The Modern Era Scientist don't help me, but I still have my faith in God

[AV1611VET]

If you think about it Christianity has this ancientness which obscures so much of where it came from ...

Would you like the name of the exact city it was labeled as such in?

 

[Opdrey]

Let's put it this way:

Yes.

Christianity isn't some eclectic photo blanket.

So you are telling me that the concept of "Diabolical Mimicry" was NOT a concept that the early church fathers came up to explain away earlier pagan gods' commonality with Jesus' story?

Do you care to provide any references to that effect? Thanks.

 

[Opdrey]

Would you like the name of the exact city it was labeled as such in?

That doesn't really matter to my point.

 

[Opdrey]

Would you like the name of the exact city it was labeled as such in?

I'd settle for the exact location of Golgotha. Given that it is the singular most important spot on the face of the earth it would be interesting if we knew where it was exactly with perfect surety.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you are telling me that the concept of "Diabolical Mimicry" was NOT a concept that the early church fathers came up to explain away earlier pagan gods' commonality with Jesus' story?

Do you care to provide any references to that effect? Thanks.

Sure.

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

 

[AV1611VET]

That doesn't really matter to my point.

LOL -- of course not.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd settle for the exact location of Golgotha.

What suddenly happened to:

If you think about it Christianity has this ancientness which obscures so much of where it came from ...

Are you telling me it started at Golgotha now?

So much for obscurity.

 

[Opdrey]

Sure.

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

I don't believe that is what is meant by "Diabolical Mimicry".

 

[Opdrey]

What suddenly happened to:Are you telling me it started at Golgotha now?

So much for obscurity.

Nope. I'm pointing out how even you, the most pious and faithful, don't know where the most important events happened. Yet you think your faith is foundational to all of the universe. The single most important event in human history for you is the sacrifice of Jesus on behalf of us to atone humanity to God (who was also Jesus) and yet we don't really know where that place was.

The faith is FULL of things like this. It's ancient and coalesced over centuries into the faith you have today. It was not fully formed the moment Jesus popped out of Mary's womb.

 

[Bradskii]

Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.

I didn't expect that.

 

[Mountainmike]

The claim of "ordinary" is subjective not objective.
It is used in two separate contexts - one as meaning "rare". How rare does rare have to be? the other as meaning "opposing base assumptions of what is normal present world view" The second is entirely subjective.

Rare events make classification of ordinary or extraordinary useless.
The collapse of comet ison and break up happened only once.
Did that mean it is so rare it did not happen?
Even lack of evidence does not invalidate a phenomena: it just makes it harder to make defintive statements. In a world before cameras and high power telescopes did the lack of evidence mean that comet break up did not happen? Are ancient witness statements enough?

Stuff happens or it does not.
How "common place" it is, is of no consequence. The fact something is commonplace does not mean it happened in any particular instance.
All truth must be subject to the same standard. Ask a court.

Of course the ability to model it, requires either repeating or repeatable phenomena or things which extrapolate from present model. That is part of why science is limited in what it can model.

On rarity - If we are to believe dawkins type evolutionists the creation of life happened once by accident. It is truly "extraordinary" that a self evolving and replicating 10000 chemical factory complete with software, just happened without a designer, and there is no evidence at all it ever happened. Nobody saw it. There is no visible "production line" of large scale intermediates to the first minimum cell as we know it. No record there ever were such intermediates. A complete void of evidence.
Yet it is considered "ordinary", as is consistent with atheist faith and world view, and so assumed to be true. The difference between theists and non theists is the acceptance of what part of what is believed to be true is just belief.

You produce evidence of your claimed magic pixie.

Science is a game that has rules. Sagans statement broke the rules. In scientific context. Your magic pixie is subject to the same standard of proof as any other claims.

Would you have any problem in believing that I am married? Why would you think I would lie about something like that? And I've no reason to doubt that you are. It's in your details. Just our say so is good enough to accept those facts. But if I said I had a magic pixie in my garden that grants wishes, then something tells me you'd have some doubts about that.

One is an ordinary claim that needs nothing more than ordinary evidence. And one is an extraordinary claim that would need a great deal more.

 

[Mountainmike]

I'd settle for the exact location of Golgotha. Given that it is the singular most important spot on the face of the earth it would be interesting if we knew where it was exactly with perfect surety.

We think we do know. Read hessemans book - Jesus of Nazareth.
A book on Holy Land archeology. It is believed it was also partially flattened and buried by those attempting to remove traces of the story, in this case Hadrian whose claim to fame was a wall to keep the Scots out of Britain! (sohe did attempt one useful thing!). Hadrian also remodelled Jerusalem in 129?. Jerusalem was one of the most contested pieces of real estate in history, not Just romans but also islamic capture. It is not surprising much evidence is lost.

 

[Bradskii]

...just happened without a designer...

Who said it happened without a designer?

 

[Mountainmike]

Who said it happened without a designer?

Thats the atheist view...not mine.

 

[Bradskii]

Thats the atheist view...not mine.

Isn't God omnipotent? So He could choose any method whatsoever to create mankind. Do you agree with that?

 

[Rachel20]

To me, that's what the story of Adam and Eve is all about. It's about humanity evolving the ability to reason, to contemplate the consequences of their actions, and to always and forever be destined to have to choose between them. And we as their descendants share in that "original sin", not because of what we do, but because of what we are, we are creatures with the knowledge of good and evil.

Thanks for your thoughts. It seems Eve already had the ability to reason from consequence of actions (Gen 3:6) so you must mean something more nuanced?

Regarding original sin, my thoughts are that we don't share in their "original sin" in the sense that it's our own sins that condemn us. My proof text would be Romans 7:9.

 

[Opdrey]

We think we do know.

We "think" we do know?

A book on Holy Land archeology. It is believed

It "is believed".

That's the point. This is belief. The single most important event in all of human history, no, in all of the history of the UNIVERSE, which I am told repeatedly was even made clear within DAYS of the event.

Now (here's where you stop reading) I have no problem with ancient sites being forgotten or "lost". It happens all the time. But if you listen to the most pious among us you will come to believe that Christianity is clear as a bell and there is no question about the provenance of anything. Some seem to think that Christianity wasn't largely constructed as a faith over the next 200-300 years by a wide variety of individuals working completely separate from the origins. That somehow there is some "true and original" version of the faith. That some know so much about Jesus as to be able to guide you to your eternal salvation.

As if Christianity is somehow "self-evident". That it is as simple as what is taught in Sunday School to kids.

Rather than what it actually appears to be from reading the detailed history of the faith.

 

[partinobodycular]

Thanks for your thoughts. It seems Eve already had the ability to reason from consequence of actions (Gen 3:6) so you must mean something more nuanced?

I wish that I had time to hang around and chat, but unfortunately I don't

I just wanted to say that I've long wondered the above myself, how could Eve have made a choice between good and evil if she didn't already possess the knowledge of good and evil? It just doesn't seem to make sense. It's the chicken and the egg problem.

But if you think of the story as a metaphor, then it's not describing a one time event, it's describing a process. A process by which humanity evolved the ability to reason, to discern good from evil. And you simply can't point to one specific moment and say this is the point at which humanity gained the knowledge of good and evil, and this person is to blame.

There was a tree in the garden, and the garden was innocence, and we lost it.

The question then becomes, how is Christ's death on the cross going to give it back to you?

 

[Opdrey]

I wish that I had time to hang around and chat, but unfortunately I don't

I just wanted to say that I've long wondered the above myself, how could Eve have made a choice between good and evil if she didn't already possess the knowledge of good and evil? It just doesn't seem to make sense. It's the chicken and the egg problem.

But if you think of the story as a metaphor, then it's not describing a one time event, it's describing a process. A process by which humanity evolved the ability to reason, to discern good from evil. And you simply can't point to one specific moment and say this is the point at which humanity gained the knowledge of good and evil, and this person is to blame.

There was a tree in the garden, and the garden was innocence, and we lost it.

The question then becomes, how is Christ's death on the cross going to give it back to you?

I am a firm believer that the "Fall" narrative in Genesis is a PERFECT analogy for "growing up". As a child you are free from being held responsible for your actions since you don't know any better. But at some point you become an adult and now you are on the hook for knowing what is good and what is evil and any choice you make is on you.

In many ways I think it is the most beautiful metaphor. The costs and travails that we build up to as adults, the choices we are responsible for.

As for God's grace, that too, is a wonderful metaphor. We all understand that everyone has had to navigate that transition from innocent child to adult responsible for their choices. And we all know that we, ourselves, are prone to wrong choices from time to time. We constantly battle with the evil we want to do vs the good we should do. And sometimes we fail. That's how we are built.

God's Grace states that we are NONE OF US deserving of "salvation" because we are, none of us, perfect. But God "grants us the grace" of salvation even if we don't deserve it. In a secular mode we, each other, must grant that same "grace" when we see our fellow people stumble and fail. We must accept that we, too, will one day require someone else's "grace" and forgiveness of our crimes against them.

In some ways the Bible and Christian soteriology lay out a wonderful way to "be". An understanding of who and what we are. And our flaws.

 

[Kylie]

How did the genetic information know how to evolve?

I'll just answer this bit.

Simply put, it doesn't.

When cells divide, the genetic information is copied. This copying process is not perfect, and very small errors can creep in. Much of the time, these errors make no real difference. Let me explain why.

The genetic code uses nucleotides to code for different amino acids. Three nucleotides code for an amino acid. For example, AAG is the code for the amino acid Lysine. However, if a copying process changes this to AAA, then this will still code for lysine. Similarly, the amino acid Serine can be formed by UCU, UCC, UCA, UCG, AGU, and AGC. So a change like this isn't going to make any functional difference.

But of course, not all of the changes will be like this.

Sometimes the change may end up with a sequence that doesn't code for anything. This could render the whole thing unviable.

Or a change may lead to one amino acid being swapped for another one. For example, if you have GCU (which codes for Alanine) and the G is swapped for an A, then you get GAU, which is aspartic acid. A change like this may be detrimental, but it could also have advantages. A change like this could result in the organism being slightly better adapted to cope with a cold climate. If the organism is in a cooler area, this would be beneficial. But if it's in a warmer area, then this would be detrimental.

And the organisms with the beneficial variations will be more likely to survive longer and thus produce more offspring, while those with detrimental variations will be more likely to die off or never even develop.

But the important thing to remember is that this is not a conscious process. There is no thought behind it. It's literally just trying things at random and seeing if something works a bit better than what was already there.