Why Don't Christians ever present any evidence?

neologist wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

neologist wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Well I think it goes hand-in-hand. You can't support genesis and say that african(black) and asian people came from the same few in such a short time. And I'm pretty sure you've argued against the earth being older than 6k years... so what's it gonna be ?

Genesis allows for unlimited years before God decided to prepare the earth. And 6 huge unspecified time periods, not literal days to prepare the earth and create animals, man etc. But the bible only allows about 6000 years from the time of Adam until now for the appearance of races. I'm not going to try to explain it. If God did indeed create the first humans, their apparent rapid development of variations may very well have been his intent.

So if you say the 6 days isn't literal, then why should we take this whole nonsense about adam/eve/the flood literally?

The bible makes a claim about itself that it is the inspired word of God (See 2Timothy 3:16). If that is true, then even if the Adam and Eve story were merely allegorical, you would still be faced with the moral lesson therein.

You can't get away with calling the story of Adam and Eve allegorical. Jesus came to Earth, remember, to die in order to cleanse us of original sin.

So.... if the story of Adam and Eve is just an unpleasant fiction.... what sin exactly did Jesus die for?

stlstrike3 wrote:

neologist wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

neologist wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Well I think it goes hand-in-hand. You can't support genesis and say that african(black) and asian people came from the same few in such a short time. And I'm pretty sure you've argued against the earth being older than 6k years... so what's it gonna be ?

Genesis allows for unlimited years before God decided to prepare the earth. And 6 huge unspecified time periods, not literal days to prepare the earth and create animals, man etc. But the bible only allows about 6000 years from the time of Adam until now for the appearance of races. I'm not going to try to explain it. If God did indeed create the first humans, their apparent rapid development of variations may very well have been his intent.

So if you say the 6 days isn't literal, then why should we take this whole nonsense about adam/eve/the flood literally?

The bible makes a claim about itself that it is the inspired word of God (See 2Timothy 3:16). If that is true, then even if the Adam and Eve story were merely allegorical, you would still be faced with the moral lesson therein.

You can't get away with calling the story of Adam and Eve allegorical. Jesus came to Earth, remember, to die in order to cleanse us of original sin.

So.... if the story of Adam and Eve is just an unpleasant fiction.... what sin exactly did Jesus die for?

I didn't say it was allegorical. Shouldn't have brought up the suggestion, obviously.

I referred to Paul's statement about the (whole) Bible being inspired of God. Then I said that the moral lesson of Eden could not be ignored. That was:

Adam and Eve were created perfect and with a perfect conscience.

They lost their perfection and their perfect conscience when they opted to decide for themselves what was good and what was bad. Genesis refers to the eating of a fruit as a symbol of their decision to disobey God.

The sentence of death they received and passed on to us could only be commuted by Jesus living a perfect life and dying in Adam's stead.

So, the eating of the fruit was not the substance of their sin. Their sin was in deciding a course independent of their creator.

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Well given what we know of genetics and such... I'd have to say that all of the original 8 looked very similar and shared many traits. So then you are saying that, given your 4800 years, all of these physical changes appeard randomly over 200 generations?

Noah's wife may or may not have shared his genetic traits.

Same thing with Noah's sons and their wives.

They may have married someone who looked quite different (aside from the expected male/female differences )

....wouldn't the only people that Noah's sons and daughters have been able to mate with be.... their siblings, or their parents?....

neologist wrote:

stlstrike3 wrote:

neologist wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

neologist wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Well I think it goes hand-in-hand. You can't support genesis and say that african(black) and asian people came from the same few in such a short time. And I'm pretty sure you've argued against the earth being older than 6k years... so what's it gonna be ?

Genesis allows for unlimited years before God decided to prepare the earth. And 6 huge unspecified time periods, not literal days to prepare the earth and create animals, man etc. But the bible only allows about 6000 years from the time of Adam until now for the appearance of races. I'm not going to try to explain it. If God did indeed create the first humans, their apparent rapid development of variations may very well have been his intent.

So if you say the 6 days isn't literal, then why should we take this whole nonsense about adam/eve/the flood literally?

The bible makes a claim about itself that it is the inspired word of God (See 2Timothy 3:16). If that is true, then even if the Adam and Eve story were merely allegorical, you would still be faced with the moral lesson therein.

You can't get away with calling the story of Adam and Eve allegorical. Jesus came to Earth, remember, to die in order to cleanse us of original sin.

So.... if the story of Adam and Eve is just an unpleasant fiction.... what sin exactly did Jesus die for?

I didn't say it was allegorical. Shouldn't have brought up the suggestion, obviously.

I referred to Paul's statement about the (whole) Bible being inspired of God. Then I said that the moral lesson of Eden could not be ignored. That was:

Adam and Eve were created perfect and with a perfect conscience.

They lost their perfection and their perfect conscience when they opted to decide for themselves what was good and what was bad. Genesis refers to the eating of a fruit as a symbol of their decision to disobey God.

The sentence of death they received and passed on to us could only be commuted by Jesus living a perfect life and dying in Adam's stead.

So, the eating of the fruit was not the substance of their sin. Their sin was in deciding a course independent of their creator.

So now you just pick and chose what you want out of the bible? I've always wondered how people decide "oh, that part is true, but this part is just meant as a moral story". If people (a person) are to claim that they follow any particular part of the bible because it is the "truth," they should follow all of it. The bible isn't a bag of halloween candy - where you just pick out the parts you want and say "thanks for the other pieces, but i don't really like them."

USAFHokie80 wrote:

neologist wrote:

stlstrike3 wrote:

neologist wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

neologist wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Well I think it goes hand-in-hand. You can't support genesis and say that african(black) and asian people came from the same few in such a short time. And I'm pretty sure you've argued against the earth being older than 6k years... so what's it gonna be ?

Genesis allows for unlimited years before God decided to prepare the earth. And 6 huge unspecified time periods, not literal days to prepare the earth and create animals, man etc. But the bible only allows about 6000 years from the time of Adam until now for the appearance of races. I'm not going to try to explain it. If God did indeed create the first humans, their apparent rapid development of variations may very well have been his intent.

So if you say the 6 days isn't literal, then why should we take this whole nonsense about adam/eve/the flood literally?

The bible makes a claim about itself that it is the inspired word of God (See 2Timothy 3:16). If that is true, then even if the Adam and Eve story were merely allegorical, you would still be faced with the moral lesson therein.

You can't get away with calling the story of Adam and Eve allegorical. Jesus came to Earth, remember, to die in order to cleanse us of original sin.

So.... if the story of Adam and Eve is just an unpleasant fiction.... what sin exactly did Jesus die for?

I didn't say it was allegorical. Shouldn't have brought up the suggestion, obviously.

I referred to Paul's statement about the (whole) Bible being inspired of God. Then I said that the moral lesson of Eden could not be ignored. That was:

Adam and Eve were created perfect and with a perfect conscience.

They lost their perfection and their perfect conscience when they opted to decide for themselves what was good and what was bad. Genesis refers to the eating of a fruit as a symbol of their decision to disobey God.

The sentence of death they received and passed on to us could only be commuted by Jesus living a perfect life and dying in Adam's stead.

So, the eating of the fruit was not the substance of their sin. Their sin was in deciding a course independent of their creator.

So now you just pick and chose what you want out of the bible? I've always wondered how people decide "oh, that part is true, but this part is just meant as a moral story". If people (a person) are to claim that they follow any particular part of the bible because it is the "truth," they should follow all of it. The bible isn't a bag of halloween candy - where you just pick out the parts you want and say "thanks for the other pieces, but i don't really like them."

Don't put words in my mouth. I follow the story of Genesis because it is true. And I refer to it often because its moral lesson is relevant right now, today.

We all must decide whether or not to accept God's authority.

. . . which god?

I follow the story of Genesis because it is true.

And I refer to it often because its moral lesson is relevant right now, today.

For the love of God!!! Stop with the F**king quoting!

neologist wrote:

I follow the story of Genesis because it is true.

No, you accept that story because you believe it is true--if you are going to claim that the entire Garden of Eden fairy tale is literally true, then you place yourself in the position of being obliged to prove it. For whatever you say, without proof, you cannot say with certainty that the story is true.

neologist wrote:

And I refer to it often because its moral lesson is relevant right now, today.

The only relevance of that story derives from someone willing to assume in advance that it is true, and that there is a deity who was responsible for the situation in the first place. Allow me to point out (since Frank is not here) that if it were true that there is a deity, and said deity set up the Garden of Eden situation, it was a sucker play, perpetrated upon two people unequipped to understand the consequences of their actions.

For whatever you say, without proof, you cannot say with certainty that the story is true.

. . . . truth is relative. .. .

stlstrike3 wrote:

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Well given what we know of genetics and such... I'd have to say that all of the original 8 looked very similar and shared many traits. So then you are saying that, given your 4800 years, all of these physical changes appeard randomly over 200 generations?

Noah's wife may or may not have shared his genetic traits.

Same thing with Noah's sons and their wives.

They may have married someone who looked quite different (aside from the expected male/female differences )

....wouldn't the only people that Noah's sons and daughters have been able to mate with be.... their siblings, or their parents?....

No.

The idea that man's fall was a sucker play requires one to believe that the story reveals the qualities of love and justice displayed by a large number of humans, some would say universally, were imbued into the first human pair by a god who did not himself possess these qualities. I submit that to be one of Frank's most colossal straw men.

BTW, I sure miss Frank. He supplied the seasoning for what has often been a bland lunch.

The only part of the Bible I believe are its morals and that Jesus was the embodiment of God.

What makes the Bible untrue?

What makes Charles Darwin's book any more believable than more than 50 people's accounts?

It is this that first sparked interest in Darwin's works: you could have sex with multiple partners, you could do all the drugs you wanted, you could even murder a man, and there would be no God to "smite" you. Is this not true?

Atheists always try to push the burden of "truth" on theists.

But truth is relative, and for those that believe that the Bible is correct, so be it.

And for those that believe Darwin was correct, so be it. So why not try to answer the statement: prove it.

See how hard it is to try to prove a point to someone who doesn't share the same beliefs as you.

neologist wrote:

The idea that man's fall was a sucker play requires one to believe that the story reveals the qualities of love and justice displayed by a large number of humans, some would say universally, were imbued into the first human pair by a god who did not himself possess these qualities. I submit that to be one of Frank's most colossal straw men.

No, that's not at all what either Frank or i have alleged about the situation. You are warping what has been said in order to create your own strawman. . .

I could probably take most Christians back in time and show them that Jesus (if he existed), was just a man and never rose from the dead, and the most popular response would probably be, "I don't believe you."

The theistic charge that atheists are immoral people is ridiculous. If the only reason you're not running around "(doing) all the drugs you wanted... even (murdering) a man" is because you think there is a god to smite you, then please say as far away from me as possible. That's not morality. That's sucking up.

You'd have to ask Frank. However, you are attempting to shoe-horn other people's interpretations into your cosmogony--you seem to expect that other people will believe that there is a god, and that one can make statements or assumptions about her character.

For my own part, i consider the Garden of Eden story ludicrous, and just more evidence that it was at the least written for, and very probably, written by, gullible people. Not knowing the origin of humans, they made **** up, and either fed it to others, or swallowed it themselves. From that perspective, the story speaks volumes about human credulity, and says nothing about whether or not there were a deity, or what the character of any putative deity might or might not be.