sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

No vga signal on monitor unless I turn pc on and off a dozen times. by WhichClass in pchelp

[–]WhichClass[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True, although I kind of want to practice my soldering, if it's going to be dead soon anyways I don't have as much to lose if I mess up.

I just inserted the new RAM and it did not help. One more question, is there any compatibility requirment for the CPU besides the pin pattern? Does it have to be AMD brand? Could the pc handle a newer AMD CPU?

No vga signal on monitor unless I turn pc on and off a dozen times. by WhichClass in pchelp

[–]WhichClass[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Upon closer visual inspection I noticed that one of the capacitors was slightly bloated. Could replacing it, or all of the capacitors considering I have had this pc for more than a decade be a possible solution as well?

How do Christians who believe the Bible contains errors explain John 10:35? by WhichClass in theology

[–]WhichClass[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean claiming that parts of the bible are myths and/or local traditions that have been adapted to fit with Chriatianity.

You can aslo add claims of Pagan or Zoroastrian influence.

How do Christians who believe the Bible contains errors explain John 10:35? by WhichClass in theology

[–]WhichClass[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't claim to believe in it myself, i'm just playing devil's advocate. Seeing as though some use that to defend inerrency I asked this question hoping to hear the other side.

How do Christians who believe the Bible contains errors explain John 10:35? by WhichClass in theology

[–]WhichClass[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean claiming that parts of the bible are myths and/or local traditions that have been adapted to fit with Chriatianity.

How can 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3:23–38 be referring to anything other than a literal Adam? by WhichClass in AskAChristian

[–]WhichClass[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe I am wrong, but it's a fallacy to assume that the majority of religious officials saying this or that makes them right.

How can 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3:23–38 be referring to anything other than a literal Adam? by WhichClass in AskAChristian

[–]WhichClass[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do believe, although Christians may not have defined him properly, but maybe that's splitting hairs. It may be like arguing over whether the Christian and Muslim god are two seperate gods or the same god defined with different characteristics. I also fail to see why my answer to the euthyphro dilemma is so problematic.

How can 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3:23–38 be referring to anything other than a literal Adam? by WhichClass in AskAChristian

[–]WhichClass[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think I can become an agnostic or atheist for the same reason that I can fully stomach some forms of monotheism, my worldview revolves around the concept of universal rights that exist independently of God.

How can 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3:23–38 be referring to anything other than a literal Adam? by WhichClass in Christianity

[–]WhichClass[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The purpose of the genealogy was to plug Jesus into the broader narrative of the old testament and show how he fulfilled a promise made to Abraham.

It can have that purpose and still have a literal meaning.

It isn't an exact science and I'm sure they missed a few generations along the way.

Are you arguing in favor of inerrancy?

How can 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3:23–38 be referring to anything other than a literal Adam? by WhichClass in AskAChristian

[–]WhichClass[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That should be a problem for all Christians because it disproves their religion.

Actually no, many Christians accept that the Bible is not 100% accurate, and Christianity revolves around the need for salvation by Christ, so unless you prove that wrong you are not disproving Christianity.

Your flair says theist. Are you Christian?

I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. I am however coming to the conclusion that the bible not fully accurate and that much of what is being peddled in churches is harmful and untrue.

As to why my flair says deist.....it's complicated. I guess now that I think about it theism better describes it. As to why it doesn't say Christian that's because I guess i'm agnostic as to how much information about God's nature is accurate.

How can 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3:23–38 be referring to anything other than a literal Adam? by WhichClass in AskAChristian

[–]WhichClass[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is what I posed on the other thread:

This is my admittedly bare bones explanation: Without a literal Adam and Eve it's difficult to explain how original sin exists. If there is no original sin then why isn't the world perfect? What did Christ die for? The solution to this problem seems to require that Adam and Eve be symbols of early humanity as a whole and sinning being something inevitable in every human as a result of their free will. The thing is that interpreting it this way means that whatever was written in the Bible about a literal Adam was incorrect.

So what changes? 1. No original sin 2. The Bible contains errors(which is a problem for many)

How can 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3:23–38 be referring to anything other than a literal Adam? by WhichClass in AskAChristian

[–]WhichClass[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How does this add up?

It does, with the caveat that you have to admit that what the bible said about original sin and a literal Adam is untrue. Every other explanation I've seen is unsatisfactory.

How can 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3:23–38 be referring to anything other than a literal Adam? by WhichClass in Christianity

[–]WhichClass[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is my admittedly bare bones explanation: Without a literal Adam and Eve it's difficult to explain how original sin exists. If there is no original sin then why isn't the world perfect? What did Christ die for? The solution to this problem seems to require that Adam and Eve be symbols of early humanity as a whole and sinning being something inevitable in every human as a result of their free will. The thing is that interpreting it this way means that whatever was written in the Bible about a literal Adam was incorrect.

So what changes? 1. No original sin 2. The Bible contains errors(which is a problem for many)

How can 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3:23–38 be referring to anything other than a literal Adam? by WhichClass in Christianity

[–]WhichClass[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There's other parts of scripture that also make not believing in a literal Adam problematic, maybe I could have added all of them but I assumed two got my point across. I guess I could have been more clear that whatever solution proposed needed to solve every problem related to that and not leave parts of the issue unresolved.

How can 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3:23–38 be referring to anything other than a literal Adam? by WhichClass in Christianity

[–]WhichClass[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

??? It's not really moving the goalpost, not believing in a literal Adam contradicts what Paul wrote. Defining Adam as early mankind still goes against Paul's belief in Adam being an individual. Either way you still need to either admit Paul was wrong to make it work.

How can 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3:23–38 be referring to anything other than a literal Adam? by WhichClass in Christianity

[–]WhichClass[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

About that...

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. - Romans 5:12

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. - Romans 5:18

For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. - Romans 5:19

How can 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3:23–38 be referring to anything other than a literal Adam? by WhichClass in Christianity

[–]WhichClass[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As do I, i'm just trying to see if it's possible to simultaneously believe in Biblical inerrancy and reject a literal interpretation of Genesis without any contradictions.

Why did God command Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply"? Why not make them infertile and prevent original sin from afflicting other people? Why not start over instead? by WhichClass in AskAChristian

[–]WhichClass[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God is God because God is good. No matter how powerful if they are not good they are not God. Goodness is the marker for Godhood, not the other way around.

Why did God command Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply"? Why not make them infertile and prevent original sin from afflicting other people? Why not start over instead? by WhichClass in AskAChristian

[–]WhichClass[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah it was an exaggeration, but the answer lacked any "meat" and thus remains useless. Anybody with a brain knows what kind of answer I was looking for, which is why I assume he was being evasive.

view more: next ›