Ah, but Jesus is God. Who do you think created Adam?

Genesis 2:7
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Notice "lord" God.

Now for Jesus -
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Jesus is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. There is no before Jesus/God or after.

In the time of Moses, they were under a different covenant. It was an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth in the covenant Moses was under.



Who's to say it wasn't forgiven? Do you know if Adam is in Heaven to this day?



Incorrect, without Jesus Eve would not be.

Again, there was no time before Jesus. Jesus is our God, Jesus was Moses' God.

Exodus 20:2
2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Matthew was a disciple, this much is true. But what are you talking about dreaming it up? This is a recorded incident with Jesus Christ. If you do not believe it or believe it happened, that is by all means your choice. But these are recorded words of something Jesus said.

I don't care what Moses would say. And why would he call me a liar? What's your scriptual evidence he believed differently? The only one that matters of what they said, is Jesus. And he said the following.


John 14:6
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Nobody is equal to God, especially no man, what are you talking about?

Philippians 2:7
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men

He only was in the likeness of a man in his appearance, in his form. But he was God in the flesh.

Of course.

You will soon see a picture of him (a photo op) shaking hands with some lowly fireman probably.

Or, (God forbid) a shot of him holding a rescued a dog or deer from the fire.

I started dating a Baptist minister and we have talked about being together in the future, BUT do I really need to convert in order to be accepted?

I am devoted to my faith and wouldn't want to choose between him and God

They aren't. That's why both titles are used througout the scriptures. If it was speaking of the same exact being, it wouldn't need to use two different titles consecutively through the entire bible.

They are one "God". For again "God" in itself is not specifically a being. It's a word to show authority. Heck the dictionary has "God" and "lord" as synonyms. But again as to not create confusion on whom is being referred to, the two different titles were used eg., God and LORD God.

University of Oregon Professor Azim Shariff and University of Kansas Professor Mijke Rhemtulla published an interesting study in the scientific journal PloS One finding that people who believe in heaven are more likely to commit a crime. It appears that the promise of fire and brimstone of hell is a far greater motivator for good conduct than the harps and cherubs of Heaven.


The study also found that people who believe in hell are less likely to commit a crime. A curious contrast. The data base for the study is huge — the professors collected data from surveys conducted between 1981 until 2007 with 143,197 participants in 67 countries.

The conclusion appears to be a bit of an extrapolation. It appears not based on individual accounts and actions but the comparison of national beliefs with national crime statistics. They compared the beliefs in these countries with data for homicides, robberies, rapes, kidnappings, assaults, thefts, auto thefts, drug crimes, burglaries and human trafficking. I was a bit skeptical about such an extrapolation since countries can have a myriad of different collateral influences. However, the professors do take these variables into consideration in reaching their intriguing conclusion:

Though religion has been shown to have generally positive effects on normative ‘prosocial’ behavior, recent laboratory research suggests that these effects may be driven primarily by supernatural punishment. Supernatural benevolence, on the other hand, may actually be associated with less prosocial behavior. Here, we investigate these effects at the societal level, showing that the proportion of people who believe in hell negatively predicts national crime rates whereas belief in heaven predicts higher crime rates. These effects remain after accounting for a host of covariates, and ultimately prove stronger predictors of national crime rates than economic variables such as GDP and income inequality. Expanding on laboratory research on religious prosociality, this is the first study to tie religious beliefs to large-scale cross-national trends in pro- and anti-social behavior."


I forget where this type of thinking would go on Kohlberg's Scale of Moral Development, but if I recall not very high.

I agree

from ABC news

'President Obama today invoked executive privilege to shield documents related to the "Fast and Furious" gun walking scandal from a congressional investigation, marking the first time his administration has invoked the right and the 25th time it's been used since 1980.'

Obama passed no 'immgiration law', he set forth a TEMPORARY Administrative policy which is his within his authority as President

there is no evidence that he authorized supplying weapons to cartels or that it would be illegal to have done so

I didn't conduct the poll, so again, if you have issues with the numbers take it up with the polling company.

And nah, I'm just laughing at those who got all wound up over this. Relax a little.

A bit of hyperbole, it's impossible to prove "always". But typically, yes, polls and surveys lean left. The reason is that those on the right value their time too much to take polls and surveys.

yep that too.A nanosecond of existence is still a existence.

From the text of the youtube.

While 11826 was steadily moving away from the suns gravity well, towards Proxima Centauri, 11825 was discovered to have been in orbit around the sun for approximately 300 million years. There was wide speculation among the people who had access as to whether or not it wiped out the dinosaurs with a close pass. Indeed, it did.

It is now known that the exact same thing is going to happen in 2012, as displayed in the simulation. It takes approximately 125 to 250 million years for the planetary orbits to repair themselves due to the gravitational riptides from Rigil Kentaurus.

2012? That says it all.

Ah, but it is out in left field. Sorry for the missunderstanding you have had here. In the old covenant we were judged by our peers, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Now the father has committed all judgement to his son, whom will judge us all. We are no longer to judge anyone, for again it has been laid in the hands of Jesus to do.


John 5:22
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son


Please keep in mind where verses are posted, from either old testament or new testament. Those two testaments, cover two different covenants, two different sets of laws. The old covenant has done been fulfilled, completed, finished and thus we have been given a new covenant.

Why would someone start their own religion? What would be the point? There would be nothing to gain or anything, so why would someone go through such a huge extent to make their own religion?

*ps, I fixed your post, if you're going to quote something I said, include it all. If you only wish to respond to a part of it do a quote at the beginning of what you're quoting and a /quote at the end with the words /quote and quote inside of [ ]

i don't get why anyone could think creationism and evolution are not two words for the same thing

Evolution is just creationism that takes a REALLY long time