lindyhopper

Well, unless JC is an actual ccornerstone, an actual tent stake, or an actual battle bow, I would say the verses are figurative. ;)-->

While we're being figuretive, The bow could just represent God's protection. I could easily see a rainbow in a time where people used bows as weapons could be seen to represent just that. The same way you look at the clouds and see dragons or elephants or whatever, except here is a phenomena that is the same shape everytime. I didn't write the book, but that is what it says. Does God really look? Does God really remember? Or does he just know all things all the time? Seeing that with every other covenant, there is a reminder put in place for the mentally challenged humans, I would think that this would be similar. Take circumcision for example. An everyday reminder, as long as your not dehydrated. Did they have a word for rainbow, would be another good question. Maybe the name for that shape was the same with anything shaped like a bow, again cause that's what they used. KJV does use rainbow, I don't know how many other versions do. Then of course it does say that this is a "sign" of the covenant between God, man and ALL living things on the earth. All living things? hmmm Well there are those that think that dinosaurs and many other now extict animals were on the ark. So God promises no floods that wipe everything out. But other natural disasters? Apparently those weren't covered under this covenant. Wiping out entire spieces was later deemed exceptable only not by way of flood, I guess. A loop hole was found, that while he won't use floods, he might decide to use volcanoes, tornadoes, drout or any other disaster tactic to whipe out animals like dinosaurs and the dodo bird and numerous others. Since he has used the loop hole for other speices, this covenant doesn't sit well with me as a human. Or maybe, dinosaurs weren't FOB. (fresh off the boat)

LMAO, Song, you crack me up man.

OK Tom, that just made me feell wierd all over. kidding. Actually it seems to be doing pretty well. My referal didn't make it to the hand doctor in time so I'll see him Friday. I love the win - win situation some folks have... "How is your finger doing?" -"good, it is healing up pretty quickly" "good, because we've been praying for it" Ohhhhhhh. It is healing up because it has been prayed for. Of course if it wasn't doing well that would have been my fault for not being in da ministry or doing something else wrong. But it is doing fine and has nothing to do with the fact that I went to the DR right away or the fact that I have been keeping it well cleaned and dressed and protected. but I guess I'm talking to the wrong folks about that.

MC Con, The thing about Wayfers, der Vey, and the corps is and was that things change with each new leader. Their style is different, the things that push thier buttons is different, thier spoon technique is different, some leave bigger whelts than others. Someone may have been on a vitamin kick while you where in but when I was there they just used the spoon to keep you in shape. I know now my mom is on a serious fruit and veggie pill hype. Wafers were also always on some strange health or fitness kick. I was in F12, so I was arrivng as your family was leaving. I was a little older to so that also lends itself to a different experience. My younger brother was around that age. I know they started hitting young kids at a young age. Later it was supposed to be used as an attention getter, but in our day many people felt it was Ok to hit pretty hard, especially the older you got. Some older folks here think that the things that happened to us were piddly compared to the way they were raised. "In my day, we didn't have butts, they were beaten off of us by the age of four. We were buttless mutated freeks, and WE LIKED IT!" Well, I am of the thought that you shouldn't hit your kids. Even though I was hit and turned out OK, except for the multiple personalities.

Sorry, that was a stupid question. No rain. No rainforests. These plants must have evolved. Would be interesting to see if all the plants in the rainforests are linked to other non-rainforest species. I kind of doubt it, but I could be wrong. If there are some that are rainforest specific, then that kinda shoots the "evolution only within species" and "no rain before Noah" concepts in the bunion. The other option would be to accept Gen as truth and not bother looking into this.

On myths. I think I've said this before but... There are many people, including many many Christians that believe myth to be stories and accounts that had a great oral tradition prior to being written down. Many times this was popular by wayof songs. And we all know that the song remains the same. Right, Song? or not. Anyways, many see song like attribute to many parts of Genesis, like a repeating chorus. For eg., "and God saw that it was good, and the evening and the morning were the _____ day". Or we could look at the Noah account and see the repetition in "I do set my bow in the cloud " and "I do set my bow in the cloud " and "And the bow shall be in the cloud" or "it shall be for a token of a covenant" and "This is the token of the covenant ". Seems very song like. Just ask SRTS. I also want to point out HCW, what you said and what the Bible says were two different things. One was "WHEN I bring a cloud over the earth" ( the only kind I know of) a rainbow can be seen coming ouut of it. The other is " Well that doesn't happen exactly like that, but when the conditions are right it does, so it lines up". That may be nit-picking, but you added a word. Imagine what would happen if I did that to Gen 1. Just a thought.

So I will continue with questions. No rain till Noah? Yet there was water all around in the lakes, rivers, ocean(s) etc.. The sun moon and stars were in the the sky, people were breathing oxygen I would presume, and plants still worked the same way, as did the atmosphere. So photo sythesis was happening. The plants need water, oxygen, and CO2 for that matter, as well as many other things, like enough sun to live and flower and reproduce. So, instead of going off on all the things I know about meteorology, I will ask yall with the answers how that worked. So the dew point stayed only around a certain level? Was there never enough sunlight to produce clouds with rain? Were there not enough aerosols in the air for rain? What about volcanoes? they produce a lot of aerosols. For hundreds of years? What about deciduous plants? Was there snow? HCW, working on a farm, you must know the importance of snow for certain plants. What about plants that now exist in tropical areas? They require a lot of water. Would you care to explain how these plants servived on mist? Did they later evolve after Pegeg. Was there not a rainforest on Pangea? Do you k now how much oxygen these types of plants convert? Same with the ocean. Now I haven't claimed anything here, but the idea of there being no rain for hundreds of years causes me to question a whole lot of the limited knowledge I have of the way the atmosphere works with the living things on this planet. Anyone care to make an attempt at answering some of these? Or is acceptance good enough?

Geeze a lot to talk about. Sorry if I let anyone hanging. The geniuses digging out back took out by cable. I would warn anyone who berates another for acting as they know everything about something not to then turn around and do the same thing. It doesn't really help your point. I might add that during this discussion (don't know the exact number) but it sure seems like the athiest and agnostic side asks way more questions than the creationist side. They tend to point to all the unverifiable answers as truth. To assume truth in a discussion about origins is a very big presumption and way more arrogant than asking some theatening quesitons.

LOL, that did it, ALA. thanks.

I have read Behe. I was first introduced to him during an "origins" class I took a few years ago. To stay well rounded and well informed another good book other than "Finding Darwin's God" by Ken Miller is "Tower of Babel, Evidence Against the New Creationism". Both have serious biochemical problems with Behe's "irreducibly complex" claims.

BTW, Here is an interesting read regarding Behe, and it doesn't concer his lame irreducable "Mouse Trap" example. from a lecture at University of New Mexico... and a link to a website concerning the successful experiment discussed above.

Actually the thought is that everything is moving away from each other, with some "local exceptions (colliding galaxies, black holes, other large gavitational forces for eg.). In other words, no matter what cosmological vantage point one is in, it would seem as though everything was moving away from you. We do have a galaxy heading our way. JerryB, While science is not one person, the field is made up of people. Unfortunately, we still are not perfect. There are a lot of things that would be much better if we were, regardless of the topic. that doesn't mean that the entire human race is going in the wrong direction. I will look for a table of Hubble's law over the years to make a point that I can't make without it. My point was that scientists should not be anti-christian, but stay out of religon all together. It should start with observation, not a several thousand year old phylosophy. If you start making science Christian friendly, then you need to make it Budist friendly and Muslim friendly etc.. Your quote showed what the author said was an anti-Creation reaction by a scientist to the Big Bang theory. He also pointed out how it was long thought that the universe was infinite in time and space (which BTW, is a view that is coming back). Couldn't it also be that the reaction was because it was a long held view and people, scientist or not, tend to not automatically accept drastic change very well.

So, JB, are you saying that over the past serveral hundred years that we would have made far greater leaps in science if they would have allowed the posibility of an unobservable unpredictable untestable God to influence their positions? Or would you agree that this would be the antithesis of the scientific method, a method that has proved to be quite helpful. sidebar- it would seem that now the Big Bang Theory which as your author pointed out was thought to point to creation in its infantcy, is now thought to be anti-Creation by many if not most Christians today.

and David Thanks and your welcome and thank you too. :D-->

Sorry Galen, we seem to have miscommunicated. I was saying that it seems more likely that the combination of nurture and nature would be sufficient in causing one to act on a negative behavior one is predisposed for. My view is that demons have nothing to do with it at all, pre or post. Especially seeing how demon are not exactly noticeable. I would think that if we were predisposed to sin (a concept I don't agree with) that you wouldn't need demons to tempt you. Just the normal day to day experiences would present enough opportunities that one would sin according to their predisposition farely regularly just from a purely statistical probability view point. Thats all.

Holy Sh!+, P Mosh. That was cold. Well in twit land. The Word of God is the Will of God. Pretty inseperable. AND of course, the ministry is the Word and the Word is the ministry. Ministry = God. It is kinda hard to compete with a diety, progeny or not.

While I know we don't agree on spiritual things, I definitely feel what your saying. I think that is true of most people regardless of belief. Life is a journey, an adventure, a learning process. Well, I've said this before in different ways, maybe at some point it will seem palletable. I think we are in it for ourselves and for others. While being in it for others helps us help ourselves. Love is great, but without other people it doesn't doesn't do much for you, in fact it kinda hurts. I have a wonderful wife and kid. Love them with all that I am. Although, friends are lacking and so is my side of the family. I miss those things. With the exception of a fleeting few, I haven't had friends that were friends by choice, by a genuine connection and common interest. Most have been by way of association ie. other people's friends or people thru work etc. I don't think I have had those real friends in over 10 years. I think we all need fulfilment and contentment to a resonalble degree. I know I'm not talking about God, but I know the grind of life, even in my short number of years. And I know that we need to find and feel that love that comes in different forms and different people and in different catagoires of out life. When it starts to lack in a major area of life, the persuit of our dreams seems to be harder and harder and become questionable....Why? Sometimes the persuit of that need becomes this way because there are other needs we are overlooking, like me and haveing real friends. I also would like to persue some activies that i have put aside for many years like getting back in a band and making music. A hobbie I guess like you said. I know that when all of our needs are taken care of physical, mental etc. then those dreams seem that much closer. When they are not, they are a distraction and those dreams seem almost pointless. Hope this has helped, I know it has helped me in just the trying to help. ;)-->

the other Jerry? Are you implying that Adam and Eve, barring sin, would have died a natural physical death? That entropy was in the original design? Was god the author of this physical death? If not where, when and why did it change?

Jerry, It is a credit to science because it continues to move forward in the search for reality. Whether it is 1 in 1000 or 1000 to 1, the goal of science is to make discoveries and make closer appoximations to reality. While the 1000 threw out one layer they were not screwing up the rest of the work they were doing, they were still moving forward. When a study is repeated or peer review and is found faulty, it is not due to the downfall of science but a faulty aplication of science, a faulty hypothesis, prediction, observation, or experiment. Maybe an assumption that should never have been made was the fault. Still the fact that science catches a mistake or questions a success is to its credit. Even if evolution is partially incorrect, even the incorrect aspects of it are not without merit entirely when you consider the other discoveries that it has helped reveal. And as Garth pointed out one incident should not be used as the measure of "science" in general. I would be interested in someone commenting on my point of creation not being a theory but a hypothesis. You can make observations. You can make a hypothesis. I guess you could even make predictions, but there is no way to test those predictions to support your hypothesis. Therefore, scientificly (which is usually what we are referencing when using this word) you can not declare it a theory. The only definition that fits using the word theory next to the word creation is that of conjecture. Guesswork.

I hear ya, Ex10 JC being God would solve some of these issues. Like I pointed out with Mary as his mother, there couldn't be perfect blood. But then he wouldn't need it to be sinless and tempted in all things like uss. He would just need to make the right choices. That goes for all of us I supose. Although, that would make it hard for JC as God to be tempted at all, seeing as you can't tempt the Lord your God. It is all a little muddy. Galen, Wouldn't it be easier to think that instead of demons that the combination of both nuture and nature help determined whether or not a person fell into their predisposition? I don't hear of too many rapests tlaking of their perfect upbringing and how their parents loved and supported them all the time. It seems more common and readily ovservable that one's upbringing combined with genetic predisposition are the cause of terrible behaviors. Demons are kind of hard to document.

thanks for the sentiments all. I haven't had to take one pain killer. That is really insane I don't get it. I didn't cut the whole thing off, I would say it is about a quarter of the tip. So there is only half a finger nail up thru the cuticle and about half way down thru the finger. I don't see how I didn't go thru bone. Yet all I feel is pressure more than anyting. It was a new blade I just put on. A dado for those that know what that is. For those that don't it is a stack of blades to cut a wide channel or dado. Good thing for me I only put three together so it was only 3/8 wide. It could have been real ugly if it were like 3/4 wide. It was just one of those stupid moments when your saying to your self I probably shouldn't do thi-----AH ****. lol There were some other choice words that went along with that. So I have been doing a lot of this Hap, thanks for the offer, but I think she will be alright for now. I think what will happen is I will stay here longer so I can fulfil my commitment. Unless you know a good daycare out there. anyways, thanks you guys and gals.

Thanks Chin and the rest of the !'s

And another thing... JC having perfect blood assumes that the man is the determining factor for blood. In this case the literally non-male God, but anyway. Blood is determined by both parents. That would mean that either Mary had perfect blood somehow or that she wasn't really his mother at all. God would had have to completely create him not just the sperm as twits teach. Which is it?

Sin in the blood is an interesting stand, for Christians especially, IMO. I don't know if you realise what you are saying, but....you are saying that behavior is genetic. Which to some degree I would agree. But then take a look at one behavior many Christians have a problem with, homosexuality. The gays folks and many others say it is genetic, Christians and still others cry pervertive choice! WOW! But sin is genetic. hmmmmm What other behavior is genetic. What would yall be willing to accept? If it were a matter of someone being more likely to sin then JC wouldn't need perfect blood. Like alchoholism, they say you have a 50/50 chance that you will or woll not be an alchoholic if your parent was. Predisposed is what I think they call it. Well if that is the case why couuldn't JC have had imperfect blood and just chose the proper percentage of his behaviour. Plus if his blood was perfect then it doesn't seem like he would really be "tempted in all things lke as we are" because he didn't have sin in his blood and therefore wouldn't be predisposed to certain behavior like we are. He would be born far less likely to sin...far less tempted. That is all of course if sin is genetic. Idon't know what else you could mean by sin being in the blood.