The Beginning Of Relgion

Originally posted by Eladar
No, that was not it. Condemnation belongs to the Lord.

Encouraging others to live a lifestyle that leads to God's condemnation is far from loving.

We are neither to go to the right nor the left. Let those who have eyes see.

Hypocrite.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you believe that "a Christian belief system" must have expression in political action in order to be valid and genuinely Christian?

I SAID, leave me alone.

I'm not going to say it again.

Originally posted by Suzianne
But if you allow, or even actively support, the servants of evil to make the laws you and your countrymen must live (and die) by, then you aren't serving the best interests of your country, or those of your fellow citizens.

When you say "the servants of evil" are you referring to Republicans in the U.S.?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Hypocrite.

You would classify me saying homosexuality is inherently sinful as leaning to the right?

Originally posted by Eladar
Do you have proof it wasn't from a magic tea pot? Or is your opinion based on faith?

Neither.
I just think the magic teapot is high unlikely.
Call rational reasoning.
Deduction.
Certainly is not faith. (Faith in what?)

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Neither.
I just think the magic teapot is high unlikely.
Call rational reasoning.
Deduction.
Certainly is not faith. (Faith in what?)

Highly unlikely means can't be possible?

You claimed it was impossible, not unlikely.

Originally posted by Eladar
Highly unlikely means can't be possible?

You claimed it was impossible, not unlikely.

I made no such claim.
And your childish games are becoming tedious now.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
No.
Unless you count my belief that it wasn't from a magic teapot.

You said it was your belief that life did not come from a magic teapot. You did not say it was probably not.

Originally posted by Eladar
You said it was your belief that life did not come from a magic teapot.
You did not say it was probably not.

Correct and correct.

Your comprehension is improving.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Hebrews 11:4 says that "By faith Abel offered up a more excellent sacrifice than Cain". So presumably, Cain's offering was not made "by faith". Some Bible commentary says that Cain's offering was the effort of "dead religion", but I'm not sure what this means.

I think I meant "religion" in a negative sense, an attempt to reach unto God not according to revelation. Cain initiated that matter.

God had revealed to Adam and Eve a way that He could be approached, I believe. It is not explicitly told us in the Bible. I think Adam and Eve approached God through the sacrifice of an animal with blood.

Abel received this instruction and understood it. Cain initiated something of his own concept. That was to approach God through the works of his own labor on the crops that he grew. His offering was rejected.

I am saying Cain invented religion. Some people would have a point in saying it was religion in a dead and negative sense. I'd be reasonably satisfied with either understanding.

1.) Cain invented the first religion of man.
2.) Cain invented the first "dead" religion.

Originally posted by sonship
I am saying Cain invented religion. Some people would have a point in saying it was religion in a dead and negative sense. I'd be reasonably satisfied with either understanding.
1.) Cain invented the first religion of man.
2.) Cain invented the first "dead" religion.[/b]

You are quite silly to invent this history and then repeat it again and again. The Vedas (Hinduism) predate your invented religion by over 3000 years. That is archaeological fact.
I guess it makes your statement a lie. 🙄🙄

Originally posted by caissad4
You are quite silly to invent this history and then repeat it again and again. The Vedas (Hinduism) predate your invented religion by over 3000 years. That is archaeological fact.
I guess it makes your statement a lie. 🙄🙄

Archaeological facts? Dating is always as clear cut as people make it out to be, you have
something that suggests it is bullet proof on its accuracy? I can believe some theorize its
older by a few thousand years, that does not mean it is.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Archaeological facts? Dating is always as clear cut as people make it out to be, you have
something that suggests it is bullet proof on its accuracy? I can believe some theorize its
older by a few thousand years, that does not mean it is.

Yes, archaeological fact. The Vedas tell of the great city of Krishna existing some 9000 years ago along a river in India. Rising sea levels engulfed the city and the people moved north according to the Vedas. This was believed to be a myth until a series of buildings were found under sea along an ancient riverbed. The numerous structures stretch 6km (that is over 3.5 miles) and has been dated over 8500 years old. There is archaeological evidence of the movement of the people north.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Correct and correct.

Your comprehension is improving.

You base your belief on what you believe is probable not what is a proven fact. Is this what you are saying?