Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
    What about being based on a common oral tradition?




    I think you ought to apologise for this...

    To answer your point though, am i lacking in faith because i accept the earth's rotation and the water cycle (Matthew 5:45 says that God 'causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.' NIV)? If not, what's different about creation? I don't see how it is unchristian to use science to help us understand the world.



    Sure, but that information is contained within the biblical document My point is that to understand what the Bible is saying, we have to consider how it was written. There's no point sitting here as 21st century westerners saying 'this is how we understand literature, Genesis obviously means a 6-day creation' if that's not what its original middle-eastern audience would have understood from it. To do so would be to claim that the Bible doesn't have a consistent and timeless message (which i assume is something you want to affirm?).
    How it is written? It was written by people who were inspired by the Holyspirit. The Bible is timeless and is NOT a document, hence why it is called the Holy Bible. It is consistent, there are even present day places to this day that was mentioned in the Bible. The world change but the Bible doesn't have to change in order to fit into worldly things. It is divine and it isn't something physical. e.g Miracles is a divine connection between God and Man that brings about healing. The Bible is not corrupted as some non- christains claim it to be( not generalising by the way). It was translated from aramaic (which is very archaic) to English in order for people of all languages to understand it, because English is mostly spoken by all people. I assume you would argue that since the Bible is not in its original language translation as it was written, it makes it not true.

    The Bible is about faith of what we cannot see. Science basis is what we can see and observe. Science and religion shouldn't be mixed together. They are seperate. Next you would be telling me that the Bible is false.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Facticity)
    Ah sounds good.

    I do: Higher
    - Philosophy
    - Biology
    - Chemistry

    Standard
    - Maths
    - English
    - Italian
    Ooo, come il tuo italiano?

    (Original post by Architecture-er)
    Why does God allow suffering?
    As others have more eloquently said, I don't think she's after an intellectual answer atm although one could be attempted - she's grieving and what she needs is someone to rant at and take it, someone to bring her food/ look after her. Later on she might want to try to reason it out, but now is not the time.

    (Original post by Alex-jc123)
    Hello, fellow Christians. May I enquire as to whether any here believe in evolution? I am curious
    I'm so flimsy on this - sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Ultimately, I feel I have better things to do - social justice etc. - than work this out. However, I will recommend this book to read if you haven't already done so.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-jc123)
    There is no point in knowing science if you haven't extensively studied philosophy. The claims of science are contrary to the claims of the Bible. Scripture (when interpreted correctly, as an excess atheists embarrassingly fail to understand it) is infallible as it is wisdom from Christ. Do you really think that Christ - the saviour of men - meant to leave us in ambiguity so that doubts as to his existence could prosper?
    Why is there no point knowing science? And i'm not entirely sure what you mean by studying philosophy 'extensively' either - how much counts?

    However, i'm intrigued by your parenthesis. When i quoted Matthew in my last comment, was it a correct interpretation to say that this means the water cycle is false? My view is very much that your interpretation of Genesis 1-2 is false, which is why i think you are drawing false conclusions about science.

    (Original post by Alex-jc123)
    'Apologise'? OK, I apologise for upholding Scripture instead of easily sitting on the halfway fence and accepting the imposing theory of scientific creation. Was it not said by Christ: "Blessed is he who believes without seeing". You thus do not have to resort to popular/liberal opinion to ease your conscience.
    I'm suggesting you apologise for attacking someone and claiming they should 'revoke their faith'. I understand that intra-Christian dialogue is often difficult, and people often disagree very strongly and passionately. But it's something we must do with a spirit of love and humility, affirming the other person not as an antagonist, but as a fellow seeker of the truth.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calumcalum)
    I don't remember coming across "evolution is wrong" or "Genesis is literal" when reading the prophets or gospels...
    What do you say to Genesis 1 statements about plants & animals bringing forth after their kind and God calling that good, and finishing his work?

    What do you mean "literal", do you mean conforming to the modern definition of words?

    Is there anything in the prophets or gospels that indicates that they didn't take the details literally?

    Apart from discussion of what "day" means in Genesis 1 & 2 what isn't literal?
    You may not understand what happened wit the serpent, but that doesn't mean it isn't literal?

    With our post-enlightenment western minds we assume that "the beginning" must mean the start of physical creation but the mindset of the time has a different, non-physical-science based focus. It deals with the reality of God's plans and talks in a series of 10"generations of" (toledoths).

    Genesis 1:1 - 2:4 is about the setting up of Earth to provide a home for mankind as a witness to man who should seek and find his maker, as Paul preaches in Acts 14:17

    "he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness"

    Genesis 1 is not an allegory, it is literally what happened. Luke 3 has a genealogy going back to Adam. I'm sure you believe the later people, including Jesus literally existed, do you suggest that he was descended from an imaginary Adam who didn't really exist to produce physival offspring?

    The prophets, Jesus etc also refer to Adam, Enoch, Noah and later people in the same breath.
    Offline

    21
    tbh Genesis 1 looks/reads like a poem :dontknow:

    But how much of Genesis is allegorical? Where do you draw the line? :nooo:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calumcalum)
    How, exactly, are the claims of science contrary to the claims of the Bible (when interpreted correctly, rather than having a recent hyper-literal anti-traditional interpretation imposed on it)?



    It's not just popular/liberal opinion which sees Genesis as allegorical. It's substantially there in ancient, orthodox, conservative Christian history (cf. Augustine).
    Natural selection suggests that human beings are a result of a natural process whereby attributes are altered to suit survival. Therefore, if you choose to believe this as being acceptable in Scripture then you believe that humans were not actually created to be ultimately superior. Moreover, humans are created in God's image; science claims that life originally came from the sea, so is God a fish?

    The theory of evolution is a joke. It cannot even prove natural selection with birds, and scientists dig up a skeleton in Africa and judge it to be of millions of years old just because it has similar features.

    Apparently, particular groups of human beings have existed in excessively cold climates; why do they not have some form of fur skin or natural shield against cold?

    Satan was the cause of sin and woe in the world, and he was just like people who believe in evolution: stubborn, arrogant and determined to assert human infallibility over the astronomically complex idea of creation (which science has not even fully explained).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marille)
    Well, surely it depends on what you mean by "the certainty of the Bible"? I believe that the Bible was written by human beings who had been inspired by the Spirit and therefore chose to commit the inspiration to paper in various forms - it wasn't written by God, or by people possessed by God. You only need to consider a story a little later on in Genesis to see this - the tale of Noah and the flood has striking parallels with Mesopotamian texts which were written long before the Genesis account (the Atrahasis epic dates back to the second millennium BC, and the Gilgamesh epic dates back as far as the third millenium BC), and as we can fathom from textual criticism (i.e. considering the vocabulary used and references made) that the corresponding chapters of Genesis were written in the first millennium BC, we must conclude that the Genesis story was based upon the Mesopotamian versions. They were adapted so that the Israelites were able to express beliefs in their God, who was quite unlike the gods of the surrounding nations, but they weren't original writings. So I don't think they can be seen as an attempt at literal history, and they also can't be understood to have come directly from God.

    If the Bible was written by humans, then, we must consider each text individually to see how the context of each of the writers might have affected what they wrote. In the case of Genesis, we must consider the ways in which the Israelites wrote their history, and the different cultures around them that they drew upon. In the case of the law books like Leviticus, we must see that the laws were very much applicable to the Israelites at the time, but that they would be less meaningful if taken up rigidly by people today. In the case of the New Testament, we must consider everything anew, because the texts were written by Jews (and Gentiles, probably) living in a Graeco-Roman world in entirely different circumstances. It's not just a matter of picking and choosing bits of the Bible we want to take literally and bits we want to take as allegorical (or whatever) - we must consider the intentions of the writers, the circumstances surrounding them, the knowledge they had to draw upon, the way in which the text has been interpreted in the past ... it's all a very complicated business.

    Please do note that I'm not trying to say that the Bible isn't important. I just don't think it would be right to consider it the literal word of God - that's Jesus, after all (John 1).

    Also, I'd want to emphasise that I haven't just written creation off at it doesn't fit with evolutionary theory - even if science didn't conflict with the text, there would be other reasons to suggest it wasn't a literal event as described in Genesis, such as the difference in narrative I outlined in my last post. And as I mentioned before, many Christians even before Darwin didn't believe in creationism (in the strict, six-day sense, at least) - have a quick look at this article to see some examples.
    The Bible is based on faith which I will continually say. Even in the Bible, it is written that ,''without faith it is impossible to please God''. Faith is the belief that with God all things are possible. You do not have to use logic in order to understand the message of the Bible. It was written to create an understanding of the nature of God, his resurrection, Revelations of the last days, miraculous healings, the oneness of God almighty in different forms etc. You do not need to be scientific to have faith in God or a religion. It comes naturally, it is inexplainable. Words or science cannot explain it. As Proverbs chapter 13 verse 5 says: ''Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding''

    The intensions of the writers cannot be known. Theyhave long departed from us. There is no scientific explanation that could provide a reason as to their intensions. The knowledge they had to draw upon? They were inspired by the Holyspirit which is a spritual realm not something we can see nor touch. Science is based on the observable, physical and sense of touch. It is not complicated, it just takes an open mind and the inspiration to seek God. It isn't science and shouldn't be treated as such. Science is not the same as religion as i have continually explained.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vanny17)
    How it is written? It was written by people who were inspired by the Holyspirit. The Bible is timeless and is NOT a document, hence why it is called the Holy Bible. It is consistent, there are even present day places to this day that was mentioned in the Bible. The world change but the Bible doesn't have to change in order to fit into worldly things. It is divine and it isn't something physical. e.g Miracles is a divine connection between God and Man that brings about healing. The Bible is not corrupted as some non- christains claim it to be( not generalising by the way). It was translated from aramaic (which is very archaic) to English in order for people of all languages to understand it, because English is mostly spoken by all people. I assume you would argue that since the Bible is not in its original language translation as it was written, it makes it not true.

    The Bible is about faith of what we cannot see. Science basis is what we can see and observe. Science and religion shouldn't be mixed together. They are seperate. Next you would be telling me that the Bible is false.
    I think we might mean different things by the word document; what do you mean? I don't use the word instead of Scripture - i think it is both.

    But what i am saying is this: the world does change, and so does the way it understands written texts. Genesis is a written text, and it is one that humans can make different assumptions about as cultures change. If we don't understand this, and we're not trying to make sure we approach Scripture in the same way, then we are changing the message. Does this make sense?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NJA)
    What do you say to Genesis 1 statements about plants & animals bringing forth after their kind and God calling that good, and finishing his work?

    What do you mean "literal", do you mean conforming to the modern definition of words?

    Is there anything in the prophets or gospels that indicates that they didn't take the details literally?

    Apart from discussion of what "day" means in Genesis 1 & 2 what isn't literal?
    You may not understand what happened wit the serpent, but that doesn't mean it isn't literal.

    With our post-enlightenment western minds we assume that "the beginning" must mean the start of physical creation but the mindset of the time has a different, non-physical-science based focus. It deals with the reality of God's plans and talks in a series of 10"generations of" (toledoths).

    Genesis 1:1 - 2:4 is about the setting up of Earth to provide a home for mankind as a witness to man who should seek and find his maker, as Paul preaches in Acts 14:17

    "he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness"

    Genesis 1 is not an allegory, it is literally what happened. Luke 3 has a genealogy going back to Adam. I'm sure you believe the later people, including Jesus literally existed, do you suggest that he was descended from an imaginary Adam who didn't really exist to produce physival offspring?

    The prophets, Jesus etc also refer to Adam, Enoch, Noah and later people in the same breath.
    Yes, Genesis is to be interpreted literally. The trouble is, many modern 'Christians' are judging the Bible with a liberal and media-influenced philosophical and theological view. What necessarily makes 21st Century concept of thought superior to that of all that has preceded it?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
    I think we might mean different things by the word document; what do you mean? I don't use the word instead of Scripture - i think it is both.

    But what i am saying is this: the world does change, and so does the way it understands written texts. Genesis is a written text, and it is one that humans can make different assumptions about as cultures change. If we don't understand this, and we're not trying to make sure we approach Scripture in the same way, then we are changing the message. Does this make sense?
    I meant that it isn't just a document like a piece of paper. It is the word of God which was inspired by people. What is your stance exactly. No quote form any source, just you point of view. The world changes but the word of God doesn't need to. The Bible did not say that world was created by Evolution did it now? It said that ''He created man in his own image'' not the species and abiotic factors changing in order to suit and adapt to the changes they undergo. Cultures change but you cannot chnage the Bible. I nkow the world change but the Bible doesn't have to accomodate the world. It divine not earthly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-jc123)
    Yes, Genesis is to be interpreted literally. The trouble is, many modern 'Christians' are judging the Bible with a liberal and media-influenced philosophical and theological view. What necessarily makes 21st Century concept of thought superior to that of all that has preceded it?
    How is it 'liberal and media-influenced' to adopt an understanding of Genesis that has been around for millennia?

    Although a point worth considering is that we now have a lot more textual information about the Biblical texts than in centuries before...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lantana)
    .
    (Original post by jmj)
    .
    (Original post by Calumcalum)
    .
    (Original post by marille)
    .
    Thank you all for your replies, though I seem to have given the impression that her mum died recently, when it was actually around 8 years ago so there wasn't really a problem with her grieving. The discussion between us was more intellectual than emotional.

    @Calumcalum, thank you for your in-depth answer, if I understood you correctly you basically said that Christ is opposed to suffering, as it stems from the devil and original sin, and trusting in God to alleviate it is the best thing to do, since we cannot hope to manage anything noteworthy ourselves (which I agree with). However when I talked with my friend it seemed more like she wanted to know why her mum in particular had to get stricken with cancer.
    Some causes of death could be directly pertained to your actions in life (e.g. rock climbing or mountain-biking), it is the gift of free will which allows us to do dangerous things and experience life, but cancer isn't like that. It's basically a lottery of death, and I couldn't really think of a justifiable answer as to why her mum could've died from it. Any further pointers would be great (though you don't have to write a huge amount if you want to save some wear on your keyboard )

    @marille Thanks for the Job reference, I'll be sure to check it out (and re-read the whole book I think, it's been a while and it's probably the most relevant book out there to this question )

    @jmj, I get where you're coming from, I really like to describe the world's situation with sin like this, what're your thoughts?
    I liken it to a bank balance, except when we're born we're given a bank balance of -1million. As we sin through our lives we rack up more negative points, some sins cost more points than others, but very minutely, eg -50 for murder, -1 for a bad thought, etc. In other words, some sins are worse than others but in the overall scheme, our original sin is so overwhelming there's nothing we can do to save ourselves, we're all equally sinful in the eyes of God.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vanny17)
    I meant that it isn't just a document like a piece of paper. It is the word of God which was inspired by people. What is your stance exactly. No quote form any source, just you point of view. The world changes but the word of God doesn't need to. The Bible did not say that world was created by Evolution did it now? It said that ''He created man in his own image'' not the species and abiotic factors changing in order to suit and adapt to the changes they undergo. Cultures change but you cannot chnage the Bible. I nkow the world change but the Bible doesn't have to accomodate the world. It divine not earthly.
    :confused: I don't understand what you mean by 'like a piece of paper'. The Bible is written on paper. The fact that it is inspired doesn't mean it isn't a document.

    My point about the meaning changing is this:

    - The Bible was written at time 1.
    - At time 1, people understood literature in way 1.
    - The Bible was spread around the world, into different cultures. Time passed.
    - At time 2, people understand literature in way 2.
    - At time 2, people try to read the Bible.
    - Time 2 people use way 2 to understand the Bible.
    - They understand the Bible different to people at time 1.

    I am not saying the Bible has to accommodate the world, or that it has to change. But if the Bible does not change, and we do change the way we understand the Bible, then we are not getting its timeless message. We are not understanding what God means by it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I thought of this thread while I was out tonight, with some friends, all of whom are atheist. Towards the end of the night the conversation turned to religion, and most of them are fairly against it - making me feeling slightly uncomfortable, as I tend to just sit there in these debates though I feel like I should say something. I don't believe in pushing my faith down others throats or in trying to convert people - but if anyone has any advice for how to cope in situations like that, it'd be appreciated. At the moment, I tend to say 'I'm a christian, and it's important to me, but I totally understand what you're saying and agree with part of it' - as usually it's them railing against child abuse in the Catholic church, or fundamentalism, or people who deny science like evolution (which is why I especially thought of this thread).

    How can you justify your faith to someone, without associating yourself with beliefs you don't accept, and without offending the person you're talking to? I'm not sure if justify is the right word here - but I suppose I'm wanting a way to make it clear what I do and don't believe in in a social situation where I'm the only Christian. I love these people, and so I think it's almost a matter of not wanting them to think less of me, which I know is awful - I'm not ashamed of being a Christian at all, but sometimes I almost act as if I am. I'm probably not explaining myself correctly here but if anyone can help out, I'd appreciate it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by d123)
    I thought of this thread while I was out tonight, with some friends, all of whom are atheist. Towards the end of the night the conversation turned to religion, and most of them are fairly against it - making me feeling slightly uncomfortable, as I tend to just sit there in these debates though I feel like I should say something. I don't believe in pushing my faith down others throats or in trying to convert people - but if anyone has any advice for how to cope in situations like that, it'd be appreciated. At the moment, I tend to say 'I'm a christian, and it's important to me, but I totally understand what you're saying and agree with part of it' - as usually it's them railing against child abuse in the Catholic church, or fundamentalism, or people who deny science like evolution (which is why I especially thought of this thread).

    How can you justify your faith to someone, without associating yourself with beliefs you don't accept, and without offending the person you're talking to? I'm not sure if justify is the right word here - but I suppose I'm wanting a way to make it clear what I do and don't believe in in a social situation where I'm the only Christian. I love these people, and so I think it's almost a matter of not wanting them to think less of me, which I know is awful - I'm not ashamed of being a Christian at all, but sometimes I almost act as if I am. I'm probably not explaining myself correctly here but if anyone can help out, I'd appreciate it.
    I had the same problem when I first converted. You should perhaps dismiss the influence from your friends as they would not be your friends if they did not respect you for who you are. I resorted to strengthening my faith through prayer, diligent reading of my Bible and now I would be proud to say to anyone that I am a Christian
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-jc123)
    I had the same problem when I first converted. You should perhaps dismiss the influence from your friends as they would not be your friends if they did not respect you for who you are. I resorted to strengthening my faith through prayer, diligent reading of my Bible and now I would be proud to say to anyone that I am a Christian
    I don't think it's so much any influence that I'm worried about - I've been a Christian for years (I've been brought up in a Christian household and been a Christian for as long as I can remember) and I'm not particulary worried that I'll lose my faith through being friends with them. It's more that I want to know ways of showing that I am a Christian without being in-your-face, or getting into arguments. Prayer and reading are good ideas, but I don't really think that strengthening my faith's the issue here, although maybe I'm wrong and maybe it is, it's more vocalising that faith in an assertive but non-confrontational way.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
    How is it 'liberal and media-influenced' to adopt an understanding of Genesis that has been around for millennia?

    Although a point worth considering is that we now have a lot more textual information about the Biblical texts than in centuries before...
    'liberal and media-influenced' refers to mainstream 21st century attitudes on creation. Socialism and liberalism were the main instruments in the 1960's revolution in Europe and America, and ever since then, atheism and evolutionary theories have become considerably popular.

    If someone believes in God but also evolution, then it is arguable that they merely believe in a divine power and not the God they claim to worship through Christ. Moreover, why is it that Christ amended minor elements of the Old Testament, such as Kosher laws, but he did not amend Genesis? It can easily be concluded that the imposed theory of evolution is a test of faith; Christ walked the earth to show us the way to heaven and to extend salvation to many, but for us to achieve this we must see beyond illusions, temptations and impediments of faith.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-jc123)
    'liberal and media-influenced' refers to mainstream 21st century attitudes on creation. Socialism and liberalism were the main instruments in the 1960's revolution in Europe and America, and ever since then, atheism and evolutionary theories have become considerably popular.

    If someone believes in God but also evolution, then it is arguable that they merely believe in a divine power and not the God they claim to worship through Christ. Moreover, why is it that Christ amended minor elements of the Old Testament, such as Kosher laws, but he did not amend Genesis? It can easily be concluded that the imposed theory of evolution is a test of faith; Christ walked the earth to show us the way to heaven and to extend salvation to many, but for us to achieve this we must see beyond illusions, temptations and impediments of faith.
    What does socialism have to do with it? In fact, socialism is a relatively straightforward political viewpoint to take as a Christian, as it fits with the teachings of Jesus.
    I don't think you're right that in believing in evolution we're changing the nature of the God we worship.
    I don't believe that God tests our faith like that - I've heard the argument that fossils are there as a test of our faith, but to be honest, that doesn't fit with my concept of a loving God.
    As for why Jesus didn't 'amend' Genesis, I don't think the creation myths are comparable with the kosher laws - also, I would argue that his lack of amendment of them points, if anything, to the idea mentioned earlier by myself and several others that they were never intended to be interpreted literally. The OT Kosher laws were presented as something to be interpreted literally, and so he amends them because they are no longer relevant. If Genesis is not to be interpreted literally, there is no need to amend it at all because the key message still remains; there is nothing to amend if you believe in a liberal interpretation of the texts because they are not meant to be stating a scientific fact.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by d123)
    I don't think it's so much any influence that I'm worried about - I've been a Christian for years (I've been brought up in a Christian household and been a Christian for as long as I can remember) and I'm not particulary worried that I'll lose my faith through being friends with them. It's more that I want to know ways of showing that I am a Christian without being in-your-face, or getting into arguments. Prayer and reading are good ideas, but I don't really think that strengthening my faith's the issue here, although maybe I'm wrong and maybe it is, it's more vocalising that faith in an assertive but non-confrontational way.
    Well, as long as you refrain from converting an atheist or telling him/her that evolution is flawed, you should not offend. Try to seem impartial or open-minded if they speak of their beliefs, and do not make bold statements like 'that is wrong'. To be a Christian is to be humble, honest and sincere so you should not lie (or exaggerate) your views; just avoid disclosing them if you feel they will be 'in-your-face'.

    However, I confess that I sometimes get angry when my friend makes jokes about God and Scripture. I usually tolerate them, as confronting him would be so eccentric as to alienate us both.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by d123)
    What does socialism have to do with it? In fact, socialism is a relatively straightforward political viewpoint to take as a Christian, as it fits with the teachings of Jesus.
    I don't think you're right that in believing in evolution we're changing the nature of the God we worship.
    I don't believe that God tests our faith like that - I've heard the argument that fossils are there as a test of our faith, but to be honest, that doesn't fit with my concept of a loving God.
    As for why Jesus didn't 'amend' Genesis, I don't think the creation myths are comparable with the kosher laws - also, I would argue that his lack of amendment of them points, if anything, to the idea mentioned earlier by myself and several others that they were never intended to be interpreted literally. The OT Kosher laws were presented as something to be interpreted literally, and so he amends them because they are no longer relevant. If Genesis is not to be interpreted literally, there is no need to amend it at all because the key message still remains; there is nothing to amend if you believe in a liberal interpretation of the texts because they are not meant to be stating a scientific fact.
    God is loving, but humanity has fallen to such sin that only the faithful can be saved. Even Christ had to test himself, and much of His activity on earth was to set an example for us all to follow. He fasted for forty days and nights! Every Christian must face substantial tests of faith (evolution being a chief example).

    If you do not interpret Genesis literally, what makes you convinced that other Books are valid? If you have sympathies for science, then perhaps you are being contradicting as there is actually scientific 'evidence' to prove the existence of the flood mentioned in Genesis.

    Yes, it is true that the Bible is quite socialist in some respects. Socialism (under the influence of Marxism) has evidently influenced society. I know at least fifty people who claim that Marx was 'sensible' and 'wise'.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 19, 2011
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.