Anyone Interested in a Serious Religious Debate?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
636

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Awesome points. Really liking debating with you.

My issue is this: Why is it assumed this “first cause” is sentient and has a plan? Gravity causes things to fall down… gravity doesn’t think about what it’s pulling down, it just is. [/quote]

That’s a legit question. It does not necessarily follow that the Uncaused-cause would have anything to do with what follows it’s initial act of causation.
But think about this, for something to be an uncaused-cause, what properties must it posses to fulfill the role of an uncaused-causer?
I would say first, it must exist unaffected in any way by anything. Second, since ‘it’ cannot be caused to do anything, then it must posses something like a ‘will’ to make it happen.
If it cannot be affected by outside influences, it must choose of it’s own freewill, what to do. If this is true, we can see something of a personality appear. As people we are proud of our work and we tend to protect, I’d imagine God is some what the same way.[/quote]

Excellent argument. Going to take me a few days to really wrap my brain around this subject. :)[/quote]

I like to ponder over some choice whiskey and a smooth cigar. This is the kind of stuff I think about…Yep, I am a nerd.[/quote]

Ok, so you’ve given me reason to agree that it’s logical enough to believe that a sentient being created our universe. Now, about this “all knowing” part… care to tackle that?

What if God just decided to create the universe and didn’t know what was going to happen, and just plays it by ear?

638

[quote]espenl wrote:
Placing a forbidden tree there in the first place is so smart. And allowing Satan free passage to the garden as well, far from infallible. Then again, who ever said this god was smart.[/quote]
Satan the Devil did not start off as Resistor the Slanderer which is what that name stands for. He was a high ranking angel that started off as a righteous spirit being. Apparently, dissatisfaction toward God developed in Satan in the spirit realm before seducing Eve. But we see at Job 1:6 that God still allowed Satan into heaven to take his position before him centuries after seducing Eve in the Garden of Eden and just before Satan raises the third issue regarding man’s integrity to God that required time to settle.

Once God wills something to take place there is nothing that can stop it. Isaiah 55:8-11 explains this well which states:
“8 For the thoughts of YOU people are not my thoughts, nor are my ways YOUR ways, is the utterance of Jehovah. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than YOUR ways, and my thoughts than YOUR thoughts. 10 For just as the pouring rain descends, and the snow, from the heavens and does not return to that place, unless it actually saturates the earth and makes it produce and sprout, and seed is actually given to the sower and bread to the eater, 11 so my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results, but it will certainly do that in which I have delighted, and it will have certain success in that for which I have sent it.”

So Satan’s rebellious attitude that developed before God created humans would not have stopped God from accomplishing his will and as the above verses points out his word or will will have success. So although God’s original plan for humans got side tracked God put measures in place that will ensure a perfect race of humans from Adam and Eve will eventually come to fruition on earth.

God allowing his spirit sons to have free will, he would not have stopped Satan from his rebellious course and causing the downfall of man. But God immediately had a solution and a remedy through the promised seed mentioned at Genesis 3:15 whose purpose was progressively revealed throughout pages of the Bible.

And remember God placing the tree in the garden was to see if his newly created humans would listen to a simple restriction such as not eating from only one of the trees. It was not to tempt Adam and Eve. And if you think about it not eating from one tree when there are many others to eat from should have been easy. What was forbidden was not at every turn so that every were they looked they were confronted with forbidden trees so that the forbidden trees were dangled out in front of them so to speak. Nor was the forbidden tree the only tree producing food so that when they got hungry they had no choice but to look to the tree. When the got hungry all they had to do was eat from any other the other trees until they were satisfied. So God in all his wisdom tested Adam and Eve in a way that was not unfair, unjust or burdensome. The temptation only came when Satan lied about what would happen when they ate the fruit. Adam and Eve should have went to God and asked if what Satan said was true instead of letting Satan become their god and listening to him.

God setup the fairest, most righteous test so that Adam and Eve would have the best chance at passing. It wasn’t until Satan stepped in and tempted Eve and then Adam by lying about what would happen when they ate the fruit.

EDIT: My last sentence didn’t make sense.
What I meant to say was that Satan did the tempting when he lied about what would happen when Adam and Eve at the fruit from the forbidden tree.

640

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Not to mention that there was NO REASON for the tree to exist outside of tempting Adam and Eve to eat it. None. No other animal would logically eat from it, and God would not need to eat from it.

Its uncomparable to a traffic light, which exists for a reason. The forbidden tree was put in Eden just so God could punish man forever.

Makes no sense.

Ok, for real, done now. heh.[/quote]

But you can’t possibly understand Gods will! You can’t judge him by human standards, even though we judge his goodness by just that!

641

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
All animals before the Fall were omnivores ACCORDING to the Bible.
[/quote]

And that’s why the Bible is full of baloney.[/quote]

If you are looking at it as a history book, it can seem that way. It’s not full of baloney though.

As an atheist or agnostic, if you have a genuine interest in the bible and why it’s a big deal, without an agenda, I would encourage looking at it as a piece of literature. As a literary piece it is indeed a fascinating book.[/quote]

Pat, if I were an atheist/agnostic I would chuck the Bible so far into the woods you’d never find it, based on your characterization of it. I don’t blame these guys for laughing at it. They legitimately recognize it is a fraud if it claims one thing and doesn’t deliver. “Your Bible” can’t deliver, bud.[/quote]

Most probably do, my characterization not withstanding.
Anybody laughing at it is an idiot. There is no denying the Bible’s prominent place in the story of western civilization. No book has ever played a bigger role in humanity that the bible, a failure to recognize it’s significance even as an atheist/ agnostic is just plain dumb.

You may not like it, you may not believe it, but you cannot discount it’s significance. It stood up the the most important test of all, the test of time. It’s as significant today as it ever was.

642

[quote]pushharder wrote:
But…you had simians evolving (dying) for millions of years…then simian/human hybrids…then Neanderthals etc. and eventually POOF somehow, some way, somewhere the first man appears…and he commits sin…is condemned to death for it…and dies (after bearing human children)?

Now are you telling this first man’s father and mother who also died…did not commit sin? They died for some other reason?[/quote]

I don’t know whether the chicken or the egg came first. Man or his parents. Nor do I know when sin entered the world and the struggle began. I do know this, God created everything including man. God clearly made us differently than the other animals. I know sin entered the world through the choice of man.
I also know there were people around before Genesis was written and while it may an account of creation, it’s not exactely a first person rendition. It’s also meant for an audience 7000 years ago. If you were to start explaining evolution, science, biology, the universe, I am pretty sure you would have lost them.

Genesis is woven together from several stories. It has 2 creation stories, the second older than the first. I don’t think it was ever intended to be a factual account.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm

643

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Since I can’t get our resident Catholic apologist to explain his meaning of the origin of sin and death (unless Pat can help me out here) let’s switch tracks…can anyone explain the Islamic origins of sin and death?[/quote]

Man allowed sin into the world by his own freewill, and death followed as a result. Because of this decision, we have become the battle ground between good and evil. [/quote]

But according to the bible, man (technically woman first) allowed sin into the world because God put a forbidden tree within reach, then allowed a demon (in the form of a snake) to convince them to eat the forbidden fruit. Keep in mind that God, being all knowing, knew exactly what was going to happen. Following this original sin, God not only punished Adam and Eve, but the rest of humanity forever.

Does this sound like the act of a loving God?

In criminal law, entrapment is when a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit an offense which the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment[/quote]
What God did in the Garden is the furthest thing from entrapment.
[/quote]

It’s exactly entrapment. Read the above definition, esp. the “which the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit” part.

If God had… I dunno… NEVER CREATED THE FORBIDDEN TREE IN THE FIRST PLACE… maybe, just maybe, Adam and Eve would have been “unlikely” to commit the crime of eating its fruit.

I’m done debating this though, it’s a stupid story and anyone who takes it literally is substituting a book for their own brain. [/quote]

But man would be with out freewill with out the tree which is what the story is about in the first place.

644

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It’s indeed good to be reminded that there are those like you that believe these things literally occurred. I’m just not sure what to do with that reminder and I often wonder how I could gain financially from your condition…oh wait, that’s right, build a church and profit. By the way, you didn’t attend law school did you? Your legalese is tortured. [/quote]

It is really sad that every religion thread on here always turns into a “what do you believe?” - “This” - “If you believe that you’re some kind of retarded imbecile.” thread.

What happened to all of that wonderful tolerance and open-mindedness? What happened to the basic respect for someone else’s beliefs?

Just because you have chosen to believe something different doesn’t give you the right to be condescending or denigrating to another person who has done you no harm, seeks to only explain as best they can their own faith and is perfectly fine to leave you to yours.

If you cannot explain at a doctoral level quantum physics, economics, zoology, biology, geology, astrophysics and anthropology - it doesn’t mean that all of those fields of study are lies - it means you don’t have all of the answers. Likewise, just because someone cannot provide you the perfectly detailed answers to the questions that turned you against Christianity doesn’t mean that the answers do not exist.

You playing to the ultimate strawman argument - “here’s my question, but before you answer know that whatever answer you give will not be good enough for me, so your faith is wrong.”

If you have issues with Christianity, do what Push and Pat and myself have done when we have had questions about other faiths - go and study them with an open mind. Examine their beliefs and sacred writings - then come to a settled conclusion in your mind. And leave it at that.

The fact that you all keep coming into religious threads to spout your loathing of Christian beliefs and point out all of the problems you find in it goes beyond mere intellectual inquiry and approaches an antagonistic attitude that indicates you have unsettled doubts about your own conclusions . . .

645

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Since I can’t get our resident Catholic apologist to explain his meaning of the origin of sin and death (unless Pat can help me out here) let’s switch tracks…can anyone explain the Islamic origins of sin and death?[/quote]

Man allowed sin into the world by his own freewill, and death followed as a result. Because of this decision, we have become the battle ground between good and evil. [/quote]

But according to the bible, man (technically woman first) allowed sin into the world because God put a forbidden tree within reach, then allowed a demon (in the form of a snake) to convince them to eat the forbidden fruit. Keep in mind that God, being all knowing, knew exactly what was going to happen. Following this original sin, God not only punished Adam and Eve, but the rest of humanity forever.

Does this sound like the act of a loving God?

In criminal law, entrapment is when a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit an offense which the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment[/quote]

Well, they not only disobeyed God, they tried to hide, lie and blame each other. Further, they were warned. Dad kicked them out of the house.
I have been thinking lately, that we are the battle ground between good and evil. Basically we’re in a war zone, that’s why things look so fucked up.

What you are getting at is called the problem of evil. But nowhere in the known universe and further no other life form on Earth has the struggle between good and evil, only us.
[/quote]

Yes, I suppose it can turn into a “problem of evil” debate.

The main point was that the interpretation of God as an all loving being goes against what the bible says. An all loving being would not create a temptation that has no reason for existing beyond giving God an excuse to punish humanity.

An all loving God would never have put the fobidden fruit in the garden. Never.

Point being: The bible shouldn’t be taken literally. :P[/quote]

The bible is made up of many books. Some of them are more literal than others. Most importantly it’s the moral of the story.

As far as what an all loving God would do, I don’t know. But man made the choice to eat it.

646

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Awesome points. Really liking debating with you.

My issue is this: Why is it assumed this “first cause” is sentient and has a plan? Gravity causes things to fall down… gravity doesn’t think about what it’s pulling down, it just is. [/quote]

That’s a legit question. It does not necessarily follow that the Uncaused-cause would have anything to do with what follows it’s initial act of causation.
But think about this, for something to be an uncaused-cause, what properties must it posses to fulfill the role of an uncaused-causer?
I would say first, it must exist unaffected in any way by anything. Second, since ‘it’ cannot be caused to do anything, then it must posses something like a ‘will’ to make it happen.
If it cannot be affected by outside influences, it must choose of it’s own freewill, what to do. If this is true, we can see something of a personality appear. As people we are proud of our work and we tend to protect, I’d imagine God is some what the same way.[/quote]

Excellent argument. Going to take me a few days to really wrap my brain around this subject. :)[/quote]

I like to ponder over some choice whiskey and a smooth cigar. This is the kind of stuff I think about…Yep, I am a nerd.[/quote]

Ok, so you’ve given me reason to agree that it’s logical enough to believe that a sentient being created our universe. Now, about this “all knowing” part… care to tackle that?

What if God just decided to create the universe and didn’t know what was going to happen, and just plays it by ear? [/quote]

Well he created it all, should he should know it all. But in your statement you are binding God to time which he is not bound by.
I think I know where this is going with respect to freewill, it’s paradoxical. I have to defer to faith on that one. I guess in this situation being all knowing is helpful as he should know how to solve the paradox. I have some thoughts on how to solve it, which I think are reasonable, but it’s a long thread to follow.

God didn’t play it by ear though, everything follows the rules set forth from the beginning; except us.

647

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It’s indeed good to be reminded that there are those like you that believe these things literally occurred. I’m just not sure what to do with that reminder and I often wonder how I could gain financially from your condition…oh wait, that’s right, build a church and profit. By the way, you didn’t attend law school did you? Your legalese is tortured. [/quote]

It is really sad that every religion thread on here always turns into a “what do you believe?” - “This” - “If you believe that you’re some kind of retarded imbecile.” thread.

What happened to all of that wonderful tolerance and open-mindedness? What happened to the basic respect for someone else’s beliefs?

Just because you have chosen to believe something different doesn’t give you the right to be condescending or denigrating to another person who has done you no harm, seeks to only explain as best they can their own faith and is perfectly fine to leave you to yours.

If you cannot explain at a doctoral level quantum physics, economics, zoology, biology, geology, astrophysics and anthropology - it doesn’t mean that all of those fields of study are lies - it means you don’t have all of the answers. Likewise, just because someone cannot provide you the perfectly detailed answers to the questions that turned you against Christianity doesn’t mean that the answers do not exist.

You playing to the ultimate strawman argument - “here’s my question, but before you answer know that whatever answer you give will not be good enough for me, so your faith is wrong.”

If you have issues with Christianity, do what Push and Pat and myself have done when we have had questions about other faiths - go and study them with an open mind. Examine their beliefs and sacred writings - then come to a settled conclusion in your mind. And leave it at that.

The fact that you all keep coming into religious threads to spout your loathing of Christian beliefs and point out all of the problems you find in it goes beyond mere intellectual inquiry and approaches an antagonistic attitude that indicates you have unsettled doubts about your own conclusions . . . [/quote]

Word up.

648

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
As an atheist or agnostic, if you have a genuine interest in the bible and why it’s a big deal, without an agenda, I would encourage looking at it as a piece of literature. As a literary piece it is indeed a fascinating book.[/quote]

Good point pat and I definitely agree. I personally see it as a piece of literature that has inspired countless people on this planet (whether for good or evil).

I just cannot understand people who take it entirely at face value without the application of logic and science. Saying that an animal who’s built as a predator would forsake these abilities to become an omnivore is illogical. What would be the purpose in creating a creature with teeth designed to slice when it is commanded to eat vegetation (which is meant to be chewed)? It seems equally illogical to me to be arguing over semantics of definitions of gods instructions when the book wasn’t truly written by a god. It was written by mankind and should be approached as any other work: with scrutiny and skepticism. [/quote]

Damn, I have to say I agree.[/quote]

The present is not the key to the past.

Pat, you didn’t think this through. I mentioned this before but you’re skipping. Maybe the omnivore or predator was not created that way originally. Maybe he used the time/science honored method of adaptation after the Fall to acquire his slicing teeth.

I think your mind is more closed than you think.[/quote]

If your referring the literalness of Gen 1 & 2, then yeah, I am pretty certain it’s not a factual account.
I think the way it actually happened, from what we lowly humans can tell, it more amazing and a more impressive display of God’s design and power than Genesis 1 & 2.
Just look at the size and majesty of the universe! And I know where you live you can see the entire Milky Way clear as a bell; it’s an impressive display.

649

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It’s indeed good to be reminded that there are those like you that believe these things literally occurred. I’m just not sure what to do with that reminder and I often wonder how I could gain financially from your condition…oh wait, that’s right, build a church and profit. By the way, you didn’t attend law school did you? Your legalese is tortured. [/quote]

It is really sad that every religion thread on here always turns into a “what do you believe?” - “This” - “If you believe that you’re some kind of retarded imbecile.” thread.

What happened to all of that wonderful tolerance and open-mindedness? What happened to the basic respect for someone else’s beliefs?

Just because you have chosen to believe something different doesn’t give you the right to be condescending or denigrating to another person who has done you no harm, seeks to only explain as best they can their own faith and is perfectly fine to leave you to yours.

If you cannot explain at a doctoral level quantum physics, economics, zoology, biology, geology, astrophysics and anthropology - it doesn’t mean that all of those fields of study are lies - it means you don’t have all of the answers. Likewise, just because someone cannot provide you the perfectly detailed answers to the questions that turned you against Christianity doesn’t mean that the answers do not exist.

You playing to the ultimate strawman argument - “here’s my question, but before you answer know that whatever answer you give will not be good enough for me, so your faith is wrong.”

If you have issues with Christianity, do what Push and Pat and myself have done when we have had questions about other faiths - go and study them with an open mind. Examine their beliefs and sacred writings - then come to a settled conclusion in your mind. And leave it at that.

The fact that you all keep coming into religious threads to spout your loathing of Christian beliefs and point out all of the problems you find in it goes beyond mere intellectual inquiry and approaches an antagonistic attitude that indicates you have unsettled doubts about your own conclusions . . . [/quote]

Nothing is unsettled. I was a Christian, until I started reading.

Anyway, “drive by post” is fair. However, maybe like a chess master, I see a few moves ahead of those in this thread - or, don’t you see where these threads always lead? I’m sure you must. Would you like for me to give you a thesis, so you can argue with my thesis? Will your thesis change my opinions and vice versa? No. So, I ask, what less value does a “drive by post” have? Neither will change anyone’s mind. Wake me up when one or the other side says, “eureka!, I am convinced of your position - I am going to (or leaving) Church tomorrow!”. Wake me when it happens please. As for being antagonistic or denigrating - take it as you choose. But know this, when I say I am alarmed that someone believes literally of Adam and Eve and a Tree, I am indeed alarmed and I am expressing my opinion - just like you are expressing your opinions. If you desire to find antagonism in such a statement, that is your problem.

650

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

…Saying that an animal who’s built as a predator would forsake these abilities to become an omnivore is illogical. [/quote]

You have it backwards.

[Edit] Omnivore first. Predator after the Fall.[quote]

What would be the purpose in creating a creature with teeth designed to slice when it is commanded to eat vegetation (which is meant to be chewed)?[/quote]

That is actually a very good question. There are some plausible answers but I’m not going to do all the typing. Go to a creationist website to get the full story.[quote]

It seems equally illogical to me to be arguing over semantics of definitions of gods instructions when the book wasn’t truly written by a god. It was written by mankind and should be approached as any other work: with scrutiny and skepticism. [/quote]

I agree with you here if the word “if” is installed in a couple of places in your statement. You would then be making a very legitimate point.

[Edit] For instance if it was phrased this way: [quote]It seems equally illogical to me to be arguing over semantics of definitions of gods instructions if the book wasn’t truly written by a god. If it was written by mankind it should be approached as any other work: with scrutiny and skepticism[/quote] then you are dead-on. Bullseye.[/quote]

But the book was written by man, wasn’t it? For example, I could be inspired by famous architects, but when I write a book about architecture, it’s me writing it, not them. I could cite them as sources, but ultimately I’m the one creating the book. [/quote]

Good point, but you writing a book takes a couple of months to a couple of years. The Bible took over 2000 years, and dozens of authors. I just find it amazing how the Bible written by so many authors, and over so many years follows the same path. They all seem to point to one point in time and that is the Life of Jesus Christ. So a book that takes that long to write and still points to one point in time, I find that facinating, and should be given more time to research than say what several people on here have put into it. Do beleive what someone tells you about the Bible. Read it and ask God to reveal to you the truth. You might be amazed what he will show you about himself.

Being a Christian is tough, anyone says that it is all easy and fun loving is lying is trying to sell you something or get a donation. Most Christians strive to be like Christ. Jesus died a horable death. I would not ever want to die that way, but if I had to choose between my faith and die that way, then I would die that way. Millions of Christians have died for their beleifs. If their faith was not alive then they would just walk away from it.

651

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
But…you had simians evolving (dying) for millions of years…then simian/human hybrids…then Neanderthals etc. and eventually POOF somehow, some way, somewhere the first man appears…and he commits sin…is condemned to death for it…and dies (after bearing human children)?

Now are you telling this first man’s father and mother who also died…did not commit sin? They died for some other reason?[/quote]

I don’t know whether the chicken or the egg came first. Man or his parents. Nor do I know when sin entered the world and the struggle began. I do know this, God created everything including man. God clearly made us differently than the other animals. I know sin entered the world through the choice of man.
I also know there were people around before Genesis was written and while it may an account of creation, it’s not exactely a first person rendition. It’s also meant for an audience 7000 years ago. If you were to start explaining evolution, science, biology, the universe, I am pretty sure you would have lost them.

Genesis is woven together from several stories. It has 2 creation stories, the second older than the first. I don’t think it was ever intended to be a factual account.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm[/quote]
Pat, do you believe in Jesus? If you believe in Jesus then you should believe in the Genesis account because Jesus mentions both the creation of man and Noah and the flood.

At Mark 10:6-9 Jesus states:
“However, from the beginning of creation 'He made them male and female. 7 On this account a man will leave his father and mother, 8 and the two will be one flesh’; so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God yoked together let no man put apart.”

In the verses mentioned above Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27 where it states “He made them male and female” and he mentions “from the beginning of creation” which of course is the creation account in Genesis.

At Matthew 24:37-39 Jesus refers to the Noah and the flood account and paralells what happened in the days and years leading up to the flood with what will happened during the days and years during Jesus’ presence leading up to Armageddon.

Matthew 24:37-39 states:
“For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.”

It’s clear that Jesus believed in the Genesis account not only because he quotes specific verses from Genesis but he also had a first hand account because he was in heaven when both of the above accounts took place.

You are right that Genesis took place before Moses wrote it. The creation of Adam in Genesis took place about 2500 years before Moses wrote Genesis. And the flood event took place about 850 years before the writing in Genesis. Apparently, God told Moses either directly or through holy spirit about what took place from the beginning of creation up until Moses’ time.

652

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It’s indeed good to be reminded that there are those like you that believe these things literally occurred. I’m just not sure what to do with that reminder and I often wonder how I could gain financially from your condition…oh wait, that’s right, build a church and profit. By the way, you didn’t attend law school did you? Your legalese is tortured. [/quote]

It is really sad that every religion thread on here always turns into a “what do you believe?” - “This” - “If you believe that you’re some kind of retarded imbecile.” thread.

What happened to all of that wonderful tolerance and open-mindedness? What happened to the basic respect for someone else’s beliefs?

Just because you have chosen to believe something different doesn’t give you the right to be condescending or denigrating to another person who has done you no harm, seeks to only explain as best they can their own faith and is perfectly fine to leave you to yours.

If you cannot explain at a doctoral level quantum physics, economics, zoology, biology, geology, astrophysics and anthropology - it doesn’t mean that all of those fields of study are lies - it means you don’t have all of the answers. Likewise, just because someone cannot provide you the perfectly detailed answers to the questions that turned you against Christianity doesn’t mean that the answers do not exist.

You playing to the ultimate strawman argument - “here’s my question, but before you answer know that whatever answer you give will not be good enough for me, so your faith is wrong.”

If you have issues with Christianity, do what Push and Pat and myself have done when we have had questions about other faiths - go and study them with an open mind. Examine their beliefs and sacred writings - then come to a settled conclusion in your mind. And leave it at that.

The fact that you all keep coming into religious threads to spout your loathing of Christian beliefs and point out all of the problems you find in it goes beyond mere intellectual inquiry and approaches an antagonistic attitude that indicates you have unsettled doubts about your own conclusions . . . [/quote]
Excellently put!

653

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
But…you had simians evolving (dying) for millions of years…then simian/human hybrids…then Neanderthals etc. and eventually POOF somehow, some way, somewhere the first man appears…and he commits sin…is condemned to death for it…and dies (after bearing human children)?

Now are you telling this first man’s father and mother who also died…did not commit sin? They died for some other reason?[/quote]

I don’t know whether the chicken or the egg came first. Man or his parents. Nor do I know when sin entered the world and the struggle began. I do know this, God created everything including man. God clearly made us differently than the other animals. I know sin entered the world through the choice of man.
I also know there were people around before Genesis was written and while it may an account of creation, it’s not exactely a first person rendition. It’s also meant for an audience 7000 years ago. If you were to start explaining evolution, science, biology, the universe, I am pretty sure you would have lost them.

Genesis is woven together from several stories. It has 2 creation stories, the second older than the first. I don’t think it was ever intended to be a factual account.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm[/quote]
Pat, do you believe in Jesus? If you believe in Jesus then you should believe in the Genesis account because Jesus mentions both the creation of man and Noah and the flood.

At Mark 10:6-9 Jesus states:
“However, from the beginning of creation 'He made them male and female. 7 On this account a man will leave his father and mother, 8 and the two will be one flesh’; so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God yoked together let no man put apart.”

In the verses mentioned above Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27 where it states “He made them male and female” and he mentions “from the beginning of creation” which of course is the creation account in Genesis.

At Matthew 24:37-39 Jesus refers to the Noah and the flood account and paralells what happened in the days and years leading up to the flood with what will happened during the days and years during Jesus’ presence leading up to Armageddon.

Matthew 24:37-39 states:
“For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.”

It’s clear that Jesus believed in the Genesis account not only because he quotes specific verses from Genesis but he also had a first hand account because he was in heaven when both of the above accounts took place.

You are right that Genesis took place before Moses wrote it. The creation of Adam in Genesis took place about 2500 years before Moses wrote Genesis. And the flood event took place about 850 years before the writing in Genesis. Apparently, God told Moses either directly or through holy spirit about what took place from the beginning of creation up until Moses’ time.[/quote]

There’s nothing to disbelieve about Genesis. God created the universe and everything in it, God made man and woman, sin entered the world through man, etc. These are the truths of the bible.
If by Genesis you are trying to derive the geological and archeological age of the Earth based on the story of Genesis as to being between 5000 and 7000 years old, is just plain hogwash.
I am not going to lie to myself and take the safe way out and just trust that the bible is the book of everything. It’s not that. It takes nothing away from God and like I said, what he actually did it more impressive. It’s a lot harder to wrap your brain around the majesty of his creation…And truth be told, he could have “poofed!” everything into existence as it is like we know it, 5 minutes ago; we never know the difference.

If it were that simple, all the bible literalists would interpret the bible the same way, they clearly don’t. You believe very differently from the Baptist or Lutheran, yet you all claim to be bible literalists. If you all interpret the bible differently and you all are bible literalists, who’s right?

654

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
But…you had simians evolving (dying) for millions of years…then simian/human hybrids…then Neanderthals etc. and eventually POOF somehow, some way, somewhere the first man appears…and he commits sin…is condemned to death for it…and dies (after bearing human children)?

Now are you telling this first man’s father and mother who also died…did not commit sin? They died for some other reason?[/quote]

I don’t know whether the chicken or the egg came first. Man or his parents. Nor do I know when sin entered the world and the struggle began. I do know this, God created everything including man. God clearly made us differently than the other animals. I know sin entered the world through the choice of man.
I also know there were people around before Genesis was written and while it may an account of creation, it’s not exactely a first person rendition. It’s also meant for an audience 7000 years ago. If you were to start explaining evolution, science, biology, the universe, I am pretty sure you would have lost them.

Genesis is woven together from several stories. It has 2 creation stories, the second older than the first. I don’t think it was ever intended to be a factual account.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm[/quote]
Pat, do you believe in Jesus? If you believe in Jesus then you should believe in the Genesis account because Jesus mentions both the creation of man and Noah and the flood.

At Mark 10:6-9 Jesus states:
“However, from the beginning of creation 'He made them male and female. 7 On this account a man will leave his father and mother, 8 and the two will be one flesh’; so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God yoked together let no man put apart.”

In the verses mentioned above Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27 where it states “He made them male and female” and he mentions “from the beginning of creation” which of course is the creation account in Genesis.

At Matthew 24:37-39 Jesus refers to the Noah and the flood account and paralells what happened in the days and years leading up to the flood with what will happened during the days and years during Jesus’ presence leading up to Armageddon.

Matthew 24:37-39 states:
“For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.”

It’s clear that Jesus believed in the Genesis account not only because he quotes specific verses from Genesis but he also had a first hand account because he was in heaven when both of the above accounts took place.

You are right that Genesis took place before Moses wrote it. The creation of Adam in Genesis took place about 2500 years before Moses wrote Genesis. And the flood event took place about 850 years before the writing in Genesis. Apparently, God told Moses either directly or through holy spirit about what took place from the beginning of creation up until Moses’ time.[/quote]

I do not think that Pat is saying that the Genesis did not take place.

I will say that Jesus quotes the Old Testament all the time. Why? Because he was talking to the Jewish people. These are the stories that they grew up on and understand. Just because he talks about it does not mean that it means literal, but could mean figuratively. Jesus uses Hyperbole all the time. Jesus also uses the term “I AM” which to a Jewish person means that he is God. Is he speaking literally or figuratively here?