Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[JacksBratt]

The preist class was literate, often the common man wasn't. Israelite isn't a race, it's more a religio/political conglomeration of followers of Moses the reformer.

Another idea or view that is an gross error. Illiterate and unintelligent are not synonyms. Where is this idea perpetuated and why? I see it everywhere. In the workplace, on this forum, in the media..... People are not unintelligent just because they are uneducated. Some of the most intelligent people in the universe may, in fact, be illiterate, uneducated and lost in the slums of the US, jungles of a tropical area, slaves of some oppressive government, or just lost in the cracks of our "be rich or do without" attitude toward education.


It angers me when I hear such blithering nonsense. My father attended school until grade ten. I would take his intelligence against any school room coddled academic egghead of today. Numerous times, in his work, he had to correct the errors of such pompous intellectuals, before people were injured, systems failed, machines were damaged or made useless or company money lost. Saving their jobs in the wake and sometimes almost getting fired for not following the blueprints of improperly designed parts.

The truth is......you are born with an intelligence. You are taught knowledge. You gain wisdom.

You cannot be taught intelligence. Illiterate does not mean that you don't have the capacity to understand. It means you haven't been given the chance.

Moses was very well educated. That is true. The notion that he was an anomaly is false and erroneous.

The people who believe that past generations and generations of ancient times, were less intelligent, are, themselves, ignorant and arrogantly presumptuous.

Also, were the Israelite people not all descendants of Abraham and Sarah? Are they not all able to trace themselves back to one of the twelve tribes? This is not the format of a religio/political conglomeration of followers. This is a tribe, or a group of twelve tribes.

Moses was a one of them. Not a person who by happenstance showed up to have pity on some slaves.

The proof of evolution is in the factual layers of the old earth, or at least the evidence that many forms of life lived at different times over millions of years. The creation story was a psudo-biographical creation of the Hebrew priesthood intended for their own people. After the return the sacred writings became tradition and eventually written by God just as every other religion evolves.

This is a good example of academia pollution that is infused into the vast sponge of eager minds of the students of today and years past.

If you want the truth, read Genesis as if you had no corruption of the TOE and man's hatred of the fact that God exists and created us.

 

[Colter]

Another idea or view that is an gross error. Illiterate and unintelligent are not synonyms. Where is this idea perpetuated and why? I see it everywhere. In the workplace, on this forum, in the media..... People are not unintelligent just because they are uneducated. Some of the most intelligent people in the universe may, in fact, be illiterate, uneducated and lost in the slums of the US, jungles of a tropical area, slaves of some oppressive government, or just lost in the cracks of our "be rich or do without" attitude toward education.


It angers me when I hear such blithering nonsense. My father attended school until grade ten. I would take his intelligence against any school room coddled academic egghead of today. Numerous times, in his work, he had to correct the errors of such pompous intellectuals, before people were injured, systems failed, machines were damaged or made useless or company money lost. Saving their jobs in the wake and sometimes almost getting fired for not following the blueprints of improperly designed parts.

The truth is......you are born with an intelligence. You are taught knowledge. You gain wisdom.

You cannot be taught intelligence. Illiterate does not mean that you don't have the capacity to understand. It means you haven't been given the chance.

Moses was very well educated. That is true. The notion that he was an anomaly is false and erroneous.

The people who believe that past generations and generations of ancient times, were less intelligent, are, themselves, ignorant and arrogantly presumptuous.

Also, were the Israelite people not all descendants of Abraham and Sarah? Are they not all able to trace themselves back to one of the twelve tribes? This is not the format of a religio/political conglomeration of followers. This is a tribe, or a group of twelve tribes.

Moses was a one of them. Not a person who by happenstance showed up to have pity on some slaves.



This is a good example of academia pollution that is infused into the vast sponge of eager minds of the students of today and years past.

If you want the truth, read Genesis as if you had no corruption of the TOE and man's hatred of the fact that God exists and created us.

If I said there are purple dinosaurs at the mall, something so rediculous wouldn't garner a response, but to make a claim that the educated preist class wrote in such a way as to captivate the common man gets a big rise, not because of its untruth, but because it's spot on and that makes you angry.

Today, if the creation or flood narrative wasn't in the Bible and someone discovered it in Herods attic, it would be dismissed out of hand. But people belive it, not because it sounds true, rather they are willing to suspend common since because it's in the sacred writings which are associated with other things that are true.

Your frustration is not with me, it's with the truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your frustration is not with me, it's with the truth.

Says a Urantian, posting as a Christian Church Seeker.

Have you found one yet?

 

[JacksBratt]

If I said there are purple dinosaurs at the mall, something so rediculous wouldn't garner a response, but to make a claim that the educated preist class wrote in such a way as to captivate the common man gets a big rise, not because of its untruth, but because it's spot on and that makes you angry.

Today, if the creation or flood narrative wasn't in the Bible and someone discovered it in Herods attic, it would be dismissed out of hand. But people belive it, not because it sounds true, rather they are willing to suspend common since because it's in the sacred writings which are associated with other things that are true.

Your frustration is not with me, it's with the truth.

If the creation or flood narrative wasn't in the Bible it wouldn't be the truth.

You could put the TOE in your scenario as the item found in Herod's attic. Then, of course, you would be correct. It should be dismissed, out of hand.

However, it is in the Bible. The Bible is the word of God. The truth of the Bible will still be standing when this earth is gone and the new earth exists.

Where will your "wisdom of man" and "empirical science" be then? It will be a memory of the people who couldn't hear even though they had ears.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

You could put the TOE in your scenario as the item found in Herod's attic. Then, of course, you would be correct. It should be dismissed, out of hand.

What 'TOE'? I know of no finished, formalized 'Theory of Everything'. Could you direct me, please?[/QUOTE]

 

[Anguspure]

Yeah, I read that...but I can't see his "followers" doing that...heck, they'll spit on the homeless man on the street. So, are his "followers" REALLY his "followers" if they can't bring themselves to emulate the one they claim to follow. Remember, the word "Christian" literally means "Christ follower". Don't see much of that.
And the atheists, pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, Ba'hais, and virtually any other religious group. So...it gives the lie to those who claim to follow the one who said "Love one another as I have loved you"...

Then these people you are talking about are not followers of Christ are they?
Whatever they are, they cannot claim to be followers and this is exactly why I don't see a no true Scotsman fallacy here; The term "follow" is a verb that describes the act of following.
Therefore one who follows maybe identified by the life that is lived, the path that is taken.
A follower of Christ Jesus maybe identified by the fact that they live a life that is Christ like i.e. Laying down our lives for the good of our neighbor irrespective of whether they are friend, enemy or indifferent because this is what Christ Jesus has done. The fruit of the Spirit (of Christ) is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
On the other hand a person who follows the way of evil may be identified by the šelfish and prideful way in which their lives are lived and the acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like (I've emboldened the middle traits because they are often overlooked as somehow more acceptable than the other ones).

So...pretty much, I no longer publicly identify myself as a Christian. Don't want to be identified with such an ugly group of people.

I know what you mean, and I don't much like being put in a box in someones little head at the best of times.
But for me its a fine line between denying the religious body, as ugly as it may be at times, and denying the Head.
I have always denied that I'm Religious for the reasons you have outlined, but have always been prepared to wear the accusation of being a Chrestian (sic) whenever it has been leveled at me, and I will never hesitate to defend Christ when the opportunity arises.

 

[Colter]

Says a Urantian, posting as a Christian Church Seeker.

Have you found one yet?

Long ago, its a Presbyterian church that worships God not books.

Are you still fortifying your denial?

 

[Colter]

If the creation or flood narrative wasn't in the Bible it wouldn't be the truth.

You could put the TOE in your scenario as the item found in Herod's attic. Then, of course, you would be correct. It should be dismissed, out of hand.

However, it is in the Bible. The Bible is the word of God. The truth of the Bible will still be standing when this earth is gone and the new earth exists.

Where will your "wisdom of man" and "empirical science" be then? It will be a memory of the people who couldn't hear even though they had ears.

The Bible is not one book but a series of Books, some of which were written by the people who killed Jesus. And that very same Book says God is the Living Word, the bible is mans written word.

 

[dms1972]

.

 

[Anguspure]

The Bible is not one book but a series of Books, some of which were written by the people who killed Jesus

All of which was written by the people who were the reason Jesus died. I am sure they agree.

And that very same Book says God is the Living Word, the bible is mans written word.

It is evident that even though the letters, history, prophecies and songs were written by men, they were inspired by the Spirit.

For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Colter]

All of which was written by the people who were the reason Jesus died. I am sure they agree.

It is evident that even though the letters, history, prophecies and songs were written by men, they were inspired by the Spirit.

For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

We were told stories which didn't really fit the actuality of the incarnate Son or subsiquent scientific inquiry. Those stories became a stumbling block for the Israelites when he did come.

 

[JacksBratt]

The Bible is not one book but a series of Books,

Right you are. It can also be and is on many occasions referred to as one book. Are you going to call me on this technicality? If so, let me rephrase and say.... HEY wait a sec. I never referred to it as a book or books..... You're a crafty one....

some of which were written by the people who killed Jesus.

Ok, calling you on this one. I never wrote any of the books of the Bible. AND I put Christ on the cross. He died for me. He even said so. He came here to do it. Before I even chose to follow Him.

And that very same Book says God is the Living Word, the bible is mans written word.

Are you saying that the Bible we read in the churches around this globe, the ones people have died for, all the versions and translations, are just men's written word?

If so, how do you explain scripture like this:

2 Timothy 3:16King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Living word or Written word, either or, this book of books is, in my opinion, God's book of wisdom given to us so that we may understand Him, His ways, His past actions, His present and His future events. I will take these scriptures as the final truth.

 

[Archivist]

Ya ... no kidding?

You say "basic tenets," then when someone replies, you say, "I meant the creeds."

The creeds contain the basic tenets, but the basic tenets aren't the creeds.Whatever.

It's not worth arguing over.

If "demon possession" is a basic tenet of your church that is your business. I wouldn't want to attend a church that claims demon possession as a basic tenet. I'll stick with what is stated in the creeds.

Now, perhaps we can both get back on the topic of evolution and the Bible.

 

[Colter]

Right you are. It can also be and is on many occasions referred to as one book. Are you going to call me on this technicality? If so, let me rephrase and say.... HEY wait a sec. I never referred to it as a book or books..... You're a crafty one....




Ok, calling you on this one. I never wrote any of the books of the Bible. AND I put Christ on the cross. He died for me. He even said so. He came here to do it. Before I even chose to follow Him.




Are you saying that the Bible we read in the churches around this globe, the ones people have died for, all the versions and translations, are just men's written word?

If so, how do you explain scripture like this:

2 Timothy 3:16King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Living word or Written word, either or, this book of books is, in my opinion, God's book of wisdom given to us so that we may understand Him, His ways, His past actions, His present and His future events. I will take these scriptures as the final truth.

I explain 2 Timothy as being the opinion of the person who wrote it, they were talking about the OT as 2 Timothy wasn't yet scripture. Later, the church made Timothy scripture along with Pauls other letters of correspondence. "Suddenly" Pauls words were equal to Jesus'.

I've been inspired by God at times, but I wouldn't consider my writings to be Gods Word.

We obveouly aren't going to agree and that's ok.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, perhaps we can both get back on the topic of evolution and the Bible.

Suit yourself.

I'm finished here.

 

[dms1972]

I think I should say, here, that we should not get fooled into believing that Moses, the author of Genesis was in any way less intelligent than we.

Moses was raised by the Egyptian royalty. He was educated as an Egyptian royal and ran the country for the Pharaoh. He was no slouch when it came to intelligence.

Undoubtedly true, but why would his intelligence be important in reception of a revelatory truth?

The theory of evolution (materialist version) does not take high intelligence, I understood the rudiments of Darwin's theory as a child, before in recent years people called it into question. The thing i didn't understand as a child was that Darwin, being more a scientist than his neo-darwinian followers, included in his theory a way of falsifying it. Now if you know a little about science you know that for a theory to be considered as worthy of further scientific evaluation it needs to at least be falsifiable. That means that you need to give an example of something that if discovered would prove your theory to be false. Else it can't be tested. Science is about ongoing re-testing and evaluation, not just looking for confirmation, but also giving equal consideration to those things that might prove one's hypothesis to be false. Darwin did just this, it was Darwin that first speculated on the possibility of irreducible complexity, not the ID folks.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

Of course Darwin was being seeking to be scientific in writing this, unlike many of his followers. In Darwin's time people knew very little about the complexity of the human eye. Darwin said he 'shuddered' at the thought of explaining it.

Note well that it is not Darwinian theory that has assisted our learning more about the eye. By definition the theory would have predicted less complexity, and led us to believe we understood it when there was more to learn.

 

[Indent]

Undoubtedly true, but why would his intelligence be important in reception of a revelatory truth?

The theory of evolution (materialist version) does not take high intelligence, I understood the rudiments of Darwin's theory as a child, before in recent years people of higher intelligence called it into question. The thing i didn't understand as a child was that Darwin, being more a scientist than his neo-darwinian followers, included in his theory a way of falsifying it. Now if you know a little about science you know that for a theory to be considered as worthy of further scientific evaluation it needs to at least be falsifiable. That means that you need to give an example of something that would prove your theory to be false. Else it can't be tested. Science is about ongoing re-testing and evaluation, not just looking for confirmation, but also giving equal consideration to those things that would prove one's hypothesis to be false. Darwin did just this, it was Darwin that first speculated on the possibility of irreducible complexity, not the ID folks.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

Of course Darwin was being seeking to be scientific in writing this, unlike many of his followers. In Darwin's time people knew very little about the complexity of the human eye. Darwin said he 'shuddered' at the thought of explaining it.

Note well that it is not neo-Darwinian theory that has assisted our learning more about the eye. By definition the theory would have predicted less complexity, and led us to believe we understood it when there was more to learn.

It doesn't matter what station Moses occupied or whether he was well educated for the time.

It's not a question of intelligence, but of the worldview (knowledge and intellectual categories of the time). Moses could have been the most brilliant man to walk the earth, but that doesn't change the fact that ancient Israelites had an ancient "science", if you can even call it that.

These are a people that thought the mind was associated with the intestines (the brain matter was junk). These are a people that thought a solid dome covered the earth, and that the sun orbited the earth.

It's a fact that Ancient Near Eastern cultures used myths. It's a sophisticated means of communication--foreign and unusual to us.

Yes a lot of progress has been made in a 130 some years.

Perhaps our understanding of the process might be adjusted, but the fact that we evolved will not.

 

[dms1972]

It is completely false to say that the ancient Israelites associated the mind with the intestines. That seems to be your own thinking. Modern evolution assumes mind arose from 'grey matter', and why should anyone accept a word you say if evolution was true it would mean we could have no insight into objective realities! Therefore materialist evolution is no more than an explanation some people like for reasons other than its scientific merit, not an insight into objective reality. A theory with neither explanatory power, nor predictive power (if it had predicted the complexity of the eye the theory would have fallen apart) hardly even ranks as a theory, let alone fact, and within a few generations it will be completely moribund, because ID will become more plausible because we are now leaving the industrial age, and moving into the information age, and ID is a theory which comprehends and builds on information theory, whereas materialistic evolution which is really natural philosophy and not science will seem increasing outdated.

Not only is it being assailed by Creationists, ID theorists, but also by independent minded atheists like Thomas Nagel.

"The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the Word of our God endures forever." Isaiah 40:8

 

[Archie the Preacher]

You could put the TOE in your scenario as the item found in Herod's attic. Then, of course, you would be correct. It should be dismissed, out of hand.

What 'TOE'? I know of no finished, formalized 'Theory of Everything'. Could you direct me, please?

I have an 'alert' telling me "Jack'sBratt" thinks my question is 'funny' and posts no response. Obviously, his comment is empty and without foundation as he cannot explain it, let alone defend it.

 

[Anguspure]

We were told stories which didn't really fit the actuality of the incarnate Son or subsiquent scientific inquiry. Those stories became a stumbling block for the Israelites when he did come.

God has His reasons for being obscure in prophecy, a large part of which IMO is a preventative against fortune telling and also serve to obscure some things from the evil one.
The Israelites (not all of them though) stumbled because they were looking through religous and prideful snakes eyes.

Anyway it is written that a number of faithful Jewish people had been waiting a lifetime snd recognised Jesus for what He was when the met Him.

Nevertheless the words that were carefully chosen in the original language are such that subsequent reflection reveals that the Person who inspired them understood and new about the subject matter intimately.

For example when the writer of Hebrews wrote: "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible", we don't think that the person who penned it actually understood molecular physics but we can see that in the light of our much later observations that this statement is absolutely correct.