Theistic Evolution Questions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2017, 08:24 AM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 08:22 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 08:03 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The TE that I have interacted with tend to have their own unique rationalization within their theological beliefs in order to make any science compatible with their religion.

I've long tended to have a better relationship with those theists who've developed their own "personal relationship with god" than the other kind. For example, Girly. Tongue

Saying Girly has a personal relationship with god is saying he has a personal relationship with himself. Girly is god. Tongue

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
24-01-2017, 08:25 AM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 08:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 08:22 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I've long tended to have a better relationship with those theists who've developed their own "personal relationship with god" than the other kind. For example, Girly. Tongue

Saying Girly has a personal relationship with god is saying he has a personal relationship with himself. Girly is god. Tongue

I think that might have been HoC's point. It is a Trumpian sort of theism

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
24-01-2017, 08:41 AM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 08:01 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Intelligently designed badly. For when intelligent design is not goth enough.

That's sort of like saying a painting is done badly unless it looks like a Thomas Kincaid painting. That Picasso's work were composed badly because the images are contorted.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2017, 08:44 AM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 08:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 08:01 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Intelligently designed badly. For when intelligent design is not goth enough.

That's sort of like saying a painting is done badly unless it looks like a Thomas Kincaid painting. That Picasso's work were composed badly because the images are contorted.

So Picasso was trying to fuck-up? Laugh out load

Wow

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
24-01-2017, 08:47 AM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 08:44 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 08:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  That's sort of like saying a painting is done badly unless it looks like a Thomas Kincaid painting. That Picasso's work were composed badly because the images are contorted.

So Picasso was trying to fuck-up? Laugh out load

Wow

So you were trying to erect a strawman?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2017, 08:50 AM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 08:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 08:44 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  So Picasso was trying to fuck-up? Laugh out load

Wow

So you were trying to erect a strawman?

Oh, wow. So you didn't say that "...I believe we were created into a fallen state?" And then compared it to two painters, implying that one of them made their work intentionally distorted? Meaning that either your god is an artist who made life fucked up just because it could, or it fucked up when it made life.

Don't call it a strawman when it is the logical extrapolation of your theology you've come preaching.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
24-01-2017, 08:52 AM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 08:50 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 08:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So you were trying to erect a strawman?

Oh, wow. So you didn't say that "...I believe we were created into a fallen state?" And then compared it to two painters, implying that one of them made their work intentionally distorted? Meaning that either your god is an artist who made life fucked up just because it could, or it fucked up when it made life.

Don't call it a strawman when it is the logical extrapolation of your theology you've come preaching.

Damn even more strawman, you must own a barn with all that hay you got there?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2017, 08:54 AM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 08:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 08:50 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Oh, wow. So you didn't say that "...I believe we were created into a fallen state?" And then compared it to two painters, implying that one of them made their work intentionally distorted? Meaning that either your god is an artist who made life fucked up just because it could, or it fucked up when it made life.

Don't call it a strawman when it is the logical extrapolation of your theology you've come preaching.

Damn even more strawman, you must own a barn with all that hay you got there?

Go ahead, explain your theology you've come to preach and present how what I said is a strawman.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2017, 09:01 AM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2017 09:10 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 07:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-01-2017 10:51 PM)phoenix31 Wrote:  What do theistic evolutionists believe about original sin?
As a theist, who accepts evolution, I believe we were created into a fallen state. Rather than starting at some point of perfection and falling into it. Others theist who accept evolution might hold that it originated when we begun to perceive a distinction between good and evil, that our self-awareness, was the source of it. As far I see it man has always been a sinner.

And I also don't imagine that the folks who wrote the book of Genesis, saw themselves as having some sort of vision as to what took place thousands of years before them, and decided to pen it down. Rather they were conveying their own human predicament, in a narrative form. To share that self-preception, which they valued with their subsequent communities.


Always keep in mind that Tomasia has no evidence to support the existence of a 'fallen' state, or how that's any different from 'not fallen'. This is a shining example of post hoc rationalization.



(24-01-2017 07:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-01-2017 10:51 PM)phoenix31 Wrote:  Creationists say the Christian God could not have included "death and ghastliness" as part of his creative process. What do theistic evolutionists say about that?
I'd point out that there's no real way around that, death and ghastliness exist as part of our created order. An omniscient and omnipotent God, would have known what the end result, of the world he was to create would be, and all things would have stemmed from his will, including the existence of death and ghastliness.


More post hoc rationalization.



(24-01-2017 07:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-01-2017 10:51 PM)phoenix31 Wrote:  What do they make of Romans 7 where the Bible talks about the world being ensnared because of Adam's fall?
I think the world is ensnared and fallen.


Evidence? What are the characteristic of an 'unfallen' world? How does one go about measuring or detecting such a thing?

Tomasia would be a poor scientist indeed.



(24-01-2017 07:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-01-2017 10:51 PM)phoenix31 Wrote:  How do they determine which parts of the Bible are considered myth and which aren't?
Same way I distinguish between hyperbole, sarcasm, metaphors etc.. in every day human communication. The communities of the bible didn't have different genres of writings, a separate philosophical writings, or separate fictional, and historical writings, they were all just lumped into their texts.


That's almost assuredly bullshit.



(24-01-2017 07:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  They also weren't concerned with passing on a literal history, as they were in passing on the meaning of history. Our own basic obsession with literalism, is more a product of the scientific age, than in the ancient past. And much of our own misunderstanding comes from projecting our present proclivities on to the past.


This is most definitely bullshit. The idea of treating history as a factual recounting of events as close to possible as they actually happened, is a tradition inherited from the Greeks and Romans historians. It was a tradition lost and replaced by the chroniclers of Christian medieval Europe, who cared more for how things should be rather than how they were; a trait shared by many church 'historians'.

See Also: Eusebius of Caesarea



(24-01-2017 07:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I personally have never read the book of Genesis as a literal historical account, even as a child. I enjoyed stories, and read it as a story, without much consideration of it's historical or non-historical merits.


But if it's all metaphor, where does that 'fallen' malarkey come from? One has to wonder how you can justify such a belief sans the literal justification for it, but I stopped expecting Tomasia to make actual sense long ago.



(24-01-2017 07:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But i'd say one way to draw such distinction is by empathizing, trying to put yourself in the shoes of those writings these stories, what where they trying to convey and say, where they trying to pass on a series of historical events and happenings, that I am suppose to remember, where they trying to convey a meaning I'm suppose to take to heart, etc...

It perhaps comes easier to me because I'm not obsessed with the idea of literalism, as fundies, and some atheists are.


Literalism is at least somewhat intellectually respectable. It's nonsensical, impractical, and entirely impossible to apply universally across the board, given the books many contradictions. But it's arguably more honest than the faux intellectualism of cherry picking whatever damn well pleases you, reasons and evidence be damned. Note for the slow, Tomasia is part of the later category.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
24-01-2017, 09:09 AM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2017 09:19 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 09:01 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Always keep in mind that Tomasia has no evidence to support the existence of a 'fallen' state, or how that's any different from 'not fallen'. This is a shining example of post hoc rationalization.

If we can conceive of what it means to be good, then it's not hard to see that we're quite far from that. We're petty little creatures, prone to give in to our temptations, irritable and temperamental. I doubt many people here would see themselves as paradigms of goodness, though they might all desire to be good. Fallen would be representative of missing the mark here.

Quote:Literalism is at least somewhat intellectually respectable. It's nonsensical, impractical, and entirely impossible to apply universally across the board, given the books many contradictions. But it's arguably more honest than the faux intellectualism of picking whatever damn well pleases you.

I no more pick what's literal and non-literal, than I pick whether someone is being sarcastic or hyperbolic, or telling a joke, or using an analogy.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: