The thread where I will attempt to answer questions you have regarding Christianity

[Bioture]

Assuming that we were created, while helping our psyche, doesn't help our understanding.
If we were created, how were we created?
Instantaneously? Gradually, like a god-guided growth from base elements?
By evolution, guided on by the creators hand?

This is why simply saying we were created is unsatisfying. Because ultimately it doesn't explain to a curious mind.

The evolution question is difficult to answer because interpretation of the book of Genesis is hard to accept (I have problems accepting some of them) and even harder to defend.

For example, Adam, is noted as the first "Man." Was he the first homo sapien? Neanderthal? Homo erectus? Etc. It doesn't say for sure.

So there is a very good possibility that the first man on earth is not how he appears to be in bible story books. I honestly don't know how to answer that question very well... so hold on while I go do a bit of research on this...

[Bioture]

I'd shit on this thread but it's already so shitty I don't know if it could take anymore

I'd shit on this thread too but first I have to check my PMs for hot girls on myspace

[Rhino_haha]

Sorry if this has been asked before:

If God so exists, and feels saddened when people reject him, and the only reason people would reject him, is if A HUMAN never taught him. Why doesn't he just blatantly make himself known, ie. talk to people... like he used to do? It'd sure the hell clear up a lot of things. I can see how this could maybe be a little complicated, but I mean, come on, he's God, he's gotta be able to communicate to HIS PEOPLE in some miraculous way, I've prayed many times for him to show me that he really exists, and I must say, I got no response, at all.


Also, if religion is for worshiping God, why has there been so much corruption in churches, and so many battles and so many people killed because of religion. I mean, him just PROVING that he really really exists would have saved countless, innocent lives.

[Riesen]

First off, let me be totally honest: I didn't read all of this, just the first page, so if my questions have already been asked and answered, just slap my ass and tell me where to look. Onward!

Why did certain Gospels get left out of the Bible (i.e. the Gnostic Gospels)? Why were the ones that are in there now the only ones chosen?

Why is it that a lot of religious folks pick and choose from the Bible? They never read the part about stoning your children if they talk smack, or that the part about having long hair being bad (from most pictures I've seen, Jesus had long hair...)? I mean, if you're going to stand at the pulpit and scream at me about how I can't have meat on Fridays, why not yell at me for having long hair?

How is it that most Christians can just ignore hard scientific facts? According to the Bible, the Earth is roughly 2,000 years old. However, science has proven that to be wrong, very wrong. Are they, the dudes who wrote Genesis, trying to tell me that God rested for 5 million or so years? If so, God is a lazy bum. And, if he did rest for that long, who made the dinosaurs and the Ice Age and all that jazz? If God did it, why was that left out? That seems just as crazy as a talking bush or walking on water. That is to say, the Ice Age, for example, is just as miraculous as a huge flood.

I'm sure I'll have more questions soon. Oh, and the fish thing I think has something to do with the time of Christ being the Age of Aquarius. Time of Christ being the first Millenia which would be the Age of Aquarius, it's totally non-christian, more astrological. I think.

[Bioture]

Sorry if this has been asked before:

If God so exists, and feels saddened when people reject him, and the only reason people would reject him, is if A HUMAN never taught him. Why doesn't he just blatantly make himself known, ie. talk to people... like he used to do? It'd sure the hell clear up a lot of things. I can see how this could maybe be a little complicated, but I mean, come on, he's God, he's gotta be able to communicate to HIS PEOPLE in some miraculous way, I've prayed many times for him to show me that he really exists, and I must say, I got no response, at all.

I wish I could answer this for you and have you understand it in a christian perspective. We all have our own unique testimonies. Whether or not it is "miraculous" is perceived differently, however. But I think He is making himself widely known, but to understand why he doesn't just "appear" to every non-believer in the world I would have to explain to you why faith is important, and why it would be cheapened if God just tapped your shoulder.

To me God shows you all the proof you need, but the prerequisite, so to speak, is that you have to actually look and be receiving. A lot of athiests ask me the question "if I asked God right now, will he show me?" My answer has always been, if you ask in seek of His truth, and not to satisfy your own curiosity, yes, he will show you. I'm not saying that you didn't ask the right way or screwed up in praying, but please understand that this is your testimony... my testimony involved being a athiest for 7 years so I can tell you that I've been there.

Also, if religion is for worshiping God, why has there been so much corruption in churches, and so many battles and so many people killed because of religion. I mean, him just PROVING that he really really exists would have saved countless, innocent lives.

no, spirituality is used for worshipping God. Religion is man made contraption that seperates the people on this earth seeking different faces of God.

God gives and takes away... the innocents, the wicked, His judgment is not of this world so we can't use death or suffering or our ways to justify His seemingly unjustified actions.

[geekbot]

Interesting questions, Riesen.

Why did certain Gospels get left out of the Bible (i.e. the Gnostic Gospels)? Why were the ones that are in there now the only ones chosen?

This basically comes down to a council long ago consulted and attempted to choose which books represented inspired by God writings that belong in the Bible. There is much overlap between Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic Bibles but not entirely.

They probably used criteria somewhat like:

1. Is it authoritative?
2. Is it prophetic?
3. Is it authentic?
4. Is it dynamic?
5. Was it received, collected, read and used?

This page seems like a decent discussion (I haven't read the whole page). A small excerpt:

"i think you have every right to question the canon, since it was determined by fallible humans, using the best of thier intellect, and guided along by their subconscious biases, to determine the true canon."

Why is it that a lot of religious folks pick and choose from the Bible? They never read the part about stoning your children if they talk smack, or that the part about having long hair being bad

Most Christians believe the entire Bible should be read and understood in context. Failure to take the Bible as a whole is an error. That said, there are many different types of writings in the Bible- poems, historical writings, letters, and allegories to name a few.

More generally, the Bible can be generalized into 2 categories: ultimate truths, and specific application of truths. Ultimate truths are true always. Specific application of truths may have cultural and historical contexts that may not apply today. I'm not familiar with any long hair statements in the Bible but I'll use it as an example. Ultimate truth might be "sin is bad" or "disrespecting authority in general is bad". The specific application when it was written might be- "long hair was viewed as disrespectful so don't have long hair". Since today long hair is no longer viewed as disrespectful it doesn't apply (but the truth it was based on still holds true). This doesn't mean that section is in error or no longer relevant. It means the specific application for us today may be different than it was then.

These shouldn't be ignored but understood as applied as appropriate today.

How is it that most Christians can just ignore hard scientific facts? According to the Bible, the Earth is roughly 2,000 years old.

The shortest age of the Earth that can be extracted from the Bible that I have heard is 8,000-10,000 years. There are many unknowns about our Earth's past that make it difficult for creationists and evolutionists alike. I'll just list some of them:

Problems with 10,000 year number that some Christians use:

• 7 day creation account may not be literal 7 days. The original Hebrew word used for day is the same word for an "age" or an "era". So 7 days could be 7 millenia. (I believe in a literal 7 days, though not strongly, and many disagree).
• Part of the 10,000 years is calculated assuming 40 year generations. Humans may have at one time had much longer life spans. The Bible has accounts of people living hundreds of years.
• 10,000 years assumes that all of time has been recorded and can be accounted for. There is no way to be certain that ALL of Earth's life can be accounted for or estimated using the Bible.
• None of the writing contained in the Bible was ever intended as scientific writing. Obviously numbers can be rounded or estimated without affecting the credibility or truth of the *intent* of the text. Using non-scientific literature for scientific purposes is suspect, IMO.

Problems with "hard scientific facts":

• Science is continually learning about our Earth's history and an age of millions of years is our best estimate using our best technology and intelligence as of today.
• Carbon-dating assumes constant radioactive decay for all of time. There have been things suggesting that decay was not always constant. (I don't know what, that's what my father, a nuclear engineer, said.)
• If God created Earth with age, accurately dating the Earth would be impossible. For instance, if God created Adam as a 20-year-old man, he would appear by all measures as approximately 20 years old, even a couple of minutes after he was created. Similarly, if God created a formed planet, it may appear to have an age of millions of years, even minutes after it was formed. Obviously, there's no reason for science to assume this, it's just a statement of trying to reconcile creation vs evolution. This is a counter-argument for both sides who attempt to date the earth.
• There is no proof whatsoever of macro evolution because it happens instantaneously (relative to the age of a species). It's just the best theory science currently offers that seems like it is possible. There are charts, etc, trying to link or "trace" evolution but they have their own problems. As an example, there are many "simple" organisms that have many more chromosomes than "complex" organisms. This is not an answered question. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc.../mole00320.htm
• Macro evolution depends on mutation of genes at appropriate times. The large majority of mutations are degenerations. I'm starting to overstep my knowledge so I'll stop at that.
• Macro evolution also does not account for the (spontaneous) origin of life. There are many astronomical odds that have to be overcome (with a bit of faith) there as well.
• Archaeological dating (dating using the layers of the Earth- deeper is older) assumes no catastrophic world events. The Bible documents a world-wide flood that lasted many months. Again, no reason for science to assume a catastrophic event but it is possible that one occured.

This could be argued all day long. The "fact" is that Christians and non-Christians alike don't have answers for everything.

[geekbot]

FYI for those that don't understand tabbed browsing, I opened 10 tabs looking up stuff to answer that post. Go *specific tabbed browser of your choice* !

[Riesen]

It means the specific application for us today may be different than it was then.These shouldn't be ignored but understood as applied as appropriate today.

Who decides this? Who decides what is and isn't relevant? Who decides that the whole Bible itself isn't relevant to today? I guess this is similar to the Constitution arguement of, "That was written 200 years ago! It makes no sense to have it now!" But, unlike the Constitution, we can't amend the Bible. Well, I guess we could, those of us who aren't God fearing.

[Saturn V]

Carbon-dating assumes constant radioactive decay for all of time. There have been things suggesting that decay was not always constant. (I don't know what, that's what my father, a nuclear engineer, said.)

Creationists always mention carbon dating. What about Rb/Sr and U/Pb Isochron dating?

And some people say there is evidence for macroevolution, but understanding it requires a biology degree (which I don't have). There is however evidence for microevolution, and I don't see how (some) people can possibily deny that.

[Theif of Time]

[quote]FYI for those that don't understand tabbed browsing, I opened 10 tabs looking up stuff to answer that post. Go *specific tabbed browser of your choice* !/quote]
Yay firefox! My sister lives in the dark ages, she uses IE. Haha, no tabs for her.

Most Christians believe the entire Bible should be read and understood in context.

The catholic church recently released a statement saying that the bible shouldn't be taken absolutely literally. Basically, they say it was written by fallible humans and contains contradictions due to the fallability of those humans.

I suppose the main reason most scientists tend to prefer evolution over creation, is that evolutional theory can explain things, and predict things, whereas I don't think creation can really do that.

[geekbot]

Odd. This thread has turned into something I actually find somewhat interesting.

Who decides what is and isn't relevant?

It's fairly obvious from reading what is relevant and what is specific to the culture it was written to. There are some grey areas but there are not that many. For example (my apologies to those that revile at the sight of scriptures):

Psalms 1
Blessed is the man
who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners
or sit in the seat of mockers.

These are verses to a song and it means roughly: watch what company you keep, watch your paths (actions), watch your attitudes. This was true then and now.

Philemon 1:17-21
17So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. 19I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. 20I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. 21Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.

This is a letter from Paul to Philemon. He's obviously talking about a specific circumstance involving Philemon, Paul, and another person. These are not instructions to me or you, but we could learn about forgiveness from the situation here if we studied it.

There are other occasional refererences to things like "women should never speak in church and should keep their heads covered". These instructions are obviously relevant in an age long ago. We could try to see the respectful attitudes conveyed by the instruction but we shouldn't take as direct commands for women today.

The point is, you should be able to tell yourself how the Bible is relevant today. Some literary or historical writings do need a bit of background knowledge to understand them. That's why we go to church and listen to pastors who went to seminary and have been studying the hard stuff for years- for a little help.

The catholic church recently released a statement saying that the bible shouldn't be taken absolutely literally.

As I have been saying, the Bible contains many writing styles. Any good writer (or reader) knows that literary devices- illustrations, allegory, hyperbole- are things that should not be taken literally. If that's what the Catholic church is referring to, I agree.

Song of Solomon is a love song of sorts:
1 How beautiful you are, my darling!
Oh, how beautiful!
Your eyes behind your veil are doves.
Your hair is like a flock of goats
descending from Mount Gilead.
2 Your teeth are like a flock of sheep just shorn,
coming up from the washing.
...
3 Your lips are like a scarlet ribbon;
...
4 Your neck is like the tower of David,
built with elegance [a] ;

Easy to see this should not be taken literally. We're not talking about a deformed woman with dove eyes and goat hair.

I suppose the main reason most scientists tend to prefer evolution over creation, is that evolutional theory can explain things, and predict things, whereas I don't think creation can really do that.

Absolutely. That's their job and evolution is the best a lot of really smart people have come up with so far. They should continue investigating along those lines (and others) until there is no more grant money to be had or they are proven wrong. The Bible tells us nothing of genetics, nothing of transistor radios, nothing of Java coding. It wasn't intended for it. Doesn't mean it's irrelevant in the 20th century either.

[Rab]

something i never really understood: what's wrong with sex before marriage?

hope you can clear that up for me.

[Superted]

something i never really understood: what's wrong with sex before marriage?

hope you can clear that up for me.

Summarised; sex is an amazing gift that should only be shared with the one you love.

[Rab]

Summarised; sex is an amazing gift that should only be shared with the one you love.

yeah i'm aware of that, so what's wrong with it before marriage? your girlfriend is the one you love is she not?

[Pandagirl!]

Here's a few verses.

Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
1 Corinthians 7:2 - NKJV


For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God
1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 - NKJV


Run away from sexual sin! No other sin so clealy affects the body as this one does. For sexual immorality is a sin against your own body.
1 Corinthians 6:18 - New Living Translation