gumbo
FIGHT CLUB !
Tonio said:
The whole artical is contradictory of it's self
First the author says its regarded , then the author says its conclusive. Then the author says genealogical details are still being worked out.
Another words they don't know Jack.
I don't know who's better at twisting words scientist or preachers ?
Last edited:
Dondi
Dondi
Tonio said:
It does when talking about the concept of sin. The crux of the debate lies in the dilemma that if there the story of Adam and Eve is simply a myth and we evolved from Neanderthals, then the Fall of Man never occurred, per se, hence Original sin did not originate from Adam and therefore we aren't accountable to God for our sins. Any teaching of the redemption through Jesus Christ is therefore moot.
K
Kain99
Guest
That's just silly. Why can't we belive that Adam and Eve were hairy people?Dondi said:
Dondi
Dondi
Kain99 said:
I guess my point is that when did the first real humans appear? Were they Homo Sapiens, Neaderthal,Cro-Magnon, Lucy? Where does the "animal" end and human begin? There is supposedly 5 million years of human evolution. When would God have said, OK, these are the first real humans, named Adam and Eve?
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Not all Christians interpret everything in the Bible literally. For theological purposes, does it really matter how Original Sin originated?Dondi said:
In other threads, I've expressed my personal objections to the Original Sin doctrine. In my view, OS implies that sin is inherent in humankind and that humans are evil and worthless. And even the word "sin" is confusing to me, because it also means forbidden actions like theft and adultery. It doesn't seem right or logical that a person could refrain from sinful actions for a lifetime and still be considered evil and worthless because of inherent sin. It's like the system is gamed against humans no matter what we do. That's one reason I feel that Christian doctrine portrays God as impossible to please. Despite Christians' statements to the contrary, it seems to me like Christianity often portrays God's love as conditional.
Goofing_Off
New Member
What's ironic about your statement is that this is the very definition of "spontaneous generation," which I believe was disproven as a scientific theory, through experimentation, several hundred years ago. To you, then, this theory should have indisputedly been proven false.Mikeinsmd said:
It's interesting how one can believe that inanimate matter can spontaneously and randomly combine to form living things, yet this same inanimate matter cannot spontaneously and randomly combine to form non-living things.
Goofing_Off
New Member
Indeed you do, though you don't seem to realize it.Mikeinsmd said:I have faith!!
Mikeinsmd
New Member
Sure it can.... different substances are combined naturally all the time forming non-living things. Clouds & storms for example.... Why do you keep going off on tangents??Goofing_Off said:
Several hundred years ago?? You mean back when science was cutting edge??
Again no one except Vrai has attempted to answer my question.
Last edited:
Goofing_Off
New Member
You have unwavering faith in science, as you've indicated over and over again in this thread.Mikeinsmd said:
Goofing_Off
New Member
I'm not going off on a tangent; I'm responding directly to a statement you have made. I'm not sure that the cloud or storm analogy is correct, though, because a cloud is merely a collection of water vapor. It's not like two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom came together spontaneously to form the cloud.Mikeinsmd said:Sure it can.... different substances are combined naturally all the time forming non-living things. Clouds & storms for example.... Why do you keep going off on tangents??
Several hundred years ago?? You mean back when science was cutting edge??
Again no one except Vrai has attempted to answer my question.
Just because a scientific experiment took place several hundred years ago does not invalidate it; all the science you trust today was developed upon the science that preceded it.
You'll have to remind me; what exactly was the single question you were looking to have answered?
Goofing_Off
New Member
Mikeinsmd said:
Well, this question is not answerable. First, since I am not God, I cannot begin to tell you why God does things the way He does them. Second, you're applying human logic to why God should or shouldn't be doing things. I cannot understand God completely. I cannot even understand everything that occurs in this material world, so why would I expect to be able to understand its Creator? If I could completely understand God, then indeed He would not be God, since this simple human could comprehend Him.
Finally, you greatly oversimplify the tenents of the Christian faith. I'm sorry, but I don't exactly have the time to try to spell it all out right at the moment. Greater men than I have spent their whole lives doing just that, and I have spent my whole life learning about it.
I'm really not trying to be snide or to avoid your question, but part of faith is the ability to accept mysteries. There's no way I could begin to explain things to you to your satisfaction, so I'd rather just admit that and move on.
Mikeinsmd
New Member
You're getting jumbled up here..... the fact that I want to see him is because I require proof. Has nothing to do with my question.Homesick said:
Regarding my question, instead of pages of posts trying to convince me He exists, you all should have simply responded like G. O. did; "We don't know." :shrug:
I'm a "little" behind in this thread, but I am convinced when I see posts like this that people don't read what is posted in the Religion forum; they just come here to argue. I won't accommodate them.Mikeinsmd said:
Mikeinsmd,
If you are really interested in an answer to "Why does God make them burn when they never even heard of Him??", try reading some of my posts. You will find that your statement is not true. If you are not interested enough to search for the answer, then I know you are not really interested, and I will not bother answering further posts from you regard the subject of Christianity.
Goofing_Off
New Member
I would just like the clarify that in every one of my posts, I was not trying to convince you that God exists. Only you can convince yourself of that. I was simply trying to show you the flaws that I see in your logic that prevent you from believing in God. I don't think I was able to do that, but I made my attempt, in what I hope you recognize was a good spirit.Mikeinsmd said:
Mikeinsmd
New Member
I don't recall directly asking you a question. When and if I ever have a question for you, I will address you specifically. And you are correct, I'm not that interested. I saw a thread and decided to participate. I didn't come here to argue. Read the entire thread before making such a comment.2ndAmendment said:
A post in this thread:
Mikeinsmd said:
Last edited: