Summations Only

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes This may be, but you are making assumptions that there absolutely was no physical death of any organism before Adam which this scripture does not clearly state or imply. It is your interpretation, your assumption, which many agree with, and many do not. I agree. Adam did not immediately die. He lived for hundreds of years after. He immediately died spiritually (he was spiritually separated from God). Spiritual and physical death, yes. I haven't been given anything. I have read and studied alot. There are many Godly Christians who interpret the scripture the same way I do.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

No I didn't.If you mean when I stated that you would be alone with God in heaven, I was being facetious and was not seriously stating you would be the only one in heaven. It was a joke out of frustration.It is based on this joke which is prevalent through the Christian community:

You love labeling people don't you. Ok, your an "apostate". Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Ok, than don't push the envelope.Seriously, I have to head to bed so I can function at work tomorrow.Honestly, I hold no ill will to you Faith. However, you need to learn how to respond to people without trying to belittle and talk down to them. Yes, I have my own faults as well. But hopefully we can discuss things reasonably and without disdain.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Most Christians disagree with one another.Otherwise there would not be some 40,000 or more different flavors:

According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity (CSGC) at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, there are approximately 41,000 Christian denominations and organizations in the world.

http://christianity.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=...Page not found | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life ProjectAnd no doubt each thinks it has the only real pipeline to the TRVTH.

Actually some Christian sects/denominations/churches are more accommodating than others who hold diverging beliefs. Methodists and other churches that Faith labels as "liberal" seem to be more accepting of others whose beliefs are slightly different than theirs, but still hold to the main tenants of Christian belief.

Thought it might be apropos to put up a link to this classic, Christianity and Liberalism which is Presbyterian theologian and Princeton Professor J. Gresham Machen's response to the inroads of liberalism that were underway in the first part of the 20th century. I'm sure liberalism has "progressed," if it can be called that, since Machen's work, but the outlines are the same. This is the classic analysis of the watershed between orthodox Bible-believing Christianity and the false theology of liberalism.ABE: From the Introduction: The denial that real physical death is what Christ is saving us from as well as a denatured sort of "spiritual" death for instance.Also of course the embrace of the king of naturalistic thought, evolutionism.Particularly note: It is destructive because it makes use of traditional Christian terminology. /ABEABE: Please note: Those who deny that my beliefs are the orthodox beliefs need to reckon with Machen among other theologians who represent my beliefs, against those so many here prefer to believe are the true Christianity although it's all upstart modern revisionist theology. Believe what you please of course, you're entitled to be wrong, and you ARE wrong about what is the true orthodox Christianity.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Then tell me how it is any different.You claim that businesses can refuse service to anyone for any reason, but that clearly isn't true. You still haven't explained why we should expect non-christians to live by the edicts of a religion they don't belong to. You also haven't explained why homosexuals shouldn't be treated equally under the law, which includes regulations set out for businesses.

What we are discussing is laws that affect Americans, which include non-christians. Why, in a free country, should a person's rights be limited because of religious beliefs they don't hold?

"Professor Darrel Falk has recently pointed out that one should not take the view that young-earth creationism is simply tinkering around the edges of science. If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse. It would be the same as saying 2 plus 2 is actually 5. The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic
and reason?"--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdfEdited by Taq, : No reason given.

Where is this right found in any law? If serving blacks goes against your conscience and you refuse them service, guess what? You can face a law suit and lose. You have never shown that any such right exists for businesses.

Last month, HBO showed a documentary, Questioning Darwin, which consisted mainly of creationists speaking and stating their beliefs and their position. One, a minister if I recall correctly, literally stated that if he were to find in the Bible that 2 + 2 is 5, then that is what it has to be. The Bible takes precedence over reality.No, the creationists did not come off well in that documentary.

I've so repeatedly said that race is not what I'm talking about I'd think I wouldn't have to continue to say it. But OK, although I don't think there can be such a thing as conscientious racism, let's get it established that I do not believe that absolutely any attitude that claims conscience is to be honored, such as racism. Racism is not justified in the Bible, despite a lot of weird attempts here to make it seem it is, but homosexual acts are clearly condemned. I'd make that my standard although I'd prefer to make universal cultural practice my standard.

We have so repeatedly said that discrimination is what we are talking about, and racism is an example of it. Your beliefs are wrong. Flat out wrong. In my own state of Idaho, we had the Aryan Nation church that had religious objections to marriages of mixed races, and rejected the equality of whites and blacks. Such racism has not fully disappeared. We are talking about the laws that govern Americans, not christians.

First, since my Christian identity has been under assault from many angles in this discussion, it seems relevant to post information that vindicates my claim to it.Second, it may surprise you to learn that the limitation of nonChristian rights was precisely the case in the early days of America, most especially the very early days of the colonies but also the days following the Constitution and the establishment of the federal government. Court cases of that period condemned blasphemy of the Christian God and declarations of atheism among other things. We're talking a pro-Christian attitude that prevailed for some three hundred or so years before it was usurped by modernism and the anti-Christian sentiment we now see at EvC for instance. Christianity ruled in the culture and it ruled in the government. This in spite of the fact that the major Constitutional founders were anti-Christian themselves and traitors to the original Christian vision of earlier generations. They did, however, have a strong positive regard for Christian morality despite their rejection of the gospel.There IS a strong case to be made for that very view you find so odious in other words, though I know you aren't going to accept it now. My point is merely that your sentiment on the subject isn't as open and shut as you think. American freedoms were conceived and defended in the early years in the context of a strong pro-Christian understanding. Certainly not what today's revisionist constitutionalism would have one believe.Something similar was the case in the UK too, though actually Britain had much better Christian-affirming laws than the US Constitution gave us, thanks to that generation.Now it's all going under. You can rejoice.