Christians and Evolution - A resource for those in question
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-09-2015, 02:17 PM
RE: Christians and Evolution - A resource for those in question
(04-09-2015 08:49 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  Now, this I like. A civil conversation between a believer and a non-believer with both using reason to get their points across, both willing to listen to the other's POV and both apologizing for harsh words. Keep it up.

Doc

Fuck off Dodgy

Tongue

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
06-09-2015, 12:50 PM
RE: Christians and Evolution - A resource for those in question
(03-09-2015 11:27 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(03-09-2015 09:48 AM)Zoebion Wrote:  Ok, I apologize if I came across as a dick. I wasn't trying to be an ass.

Didn't think you were. You guys have both been civil at all points, and I appreciate that more than you can possibly realize. I'm actually quite fond of both of youzguyz.


(03-09-2015 09:48 AM)Zoebion Wrote:  The issue that is being raised here (inerrancy and inspiration) is an entirely different debate. I am going to get to it. Actually, I plan on writing about it in the God and Evolution series next, but I still have at least 4-5 post on divine action to finish up.

Okay. And agreed, it is a different debate.


(03-09-2015 09:48 AM)Zoebion Wrote:  1) Why are writing styles such a big hill to climb? Why do you think it is not a good argument?

It's not the writing style that is the hill to climb, it is the special claim that this particular ANE writing is "divinely inspired" (God talking to man), while virtually indistinguishable writings from other ANE cultures that address the issue are not considered divinely inspired. In other words, you assign God's Voice to the Genesis texts, via the mode of communication you are describing, but not to the Enuma Elish. As a nonbeliever, I see no reason to distinguish between these two, as both are ANE origins myths that describe the process of creation, however we define creation. They are the cultures of the day attempting to explain how we got here, using the action of god(s) as they understood them. Indeed, many elements of Genesis are clearly taken from the Babylonian mythologies, so it's a pretty big hill to climb to suggest divine authorship for one but not the other in a way that I would accept.

(03-09-2015 09:48 AM)Zoebion Wrote:  2) What do you think divine inspiration should look like?

We have essentially two contending hypotheses, here: A) humans made it all up, with no divine help, and B) through divine inspiration, humans were able to tell a higher truth than the competing tales of the ANE, which were not divinely inspired and tell only what humans knew.

Simply put, both the Enuma Elish and the Genesis mythologies give every appearance of being the work of only humans because the authors knew nothing that people of those cultures didn't know, and their errors are the ones we would expect to find based on the state of human knowledge at the time. I mentioned the video because there were concepts known at that time which could have been reassembled by a Divine Inspirer into a format that the audience could have understood, yet which would have contained things we now know about the world/universe, and which bear directly on those tales. The fact that nothing of that sort is in there, that nothing other than the culture of the time (except for the concept of monotheism, which itself appears to have evolved over the course of Hebrew history), to be found in those texts, is suggestive of hypothesis A.

(03-09-2015 09:48 AM)Zoebion Wrote:  3) Who came up with that standard and why? 3) Why should I accept that standard?

The person who came up with the standard is anyone who sees no visible difference between the ANE tales under consideration, when listening to a person assert that this one particular ANE creation story is Divinely Inspired™, while the others are not. You should accept this standard only if you wish to have rational grounds upon which to believe that the Genesis stories are anything other than Bronze Age tribal mythologies that are entirely the work of humans, like all the others we have since discovered and that no one believes are really divine, despite the common claim of divine truth in each of them.

(03-09-2015 09:48 AM)Zoebion Wrote:  4) Why would you expect God to communicate in a way that was different than the communication of the day? This will help me know how to shape my posts, since I am now writing for two audiences Wink

I would not expect a human to communicate in a way that was different than the communication of the day, nor would I expect God to communicate in a way that was not understandable to the audience of that day, but I would expect God, even while speaking in the cultural methods of the day, to have imparted some information that they did not have prior to that communication, to have shared something that could be understood by both the audience of that day and by today's audience, even if we had to look through the filter of their style of communicating information, to reveal that it is actually a divine work and not just people making shit up to try to codify their own ideas about God(s).

This is critically important in light of the recent scholarship that suggests the Hebrews were a composite Semitic people, and not a group that dated back to antiquity, and that the Pentateuch was a result of many different myths/stories that were compiled during the Exile to present a sense of antiquity and uniformity of belief, a unique and coherent religious identity, and thus prevent assimilation back into the Babylonian culture. In other words, we may not be speaking about the Ancient Near East, but the Near East of the 7th century BCE.

Thanks for the reply, Rocket. Let's revisit this discussion in a few weeks, since I will be writing on it soon, and I will specifically address what you brought up here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2015, 12:52 PM
RE: Christians and Evolution - A resource for those in question
(05-09-2015 02:17 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(04-09-2015 08:49 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  Now, this I like. A civil conversation between a believer and a non-believer with both using reason to get their points across, both willing to listen to the other's POV and both apologizing for harsh words. Keep it up.

Doc

Fuck off Dodgy

Tongue

I literally lol'd at this and almost choked on my lunch.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Zoebion's post
14-09-2015, 08:54 AM
RE: Christians and Evolution - A resource for those in question
Ok, new post up.

http://edenstree.weebly.com/the-garden/g...nce-part-2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 09:05 AM
RE: Christians and Evolution - A resource for those in question
I read it. I fail to understand why ancient thought should be respected so much? I mean... "wisdom of the ancients"... is pretty much... *not*. They didn't have systematic systems of thought worked out, nor did they tend to value critical thinking (with some heroic exceptions, and of course any one of several of the mathematicians and physicists woulda probably set up shop in about 6 months flat if they had access to a modern lab and a textbook), so why does it matter what they thought back in the day? Other than being of historical interest.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
14-09-2015, 10:10 AM
RE: Christians and Evolution - A resource for those in question
I agree with MD here in that, why do we here in 2015, lend so much attention and credence to stories written back when lightning and the flu were not at all understood?

To make matters worse, each christian, non-christian, human puts their own spin on these stories (as done here) to derive their own personal importance and meaning.

So again, why do humans in 2015 care about these old stories (mostly the ones that claim some kind of science or supernatural)? Should not the bible be replaced with a collection of science textbooks - as they offer more useful information about our world and universe?

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Timber1025's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: