A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Baptists Trying to Reconcile Evolution w/ Scripture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-08-2012, 11:12 AM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2012 11:20 AM by Fromgenesis.)
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(08-08-2012 09:12 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(08-08-2012 08:38 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  Yes, this is the position held by many. There is no problem with adapting in superficial stuff - we must sit in rows, with the pulpit in the center, with no pink flowers.
If however we start to "compromise" to suit "the world", it becomes a problem. A fairly obvious example could be the position towards homosexuals. There are a large number of Christian churches that do no longer frown upon gay marriages etc. So they adapt to become "acceptable". The position as stated in the Bible is that practicing homosexuality is a sin (even thoughts if you consider Jesus' statements about murder.) But what should our relationship towards homosexuals be? Not one of judgement and ostracism, as we are never encouraged to look down on anybody else, or regard yourself as better than them. The reason for this is obvious: We are all sinners and we become Christians by the grace of God and not because we are anything special.
Megachurches often pamper to the "flesh" to attract people in the name of "evangelism". This is false in my opinion. Pretending to be something which you are not (or not supposed to be) and "getting them in so we can bring the message of Christ to them" is not only "false advertising" but I would suggest basic disbelief in Christ and what He will and can do.

Are you really going to allude to the "marriage is a religious institution" load of garbage that has been shovel-fed to the indoctrinated?

God recognizes marriage by His own standards. Not ours. No ceremony on Earth instantly makes God say, "Oh yeah, they're married now. K."

Marriage is a man made, cultural and ceremonial institution, hijacked by the church, then hijacked by the US government for tax purposes.

It has nothing to do with God or Christianity.

Denying gay people the right to marry is a very clear civil rights issue. Blatant bigotry, pure and simple. It's no different that black rights or women's suffrage.

PS - Don't want to derail this. Please address the ANE issue as well.
Nope, not derailing. I was responding to adapting "religion" to what the Bible clearly states. That was the issue raised. Whether you agree with the standard in the Bible is beside the point. I was not arguing for or against homosexuality, but from a standard set in the Bible amended to become "palatable" in an effort to remain "relevant".
Your statement that "God recognizes marriage by His own standards" has some proof? And what would that standard be- or is God quiet about the standard? Even so, the issue was homosexuality and not marriage per se.
As far as ANE is concerned, please indicate how this will have an effect on scholarly evaluation of what the creation text says in the Hebrew language? Scholars with a great amount of credibility (some of whom are non-Christian ) all agree that the text in the Bible clearly expresses for instance a literal 6-day creation. The following extract will provide adequate substance to this claim :"Hugh Williamson is the current Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University. Oxford is perhaps the most prestigious university in the world, and Williamson is one of the top Hebraists anywhere. In an email he responded, “So far as the days of Genesis 1 are concerned, I am sure that Professor Barr was correct. . . . I have not met any Hebrew professors who had the slightest doubt about this unless they were already committed to some alternative by other considerations that do not arise from a straightforward reading of the Hebrew text as it stands.”
"I also emailed Barr’s letter to Emanuel Tov of Hebrew University Jerusalem; he would be on anyone’s list of Hebrew experts. Professor Tov responded in kind: “For the biblical people this was history, difficult as it is for us to accept this view.”3 Here was confirmation from a Jewish man who spoke and thought in Hebrew."
Apart from the 6-day creation, evolution claims a materialistic origin whereas the Bible clearly claims a supernatural origin. Claiming anything to the contrary is somewhat foolish and I suspect even contrary to what you and most people really believe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 11:39 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart
This reminds me of a parable.

The story is about a scientist who asked a monk, "What if science proves your beliefs to be wrong?" The monk replied "Then well just have to change our beliefs."

And that seems to be the case. Rather than reject evolution, the religion changes to account for it. When other discoveries come along religion will simply adapt.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 12:56 PM
RE: Scipture and science
(08-08-2012 02:59 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  
(08-08-2012 02:09 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  First of all, Evolution deals with HOW species came to be so diverse, not how LIFE originated.

Second. Micro Evolution is Macro on a smaller scale.

Third, Dawkins admitted it WAS a POSSIBILITY not that he BELIEVED IT.

Your ignorance is astounding.

How do you explain that we share D.N.A with all of the animals on earth? Of the fact that we have organs WE DON'T USE.

Either your God was unbelievebly RETARDED at creating those useless organs, or he didn't create them.

Your first assertion (First of all, Evolution deals with HOW species came to be so diverse, not how LIFE originated ) is easily refuted in an[url=(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...ife.shtml) ] article from the Berkeley university.
“Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from
You are correct, Dawkins suggests that it is a possibility – which do not discount the fact that he thinks it is a plausible answer – despite the total absence of evidence to support this.
But the argument is basically why I think evolution and the Bible is incompatible. Would you disagree then that the Bible and evolution are incompatible? Why?

Abiogenesis deals with the beginning of life. In order for evolution through natural selection to work, it needs PRE EXISTING living matter.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 04:48 PM
A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Baptists Trying to Reconcile Evolution w/ Scripture
(08-08-2012 12:56 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(08-08-2012 02:59 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  Your first assertion (First of all, Evolution deals with HOW species came to be so diverse, not how LIFE originated ) is easily refuted in an[url=(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...ife.shtml) ] article from the Berkeley university.
“Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from
You are correct, Dawkins suggests that it is a possibility – which do not discount the fact that he thinks it is a plausible answer – despite the total absence of evidence to support this.
But the argument is basically why I think evolution and the Bible is incompatible. Would you disagree then that the Bible and evolution are incompatible? Why?

Abiogenesis deals with the beginning of life. In order for evolution through natural selection to work, it needs PRE EXISTING living matter.

I think our new friend would agree whole-heartedly. So how do you explain Pre-existing living matter? This is why Creationists are not persuaded about the truth of evolution. They explain living matter comes from a God outside of creation creating life, so they have no problem with abiogenesis.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 07:16 PM
A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Baptists Trying to Reconcile Evolution w/ Scripture
(08-08-2012 04:48 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(08-08-2012 12:56 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Abiogenesis deals with the beginning of life. In order for evolution through natural selection to work, it needs PRE EXISTING living matter.

I think our new friend would agree whole-heartedly. So how do you explain Pre-existing living matter? This is why Creationists are not persuaded about the truth of evolution. They explain living matter comes from a God outside of creation creating life, so they have no problem with abiogenesis.

I am not saying he did, but he said evolution claims to explain how non living items begetted living ones.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 09:14 PM
A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Baptists Trying to Reconcile Evolution w/ Scripture
(08-08-2012 07:16 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(08-08-2012 04:48 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  I think our new friend would agree whole-heartedly. So how do you explain Pre-existing living matter? This is why Creationists are not persuaded about the truth of evolution. They explain living matter comes from a God outside of creation creating life, so they have no problem with abiogenesis.

I am not saying he did, but he said evolution claims to explain how non living items begetted living ones.

Ah ha!

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 09:18 PM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(08-08-2012 11:12 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  Nope, not derailing. I was responding to adapting "religion" to what the Bible clearly states. That was the issue raised. Whether you agree with the standard in the Bible is beside the point. I was not arguing for or against homosexuality, but from a standard set in the Bible amended to become "palatable" in an effort to remain "relevant".
Your statement that "God recognizes marriage by His own standards" has some proof? And what would that standard be- or is God quiet about the standard? Even so, the issue was homosexuality and not marriage per se.

Fair enough... that is, about it being about homosexuality and not marriage.


Quote:As far as ANE is concerned, please indicate how this will have an effect on scholarly evaluation of what the creation text says in the Hebrew language? Scholars with a great amount of credibility (some of whom are non-Christian ) all agree that the text in the Bible clearly expresses for instance a literal 6-day creation. The following extract will provide adequate substance to this claim :"Hugh Williamson is the current Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University. Oxford is perhaps the most prestigious university in the world, and Williamson is one of the top Hebraists anywhere. In an email he responded, “So far as the days of Genesis 1 are concerned, I am sure that Professor Barr was correct. . . . I have not met any Hebrew professors who had the slightest doubt about this unless they were already committed to some alternative by other considerations that do not arise from a straightforward reading of the Hebrew text as it stands.”
"I also emailed Barr’s letter to Emanuel Tov of Hebrew University Jerusalem; he would be on anyone’s list of Hebrew experts. Professor Tov responded in kind: “For the biblical people this was history, difficult as it is for us to accept this view.”3 Here was confirmation from a Jewish man who spoke and thought in Hebrew."
Apart from the 6-day creation, evolution claims a materialistic origin whereas the Bible clearly claims a supernatural origin. Claiming anything to the contrary is somewhat foolish and I suspect even contrary to what you and most people really believe.

You're right. The Hebrew does literally say literal days. But, there is context in the language. You have to know the history of the culture. They wrote without separation of myth and reality. Their stories were a part of their history.

Besides, the Akkadian story of Adapa far outdates the story of the Hebrew Adam. Writings and stories from the same time period show a similar style and a blending of their fantasy with their history.

God used this hyperbolic style of writing as a tool to communicate and explain His covenant with His people.

The reason that this is being discussed is that the crux of your argument is that because it's written as literal then it must be literal. This really isn't the case according to the historical context of this culture.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 09:45 PM
RE
They wrote without separation of myth and reality. - KC

8.8.2012

The day KingsChoosen said something rational.

Now just apply that idea to the rest of the Bible. Tongue

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like fstratzero's post
09-08-2012, 10:37 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Baptists
Hey FromGenesis! Holy Smile woohoowowow! Awesome.

I've got friends from Pinetown Smile Small &^%^& world! I now officially don't care about theology. The rest of you can get stuffed. FromGenesis is definitely completely 100% right because he's South African. SA for the win Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
09-08-2012, 11:31 AM
RE: Scipture and science
(08-08-2012 01:27 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  My take on this is basically – I hold this position with all information – is the source trustworthy, based on what I can verify? When proven lies are part of the make-up of the source, I would be very, very, hesitant to accept any information put forward as the truth.

OK. Seems fine.

Quote:Yes, I take your point that what is claimed in the Bible is sometimes not within our experience, and it can be questioned. Why would I thus accept it as truth? Is it not wishful thinking ?
Considering my prior statement re the trustworthiness of the source, and knowing that that which is stated as fact and is open to verification, has never disproved what is claimed in the Bible, my position is that I can accept it as trustworthy.

What you're saying is that *if* the Bible can be proved to include a single *untrue* statement then the whole Bible is questionable?

Consider the lineage of Jesus Christ as reported by Mark and Matthew Big Grin

Also, you are still too trusting. If every time I make a statement you regard it as true until disproven I guarantee I can steal all your money in a short time.

You're saying "since nothing in the Bible has been *disproven* it is therefore a trustworthy source".

I want you to say "since *everything* in the Bible has been *proven*, it is therefore a trustworthy source. This is the level of trustworthiness you will find in a science textbook, (well, not quite, a science textbook does not claim to be 100% true though, it merely claims to be a summary of our understanding so far) and the Bible is not exempt from that standard. It's not enough to have merely not been disproven. At least to me.

Quote:Consider archaeology. (See for instance Jericho which has a supernatural aspect to it).
What is supernatural about it? Were the archaeologists cursed? *Link* or citation needed.

Quote:Not one finding has ever disproved fact stated as such in the Bible.
Another factor which contributes to my evaluation of a trustworthy source in opposition to “myth” would be that the “heroes” and stories relating to him/her are almost always heavily embellished. You find quite the contrary in the Bible.

This is a common claim which is unfortunately for you not true. Plenty of examples of flawed heroes in other literature abound, for example Greek heroes tended to be frikken awesome, but also have messed up family lives. e.g. Agamemnon, Achilles, Menelaus etc.

Quote:Another factor that one could consider is the accuracy of prophecy. Although I am not heavily into prophecy, there are prophecies relating to Egypt, Tyre, Israel etc that bears witness.
a. citation needed. What prophecies?
b. *why* do people think "the fact that William correctly predicted the result of the rugby game means an invisible being who wants us all to go to heaven but is prepared to cook us if we don't believe in him actually whispered in his ear and this then proves that said invisible being exists"?

Quote:So yes, I accept that which is stated as fact in the Bible as such, including Elijah, etc.
That faith also plays a role, is not disputed. The question then is whether one should “ignore” fact. To the contrary, “ Jesus said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind (understanding).
In essence then, your skepticism can be understood, but it does not by implication make the Bible and its contents “myths”

So you *do* believe in the magic sick fish and so on? And it's not a myth because...? Oh right I can't prove it wrong. I will meditate on this...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: