w00T

I'm glad someone else enjoys critical reading.

I am a little concerned with number 3, given 'Jesus' words in;

Luke 10: 18He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

And 5 for me is an issue of semantics perhaps.

The how's and wherefores may not be stated in the bible, but I genuninely believe based on Gen that God certainly mandated a union physically and spiritually between a man and a woman..

@mamma_sez - I'm with you.

Marriage is an assumed institution in the Bible. It is defined but very informally.

Gen. 2:34 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

No ceremony, just the consumation of love and a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman.

On marriage being "Christian" institution. I haven't heard anyone say that. Anyone who knows history or cultural studies can tell you every society has some form of marriage. Each culture dresses it differently.

"Hell is simply the point where people who do not go to heaven are sent, and it seems to be either a place of punishment or destruction"

not quite sure about the "devil's" fall; however, God's favorite angel descended from heaven to hell...  correlates with your statement above. 

i often got upset when people mixed up the 7 sins with the 10 commandments when i was a christian. i also hated how some bibles started different. #1 ("in the beginning God said let their be light" and there was and it was good.) #2 (in the beginning God created the heaven and the universe.) 
i hated how they left out all the details.

The Isaiah 14 passage is widely understood by Christians as being a description of Satan as well as referring to an earthly king. Ezekiel 28 has a very similar passage, where God mourns for the King of Tyre. The descriptions in both passages are far too glorious to refer simply to a human political leader, and the images correlate closely to other references to Satan. Jesus makes a cryptic reference to seeing "Satan fall like lightning from heaven", and Revelation 12 refers to the dragon, Satan, being cast down from heaven and causing destruction on the earth. It doesn't specify when this happens in our chronology. But these and other passages have contributed to the theology about Satan.

While God obviously is greater than Satan and capable of controlling him and using him, there are plenty of passages (many mentioned in other comments above) that indicate that Satan has free will and is in rebellion against God. The book of Daniel describes some of the warfare.

Science and philosophy are not things believers should fear or avoid. We need to keep in mind that Solomon was the greatest philosopher and most brilliant scientist of his day, as a result of the wisdom God gave him. It is relatively recently that faith and science seem to be in opposition. The Bible isn't a scientific textbook, but neither is it irrelevant to science and philosophy.

Marriage was ordained by God at Creation, but it's a civil union, not specifically a religious one. It's available to all humans, not just believers.

belly buttons?

i wish some of my friends would read this

2.)
Regarding the geocentric universe, many of the reasons people (Christian and non-Christian) held these views was actually from a scientific standpoint, and not just political and philosophical (although I'm not saying those didn't have an influence either).  Rejecting the geocentric view meant not only changing our view about the way the planets moved, but also about the very nature of the universe itself.  It posed a major paradigm shift that many could not reconcile (at least not until Newton came along).  Plus, there's the fact that one could argue that both views are "true", and it's just an issue of what we choose to be our frame of reference (whether it be the Sun or the Earth-- either way it's determined by whatever convention we CHOOSE).  Let me explain these.

-- Before Newton (which includes the time of the Heliocentric/Geocentric debate) there was no theory of universal gravitation.  People during these times had no idea how to explain how a heliocentric theory actually worked, other than just saying "it did".  We had the basic elements of the universe, "earth, water, air, and fire".  From all of our observation before, "earth" (or perhaps we should say "solids" or "ground") was always at "the bottom".  If you let it fall, it will seek out the lowest position.  Next came water.  Then air was above this.  Then fire (which can be lumped together with the stars I suppose) reached up towards the heavens.

Under the heliocentric theory, it made no since whatsoever why the earth would not be at the "center" or "bottom" of everything since it was made of the stuff that "fell down".  How could it be magically suspended in space?  Why would it just clump up together in a particular part of space?  Why would the Sun be at the center of everything?  Doesn't fire travel up?  The implications of the theory challenged the basic understanding of the basic principles of the universe.  Until Newton came along with his theory of gravitation, these questions were not answered.  Initially, challenging the geocentric view (which had also been held for many centuries) would have brought many of the same reactions that one challenging evolution or quantum mechanics would receive today (at least to some extent).

 -- Also, looking back on things now, it's important to remember that there's no "true" frame of reference in our universe.  You have to CHOOSE what reference frame you want to do your physics in (you'll learn this very quickly in any intro level physics course).  It just so happens that sometimes a particular choice of reference frame will make the math a lot easier, and some can make it a nightmare (especially if you get into accelerating frames).   It just so happens that if you choose your frame of reference to have its origin fixed on the sun (or technically, the center of mass of the solar system, which is pretty darn close to the center of the sun), the math is A LOT easier than if you choose to fix your origin on the earth (which can be seen from all the epicycles that were used to try to track the motion of the stars and planets). 

#1 - You need to talk to my cousin. She believes the earth has 'no shape'. You know what she uses for back up? Genesis 1:1, "... The earth was formless..." Something like that. I was just appalled and I wanted to slap myself in the face for even listening and debating with her whether or not the earth is spherical or not. God, why?! -__- 

I would like to just make a point about the geocentric universe.  The idea of a geocentric universe was actually perpetuated outside the church...by Aristotle.  It was until later in the Church's history that St. Augustine (I believe but don't quote me) suggested that Christians learn classical studies and Aristotilean physics, lest we look like fools when speaking to nonbelievers.  Thats how the geocentric universe came to be associated with the Church...it was more or less "common knowledge" at the time. 

i think the problem with #3 is that Christians completely changed the role of Satan (whose name translates as "The Wanderer") and linked him to Lucifer, the angel described in Enoch as having "fallen." 

whether modern Christians think Isaiah 14:12 is irrelevant, because what is in question is what the author meant when writing it.  from a scholarly viewpoint, the passage indicates Babylon--- if for no other reason than the whole chapter is about Babylon, and there is no indication that Isaiah chose to switch subjects.

important points to make about using Matthew 25:41, Luke 10:18,  and Ephesians 2:2--  i would be weary of these.  the authors were keenly aware of Satan's role as accuser in the OT, and it would not surprise me if the goal was to completely change that.  because, as someone pointed out, having Satan act on orders from God doesn't mesh well with Christian doctrine.

personally, that thought doesn't mess with my faith at all.  i actually prefer to understand Satan's role in the traditional way---- as advocate. 

The church I attended growing up taught 3, 4 and 5 as actual fact, but yeah..I guess I was smart enough not to believe everything I heard.