if not evolution

[Hollie]

Why the need for vitriol and hate because I disagree with your beliefs?

That would be apathy, darling. There's a big difference.

That’s fine, pumpkin. But really, your making arrogant, unsupported claims on a public discussion board should have suggested to you that others might disagree. Your snide remarks do nothing but make you appear unprepared for countering opinions. If you’re not prepared for chslkenges to your religious claims you might want to rethink participation on a discussion board.

My arguments have been made and were unchallenged. Want me to repeat them again.

Repeat them again. Then look back through the thread for challenges.

I did. All I saw were challenges on allegory versus literal. Nothing challenged the central theme of my argument.

Other than your argument is conjecture and speculation.

Why are your gods not able to deliver their message in clear terms without creating the conditions that cause such confusion?

 

[harmonica]

the bible is just words written by imperfect man
it can be interpreted many ways

 

[Uncensored2008]

if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe a fully formed man just appeared/etc?
is this correct?

Ah, a logical fallacy to start a discussion. This is bound to go well...

If "belief" is your criterion, then what you have is religion.

 

[harmonica]

if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe a fully formed man just appeared/etc?
is this correct?

Ah, a logical fallacy to start a discussion. This is bound to go well...

If "belief" is your criterion, then what you have is religion.

what's your theory/belief/hypothesis'idea/etc of how man ''came to be''?

 

[Czernobog]

What ding is saying is that he is trying hard to connect science and his theism.

To use and IDers language, there are many missing links in Genesis.

Jews have no problem making the connection.
And there are an over abundance of Jewish scientists.

The Bible sez creation took six days and was done.

How long did it take in your opinion?

The sun wasn't formed until the 4th day.
How long were the first 3 periods of erev (mixture) and boker (clarity)?
Suddenly we discover the importance of the original language.

That's not what those words mean. You act as if people do not have access to something as simple as a Strong's Concordance. If you need to intentionally misrepresent the meaning of the original Hebrew in order to support your argument, then your argument is suspect:

ereb: even (72x), evening (47x), night (4x), mingled (2x), people (2x), eventide (2x), eveningtide (with H6256) (2x), Arabia (1x), days (1x), even (with H996) (1x), evening (with H3117) (1x), evening (with H6256) (1x), eventide (with H6256).

boqer: morning (191x), morrow (7x), day (3x), days (with H6153) (1x), early (3x)

Now, while it can be noted that the word ereb was, in fact translated in one place in the Bible as mingled, which could be argued is a synonym for "mixture", that argument loses its power when we consider, a) boqer has never once been translated as "clarity" as you claim, but always some variation of morning, or day, and b) that the word is much more often translated as "even" (as in shortened eversion of evening), and "evening", then your clear misrepresentation of those two words becomes clear.

 

[Uncensored2008]

if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe a fully formed man just appeared/etc?
is this correct?

Ah, a logical fallacy to start a discussion. This is bound to go well...

If "belief" is your criterion, then what you have is religion.

what's your theory/belief/hypothesis'idea/etc of how man ''came to be''?

The evidence points to the adaptation of species to their environments. This says utterly nothing of how "life" came about. In order for any organism to evolve, it must first exist.

Your OP is a logical fallacy, demanding that people either "believe" in your religion or the competitor religion you are most threatened by. It is a false dichotomy. People can (and do) reject your faith and the straw man alternative you presented.

Evolution is a reasonably good explanation of how lower order species transition into higher order species. It is generally consistent with the facts.

Science is a process of discovery, a set of tools to help logically formulate and test answers to questions. It is not a substitute religion to replace the one you are rejecting.

 

[Czernobog]

The sun wasn't formed until the 4th day.

Where does it say that? Hint, it doesn't

Actually, it has always been accepted that it does. Genesis Chapter 1:

16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Unless you believe these two "great lights" were something other than the Sun, and Moon. By all means, enlighten us in what those two great lights were, if not the Sun, and Moon.

 

[MarkDuffy]

the bible is just words written by imperfect man
it can be interpreted many ways

And they have had 2000 years to spin it

Science keeps winning and God keeps losing

 

[MarkDuffy]

Evolution of Evolutionary Theory | EpicOfEvolution

 

[harmonica]

if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe a fully formed man just appeared/etc?
is this correct?

Ah, a logical fallacy to start a discussion. This is bound to go well...

If "belief" is your criterion, then what you have is religion.

what's your theory/belief/hypothesis'idea/etc of how man ''came to be''?

The evidence points to the adaptation of species to their environments. This says utterly nothing of how "life" came about. In order for any organism to evolve, it must first exist.

Your OP is a logical fallacy, demanding that people either "believe" in your religion or the competitor religion you are most threatened by. It is a false dichotomy. People can (and do) reject your faith and the straw man alternative you presented.

Evolution is a reasonably good explanation of how lower order species transition into higher order species. It is generally consistent with the facts.

Science is a process of discovery, a set of tools to help logically formulate and test answers to questions. It is not a substitute religion to replace the one you are rejecting.

your reply seems to be invalidated by your perceived idea==''threatened''....?!!??

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why the need for vitriol and hate because I disagree with your beliefs?

That would be apathy, darling. There's a big difference.

That’s fine, pumpkin. But really, your making arrogant, unsupported claims on a public discussion board should have suggested to you that others might disagree. Your snide remarks do nothing but make you appear unprepared for countering opinions. If you’re not prepared for chslkenges to your religious claims you might want to rethink participation on a discussion board.

My arguments have been made and were unchallenged. Want me to repeat them again.

Repeat them again. Then look back through the thread for challenges.

I did. All I saw were challenges on allegory versus literal. Nothing challenged the central theme of my argument.

Yes, please, repeat your argument. Succinctly, please.

 

[ding]

The Bible has several literary types; allegorical, historical, law, poetic, prophetic, epistle and proverbial. I'm sure others may add or subtract to this list, but this is a pretty good start. When trying to understand the meaning of passages it is helpful to understand which literary type one is reading and also to place or read the passage in the proper historical light.

Let's start with the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the fall from grace. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

 

[ding]

Now could one of the cry babies tell me why everything must be perfect for there to be a God.

 

[Hollie]

The Bible has several literary types; allegorical, historical, law, poetic, prophetic, epistle and proverbial. I'm sure others may add or subtract to this list, but this is a pretty good start. When trying to understand the meaning of passages it is helpful to understand which literary type one is reading and also to place or read the passage in the proper historical light.

Let's start with the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the fall from grace. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

You’re on the precipice of a slippery slope if you’re suggesting that your religious beliefs are the model for defining good/evil, right/wrong or moral choices.

Oh, and why the gargantuan, colored text?

Obviously, people learned to co-exist with one another before your religious beliefs existed. Well, then how did we survive at all? Clearly, even though we had no knowledge of gods, somehow we didn't all kill one another because -- we're clearly here. So there must have been some morality.

Any claim that it's god-implanted is mere assertion. There are two possibilities: One, that morality is the sentient labeling we give to behavior that supports the species and allows it to survive, and is fully natural, or Two, that morality is implanted by a divine being (for humans and animals both).

Okay, you opt for #2, I opt for #1. Now it's time to go out and compare notes and put on the table the evidence that will define either #1 as knowledge, or #2 as knowledge. You now have to prove god exists before you can even begin to prove morality is god-implanted.


For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct?

Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well.

Morality is both transitory and fully natural in its source. Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.




So I'm conflicted on how to handle a domestic issue, and the absolutely universal moral law of the gods is not making it clear how I should proceed. Here's my conflict, from Leviticus 25:45-46


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."

Here's my problem. One of the 4 year old children of the heathens around me actually has converted to Judaism. Now, technically he is still heathen, at least by blood. Can I buy this child anyway, or does the conversion override the bloodline issue? I suspect that a 4 year old isn't old enough to make such a decision regarding their status, so I can buy and enslave him anyway.

Can you enlighten me on how the bible resolves such a conflict?

Thanks.

 

[harmonica]

there is not total free will
there are many factors which affect decisions--socioeconomic, parents, upbringing, physiological,etc
ie: most murders--over 85%-- are committed by males....if there is total free will, why don't females commit more murders?
the majority of the murders committed in my city, are in a certain, ghetto area
blacks commit murders are a MUCH higher rate than whites
please explain the HUGE difference in these numbers......it's a HUGE difference--not a little

Statistics have been consistent in reporting that men commit more criminal acts than women.

Sex differences in crime - Wikipedia

The offending rate for African Americans was almost 8 times higher than whites,

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
EIGHT times higher--not 2, 3, 5 , or 6 but EIGHT times higher

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the year 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery. Black youths were overrepresented in all offense categories except DUI, liquor laws and drunkenness

 

[ding]

The Bible has several literary types; allegorical, historical, law, poetic, prophetic, epistle and proverbial. I'm sure others may add or subtract to this list, but this is a pretty good start. When trying to understand the meaning of passages it is helpful to understand which literary type one is reading and also to place or read the passage in the proper historical light.

Let's start with the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the fall from grace. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

You’re on the precipice of a slippery slope if you’re suggesting that your religious beliefs are the model for defining good/evil, right/wrong or moral choices.

Oh, and why the gargantuan, colored text?

Obviously, people learned to co-exist with one another before your religious beliefs existed. Well, then how did we survive at all? Clearly, even though we had no knowledge of gods, somehow we didn't all kill one another because -- we're clearly here. So there must have been some morality.

Any claim that it's god-implanted is mere assertion. There are two possibilities: One, that morality is the sentient labeling we give to behavior that supports the species and allows it to survive, and is fully natural, or Two, that morality is implanted by a divine being (for humans and animals both).

Okay, you opt for #2, I opt for #1. Now it's time to go out and compare notes and put on the table the evidence that will define either #1 as knowledge, or #2 as knowledge. You now have to prove god exists before you can even begin to prove morality is god-implanted.


For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct?

Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well.

Morality is both transitory and fully natural in its source. Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.




So I'm conflicted on how to handle a domestic issue, and the absolutely universal moral law of the gods is not making it clear how I should proceed. Here's my conflict, from Leviticus 25:45-46


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."

Here's my problem. One of the 4 year old children of the heathens around me actually has converted to Judaism. Now, technically he is still heathen, at least by blood. Can I buy this child anyway, or does the conversion override the bloodline issue? I suspect that a 4 year old isn't old enough to make such a decision regarding their status, so I can buy and enslave him anyway.

Can you enlighten me on how the bible resolves such a conflict?

Thanks.

So then you don't believe there are universal truths?

 

[Hollie]

Now could one of the cry babies tell me why everything must be perfect for there to be a God.

No reason to expect perfection. It was the gods who brought evil into the world.

Could one of the religionists tell me why all of humanity was to be condemned for an act of fruit theft by one individual?

 

[ding]

there is not total free will
there are many factors which affect decisions--socioeconomic, parents, upbringing, physiological,etc
ie: most murders--over 85%-- are committed by males....if there is total free will, why don't females commit more murders?
the majority of the murders committed in my city, are in a certain, ghetto area
blacks commit murders are a MUCH higher rate than whites
please explain the HUGE difference in these numbers......it's a HUGE difference--not a little

Statistics have been consistent in reporting that men commit more criminal acts than women.

Sex differences in crime - Wikipedia

The offending rate for African Americans was almost 8 times higher than whites,

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
EIGHT times higher--not 2, 3, 5 , or 6 but EIGHT times higher

If you lived back in 1939 and a Nazi put a gun to your head and told you to kill 100 Jews or he would shoot you, would you have free will to not shoot them?

 

[ding]

Now could one of the cry babies tell me why everything must be perfect for there to be a God.

No reason to expect perfection. It was the gods who brought evil into the world.

Could one of the religionists tell me why all of humanity was to be condemned for an act of fruit theft by one individual?

I already explained that to you. It is the nature of good which is extant and it serves a purpose.

Besides you don't believe there is a god so you don't believe that God brought evil into the world.

Maybe you are just unhappy with the world.

 

[ding]

Virtue is the ultimate organizing principle. But you are not virtuous if you are made to be virtuous.