An elementary question, which I cannot answer!!!

[nebula]

The point is, there are some things that are that aren't so simple to explain or to prove. Not a single one of us here can prove our identities on line, nor prove any claims we make about what happens with our lives.

We need "faith" in each other that we are being honest.

If you live by tangeable proof alone, you couldn't trust anyone you interacted with on-line because you couldn't prove anyone's claims about anything, expecially identity.

So there are times when you have to lay aside your need for "proof" in order to function in life - it depends on what you are willing to hold as true.

Do you believe I am being honest about my identity as a 35-yr old female and located in Maryland, USA? What basis for your belief? (And I don't mean what you could do in terms of actually meeting, if either of us had the time and money to do so - I mean given what you have at your disposal, how can you know I am who I say I am?)

[Bread_of_Life]

Nebula,

Meaning no offense, I don't think you're going about the right way in defending faith. Faith is a belief without evidence or proof, certainly secondeve can provide evidence or proof they exist, who they are, and what they do. Even if it means you taking a flight to see them.

Until then, you should believe proportionally to the evidence (as any wise man does). Secondeve could be anyone, and while I might tentatively believe that he/she lives in Australia, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't true, and I certainly wouldn't stake anything on it. I will be more convinced once I have more evidence. This isn't faith, it's proportioning belief to evidence. Faith is a belief that is not in proportion to the evidence.

Similarly, when I board a plane, I have no "faith" it won't crash. I'm well aware it can. I just have good evidence that the plane is well looked after, and I know the probability of a crash is low. I am unwilling to forego my holidays based on the small chance of a crash. Were the risk significantly higher, I might well think of doing so, because my belief in my safe transit would be damaged.

I think we should talk about the positive affects in our lives of having faith - a sort of "why not if it's good for you" kindof question. Just a thought!

N

[nebula]

I think we should talk about the positive affects in our lives of having faith - a sort of "why not if it's good for you" kindof question. Just a thought!

I already tried that.

See here for the results.

[CellShade]

Thanks, silentprayer! And yes, CellShade; I don't go to any church, because I'm an athiest. When I said the part about sodomy seemed pure fiction, I mean that there is no reference in the Bible to sodomy causing God to say we can't sleep with our relatives; nor, for that matter, does it say that he ever made it so we could or couldn't. Until you address what I've said about that particular viewpoint being your explanation for certain Biblical facts rather than unquestionable doctrine or scripture, I won't bother explaining my points further or rebutting your other arguments in that area.

I will say again, however, that 'simply knowing the truth is there' is not an argument. Even if you were correct, you can't prove you're right by saying you know you're right. It just doesn't work like that. If I said to you, 'I believe that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of a creature called the Great Green Arkelsiezure' and you then asked me to prove why this was so, simply saying 'I know it's true' isn't an answer. This is why athiests get frustrated with Christians who try and convert them to or prove the existence of God by saying nothing more than 'we feel it' and ignoring all reasonable evidence- scientific fact- which might seem to point to the contrary. A friend of mine once described this method of argument as 'the adult equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and saying I-can't-HEAR-you-nyah-nyah-nyah.' Childish, but it represents the frustration we feel at least some of the time.

1dt of here's a thing.

Which would be greater and actually be the one making, In the Beginning.

Answer= God, simply because science can't be the truth about all this because simply God was the first one to be in the universe(s), science was created afterwards, again I say science is not bad, but it's constantly manipulated and trying to disproof God, which is a reason Science and Darwin style thinkers have been trying to complete their goal for more then 50 years, so far they still haven't made a good proof that Jesus didn't exist, and this will Go on for lots of time until God comes or rather sciencetist and atheist get bored of their owns lie's and try out new fake religions.

BTW on the childish thing theory, I think that's more the case for atheist, God speaks and they still say they can't hear God, if they only would open their ears for even a few secs, theyw ould change their minds if they really want to see God.

But unfortunately Atheist are afraid to see God, afraid to see all their arguments go down the drain if they found out God is true.

Also on the australian thing.

One atheist mentioned, that if another person was able to proof that the other was from australia and female. Good points.

That's why 500 people watched God arise from earth to heaven and saw Him after He was death, but He rose again and 500 people saw Him.

Ain't that pretty much a proof?

Also, here's a point, Atheist and scientist constantly try to find something to disproof God rather then trying to find something to see if He exist or not.

It would be like going to a bridge and thinking I will jump, I will jump, then rather say, well when I go there I will give it a a think, is killing myself really the answer, or maybe theirs a part to the life where everything will be better and easier?

BTW good points Nebula.

GTG to work. Be here in some 12 hours, possibly I will have more time and answer a lot of questions or pointings here by atheist.

God Bless You All, that's right ALL.

[Bread_of_Life]

I already tried that.

Ahh well, won't stop me from keeping on trying! I keep on plugging at things when I reckon I'm right!

[nebula]

Yeah, well, I can only debate for so long . . .

It's not my forte.

That and having to dig up my struggles to explain and express them were taking it's toll on me really bad.

It was pulling me back down into my depression.

I left the debate feeling beat up.

[Bread_of_Life]

It's all good nebs, you oughtn't do stuff that makes you depressed.

Sorry to hear you get depression btw - you better'd be taking care of yourself now!

[Isaiah-smiles]

The Genesis account reveals to us that Adam & Eve bore more children than just Cain and Abel. After the death of Abel by his own brother's hand, Seth was born and continued the Godly lineage as Cain was the father of the ungodly, although Cain's generations did achieve much as far as building cities, inventing string instruments, developed the working of metals and I think by the 7th or 8th generation they had developed the bow and arrow. So, Cain's lineage did achieve much but they didn't worship the one and true God. This reminds me so much of the world we live in today with all the advancement of technology, but the majority of the world is going to hell in a hand basket due to their rejection of the messiah.

So, Adam had all the genetic code for all of mankind. Man lived longer then, before the flood, I believe because of (2) reasons:

1.) Atmospheric pressure

2.) and that sin shorten man's lifespan as each generation went by. Look at the drop in age after the flood.

I believe also that Adams genetic make-up was similar to Noah and his three sons. In them was all the genetic code for all the ethenic groups that scattered from the tower of Babel when God confused their langage. What began to take place afterwards was what scientist refer to as "micro-evolution" not "macro-evolution". In other words, God had put the genetic information for them to be able to adapt to their environment (i.e. hotter climates in most cases produced darker pigments, etc,). And as each group separated themselves from the others that did not speak their langage their geneic pool became very limited in so that they began to develope certain characteristics as well.

We also see this in the animal kingdom as well. We're told that every kind (not every species as in "micro-evolution") animal that was "air breathing" went up into the ark two by two (male and female). For example, it only took (2) dogkind animals to eventually produce; dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc,. Noah would not have the room for every single species of every animal kind. They had already posessed the necessary genetic code for every species. Look for example at the finches (birds), there are literally hundreds, if not, thousands of species of just one birdkind.

1) Havent scientists proven that 2 people couldnt have been the sole ancestors/producers of the whole population ie. Adam and Eve? Something about the low chances of survival generations later due to inbreeding or something like that!!

So, the first answer is, always Believe God. He doesn't ask us to check our brains at the door when we come by faith to Him. But remember, It is impossible to please God without faith. Sometimes even scientists plays the Devil's advocate and tries to undermine christianity, but in due time God proves them wrong.

2) If Adam and Eve bore two males called Kane and Abel, who did Kane and Abel marry to produce more kids?

Cain married a relative, more likely a distant cousin or niece. Abel married nobody, remember? he was dead because Cain slew him.

[secondeve]

CellShade:

Your words: "Science can't be the truth about all this because simply God was the first one to be in the universe(s), science was created afterwards."

This position already assumes a belief in God: it is not an explanation for why the concept of God is correct. And anyway, it doesn't matter whether or not science as a word/concept came into being after the dawn of the universe; the term only designates humanity's understanding of how the universe works. It doesn't matter when we came to our knowledge, because what we understand has always existed.

As I've already said, I believe that Jesus was a real person: just not that he was the Son of God or that he was resurrected. Darwinism isn't about disproving that a man called Jesus lived; it's about the theory of evolution.

We have the word of four Christians that five hundred other people saw the Risen Christ; we do not have five hundred eye-witness testimonies of the same. I could tell you that there are six people in my house right now who can vouch for what I'm wearing; but unless I can produce either the six people or their sworn testimonies- regardless of whether or not I'm telling the truth- there might as well only be me.

And it's true, some atheists/scientists do sit around looking for arguments to say why God doesn't exist. But an equal number of Christians/other religious folk do exactly the same thing, and sit around looking for arguments as to why athiesm is wrong and God does exist. The concept works both ways.

[Isaiah-smiles]

CellShade: As I've already said, I believe that Jesus was a real person: just not that he was the Son of God or that he was resurrected. Darwinism isn't about disproving that a man called Jesus lived; it's about the theory of evolution.

Jesus was more than just a real person. If He is who He claimed to be. If He was indeed Immanuel (God with us), wrapped in flesh and dwelling amoung men then Darwin's theory would indeed be in trouble.

Christianity was not a religious movement based upon ideology but upon events which had to have actually happened. The claims could not have been presented right there in Jerusalem and throughout Judea (that Jesus of Nazareth had healed the sick, opened blind eyes, raised the dead and Himself resurrected, leaving behind an empty tomb) unless the events had verifiably occurred. For that reason Jesus told His disciples to begin their preaching in Jerusalem, to establish the church there first of all.

That short walk outside the city wall to verify that the tomb which all Jerusalem well knew had been guarded by Roman soldiers was indeed empty must have been taken by many skeptics. The word quickly spread in confirmation of this greatest of miracles; it had put God's stamp of approval upon the claims of Jesus Christ.

Paul appealed to the knowledge of the facts possessed by the Roman officials whom he faced. Felix, the governor, had "more perfect knowledge of that way" (Acts 24:22). Far from seeing anything contrary to the truth in Paul's testimony, "Felix trembled" as Paul reasoned with him (v 25). And to King Agrippa, Paul declared, "For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner." (Acts 26:26)

For any man to have invented the New Testament after the time of Christ, and to have attempted to cause it to be received, would have been as if a man had written an account of the Revolution, and of the celebration of this day [July 4, 1776 ]...when [in fact] no revolution was ever heard of, and no one had ever celebrated the Fourth of July. Nor, when such a festival was once established, would it be possible to introduce any account of its origin essentially different from the true one.

But the case of...Christian[ity] is even stronger; because we have several different institutions which must have sprung up at its origin; because baptism and the Lord's Supper have occurred so much more frequently; and because the latter has always been considered the chief rite of a religion to which men have been more attached than to liberty or to life.

What about Historical Resources outside the Bible?

There is no refuting these arguments, which secular historical evidence also supports. There is overwhelming corroboration of the New Testament in the non-Christian writings of that period, including even those of Christianity's enemies:

The Talmud [compilation of oral rabbinic tradition dating to about a.d.200]...speaks of Christ, and of several of the disciples, by name...of His crucifixion...that He performed many and great miracles....

[Flavius] Josephus [Jewish historian c. a.d. 37-100] lived at the time many of these events...happened and was present at the destruction of Jerusalem...[and] he confirms the accuracy of...all that is said [in the New Testament]...of Pharisees, and Sadducees, and Herodians...[and of Christ's death and resurrection].

Tacitus [Roman historian and proconsul of Asia, c. a.d.55-117] tells us that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate...under Tiberius, as a malefactor; that the people called Christians derived their name from him; that this superstition arose in Judea, and spread to Rome, where...only about thirty years after the death of Christ, the Christians were very numerous...[and] that the Christians were subjected to contempt and the most dreadful sufferings...some were crucified; while others, being daubed over with combustible materials, were set up as lights in the night-time, and were thus burnt to death. This account is confirmed by Suetonius, and by Martial and Juvenal....

Pliny [the younger] was propraetor of Pontus and Bithynia [a.d.112]....Many [Christians] were brought before him for their faith in Christ...[and] he condemned them to death....

How strong must have been that primitive evidence for Christianity which could induce persons of good sense, in every walk of life, to abandon the religion of their ancestors, and thus, in the face of imperial power, to persist in their adherence to one who had suffered the death of a slave!

Fanatics have always been willing to die out of loyalty even to a secular leader or political ideology or in hope of attaining paradise thereby (the case with Muslim suicide bombers today). Even Ingersoll, however, the famous nineteenth-century atheist, admitted that no sane man would die for a lie. Yet the apostles and early Christian martyrs died testifying to facts (the miracles, resurrection, etc.) when they could have saved their lives by denying them.

Miracles? Hasn't science proved that miracles cannot occur? On the contrary, science can only deal with natural phenomena; and miracles, by very definition, are supernatural. In fact, miracles are inevitable if God is to interfere at all in the downward course of human affairs and of nature. Whenever God reaches in from outside to effect anything that is not according to the normal course of events (such as the Incarnation, salvation or raising the dead), it is a miracle.

Christianity isn't embarrassed by the recital of miracles in the Bible. On the contrary, Christianity (unlike Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, et al.) requires miracles and is based upon the greatest miracle of all, the resurrection of Christ. Next to that, feeding the multitude or healing the sick or even walking on water follow easily.

The Bible teaches that faith must be founded upon fact, not upon feelings, intuition or emotion--much less upon blind submission to some religious authority. Paul wrote, "Prove all things" (1Thes 5:21). God himself says, "Come now, and let us reason together" (Is 1:18) and has provided abundant factual evidence in the universe around us and in His Word. Jesus, after His resurrection, "shewed himself alive...by many infallible proofs" (Acts 1:3).