A lie is superceeded, then the superceeded lie is itself superceeded - has Evolution begun?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So I tried this type of argument with Wisdom and foolishness and even had to take a back seat for a moment: now I have the argument in the context of lies.

Say a lie is superceeded, and then the superceeding lie is itself superceeded, then there is a third and a forth lie - is this an example of Evolution?

Technically the first lie is not substantiated in the truth and the lies that come after neither have a root in the truth - but does this mean the Evolution is stronger than a foundation or does Evolution need a foundation that is greater than chance?

From a Creationist perspective, the above transition can not happen, because God does create without the choice to believe in something else: if all these lies were founded on a common foundation, it would be impossible to deny God had created the universe (it is unknown that God created in the way God created, it can only be accepted on faith) and this denial would cause weaker faith to die.

This is a mistake. To replace a mystery with an unknown is an abomination to God, better to leave the mystery a mystery. Not that it is wrong to replace a mystery with an unknown, if no one wanted to follow the mystery to its logical conclusion, in principle.

If you are going to replace a mystery with an unknown and someone's reputation is at stake, you owe that person recompense (to the degree that their reputation is sullied). I doubt Evolutionists are going to do that, but the spiritual principle is what it is - you can not just rip people's past off and get away with it forever.

Don't just match my words for your words, actually apologize. I am fully ready to apologize for any way in which I have harmed others or in this context, made the human race look bad - God or not. I am not goading you, you don't have to do it, in public. Just be assured that as long as I live, I will not be party to libel that sullies my ancestor's name.

Don't be confused, either. I am not doing this for my ancestor's sake alone. I am attempting to assert, the Word of God for my generation. It matters how we remember each other, what we say about each other with that memory in mind. Don't fight it, the time is coming when memory will fade - it just won't fade in a way that sense denies. Man became man by relating to God, and that relating brought nature under his feet, including monkeys, in principle - that is what Genesis is trying to communicate in the Bible.

It's not wrong to let the natural order lapse, if you have provided for those who are in need; but it is completely wrong, to pevert the natural order before those in need at least understand, what will come back to the whole, in time. If rule overlaps with rule, then there is a contest, as to which rule was strongest - and you imagine Evolution is strongest - but in the beginning, the contest was to what would be surrendered of Evolution, that Creation proceed. This is what it is saying by repeating the beginning in Genesis, what was created was not created until the knowledge of the Devil's fall was understood, in principle - not that it be copied, but that it be differentiated to.

You can not assert Evolution, without asserting Creation, because Creation was first; and you must not assert Creation came first, without offering an Evolution to surrender.

I surrender, belief - not that I become more Evolved, but that I be more in praise for God, that He Created, regardless of Evolution encroaching on His Creation - thus making clear that it is God struggling for Creation that we see, not man justifying himself in the Devil,, in opposition to the telos God's forebearance brings about,,, because Man praises God?

At the very least, I praise God.

 

[crossnote]

Say a lie is superceeded, and then the superceeding lie is itself superceeded, then there is a third and a forth lie - is this an example of Evolution?

No. Lies tear down. Evolution builds up. Only problem is, evolution is itself a lie according to Scriptures. Take Scriptures out of the equation and there is no such thing as a lie because there is no basis for truth. Lies are not God's domain.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Say a lie is superceeded, and then the superceeding lie is itself superceeded, then there is a third and a forth lie - is this an example of Evolution?

No.

/thread

 

[timewerx]

Hi there,

So I tried this type of argument with Wisdom and foolishness and even had to take a back seat for a moment: now I have the argument in the context of lies.

Say a lie is superceeded, and then the superceeding lie is itself superceeded, then there is a third and a forth lie - is this an example of Evolution?

Kinda, but not just evolution, possibly all information and knowledge around is affected by this premise

This is why Jesus said the Kingdom of God is like a hidden or burried treasure. You can find it if you know where to look but like a buried treasure, very difficult to find.

Trust no one, question everything!

 

[RichardY]

No. Lies tear down. Evolution builds up. Only problem is, evolution is itself a lie according to Scriptures. Take Scriptures out of the equation and there is no such thing as a lie because there is no basis for truth. Lies are not God's domain.

What do you mean by evolution? Where does it say in scripture evolution is a lie?

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Where does it say in scripture evolution is a lie?

Nowhere since the concept was unknown at the time. You can get to that conclusion however by literal reading of the Bible.

Plenty of threads out there if you want to jump those conversations.

 

[RichardY]

Nowhere since the concept was unknown at the time. You can get to that conclusion however by literal reading of the Bible.

Plenty of threads out there if you want to jump those conversations.

By only proceeding on conclusions. That is Ego. Seeing through a glass darkly.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Lies are told by people in order to deceive others and thereby gain rewards or avoid consequences.

So, who told that first lie? And also, why wasn't the lie exposed by whomever was around that knew it was a lie?

Frankly, this is all rhetorical, because your post really doesn't make any sense and reads like philosophical word salad you come up with while you're in the shower. The bible and what it says and what you believe about it has no bearing whatsoever on whether Evolution is true or not.

 

[crossnote]

What do you mean by evolution? Where does it say in scripture evolution is a lie?

By putting 2+2 together.
Death came from sin thru Adam and Eve.
Evolution requires death in the world before Adam.
Either Scripture is lying or the theory of evolution is lying...you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Romans 5:12 KJV
[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

 

[RichardY]

By putting 2+2 together.
Death came from sin thru Adam and Eve.
Evolution requires death in the world before Adam.
Either Scripture is lying or the theory of evolution is lying...you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Romans 5:12 KJV
[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

That would be dualistic thinking, that while perhaps useful for survival, is not the whole truth of God. As god is infinite, death is not a prerequisite of evolution. Creation is not finite. Why is not regeneration permissible under evolution?

Although, how to think more Non-dualistically. I'm working on it. Scripture is foremost a Testament, I like to think of it as, best as. It's not claimed to have been directly, dictated by an angel from God, like the Quran.

 

[crossnote]

That would be dualistic thinking, that while perhaps useful for survival, is not the whole truth of God. As god is infinite, death is not a prerequisite of evolution. Creation is not finite. Why is not regeneration permissible under evolution?

Although, how to think more Non-dualistically. I'm working on it. Scripture is foremost a Testament, I like to think of it as, best as. It's not claimed to have been directly, dictated by an angel from God, like the Quran.

Its not dualistic thinking, it's God's Word. Believe it as such or reject it.
The NT is simply the OT being fulfilled.

 

[RichardY]

@crossnote Yeah well I prefer faith and logic, to compulsion. Interpretation matters and can be varied depending on the grasp of logic, grammar and translation.

 

[crossnote]

@crossnote Yeah well I prefer faith and logic, to compulsion. Interpretation matters and can be varied depending on the grasp of logic, grammar and translation.

Ok, if you consider logical the conclusion that something comes from nothing, that matter is eternal, that life comes from non life and complexity comes about randomly. I just don't.

 

[RichardY]

@crossnote I follow more the Eastern Orthodox Theology, and not the Western. (which I believe was heavily influenced by Stoicism.) I do not agree creation ex Nihilo is a correct doctrine, more that creation out of unbound potential would be accurate.

That creation is the Mind of God. And not adhering sufficiently to the teleological evolution of beings and primarily God, leads to annihilation.

 

[crossnote]

I do not agree creation ex Nihilo is a correct doctrine, more that creation out of unbound potential would be accurate.

It's not out of 'nothing' unless you are calling God nothing. You do believe the Scriptures as an E.O., correct?

Hebrews 11:3 NKJV
[3] By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

 

[RichardY]

@crossnote As Non-denominational, so far I have found Eastern Orthodox theology to be more logical and conducive to freewill. Weak Panentheism or Holotheism.

Western Classical Theism has a separation similar to Stoicism, and is reliant on the doctrine of Trinitarianism to link the transcendent(God) and Immanent(The World)realities, so it is dualistic. It more consistent with predetermination. In which case spiritually, I only have an illusion of any say and praying is only psychological.

 

[crossnote]

@crossnote As Non-denominational, so far I have found Eastern Orthodox theology to be more logical and conducive to freewill. Weak Panentheism or Holotheism.

Western Classical Theism has a separation similar to Stoicism, and is reliant on the doctrine of Trinitarianism to link the transcendent(God) and Immanent(The World)realities, so it is dualistic. It more consistent with predetermination. In which case spiritually, I only have an illusion of any say and praying is only psychological.

I don't think I can hang with 'icons being the windows into heaven', when I am convinced Scripture is the window into heaven, nor could I abide by a curtain used in Communion when handing out the Communion, too much man made traditions and mystery for me that I don't find in Scripture.
But all that is another topic, in which I don't like to push back, unless I am pushed

 

[RichardY]

@crossnote There was the Iconoclast heresy by some of the early byzantine Emperors.

Some people are illiterate or have a low verbal I.Q, so would have to be inspired either through following the example of others who follow Jesus Christ, or by imagery to convey the love and beauty of Jesus Christ. Of course there are sermons and explanation, but how is that, to all link up? If people can not have a divine connection to God, how is it to be verified?

I took the approach of more looking at metaphysics so there would be a base to any theological beliefs. Christ died for people's sins, but to be victorious over satan. Paying a ransom to evil is wrong. Or taking the punishment, so that other's do not, invites moral hazard. Victory over Evil, allows for evolution.

I have never been in an Orthodox church. I didn't even know they had a panentheistic theology, until I searched panentheism on Youtube and wikipedia. I thought it was fragmented like the Western, "Palamite Chrisitianity"( St Palmas) instead of Orthodox.

Good works I think are the stairway to heaven.... understanding a solid metaphysic, through which scripture can be interpreted without church doctrine, I think is one way to go.

From what I read on Wikipedia a while a go... only the Anabaptists; and maybe Messianic or Orthodox, take the Sermon on the mount literally, the modern segregated and regulated economy makes a more self sufficient communal lifestyle more difficult and inconvenient. Of course people may still follow to the best they can in their own way.

 

[Gottservant]

Just think of a comparison of two memories:

one, memory is of reading the beginning of the Bible

a second, memory is of reading Origin of the Species

Which of these is more evolved? In principle, the selection pressure for both is the same "be interesting". Evolution attempts to say "everything you find is interesting"; the Bible says "make sure you make something interesting" (paraphrase).

But what is the truth? The truth is we have personalities; what is interesting to one person is not interesting to another - thus the command to make interesting (with the subtext that it be for everyone) has the stronger impetus to survive?

The argument that the Bible could evolve, if we wanted it to, elides the fact that it has already told us to do more than repeat fact; Evolution that can only make interesting at the rate everything else makes interesting, is only going to get more boring! (Not that the boring does not have a place, if you are prepared to rest greatly).

If you can't just repeat fact to be interesting, what is Evolution going to have done? The Bible is inspired? Does that mean it is not fact or not boring?

 

[tampasteve]

MOD HAT ON

Please note, this thread has been moved to a more appropriate forum. The original location violated that forum's SOP as it says "Creation and Evolution discussions are off topic to this main forum, and should be started in the sub-forum, Creation & Evolution."

please read SOP before posting.

MOD HAT OFF​