My Unoffensive Challenge

[AV1611VET]

What's so unoffensive about evolution that it can't be considered anathema maranatha?

 

[John Hyperspace]

I feel that it is inoffensive in the same way that all literal understanding is inoffensive. It's harmless to hypothesize, especially when nothing can be ascertained with certainty; useless as a foundation of sand. It's only when the literal understanding begins to intrude into knowledge of the scripture that things may become offensive to me; not in the harmlessness of the academic musings and hypothesizings, but in such a case that it becomes guilty of robbing people of the spiritual truth contained in all of the scripture.

It's not that I would say "Your literal understanding is certainly wrong" since I cannot be certain of what the narrative may literally mean; but I would say "The literal understanding is not the point, and by thrusting literal understanding into the mind, you are holding people back from understanding the spiritual understanding, which is all that matters."

I would appeal to the Cross, and maintain that we are to put to death the literal understand and be transformed in mind and understanding and be raised new into the fullness of the spiritual understanding. Casting aside the literal which causes a stumbling, and a, falling short, and a, missing the mark, in pursuit of the spiritual. To, purge by fire, as it were, the literal understanding, burning away all literal understanding that the mind of the Spirit may be revealed and known. This is that spirit that gives life.

 

[BobRyan]

What's so unoffensive about evolution that it can't be considered anathema maranatha?

Change happens... bacteria learn to eat new things for breakfast... different species of plants and flies may appear from pre-existing plants and flies.

 

[BobRyan]

I feel that it is inoffensive in the same way that all literal understanding is inoffensive. It's harmless to hypothesize, especially when nothing can be ascertained with certainty; .

So you're saying that since no element of evolutionism is proven - might as well make stuff up all day long and be happy about it?

 

[-57]

So you're saying that since no element of evolutionism is proven - might as well make stuff up all day long and be happy about it?

But, you forget...evolution above species level has NEVER been shown to occur. Only speculated.

 

[Speedwell]

But, you forget...evolution above species level has NEVER been shown to occur. Only speculated.

If speciation can occur, producing two species with a common ancestor, then a new genus comprising them can be said to have formed.

 

[John Hyperspace]

So you're saying that since no element of evolutionism is proven - might as well make stuff up all day long and be happy about it?

I would say that I feel that "evolutionists" are practicing the same mental process as the literal interpreter or Genesis. Looking at the data and attempting to construct and interpretation of that data, which is not a certainty, but a tentative approximation. I do not believe either has any real value. Note that I am using the word "evolution" according to the popular definition, and, not the technical definition (as I presume you are, as well)

No one is really "making stuff up" they are interpreting the data (usually according to a bias).

 

[AV1611VET]

I would say that I feel that "evolutionists" are practicing the same mental process as the literal interpreter or Genesis. Looking at the data ...

What data?

I'm a literal Genesis 1 creationist, and I say data can take a hike.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

What's so unoffensive about evolution that it can't be considered anathema maranatha?

Vet, 'anathema' means "forbidden by the Pope and outlawed" which gave rise to "condemned or accursed" which morphed into "distasteful"

'Maranatha' means "My Lord Comes" and is often representative of the Second Coming at the end of time.

So could you explain to me how you are using those two words together and what do you mean in dog years?

 

[John Hyperspace]

What data?

I'm a literal Genesis 1 creationist, and I say data can take a hike.

The information contained in the linguistic structure of the narrative. That linguistic data which you attempt to interpret (usually through the lens of a dogmatic bias), which yields your tentative approximation and subsequent historic model.

 

[AV1611VET]

Vet, 'anathema' means "forbidden by the Pope and outlawed" which gave rise to "condemned or accursed" which morphed into "distasteful"

"Anathema" means "accursed."

And Paul used it before any pope did.

1 Corinthians 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

'Maranatha' means "My Lord Comes" and is often representative of the Second Coming at the end of time.

That is correct.

So could you explain to me how you are using those two words together ...

"Let him be accursed when the LORD returns."

... and what do you mean in dog years?

What?

 

[AV1611VET]

The information contained in the linguistic structure of the narrative. That linguistic data which you attempt to interpret (usually through the lens of a dogmatic bias), which yields your tentative approximation and subsequent historic model.

So again ... what specific data are you referring to?

 

[Chesterton]

And Paul used it before any pope did.

Paul was a pope (papa). Well, at least he called himself "father".

 

[AV1611VET]

Paul was a pope (papa).

And I'm Genghis Khan.

 

[John Hyperspace]

So again ... what specific data are you referring to?

Any and all information being interpreted in order to create a hypothetical model of any proposed cosmogeny. The precise data you may use, would have to be proposed by you. I, myself, construct no cosmogenic models, therefore, I have no hypothesis and require no data.

 

[Chesterton]

And I'm Genghis Khan.

1 Corinthians 4:15

Philippians 2:22

 

[AV1611VET]

Any and all information being interpreted in order to create a hypothetical model of any proposed cosmogeny. The precise data you may use, would have to be proposed by you. I, myself, construct no cosmogenic models, therefore, I have no hypothesis and require no data.

Let's simplify this:

What existed in the physical universe as mass after Day One of the Creation Week?

I say the only thing in existence at that time was one big round ball of sea water that, for lack of a better term, I call Terra Aqua.

What say you?

And if you're going to allegorize Genesis 1, I vote we just end the conversation right here and now.

(Although I am curious as to what myth starters think the universe consisted of at the end of Day One.)

 

[AV1611VET]

1 Corinthians 4:15

Philippians 222

I hope you're kidding.

 

[Chesterton]

I hope you're kidding.

About what? I'd have a hard time believing you don't know these verses.

 

[AV1611VET]

About what? I'd have a hard time believing you don't know these verses.

I know those verses, but not like you do.

If Paul was the first pope, who was Pope Paul I?