Bible and Religion

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Halef, Apr 18, 2005.

  1. czechchris

    czechchris Well-Known Member

    I agree totally with your comments regarding hypocritical behaviour.

    Interestingly, Jesus Christ agreed with that too. He said that not everyone who professes belief in him would be saved, only those doing the will of his father. Even if they claimed to have done wonderful things in his name, it would make no difference. Faith is essential, but without the right actions it is worthless.

    All of us are free moral agents. We can choose our destiny, and have the right to do so. Otherwise God would have created a race of robots! But we cannot ignore the consequences of our choices, both in the short term and eternally.

    The religions of the world have a lot to answer for, both "Christian" and others. The Bible indicates that they will answer to God for misrepresenting him. Love should be the dominant quality of a Christian (I can't speak for other religions) because the God they believe in IS love! How can they follow a God of love, and kill others? Jesus said that we should conquer evil with good.
  2. Bret

    Bret Active Member

  3. Bret

    Bret Active Member

    They did die...eventually. It didn't say instantly. Had they not eaten of the fruit, they could have lived forever. Mortality was the consequence of disobedience.

    As for taking the Bible literally, unless it is a parable, it is literal. It is the literal, inspired word of God. That's my belief. Some choose to view it differently. It's their choice. I disagree, but that is their choice.
  4. idemtidem

    idemtidem Well-Known Member

    Oh, I see. I didn't think to look at it that way. Thanks for the explanation.

    Well, but if you take it literally, then parts of that book are obviously not true. Unless one chooses to completely ignore all the evidence there is. In some cases, it's really not about having an's about facts.
  5. Bret

    Bret Active Member

    What parts are not true? Give me a chance to explain :lol:
  6. Sova

    Sova Well-Known Member


    I think the idea that it's faith that saves, is a concept that should be more carefully worded. To say works are "not necessary" is dangerous when not properly qualified. Otherwise, people might think they can steal, murder, rape, etc., but still be saved merely because they believe in God.

    I think it is better to say that ONLY the kind of faith that promotes good works will saves us. Else, how can one reconcile the passage in Titus with James chp. 2, which says (among other things): "Faith without works is dead." The works themselves don't save anyone (as the saving comes through Jesus Christ). But all the same, the kind of faith that does not motivate a person to do good won't either.
  7. idemtidem

    idemtidem Well-Known Member

    Alright! For example the part where humans were created and did not evolve from different species (although nobody can know whether that evolution was initiated by a god, of course)...not only we can read and trace DNA and have archaeological findings, but evolution is an ongoing process that is simply impossible to overlook.

    Let me ask you this old do you believe is the humankind? Did it all start with Adam and Eve and every human on this planet is their descendant?
  8. idemtidem

    idemtidem Well-Known Member

    In response to Sova's post, my understanding is that if a person truly believes in Christian god and Jesus, it is this faith that prevents him from doing those evil acts. Is that correct, Bret?
  9. Bret

    Bret Active Member

    Well, you pose a good question. If one rapes, murders, steals, etc. after becoming a follower of Christ one must wonder if the conversion was bona fide. I guess that question is asked of Judas. However, none of us can judge the condition of one's heard or their relationship with God. I think we are less likely to do bad things, and feel worse when we do if we have accepted Christ, but it doesn't mean that you are imune to these temptations.

    I have a very simple model of salvation. Here it is...

    Jesus died for all. He paid the price for our sins. If you genuinely accept his gift of salvation, you will be saved. End of discussion.

    Salvation is not something you can earn or work for. Now works has to do with the effectiveness of our jobs here on earth (i.e., witnessing, building the Kingdom of God) and it will determine our reward in heaven (yes there is a merit system in heaven), but you are saved by faith and faith alone. See the thief on the cross. Works are a fruit of the relationship with Christ not a requirement. It is how you show your love and obedience. We are called to be living sacrifices to God. We abstain from doing things that we might otherwise enjoy, not as a condition of God's love but because of it.
  10. Bret

    Bret Active Member

    Christians are not prevented from sinning because of their faith. We still sin. The goal is to become more and more like Christ, which is a lifelong process in which you make progress, but experience ups and downs just as anyone might. The difference is in the consequences of these sins.
  11. Bret

    Bret Active Member

    Ok. The evolution argument is fun. There is no proof that human evolved from other species. This is a theory and has not been proven. If we evolved from a micro organism to a fish to a bird to a monkey to a man, where are the transitional fossils. You know the fish-bird, the bird-monkey, the monkey-man? These are missing. There are numerous examples of how the theory of evolution is flawed, but the world is so invested in it, you rarely get exposure to it. Check out this site if you have time to investigate

    url] I do believe that humankind sta...e Bible to be true and that's what it says.[/
  12. idemtidem

    idemtidem Well-Known Member

    If we are able to tell who's the father of a baby by analyzing DNA, why do you believe it is not possible to trace the line further back? If you don't believe humans evolved from a different species, do you accept evolution within the species? Homo sapiens sapiens is definitely more evolved than Homo sapiens.

    With your examples of evolution, you are going a little bit overboard. Fish of course did not evolve (fairly directly) into a bird. But there is another group of animals that exists...amphibians. There are many transitional animals humans know of. Many that we don't know of because they left no fossils. If you do not accept the evolution, how can you explain species of birds living geographically very far away from themselves...they're different, yet they are able to reproduce in certain ways (like #1 can reproduce with #2, but not with #3 and #3 can reproduce with #2). How can you explain the animals on Galapagos Islands? How do you think the flu virus changes??

    Where did all the races come from if only two people were ever created and there is no evolution going on?
  13. idemtidem

    idemtidem Well-Known Member

    Yes, people still sin but if they genuinely believe in Jesus they also must believe that what he was saying was the god's word. The belief in Jesus and the acceptance of his "laws" comes hand in hand. And if that's the case, they also must be trying every day to live up to those standards. How can they genuinely believe while purposefully ignore his words? Maybe their faith is not strong enough and therefore not genuine?
  14. Bret

    Bret Active Member

    I believe in micro evolution (i.e., within species), not macro evolution. I know that there are amphibians, but they do still exist and there is a fossil record of amphibians. No transitional species still exist nor are there any fossils.

    As for the development of races, viruses, etc. That is a sign of intelligent design. A creator was in charge, not randomness.

    If you believe that we evolved from something, where did it all start. Where did the materials needed to form life come from? That one has never been answered by evolutionists either. Think about it. If you accept evolution and the big bang, who put all that stuff out there to begin with?
  15. idemtidem

    idemtidem Well-Known Member

    I don't claim I know the answer to that one! I simply do not know and I am not the only human knows. For all I know, life could have or could have not been started by a god. So when talking about evolution it's quite possible that it was all started by a god. Or it wasn't. One can still keep their faith while accepting evolution as those two are not opposing each other.

    Why is it harder to accept that humans evolved from other species than to accept that one is a result of a huge incest?
  16. czechchris

    czechchris Well-Known Member

    I don't think it is a question of what is harder to accept, rather, which is true?

    Evolution theory is presented as if it were fact and proven, and there is a peer pressure applied: "everyone believes it, so why don't you?", regardless of the fact that there is so little hard evidence in favour of it.

    School textbooks are filled with the so-called links which appear to be intermediary forms, but that does not mean that they were. It is made to appear so simple that one living thing can develop into another, quite different creature.

    Michael Behe, an American Catholic biochemist, gives very good arguments against this view in his book "Darwins Black Box" (also available in Czech), in which he shows that the very complex biochemical systems behind what appear to be simple processes could not have come about in any evolutionary way. They had to be complete, functioning systems right from the start, or they would have been abandoned because they would have conferred no benefit to the creature possessing them. His examples include the biochemistry of sight, turning light energy into electrical energy in the retina, coagulation of blood to prevent blood loss due to injury, and others. Highly recommended book.

    The more one delves into the detail of evolutionary theory, the more one is struck by the paucity of hard evidence. All too often, the hopelessly incomplete fossil record is blamed for the fact that the links are missing. Darwin assumed that these gaps would be filled in time, as more and more fossils were found, but the reverse is the case. More and more scientists searching, more and more fossils found, more and more questions raised, but no links found.

    As Aldous Huxley admitted, it is often a case of scientists wanting there to be no god, that they start from the assumption that there is no god. The scientific method of deduction based on evidence has been abandoned in this case in favour of trying to fit the scant evidence into a model that is desired.

    Regarding the incest comment, if God were starting a world from just two people, it is logical that their genetic makeup would be designed so as to allow for this. Only after thousands of years of imperfection as a result of sin, did it become necessary to restrict sexual relations for biological reasons. God did this through the law to Moses, banning incestuous relations.
  17. anu

    anu Well-Known Member

    hey! is this question about evolution really so important? why do we, when talking about bible and religion, talk about the formal aspects, instead of what is said in the bible and what kind of values are presented. it seems to be clear to everyone, that christians (and non-christians too) should be nice to each other and not kill each other, they should do good acts etc. but there is more and it's not that "easy".
    what about jesus' "who of you never sinned should throw the first stone" (i don't know the words in english, sorry). it means, we should not judge people and the way they think and live, but this is exactelly what most christians and christian churches do: they judge about people, they damn some ways of living and loving and taking desicions.
    jesus was against property, he said: if you want to follow me, give everything away you own --- now look at us: we all work to earn money and then we buy cars and flats and we travel around the world. most of us depend on what they own and what they don't own.
    then jesus said: the sabbat is for men and not men for the sabbat (again: i don't know the english words). he was criticizing old stucked traditions and powerful institutions --- but look how today we depend on and worship all kinds of institutions: school, medicine, church, bible...

  18. czechchris

    czechchris Well-Known Member

    The question of how we originated is important because without an understanding of man's beginning and the fall into sin, we can have no explanation of why we are here, what God's purpose is for us, and many other important questions. Without that, Christianity becomes just another alternative philosophy, which one may choose or reject at will.

    Jesus' words about not judging are very important. But it does not negate that God has judged certain lifestyles as wrong in his eyes. Jesus echoed this in his words about adultery, in the passage you refer to where he said, let him wothout sin cast the first stone, he also told the adulteress to "sin no more", i.e stop her adulterous lifestyle.

    His comments about the sabbath were not a criticism of the sabbath, but of the burdens that the Jews had placed on the sabbath, burdens which turned an institution that should have been a refreshment into one that caused more stress. The institution was not criticised, but the way it had been abused. His judgement was againt the hypocritical pharisees.

    Jesus, in stressing the divine institution of marriage, showed that he believed that Adam and Eve had been originally created by God and brought together. The whole purpose of Jesus' coming to the earth was to undo the effects of Adam's sin. If Adam did not exist, then Jesus was, at best, unnecessary and at worst, a sham. Neither of those is the case.
  19. idemtidem

    idemtidem Well-Known Member

    Yes, that question is definitely more important. However, it does not address what I intended my question to address...and that is people acting as if the world to come to an end the second they accept evolution. Not going to happen.

    Then why are people so similar looking to apes? Lack of creativity? Why do we have apendix, nails, tailbone? Was Adam created with a tail that later wasn't necessary?

    But you admit the existence of those so-called links. Who were those creatures then? Animals learning to be humans? Humans resembling animals? Early humans (descendants of Adam and Eve)? If the humankind is several thousand years old only, why are there paintings done much earlier than that and by *who*?? Homo habilis and erectus came after Adam and Eve? That would mean that Adam and Eve looked nothing like we do. Came before Adam and Eve? They could do things humans do, but they were not humans?? Ugh.

    So you claim the evolution is flawed...but your theory is not. Double standards?
  20. idemtidem

    idemtidem Well-Known Member

    Do only humans sin? Does sinning come only with self-consciousness?

Share This Page