, in other words you are misinterpreting what you're reading.

Those angels you speak of are the fallen angels who God kicked out of heaven and sent them down to earth.

And so those demonic fallen angels were not having sex in heaven but they were having sex here on earth. That was part of the reason why God sent the Great Flood. Those demonic angels had polluted the blood line and so God had to wipe out the pollution.

The Great Flood that God sent took care of that.

In summary there is no conflict between the passages you brought up, again the only conflict here is your continuous interpretation impairment issues.

 

Much older writings claim that Adam and Lilith spawned demons after the fall.

 

And yours.

1. If you accept that Moses wrote the Torah then the 'fallen angels' you mention becomes a problem. This belief did not come into Judaism until the Second Temple period.
2. If 'fallen angels' can take the form of a man, how do we know they didn't fake the resurrection of Jesus.
3. Peter tells us that the angels who sinned were cast into hell to await judgement.
4. Nephilim - has no recognised general meaning in Hebrew. In Aramaic it refers to giants. See Numbers 13.
5.Your definition first appears in Apochryphal Jewish writings of the Second Temple Period.

As the events never occurred it's all just myth anyway.

 

This is the reason why there is much inability to understand things when individuals can't even distinguished who post what even if is clearly posted

by Giftedone from post 711:
Jesus was not found guilty because he said "No" when asked such question.
Pilate - "Are you the Messiah" Jesus "No" Pilate: "Are you the Son of God" Jesus "No"
This is the only way Jesus would have been found not guilty.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showth...post1064383973

If say you are responding to my post about Giftedone post then I understand that. So you should know who is twisting what right?

 

What does Job 34:30 (That the hypocrite reign not, lest the people be ensnared.) mean to Christians, especially with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge?

 

Oh... now that's interesting!

 

Why would someone making comments in relation to "God" in a general sense suggest that someone is going to convert to Christianity ?

Perhaps he was talking about the Hindoo God, Jewish God, Gaia, some universal concept of God that Einstein most likely had and so on.

Converting to Christianity involves subscribing to some silly beliefs that "thinking people" do not generally accept because "thinking people" are less likely to accept a dogma which tells them not to think !!

 

You have no clue about Einstein, do you? The only thing you know about his is what some propaganda website tells you. LOL.

 

Fallen angels, kicked out of heaven. This is the paradise everyone talks about? So much for a sinless afterlife.

 

By the way you cannot 'recognise' anything - you 'recognize'.

 

You certainly can in the UK. Both spellings are acceptable. 'Recognise' being the most popular in the UK.

Another misinterpretation?

 

I do love this thread. I've been asked to leave twice and take Jewish interpretations to another thread. Mmm. The fact is there are no Jewish interpretations, though I use the term often on here. There are only Christian interpretations of Jewish Scriptures. Just as the JW's, Mormons etc have done.
The truth is that Christianity relies on the Tanakh. Quotes from the Tanakh which obviously refer to the Jews are taken by Christianity to mean Jesus, etc. Isaiah 53, Psalm 22 are quoted and I've already commented on these. If the Tanakh did not exist Christianity, at least in its present form, would not exist. There would be no Bible, no 'Promised Messiah', no Abraham, Moses etc., no 10 commandments, the destruction of Jericho would be down to an earthquake (as it may have been). Jesus would have nothing to quote from. Nothing to 'preach'. Mitt and WarRen would have nothing to misinterprete or get confused over.

Oh dear. I've just a terrible thought. Without the Tanakh this thread would not exist!

 

Limited education. It wasn't on the gotquestions web site.

 

The Pope has confirmed that the Big Bang and Evolution are real

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand/ar-BBbFNam.

 

So is this an argument of Einstein was a genius thus he had to be wise? I will acquiesce to Einstein's superior intelligence on scientific matters, but as he also all but abandoned his son, was a philanderer and treated his wives like property... I do not recognize him as any type of authority on God, theology, morality, or wisdom.

 

Touché. The OP does not seem to understand that spelling varies from country to country... check/cheque.

 

Neither does he understand that the British are always right - well, unless they're wrong, of course.

 

LOL Mitt .. are you so without material that you have now been reduced to picking out what you think are spelling errors in hopes that this will somehow turn your fallacy into truth ?.

The word recognise/ recognize can be written either way. Seems your ignorance extends to more than just the Bible.

 

No, no misinterpretation, I think it was you misiterpretating what I said. I never said you mis-spelled the word...now did I? Essentially I was just implying that Americans spell the word differently, I wasn't at all saying your spelling was wrong.

I know very well that the British in the UK spell words differently from us Americans. There are numerous words that are spelled differently besides the word 'recognize'.

But since most members here are Americans we do not 'recognize' the UK's way of spelling the word. To spell it 'recognise' is not popular at all in the USA.

And so if you're writing for British readers, you should only use British spellings but since most of us here are Americans it would be more acceptable if you do what Americans do, conform to the way we do things, it would be more appropriate and a polite gesture on your part.

I mean if I knew I had predominantly readers who were British I would conform and use British spellings likewise if I knew I had predominantly readers who were Americans I would conform and use American spellings.

Surely you can 'recognize' that would be the proper thing to do...now couldn't you?...lol

Like the saying goes, "When in Rome do as the Romans do"...lol

 

Then why did you use the post I put to WarRen. We can see your intention was to try to correct me. Trouble is you're not man enough to admit it.

What do you think of the Pope's claim that the Big Bang and Evolution are true. The R.Catholic church has been struggling with this over several decades. Now it is having to admit it was wrong. Most of its followers have known this for ages.
The church is also beginning to admit its misunderstanding of the Tanakh. Something you refuse to do.

As to 'when in rome......'. I'm in the UK and I am doing as a UK citizen would.

Your 'politeness' paragraph is derisory. I've never yet seen this done on the internet. We talk as we know how. Under your regime we would have to talk to a Frenchman in French or a German in German just to be polite.

 

It certainly looks like a correction on your part. We all caught it.