Discussion in 'Religion' started by Jan Ardena, Jul 24, 2013.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
That makes sense, although I'm not sure you mean by ''a deep desire to believe we are not here by chance''.
As I've said before, I'm not arguing from a religious point of view, and the Bible makes no mention of when 'mankind' (6th day creation) was created. Neither does it mention that Adam was the first man ever.
This is a religious view, not a scriptural one.
We have to try to come out of that thinking (at least for the purpose of discussion) to explore different ideas, otherwise we will always come up against this unnecessary problem (unless discussing religion).
There is a book called 'Forbidden Archeology'' which has cataloged tons of evidence that modern man has been in existence far longer than the current scientific ideas. Of course the atheists/evolutionists hate that book and will no doubt be charging me with the title of ''troll'' for bringing it up, but it is there for you to read and see other sides of this debate.
The process of creation isn't explained in the Bible, it just tells you that God said ''Let there be...'' and ''Let us create...'' and ''Bring forth...'' and so on.
Adam's creation is explained a little but no detail. There is much more detail about God, and creation, in vedic literature, but for some reason a spell has been cast, and it is forbidden to look in those books, as they have nothing to do with God (sarcasm). The atheists, for all their smartness also conform to the Christian boycott of anything non Biblical, or biblical y doctrinal
(maybe because it gives a lift to their opposing arguments).
So what do think about Giant sized humans, the Nephilim, angels, demons, demi-gods, jinns, ghosts, and other creatures? Do you think they're unlikely as well?
I'm sorry if it came across like that, but what I meant was that you're sticking to the mainstream Christian understanding of the Bible to conclude that it is not plausible, and what I'm trying to convey to you is that it is not the only understanding out there. The books may have been put together by the institute, but it has no authority over what is contained within them, and no authority over which other scriptures you read to make comparisons (unless they own you).
So because nobody living was there it didn't occur?
You believe God created the universe. Who was there to confirm it?
Maybe you should read other scriptures to broaden your perspective before concluding that Genesis is a total fabrication, perhaps looking at it from a non religious perspective.
With regards to the OT, it was translated from ancient Hebrew and the NT from koine greek.
Why does there have to be a first man ever?
''Man'' is a body plan, and once the initial construction is made, it can be mass produced by intelligence who knows how.
Genesis states that man and women were created on the sixth day, and they were born with instructions, meaning they all created together. I can appreciate that t his is a difficult
concept to grasp, but then so is creating universes, a concept that you do grasp.
What we can understand from the special creation of Adam, is the difference between the spiritual soul and the material body, and that is a good starting point.
Actually non of it (apart from the brutish thuggery of some) was off-topic. They are simply ideas we have to get past to lay open a route for a good discussion (namely religion).
Not that I'm anti-religion. I happen to think religion in it's pure form (self-realization) is the heights of human ability, it is the institution of religion I find atheistic (just my opinion).
I guess so.
I believe God himself would look for the truth if he bore himself as a regular human being and I think he would of course believe whoever tells him what the truth is like what we're doing we're believing in science because it's actual facts and what is right because we have tested stuff
The book is completely bullshit, in the technical sense - it throws out a variety of contradictory and specious innuendos whose claim to anyone's attention rests on dismissal of any sincere interest in whether what it asserts is in fact physically accurate, supported by reason and evidence, in any sense "true". They may be right, they may be wrong, the book's authors do not care.
And neither does Jan. For an example:
No, it couldn't. There would be nothing "easy" about overthrowing the enormous weight of accumulated evidence regarding the origins of language, the nature of serpents, or the evolutionary tide of living beings then and now. It's an extraordinary claim, and there is no - absolutely no, none - evidence backing it. But this, although well known, does not mean anything to Jan - his demand that the assertions of scripture be taken seriously as claims to physical and historical fact does not rest on reason and evidence.
This is in the first place completely and obviously false - the attention paid by various atheists to Vedic and Buddhist teachings, along with Homeric and other deep mythical traditions, is well known. In the second, the post is symptomatic - the innuendo and personal attack masquerading as argument is standard Jan. He will not, for example, bring his insights from Vedic scriptures explicitly to bear - he alludes to some profound correction or enlightenment available, and that allusion he requires that we respect and treat as valid, as if he were acquainted with what he alludes to, as if it exists - but he will never present it.
They would be irrelevant. All scriptures are irrelevant in the physical, historical, factual evaluation of any one of them, in the sense that no finding of "myth" (preferable to "fabrication") can be contradicted by anything found in any scripture.
The definitions one accepts as valid working material are not free choices, for those with integrity and honesty. They are corrected and modified in light of reason and information and a fundamental allegiance to consistency and sense.
It's a bit ironic that Jan rejects the evidence for evolution out of hand, yet believes every word of "Forbidden Archaeology," a crank's book if there ever was one.
I wonder: is it a desire for conspiracy theories that fuels his antagonism of modern science, or is it simply that religionists are conspiracy theorists are cut from the same moronic cloth?
Which of the 5 definitions in that link Jan?
Are you asking this from ignorance or from a position of insider (occult) knowledge?
Good point. For a lot of what is attributed to God's handiwork does seem like the work of Mother Nature.
Are you a Mormon?
I don't reject darwinian ideas, I'm just not convinced of it, and I'm not the only one.
I look at the National Geographic movie of 'whale evolution' and I see nothing but wishful thinking (though I can't understand why anyone would wish for that to be true). I see where Philip Gingerich goes out of his way to convince us that such a transition took place by dishonest means (at such a high level).
I see the way in which every person with your brand of worldview automatically rubbish anything that does not fit in line with your worldview. I read the same types of attitudes present at the time when these archaeologists submitted their finds.
I doubt very much that you or anyone in your position would be prepared to admit that maybe the darwinian idea may not be the whole story of origins. It's looking a lot more like (the philosophy behind) institutional religion, and less like science.
''A desire for conspiracy theories''?
It's hardly a theory, and I have no desire for conspiracies.
I'm not antagonistic toward modern science, I'm just not sure if what you accuse me of rejecting (darwinian ideas) has breached the meaning of science, and gone into the realm of fantasy, and belief, even though it certaintly seems that way.
'Whale Evolution' The Movie, and the Phil Gingrich stunt, is not doing it for me (what to speak of attitudes like yours).t I suppose it's the elitist, arrogant, careless attitudes that accounts for a good percentage of my doubt, because if something is true, such attitudes are not needed to get that across.
Tell me something. Why is it so important that everyone accepts these ideas?
Why the greatest of them all, I suppose.
''The Supreme Being''
It is important that we understand how we define God in order to work out if we are actually talking about God. If God (for us) is a created being, then we are atheists. The secular definition of God (dictionary) can say anything, or even go with the most popular usage of the word, of the day.
For God to be God, He has to be pure spirit, and everything has to have been ultimately caused by Him. He IS the greatest, the supreme all-pervading spirit who never comes into being, and never ceases to be. Believe it or not, that is ultimately the meaning of free will, imo.
I wonder about that too. I guess that people who believe neither in God nor in reincarnation still need an ego boost, and one way to get it is to conceive of the world in such a way that gives one credit for one's insight and morality.
It's political, yes.
Variety tends to be hard to deal with ...
No I am a self taught Christian. Music thread explains it.
Studying a bit of theology might help you understand how a statement like "For a lot of what is attributed to God's handiwork does seem like the work of Mother Nature" is problematic, even atheistic.
No, it is an insult. I am accusing you, and Jan of course, of bad faith and a personal lack of integrity in your manner of suggesting you possess "definitions" consistent with your contentions du jour. I am pointing out that bs about "definitions" never presented or defended or discussed here, but alluded to and claimed as decisive features of one's argument, is not the behavior of honest people.
That is an attempt to suggest an argument exists and supports you, without the trouble and risk of presenting one - if the quote were in reality "problematic, even atheistic" on some genuine theological grounds, , and you were an honest poster, you would simply post the grounds - or at least make a specific reference to the relevant theological insight.
One could as easily say, with exactly as much support and validity, that studying a bit of theology might help you understand that Mother Nature is the one true God. Why not accept that, instead?
Definitions are usually the result, not the basis, of real discussion anyway. That is because the meanings of terms and phrases are not free choices - if you have any respect for coherence and consistency and reason itself, even a tentative familiarity with the real world.
@Wynn - Why do you say that? If Genesis is partly explained by evolution and evolution is "Mother Nature" God's claim to have made the animals implies The Creator God and Mother Nature are indistinguishable. But that was only from my own logic.
What does "Mother Nature" mean to you?
Given that "honest," "with integrity," "rational" etc. are per default only that which you present, we are, of course, all guilty as charged.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Only in your mind.
And you are the voice of reason embodied, right.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Separate names with a comma.