Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9027 total)
60 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 56 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,427 Year: 1,073/14,102 Month: 65/411 Week: 86/168 Day: 3/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Problems with Genesis: A Christian Evolutionist's View
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2610 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 151 of 200 (692477)
03-03-2013 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by New Cat's Eye
02-25-2013 12:08 PM


Re: Not a Time-Line

They wouldn't be known to the writers either! And if God magically poofed that knowledge into the writers' minds, then he could have done it to the readers too. As you have it, God has tricked all those ancient Jews and is a prankster.

Probably not, the writers were just taking dictation.

But the actual author would have realized he could not have said things that no one could possible relate to directly, and so the literary art of chosing word with a double intendre, a meaning for them but cleverly, a deeper meaning for us today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-25-2013 12:08 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Eli, posted 03-04-2013 12:01 AM kofh2u has not yet responded
 Message 154 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-04-2013 10:31 AM kofh2u has responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2282 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 152 of 200 (692490)
03-04-2013 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by kofh2u
03-03-2013 6:29 PM


Re: Not a Time-Line
So, instead of saying things that no one could relate to directly, he went with a talking snake and a magic tree and a woman made out of a rib?

Do you hear yourself?

If it were the case that God refrained from saying certain things because they would come off as nonsensical, he wouldn't have went with the Eden story as a substitute, which is equally nonsensical.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by kofh2u, posted 03-03-2013 6:29 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by jaywill, posted 03-04-2013 8:00 AM Eli has acknowledged this reply

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 732 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 153 of 200 (692501)
03-04-2013 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Eli
03-04-2013 12:01 AM


Re: Not a Time-Line
I have a different feeling. I think Genesis is a good way for the Creator to communicate to many cultures that human beginnings are rooted in the supernatural.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Eli, posted 03-04-2013 12:01 AM Eli has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 154 of 200 (692507)
03-04-2013 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by kofh2u
03-03-2013 6:29 PM


Re: Not a Time-Line
You didn't answer my question:

Why are you assuming that the Bible is literally true?

They wouldn't be known to the writers either! And if God magically poofed that knowledge into the writers' minds, then he could have done it to the readers too. As you have it, God has tricked all those ancient Jews and is a prankster.

Probably not,

Blasphemy. How dare you speak for the almighty God and place limits upon his powers.

the writers were just taking dictation.

Does God have a mouth with a tongue in it? Or does he shoot magic mind words straight into their brains?

You realize that you don't know this stuff and are just making it up, right?

But the actual author would have realized he could not have said things that no one could possible relate to directly, and so the literary art of chosing word with a double intendre, a meaning for them but cleverly, a deeper meaning for us today.

Yeah, your god is a prankster.

Awesome magic powers to control humans and make them write magical books, not to mention the creation of the universe, but too impotent to tell his story without lying to an entire culture of people. A culture, by the way, who has been lead to think they are his chosen ones while actually getting the whole story entirely wrong.

Hmph, you're god is really kind of a dick.

Why would he do that to them? Certainly he has the power to do it some other way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by kofh2u, posted 03-03-2013 6:29 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by kofh2u, posted 03-04-2013 1:27 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2610 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 155 of 200 (692528)
03-04-2013 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by New Cat's Eye
03-04-2013 10:31 AM


..."the Kingdom of God is within"...

kofh2u:
the writers were just taking dictation.

Catholic:
Does God have a mouth with a tongue in it? Or does he shoot magic mind words straight into their brains

The writers of the Bible were consciously setting down ideas and thoughts that came to them from the ancient of anciets who we call the phylogenetic Unconscious mind.

That part of our psyche, (soul), is regenerated by the genetic code and born again in every baby brought forth out of the womb back into the living.

The writers of the Bible were privy to the intercourse between that facility wherein is stored the memories of all the experiences of our species and even before.
This "god within" is the son of the ever unfolding Creator of Reality that mankind has experienced and added to his memories gentically.
He is Truth, tried by the purifying experiences of evolution and millioins of years of existence in that real world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-04-2013 10:31 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-04-2013 2:15 PM kofh2u has responded
 Message 157 by Coragyps, posted 03-04-2013 4:30 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 200 (692533)
03-04-2013 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by kofh2u
03-04-2013 1:27 PM


Re: ..."the Kingdom of God is within"...
The writers of the Bible were consciously setting down ideas and thoughts that came to them from the ancient of anciets who we call the phylogenetic Unconscious mind.

That part of our psyche, (soul), is regenerated by the genetic code and born again in every baby brought forth out of the womb back into the living.

So then I've got a few thousand years on them...

Its apparent that they got a lot of stuff wrong. Why are you assuming that they got everything right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by kofh2u, posted 03-04-2013 1:27 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by kofh2u, posted 03-06-2013 5:42 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 5548
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 157 of 200 (692538)
03-04-2013 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by kofh2u
03-04-2013 1:27 PM


Re: ..."the Kingdom of God is within"...
That part of our psyche, (soul), is regenerated by the genetic code and born again in every baby brought forth out of the womb back into the living.

Evidence?

Yeah, I thought not.........


"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by kofh2u, posted 03-04-2013 1:27 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18877
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 158 of 200 (692587)
03-05-2013 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by kofh2u
03-03-2013 6:22 PM


Re: truth...
kofh2u writes:

Of course there is am ideal concept of Truth because theree is one Reality to which Truth corrrsponds one-to-one by definition.


Your definition is wrong. Reality does not correspond one-to-one with any ideal concept. The church persecuted Galileo because his observations of reality did not conform to their ideal concept of what reality "should" be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by kofh2u, posted 03-03-2013 6:22 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18877
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 159 of 200 (692588)
03-05-2013 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by kofh2u
03-03-2013 6:26 PM


Re: truth...
kofh2u writes:

Of course Tuth is not Reality anymore than the son is the father, but for man, we can not tell the difference between the two.


The important thing to understand is that any model we have is only an image of reality. If there is a "Truth", our models - all of them, including the religious ones - are only imcomplete images. You can not know Truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by kofh2u, posted 03-03-2013 6:26 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by jaywill, posted 03-05-2013 4:03 PM ringo has responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 732 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 160 of 200 (692616)
03-05-2013 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by ringo
03-05-2013 11:29 AM


Re: truth...
quote:
You can not know Truth.

Ringo, is this a true statement that we can know ?
Or is this a statement the truth of which we cannot know because we cannot know Truth ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by ringo, posted 03-05-2013 11:29 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by ringo, posted 03-06-2013 11:02 AM jaywill has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18877
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 161 of 200 (692661)
03-06-2013 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by jaywill
03-05-2013 4:03 PM


Re: truth...
jaywill writes:

Ringo, is this a true statement that we can know ?


I make a distinction between truth and Truth, which I usually call "Truth" to draw attention to the distinction. Little-t truth can be varified by observation. It is true that the sun rises in the east (or appears to).

If big-t Truth is an "ideal" that cannot be observed directly, then it can not be little-t truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by jaywill, posted 03-05-2013 4:03 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by jaywill, posted 03-06-2013 11:56 AM ringo has responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 732 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 162 of 200 (692669)
03-06-2013 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by ringo
03-06-2013 11:02 AM


Re: truth...
I make a distinction between truth and Truth, which I usually call "Truth" to draw attention to the distinction. Little-t truth can be varified by observation. It is true that the sun rises in the east (or appears to).
If big-t Truth is an "ideal" that cannot be observed directly, then it can not be little-t truth.

Okay.

Was "Truth cannot be known" itself a big T Truth or a little t truth ?

Wouldn't you have to be able to observe big T Truth in order to observe that no one can KNOW big T Truth ?

How did you observe that big T Truth cannot be known unless you know big T Truth and noticed by observation that no one could apprehend big T Truth?

But if you yourself don't know or recognize big T truth, then I think you have to be agnostic about it. It is POSSIBLE that someone knew big T Truth and you didn't realize that this was what was being known.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by ringo, posted 03-06-2013 11:02 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by ringo, posted 03-06-2013 12:03 PM jaywill has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18877
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 163 of 200 (692672)
03-06-2013 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by jaywill
03-06-2013 11:56 AM


Re: truth...
jaywill writes:

Was "Truth cannot be known" itself a big T Truth or a little t truth ?


All real truth is little-t truth.

jaywill writes:

It is POSSIBLE that someone knew big T Truth and you didn't realize that this was what was being known.


If somebody claims to know big-t Truth, he has to be able to demonstrate how he observed it. Without repeatability, his claim is unreliable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by jaywill, posted 03-06-2013 11:56 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by jaywill, posted 03-06-2013 12:12 PM ringo has responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 732 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 164 of 200 (692673)
03-06-2013 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by ringo
03-06-2013 12:03 PM


Re: truth...
If somebody claims to know big-t Truth, he has to be able to demonstrate how he observed it. Without repeatability, his claim is unreliable.

And this concept you have written is a little t truth or a big T Truth ?

I am also not sure if you are saying that discribing how one observed big T Truth and repeatability have to go together.

I guess you are saying that one observes big T truth necessarily has to be able to advize the next person how to repeat that experience.

This is of course assuming that the second person is interested in having that experience. Upon being advized, for reasons of his own, he may decide to go the other way and not repeat what was claimed to be experienced.

I think you are saying there has to be ability to advize on one side.
Perhaps, then there has to be willingness to follow on the other party's part.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by ringo, posted 03-06-2013 12:03 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by ringo, posted 03-06-2013 12:32 PM jaywill has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18877
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 165 of 200 (692675)
03-06-2013 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by jaywill
03-06-2013 12:12 PM


Re: truth...
jaywill writes:

And this concept you have written is a little t truth or a big T Truth ?


As I said, all real truth is little-t truth, observable truth, repeatable truth.

jaywill writes:

This is of course assuming that the second person is interested in having that experience. Upon being advized, for reasons of his own, he may decide to go the other way and not repeat what was claimed to be experienced.


That's a copout. You're claiming that anybody who doesn't confirm your claims has an ulterior motive. That in itself is just another unconfirmed claim.

You don't have to be able to demonstarte your claims to everybody but it also isn't enough to demonstrate your claims to somebody. You have to be able to demonstrate your claims to a group of more-or-less randomly-chosen people and they have to come to a consensus. Think of it like jury selection.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by jaywill, posted 03-06-2013 12:12 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by jaywill, posted 03-06-2013 12:44 PM ringo has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021