Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[Astrid]

That's the point.
Accepting the Bible lock stock and barrel which includes the mistreatment of women is highly offensive yet has been justified in this thread.

I will stay clear of that, too personal, too much
an issue for me.

 

[sjastro]

I will stay clear of that, too personal, too much
an issue for me.

I'm sorry to hear this and hope you have received adequate support.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the advantage of only using an antiquated, pre-modern translation -- you don't have to acknowledge such things.

When it is missing altogether from one very well respected and thought to be mostly complete early version of the Bible it should more than pique one's interest. When it is totally missing from another even older version, but again very well respected, it is time to start thinking awfully hard about that particular passage. I have a feeling that it is missing from even more than those two.

EDIT: My feelings were justified:

"To be sure, the story is often marked out in various ways in both scholarly editions and Bible translations, for example, by double brackets and an accompanying footnote explaining that it is missing in the earliest manuscripts, including Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus from the third and fourth centuries, and goes unmentioned by Greek church fathers until the twelfth century."

Does the Woman Caught in Adultery Belong in the Bible? | Tommy Wasserman

The source is a Christian group. Now it may have appeared in other "gospels" but not in any of the four:

"
Eusebius (c. 260–c. 340) in his church history attributes a similar story to Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60–130) and the now lost Gospel of the Hebrews. Further, Didymus the Blind (c. 313–398) says he found the story “in certain gospels,” a reference which likely suggests he did not know the passage from John, but from a different gospel.


Codex Bezae (c. 400 AD) showing a later dash mark in the left margin at the start of John 7:53 (f. 133v)
The earliest manuscript evidence for the passage in John is the Greek-Latin Codex Bezae (c. 400 AD) which contains the story in its traditional place both in Greek and Latin on facing pages. Interestingly, later annotators have marked out the story in the margins, probably because it was treated separately in the liturgy."

It goes on to mention some other possible sources. None of them John.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think that any atheist worships any other atheist. We know that they are all too human. Dawkins is admired more for his work in biology than anything else. He is merely vocal about his atheistic beliefs and how his understanding of biology showed that a God was not necessary for life, though many other atheists came to atheism through different routes. Hitchens is admired for his quick wit and ability to skewer others in debates. Harris for his clam reasoning. But none of them write an "inerrant word of atheism". We are still learning and one has to be willing to admit that there are areas in which we are wrong today. That is how one learns and corrects one's past bad behavior.

Just to be clear, I didn't intend to imply that any atheists "worship" any other atheists. But I've been tracking atheism and its proponents for years and I've noticed there's been some problem among some atheists of being too gung-ho over certain individuals. Some of them still are.

I'm glad to hear that you guys, however, are cut from a different cloth and willing to learn rather than stoop to polemics and skeptical carpet b*mb!ng.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You'll notice that I included the term 'cannot be true for mere mortals'. So if you want to suggest that a length of wood turning into a snake is a divine miracle then go ahead. If someone else wants to suggest that it's a just story meant to illustrate God's power then either is acceptable.

How does it illustrate God’s power if it isn’t true? What power has been illustrated if it didn’t really happen. The only way it illustrates God’s power is if it actually took place.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How does it illustrate God’s power if it isn’t true? What power has been illustrated if it didn’t really happen. The only way it illustrates God’s power is if it actually took place.

If it took place, it only illustrated God's power to those who actually saw it manifested with attending miracles taking place. But the writings don't "demonstrate" this for us today. This is the point, for instance, of Lessing's Ditch. Kierkegaard saw the relevance of this point from Lessing as well ...

 

[BNR32FAN]

How is eternal suffering justice? I do not think that you understand the concept when you write something like that. We do not kill a toddler for putting cat food into his or her mouth. What harm was done that requires such an extreme punishment? Who was harmed?

I never said it was eternal I honestly haven’t come to a conclusion whether it is temporary or eternal.

 

[Astrid]

Just to be clear, I didn't intend to imply that any atheists "worship" any other atheists. But I've been tracking atheism and its proponents for years and I there's been some problem among some atheists of being too gung-ho over certain individuals. Some of theme still are.

I'm glad to hear that you guys, however, are cut from a different cloth and willing to learn rather than stoop to polemics and skeptical carpet b*mb!ng.

Surprised somehow? Like atheists are not
strreoyype stick- men represented by some few
noisy people whoever they may be?
There's a distinct air about your tracking observations.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's the point.
Accepting the Bible lock stock and barrel which includes the mistreatment of women is highly offensive yet has been justified in this thread.

Yeah, the ending of the Old Testament history is a doozy ... "send them off" said Nehemiah!

You're right, y'know. There are some cringy things in the Old Testament. But then again, being the Existential, equal opportunity basher that I am, I'm only more than happy to apply the flame to both the Old Testament values... as well as to so-called "Modern Values."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Surprised somehow? Like atheists are not
strreoyype stick- men represented by some few
noisy people whoever they may be?
There's a distinct air about your tracking observations.

And what "air" is that, Estrid?

 

[BNR32FAN]

If it took place, it only illustrated God's power to those who actually saw it manifested with attending miracles taking place. But the writings don't "demonstrate" this for us today. This is the point, for instance, of Lessing's Ditch. Kierkegaard saw the relevance of this point from Lessing as well ...

Well the same goes for Christ’s resurrection since that was the very example used in Lessing’s argument. That’s why I said previously that it should only apply from an atheist point of view. The conclusion was that it could be believed that Jesus and the apostles said that He came back from the dead but it can’t be believed that He actually did come back from the dead because it is an unreasonable conclusion. Correct me if I’m wrong here.

 

[BNR32FAN]

What's more amazing to you? that Noah was alive at the age of 500, or that he fathered a son at 500?

And as far as "Shemp" is concerned, can you give me an example of what you're talking about?

Shemp was one of the three prophets of the early 20th century along with Moe and Larry but he was nowhere near as good as the great prophet Curly.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's the point.
Accepting the Bible lock stock and barrel which includes the mistreatment of women is highly offensive yet has been justified in this thread.

That’s a typical atheist approach to the Bible.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well the same goes for Christ’s resurrection since that was the very example used in Lessing’s argument. That’s why I said previously that it should only apply from an atheist point of view. The conclusion was that it could be believed that Jesus and the apostles said that He came back from the dead but it can’t be believed that He actually did come back from the dead because it is an unreasonable conclusion. Correct me if I’m wrong here.

What source did you use to come to this reading of Lessing?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That’s a typical atheist approach to the Bible.

You may need to explain more fully what you mean by an "atheist approach" to the Bible? Why should anyone just assume the Bible is transcendent in nature and somehow superlative simply because there's some church people somewhere who "say" it is? What's the proof?

 

[BNR32FAN]

As if that makes the slightest bit of difference. I guess tying her to a post or pinning her to the ground makes it all much more acceptable. Maybe you'd have an objection if the rocks were too large or had sharp edges. We wouldn't want you to pull a muscle or cut yourself.

That’s not how stonings were conducted this short documentary explains exactly how they actually took place.

 

[BNR32FAN]

What source did you use to come to this reading of Lessing?

This one

 

[BNR32FAN]

You may need to explain more fully what you mean by an "atheist approach" to the Bible? Why should anyone just assume the Bible is transcendent in nature and somehow superlative simply because there's some church people somewhere who "say" it is? What's the proof?

Because that’s exactly what separates a believer from an unbeliever.

 

[Astrid]

And what "air" is that, Estrid?

See the first two lines, and maybe give it
some thought

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This one

Oh, gee-willikers! You had to pick the most pedantic and dry source imaginable, didn't you?

All I had in mind for you to do was to google Lessing, maybe just pull up a Wiki on him and find something like the following:

In his religious and philosophical writings he defended the faithful Christian's right for freedom of thought. He argued against the belief in revelation and the holding on to a literal interpretation of the Bible by the predominant orthodox doctrine through a problem later to be called Lessing's Ditch. Lessing outlined the concept of the religious "Proof of Power": How can miracles continue to be used as a base for Christianity when we have no proof of miracles? Historical truths which are in doubt cannot be used to prove metaphysical truths (such as God's existence). As Lessing says it: "That, then, is the ugly great ditch which I cannot cross, however often and however earnestly I have tried to make that leap."[11]
​

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing - Wikipedia

But NOOOOoooo! You had to find ... "something else."