Biggest Problem With Accepting Christianity

[Danmark]

I suggest that one of the major reasons people do not accept Christianity is that Christians do not accept the teachings of Christ.

While many are eager to call homosexuality a sin because they believe Jesus preached that (even tho' it is unclear that he did);
And even tho' many are adamant that husbands should rule over their wives because Paul said so;

Jesus preached very clearly that if you want to be perfect you should sell all you have, give it to the poor, and follow Him. Here is one of the clearest and most unequivocal teachings of Jesus, yet virtually NO Christian even attempts to follow this command.

And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?�
. . . . “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.�
Matthew 19:16-21

Most if not all give the same response Jesus heard 2000 years ago:

When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

How can people call themselves 'Christian' when they fail to follow this central teaching of Jesus?

[Justin108]

The bible contains no claims that defy true history or proven science and your list is demonstratively not "undisputed" since I am here disputing it.

The Bible claims plant life was made before the sun. This is scientifically impossible

[benchwarmer]

The bible contains no claims that defy true history or proven science and your list is demonstratively not "undisputed" since I am here disputing it.

The Bible claims plant life was made before the sun. This is scientifically impossible

It's also scientifically impossible to stand on a high mountain and see all the kingdoms of the world.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 19 by JehovahsWitness]

Oops. My following reply was given originally to the topic you linked to, JW. I'm just going to repost it here.

It's interesting you mention that inscription when Richard Carrier discusses it here
http://infidels.org/library/modern/rich ... Tiburtinus
and points out that the inscription makes NO MENTION of Quirinius. He also makes mention of an obituary of Quirinius which again, makes no mention of a second governorship and that in fact, the idea of a person governing the same area twice within the Roman Empire is implausible.

I also want to quote directly from that page

:
But first I will mention the several preliminary reasons why this "theory" is absurd. First, we know that Quintilius Varus, not Sulpicius Quirinius, was governor of Syria from 7 B.C. to just after Herod's death in 4 B.C. (and Calpurnius Piso came after him), while before him Sentius Saturninus held the post from 10 B.C. to 7 B.C., and he took the post immediately after Marcus Titius, who probably had been appointed in 13 B.C. (as three years was the typical length of a governorship).[4.1] In other words:

13-10 B.C. Marcus Titius
10-7 B.C. Sentius Saturninus
7-4 B.C. Quintilius Varus
4-1 B.C. Calpurnius Piso

Where can we fit in a 'first' governorship of Quirinius?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 18 by JehovahsWitness]

What one considers reasonable or not would depend largely on one's worldview. That you consider the above unreasonable, is a matter of opinion (based on your personal beliefs). In actuality, there is nothing in your list that is unreasonable.

Danmark makes mention of talking animals, and unless my memory is failing me, I recall you making mention recently of you disbelieving the idea of a talking snake (since it has no vocal cords).
Yet apparently here, you're saying the idea of talking animals is reasonable?

Care to weigh in on what looks to me to be you flip-flopping?

[PghPanther]

[Replying to Danmark]

The reason I don't follow Christianity has nothing to do with its doctrine and/or dogma.........but for the simple fact that its claims are fantasy and have no demonstrable seat in reality.

If I was to find out it was true then I would deal with that then.........but it would have to be as obvious to me as gravity.........and not this feelings, personal testimony.....and its a miracle!......nonsense claims.......

[JehovahsWitness]

The bible contains no claims that defy true history or proven science and your list is demonstratively not "undisputed" since I am here disputing it.

The Bible claims plant life was made before the sun. This is scientifically impossible

The bible makes no such claim, I do concede however that you sincerely believe that is what the bible means according to your own interpretation of various bible texts. The fact remains however that the words "plant life was made before the sun" are words that never appear in scripture.

[Bust Nak]

The bible makes no such claim, I do concede however that you sincerely believe that is what the bible means according to your own interpretation of various bible texts. The fact remains however that the words "plant life was made before the sun" are words that never appear in scripture.

From a previous conversation on this topic, I got the impression that your interpretation of Genesis goes along the lines of the sun being created before plant life but was only presented after the creation of plant life. Can you confirm if I got the right impression; and if so, explain how that helps makes the account in genesis any more scientifically viable?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 21 by Justin108]


DOES THE BIBLE SAY GOD CREATED PLANTS BEFORE HE CREATED THE SUN/LIGHT?

No, it does not. The first verse of Genesis (1:1) mentions the creation of the heavenly bodies, it reads: "In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth ..." This no doubt would have included our sun and the stars.


DAY 1
On the first creative "day" the bible explains that initially " the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep ..." (note, it did not say the universe had no light, only that what light may have existed did not reach "the surface" of the planet at the time. Evidently, the light from the sun was not visible from the earth. Scientists theorize that the primitive earth long remained covered in darkness, due to outgassing from volcanic eruptions.



Eventually God proceeded to say: "Let light come to be." This "light" came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Hebrew word there used for "light" (on day 1) is "ohr", meaning light in a general sense; the SOURCES of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth.

Translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: And gradually light came into existence. (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis).

To illustrate: Have you ever tried to find the sun on a day when the sky was completely overcast? You know the sun i s THERE (it's not dark, there is light) but you cannot see where the light is coming from because of the clouds. This is similar to the situation from days 1 through 3 in Genesis with the planet moving gradually from being shrouded in darkness (due to the light being blocked from reaching its "suface") to having enough light for plants to grow.

DAY 3
By the close of this third creative period, however, the diffused light would have become quite strong, ample for the process of photosynthesis so vital to green plants. Thus the creation of the three broad categories of land plants.

DAY 4

On the fourth day the bible speaks of the luminaries or the light sources. On this day, the Hebrew word for LIGHT changes to "ohr", which esentially refers to the source of the light. The Emphasised Bible, states that the Hebrew word ma'ohr used in verse 14 means something affording light. So on this fourth day, the "source" of light would have become discernable The atmosphere cleared enough for the SOURCE of light to be clearly distinguishable.



v3 [ohr], light diffused- affording light"- Luminaries, Rotherham, Emphasised Bible


Strongs #216 Light "owr" [Genesis 1:3]
http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebibl ... 2.htm#S216

Strongs #3974 Light "ma'owr" [Genesis 1:14] "properly, a luminous body or luminary"
http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebibl ... .htm#S3974


NOTE In hebrew there are two distinct words used in Genesis, "Bara" which basically means CREATE (ie make from 'nothing') and "asah" (which means "do" "make" "prepare") ie, process what has already been created. The word used in the English "MADE [...the liminaries] in Genesis 1:16 is "asah" so it does not mean God created the luminaries at that time but by the fourth day he made (or enabled/caused) the already previously created heavenly bodies to serve their purpose.

CONCLUSION: Though some, from a perfunctory reading of Genesis conclude that the sun, stars and all universal light sources are spoken of coming into existence on the fourth day, this is in fact not what the text actually says.



RELATED POST

Does the bible contain information that harmonises with proven science ?
viewtopic.php?p=1036526#p1036526

Does the bible say God created plants before the sun?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 17#p836617

Did the sun stop shining the day Jesus died?
viewtopic.php?p=1008274#p1008274

Did Joshua report the earth stopped spinning when the sun stood still ?
viewtopic.php?p=855182#p855182

Does the bible say God created plants BEFORE he created the sun/light?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 17#p836617

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

EVOLUTION, BIBLE & SCIENCE and ...THE 7 CREATIVE DAYS OF GENESIS

Further reading
http://nephesh-chaiyah.blogspot.com/200 ... hayah.html
BARA v ASAH Doesn't the bible say that God MADE the luminaries on the 4th day?

[bjs]

I tend to agree that one of the major reasons non-Christians reject Christianity is because Christians fail to live out the commands of our Lord. However, this thread does not seem to be an example of that.

In post 5 JehovahsWitness brought up some valid critiques of the opening post, which have been hand waved away without any effort at a response.

This points to a different reason some people reject Christianity. There are those who cherry-pick a passage out of its context and insist that it must be precisely literal and universal. They claim they are reading the Bible “at face value� while ignoring the context of the immediate passage, the Bible on the whole, and faith community in which it developed.

When Christians try to discuss the passage in its context they are accused of twisting or not following what the scriptures say. Rejecting context like this, be it from Christians or non-Christians, will always lead someone making the Bible say what they want instead of taking the Bible for what it is.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 29 by bjs]

This points to a different reason some people reject Christianity. There are those who cherry-pick a passage out of its context and insist that it must be precisely literal and universal.

Of course, any time WE read a certain passage literally, we're automatically wrong...I mean, who are we to discuss the Bible, what with us not being believers?
It doesn't help the situation any when we can talk to any random believer and be told that of course Passage XYZ does have to be read literally...or not, depending on who exactly we're talking to.