Evidence for God from Science

zoegirl wrote:

Marcosll wrote:One of the problems with "Scripture" is it's full of rubbish. Messages not directly from God. If you're Christian then you should focus on the things Jesus actually preached and try to see the bigger picture. Don't take the Bible to literally.

There are many things modern churches try to teach you or have you do that are oposite to Christ's teachings. At the end of the day you need to form your own religion. No 2 people share exactly the same faith in the exactly the same thing.

Wow, great arguments there!! ...you just caused me to competely reject everything in the bible!

Marcosll wrote:One of the problems with "Scripture" is it's full of rubbish. Messages not directly from God. If you're Christian then you should focus on the things Jesus actually preached and try to see the bigger picture. Don't take the Bible to literally.

There are many things modern churches try to teach you or have you do that are oposite to Christ's teachings. At the end of the day you need to form your own religion. No 2 people share exactly the same faith in the exactly the same thing.

How can you focus on things Jesus actually preached and reject scripture? Scripture IS what Jesus preached. Without actually being there when Jesus taught, we have nothing else on the subject.

Without scripture, there is no Christianity.

Gman wrote:Paul was emphatically not excusing or absolving Adam of blame for the Fall. Elsewhere Paul put the responsibility squarely on Adam's shoulders Rom. 5:12-21.

So you are saying that Paul doesn't think it's Eve's fault even though Paul plainly says that it is Eve to blame and not Adam? Paul has just contradicted himself. Why would he say that it is only Eve's fault in one part of the Bible, and in another spot say it is both their fault?

Jorge wrote:So you are saying that Paul doesn't think it's Eve's fault even though Paul plainly says that it is Eve to blame and not Adam? Paul has just contradicted himself. Why would he say that it is only Eve's fault in one part of the Bible, and in another spot say it is both their fault?

Are you here to point out problems in the Bible or are you here to sincerely consider Christianity? It looks like your mind is already made up. Consider yourself warned....

Your statement is incorrect... They are not contradictions... This verse is talking about deception. Adam was NOT deceived as Eve was. Eve was tempted by the snake and then sinned. Adam, however, "knowingly" and "willingly" sinned against God.

When God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge in Genesis 1:16-17, Eve hadn't even been created yet in the garden in Genesis 1:22. Adam must have communicated the commandment to Eve (and probably not very well). Therefore she was "deceived" by the snake and fell into sin.

Gman wrote:

Jorge wrote:So you are saying that Paul doesn't think it's Eve's fault even though Paul plainly says that it is Eve to blame and not Adam? Paul has just contradicted himself. Why would he say that it is only Eve's fault in one part of the Bible, and in another spot say it is both their fault?

Are you here to point out problems in the Bible or are you here to sincerely consider Christianity? It looks like your mind is already made up. Consider yourself warned....

Your statement is incorrect... They are not contradictions... This verse is talking about deception. Adam was NOT deceived as Eve was. Eve was tempted by the snake and then sinned. Adam, however, "knowingly" and "willingly" sinned against God.

When God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge in Genesis 1:16-17, Eve hadn't even been created yet in the garden in Genesis 1:22. Adam must have communicated the commandment to Eve (and probably not very well). Therefore she was "deceived" by the snake and fell into sin.

Had to look this one up. I always thought (obviously wrongly) that God had told them both together. Very good point, Gman. (although it was Gen. 2:16-17)

jenna wrote:

Gman wrote:

Jorge wrote: Had to look this one up. I always thought (obviously wrongly) that God had told them both together. Very good point, Gman. (although it was Gen. 2:16-17)

My mistake... Genesis 2. Thanks

Gman wrote:

Jorge wrote:Your statement is incorrect... They are not contradictions... This verse is talking about deception. Adam was NOT deceived as Eve was. Eve was tempted by the snake and then sinned. Adam, however, "knowingly" and "willingly" sinned against God.

Uhh, how can I seriously consider Christianity if I have problems with the Bible? Obviously I need my questions/problems answered.

Then why is the statement "And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." used to supplement "For Adam was formed first, then Eve."? Paul thinks that men should be dominant BECAUSE Adam was formed before Eve.

And also on a side note, if the rules in Timothy only apply to the Ephesians, do the rules in Corinthians only apply to Corinthians living in that time period?

Jorge wrote:Uhh, how can I seriously consider Christianity if I have problems with the Bible? Obviously I need my questions/problems answered.

Uhh, because you are not asking questions. You are making statements.... Let's be realistic. You have no interest in what Christianity has to offer. All you are trying to do it prove that the Bible is biased towards women. Do you really think your arguments are original?

Jorge wrote:Then why is the statement "And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." used to supplement "For Adam was formed first, then Eve."? Paul thinks that men should be dominant BECAUSE Adam was formed before Eve.

No... You are taking this verse out of context. In the first chapter of 1 Timothy 1:3-11 before chapter 2, Paul was specifically addressing certain false teachings or doctrines that had infiltrated the early Christian churches, namely "gnosticism" which had their own creation story. In the gnostic book of Peratae, they were preaching that Eve pre-existed before Adam and that through Eve Adam was created, and without the aid of another male. Another tractate, "On the Origin of the World" gives a similar account.

Jorge wrote:And also on a side note, if the rules in Timothy only apply to the Ephesians, do the rules in Corinthians only apply to Corinthians living in that time period?

Wherever gnosticism or other false doctrines prevailed. In Ephesus, the early Christians also had to deal with the doctrines of the goddess Artemis whose temple resided there in that city Acts 19: 23-41. In many of these cases, only woman were the "oracles" to these gods, not men. This goddess was worshiped throughout the Hellenic world including Corinth.

Jorge wrote:

Gman wrote:

Jorge wrote:Your statement is incorrect... They are not contradictions... This verse is talking about deception. Adam was NOT deceived as Eve was. Eve was tempted by the snake and then sinned. Adam, however, "knowingly" and "willingly" sinned against God.

Uhh, how can I seriously consider Christianity if I have problems with the Bible? Obviously I need my questions/problems answered.

Then why is the statement "And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." used to supplement "For Adam was formed first, then Eve."? Paul thinks that men should be dominant BECAUSE Adam was formed before Eve.

And also on a side note, if the rules in Timothy only apply to the Ephesians, do the rules in Corinthians only apply to Corinthians living in that time period?

Paul in no way implies that men are dominant over women. Men and women simply have different roles and positions. While it is true that men are head of the household, it is the man's position to work and provide for his family. It is the woman's position to raise the children and take care of the house and household. (cleaning, cooking, etc.)

jenna wrote:Paul in no way implies that men are dominant over women. Men and women simply have different roles and positions.

True, just like a car that has its various parts. Take away one part and the car ceases to function.

jenna wrote:While it is true that men are head of the household, it is the man's position to work and provide for his family. It is the woman's position to raise the children and take care of the house and household. (cleaning, cooking, etc.)

I would probably disagree with this one however. From scripture, I don't think that women are necessarily spot-welded to take care of the house and household chores. They are however probably better adept at taking care of children just as they are in nature.

Proverbs 31:16-18 She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard. She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks. She sees that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night.

Take away one part and the car ceases to function? That's utter nonsense. If you take away the engine it will cease to funcion but if you take away a window it will not.


Thinking the bible is perfect is a huge mistake that will affect your religion in a big way. You cannot take it all literally nor can you assume everything in the bible has been correctly translated or put together.

You shouldn't just learn the bible, you should learn some history about the bible and how it came to be as well.

The "scripture" in the bible is composed of a subset of all writings it is far from complete. Some illegible parts were guessed at and inserted too. The bible is not "complete" nor 100% correct.

Failing to realise this is a huge mistake.

Marcosll wrote:Take away one part and the car ceases to function? That's utter nonsense. If you take away the engine it will cease to funcion but if you take away a window it will not.

No... If we are talking about women, a woman is far more important than a window. Taking away the woman is like taking the engine away from the car or some other critical part of the car that enables it to function...

Marcosll wrote:Thinking the bible is perfect is a huge mistake that will affect your religion in a big way. You cannot take it all literally nor can you assume everything in the bible has been correctly translated or put together.

People wrote the Bible in the context of their day... Some things like in the old testament don't apply to us today either. The Bible may not have every answer in it, but the framework is still there to live by..

Marcosll wrote:You shouldn't just learn the bible, you should learn some history about the bible and how it came to be as well.

Who says we shouldn't learn about the history of the bible and how it came to be as well?

Marcosll wrote:The "scripture" in the bible is composed of a subset of all writings it is far from complete. Some illegible parts were guessed at and inserted too. The bible is not "complete" nor 100% correct.

Failing to realise this is a huge mistake.

What if I read the Bible and found that the total meaning of it was to spread love, joy and peace around the world? Is that a mistake?

Gman wrote:

jenna wrote:Paul in no way implies that men are dominant over women. Men and women simply have different roles and positions.

True, just like a car that has its various parts. Take away one part and the car ceases to function.

jenna wrote:While it is true that men are head of the household, it is the man's position to work and provide for his family. It is the woman's position to raise the children and take care of the house and household. (cleaning, cooking, etc.)

I would probably disagree with this one however. From scripture, I don't think that women are necessarily spot-welded to take care of the house and household chores. They are however probably better adept at taking care of children just as they are in nature.

Proverbs 31:16-18 She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard. She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks. She sees that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night.

Spot-welded? no, but it does state in Titus 2:4-5 "That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed".
So women are to take care of the home and the children, while the men is head of the home and provides for the family.

jenna wrote:Spot-welded? no, but it does state in Titus 2:4-5 "That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed".
So women are to take care of the home and the children, while the men is head of the home and provides for the family.

Jenna, I know what you mean but there is nothing in scripture that says that it is morally wrong for a woman not to be "tied" to the house. Although culturally it might work best that way, since woman are better equip to deal/function with children, (like a bear with her cubs) but it doesn't necessarily mean it "has" to be that way either. By the way I wouldn't want to mess with a bear and her cubs....

Morally wrong? No, not at all. Just pointing out what scripture says. All-in-all, we agree. And no, don't go between a mother bear with cubs.