Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
S Walch said:How do evolutions explain that when Paul says that sin and death only came into being after adam sinned, how many populations of species could've "died" if, we go by Pauls words, that death and sin only came in through adam?
pastorkevin73 said:Mythical genealogies? Please explain.
ThaiDuykhang said:When did the first sin occured? and how?
gluadys said:Ancient genealogies do not distinguish historical from mythical ancestors. In fact, the point of many of them was to connect historical communities with mythical ancestors.
gluadys said:Isn't it more important to know how we are saved from sin than to know when and how sin first occurred?
pastorkevin73 said:The problem here is that you cannot distingish at what point the geneologies turn from myth to historical.
Not only that but you are then saying that there is the possibility that Abraham and the forefathers never existed. Which then says that God never promised that out of Abraham all nations would be blessed. Which in essense says that Jesus was never God and died in vain.
All this because you say that part or all of Genesis is myth. Without the Genesis account one cannot truely account for sin and reduces the theology of sin to an idea.
Why is it so hard to believe that God did what he said in Genesis and created the universe in six days, including humankind? Is not God all-powerful?
Is He not the God that can do anything except lie or decieve? The truth is, we do not have the luxury to make scripture fit what we think or accept only what fits what we want to believe. God did not say that it would be easy to accept or understand everything in scripture, but He does ask us to trust Him. If we don't accept what scripture says we aren't trusting Him.
So it comes to this, do you believe God to be who He says He is and do you accept the Bible to be His Word, full of truth and without lies/myths?
Only if your theology is built on the flimsy premise that you know and need to know this information. "I don't know and it's not important that I do know" is a perfectly valid answer to some questions.ThaiDuykhang said:It's better to answer my question. otherwise it shows by accepting TE one can only have a faulty set of beliefs which can't withstand reasoning. Atheists can also use this to crack up the faith of any Christian TE.
An example:ebia said:Only if your theology is built on the flimsy premise that you know and need to know this information. "I don't know and it's not important that I do know" is a perfectly valid answer to some questions.
going to an extreme, if a Christian hold no Christian belief, an atheist also can do nothing about him, and there's no need to do anything since he's no different to an atheist. John Kerry is one of such, I guess it's non-offending because he's Catholic. There's little contention among Catholics that he goes against almost all teachings of Catholic Church.ebia said:The faith that atheists can crack open is one built on falsifiable facts that have been falsified (such as creationism). Atheists can't "crack up the faith" of a liberal Christian TE because there is nothing scientifically falsifiable to falsify.
Your theology might be dependent on knowing when the first sin took place, mine is not.ThaiDuykhang said:An example:
person A: if n satisfies 2^(n-1) = 1 (mod n) then n is a prime number
B: but n = 341 is an exception
A: I don't know and it's not important that I do know
I'll take that as a retraction of this, if nothing else:going to an extreme, if a Christian hold no Christian belief, an atheist also can do nothing about him, and there's no need to do anything since he's no different to an atheist. John Kerry is one of such, I guess it's non-offending because he's Catholic. There's little contention among Catholics that he goes against almost all teachings of Catholic Church.
It's not for me (or you for that matter) to judge the faith of John Kerry.Atheists can also use this to crack up the faith of any Christian TE.
whether a system is OK depends on whether there're times it doesn't work not whether there're times it works.ebia said:Your theology might be dependent on knowing when the first sin took place, mine is not.
Every organized Church has it's clearly defined set of rules. About Kerry, it's official teaching of Catholic Church that every one should know what he did is wrong. we just don't condemn him to hell (what if he has a death bed repent?)ebia said:I'll take that as a retraction of this, if nothing else:
It's not for me (or you for that matter) to judge the faith of John Kerry.
Since you haven't take the time to find out what our "system" is, you are not in a position to look for weak spots.ThaiDuykhang said:whether a system is OK depends on whether there're times it doesn't work not whether there're times it works.
Sorry, I didn't realise that Kerry's bishop had appointed you to speak on the matter.Every organized Church has it's clearly defined set of rules. About Kerry, it's official teaching of Catholic Church that every one should know what he did is wrong. we just don't condemn him to hell (what if he has a death bed repent?)
"Judge not" is not "don't distinguish right or wrong"
simple, you keep revealing it. and you still haven't been able to answer that question.ebia said:Since you haven't take the time to find out what our "system" is, you are not in a position to look for weak spots.
Every Catholics(and most Protestants I guess) is supposed to know good and evil.ebia said:Sorry, I didn't realise that Kerry's bishop had appointed you to speak on the matter.
And you are doing a very good job of misunderstanding it.ThaiDuykhang said:simple, you keep revealing it.
And you haven't show why it's relevent. I don't suppose you know the colour of my bathroom, but your failure to be able to tell us what it is doesn't demonstrate much unless I can show why it's relevent.and you still haven't been able to answer that question.
pastorkevin73 said:Why is it so hard to believe that God did what he said in Genesis and created the universe in six days, including humankind? Is not God all-powerful? Is He not the God that can do anything except lie or decieve? The truth is, we do not have the luxury to make scripture fit what we think or accept only what fits what we want to believe. God did not say that it would be easy to accept or understand everything in scripture, but He does ask us to trust Him. If we don't accept what scripture says we aren't trusting Him.
So it comes to this, do you believe God to be who He says He is and do you accept the Bible to be His Word, full of truth and without lies/myths?
ThaiDuykhang said:Do you think the whole Bible is a story?
Where Jesus told stories, Bible or Jesus explicitly said it's a parable.
shernren said:That's simply not true. The Parable of the Good Samaritan, the Parable of the Prodigal Son (disputably) and the Parable of the Shrewd Manager were not obviously labeled as parables.
invisible trousers said:Because every piece of evidence on earth and in our universe points towards an old earth/big bang/etc.
I'm not particularily interested in worshipping a god who lies to his believers.
PS God is the Word, not the bible. And yes, the bible is full of truths. Truths do not have to be literal stories.
pastorkevin73 said:Take a read at Lee Stobel's "A Case for the Creator". He interview's highly respected scientists what will say evidences point to the Genesis account.
Now, any good Bible commentary will tell you that Jesus liked to start nearly all his parables to do with something about "A man was" or "A rich man had" or "A man had"
shernren said:Which is precisely my point with the parables I quoted.
What we take as a "literal" introduction today could easily have been taken as a parabolic / mythical introduction in Jesus' day.
When a newspaper article talks about a highway robbery and says "A man was ... " we assume that this event the newspaper is talking about actually happened. If the event never actually happened, and the journalist made up the story just to teach the public a lesson, he'd be fired before you could blink.
But when Jesus talks about a highway robbery and says "A man was ... " we immediately assume that He's just telling a story and whether or not it actually historically happened was/is of secondary importance. In fact, quite a few of the parables (though not all, I grant) probably could not have actually happened given the social structure of Jesus' day.
So? Was Jesus lying because He started His stories with "There was a man who ... " when in fact "there was no man who ... "?
And is Genesis lying if it says 6 days when there historically were no 6 days?
Why do you expect Genesis written by Moses to read like a historical account of creation and get all worked up by people who say it isn't ... and then expect Jesus' parables (said by Jesus, no less!) to not be historical accounts of contemporary events even though that is what is expected of them given the language used?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?