Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Give me evidence backed by science that god exist please.Since you believe science ends up backing the bible anyway. Any example will do.
That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible. Science says GMO foods are fine. There are pros and cons according to the Bible. (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)
Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth. He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.
Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was a test of their free will. So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet. They were to be good stewards of the earth. Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.
The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world. Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects. By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin. By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.
This was perfect for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.
GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people. This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants. The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction. Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in. These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.
These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.
People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short. As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God. We long to get back to the original state or source. It's inherent in us. As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.
This is not evidence and makes no sense. Strictly rambling ons.
Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post. We are done, sir.
Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
If you're an atheist, there is no "proof." I even have a good personal anecdote for this.
You will get your proof after you die. It's either I'm right or you're right. Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.
Now, back to the Bible and original sin. Many people believe it's the truth. I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible. What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.
Atrophy and flaws.Actually, I agree that it's impossible to prove god doesn't exist in the end, since I don't think science will ever have ALL the answers. This is not a fault of the process of science in itself but simply a matter that some things happen or happened where it becomes impossible to gatter the necessary data to come to a meaningfull explanation or even theory in some cases. In those cases God is as good an explanation as any. Having said that in history religion has taken it upon itself to explain a whole aray of things. It has been proven wrong on all of them. It has had to retreat further and further into those areas I just specified. Now I have no problem with that. Since I, like you agree, that if both assertions are equally uproofable, I would be hypocritical of me to demean your theory (god). My problem with religion starts when it wants to give an alternative in fields where science has data and has proven stuff, because casting doubt there is promoting ignorance.Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.This is not evidence and makes no sense. Strictly rambling ons.
Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post. We are done, sir.
Hi forkup before you go any further with this
(A) do we all have the same understanding that both faith in God and no faith in God
can never be fully proven, either one, because what we are talking about is 'faith based'
The concepts God stands for rely on faith on collective or greater things beyond our immediate empirical perceptions, like depending on memories that are "faith based" because those events are not physically happening in the moment where we can 'recreate them as proof.'
Are we in agreement on this? That no matter what we discuss back and forth, the opinions beliefs and perceptions of all people are still going to remain faith-based according to what each of us believes is consistent with what we have seen (and we will never see all the things other people have seen, so our perception of their experiences are FAITH based).
Is it safe to say we all agree we can't prove either side one way or another but can only prove our position to ourselves, basically.
(B) if you are okay with that, are you okay with the process of identifying what concepts are MEANT by God, Jesus and other symbols. Instead of trying to prove a Biblical deity exists, or personal Jesus, are we all okay here with agreeing that Jesus in the Bible represents the process of Justice being established globally for all humanity, but the stages in human history move from
* retributive justice by the letter of the law which gets corrupted and leads to death and endless war
* restorative justice by the spirit of the law which corrects past wrongs and leads to lasting life and peace
(C) My "theory" is that although we cannot prove if God exists since God represents something greater than man and is outside our immediate limited/finite scope that we can quantify in empirical terms;
1. we can form a consensus on the MEANING of God and Jesus
such as God meaning Nature, forces of Life, laws of the Universe, whole of creation,
collective truth laws or knowledge, Wisdom, Love, Good will or greater good for all humanity, etc.
2. we can demonstrate a REPEATED replicable pattern of how FORGIVENESS
moves individuals from states of conflict and ill will in relations
to healing, peace and restored faith and good will in relations
(as well as the same forgiveness process healing the mind and body, from mental and emotional ills to physical disease and collective social ills such as reducing crime by curing people of addiction and abuse that drive them to harm themselves and others in a vicious cycle repeated over generations)
Even though we can't prove where this forgiveness and transformation power/process comes from, we can demonstrate that people follow a predictable pattern
and that
* unforgiveness correlates with ill conditions (disease, mental and emotional problems, personal and political conflicts, crime and war between people, groups and nations)
* forgiveness correlates with healing relations, body mind and spirit, individually and collectively
Note :if you don't use terms such as spirit/spiritual, the term "collective" can be substituted and it still stands for the faith-based level that is beyond just the individual experience, but connects with other people in society, other living beings in the universe, and refers to the interconnect life energy and effects we have on each other, either positive or negative, constructive or destructive.
Whatever you call the body of laws, the collective truth or knowledge of the workings of the world,
that collective level is what we could agree we mean by God's laws or the word of God.
We can't prove this exists, it's all conjecture/faith based, but we can still try to agree on set terms to represent these principles and relations so we can communicate with each other.
We have both believers using scriptural laws authority and religious symbolism to express laws.
And secular gentiles using nontheist scientific approaches to quantify what's going on, either as a spiritual, social or political process.
Why can't we align both, the religious terminology for this process of spiritual development to maturity, and the secular terms for social and political development. Our language may be two totally separate systems, but we can still describe the same forces and process at work.
No matter if we call this Nature, or God, or what we call the law of science and the Universe.
If we are talking about the same concepts consistently, the different terms should not be in conflict.
Whatever is really true/universal should be backed by science affirming it, and also interpretations of the Bible should be consistent. All systems are faith based, the question is how can we align them by agreeing on the terms and principles they stand for, in order to 'translate' back and forth.
What's your origin of disease? Is it evolution?
I feel bad because she's nice but I've completely tuned her out. She basically says put aside your differences. She's trying to change the subject or be a mediator. Look for common ground.Is this just a copy&paste gust of windbag, or do you actually write all this bullshit out every time?Hi Mudda what if you define God to be the forces of Life and Nature that naturally exist?There is no God, until proven otherwise. Thread closed.
Are you saying there is no consistent system to the laws and forced out there?
That is one definition of God that is workable.
It is all theory, like the laws of gravity are theory.
We can "prove" when our brains go into dream states,
but we can't "prove" what we dreamed last night and have to
take each other's word for it on faith.
Are you going to reject gravity, dreams, theories on homosexuality
because these can never be proven? Good luck living in a world where you depend on things to be proven first.
They can be proven to you, but not proven to everyone without still relying on some faith.
Even the laws of gravity are theories we assume will continue to hold, but that's based on faith.
And yet we still take advantage of and use the laws of gravity to work for us, regardless if we can prove this or not.
We don't have hangups or religious arguments over gravity (unless you are one of the flat earth theorists)
but we argue over God because that has been abused politically to divide and attack by tribe for dominance.
if we get rid of the political bullying environment around it, there is no reason to argue emotionally about
God any more than we would over gravity! We need to be that neutral and Zenlike and not drag past politics into our debates.
Most of the distortion and disruption is from emotional baggage.
Get that factor out of the way, and we can actually work through the other terminology like math and science
without this emotional sidetaking and undercutting/backbiting going on.
sorry for that, and I hope it gets better and we can focus more on the actual
content of principles and relationships that science and religion are used to symbolize.
These are like two different languages for relationships and processes in the world.
So of course people are going to describe it differently from their own cultural and linguistic preferences and background.
this should be seen as a positive challenge not a negative conflict that there are different languages for the
laws of natural, life and relations between humans and the collective world. Big deal. why can't we deal with this maturely?
So to further make my point about how the Bible explained the type of foods we should have. The closer to the source the better. That means organic or natural foods. However, be sure that you are indeed getting "organic" or "natural" foods and not just hyperbole. Organic is not just a label, but the way farming used to be done until science took over. Science led to more higher refined and processed foods and having too much in our diet leads to problems. Take a look at how canola oil is made. It's disgusting. Using olive, peanut or coconut is better. Unfortunately, organic and natural foods cost more so, as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version.
It is baffling that someone ever thought they would be suitable for human consumption. The process involves a harsh extraction process that includes bleaching, deodorizing and the highly toxic solvent hexane. These oils are used in a lot of our processed foods due to cheaper cost. These include “healthy” salad dressings, butter replicates, mayonnaise, cookies and more. In a nutshell, these seed oils (canola, safflower, vegetable, corn, soy, sunflower) are high in Omega-6 fatty acids. Eating an excess of Omega-6 can lead to increased inflammation in the body and potentially contribute to disease. Even though Adam had to toil away in the fields to eat since being banished, he still lived to a ripe old 930.
I'm not against science, by any means, but the way it is used is not healthy and what the Bible or God had in mind.
You said, "as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version." Why would being on the lookout for a lower cost version make you a good christian? How does that make you a better person in gods eyes?
Dear sealybobo also what about other costs:
costs to health
costs to society
if you believe in being charitable toward all, and treating others equally, then finding the healthiest most cost effective food sources and means of distribution would be a way for people to (1) take care of our own households which is in the Bible (2) love our neighbors as ourselves by wanting them to have ACCESS to the healthiest sustainable food sources (3) teaching people to fish by making sure every community has help to become self-sustaining.
I guess this is part of ethics and "social justice"
if you believe Christ Jesus brings Peace and Justice to all humanity as equal children under one family, father or "God."
If you believe that the greatest good and good will for all is the meaning of God's will. so we as people of conscience and good faith would seek what is most beneficial, equitable and sustainable for all humanity. if we love our neighbors as ourselves.
You don't need a belief in a God to be a good person. In fact, I would say it is just the opposite. A lot of times these believes create some really BAD people.
Most, if not all religions, believe in some for of last judgment. The only one that doesn't is atheism, but even atheists wish some people get their just desserts. Evil comes from free will, and that's what led to original sin so it's not possible. We're not perfect.
... The first two questions I'm going to ask God if I ever see him is which God are you? Are you Jehovah the Christ God Muhammad Moses Joseph Smith?
Second question I'm going to ask is why did he go to Such Great Lengths to hide?
That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible. Science says GMO foods are fine. There are pros and cons according to the Bible. (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)
Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth. He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.
Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was a test of their free will. So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet. They were to be good stewards of the earth. Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.
The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world. Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects. By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin. By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.
This was perfect for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.
GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people. This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants. The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction. Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in. These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.
These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.
People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short. As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God. We long to get back to the original state or source. It's inherent in us. As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.
This is not evidence and makes no sense. Strictly rambling ons.
Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post. We are done, sir.
Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
If you're an atheist, there is no "proof." I even have a good personal anecdote for this.
You will get your proof after you die. It's either I'm right or you're right. Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.
Now, back to the Bible and original sin. Many people believe it's the truth. I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible. What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.
Well, where do I start.
Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.
Where's your proof that Noah lived until 950 years old? Got anything at all? Or just more fartsmoke?Further physical evidence of God. Ancient people had perfect teeth. They lived longer than us and were healthier. For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs. It took Noah 100 years to build the ark. He was around 500 when God told him. Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.
Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.
Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance
... The first two questions I'm going to ask God if I ever see him is which God are you? Are you Jehovah the Christ God Muhammad Moses Joseph Smith?
I guess he will say "I am what I am" or "I am what I will be" - what you would know if you would be interested in true realities and not only in your not existing ideas about a not existing world in your not existing thoughts. Nothing becomes true or real because a human being thinks the own thoughts are true or real. Everything is what it is on its own reasons. So everyone may normally ask always everywhere everything and will find a way. But you don't ask. You say: "Everyone is an idiot because I am the prophet of the notexistance of god."
Second question I'm going to ask is why did he go to Such Great Lengths to hide?
What do you really like to know from god? I will ask him and give you the answer. But you don't need me. Ask him yourselve and he will answer. Open your heart so his light might shine in and you will hear the answer - although the answer is able to be anywhere in the world all around you. But you will be able to feel it and to find it on your own.
So Cain & Abel's wives were also their sisters?Well, where do I start.Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.This is not evidence and makes no sense. Strictly rambling ons.
Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post. We are done, sir.
If you're an atheist, there is no "proof." I even have a good personal anecdote for this.
You will get your proof after you die. It's either I'm right or you're right. Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.
Now, back to the Bible and original sin. Many people believe it's the truth. I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible. What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.
Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.
Lol @ wikipedia. It's liberal/atheist-pedia. Better to read the source underneath and explain. Then I'll look at it. Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible. Maybe you do explain underneath.
At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18). Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant. When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits. What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries. Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation. Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now. Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects. Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans. All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.
It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit. It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.
The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk. It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.
As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail. How did the first life begin? We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein. That only happens within a cell. I can demonstrate only amino acids form.
Even Christians have the questions you have. I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?
.
... The first two questions I'm going to ask God if I ever see him is which God are you? Are you Jehovah the Christ God Muhammad Moses Joseph Smith?
I guess he will say "I am what I am" or "I am what I will be" - what you would know if you would be interested in true realities and not only in your not existing ideas about a not existing world in your not existing thoughts. Nothing becomes true or real because a human being thinks the own thoughts are true or real. Everything is what it is on its own reasons. So everyone may normally ask always everywhere everything and will find a way. But you don't ask. You say: "Everyone is an idiot because I am the prophet of the notexistance of god."
Second question I'm going to ask is why did he go to Such Great Lengths to hide?
What do you really like to know from god? I will ask him and give you the answer. But you don't need me. Ask him yourselve and he will answer. Open your heart so his light might shine in and you will hear the answer - although the answer is able to be anywhere in the world all around you. But you will be able to feel it and to find it on your own.
Ask him what number between 1-999 I'm thinking of
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original SinWell, where do I start.Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.This is not evidence and makes no sense. Strictly rambling ons.
Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post. We are done, sir.
If you're an atheist, there is no "proof." I even have a good personal anecdote for this.
You will get your proof after you die. It's either I'm right or you're right. Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.
Now, back to the Bible and original sin. Many people believe it's the truth. I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible. What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.
Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.
Lol @ wikipedia. It's liberal/atheist-pedia. Better to read the source underneath and explain. Then I'll look at it. Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible. Maybe you do explain underneath.
At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18). Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant. When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits. What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries. Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation. Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now. Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects. Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans. All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.
It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit. It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.
The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk. It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.
As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail. How did the first life begin? We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein. That only happens within a cell. I can demonstrate only amino acids form.
Even Christians have the questions you have. I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?
.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original SinWell, where do I start.Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post. We are done, sir.
If you're an atheist, there is no "proof." I even have a good personal anecdote for this.
You will get your proof after you die. It's either I'm right or you're right. Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.
Now, back to the Bible and original sin. Many people believe it's the truth. I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible. What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.
Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.
Lol @ wikipedia. It's liberal/atheist-pedia. Better to read the source underneath and explain. Then I'll look at it. Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible. Maybe you do explain underneath.
At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18). Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant. When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits. What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries. Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation. Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now. Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects. Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans. All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.
It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit. It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.
The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk. It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.
As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail. How did the first life begin? We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein. That only happens within a cell. I can demonstrate only amino acids form.
Even Christians have the questions you have. I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?
.
This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.
Some are organisms struggling to survive ( bacteria,parasites)Actually, I agree that it's impossible to prove god doesn't exist in the end, since I don't think science will ever have ALL the answers. This is not a fault of the process of science in itself but simply a matter that some things happen or happened where it becomes impossible to gatter the necessary data to come to a meaningfull explanation or even theory in some cases. In those cases God is as good an explanation as any. Having said that in history religion has taken it upon itself to explain a whole aray of things. It has been proven wrong on all of them. It has had to retreat further and further into those areas I just specified. Now I have no problem with that. Since I, like you agree, that if both assertions are equally uproofable, I would be hypocritical of me to demean your theory (god). My problem with religion starts when it wants to give an alternative in fields where science has data and has proven stuff, because casting doubt there is promoting ignorance.Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post. We are done, sir.
Hi forkup before you go any further with this
(A) do we all have the same understanding that both faith in God and no faith in God
can never be fully proven, either one, because what we are talking about is 'faith based'
The concepts God stands for rely on faith on collective or greater things beyond our immediate empirical perceptions, like depending on memories that are "faith based" because those events are not physically happening in the moment where we can 'recreate them as proof.'
Are we in agreement on this? That no matter what we discuss back and forth, the opinions beliefs and perceptions of all people are still going to remain faith-based according to what each of us believes is consistent with what we have seen (and we will never see all the things other people have seen, so our perception of their experiences are FAITH based).
Is it safe to say we all agree we can't prove either side one way or another but can only prove our position to ourselves, basically.
(B) if you are okay with that, are you okay with the process of identifying what concepts are MEANT by God, Jesus and other symbols. Instead of trying to prove a Biblical deity exists, or personal Jesus, are we all okay here with agreeing that Jesus in the Bible represents the process of Justice being established globally for all humanity, but the stages in human history move from
* retributive justice by the letter of the law which gets corrupted and leads to death and endless war
* restorative justice by the spirit of the law which corrects past wrongs and leads to lasting life and peace
(C) My "theory" is that although we cannot prove if God exists since God represents something greater than man and is outside our immediate limited/finite scope that we can quantify in empirical terms;
1. we can form a consensus on the MEANING of God and Jesus
such as God meaning Nature, forces of Life, laws of the Universe, whole of creation,
collective truth laws or knowledge, Wisdom, Love, Good will or greater good for all humanity, etc.
2. we can demonstrate a REPEATED replicable pattern of how FORGIVENESS
moves individuals from states of conflict and ill will in relations
to healing, peace and restored faith and good will in relations
(as well as the same forgiveness process healing the mind and body, from mental and emotional ills to physical disease and collective social ills such as reducing crime by curing people of addiction and abuse that drive them to harm themselves and others in a vicious cycle repeated over generations)
Even though we can't prove where this forgiveness and transformation power/process comes from, we can demonstrate that people follow a predictable pattern
and that
* unforgiveness correlates with ill conditions (disease, mental and emotional problems, personal and political conflicts, crime and war between people, groups and nations)
* forgiveness correlates with healing relations, body mind and spirit, individually and collectively
Note :if you don't use terms such as spirit/spiritual, the term "collective" can be substituted and it still stands for the faith-based level that is beyond just the individual experience, but connects with other people in society, other living beings in the universe, and refers to the interconnect life energy and effects we have on each other, either positive or negative, constructive or destructive.
Whatever you call the body of laws, the collective truth or knowledge of the workings of the world,
that collective level is what we could agree we mean by God's laws or the word of God.
We can't prove this exists, it's all conjecture/faith based, but we can still try to agree on set terms to represent these principles and relations so we can communicate with each other.
We have both believers using scriptural laws authority and religious symbolism to express laws.
And secular gentiles using nontheist scientific approaches to quantify what's going on, either as a spiritual, social or political process.
Why can't we align both, the religious terminology for this process of spiritual development to maturity, and the secular terms for social and political development. Our language may be two totally separate systems, but we can still describe the same forces and process at work.
No matter if we call this Nature, or God, or what we call the law of science and the Universe.
If we are talking about the same concepts consistently, the different terms should not be in conflict.
Whatever is really true/universal should be backed by science affirming it, and also interpretations of the Bible should be consistent. All systems are faith based, the question is how can we align them by agreeing on the terms and principles they stand for, in order to 'translate' back and forth.
What's your origin of disease? Is it evolution?
Some are half-organisms who need living organisms to reproduce ( virusus)
Some are mutations going haywire (cancer)
So yes evolution
You are making a very common assumption from religious ppl
Namely that man is the ultimate species, that we are in some way the culmination of a supreme beings will to create. We are in fact just one of the organisms that has walked this earth. We aren't the last, longest lived or most succesfull in any objective sense.
... Adam and Eve supposedly had two MALE children, Cain and Abel. How in the world did they make any babies? The whole concept of religion is for screwballs.
The fact is people lived an average of about 40 years old back the., not 950 years.Where's your proof that Noah lived until 950 years old? Got anything at all? Or just more fartsmoke?Further physical evidence of God. Ancient people had perfect teeth. They lived longer than us and were healthier. For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs. It took Noah 100 years to build the ark. He was around 500 when God told him. Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.
Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.
Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance
... Adam and Eve supposedly had two MALE children, Cain and Abel. How in the world did they make any babies? The whole concept of religion is for screwballs.
Specially because Cain murdered Abel so god made later a mark on him to show to everyone that no one had any right to punish Cain? ... Oh by the way: In the middle ages the people learned first something and afterwards they had an opinion. The people today seem to have an opinion independent from any truth (logos) or reality (creation) but with an extraordinary high darwinistic (ideological) will to kill everyone else who shares not the own stupidities.
Unless of course they had sex with their MOM.
Unless of course they had sex with their MOM.
