secondeve Posted May 2, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 117 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,276 Content Per Day: 0.19 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/02/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/21/1986 Share Posted May 2, 2006 Isiahsmiles: "Christianity was not a religious movement based upon ideology but upon events which had to have actually happened." Why did they had to have happened? Because we know that Jesus existed and that people wrote about him in a religious sense, ergo they must be 100% correct? Momentarily set aside a response which says, 'That which is not Christian is false.' Objectively, the same could be said about Muhammad. He lived in a religious context, was written about in that context by people who believed in him faithfully and who spread the word- who were committed enough to preach about him and die for his beliefs- and who we know existed from other texts. If people could be wrong about him historically, then why not Jesus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaiah-smiles Posted May 4, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 84 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/06/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/21/1959 Share Posted May 4, 2006 Isiahsmiles: "Christianity was not a religious movement based upon ideology but upon events which had to have actually happened." Why did they had to have happened? Because we know that Jesus existed and that people wrote about him in a religious sense, ergo they must be 100% correct? Momentarily set aside a response which says, 'That which is not Christian is false.' Objectively, the same could be said about Muhammad. He lived in a religious context, was written about in that context by people who believed in him faithfully and who spread the word- who were committed enough to preach about him and die for his beliefs- and who we know existed from other texts. If people could be wrong about him historically, then why not Jesus? We are surrounded by claims of religious authority Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HGPgal Posted May 5, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 42 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/26/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/11/1964 Share Posted May 5, 2006 (edited) Irish ~ There is a lot of misunderstanding in the X'n community today about your questions, the age of the earth, the authority of the Bible, how the Bible can possibly relate to a "scientific" world, etc. Genesis 5:4 tell us Adam 'begat other sons and daughters......' The Bible is indeed a history book, but its stories are not the only ones to have ever existed. For example - Cain and his wife. The Bible talks about Cain & Abel, and then about Cain getting a wife. There's an apparent hole in the "timeline" that we aren't privy to. Just because it's not recorded, doesn't mean there's anything out of the ordinary. It wasn't the important thing God wanted us to focus on. Read the Bible as a whole rather than in bits and pieces and the Truth will become apprent to you. I don't say that condescendingly, but as a matter of experience. In my own life when I've struggled with such questions, the WHOLE TRUTH has been synergystic to my understanding (i.e., the whole is greater than the sum of its parts). I think that's when the Holy Spirit opens our eyes to God's plan. Also, remember that Adam & Eve were created perfectly. There was no sin when they were created, so there was no genetic breakdown. After the fall, each generation of descendants would have a little more breakdown. But since they were so close to perfection, that would take a while. The MODERN reason for not inbreeding is because of this genetic breakdown - it just didn't exist early on. Another great resource for Defending the Faith is Answers in Genesis. Check it out. Edited May 5, 2006 by HGPgal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HGPgal Posted May 5, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 42 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/26/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/11/1964 Share Posted May 5, 2006 I have only ever seen the evidence for Mitochondrial Eve misrepresented and misinterpretted in the Christian community, which is no coincidence - since the Christian community has the bulk of the more virulent and active anti-science movements (called "Creationism"). Anti-science??? So you are comparing Creationism with an attitude of religion vs. science? How ignorant that is when there are myriad resources extent to the contrary. All evidence can be viewed from differing points of interest. Creationists view the evidence from a Biblical worldview, while evolutionists view it from a Darwinian worldview. We BOTH have the same evidence, just different viewpoints. Here is an excerpt from an email conversation I'm having with a friend of mine whom I believe is a secular humanist... The problem is that evolutionists try to pass off evolution as science. Let Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Timbo Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Secondeve, It is proper to want to have proof that something exist, such as God. This means that you are not easily swayed, but as in a court case, it is necessary to provide convincing evidense to support one's hypothesis. What evidence can be brought forth to see if there really is a God Almighty, a Creator of all life and the universe ? For example, it is esimated that the universe contains at least 50,000,000,000 galaxies, each with billions of stars like our sun. Where did they come from ? What keeps them from colliding into one another ? If there were on the highway 10,000 cars, but none of these had a driver, how long would it be before they began hitting one another ? So what keeps these colossal groups of stars, the galaxies, from crashing into one another ? Bernard Lovell, British physicist and astronomer, said of how finely tuned the universe is, saying: "If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster, then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodsJul Posted May 17, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 33 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/18/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/01/1971 Share Posted May 17, 2006 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!! 2) If Adam and Eve bore two males called Kane and Abel, who did Kane and Abel marry to produce more kids? I have read all the responces to your questions...btw...Great questions ! I realize I am going off the track a bit here, but read Genesis 4:14... 14 For you have banished me (Cain speaking to the LORD) from my farm and from you, and made me a fugitive and a tramp; and ....EVERYONE....who sees me will try to kill me...**Note the word " everyone " read on ... 15 The LORD replied, " THEY won't kill you, for I will give seven times your punishment to ANYONE who does. **Note the word " They " May I add.....the following things happened next : #1. The LORD put a mark on Cain #2. Cain left the presence of the Lord #3. Cain headed East of Eden and last but not least...THEN we hear about Cains wife. Pray that answered some of your questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WayneB Posted May 17, 2006 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 4 Topic Count: 232 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 7,261 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 79 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/19/1959 Share Posted May 17, 2006 whew science only makes me ponder God more........ A simple but profound statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaiah-smiles Posted May 18, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 84 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/06/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/21/1959 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Now we have both light and plants, and what comes next ? "Day four" begins, with God saying: "Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HGPgal Posted May 18, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 42 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/26/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/11/1964 Share Posted May 18, 2006 TIMBO ~ Excellent and logical discussion. Well-written until you said that the creation days were not 24 hours. Where did you get that?? Biblical uses of the word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Timbo Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Hi, Isaiah-smiles, The Genesis account begins by saying that there was a "beginning" for the "heavens and the earth". On the first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts