Anyone Interested in a Serious Religious Debate?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
356

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
…The main problem that we dealing with today is that even of kids that come up in a church the vast majority are leaving at college age due to what they are being taught as true.
[/quote]

This is true but it brings back my supremely salient point (thank you) that the foundation, Genesis, is the key. If Genesis is discounted THE OTHER STUFF gets discounted too. If kids can be convinced macroevolution really happened (even in the face of little evidence and NO proof), i.e., Genesis is a fable, then let’s face it - all the rest of the Gospel can be shoved into the fable category and there’s no need for a Redeemer.

I want Pat or any other Christian on this thread to make an argument for the necessity of a Redeemer, a Messiah, if Adam’s sin did not bring death into this world like the fable says is did.

Tell me the real meaning of the cross if Jesus Christ is not God, the Creator, in the flesh as the Bible insists (John 1:1-14).
[/quote]

Are you saying that us Christians on this thread think it is a fable? I must have come across as a little flipant on the subject, but that is not what I meant. Not just Genesis, but the entire Old Testament shows that man can not do it alone. We are sinful and need a redeemer. My point is that we are trying to explain time using the creation story, and there is no way for us to explain that. God’s time is God’s time. I agree with you that we would not need a redeemer had Adam not sinned. Adam shows us the folly of man, and the perfection that God wanted for us, but we chose differently.

On your second question I will defer to mse2us since he does not beleive that Jesus is God.

You are preaching to the choir Push.

357

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

…we have beaten to death the Genesis 1 creation story we should move on…[/quote]

Beaten to death? It’s barely been scratched.

My personal opinion is if you want to talk about the Bible and Christianity at all and you don’t have Genesis figured out it’s all a moot point. Genesis is the foundation. If you don’t know your foundation, your roots, you’re gonna be floppin’ around all over the place on the other stuff.

With that in mind the proposal: “Ok, how about this? If, and I’m not saying that it is, stories from the Old Testament such as creation, Noah, Lott, etc. are parables and didn’t really happen, does it change the credibility of the Bible?” My answer is yes.[/quote]
I too would answer yes. Second Peter 3:3-13 mentions the flood account and compares it to when God is going to act and remove the wicked. Jesus mentions the flood account at Matthew 24:37-39 and compares how people took no note of the signs in the days and years leading up to the flood event with how people will take no note of the signs during the days and years of Jesus’ presence leading up to armegeddon.
Second Peter 2:5,6 mentions the flood event and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and how those two events sets the pattern for the future destruction of ungodly men.
So if those event weren’t true then Jesus and other Bible writers are lying and this would compromise the whole Christian faith. [/quote]

Good point. We do know that Jesus often spoke in parable though. How can we be sure that he was not simply mentioning the flood account, which he took as a story with a moral, to make a point? [/quote]
You’re right Jesus did speak using parables to help his listeners discern what he was saying but we can’t confirm any where in the Bible that his parables were true story. So they were most likely made up just to help his listeners understand the point he was making. On the other hand, outside of Genesis Noah is mention at 1 Chronicles 1:4, Isaiah 54:9, Ezekial 14:20, Matthew 24:37-39, Luke 3:36, Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:20 and 2 Peter 2:5. Noah is also listed at Luke 3:36 in the line of descendants that Jesus came from.

So according to the Bible Noah was a real person and if you understand what Jesus’ presence means then you’ll understand that during the days of his presence most people won’t pay attention to the signs and they will end up like the people in Noahs day that took no note until it was too late.

358

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

…we have beaten to death the Genesis 1 creation story we should move on…[/quote]

Beaten to death? It’s barely been scratched.

My personal opinion is if you want to talk about the Bible and Christianity at all and you don’t have Genesis figured out it’s all a moot point. Genesis is the foundation. If you don’t know your foundation, your roots, you’re gonna be floppin’ around all over the place on the other stuff.

With that in mind the proposal: “Ok, how about this? If, and I’m not saying that it is, stories from the Old Testament such as creation, Noah, Lott, etc. are parables and didn’t really happen, does it change the credibility of the Bible?” My answer is yes.[/quote]
I too would answer yes. Second Peter 3:3-13 mentions the flood account and compares it to when God is going to act and remove the wicked. Jesus mentions the flood account at Matthew 24:37-39 and compares how people took no note of the signs in the days and years leading up to the flood event with how people will take no note of the signs during the days and years of Jesus’ presence leading up to armegeddon.

Second Peter 2:5,6 mentions the flood event and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and how those two events sets the pattern for the future destruction of ungodly men.
So if those event weren’t true then Jesus and other Bible writers are lying and this would compromise the whole Christian faith. [/quote]

Good point. We do know that Jesus often spoke in parable though. How can we be sure that he was not simply mentioning the flood account, which he took as a story with a moral, to make a point? [/quote]
You’re right Jesus did speak using parables to help his listeners discern what he was saying but we can’t confirm any where in the Bible that his parables were true story. So they were most likely made up just to help his listeners understand the point he was making.

On the other hand, outside of Genesis Noah is mention at 1 Chronicles 1:4, Isaiah 54:9, Ezekial 14:20, Matthew 24:37-39, Luke 3:36, Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:20 and 2 Peter 2:5. Noah is also listed at Luke 3:36 in the line of descendants that Jesus came from.

So according to the Bible Noah was a real person and if you understand what Jesus’ presence means then you’ll understand that during the days of his presence most people won’t pay attention to the signs and they will end up like the people in Noahs day that took no note until it was too late.[/quote]

Ok, so we have established that Noah was mentioned in the Bible as a real person in several passages and even given a lineage. Therefore, the Bible did not mean for the story of Noah to just merely teach a lesson but that he was an actual person. Now, how do we prove the reliability of that lineage? What if it was fabricated?

359

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
One point I would like to make is that a person either has faith or has reason/science. There is no way that this can be true. Everyone has faith. People just have faith in different things. Everyone gets up everyday having faith that the sun will be there, there will be the right amount of oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere to breathe, gravity will still hold it’s effect on the planet, etc.

With Christianity, it is no different. Christians believe when they get up everyday that Jesus was God, he died for our sins, and by believing in him we have salvation. So if I put my faith in God, can I not also put my faith in science? What if the scientific findings seem to contradict the Bible?[/quote]

Man you have some really deep questions, that I have thought about just never vocalized them. I am going to have to think about this one for a little while.[/quote]

I was actually watching a show last night on dealing with skepticism and how to approach a skeptic. The main problem that we dealing with today is that even of kids that come up in a church the vast majority are leaving at college age due to what they are being taught as true.
[/quote]

I have read that 80% do not return to the church after college. I was almost one of the statistics.[/quote]

The show I watched said it was about 75%, but that is still outrageously high. I was definitely one of the college students that began questioning after hearing the other side of the argument. That’s why I believe it is important for all Christians to take a rational view at why they believe what they believe.

360

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
…The main problem that we dealing with today is that even of kids that come up in a church the vast majority are leaving at college age due to what they are being taught as true.
[/quote]

This is true but it brings back my supremely salient point (thank you) that the foundation, Genesis, is the key. If Genesis is discounted THE OTHER STUFF gets discounted too. If kids can be convinced macroevolution really happened (even in the face of little evidence and NO proof), i.e., Genesis is a fable, then let’s face it - all the rest of the Gospel can be shoved into the fable category and there’s no need for a Redeemer.

I want Pat or any other Christian on this thread to make an argument for the necessity of a Redeemer, a Messiah, if Adam’s sin did not bring death into this world like the fable says is did.

Tell me the real meaning of the cross if Jesus Christ is not God, the Creator, in the flesh as the Bible insists (John 1:1-14).
[/quote]

Ok, so either the entire Bible must be true or none of it can be true. No need for a savior without man first falling into sin. Now, how do we go about proving that any of it is true at all?

361

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
…The main problem that we dealing with today is that even of kids that come up in a church the vast majority are leaving at college age due to what they are being taught as true.
[/quote]

This is true but it brings back my supremely salient point (thank you) that the foundation, Genesis, is the key. If Genesis is discounted THE OTHER STUFF gets discounted too. If kids can be convinced macroevolution really happened (even in the face of little evidence and NO proof), i.e., Genesis is a fable, then let’s face it - all the rest of the Gospel can be shoved into the fable category and there’s no need for a Redeemer.

I want Pat or any other Christian on this thread to make an argument for the necessity of a Redeemer, a Messiah, if Adam’s sin did not bring death into this world like the fable says is did.

Tell me the real meaning of the cross if Jesus Christ is not God, the Creator, in the flesh as the Bible insists (John 1:1-14).
[/quote]

Fine, Genesis gets discounted as an ancient man’s interpretation of stories he was told about the beginnings of our universe. Doesn’t change your story about Jesus and what that means. Personally I think a lot of purported Christians (not all by a long stretch) miss the entire point of Jesus anyway.

Jesus didn’t come here to just be worshiped, he came here as an example of how to live YOUR life. Way too many people disrespect their temple, act in very “un-Christian” ways all week and then expect a little repenting on Sunday to be their Savior, you are God and God works through you, just like Jesus.

Sure worship and thank him for his sacrifice for us but more importantly recognize that with the same type of training that Jesus undertook (fasting, meditation, i.e. eastern yogic techniques) you too can be more like him and more of a true representative of God.

Sorry but just because you go to church or proclaim one’s self a Christian will not undo your obesity, racism, negativity and unconscious behavior no matter how much you want to believe it.

Not addressing anyone on this board in particular btw.[/quote]

So you are saying that the power is inside all of us? So then do we need to rely on God or can we rely on ourselves? Did Jesus need God and was he God?

362

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Fine, Genesis gets discounted as an ancient man’s interpretation of stories he was told about the beginnings of our universe. Doesn’t change your story about Jesus and what that means…[/quote]

Changes everything. If Jesus isn’t Almighty God, the Creator, he is a complete fraud. No need to pattern your life after a fraud. You should run from a fraud, distance yourself to the best of your ability.[/quote]

I guess I just don’t see Jesus as God the almighty he was a messenger, an example, a savior. He is the son of God but no more a son of God than I am or you are.

Of course back in the day when they wrote the stories,if i am trying to sell you my religion and why it’s my way or the highway i wouldn’t want you to think that you are as special or that you don’t have to be subservient to God. Serve God, shine his light through your actions but never fear him.

363

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
…The main problem that we dealing with today is that even of kids that come up in a church the vast majority are leaving at college age due to what they are being taught as true.
[/quote]

This is true but it brings back my supremely salient point (thank you) that the foundation, Genesis, is the key. If Genesis is discounted THE OTHER STUFF gets discounted too. If kids can be convinced macroevolution really happened (even in the face of little evidence and NO proof), i.e., Genesis is a fable, then let’s face it - all the rest of the Gospel can be shoved into the fable category and there’s no need for a Redeemer.

I want Pat or any other Christian on this thread to make an argument for the necessity of a Redeemer, a Messiah, if Adam’s sin did not bring death into this world like the fable says is did.

Tell me the real meaning of the cross if Jesus Christ is not God, the Creator, in the flesh as the Bible insists (John 1:1-14).
[/quote]

Fine, Genesis gets discounted as an ancient man’s interpretation of stories he was told about the beginnings of our universe. Doesn’t change your story about Jesus and what that means. Personally I think a lot of purported Christians (not all by a long stretch) miss the entire point of Jesus anyway.

Jesus didn’t come here to just be worshiped, he came here as an example of how to live YOUR life. Way too many people disrespect their temple, act in very “un-Christian” ways all week and then expect a little repenting on Sunday to be their Savior, you are God and God works through you, just like Jesus.

Sure worship and thank him for his sacrifice for us but more importantly recognize that with the same type of training that Jesus undertook (fasting, meditation, i.e. eastern yogic techniques) you too can be more like him and more of a true representative of God.

Sorry but just because you go to church or proclaim one’s self a Christian will not undo your obesity, racism, negativity and unconscious behavior no matter how much you want to believe it.

Not addressing anyone on this board in particular btw.[/quote]

So you are saying that the power is inside all of us? So then do we need to rely on God or can we rely on ourselves? Did Jesus need God and was he God?[/quote]

I think we should all rely on the fact that God loves us more than anything and wants us to come to him/her but gave us the free will to choose to in order to learn a lesson. Jesus needed God just like he needed air and water because he was in human form, we all need God whether we can acknowledge that in this lifetime or not.

None of us need a religion. A religion may help you develop a better way of life that draws you closer to God but it in no way is a prerequisite nor do you need to put your trust in men wearing funny hats that supposedly have a more direct line than you do. We are all creatures of God and have that divine light inside of us, unfortunately many people choose to keep that light pretty dim.

364

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
…The main problem that we dealing with today is that even of kids that come up in a church the vast majority are leaving at college age due to what they are being taught as true.
[/quote]

This is true but it brings back my supremely salient point (thank you) that the foundation, Genesis, is the key. If Genesis is discounted THE OTHER STUFF gets discounted too. If kids can be convinced macroevolution really happened (even in the face of little evidence and NO proof), i.e., Genesis is a fable, then let’s face it - all the rest of the Gospel can be shoved into the fable category and there’s no need for a Redeemer.

I want Pat or any other Christian on this thread to make an argument for the necessity of a Redeemer, a Messiah, if Adam’s sin did not bring death into this world like the fable says is did.

Tell me the real meaning of the cross if Jesus Christ is not God, the Creator, in the flesh as the Bible insists (John 1:1-14).
[/quote]

Ok, so either the entire Bible must be true or none of it can be true. No need for a savior without man first falling into sin. Now, how do we go about proving that any of it is true at all?[/quote]

Agreed. I will say that this internet site has me thinking about my faith, but sorry atheists it is only making it stronger.

365

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
…The main problem that we dealing with today is that even of kids that come up in a church the vast majority are leaving at college age due to what they are being taught as true.
[/quote]

This is true but it brings back my supremely salient point (thank you) that the foundation, Genesis, is the key. If Genesis is discounted THE OTHER STUFF gets discounted too. If kids can be convinced macroevolution really happened (even in the face of little evidence and NO proof), i.e., Genesis is a fable, then let’s face it - all the rest of the Gospel can be shoved into the fable category and there’s no need for a Redeemer.

I want Pat or any other Christian on this thread to make an argument for the necessity of a Redeemer, a Messiah, if Adam’s sin did not bring death into this world like the fable says is did.

Tell me the real meaning of the cross if Jesus Christ is not God, the Creator, in the flesh as the Bible insists (John 1:1-14).
[/quote]

Fine, Genesis gets discounted as an ancient man’s interpretation of stories he was told about the beginnings of our universe. Doesn’t change your story about Jesus and what that means. Personally I think a lot of purported Christians (not all by a long stretch) miss the entire point of Jesus anyway.

Jesus didn’t come here to just be worshiped, he came here as an example of how to live YOUR life. Way too many people disrespect their temple, act in very “un-Christian” ways all week and then expect a little repenting on Sunday to be their Savior, you are God and God works through you, just like Jesus.

Sure worship and thank him for his sacrifice for us but more importantly recognize that with the same type of training that Jesus undertook (fasting, meditation, i.e. eastern yogic techniques) you too can be more like him and more of a true representative of God.

Sorry but just because you go to church or proclaim one’s self a Christian will not undo your obesity, racism, negativity and unconscious behavior no matter how much you want to believe it.

Not addressing anyone on this board in particular btw.[/quote]

So you are saying that the power is inside all of us? So then do we need to rely on God or can we rely on ourselves? Did Jesus need God and was he God?[/quote]

I think we should all rely on the fact that God loves us more than anything and wants us to come to him/her but gave us the free will to choose to in order to learn a lesson. Jesus needed God just like he needed air and water because he was in human form, we all need God whether we can acknowledge that in this lifetime or not.

None of us need a religion. A religion may help you develop a better way of life that draws you closer to God but it in no way is a prerequisite nor do you need to put your trust in men wearing funny hats that supposedly have a more direct line than you do. We are all creatures of God and have that divine light inside of us, unfortunately many people choose to keep that light pretty dim.
[/quote]

May I ask what your background in Christianity is? Basically what denomination are you?

366

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
…The main problem that we dealing with today is that even of kids that come up in a church the vast majority are leaving at college age due to what they are being taught as true.
[/quote]

This is true but it brings back my supremely salient point (thank you) that the foundation, Genesis, is the key. If Genesis is discounted THE OTHER STUFF gets discounted too. If kids can be convinced macroevolution really happened (even in the face of little evidence and NO proof), i.e., Genesis is a fable, then let’s face it - all the rest of the Gospel can be shoved into the fable category and there’s no need for a Redeemer.

I want Pat or any other Christian on this thread to make an argument for the necessity of a Redeemer, a Messiah, if Adam’s sin did not bring death into this world like the fable says is did.

Tell me the real meaning of the cross if Jesus Christ is not God, the Creator, in the flesh as the Bible insists (John 1:1-14).
[/quote]

Are you saying that us Christians on this thread think it is a fable? I must have come across as a little flipant on the subject, but that is not what I meant. Not just Genesis, but the entire Old Testament shows that man can not do it alone. We are sinful and need a redeemer.

My point is that we are trying to explain time using the creation story, and there is no way for us to explain that. God’s time is God’s time. I agree with you that we would not need a redeemer had Adam not sinned. Adam shows us the folly of man, and the perfection that God wanted for us, but we chose differently.

On your second question I will defer to mse2us since he does not beleive that Jesus is God.

You are preaching to the choir Push.[/quote]
Defer to me hmmmm…I don’t know…I’m still exhausted from our last debate D. I think I may have overtrained a bit. Well, I have been drinking my Surge Workout fuel so I might be okay. Okay I’ll throw one piece of Biblical information out there for Push and see what he does with it. Push, Jesus was a created spirit being.

The first thing God created was Jesus in his heavenly position. Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14 clearly states this so at one time Jesus did not exist. If Colossians 1:15 is not clear enough Revelation 3:14 is clearer and of course Jesus is the Amen and Faithful and True Witness. After you read those two scriptures read Proverbs 8:22-31.

Now my question is does anyone know the significance of Adam and Eve eating from the tree and how the Bible says Adam was created?

367

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

…we have beaten to death the Genesis 1 creation story we should move on…[/quote]

Beaten to death? It’s barely been scratched.

My personal opinion is if you want to talk about the Bible and Christianity at all and you don’t have Genesis figured out it’s all a moot point. Genesis is the foundation. If you don’t know your foundation, your roots, you’re gonna be floppin’ around all over the place on the other stuff.

With that in mind the proposal: “Ok, how about this? If, and I’m not saying that it is, stories from the Old Testament such as creation, Noah, Lott, etc. are parables and didn’t really happen, does it change the credibility of the Bible?” My answer is yes.[/quote]
I too would answer yes. Second Peter 3:3-13 mentions the flood account and compares it to when God is going to act and remove the wicked. Jesus mentions the flood account at Matthew 24:37-39 and compares how people took no note of the signs in the days and years leading up to the flood event with how people will take no note of the signs during the days and years of Jesus’ presence leading up to armegeddon.

Second Peter 2:5,6 mentions the flood event and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and how those two events sets the pattern for the future destruction of ungodly men.
So if those event weren’t true then Jesus and other Bible writers are lying and this would compromise the whole Christian faith. [/quote]

Good point. We do know that Jesus often spoke in parable though. How can we be sure that he was not simply mentioning the flood account, which he took as a story with a moral, to make a point? [/quote]
You’re right Jesus did speak using parables to help his listeners discern what he was saying but we can’t confirm any where in the Bible that his parables were true story. So they were most likely made up just to help his listeners understand the point he was making.

On the other hand, outside of Genesis Noah is mention at 1 Chronicles 1:4, Isaiah 54:9, Ezekial 14:20, Matthew 24:37-39, Luke 3:36, Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:20 and 2 Peter 2:5. Noah is also listed at Luke 3:36 in the line of descendants that Jesus came from.

So according to the Bible Noah was a real person and if you understand what Jesus’ presence means then you’ll understand that during the days of his presence most people won’t pay attention to the signs and they will end up like the people in Noahs day that took no note until it was too late.[/quote]

Ok, so we have established that Noah was mentioned in the Bible as a real person in several passages and even given a lineage. Therefore, the Bible did not mean for the story of Noah to just merely teach a lesson but that he was an actual person. Now, how do we prove the reliability of that lineage? What if it was fabricated?[/quote]
That’s where 1 Timothy 3:16 and 17 comes in, which states (NWT):
“16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”

Notice that verse 16 say ALL scripture is inspired. So if you have faith in the Bible and that God inspired everything in the Bible then you should believe everything in the Bible even the parts that’s you don’t understand or can’t explain.

If you don’t have faith in the Bible or God then there is nothing that anyone could say to you prove that Noah and the Ark is true. Unless that find on a mountain in Turkey turns out to be the actual Ark.

368

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
One point I would like to make is that a person either has faith or has reason/science. There is no way that this can be true. Everyone has faith. People just have faith in different things. Everyone gets up everyday having faith that the sun will be there, there will be the right amount of oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere to breathe, gravity will still hold it’s effect on the planet, etc.

With Christianity, it is no different. Christians believe when they get up everyday that Jesus was God, he died for our sins, and by believing in him we have salvation. So if I put my faith in God, can I not also put my faith in science? What if the scientific findings seem to contradict the Bible?[/quote]

If the Bible were a science book then that would be a problem. It’s not, so it’s not. People argue all kinds of things about the bible, thinking it’s all kinds of things, a math book, science book, as archeological book, a history book, etc. It’s book of truth and faith. The word of God.

This would be presented to different audiences through out history and the context matters. Paul’s letters for instance, would not make any sense to 5th century BC man. But Genesis does.[/quote]

True. The Bible discusses, for instance, the creation of the Earth but never goes into detail about how exactly it was made. However, what about for the skeptic that says evolution has proven the Bible wrong?

One of the worse things we can do as believers is say “because it’s in the Bible” or the Bible is true because “I believe it.” A skeptic may believe in Buddhism. So how do we provide proof?

[/quote]

Ok, let’s say you are goat herder about 7000 years ago and heard about God and you want to know more about him. These people did not know about science, the universe, etc. Their lives were simple and they needed their presentation to be simple.

If you look the beginning of Genesis, what does it tell you about God? It tells you that God created everything and for some reason out of all his creation, he wanted to have a relationship with humans.

I would tell an evolutionist that the Bible tells us about God, not the world around us. It’s not the Great Big Book of Everything with Everything Inside. The Bible uses just about anything to get it’s message across, it uses facts and fiction, history and foretelling, it uses parables and direct speak, etc.

369

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

May I ask what your background in Christianity is? Basically what denomination are you?[/quote]

Sure although it should be clear that I don’t endorse most organized religions as they typiclaly miss the point but was baptized Protestant, “saved” through a Church of Christ, long time reader of the bible.

Don’t believe in any denomination. I have been to churches in quite a few different flavors of Christianity that were pretty cool and had some great folks. Been to a bunch that sucked ass and were full of judgmental people that were clueless about God.

I do not need a church or denomination to have a personal relationship with God.
But for the record if there is any denomination that historically is clearly NOT the right one it is Catholicism and I say that with half of my extended family being Catholic.

370

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
…The main problem that we dealing with today is that even of kids that come up in a church the vast majority are leaving at college age due to what they are being taught as true.
[/quote]

This is true but it brings back my supremely salient point (thank you) that the foundation, Genesis, is the key. If Genesis is discounted THE OTHER STUFF gets discounted too.

If kids can be convinced macroevolution really happened (even in the face of little evidence and NO proof), i.e., Genesis is a fable, then let’s face it - all the rest of the Gospel can be shoved into the fable category and there’s no need for a Redeemer.

I want Pat or any other Christian on this thread to make an argument for the necessity of a Redeemer, a Messiah, if Adam’s sin did not bring death into this world like the fable says is did.

Tell me the real meaning of the cross if Jesus Christ is not God, the Creator, in the flesh as the Bible insists (John 1:1-14).
[/quote]

Are you saying that us Christians on this thread think it is a fable? I must have come across as a little flipant on the subject, but that is not what I meant. Not just Genesis, but the entire Old Testament shows that man can not do it alone. We are sinful and need a redeemer.

My point is that we are trying to explain time using the creation story, and there is no way for us to explain that. God’s time is God’s time. I agree with you that we would not need a redeemer had Adam not sinned. Adam shows us the folly of man, and the perfection that God wanted for us, but we chose differently.

On your second question I will defer to mse2us since he does not beleive that Jesus is God.

You are preaching to the choir Push.[/quote]
Defer to me hmmmm…I don’t know…I’m still exhausted from our last debate D. I think I may have overtrained a bit. Well, I have been drinking my Surge Workout fuel so I might be okay. Okay I’ll throw one piece of Biblical information out there for Push and see what he does with it. Push, Jesus was a created spirit being.

The first thing God created was Jesus in his heavenly position. Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14 clearly states this so at one time Jesus did not exist. If Colossians 1:15 is not clear enough Revelation 3:14 is clearer and of course Jesus is the Amen and Faithful and True Witness. After you read those two scriptures read Proverbs 8:22-31.

Now my question is does anyone know the significance of Adam and Eve eating from the tree and how the Bible says Adam was created?[/quote]

I have to say you have a sense of humor. I enjoyed our last debate, and most on here saw that, but know I will not push the issue on this one. I am learning a lot from this thread, and I really do not want it to get off track.

Knowing Push he is going to bring a sledgehammer so drink a couple more Surge and maybe take a couple of Spike because this is going to get interesting.

371

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
…The main problem that we dealing with today is that even of kids that come up in a church the vast majority are leaving at college age due to what they are being taught as true.
[/quote]

This is true but it brings back my supremely salient point (thank you) that the foundation, Genesis, is the key. If Genesis is discounted THE OTHER STUFF gets discounted too.

If kids can be convinced macroevolution really happened (even in the face of little evidence and NO proof), i.e., Genesis is a fable, then let’s face it - all the rest of the Gospel can be shoved into the fable category and there’s no need for a Redeemer.

I want Pat or any other Christian on this thread to make an argument for the necessity of a Redeemer, a Messiah, if Adam’s sin did not bring death into this world like the fable says is did.

Tell me the real meaning of the cross if Jesus Christ is not God, the Creator, in the flesh as the Bible insists (John 1:1-14).
[/quote]

Whether or not there was a well hung dude named Adam and an old bat named Eve, I do not know. Genesis tells us sin entered the world through the free choice of man. We were the gate way and we are the battle ground. From that day forward we needed a redeemer and that was always the plan, so you got no argument from me.

372

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

May I ask what your background in Christianity is? Basically what denomination are you?[/quote]

Sure although it should be clear that I don’t endorse most organized religions as they typiclaly miss the point but was baptized Protestant, “saved” through a Church of Christ, long time reader of the bible.

Don’t believe in any denomination. I have been to churches in quite a few different flavors of Christianity that were pretty cool and had some great folks. Been to a bunch that sucked ass and were full of judgmental people that were clueless about God. I do not need a church or denomination to have a personal relationship with God.
But for the record if there is any denomination that historically is clearly NOT the right one it is Catholicism and I say that with half of my extended family being Catholic. [/quote]

So you are anti-Catholic and do not attend Chruch on a regular basis? I agree with you though that you do not need a denomination to have a relationship with God, but I do think you need a fellowship of beleivers to be with. That is what I like about here at T-Muscle. I get to discuss things with all my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I do include Catholics in that statement.

373

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
…The main problem that we dealing with today is that even of kids that come up in a church the vast majority are leaving at college age due to what they are being taught as true.
[/quote]

This is true but it brings back my supremely salient point (thank you) that the foundation, Genesis, is the key. If Genesis is discounted THE OTHER STUFF gets discounted too. If kids can be convinced macroevolution really happened (even in the face of little evidence and NO proof), i.e., Genesis is a fable, then let’s face it - all the rest of the Gospel can be shoved into the fable category and there’s no need for a Redeemer.

I want Pat or any other Christian on this thread to make an argument for the necessity of a Redeemer, a Messiah, if Adam’s sin did not bring death into this world like the fable says is did.

Tell me the real meaning of the cross if Jesus Christ is not God, the Creator, in the flesh as the Bible insists (John 1:1-14).
[/quote]

Are you saying that us Christians on this thread think it is a fable? I must have come across as a little flipant on the subject, but that is not what I meant. Not just Genesis, but the entire Old Testament shows that man can not do it alone. We are sinful and need a redeemer.

My point is that we are trying to explain time using the creation story, and there is no way for us to explain that. God’s time is God’s time. I agree with you that we would not need a redeemer had Adam not sinned. Adam shows us the folly of man, and the perfection that God wanted for us, but we chose differently.

On your second question I will defer to mse2us since he does not beleive that Jesus is God.

You are preaching to the choir Push.[/quote]
Defer to me hmmmm…I don’t know…I’m still exhausted from our last debate D. I think I may have overtrained a bit. Well, I have been drinking my Surge Workout fuel so I might be okay. Okay I’ll throw one piece of Biblical information out there for Push and see what he does with it. Push, Jesus was a created spirit being.

The first thing God created was Jesus in his heavenly position. Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14 clearly states this so at one time Jesus did not exist. If Colossians 1:15 is not clear enough Revelation 3:14 is clearer and of course Jesus is the Amen and Faithful and True Witness. After you read those two scriptures read Proverbs 8:22-31.

Now my question is does anyone know the significance of Adam and Eve eating from the tree and how the Bible says Adam was created?[/quote]

I have to say you have a sense of humor. I enjoyed our last debate, and most on here saw that, but know I will not push the issue on this one. I am learning a lot from this thread, and I really do not want it to get off track.

Knowing Push he is going to bring a sledgehammer so drink a couple more Surge and maybe take a couple of Spike because this is going to get interesting.[/quote]
LOL! I concur!

374

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Further…if I get rid of Genesis as credible and True I can switch sides in this debate and absolutely destroy Christianity. I can annihilate everything and anything “you Christians” throw at me.

I can make Orion and Makavali and Bodyguard and Planet Cap’n and Ephrem, et al, look like rank amateurs still in diapers falling our of their cribs. [/quote]

I think Genesis is the most important book in the OT…

375

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Further…if I get rid of Genesis as credible and True I can switch sides in this debate and absolutely destroy Christianity. I can annihilate everything and anything “you Christians” throw at me.

I can make Orion and Makavali and Bodyguard and Planet Cap’n and Ephrem, et al, look like rank amateurs still in diapers falling our of their cribs. [/quote]

I’d really hope you could do a better job than them…Well, you can have a rational discussion with Ephrem.

Pookie, was the best to argue with. He understood concepts with out explanation. He also converted…From Atheist to Agnostic. :slight_smile: