Agreed. Also Agreed. But not now. I actually think that the garden, indeed our innocence, represents a time when we were still in trees gathering our food. The advent of Adam was the moment we fundamentally changed as a species, capable of communing with God. The gain of the knowledge of good and evil was the point at which we started to recognize a difference between the natural life and some sort of spiritual righteousness. And the expulsion from Eden was the point at which we started hunting as well - the moment we became omnivorous. I believe that when we started eating meat, we started smelling differently, and all the animals with whom we lived in peace in Eden started recognizing us as a threat. In this view, "sin" is seen as an integral part of who we are as humans, indeed it is our capability for consideration and choice that makes us responsible for our actions. But since we are still natural creatures, we cannot be perfect spiritually. The objections from jplappl and SnakeLord are excellent examples of how our natural state gets in the way of spiritual perfection. They are so hung up on physical suffering that their souls cannot transcend this life and experience the Spirit of God. This is the natural state of man. I think rather we should DEcanonize the Bible, or at least the NT. Though Christ never said anything on the matter, those with him recognized that scripture was complete, and that Christ ushered in a new era in which we are finally 'spiritual adults' that can be held responsible for our actions and growth, without requiring the recurring intercession of God. We can now commune with him directly, and are spiritually mature enough to be capable of following him (even if we still choose not to). Atheism, or Atheists? Yeah, this is basically what I was saying above. Then I apologize for being so dismissive of it. It just sounded like you were making a leap from God's actions to those of the Isralites. In rereading it, I can better see what you were saying - that for the Israelites to recognize such barbarity as a miracle in the first place seems quite UN-Godlike. Would that be a correct assesment of your comment? If so, my response is again that Godliness has nothing to do with material things. The laws of Moses were NOT testaments to Godliness. People confuse cleanliness with Godliness (probably thanks to the saying "cleanliness is next to Godliness"), and the laws of the OT were largely observations of cleanliness and rules for conduct that were never intended to apply to anything spiritual. Actually READING the scriptures reveals that. It is only because churches teach such corruptions of the scriptures that people today think that it is what the Bible actually says. Such ignorance and misinformation is precisely why people are so easily miself into believing the Bible somehow justifies the evil that others want to carry out. It is not by any stretch of the imagination inconsistent. You may not approve of how God's perfection is described, but the Bible IS consistent in describing it. Once again, the message is that things of the Spirit are not material. God alleviates suffering of the soul, not the body (though Christ did at times because he was human and could empathize with the suffering of the body, of the material). In every instance of people getting killed at the hands of God in the OT, it is because they got in the way of spirituality, which is consistently the thing God cares about. God has no qualms about killing people to save their souls, or the souls of others - because God (and the spiritual man) recognize the importance of the Spirit, and the irrelevance of the body. POE? You can consider it a shoddy excuse if you like, but it is common because it is what the Bible says. You can't call it inconsistent or contradictory, but you are of course free to find it unsatisfactory. Such a position is predicted in the NT (1 Cor 2:14). Yes, I believe so. 2 Cor 12 is a good example, though there is plenty more (such as the entire book of Job). I just don't have time to look it all up at the moment. Just because they thought it was a miracle doesn't mean it actually was, and just because they were unreligious doesn't mean they couldn't be moved by the Spirit. The laws of physics to begin with. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oops. Sorry. I probably pasted the wrong Quote tag in front of that line. Ok Jan. If the intent of the first few verses was indeed to describe what God did rather than how, how would you expect it to be worded? (IOW, it sounds to me like it is saying what God did, not how.) No, it contradicts what you THINK the creation story is. There WOULDN'T be anything in the Bible to discuss natural selection or abiogenesis because the men of the time knew nothing of such concepts. They wouldn't even have the language to describe it, even if such scientific details had been revealed by God. Instead, the Bible doesn't say anything at all about the early development of life. Knowledge doesn't have to be a quest to understand God alone. Knowledge, or rather the pursuit of it, cane be a quest to understand a great many different things, including God. That science seeks to better understand nature, and that God has full control over nature, is really irrelevant (or at least, I need you to point out the relevance of your comment).
i've heard vegetarians saying they were vegetarians to help them cleanse their sole's.. we still want to live on autopilot..much less stressful..but it doesn't help spiritual growth.. IE..lack of consideration or choice..'because he told me too'...is not a choice..this is avoidance of responsibility.. maybe they are just too young to understand,how much of that struggle is caused by oneself.. Solus..i appreciate reading your posts..alot of what you say is what i want to say,but i can't find the words to say.. :worship:
SolusCado, It most probably sounds like that to you because you have a preconceived idea of how God created the earth. It say's; God said let there be light, and there was light. What more do you need from that? Obviously they didn't know that God created the earth and its inhabitants, because the knowledge had to be passed down. What is ironic is the we don't even know that today with all our technology and mundane knowledge. They obviously bred animals, and were very choosy about keeping to their own particular bloodline. So I'm sure they understood natural selection that applicable to them, despite not being aware of the small detail. As for abiogenesis; What do we KNOW about it today? Is it even true? Does it make sense outside of an atheistic worldview? Maybe they don't know about it because it is nonsense. Oh come on! I'm sure someone must have thought life grows out of nature. When baby crocs come out of the ground, someone must have thought that's where they originate. Or when rotten meat becomes infested with maggots. And what is the point of that knowledge? Eating, sleeping, sex life, and offending/defending? Imagine living in a city and regarding those who control it irrelevant. That could eventually lead to some problems. Chances are no good will come out of it. jan.
Quite the contrary. I learned Genesis before I ever learned anything about evolution or cosmology. It is you I am afraid that is applying our preconceived notions to text that doesn't say nearly as much as you think it does. Consider this statement from this morning: "I said 'Let's get coffee', and we got coffee." Does that mean it was me saying "Lets get coffee" that made coffee magically appear in my hands? Of course not. Then why would you draw such a conclusion from "God said 'Let there be Light, and there was light'"? Also, you never answered my question. I honestly have no idea what your point with this statement is. Keeping property and inheritances in your own family doesn't convey any knowledge of natural selection whatsoever. Neither does farming animals. Regarding abiogenesis, we know quite a bit. Just pick up the latest issues of Discover or turn on the History or Science channels to find out more. As for your response of "Is it even true?", I am reminded of the unscrupulous news agencies that don't actually have any reason to think a person is responsible for something, and they have no legitimate sources, but because they want to get an idea of doubt out there, they will make statements such as "Is Obama actually a US Citizen?" IOW, either come up with a reason for your objections or don't bring them up. So are you suggesting that the authors of the Old Testament DID have the language necessary to describe things such as molecules, atoms, chemical reactions, etc.? For those of a scientific or philosophic bent, the point of knowledge is to know. It requires no other purpose. It is curiosity that drives us. A desire - indeed a need - to know and understand. Not everyone shares that interest, just as not everyone is spiritually minded and has a desire to know and understand God. Just because you don't share such a mindset doesn't make the mindset illegitimate. Ummm... that happens every day. Do you even know who your mayor is? And if you do know who s/he is, how much do you know about him/her? It is good to know what the laws of a city are, but there is no inherent value in knowing who runs it.
Surely God's potencies are much greater than ours, and in some way much different than ours. Countless Universes emanate from Him - and we are supposed to think that He is bound by the same puny physical laws as ourselves?? Keeping property in one's family, farming animals and such are acts of selection. One needn't have a formal education in the sciences to know better than to plant weak and moldy seeds. Yet we know nothing conclusive, as scientific knowledge is, per its nature, inconclusive. I don't think he suggested that a mindset of curiosity is somehow illegitimate. There are, however, higher interests than mere curiosity; namely, finding the Absolute Truth.
My example was regarding language. What in the language of Genesis would lead you to believe anything more was being said than in the example I gave of me deciding to get coffee? See above. This point is irrelevant. I'm not talking about God's power. I'm talking about the text of Genesis and the language used. Again, irrelevant - my point is that they didn't have the language necessary to describe things in the same terminology we would use today, given our advanced technology. Irrelevant to my points. Jan asked what the point was in pursuing knowledge outside God. That suggests a mindset of curiosity in anything other than God is useless.
That it speaks about God, and not about you, and certainly not about coffee. If we agree that God is the Creator, the Maintainer, the Controller, the Absolute Truth and the aim of human life, then pursuing knowledge that does not have God as its aim, or that is not in the service to the pursuit of such knowledge, is indeed useless, as it only distracts from the goal.
Linguistically, what is the difference? This may be why some theism gets such disdain from the atheistic world. God created everything, including our minds and curiosity. Better understanding the world around us, and better manipulating our resources to expand and grow, are all testaments to His Creation. I'm not saying that it ISN'T important - but it also isn't the only thing. You sound like a Puritan... Anything other than hard work and learning about God is a waste. If mankind always had that approach, we wouldn't have any technology at all, meaning no medicine for healing, less efficient food production (which would lead to massive starving), and perhaps above all everyone would be so focused on surviving none would be able to focus on God.
Linguistically, there may perhaps be none. But conceptually, theologically, there is a crucial one. I can understand that from your evolutionist-Christian position this is the standard objection. However, could you try to consider this: Proper knowledge of God informs us of what we need to do and how we need to do it. Technological advancement without proper knowledge of God is useless.
Ahh. Perhaps now we get to the point. If there isn't a difference linguistically, where do you think the theological distinction arose? You are now getting into a conversation that is meaningless to an atheist, and as such inappropriate for this particular forum. I actually tend to agree with you theologically, but the concets are meaningless outside a shared theological point of view.
We all set the terms. But debating how a Christian should behave in a forum that is full of atheists would be like me engaging the rest of you in how the guy sitting in the next desk over should bathe more. It is only relevant to a small subset of the population of the thread, and thus belongs in a different thread.
a friend at church pointed this out to me..thought i would share it.. IRON in genesis.. genesis was written WAY before the iron age..
Was it? It's hard to find concensus on when Genesis was written. Some people put it at around 1400 BC, others say it wasn't actually compiled and written until several hundred years later. Iron age is a little hard to pinpoint too, as it happened at different times in different parts of the world. (The ancient Puebloans at Mesa Verde were still in the stone age as late as 1300 AD.) But, from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age
SolusCada, Not really, I’m going off what it actually says, whereas you’re not. You’re interpreting what is written in favour of current scientific (or non) understanding. Which is dominated by atheist worldview. Who said anything about magic? You can manipulate nature, and have done so by making a cup of coffee. But you create the cup of coffee according to you ability, and potency. God merely thinks something and it manifests. Not due to any “magic”, but due to potency. God can rearrange matter according to his will. This material manifestation is nought but a combination of matter being held together by some kind of force. I’m not an expert on these things, but sound vibration can affect the movement of particles. So you don’t think farmers understood how to intentionally breed good livestock, horses, or dogs? And you don’t think they are working along the lines of what is understood to be natural selection? Do you think parents wanted just anybody to marry their children? Or were they happy when their daughter married a strong intelligent from a good family, who could not only look after them, but produce fine off-spring? They understood natural selection, but not in the detailed way we understand it today. This is ultimately talk. Did it occur. That is the question. Your problem Solus, is that you have preconceived ideas, and when you observe something it’s judged by these ideas. Why assume something isn’t true before you know it isn’t true? How can you understand the big picture with this condition? I ask the question because the question needs to be asked in order for me to make a decision. As far as I know, there is no real evidence that life is produced from matter. No experiments have yielded conclusive results. Apart from that everyone understands that life comes from life. I’m suggesting that it would be easy to conclude the process of abiogenesis in the bible, or any scripture for that matter, if the process was true. Instead we find the God is the source of creation. And the species are already known before the creation takes place. So noting is left to chance or blind processes. That is a definition of knowledge, but we don’t pursue things just in order “to know”. We pursue things which are of interest to us. I doubt that the quest of modern science is simply journey of discovery. More like a specific interest, for a specific purpose. We are partly spiritual, we have consciousness, and a desire to gratify our senses, to ease our mind, to be happy, blissful, content, and so on. All work is to ultimately meet that criteria. We seek to spiritual perfection whether we know it or not. But our consciousness is not pure, and as such defective. In this way our endeavours are also defective but the pursuit is there within all creatures. Jan.
If that is true, then LINGUISTICALLY explain how my scenario and God's is any different. You SAY that you're "going off what it actually says", but you believe you know what it says based on old worldviews. In the strictest sense of the language (i.e. "what it actually says"), you have yet to explain - again, linguistically, how the two scenarios are any different. So if you do in fact believe there can be a natural explanation, why do you object so much to the natural explanation we have come up with so far? Definitely not. Breeding good livestock is something we have developed over time, just like anything else. As for marriages, it is clear through both the Bible and other historical sources that people were more concerned with dowries than "strong intelligent people from good families". While that may indeed be what happened, it was not out of any sense of selective breeding. That's how evolution works btw. Selective breeding is the NATURAL course. Animals, people, etc. are most attracted to the strong, intelligent, mates. There is no reason to think it didn't, Biblical or otherwise. I would say the exact opposite. I was raised with the same beliefs you are espousing, and I changed my mind based on new information. How are you NOT assuming something isn't true before you know it isn't true. I hate to toss words like this around lightly, but you are being EXTREMELY hypocritical here. As noted above, I deny your supposition, so I cannot answer your question. And at one point in time no experiment had yet yielded conclusive results that the Earth was round. But it was. Always had been. We are finding new information on the subject almost daily. What will you do when we find that to be true? It has always been dangerous for religions to read into what the Bible does and does not say, because when they are later proven to be wrong (such as just about anything we discovered during the Rennaisance), the religion is made out to look like a fool. That is why I object so strongly to religious people such as yourself that refuse to accept scientific knowledge, particularly when you have no Biblical support for your position. You make Christianity look bad. Then pray tell (not that you did earlier when I posed the question about Genesis), how WOULD you expect it to be worded? (Incidentally, if you don't start responding to my points, I'm going to stop responding to yours.) You might not, but I'm betting most of the people on this forum DO. I think you'd be surprised. Have you ever heard Neil Degrasse Tyson speak? Or Brian Greene? Or Michio Kaku? Or read anything about Isaac Asimov? I daresay every prominent scientist got into "science" out of a pure curiosity to know. To know everything about everything. Eventually of course, adults realize that they can only learn so much, and the narrow their focus into specific areas, and of course a lot eventually have to come up with applications for their research so they can get funded, but almost invariably they are driven by a desire to know. I know I am. I'm not sure I entirely followed everything you were saying here, but I don't necessarily disagree with the parts I understood.
not always. people pick those who they can identify with and perceive as strong, intelligent etc. for instance, a ghetto rat is probably not going to be attracted to what is perceived as a nerdy astrophysicist. the ghetto rat may even think the astrophysicist is dumb because he/she can't understand them. the ghetto rat may perceive strong and intelligent to brawn and to what they can understand. it all depends on what is most important to the individual or what is considered most valuable to proliferate. people forget that the most basic motivation is to proliferate oneself and their particular traits, not exactly what is the most intelligent, the best etc exactly. if that were the case, there wouldn't be jealousy or those who try to usurp others as well as keep others down without regard to what is best in a somewhat objective sense. and yes, choosing dowries over other considerations, is also selection. whether something is natural is often up to debate depending on how it's defined. this could be construed as natural selection as well.
True enough, but I didn't think I needed to go into all the intricacies of natural selection to make the point. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
SolusCado, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. No. I'm going off what it ACTUALLY says. God said....... ....and there was. Everything is contained within that. My point is, before we go interpreting, let's consider that Gods' creativity is in His command. Then we can apply what WE know to see if it is somehow possible. Your scenario interprets what is said. It assumes that God cannot create by word/sound/will. By doing this you are concocting an idea of God to suit your particular worldview. My scenario accepts what it says, meaning my idea of God is a concoction. Every scripture concurs that God creates by word/sound, none mention evolution of species according to natural selection. There is a natural explanation as to creating a cup of coffee, then the buck stops at the conscious ability to desire a cup of coffee. Nature looks as though it is acting by it self, just like a car looks like it driving itself, but we know there is a consciousness behind the car. And it is only untill we understand this, that we can know the car doesn't drive itself. I believe the same applies to nature. And the information given states that there is a consciousness behind its creation and maintainence. I remember reading somewhere about a horse which was selectively bred dating around 1000bc. I'll look it up for you. Why wouldn't some people be interested in "strong intelligent people....."? Why do you consider it a modern phenomenon. What reason do you have, to think it did? Because in order to process something fully, it must be accepted as fact and from there you can deduce the truth. That is unless you already know it is untrue. To accept something as untrue before knowledge means you have an opinion of it. This is dogmatic. Scriptures gave information of the roundness of the earth. So it was only a mystery to those wanting to discover the shape of the earth. Like the shape of the earth, how the earth was populated is also scriptoral knowledge. How long are you going to hold out that abiogenesis will be proven by conclusive evidence? As it occurred to you that maybe God did populate the earth, just the way He said, either personally or through other beings? Now you're making assumptions. It would be foolish of me to refuse knowledge, scientific, or otherwise. Would you care to state which scientific knowledge I have refused to accept? I wouldn't expect it to be worded. I think we would be like robots, acting purely within our designation. I don't think we would have any desire to know anything outside of that. You're right, I'm not interested in learning about things that don't appeal to me. I just don't have the time. I'll bet some aspects of knowledge are more appealing than others, with these folks. Why do you think that is? So by universal law (time) we are forced to focus our efforts in specific areas. So what happens? We CHOOSE the one most appealing to us, which is what i said all along. It was just a breakdown of our purpose. jan.
