Locke
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-08-2014, 05:49 PM
RE: Locke
(09-08-2014 12:36 PM)Locke Wrote:  
Quote:

"32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it." ~ Matthew 10:32-36 (NIV)

This passage is speaking of two things; first, Jesus is telling his disciples to go and proclaim the gospel to people. Second, he is telling them that many people will reject the gospel. The message of the gospel is what Jesus brought, but people sometimes respond with anger, even violence. I had friends in other countries where Christianity is illegal whose own children have turned them in to be executed for their beliefs, or whose parents found out they were Christian and did likewise. When I became a Christian, my parents disowned me, my brother came to me, beat me down and put a gun to my head. They were irrationally angry at my decision, despite themselves professing Christianity. That's a case of a personal experience that you can't verify, and I get that. However, it was pretty strong proof to me that what the Bible says on these things is accurate, and the consistency of it for myself, one of my other brothers, and many other people I know (hundreds) shows me that it isn't entirely uncommon. Most people don't respond this way, but some do. I've had atheists get in my face, shove me or curse me out, but the truth is that, from my personal experience, the religious are the most aggressive.

Perhaps my family's response seems unrealistic to you, as it did to me.. but looking at Scriptures such as Ezekiel 33:30-32 along with John 3:17-21 helped it make more sense with what happened.
Yes, they are religious, but no, they don't follow the Scriptures (a stance that will never make sense to me, and I believe doesn't make any logical sense). However, their fear of being exposed was, evidently, enough for them to justify themselves by attacking me. I didn't hound them; it was simply that we both claimed to be Christian, but our lives looked radically different, because I lived by the Scriptures and they didn't.. my lifestyle proved them to be hypocrites.

The point of what Jesus said about bringing a sword is that the truth is more important than lying to people for the sake of keeping peace. From my understanding many atheists feel much the same when arguing for reason over superstition, and I would agree.
Quote:Not really.

I was referring to the English, conservative, upper-middle class, judgmental, Sunday-hat brigade that my parents would ridicule when they thought I wasn't listening.

Yes, I was referring to them as well.. those are my parents Confused
Their arrogant misjudgment leads them to treat people in ways they don't deserve, and make other people's business their own. Looking down at others for living a certain way, yet doing the same themselves behind closed doors.
In other words, "having a form of godliness but denying its power." (2 Timothy 3:5)

Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing, but I do believe we are.

Yup, we probably are.

Thanks for the considered response.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
12-08-2014, 11:51 AM
RE: Locke
Welcome, if you're studying biomedical engineering surely you have been confronted with the facts of evolution, how do you reconcile that with the creation myth in Genesis?
I used to be an old-earth creationists as a Christian,that's how I reconciled my beliefs to science - but eventually science won out. Einstein

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
13-08-2014, 04:06 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2014 04:19 PM by Locke.)
RE: Locke
(11-08-2014 02:08 PM)Quantum1Connect Wrote:  Welcome! Do not mistake my question as a pointless jab. This is a sincere, inquisitive question. I ask nearly every believer this when they think somewhat parallel to your ideas: what sort of evidence have you used to justify your Christian belief? And do you assert Christian belief to be the absolute source of truth and salvation? And if so, why?

I think that's a very appropriate question. I'd love to answer it, but any reasonable response to such an inclusive question will be exhaustive. I'll have to spend some time writing it up and citing sources, and I'm about to take on some demanding coursework, so it will be on the back burner. Would you rather I email it, PM, or make a thread?

Maybe I should make like that Evid3nc3 guy and start a youtube channel... Consider

(12-08-2014 11:51 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Welcome, if you're studying biomedical engineering surely you have been confronted with the facts of evolution, how do you reconcile that with the creation myth in Genesis?
I used to be an old-earth creationists as a Christian,that's how I reconciled my beliefs to science - but eventually science won out. Einstein

Short answer? I do believe in evolution; it's a scientific approach to how life changes over time, which has nothing to do with creation. I actually made a thread partly about this, which can be found here.
The Creation account in Genesis is poetic literature. In poetic literature, the proper order of interpretation is to feel what the writer intends, and then to assess. On the other hand, prose is approached by first assessing, and then incorporating feelings, and technical writing leaves feelings out, examining only the relevant evidence.
In other words, it wasn't meant to give a scientific analysis of how the world began.

For a long answer see the response to Quantum1Connect above.

Thumbsup

EDIT: My focus in BME is Neuroengineering, so I've also been faced with many compelling questions in areas such as neurology, psychology, and ethical/philosophical questions that science raises.. and I hope to be faced with many more.

[Image: AJqsKtG.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2014, 07:15 PM
RE: Locke
(13-08-2014 04:06 PM)Locke Wrote:  I do believe in evolution; it's a scientific approach to how life changes over time, which has nothing to do with creation.
...
The Creation account in Genesis is poetic literature. In poetic literature, the proper order of interpretation is to feel what the writer intends, and then to assess. On the other hand, prose is approached by first assessing, and then incorporating feelings, and technical writing leaves feelings out, examining only the relevant evidence.
In other words, it wasn't meant to give a scientific analysis of how the world began.
Who knows what feelings the author intended to convey? When you go down this path, you are not really conveying truths or facts, you are either trying to get people to think (and not really caring whether people's thinking goes in a certain direction) or you are merely providing entertainment.
I think it is obvious why scientific publications don't use the method of poetry.

Regarding the Genesis account, important Christian concepts and trying to reconcile with scientific knowledge. I think it gets very messy to try and make Christianity work.

i.e. If evolution is true (there are masses of evidence to clearly show that evolution is true) and if evolution is driven by natural pressures such as natural selection and environmental change then there is no need for divine guidance in order to explain the diversity of life that we see today.
Clearly the god of the bible didn't create "man" in his image. Humans (as we classify ourselves now) are a continuously evolving collection of phenotypes with a lineage going all the way back to the first replicating structure (probably over 3 billion years ago, probably a non animated chemical compound). Its not even a clear lineage, each ancestor, each life form represents a branch and when we join to create children this represents a merging of two somewhat seperate lineages. Sometimes so seperate that we had the common ancestor of homo and chimp become a proto-homo and a proto-chimp. After a couple of million years the proto-homo and proto-chip merged to produce a hybrid proto homochimp. The proto-homo went extinct, the proto-chimp turned into chimp and the proto homochimp became homo ultimately becoming homo-sapien.
In the bible there seems to be an event after which the god became interested in the morality of humans, keeping track, making judgements, smiting etc. This point was the mythical Adam and Eve plus tree of knowledge of right and wrong story.
We still debate today about what right and wrong means. I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Some people claim that other animals have knowledge of right and wrong e.g. Chimpanzees, Dogs etc.
So at what point in the collective human lineage did we consider the concept of right and wrong? Was it at the proto-homo, was it at the common ancestor of both homo and chimp? Was it millions of years before this? (perhaps when we were fish?).
And one must consider, why does the god of the bible care about the moral beliefs of humans? Does this god care about the moral beliefs of dogs or chimps?
The assertion is that we are in the god's image, the assertion is that the universe was created for us by the god. But these assertions are clearly untrue.

It seems to me that at some point a group of humans sat around and pondered some questions. Why are we here? Why are we smarter than other animals? Why do we deem murder wrong? How come we don't think we ought to kill each other, where-as we don't think other animals have these "oughts" in their heads? Why is human child-birth painful.

They then got creative and made up myth-stories which became the basis of many religions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
13-08-2014, 10:40 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2014 10:46 PM by Locke.)
RE: Locke
Firstly, I appreciate you taking the time to consider my views and reply to them!

(13-08-2014 07:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Who knows what feelings the author intended to convey? When you go down this path, you are not really conveying truths or facts, you are either trying to get people to think (and not really caring whether people's thinking goes in a certain direction) or you are merely providing entertainment.
I think it is obvious why scientific publications don't use the method of poetry

I somewhat doubt the benefit of trying to psychoanalyze an author who lived so long before us. You're right, it obviously would be dumb to write scientific publications in poetic form.. not that the Bible is one.
It's important to consider that a work of literature doesn't need to tell us everything in order to be accurate, useful, factual, or to carry truth. Science accounts for the physical, but that does not encompass every aspect of our world. There are undeniably relational and social, ethical, psychological, political, and emotional components to reality that science doesn't address, as well as our very significant limitations in areas of science themselves. Truth is not encompassed by of any one of these categories.

Quote:Regarding the Genesis account, important Christian concepts and trying to reconcile with scientific knowledge. I think it gets very messy to try and make Christianity work.

I think 'messy' is a relative term in this context. Diving into multi-variable calculus, conducting brain surgery, or dealing with international politics are all relatively 'messy', as is nearly everything in life. I've found much of what makes it so confusing is the amount of false information thrown out; whether it's accidental or deliberate is irrelevant due to the sheer quantity of it. It's a complicated world, and I'm willing to put in the time and effort to sift through it all and come to conclusions about what is true, and what is not. Oorah.
However, my goal is not trying to make Christianity work. I've seen a lot of misunderstandings and assumptions, but no discrepancies.

Quote:In the bible there seems to be an event after which the god became interested in the morality of humans, keeping track, making judgements, smiting etc. This point was the mythical Adam and Eve plus tree of knowledge of right and wrong story.
We still debate today about what right and wrong means. I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Some people claim that other animals have knowledge of right and wrong e.g. Chimpanzees, Dogs etc.

On the contrary, the Bible teaches that God had a plan before time began (Titus 1:1-2, 2nd Timothy 1:9, 1st Corinthians 2:7, Deuteronomy 4:1-40).

Quote:So at what point in the collective human lineage did we consider the concept of right and wrong? Was it at the proto-homo, was it at the common ancestor of both homo and chimp? Was it millions of years before this? (perhaps when we were fish?).

Good question! Perhaps we'll know one day.
Another good question would be whether or not grasping right or wrong gives us a soul? Consider
We also don't know at what point we acquired our more advanced cognitive abilities and emotional spectrum, but we do know that the species alive today are advanced past the critical stage when we branched away in evolution, and it seems extinction and alteration in environmental conditions has burned the bridge behind us forever. Increasing organism complexity has likely resulted in impossibility of reversal, so I personally doubt that other animals such as dogs and cats will ever end up like us now.

Quote:And one must consider, why does the god of the bible care about the moral beliefs of humans? Does this god care about the moral beliefs of dogs or chimps?
The assertion is that we are in the god's image, the assertion is that the universe was created for us by the god. But these assertions are clearly untrue.

Perhaps not so clearly, given our inability to provide evidence for that claim. When I examine the evidence in science, I see it leaning toward teleology through postulated causes.. however, the science is not clear either way. It doesn't really address the issue, only implies it.
However, you'd be right in saying the Bible doesn't teach that the universe was made just for us, though we are an important part. Ecclesiastes 3 and Acts 17:16-31 have something to say on this that I find profound. More in regard to the animals, "Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?" (Ecclesiastes 3:21). From that and many other Scriptures, it seems we have a responsibility to take care of the earth and the other animals, probably because of our more advanced cognitive abilities. However, it may be important (or at the least interesting) to note that the Bible never teaches the soul is eternal.. that was actually a Platonic concept introduced later and adopted by most (perhaps) because it's very likable.

Quote:It seems to me that at some point a group of humans sat around and pondered some questions. Why are we here? Why are we smarter than other animals? Why do we deem murder wrong? How come we don't think we ought to kill each other, where-as we don't think other animals have these "oughts" in their heads? Why is human child-birth painful.

They then got creative and made up myth-stories which became the basis of many religions.

Yes, I imagine you're right Wink

[Image: AJqsKtG.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2014, 09:56 AM
RE: Locke
(06-08-2014 06:24 PM)pablo Wrote:  Welcome,
Let me make sure I got this right.
You're a Christian on an atheist forum, you don't want to argue or debate.
You're not trying to convert anyone, you just want us all to listen to what you have to say and shut up about it.
Good luck with that champ!

Ehhh, it's worked for me... I mean I'm open to other opinions, but I ain't here to debate and convert. Just for the community.

Is it so hard to believe that a Christian is here for the simple camaraderie that exists on these types of forums?

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
14-08-2014, 01:46 PM
RE: Locke
(14-08-2014 09:56 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Is it so hard to believe that a Christian is here for the simple camaraderie that exists on these types of forums?

Hobo

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
14-08-2014, 01:52 PM
RE: Locke
(13-08-2014 10:40 PM)Locke Wrote:  Another good question would be whether or not grasping right or wrong gives us a soul? Consider
In order to answer that question we need to define what a soul is?
To me a soul is merely a conceptual idea. An abstract way of referring to a person's behavioural characteristics, their personality if you will.
In which case, yes I have a "soul" even though I have no grasp on right or wrong.

(13-08-2014 10:40 PM)Locke Wrote:  so I personally doubt that other animals such as dogs and cats will ever end up like us now.
I presume you mean, with an intelligence capable of building machinery?
If us humans have taken up this adaptive space and hence will kill any threats to our dominance, then all it would take is an asteroid collision and then a few million years and it may be some other lineage's time.

Us humans, we are evolving all the time, we are effectively 7 billion seperate entities. All of us a deviation from each other. The destinction of a species is quite loose. It makes no sense to say that the human race is distinct and special from other animals but collectively the same as each other. We are branching all the time. It just so happens at the moment that we appear to be all sexually compatible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2014, 02:14 PM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2014 02:51 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Locke
(13-08-2014 10:40 PM)Locke Wrote:  Firstly, I appreciate you taking the time to consider my views and reply to them!

(13-08-2014 07:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Who knows what feelings the author intended to convey? When you go down this path, you are not really conveying truths or facts, you are either trying to get people to think (and not really caring whether people's thinking goes in a certain direction) or you are merely providing entertainment.
I think it is obvious why scientific publications don't use the method of poetry

I somewhat doubt the benefit of trying to psychoanalyze an author who lived so long before us. You're right, it obviously would be dumb to write scientific publications in poetic form.. not that the Bible is one.
It's important to consider that a work of literature doesn't need to tell us everything in order to be accurate, useful, factual, or to carry truth. Science accounts for the physical, but that does not encompass every aspect of our world. There are undeniably relational and social, ethical, psychological, political, and emotional components to reality that science doesn't address, as well as our very significant limitations in areas of science themselves. Truth is not encompassed by of any one of these categories.

Quote:Regarding the Genesis account, important Christian concepts and trying to reconcile with scientific knowledge. I think it gets very messy to try and make Christianity work.

I think 'messy' is a relative term in this context. Diving into multi-variable calculus, conducting brain surgery, or dealing with international politics are all relatively 'messy', as is nearly everything in life. I've found much of what makes it so confusing is the amount of false information thrown out; whether it's accidental or deliberate is irrelevant due to the sheer quantity of it. It's a complicated world, and I'm willing to put in the time and effort to sift through it all and come to conclusions about what is true, and what is not. Oorah.
However, my goal is not trying to make Christianity work. I've seen a lot of misunderstandings and assumptions, but no discrepancies.

Quote:In the bible there seems to be an event after which the god became interested in the morality of humans, keeping track, making judgements, smiting etc. This point was the mythical Adam and Eve plus tree of knowledge of right and wrong story.
We still debate today about what right and wrong means. I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Some people claim that other animals have knowledge of right and wrong e.g. Chimpanzees, Dogs etc.

On the contrary, the Bible teaches that God had a plan before time began (Titus 1:1-2, 2nd Timothy 1:9, 1st Corinthians 2:7, Deuteronomy 4:1-40).

Quote:So at what point in the collective human lineage did we consider the concept of right and wrong? Was it at the proto-homo, was it at the common ancestor of both homo and chimp? Was it millions of years before this? (perhaps when we were fish?).

Good question! Perhaps we'll know one day.
Another good question would be whether or not grasping right or wrong gives us a soul? Consider
We also don't know at what point we acquired our more advanced cognitive abilities and emotional spectrum, but we do know that the species alive today are advanced past the critical stage when we branched away in evolution, and it seems extinction and alteration in environmental conditions has burned the bridge behind us forever. Increasing organism complexity has likely resulted in impossibility of reversal, so I personally doubt that other animals such as dogs and cats will ever end up like us now.

Quote:And one must consider, why does the god of the bible care about the moral beliefs of humans? Does this god care about the moral beliefs of dogs or chimps?
The assertion is that we are in the god's image, the assertion is that the universe was created for us by the god. But these assertions are clearly untrue.

Perhaps not so clearly, given our inability to provide evidence for that claim. When I examine the evidence in science, I see it leaning toward teleology through postulated causes.. however, the science is not clear either way. It doesn't really address the issue, only implies it.
However, you'd be right in saying the Bible doesn't teach that the universe was made just for us, though we are an important part. Ecclesiastes 3 and Acts 17:16-31 have something to say on this that I find profound. More in regard to the animals, "Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?" (Ecclesiastes 3:21). From that and many other Scriptures, it seems we have a responsibility to take care of the earth and the other animals, probably because of our more advanced cognitive abilities. However, it may be important (or at the least interesting) to note that the Bible never teaches the soul is eternal.. that was actually a Platonic concept introduced later and adopted by most (perhaps) because it's very likable.

Quote:It seems to me that at some point a group of humans sat around and pondered some questions. Why are we here? Why are we smarter than other animals? Why do we deem murder wrong? How come we don't think we ought to kill each other, where-as we don't think other animals have these "oughts" in their heads? Why is human child-birth painful.

They then got creative and made up myth-stories which became the basis of many religions.

Yes, I imagine you're right Wink

Locke,

I really didn't want to wade in here as the introduction thread is for...well introductions. However, since you brought up specific scriptures as evidence of "the Bible teaches that God had a plan before time began (Titus 1:1-2, 2nd Timothy 1:9, 1st Corinthians 2:7, Deuteronomy 4:1-40)" allow me to enter with some food for thought.

When a thinking person considers evidence of scripture, one must first consider is it allegorical, a parable, or simply more pseudepigrapha? Lets take a peek..

Titus: Although Titus claims to have been written by Paul, most scholars believe that it, along with the other pastoral epistles ( 1 and 2 Timothy), was written pseudonymously by someone else long after Paul's death. Ouch, kind of takes a bit of the authenticity of that out huh?

The Pastoral epistles are regarded by some scholars as being pseudepigraphical. On the basis of the language and content of the pastoral epistles, these scholars today doubt that they were written by Paul and believe that they were written after his death. The early Church did not agree of course. Critics claim the vocabulary and style of the Pauline letters could not have been written by Paul according to available biographical information and reflect the views of the emerging Church rather than the apostle's. These scholars date the epistle from the 80s CE up to the end of the 2nd century. The Church of England's Common Worship Lectionary Scripture Commentary concurs with this view: "the proportioning of the theological and practical themes is one factor that leads us to think of these writings as coming from the post-Pauline church world of the late first or early second century". Uhoh, looks like we got some more creative writing going on here Consider

1st Corinthians: Now this is one of the few that Paul actually seems to have written. So now we have a stamp of authenticity, now we must look at the validity of the statements. You mentioned 1st Corinthians 2:7, "Howbeit we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory". Sounds rather poetic, swirl a little mystery and "hidden wisdom" sounds pretty cool. What else did Paul talk about in Corinthians? What was his state of mind? Did he state falsehoods?

Paul expected Jesus to return within the lifetime of his followers (1.7 – 8, 7.29, 10.11, 15.51 – 52)...well that didn't happen.

1.21 – "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." What it's rather odd to consider preaching to be foolish, or is it?

4.15 – 16, "for though ye have 10,000 instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." "Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me." So here it seems Paul says don't follow the teachings of others, listen only to me. I am sure the other teachers felt the same.

Paul lists 10 things that will keep you out of heaven, including homosexuality and being effeminate. 6.9 – 11

everything is lawful to Paul and he submits to no law. 6.12, 10.23.

Gentiles sacrifice to devils. If you have Gentile friends, then you are friends with devils. 10.20… Wow

if a woman refuses to cover her head in church, then her head must be shaved. 11.5 – 6.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; they are commanded to be under obedience. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home." 14.34 – 35

I could go on and on about the innate ramblings of Paul and attempt to psycho analyze his mental state but will allow his words to speak for themselves.

Deuteronomy

Did you really intend to open up Pandora's box called the Old Testament and bring it into a discussion? Let's look at the Old Testament. It begins with the five books of the Pentateuch. Genesis allegedly describes a prehistory of God's call and preparation of a people in creation and the patriarchs. Exodus portrays the mighty deeds of the deliverance of Israel from Egypt and the giving of the covenant. Leviticus describes obligations of that covenant, while numbers as more laws, and continues the story of Israel's time in the desert. Deuteronomy, written as a speech of Moses, serves to deepen and sum up the meaning of the covenant for Israel later on in her history.

Written by Moses… Truly? I could write pages breaking down the Old Testament for you and it's creation but let me see if I can make it brief. We can get into the brass tacks of it much later if you so desire to learn. Even in ancient times there were those who doubted that Moses could have written the whole Pentateuch. Such passages as Deuteronomy 34:5 – 12, which records Moses his death, were often cited to show Moses certainly did not write all of it. It was commonly believed that his faithful follower Joshua had added that section and more. Some are of the opinion that Ezra had written the Pentateuch from notes handed down by Moses himself. It took many years though for us to figure out the truth.

At first, scholars thought there were only two earlier documents, one called the Yahwist source, and the other the Elohist, based on the way each referred to God's name. But it soon became clear that the passages in Genesis and Exodus for example, which used elohim represented two separate writers. One had a very priestly cast to it, with interest in genealogy list, rituals, laws, and other liturgical matters. This became known as the priestly source, and included the hymn- like creation account in Genesis 1. The other contained many old stories of Jacob and Moses and was concerned with historical traditions. This was allowed to keep the name Elohist for itself. Now there were three sources, and it didn't take long to identify a fourth. The unique style of the book of Deuteronomy set it apart from the other three. Where the latter were filled with brief scenes and incidents, Deuteronomy loved long speeches and sermons. These four sources are often simply called by the first letters, J, E, P, and D.

There arose a group of priests, Levites and profits who attempted to reform many bad practices of faith in Judah. Out of their efforts came the book of Deuteronomy (D source). The Deuteronomist reformers collected covenant legal traditions and added to them sermons stressing obedience and faithfulness to the covenant with the people were to receive blessings in the promised land. Although put together out of the best of both northern and southern traditions during a long period from Hezekiel (715 – 688) through Josiah (640 BC), it was only discovered hidden away in the temple when Josiah began his reforms of 622. The king and people alike recognized its authority and genuine mosaic flavor, and D was joined with J and E as part of the nation's sacred traditions.

I could literally go on and on and on and break it all down for you but Moses (a religious tradition) did not write Deuteronomy. As you now know Deuteronomy is a collection of traditions from northern and southern lands, and not the word of God through Moses.

Ecclesiastes
Is a direct Greek translation of the Hebrew word. That the author was Solomon is implied in the first verse when it says Qoheleth was a son of David in Jerusalem, but this cannot be taken as fact, since the work is in fact anonymous and was most probably composed in the last part of the 3rd century BCE. The book shows the development of Israelite thought that comes after the exile, especially in its doubts about old answers and the tax on the rational approaches of Greek thought and began to influence the near East at that time. The Jewish rabbis fought a long time over whether or not the book was fit for the sacred canon of Scripture. The positive decision was made because Solomon was thought to be the author.

So here we have an anonymous poetic, philosophical, unknown author who wrote down his private musings… This has relevance how?

Anyway, I don't want to get long-winded, and spend too much time teaching you about the Bible. If you would like some more enlightenment just let me know. Although perhaps you could open a thread outside of introductions. Yes

Resource:

Boadt, L. (1984) reading the old testament: an introduction. New York. Paulist press

King James Version of the Bible

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2014, 04:07 PM
RE: Locke
(14-08-2014 01:52 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I presume you mean, with an intelligence capable of building machinery?
If us humans have taken up this adaptive space and hence will kill any threats to our dominance, then all it would take is an asteroid collision and then a few million years and it may be some other lineage's time.

Us humans, we are evolving all the time, we are effectively 7 billion seperate entities. All of us a deviation from each other. The destinction of a species is quite loose. It makes no sense to say that the human race is distinct and special from other animals but collectively the same as each other. We are branching all the time. It just so happens at the moment that we appear to be all sexually compatible.

The sun has been pumping energy into our biosphere for a long time. This energy has resulted in complexity increase among all living organisms on the planet. Even on a cellular level, the smallest organisms are different now than they once were, and key species are extinct. It doesn't really have anything to do with us exercising dominance over other rising sentient races.
I'm sorry, but nobody's going to wake up tomorrow and not be able to mate with other humans.. it just isn't that unstable; we're interdependent, and we can't evolve in one lifetime to any significant degree.

@goodwithoutgod: Thank you for the extremely long recap from Evid3nc3's youtube video.
We weren't discussing validity of Scripture, I was simply correcting a misunderstanding on what the Bible teaches.. which you seem to be confused about as well, in a number of places. I felt it deserved clarification because Stevil misunderstood what it was saying and assumed I believed something I do not, then asked some pointed questions based on that assumption.
I'm well aware of what a select few authors argue about the Old Testament, but you're very adamant about it, so I wish you the best! Thumbsup

[Image: AJqsKtG.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: