The Infinitely lazy God?

[Paprika]

Also we have a direct and specific from the New Testament:

[Bill the Cat]

Where there is life, there is crap, and it grows beautiful roses.

So you crap on your god and he gives you flowers.

[JonathanL]

Also we have a direct and specific from the New Testament:

2 Peter 3:8 - Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years.

According to Peter it was a part of orthodoxy.

That's from Lactantatius' Divine Institutes Book VII, Chapter XIV, not 2 Peter 3:8.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf0...i.vii.xiv.html


ETA: But it's nice to see that you consider 2 Peter 3:8 to be genuine.

[shunyadragon]

Don't you believe that Moses was a manifestation of God Shuny? Isn't that what your religion teaches? So this manifestation of God got the whole creation story wrong?

We have no original text written by Moses.

[seer]

We have no original text written by Moses.

Really? Then how does your religion know anything about him? Your faith teaches that Moses gave men and I quote "The Laws of God." Where did they get this information?

[shunyadragon]

That's from Lactantatius' Divine Institutes Book VII, Chapter XIV, not 2 Peter 3:8.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf0...i.vii.xiv.html


ETA: But it's nice to see that you consider 2 Peter 3:8 to be genuine.

Agreed, the source of the translation was not an accurate translation. according to this the creation may took 6,000 years.

[shunyadragon]

Which translation is that? Here's what I'm finding for 2 Peter 3:8

2 Peter 3:8New International Version (NIV)

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

The translation I references was in error, your correct.

[shunyadragon]

So you crap on your god and he gives you flowers.

Odd and confusing!

[seer]

Odd and confusing!

Really? Then how does your religion know anything about him? Your faith teaches that Moses gave men and I quote "The Laws of God." Where did they get this information?

[shunyadragon]

Really? Then how does your religion know anything about him? Your faith teaches that Moses gave men and I quote "The Laws of God." Where did they get this information?

I believe in Moses, because the Baha'i Faith, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism teach that Moses is a manifestation of God and gave the Laws of God to the Hebrews. The Laws were handed down by the Hebrews. Some Laws were universal and some Laws were temporal for the people the Laws given. Again we do not have original texts written by Moses. We have what was recorded later and handed down by the Hebrews.

The Baha'i Faith also taught that there were manifestations of God universal to humanity throughout the history of humanity through the Creation, Revelation and evolution of humanity, and some the names and scripture are no longer known. The religions of the ancients reflect both Revelation form God, and the fallible human view of God at the time of the Revelation.

[seer]

I believe in Moses, because the Baha'i Faith, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism teach that Moses is a manifestation of God and gave the Laws of God to the Hebrews. The Laws were handed down by the Hebrews. Some Laws were universal and some Laws were temporal for the people the Laws given. Again we do not have original texts written by Moses. We have what was recorded later and handed down by the Hebrews.

So you believe that these records handed down by the Hebrews concerning Moses and what he taught were accurate.

The religions of the ancients reflect both Revelation form God, and the fallible human view of God at the time of the Revelation.

So the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh are fallible?

[Darth Ovious]

It is not a matter of interest in what you have to say (but your opinion would hardly be an authority), nor an issue of orthodoxy. The church fathers and early theologians determined the belief of the flock through history. It is a matter of fact and all the references available, ALL the church fathers, and theologians believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis. You have failed to provide any first person references that would support there was an alternative among Christians. There were of course alternatives among the pagans, but not Christians, until after ~1600. and nothing comprehensive until after Darwin in the 19th century.

You also failed to respond to the authority source that the church fathers and early theologians relied on for guidance.

No I provided the sources you just disagreed with them which is fine. I didn't come back to TWeb to get involved in this tit for tat so I will just say this. You will be going onto my ignore list if you keep this bullheadness up.

Also we have a direct and specific from the New Testament:

2 Peter 3:8 - Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years.

According to Peter it was a part of orthodoxy.

Really????? How long have you been posting here and you still don't know what is meant by the term orthodoxy? Honestly I've had enough now. Just go onto my ignore list. This just proves my point.

[shunyadragon]

So you believe that these records handed down by the Hebrews concerning Moses and what he taught were accurate.

Not necessarily accurate. Historical accounts of history in ancient religions are notoriously inaccurate. The historical account was not written by Moses.

So the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh are fallible?

The moral teachings of the Baha'i Faith are infallible for the Age they were revealed, as with all religions. The knowledge of religions as with science evolve over time, even within the dispensation they were revealed. Science is for the progressive Revelation of the physical knowledge of our cosmos. In the principle of the Harmony od Science and Religion all scripture concerning the physical nature of our cosmos must be understood in the light of the evolving nature of science.

[shunyadragon]

No I provided the sources you just disagreed with them which is fine. I didn't come back to TWeb to get involved in this tit for tat so I will just say this. You will be going onto my ignore list if you keep this bullheadness up.

No you did not cite first hand sources concerning the alternate beliefs of the church fathers. All you cited was the claim of third and sources and the misrepresentation of the views of Saint Augustine. All you need to do is cite one of the church fathers that presented and alternate interpretation other than a literal interpretation of Genesis. First hand source of the citation of the church fathers only.
Still waiting . . .

Really????? How long have you been posting here and you still don't know what is meant by the term orthodoxy? Honestly I've had enough now. Just go onto my ignore list. This just proves my point.

No list given of first hand sources of citations of church fathers. I acknowledge that my reference of 2 Peter was a bad translation.

Again your assertion that there were alternate views of the interpretation of Genesis is groundless in the early history of Christianity. Actually it is after ~1600 AD that alternate interpretations began to be proposed in response to the advances in science.

Still waiting . . .

[seer]

The moral teachings of the Baha'i Faith are infallible for the Age they were revealed, as with all religions. The knowledge of religions as with science evolve over time, even within the dispensation they were revealed. Science is for the progressive Revelation of the physical knowledge of our cosmos. In the principle of the Harmony od Science and Religion all scripture concerning the physical nature of our cosmos must be understood in the light of the evolving nature of science.

So the teaching of Moses were infallible for his age? And there ultimately can not be harmony with with science and scripture. Science will never accept that human beings have an immaterial soul. And the soul is the most important aspect of the human being as both our religions teach. And as we know, science can be wrong, so their conclusions are not written in stone.

At every turn science is rejecting the idea of the soul:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/sc...anted=all&_r=0