[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: REALLY OT: News Flash

Hash: SHA1

On 02/25/07 17:34, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> "What commandment is the foremost of all?" Jesus answered, "The
>> foremost is, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you
>> shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your
>> soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' "The
>> second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is
>> no other commandment greater than these." (NAS, Mark 12:28-31)
> Luke 14:26
> If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and
> children, his brothers and sisters?yes, even his own life?he cannot be my
> disciple.

My, aren't we the close-minded literalist.

>> "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so
>> you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my
>> disciples, if you love one another." (NIV, John 13:34-35)
>     And as I said before to Roberto, if God's Law is perfect (as it says many
> times in the NT and OT) and God's Law is expressed, at least in part, in the
> OT then one must follow the OT.  Otherwise you're choosing the portions of the
> Bible you want to follow and rejecting those you don't.

Before spouting off about something, learn about it.  Learn what the
Christian interpretations of OT vs. NT are before spouting from
seeming ignorance.

>> 1. "God has always been."
>> 2. "All matter/energy Just Appeared."
>> Even I, an atheist, think that #2 is more fantastical.
>     Really?  Why?  What is your answer to the regression problem?  To

I have no answer to the regression problem.  Both are fantastical,
#1 because There Is No God, and #2 because it totally violates
"Conservation of Matter and Energy".

> terminate it one has to concede that something, somewhere, had to just exist.
>  If it be a creator, then that creator just existed.  BTW, who's to say the
> creator isn't matter/energy we've not discovered yet?  How does #2 get to be
> more fantastical than #1 when they could be one and the same?
>     Is it a perfect answer?  No.  Is it *the* answer.  No.  Is it simpler than
> something more complex than all of creation just existing just so that all of
> creation could be created so as to get around the just existing problem?  Yes.

Both are *wrong*.  Doesn't matter whether one is simpler than the other.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: