Form means shape...if the the earth was a perfect sphere, it would still rotate on it's axis...I don't see your point.



Read Genesis 1:5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Whatever Spider.

So what you are saying is that you believe this earth was created in seven earth days. Okay. I certainly don't intend to argue with that logic.

No, I don't believe that the earth was created in seven earth days. It was six.

It's not logic, it's a belief. You have beliefs that are completely without support, which I'm sure sound strange to many people. So looks like we are in the same boat.

My considerations and my model of reality has lots of scientific support. They are not beliefs. They are only considerations.
They are subject to adjustment with any new information to the contrary.

JB

Most scientists laugh at the idea of a holographic universe. The "theory of attraction" would also be scoffed at by modern science. I too can call fringe scientists "scientific support", but that doesn't make it so.

Come on Spider, this has to be the lamest analogy you've every come up with yet.

When it comes to serious crimes of morality even the courts would not allow someone else to pay for your crimes. If you murder someone and I offer to take your sentence for you, the court would not even consider that option.

You’re comparing moral sins with petty traffic fines.

I’m in total agreement with Jeanniebean that it makes no sense for someone else to pay for my sins.

Moreover, the whole concept that a God is appeased of sins by the spilling of blood is absurd.

And what is even more absurd is that God would be appeased by the spilling of his OWN blood.

The idea that deities are appeased by the spilling of blood is a very common theme in almost all ancient mythologies and religions that have personified deities. Even religions far removed from anything to do with Christianity often appeased their Gods by the spilling of blood.

This arose originally from the quite natural observation that when blood is spilled men die. Thus blood is given the divine status of being a mystical life-giving fluid.

The shedding of blood to appease the Gods is very a very common superstition.

Now you tell me why the creator of our universe would be obsessed with the spilling of blood to appease its anger over our disobedience to it?

Like as if the spilling of blood is going to somehow heal the fact that we did bad things????

Your whole religion is based on this ideal.

The idea that Jesus was a sacrificial lamb of God sacrificed unto men to appease the very God who made the ‘sacrifice’.

A God who is appeased by the spilling of blood.

Will we ever get over this nonsensical archaic view of the creator of this universe I wonder?

The spilling of blood. Hmmm! It is the greatest gift a human flesh person can do. Instead of killing the one I love take me instead. I'd rather die than see my love suffer. It sounds logical to me.

Soldiers do this all the time, as do police, firefighters and loads of other people.

But this kind of spilling of blood isn’t as superficial as it is in the case of appeasing a bloodthirsty God.

Like I asked before,… how does the spilling of blood pay for sins? A God refuses to forgive the actions of the past until he sees blood spilled?

This is a picture of a God who’s solution to everything is to spill blood. But what good would the spilling of blood do? How does that pay for sins? Does God lust to see blood spilled so much that he’ll do anything (even forgive disobedience) just to watch blood flow?

Isn’t there something grossly sadistic and demented with that picture?

A God that is appeased by the spilling of blood?

I guess because before Jesus died and resurrected all those that had died before that time simply ceased to exist at their death instead of having eternal life.

Really? Who? Please send me the article or white paper refuting the model in a laughing manner. I really have not read anything about that. I would be very interested in another scientific opinion on the findings of University of London physicists David Bohm, a former protege of Einstein's and one of the world's most respected quantum physicists, and Stanford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram, one of the architects of our modern understanding of the brain.

Please sight your references for me, or send me a message.

inquiring minds want to know.

Hey jeanniebean



how R U?

Abra,

1) There are no "serious crimes" to God, the penalty for all sins is death.

2) God made the laws and God decided how the laws would work. God's way is better than man's way, a misguided child's crimes can be forgiven while the law is satisfied at the same time.

In ancient times, (on our earth) and perhaps even somewhere in the galaxy law, a person could agree to become representative of another and be held for the others crime while the other person took care of his final affairs before the sentence of the court.

If the convicted one failed to show up, the representative was to serve the sentence, even be put to death if that was the sentence.

But Today this is done in the form of a Bondsman or an attorney in fact, but they do not allow another person to be punished except for the forfeit of the money or property put up in place of the actual person.

Money now takes the place of the person, which means that we have a certain value or price.

This of course supports the idea that we are slaves or property to be bought and/or sold.

JB

Apparently bold an insulting as ever.

I would love to tell you who disagrees with the Holographic Universe theory, but I can't find a single legitamate scientist who has even given the theory a second thought.

As for the Holonomic theory...that's different from the Holographic universe theory. The holographic mind theory is that memory is spread over areas of the brain. So brain damage which effects only part of the memory will leave the memory in tact, but possibly fuzzy. I'm not sure what that theory has to do with the Holographic Universe theory...

It ties in some way I suppose. If you are curious read the book. I think its very a interesting concept.

What is your idea of a legitimate scientist? Why do you think they are a reliable authority? They certainly would laugh at your idea of the world being created in six days, so why would you want their opinions anyway?

JB

JB,

I don't disagree in the least. Many, if not most scientists would reject my beliefs as nonsense. The point I was making is that you said your beliefs have a lot of scientific support, they do not.

Certainly more than yours. And Besides I don't claim them as my beliefs.

Quantum science supports my model, so does the Law of attraction.

They are temporary considerations that make more sense to me than anything else so far.

They may be my temporary beliefs, but I am not married to them.

JB

The Bible won't make sense... ...

until one is truly born again.

THEN... and ONLY THEN.......AFTER a man's spiritual eyes have been opened...will the Bible (Word of God) FINALLY
begin to make sense...at long last.

But not until then.......ever.