czechchris wrote: of course you're right, for jesus adultery was a sin, and he made that clear, but, still, the point of this passage is, that you should stick to yourself, your own lifestyle and not judge others and tell them, how they should live. czechchris wrote: i don't agree with you. if he was only criticizing the burdens, he would have chosen other words (like: remember the sabbath as it used to be, or: return to the god-wanted sabbath).
do you think, animals can sin? to be able to sin you have to know about good and bad (about what is thought to be good or bad)...
czechchris, you said Well, that exactly what I consider Christianity to be... a philosophy and moral that you can and ought to examine with your critical sense, accept what you think and feel is right and reject what simply is not anymore adapted to our contemporary reality. I think we should look at and compare the Bible and the Coran and the Mahabharata... Could somebody explain me how some people come to accept the Old Testament as a more reliable source that the Coran?
Bret, you said it may be simple, but is it true? Or right? Or is it a philosophy adapted to the REAL WORLD? Is'nt it just to easy (too lazy) to believe that if you have the Faith, your acts just do not mather? Do you think that if I steal, rape, kill etc. but have the Faith, I am nevertheless saved? And on the contrary, if I try all my best not to hurt anybody, live a honest life, think, feel and act as to be kind (but just do not want to accept a certain credo just because it is written in a book that I should believe what is written in that book), I am not saved? And please do not tell me that if you have the Faith, you can not rape, steal and murder... Just look at the Crusades or the Inquisition, not to name some more recent examples... It the "good intention" an excuse to all? I remember some swiss comedian comparing all these disputations about which god is the only-true-one and which religion is the Real-and-only-truth to arguing about who has the best imaginary friend...
Silatsiaq wrote: Of course not! Someone who acts like that would have disowned the Faith. Equally true. Putting faith in the ransom sacrifice of Jesus is essential, too. But it is our choice. We have the same free choice that Adam had, but we have inherited from him a tendency to sin. Jesus paid the penalty for that on our behalf. I believe that, as our Creator, God has the right to tell us how to live our lives. He does so, from the best of motives - he wants us to be happy. Having made us, he knows what is best for us. And Jesus having ransomed us, makes it possible for us to live the life that God originally intended - everlastingly. I believe that soon God will bring this present world to an end. There will be a cleansing of this earth of people who wish to kill, rape, and otherwise hurt others, and make this earth a place where we can live in peace and security and happiness. The purpose God had in putting Adam and Eve here in the first place will be realised. No sickness, no death. Death was the penalty for sinning. Had Adam not sinned, he would not have died.
Lots of points to address here. I will try to hit them all. First, it is simple and I believe it is true. I can offer no proof other than what the Word of God says. I have made my decision to accept it, others have rejected it. However, I did not say that your acts do not matter. They are important. But they are not essential to be saved. That's all I said. If you rape, kill, steal, etc. after you are saved, you are still saved. People make mistakes and continue to sin after being saved. Sin is sin to God and you can be forgiven of the most disturbing sins. This is a difficult concept to grasp because we, rightfully so, rank sins (crimes) in society. But any sin is bad in God's eyes, yet he forgives our sins. As for leading a good life without the acceptance of Christ...that won't save you. I know that goes against the world-view, but he is the way, the truth, and the light. No one comes to the Father, accept through Him. As for the Crusades, Inquisition, etc. I referenced this earlier as an example of how man (religion) just messes things up sometimes. We are imperfect and make poor decisions at times. Those certainly were extremely bad ones.
I found an interesting article talking about the human population: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/13/science/13migrate.html?hp
Yes, quite an interesting article. So everyone is descended from a single female, according to the DNA. Where I have heard something like that before? Oh yes, that's what the Bible says.
You exactly prove my point. You do not pay enough attention. How convinient for you to ignore the very next paragraph right after the part you quoted: It is essential to read the full text and be able to understand it. After you do that, you will realize that it is entirely different from the Eve story you vote for.
The article says that there were, of course, many other women... But of course fails to adduce evidence of them. The empirical evidence is that all descended from ONE female. The codicil about other women is added because they believe in evolution - so of course there HAD to be other women. There is no evidence of them. But the creed of evolution says they had to exist. This is the problem with evolutionists' thinking. They assume evolution to be true, and so ignore what the evidence tells them. According to DNA, there was one ancestral female. Your assumption that I have difficulty in understanding the article is also typical of the evolutionist "peer pressure". If one does not subscribe to the evolution model, one is therefore less intelligent. Having read, and understood, Michael Behe's book on biochemistry, and the way that it gives such strong evidence for special creation, evidence - not assumptions, I find this browbeating tiresome.
Oh, okay. I'm not really sure anymore how to explain this. You cannot just take two words out of one article and base your argument on those. You have to read the whole thing. The questions posed in your of course argument are answered in the following sentence. Um, no. According to DNA, "one mitochondrial DNA replaced all the others through the process known as genetic drift." Genetic drift is not the same as the creation of two humans out of dirt. It is certainly not about "peer presure". It is about you refusing to take all parts of the article and explaining what's wrong with it. Rather, you pick the parts that seemingly support your ideas and completely ignore the parts that do not. It is the misrepresentation of the article that leaves me with the assumptions. Also, are you saying that if there is no evidence, people can only assume what actually happened?
Of course, I am no geneticist. I try to make sense of what I read, and it seems to me that the results obtained by the study outlined in the article could just have reasonably been obtained had the creation model been followed. I.e., the creation of original humans would have genetic implications that, it would seem to me, a layman, would account for the results found. The papers I have read in the past couple of days explaining genetic drift also seem to me to describe variation within a genus rather than the evolution of one genus into another. The effect of genetic drift on populations seems to be imperfectly understood according to this comment: (Source) Also, another source said that mutations, whether advantageous, deleterious or neutral, would be eliminated by genetic drift. This does not sound to me like a mechanism for evolution. Mutations, in any case, are overwhelmingly deleterious, and could be compared to throwing a spanner into the complex workings of a machine - hardly conducive to making any improvement. I hesitate to get involved in complex discussions of genetics, a field in which I obviously would have difficulty, and which I feel would take this discussion off-topic. The Bible is not a science text-book, it aims to answers the question why? rather than how?, but I believe that where it touches on scientific matters, it is in harmony with science, not at variance with it.
But the genetic drift mentioned in the article was talking about exactly that...a variation within a genus. It tried to explain why there is only one mitochondrial Eve. I found this link that seems to explain it, I'm not sure how trustworthy it is, however: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html . It basically explains why you would only be able to trace one "mitochondrial Eve" even though there were more women. May I ask why you think the god created humans? I'm genuinely interested since I cannot think of one reason.
Well, the God I worship, as revealed in the Bible, is one whose dominant quality is love. I believe he created other beings in order to share the wonderful gift of life with other sentient beings, angels in heaven, and humans here on an earth specially prepared for them. I believe that his original purpose was for humans to live here eternally in wonderful conditions, never growing old or dying. Death was only mentioned as a penalty for disobedience. Humans had to recognise that they were dependent on their Creator for their life, but they were given free will, because God did not want a race of robots who were unable to choose, but a race of people who loved him and wanted to mirror his loving qualities. I believe that this is still his purpose, and that he will bring that purpose about, removing sickness and death and restoring to life those who have died. Jesus made this possible, and illustrated it by his miracles of healing and resurrections.[/quote]
Silatsiaq wrote: For me, the most convincing evidence of the divine origin of the Bible, lies in its prophecies. Prophecy was included in the Bible, written and recorded, which came true much later. Many prohecies are contained in it, which came true, many are in the process of fulfillment, and some are yet future. As examples, approximately 300+ prophecies are in the Old Testament regarding the Messiah. These were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The prophecies were written hundreds of years before his birth, yet they came true. The gospel accounts consistently refer to the fulfillment of prophecy as confirming the identity of Jesus as the Christ or Messiah. They included, the place of his birth, events which took place during his childhood, events connected with his death, the manner of his death, the timing of his ministry and death - most of which Jesus himself could not influence. There are other evidences supporting the Bible's authenticity; its historical accuracy, the candour of the writers etc. But, for me, it is prophecy which is the most convincing.
As a codicil to the above reply I would add that there are many events taking place today fulfilling prophecy found in the Bible. Jesus foretold wars, earthquakes, famine, disease, and increasing crime as evidences of his return, and the apostle Paul recounted the attitudes prevalent in what he termed the "last days". This is why many Christians are convinced that we are living close to the end of the present world system. All the more reason to live as Jesus would want us to live.
It is amazing to see that there are men who still believe in ancient legends from the Semitic world as if all the crimes committed in the names of these mythologies did not count! What a terrible destiny, to be brainwashed and then to help brainwash the new generations. It's a curse.
