- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Human evolution: astounding new story of the origin of our species
Posted on 4/3/20 at 5:48 pm to kingbob
Posted on 4/3/20 at 5:48 pm to kingbob
What it boils down to is a view of scripture as divinely inspired and preserved vs. a view of scripture that is man-made and/or not preserved. You believe the Bible to not be authentic in its message which gives you license to interpret it however you want. If, for instance, the Bible is not truly the word of God, at least not in its current form, there is a lot of room to interpret sections of it however you wish, making Genesis to be little more than fables and parables written down to deliver a general message rather than an attempt to provide historical truth.
Your doubts about the Bible are noted, though I believe they are completely unfounded and biased by a desire to not be bound by it. Even so, there is no reason to believe that the Genesis we have is poetry or a parable, as you seem to be clinging to in order to justify your view of origins. No matter your view of it, the evidence of the text itself, the interpretation of the text by those throughout history, or the context (historical or literary) can lead an honest person to anything but a literal meaning of the creation account. You have to ignore what is written and assume a style of writing that doesn't exist in order to force a pretext into what is actually written, which was my point from the start.
And yes, scientific knowledge can certainly inform us about how God has worked in the world He created, but it cannot be viewed apart from God's revelation. Humans are not neutral and the evidence we have is not brute but must be interpreted by biased sinners. We have to have an ultimate authority. The question is what that is: is it the word of an immutable God who cannot lie, or is it the philosophies and fallen understandings of fallible men?
Your doubts about the Bible are noted, though I believe they are completely unfounded and biased by a desire to not be bound by it. Even so, there is no reason to believe that the Genesis we have is poetry or a parable, as you seem to be clinging to in order to justify your view of origins. No matter your view of it, the evidence of the text itself, the interpretation of the text by those throughout history, or the context (historical or literary) can lead an honest person to anything but a literal meaning of the creation account. You have to ignore what is written and assume a style of writing that doesn't exist in order to force a pretext into what is actually written, which was my point from the start.
And yes, scientific knowledge can certainly inform us about how God has worked in the world He created, but it cannot be viewed apart from God's revelation. Humans are not neutral and the evidence we have is not brute but must be interpreted by biased sinners. We have to have an ultimate authority. The question is what that is: is it the word of an immutable God who cannot lie, or is it the philosophies and fallen understandings of fallible men?
1
Posted on 4/3/20 at 5:50 pm to FutureMikeVIII
quote:
If there was no first Adam, there can’t be a second Adam (Christ).
If death didn’t come into the world through sin, then dying for sin to ultimately defeat death makes no sense.
If Christ taught that Genesis was history, then He was either ignorant of the truth or He was a liar. Either way, He wouldn’t be divine if He believed a lie about the history He claimed to know for certain.
I agree 100% with this from a purely theological perspective. I think it's very difficult to make sense of Christianity without a literal Fall bringing death and suffering into the world. However, I don't believe a literal Fall happened. It just doesn't mesh with my understanding of the geological and biological history of the world. Therefore, I don't believe Christianity is valid.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 5:57 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
But again, you haven't provided a reason why it can't be any different than what it is.
I have. Because A cannot equal anything but A.
quote:
Where do immaterial, universal, invariable, and necessary things like logic come from in a material, particular, changing, and contingent universe?
In our case, the human brain.
quote:
You're saying they just do, because...
Occam's Razor. Based on what we know of the human brain, so far, nothing supernatural is needed. Christians have had to invent the antenna theory were our brains really are a giant collection of antennas taped together because neurology has shown how are brains are compartmentalized to such a high degree a highly specific brain injuries have created some pretty crazy cases - people can no longer recognize faces, can name all the parts of a car (tire, window, etc.) but don't know what the entire object is, etc.
For Christians, the human brain can't be all there is, so each part of the brain is just an antenna that, when damaged, can no longer receive the signal needed to do that highly specific task. It's just more unfalsifiable beliefs to cling to their long held religious beliefs.
quote:
The laws of logic are a reflection of the very nature of God and exist out of necessity due to God's existence.
Speaking of unfalsifiable beliefs...
quote:
Due to the impossibility of the contrary.
Which you have not demonstrated.
quote:
Christ's sacrifice
Hadn't occurred for Noah's flood, the Midianite massacure, the 10th plague of Egypt, when God decided to kill tens of thousands of Hebrews because David performed a peacetime census, the aftermath of the battle of Jericho, etc.
So mercy hadn't entered the picture yet. So back to my critique. Being perfectly just is always giving the proper amount of punishment for a misdeed, not selectively applying it.
quote:
The analogy you gave assumes some level of innocence on behalf of the crowds getting mowed down
With respect to Pharaoh denying the Hebrews their leave, why weren't the children in Egypt innocent?
Again, Jesus didn't die, there's no mercy, there's no selectively applying justice when we're dealing with a perfectly just being.
quote:
and a level of unwarranted malice on behalf of the driver.
I mean, while I'm sure the delivery was important, he did have an option not to run people over (route B).
quote:
I think a better analogy would be a holy king whose subjects treasonously rebel against him and so he chooses to pardon some while others he gives the death penalty.
And he just so happened to kill the children treasonous rebels, right?
That's a horrible analogy to the 10th plague. There was only one person actively rebelling, and it was Pharaoh.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 6:00 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
My justification for objective moral reasoning is thus:
1. Objective morality requires an objective moral standard (one that applies equally and universally to all humanity)
2. An objective moral standard requires an objective/transcendent and personal standard-giver
3. Only an eternal and personal God can provide an objective moral standard
So as I said, everything that exists (even immaterial things like morality) needs a creator but not *your* creator, he's the only thing that's eternal. Seems I was spot on.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 6:00 pm to bfniii
quote:
like anything else, it's important to remember that all theories are pending
There is scant evidence supporting anything but the out-of-Africa model. That doesn't mean this model doesn't have its discontents, problems, or issues, especially as it relates to the dispersal process out of Africa. Indeed, the early mtDNA studies (done by Brown, 1980, Cann, 1987, Vigilant 1991 among others I might be missing) served as the backbone of the model, and are in agreement with the fossil evidence. It is the fact that the genetic evidence and the fossil evidence point to the same conclusion is why the model is accepted and won out. I don't understand resistance to the theory, in all honestly.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 6:02 pm to bfniii
quote:
anytime someone makes a judgment they are doing so from a sense of objectivity. otherwise, why even make the claim to begin with. there is no reason.
What's your favorite flavor of ice cream?
Posted on 4/3/20 at 6:05 pm to FooManChoo
quote:which i, and plenty of others, have done
I just ask that when criticism is leveled against me for my religious views, that it is support by scripture.
quote:
There are plenty of biblical scholars that also think that Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead
when i say biblical scholars, i'm not referring to secular knuckleheads. i'm referring to real biblical scholars and i can't imagine there's even one who supports the claim you just made quote:the bible does not exclusively support your claim so this appeal to sola scriptura is irrelevant
call of the Reformation to sola scriptura has been all but abandoned
quote:there are people who do not agree with your characterization who are doing so from scripture. not from "something else."
These days the scriptures are interpreted by everything else
quote:and this is absolutely, totally wrong. you are mistaken on this matter and you have been invited to reconsider your position. biblical scholarship does not support what you are saying.
the orthodox christian view of the scriptures contradicts the teachings of evolutionary origins
quote:i realize you think this helps your point but it doesn't. there is no need to necessarily connect Jesus to adam merely for the purposes of creation. nothing in that phrase by paul had any intention of being interpreted that way. 1 cor 15 is not about the creation story.
Christ being the second Adam
quote:who did nothing to affirm yec over oec
who taught as if Adam was a real person and Genesis was historical
quote:which is not necessarily right, in and of itself nor is it necessarily of primary spiritual importance, i.e. sotierology
the historical teaching
quote:you're doing the same thing. you are using a particular kind of interpretation which isn't even on solid ground nor does it match what we observe in nature/general revelation.
you're wanting to interpret the scriptures based on fallible human reasoning in the sciences
quote:oec positions do NOT do this. you are mischaracterizing them, probably because you have misplaced trust in a position for emotional reasons. there is absolutely no problem harmonzing special revelation with general revelation. none whatsoever. and trying to shoehorn a particular interpretation over and against general revelation is not proper hermeneutics, get this, even if it is proper exegesis.
rather than using the scriptures to form the basis for how we are to interpret reality, including within the sciences
Posted on 4/3/20 at 6:08 pm to nematocyte
quote:
This is a "because I said so" claim, it belongs in the trash heap of bad Christian arguments right alongside "we get our morals from god."
good grief we have raised a couple of generations of idiots. is your claim subject to objective truth? no. so i can reject it because it's stupid. my word quote:well let's hear it champ. ball's in your court
I could substitute any number of gods and ask you the same question, and your special pleading response isn't going to help your case.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 6:10 pm to Azkiger
quote:so you don't have this information. just as i thought.
I'm sure you'll claim to be open minded as well
Posted on 4/3/20 at 6:14 pm to Azkiger
quote:
and that rule I just made up, I'm going to break it
what rule is this that was broken? quote:so you're saying that God, who is immaterial/noumenal is bound to material/phenomenal laws? explain how that makes sense. no, God does not require a cause because only things that are created require a cause. he is the uncaused cause or the prime mover.
God is eternal so he doesn't need an explanation like I demand everything you postulate does
quote:that's probably because you don't understand what you are critiquing
you're selling a used Volvo not a Ferrari.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 6:17 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:we've got a floater
Fun Bunch
so you think universal common descent does NOT have major, major problems? wow. let me guess, you learned about it from your bio 101 professor who told everyone on the first day of class "if you're a christian, raise your hand."
Posted on 4/3/20 at 6:18 pm to bfniii
quote:
one of the easiest tasks in all of epistemology. you wouldn't even have an idea of what rationality is without a rationality giver. otherwise, everything would just be instinct like animals who don't have consciousness.
If it's so easy go ahead and demonstrate it.
quote:
God told the midianites to stop and they didn't. but make sure you blame God for that.
So you think my critique of God was that he simply told the Midianites to stop?
quote:
did he need to? was he obligated to do that?
quote:
what makes you think he does?
quote:
did they oppose pharaoh or did they rise up and tell him to obey god?
quote:
is that necessary?
Before you jump into someone else's conversation with an attitude at least know the context of said conversation.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 6:21 pm to Jay Quest
quote:yep. this has got to be the lamest, most juvenile attempt to ball up the fists, stomp the feet and say I HATE GOD AND I DON'T BELIEVE IN HIM. after they say stuff always existed, the convention becomes a science fiction nerd fest.
"it was always there."
i don't deny the attempts are creative, such as colliding branes and whatnot, but it just kicks the philosophical/ontological can down the road
Posted on 4/3/20 at 6:22 pm to ImaObserver
quote:
Since when did the "Politics" board become the religeous discussion board?
these discussions have been going on for freaking years. where have you been. if you don't like it, go somewhere elsePosted on 4/3/20 at 6:39 pm to kingbob
quote:totally incorrect.
There is always meaning lost
quote:opportunity, yes. reality, no. even ehrman agrees with that.
These waves of translations present multiple opportunities for language to be misapplied or misconstrued
quote:while this is true, we can look at extant manuscripts and know that the meaning has not been lost or the context of the text changed. pretty much all biblical scholars, both christian and secular, agree on this. the situation is not nearly as imprecise as you are making it out to be. the biblical authors knew multiple languages. they knew what words they were choosing. you want to really be blown away? study john 1:1. john was very aware of neo platonism
different languages lacking words for certain things or having the same word mean many different things in different contexts
quote:but the essene texts match the mt, the syriac, etc.
That’s just assuming that the 5 books of moses the Essenes were using in the second century are identical to those Moses actually wrote likely 1600 years or more before that
quote:this has been strongly substantiated by evans, witherington, wallace, etc.
And that genesis, which previously was an oral tradition, remained unchanged from Adam to Noah and all the way to Moses
quote:what about them? given the number of manuscripts, the number of variants is low and they don't at all affect the meaning of the text
but what about the thousands of scholars who have had a hand in crafting the words on the page you actually get to read between those divine authors and now?
quote:whoa. i guess you've been reading second quest scholars. let's just say their perspectives didn't age well in academia. these stories are very well supported historically. there is no need to make such a claim.
It doesn’t matter one bit if those stories happened or not
quote:jesus was very much interested in "gatekeeping" and excluding false teachers. he was very much interested in purity. and faith does not have to be blind or irrational.
The key is to learn the lesson and apply it, not to gatekeep knowledge and exclude others based on purity tests of blind faith
Posted on 4/3/20 at 6:46 pm to kingbob
quote:
Granted, in the Jewish tradition, there was no afterlife
have you heard of sheol? sure the sadducees didn't believe in the afterlife. but they were just one sect and perhaps the only one to not believe in the afterlife. quote:totally, completely wrong. i'm not saying they believed in the medieval concept of heaven and hell. but they definitely believed in the afterlife.
Before Jesus, there was no concept of a heaven for man nor a hell. There was only death
Posted on 4/3/20 at 7:01 pm to Azkiger
quote:what about it? i assume you're referring to exodus 34. it does not say the commandments are different.
The Bible can't even get the 10 commandments straight... Go look at the second set that was created after Moses broke the first set
quote:first, that's not one of the 10 commandments halfwit. that's a totally different set of obligations given for moses to WRITE DOWN (34:27). not inscribed on the tablets by God. and btw, do you know why God gave those additional obligations?
not boiling a goat in its mothers milk
i have said this so many times but it's like you people learned about religion from a freaking comic book. you don't even understand what you're criticizing.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 7:07 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Based on what we know of the human brain, so far, nothing supernatural is needed
nothing about neurology obviates anything supernatural or metaphysical. quote:what in the hell is this rambling diatribe and what does it have to do with anything
Christians have had to invent the antenna theory were our brains really are a giant collection of antennas taped together because neurology has shown how are brains are compartmentalized to such a high degree a highly specific brain injuries have created some pretty crazy cases - people can no longer recognize faces, can name all the parts of a car (tire, window, etc.) but don't know what the entire object is, etc.
quote:adam and eve didn't receive mercy? noah's family didn't receive mercy? abraham, sarah, isaac? my word. just say you're ignorant and stop commenting.
So mercy hadn't entered the picture yet
quote:what makes you think they were innocent?
why weren't the children in Egypt innocent?
Posted on 4/3/20 at 7:09 pm to Azkiger
quote:that is correct. absolutely right. in philosophy, God is a necessary being. creation is contingent. contingent things need a cause. necessary things do not need a cause.
So as I said, everything that exists (even immaterial things like morality) needs a creator but not *your* creator, he's the only thing that's eternal
Posted on 4/3/20 at 7:13 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:that does not work in the african model's favor. it just means at this time, there is more evidence for it. it's not a zero sum game.
There is scant evidence supporting anything but the out-of-Africa model
quote:i have no "resistance" to it. just calling it what it is - tenative
I don't understand resistance to the theory
Page 9 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News