Evidence for God from Science

Many christians don't believe in Adam and Eve, but if they didn't exist, then why original sin? why Jesus Christ? if Adam and Eve didn't exist, then doesn't that just eliminate Christianity?

jakobp wrote:Many christians don't believe in Adam and Eve, but if they didn't exist, then why original sin? why Jesus Christ? if Adam and Eve didn't exist, then doesn't that just eliminate Christianity?

A lot of Christians these days pick and choose what to believe from the bible - the word of God. There is evidence against the creation story described in Genesis so its hard for rational people to believe in that story. Most people don't adhere to 1 Timothy 2:11-12 "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." or Exodus 21:20-21 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." or Ephesians 6:5 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

Steve wrote:

jakobp wrote:Many christians don't believe in Adam and Eve, but if they didn't exist, then why original sin? why Jesus Christ? if Adam and Eve didn't exist, then doesn't that just eliminate Christianity?

A lot of Christians these days pick and choose what to believe from the bible - the word of God. There is evidence against the creation story described in Genesis so its hard for rational people to believe in that story. Most people don't adhere to 1 Timothy 2:11-12 "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." or Exodus 21:20-21 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." or Ephesians 6:5 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

Hold the phone!! We have a biblical critic far more advanced than we've ever seen before!!

Gotta love it when people criticize the Bible without citing historical context. Israel had such a better policy regarding slaves than nearby nations it was absurd. They had to be freed every seven years. In addition, most slaves came from people being in debt, who would give themselves into slavery willingly to pay for it. Again, in seven years, they'd be freed with the opportunity to take part of their master's land, cattle, etc. If they stayed, they would become part of the household.

Really, if you are going to pick and choose things to bash, why not pick and choose the ones that put it into context, too. After all, you aren't biased towards one outcome over another, are you?

The religon of atheism also says that we are just animals and should have no laws so it is fine to rape ,murder, sodomize, lie, cheat, commit adulty, and steal because it is part of our nature.

Oh what? You said I mixed up the message of the atheist cult by confusuing its message? O wow, i'm sorry maybe I should put things in better context and understand them better next time.

Sorry

Murray wrote:The religon of atheism also says that we are just animals and should have no laws so it is fine to rape ,murder, sodomize, lie, cheat, commit adulty, and steal because it is part of our nature.

Oh what? You said I mixed up the message of the atheist cult by confusuing its message? O wow, i'm sorry maybe I should put things in better context and understand them better next time.

Sorry

well actually there's no reason to be offended by anything you just said, his criticism is aimed at Christianity's (supposed) hypocrisy. It's not necessarily a claim to morality.

Many christians don't believe in Adam and Eve, but if they didn't exist, then why original sin? why Jesus Christ? if Adam and Eve didn't exist, then doesn't that just eliminate Christianity?

Christians who believe that Adam and Eve did not exist are in direct contravention of the Bible. The Bible is not made up of fairy stories, in fact it is general account of how things begin. There are margins for interpretation but supposing that something is just made up, is merely a supposition at best.

Steve wrote:

jakobp wrote:Many christians don't believe in Adam and Eve, but if they didn't exist, then why original sin? why Jesus Christ? if Adam and Eve didn't exist, then doesn't that just eliminate Christianity?

A lot of Christians these days pick and choose what to believe from the bible - the word of God. There is evidence against the creation story described in Genesis so its hard for rational people to believe in that story. Most people don't adhere to 1 Timothy 2:11-12 "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." or Exodus 21:20-21 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." or Ephesians 6:5 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

I have no problem believing in the creation story in its proper context. I wonder where you get your information from. It would be nice for you to quote the research and surveys that have been carried out by either yourself or other scholars that show this sweeping generalisation.

Silvertusk.

neo-x wrote: Christians who believe that Adam and Eve did not exist are in direct contravention of the Bible

Yep.
The genealogies of Genesis 5, 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3 all find their first parent in Adam, and while biblical genealogies do sometimes omit names for various reasons, they are not known to add in fictional or mythological figures. When Jesus taught on marriage in Matthew 19:4-6, and when Jude referred to Adam in Jude 14, they used no caveats or anything to suggest that they doubted Adam’s historical reality or thought of him in any way differently to how they thought of other Old Testament characters. And when Paul spoke of Adam being formed first, and the woman coming from him (1 Cor. 11:8-9; 1 Tim. 2:11-14), he had to be assuming a historical account in Genesis 2. Paul’s argument would collapse into nonsense if he meant that Adam and Eve were mere mythological symbols of the timeless truth that men pre-exist women.

and so on ...

reference: http://www.bethinking.org/science-chris ... nd-eve.htm

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Gotta love it when people criticize the Bible without citing historical context. Israel had such a better policy regarding slaves than nearby nations it was absurd. They had to be freed every seven years. In addition, most slaves came from people being in debt, who would give themselves into slavery willingly to pay for it. Again, in seven years, they'd be freed with the opportunity to take part of their master's land, cattle, etc. If they stayed, they would become part of the household.

Really, if you are going to pick and choose things to bash, why not pick and choose the ones that put it into context, too. After all, you aren't biased towards one outcome over another, are you?

So this form of slavery is acceptable to you?
Let's say you worked for a company at minimum wage, and medicare did not exist. Then a family member had a medical emergency. In order to pay off the debt you had to borrow money, but the banks would not lend to you. So your last option was to enslave yourself to meet your financial obligations. After seven years you are released as stated above and you are given great oppurtunity of reclaiming your mimimum wage job. Leaving you one mishap away from slavery...

Now let's say there are a lot of people who are in this position leading to the abundance of people who are willing to, or have no choice to but go into slavery. You think these people will be treated humanely? Even now people scoff at those who are unemployed as lazy, now imagine a class of people who are continually in debted. Imagine if this condition were to presist over generations, you think eventually that slavery would become institutionalized?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Gotta love it when people criticize the Bible without citing historical context. Israel had such a better policy regarding slaves than nearby nations it was absurd. They had to be freed every seven years. In addition, most slaves came from people being in debt, who would give themselves into slavery willingly to pay for it. Again, in seven years, they'd be freed with the opportunity to take part of their master's land, cattle, etc. If they stayed, they would become part of the household.

Really, if you are going to pick and choose things to bash, why not pick and choose the ones that put it into context, too. After all, you aren't biased towards one outcome over another, are you?

So this form of slavery is acceptable to you?
Let's say you worked for a company at minimum wage, and medicare did not exist. Then a family member had a medical emergency. In order to pay off the debt you had to borrow money, but the banks would not lend to you. So your last option was to enslave yourself to meet your financial obligations. After seven years you are released as stated above and you are given great oppurtunity of reclaiming your mimimum wage job. Leaving you one mishap away from slavery...

Now let's say there are a lot of people who are in this position leading to the abundance of people who are willing to, or have no choice to but go into slavery. You think these people will be treated humanely? Even now people scoff at those who are unemployed as lazy, now imagine a class of people who are continually in debted. Imagine if this condition were to presist over generations, you think eventually that slavery would become institutionalized?

This is a poor example. Here's why: If I had a minimum wage job, most likely it's because I have no marketable skills that allow me to seek a better paying job. Or, I had no motivation to get training to get a better job. If I went into slavery for six years to pay off debt, I would have developed at least a few marketable skills in that time. That would help me get a better paying job after my slavery stint was over. That is, only if I was motivated to get a better paying job. Of course, I could claim hardship, collect welfare, have multiple children, make free money off them, etc.
At least the slavery-to-payoff-debt system allows someone to be responsible for his own debt, instead of buying everything I want, then deciding I don't want to pay for it, and go bankrupt. Leaving someone else to pay for my mistakes.

Oh, by the way, if it was a family member who was in debt because of medical costs, I can't see how anyone would hold me liable for the debt. It wasn't my debt.
Just my 2 cents.

RickD wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Gotta love it when people criticize the Bible without citing historical context. Israel had such a better policy regarding slaves than nearby nations it was absurd. They had to be freed every seven years. In addition, most slaves came from people being in debt, who would give themselves into slavery willingly to pay for it. Again, in seven years, they'd be freed with the opportunity to take part of their master's land, cattle, etc. If they stayed, they would become part of the household.

Really, if you are going to pick and choose things to bash, why not pick and choose the ones that put it into context, too. After all, you aren't biased towards one outcome over another, are you?

So this form of slavery is acceptable to you?
Let's say you worked for a company at minimum wage, and medicare did not exist. Then a family member had a medical emergency. In order to pay off the debt you had to borrow money, but the banks would not lend to you. So your last option was to enslave yourself to meet your financial obligations. After seven years you are released as stated above and you are given great oppurtunity of reclaiming your mimimum wage job. Leaving you one mishap away from slavery...

Now let's say there are a lot of people who are in this position leading to the abundance of people who are willing to, or have no choice to but go into slavery. You think these people will be treated humanely? Even now people scoff at those who are unemployed as lazy, now imagine a class of people who are continually in debted. Imagine if this condition were to presist over generations, you think eventually that slavery would become institutionalized?

This is a poor example. Here's why: If I had a minimum wage job, most likely it's because I have no marketable skills that allow me to seek a better paying job. Or, I had no motivation to get training to get a better job. If I went into slavery for six years to pay off debt, I would have developed at least a few marketable skills in that time. That would help me get a better paying job after my slavery stint was over. That is, only if I was motivated to get a better paying job. Of course, I could claim hardship, collect welfare, have multiple children, make free money off them, etc.
At least the slavery-to-payoff-debt system allows someone to be responsible for his own debt, instead of buying everything I want, then deciding I don't want to pay for it, and go bankrupt. Leaving someone else to pay for my mistakes.

Oh, by the way, if it was a family member who was in debt because of medical costs, I can't see how anyone would hold me liable for the debt. It wasn't my debt.
Just my 2 cents.

I've divided my responce into two sections because you have introduced a political component to the discussion.

Apropo section

In this example welfare does not exist. And medical care would not be delivered until payment was made in advance. While you are enslaved who would make sure your children are getting the proper education/skills necessary to be successful?


Some additional questions for you.
What sort of work would you be doing while enslaved?
Would you be able to save any money, build equity?

Political section

You think that millions of American who formerly held decent paying jobs and now are either unable to find a job or are working minimum wage all lack the motivation to retrain? I think you can also concede that at one time their skills were marketable.

Some additional questions for you.
What do you do for a living now, are you working?
Do you have any debt currently?
Do you think that the people who were providing credit were at no fault? i.e. They were ignorant of the credit worthyness of the the people they were providing to.
If someone you knew were to endure an actual hardship, such as a severe brain injury in a motorcycle accident, what should we as a society do for this person? Should we let them become beggars?

OK, I'll play along for now.

n this example welfare does not exist. And medical care would not be delivered until payment was made in advance.

Ok, I guess in your utopia, since this is purely hypothetical, I'd probably rob a bank to pay, if it would save my loved one's life.

While you are enslaved who would make sure your children are getting the proper education/skills necessary to be successful?

My wife, of course. She's a great mom!

What sort of work would you be doing while enslaved?

Since I'm enslaved, anything my master asks me to do.

Would you be able to save any money, build equity?

Build equity? If you told me before that I had a home with equity, I'd have sold that to pay the bills. It's quite a mansion, actually.

You think that millions of American who formerly held decent paying jobs and now are either unable to find a job or are working minimum wage all lack the motivation to retrain?

I wouldn't say all. Probably some. The U.S. is the land of opportunity, anyone willing to work hard, and put in the effort, can at least find a job that pays the bills.

What do you do for a living now, are you working?

My wife and I both have jobs.

Do you have any debt currently?

No, no debt currently. My wife and I have lived within our means, made responsible financial decisions, and are very thankful for what God has provided for us.

Do you think that the people who were providing credit were at no fault? i.e. They were ignorant of the credit worthyness of the the people they were providing to.

I absolutely think they had fault. Greed is a great motivation for certain people.

If someone you knew were to endure an actual hardship, such as a severe brain injury in a motorcycle accident, what should we as a society do for this person? Should we let them become beggars?

That is a great question. I think we as a society have been the most generous country when it comes to helping those in need. I'm just not sure the govt. should be paying the bills of irresponsible people's bad decisions. You did say that it was a brain injury from a motorcycle accident. 1) Why wasn't he wearing a helmet? Irresponsible. 2) Why didn't he have motorcycle insurance? Irresponsible.

That was fun. Can we play that game again?

RickD wrote:OK, I'll play along for now.

n this example welfare does not exist. And medical care would not be delivered until payment was made in advance.

Ok, I guess in your utopia, since this is purely hypothetical, I'd probably rob a bank to pay, if it would save my loved one's life.

While you are enslaved who would make sure your children are getting the proper education/skills necessary to be successful?

My wife, of course. She's a great mom!

What sort of work would you be doing while enslaved?

Since I'm enslaved, anything my master asks me to do.

Would you be able to save any money, build equity?

Build equity? If you told me before that I had a home with equity, I'd have sold that to pay the bills. It's quite a mansion, actually.

It's not a Utopia, the original example was the conditions of slavery during the time of the Old Testament. If you remember Marcus of Lydia said "Gotta love it when people criticize the Bible without citing historical context" I was filling out the context using modern terminology. So after your six* year period of slavery, you would have no savings and your children would have grown up without a father for six* years. I think you would admit this is a position of disadvantage. Also in the six* years time you would have been doing whatever the master would want you to do. Do you think he would take the time to train you in marketable skills? I don't think so, so your original assertion that

RickD wrote:... would have developed at least a few marketable skills in that time.

is probably misguided. The condition would seem to remain that you were still one stoke of bad luck away from slavery.

RickD wrote:

You think that millions of American who formerly held decent paying jobs and now are either unable to find a job or are working minimum wage all lack the motivation to retrain?

I wouldn't say all. Probably some. The U.S. is the land of opportunity, anyone willing to work hard, and put in the effort, can at least find a job that pays the bills.

What do you do for a living now, are you working?

My wife and I both have jobs.

Do you have any debt currently?

No, no debt currently. My wife and I have lived within our means, made responsible financial decisions, and are very thankful for what God has provided for us.

Do you think that the people who were providing credit were at no fault? i.e. They were ignorant of the credit worthyness of the the people they were providing to.

I absolutely think they had fault. Greed is a great motivation for certain people.

If someone you knew were to endure an actual hardship, such as a severe brain injury in a motorcycle accident, what should we as a society do for this person? Should we let them become beggars?

That is a great question. I think we as a society have been the most generous country when it comes to helping those in need. I'm just not sure the govt. should be paying the bills of irresponsible people's bad decisions. You did say that it was a brain injury from a motorcycle accident. 1) Why wasn't he wearing a helmet? Irresponsible. 2) Why didn't he have motorcycle insurance? Irresponsible.

That was fun. Can we play that game again?

So back to the original example, if you have a job that just pays the bills, can a person save enought to cover those extraordinary circumstances which cause one to go into debt? For example the inability to find a job for six months.

So you agree that the creditors were also at fault, so how do you reconcile this statement with your previous one?

RickD wrote:At least the slavery-to-payoff-debt system allows someone to be responsible for his own debt, instead of buying everything I want, then deciding I don't want to pay for it, and go bankrupt. Leaving someone else to pay for my mistakes.

Finally for the last example, remember this is a friend of yours. And let's assume he was wearing a helmet, wearing a helmet doesn't preclude brain injury, it only reduces the chances of it.The motorcycle insurance payments I believe cover the medical costs, but what about the cost of living for your friend, who can no longer work due to his condition?

* I have corrected the duration of slavery.

BGood,
How can I take your scenario seriously when you don't even understand the six days of work, one day of rest that was instituted?

So after your seven year period of slavery,

Also in the seven years time you would have been doing whatever the master would want you to do.

Slaves were to be freed after six years, not seven.

I think you may need to read the bible again, and ask God for His guidance. If you are sincere, He will reveal Himself to you.