An evolutionist, TE, OEC and YEC all walk up to a bar...

Calminian · Feb 22, 2005

The Lady Kate said:
Which, as I understand, violate rule #1 of these boards.

You have to wonder if some people are just looking for something to be insulted about.

I misread a post of yours and asked if you were an atheist. I am mindful of the fact that this is a christian only forum but also mindful that skeptics sometimes sneak in, at least in my experience. I was actually asking to verify that hadn't happened. After all you said it was reasonable for scientists to reject the Resurrection. If that was a violation of the rules, what can I say? It couldn't have been more innocent. Remember I'm new and don't know you.

But whether it's against the rules or not, I don't question the faith of OECs. I merely question their hermeneutical approach to Genesis and their logic. And they shouldn't mind because that's exactly what they're questioning about me.

Just cant see what you two think you're going to gain by playing the martyr.

The Lady Kate · Feb 22, 2005

Calminian said:
You have to wonder if some people are just looking for something to be insulted about.

I didn't have to look very far...

Calminian said:
Thus naturalistic theories have become your Bible.

Calminian said:
Seems like this debate has embittered you a great deal. You remind me of someone.

(who, exactly?)

Calminian said:
Sounds like I'm talking to an atheist.

Calminian said:
Sounds to me like modern naturalistic theories are your strength.

Calminian said:
Only we are consistent. You seem to have a system for deciding which ones (miracles) are valid and which ones are not. Please share.

Now...might you see anything potentially offensive in your statements?

Keep in mind...I'm hardly the only person you've alienated in this thread.

I misread a post of yours and asked if you were an atheist. I am mindful of the fact that this is a christian only forum but also mindful that skeptics sometimes sneak in, at least in my experience. I was actually asking to verify that hadn't happened.

So you accused me of being an Atheist sneaking in. How is that not a violation of the rules?

After all you said it was reasonable for scientists to reject the Resurrection.

I wouldn't expect scientists (or for that matter the vast majority of people) to accept that a man can rise from the dead after three days. Most reasonable people would have difficulty believing that...Would you believe such a story if the man in question was anyone but the Son of God?

If that was a violation of the rules, what can I say?

Perhaps an apology?

It couldn't have been more innocent. Remember I'm new and don't know you.

Then I strongly suggest you learn the rules.

But whether it's against the rules or not, I don't question the faith of OECs. I merely question their hermeneutical approach to Genesis and their logic. And they shouldn't mind because that's exactly what they're questioning about me.

That's not what it sounded like...

Just cant see what you two think you're going to gain by playing the martyr.

And you end with another insult. How charming.

Robert the Pilegrim · Feb 22, 2005

Calminian said:
No, it fits the assumption of naturalism. It's a model that ostensibly works if the universe was not caused supernaturally. Not sure how often I'll have to drive this point home.

Was Adam created with a scar indicating he fell from a tree as a child?

Why are there footprints at depths of 500 and 1000 feet in a canyon 5000 feet deep?
Why are there 37,000 varves in Lake Suigetsu imbedded with pieces of leaves and other organic material?
...

No assumption, simple observation.

Robert the Pilegrim · Feb 22, 2005

Calminian said:
<snip of repeated questions and non-responses as well as a bit of new material>

I don't have time for this, 'course I didn't when I started either, oh well.
In any case I leave you with a bit of wisdom from Cardinal Bellarmine, who argued for the literal understanding of Joshua:

Bellarmine said:
I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.

Maybe it will sink in some day.

Robert the Pilegrim · Feb 22, 2005

Calminian said:
Yes I would still included him. [The Flat Earth] was the intuitive belief at the time, by everyone, especially pagans and even "scientists."

Sorry, but the historian in me couldn't let this go, the Earth's radius was measured c 230 BC by Eratosthenes. Lactantius lived c 300 AD. In fact Lactantius was one of the few people who propounded the flat Earth, most (educated) people, Christian or otherwise were aware of the Earth's shape.

Mind you, since it got hotter as you go south many Christians of the first millennium didn't think the southern hemisphere was populated since it would be impossible to reach the people there and spread the Gospel. (The Equator was assumed to be too hot to cross.)

As to why Lactantius felt the Bible supported the flat earth I imagine it was the verses about foundations and pillars and beaten vaults. From an earlier period certainly the language of Gen. followed that the nearby cultures who believed the earth to be flat.

If you are interested in learning about more modern flat earthers you might try digging up Earth not a Globe By Rev. Henry J. Goudey.
http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/flatearth.html,
http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/hundreda.html and
www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
have some discussion of modern flat earthers (the middle one is a
collection of non-Biblical arguements).

For geocentrism see http://www.fixedearth.com/, they include Bible verses.

Calminian · Feb 22, 2005

Robert the Pilegrim said:
As to why Lactantius felt the Bible supported the flat earth I imagine it was the verses about foundations and pillars and beaten vaults. From an earlier period certainly the language of Gen. followed that the nearby cultures who believed the earth to be flat.

Bingo! In other words, you have no clue what biblical arguments may have been used. Even modern astrophysicists used terms like sunrise and sunset. The analogy doesn't work, therefore. Sorry!

As far as flat earth beliefs, I'm sure there was a controversy amongst "experts" long after the earth's radius was measured. I'm not going to fault neither theologians nor atheists for having wrong opinions in that day. I would ease up on 'em. Remember, future scientists are gonna to be giggling about the big bang some day also!

Robert the Pilegrim · Feb 22, 2005

Well the secret is out, I have all the will power of a wet noodle when it comes to walking away ...

From post 87 (with display mode in linear)

Calminian said:
Robert the Pilegrim said:

As to why Lactantius felt the Bible supported the flat earth I imagine it was []

Click to expand...

Bingo! In other words, you have no clue what biblical arguments may have been used. Even modern astrophysicists used terms like sunrise and sunset. The analogy doesn't work, therefore. Sorry!

As far as flat earth beliefs,

I am confused. And I don't think I'm the only one.

"As far as" indicates that you think the subject is changing. The only other time you have asked me for somebody elses Biblical arguments was concerning geocentrism, and indeed your comments about sunrise and sunset suggests you think I am talking about geocentrism.

Read again, I said "flat earth" in that quote.

You state I have no "clue what biblical arguments may have been used"
In post 77 you claim it wasn't a theological argument.

In post 76 I provided you with the central Biblical verse (Joshua 10:12-13)
In post 79 I provided a quote from the Catholic Church that "what, more than all, raised alarm was anxiety for the credit of Holy Scripture"
In post 85 I provided a quote from the actual procedings indicating that the problem very much involved scriptural interpretation.

I am seriously confused as to how you could be so confused and have misread or missed so many of my posts. The same goes for your claim in post 62 that I was backpedaling (followed by two refusals in posts 71 and 77 to explain. Note that In post 73 I brought my relevant posts together so you would easily be able to explain). I just don't see it.

As for astrophysicists, they are using a turn of phrase, but for onwards of 3000 years faithful worshippers of God read Joshua 10, and saw that, in the context of a historical report, the Bible clearly states that the Sun stopped. Not that it seemed to stop, but that it actually stopped, and they believed that this meant the Sun went around the Earth.

If you go to the third web page on flat earthers I gave you will find a bunch of verses on the fixity of the Earth, these figured heavily in the Galileo case and, I imagine, in the views of many worshippers prior to 1600. Some of them might be taken to be poetic license but ... there is an awful lot of them, including from the prophets.

Calminian · Feb 22, 2005

You still want to run to the web pages, but I'm asking YOU to make a biblical case for a flat earth or geocentric solar solar system. Every OEC I've challenged with this has wanted to direct me to websites instead of making the case himself from scripture. The reason I want you to do this is so everyone can see how silly the arguments are. There's no hint the biblical authors wanted to convey what was rotating around what.

Robert the Pilegrim said:
As for astrophysicists, they are using a turn of phrase, but for onwards of 3000 years faithful worshippers of God read Joshua 10, and saw that, in the context of a historical report, the Bible clearly states that the Sun stopped. Not that it seemed to stop, but that it actually stopped, and they believed that this meant the Sun went around the Earth.

Yes and astrophysicists say that the sun sets, and they don't qualify it with the sun appears to set. And everyone knows if the earth did miraculously stop rotating, modern folk would still refer to it as the day the sun stopped.

So I will continue to wait for you to make a biblical argument for geocentrism. You can rant and rave all you want about other posts and how confused you are but everyone knows you cannot make a case out of something that is not there. I dare you to prove me wrong.

rmwilliamsll · Feb 23, 2005

Calminian said:
You still want to run to the web pages, but I'm asking YOU to make a biblical case for a flat earth or geocentric solar solar system. Every OEC I've challenged with this has wanted to direct me to websites instead of making the case himself from scripture. The reason I want you to do this is so everyone can see how silly the arguments are. There's no hint the biblical authors wanted to convey what was rotating around what.

Yes and astrophysicists say that the sun sets, and they don't qualify it with the sun appears to set. And everyone knows if the earth did miraculously stop rotating, modern folk would still refer to it as the day the sun stopped.

So I will continue to wait for you to make a biblical argument for geocentrism. You can rant and rave all you want about other posts and how confused you are but everyone knows you cannot make a case out of something that is not there. I dare you to prove me wrong.

why reinvent the wheel?
let the geocentrics make the case, that is their thing, not mine.

CREATIONISTS: WHAT IF...

God's Word means EXACTLY what It says about the sun going around a non-moving earth (and not the earth going around the sun)??

Indeed, what has God said on that subject??

Here are some examples:

a) "SUN, stand THOU still.... And THE SUN stood still." (Joshua 10:12,13)

b) "The world also is STABLISHED [i.e.,"fixed" #3529 Strong's Con.] that
IT CANNOT BE MOVED." (Psalm 93:1)

c) "The sun AND the moon stood still in their habitation." (Habakkuk 3:11)

d) "He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his GOING DOWN." (Psalm 104:19)

e) "...the world also shall be stable [fixed], that it be NOT moved." (I Chron. 16:30)

f) "He...hangeth the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7)

g) "The sun ALSO ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hastens to
his place where he arose." (Eccl.1:5)

h) "...so the sun RETURNED ten degrees...." (Isaiah 38:8)

i) God..."commandeth the sun, and it riseth not." (Job 9:7)

j) "...the sun shall be darkened in his going forth." (Isaiah 13:10)

k) "The heavens declare the glory of God.... In them hath He set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his CIRCUIT [orbit] unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." (Psalm 19:1,4-6)

Add to these, Dozens of Sun Risings and Settings, etc...! (HERE)

Truly, as one scholar, a Creationist and a Geocentrist, wrote:

"...it is evident that geocentricity [a non-moving earth...] and the inerrant preservation of the Scriptures are intertwined." (Prof. Hanson, Tychonian Bulletin, S.89,p.21)

By way of contrast, another scholar, a Creationist and a Heliocentrist, says that he:

"...supports inerrancy and the verbal inspiration of the Bible", but nevertheless declares that in all the Scriptures above the Holy Spirit employed a "language of appearance" which gives the reader license to change the meaning to fit the heliocentric teaching. (Dr. DeYoung, Audio tape debate with M. Selbrede)

from: http://www.fixedearth.com/links/what_if.htm

Calminian · Feb 23, 2005

rmwilliamsll said:
why reinvent the wheel?
let the geocentrics make the case, that is their thing, not mine.

from: http://www.fixedearth.com/links/what_if.htm

And yet again all they can do is point to statements about sunrises and the likelanguage which they themselves use.

seebs · Feb 23, 2005

Calminian said:
You still want to run to the web pages, but I'm asking YOU to make a biblical case for a flat earth or geocentric solar solar system. Every OEC I've challenged with this has wanted to direct me to websites instead of making the case himself from scripture. The reason I want you to do this is so everyone can see how silly the arguments are. There's no hint the biblical authors wanted to convey what was rotating around what.

And so far as I can tell, there's no hint the Biblical authors wanted to convey the exact history of the world.

But some people do interpret passages literally that are clearly metaphorical, and otherwise get confused about the Bible's scope.

The Lady Kate · Feb 23, 2005

seebs said:
And so far as I can tell, there's no hint the Biblical authors wanted to convey the exact history of the world.

But some people do interpret passages literally that are clearly metaphorical, and otherwise get confused about the Bible's scope.

And worse, insist on confusing others in the process...

Robert the Pilegrim · Feb 23, 2005

Calminian said:
You still want to run to the web pages, but I'm asking YOU to make a biblical case for a flat earth or geocentric solar solar system.

I made a case, I also pointed out what other Christians believed. Despite all your dissembling the Bible says repeatedly that the Earth is fixed in its place and distinctly states in a historical passage that the Sun stopped moving And that plain, common sense reading is how every worshipper of God interpretted it for well over 2000 years.

But you claim they were wrong. Why?

Calminian said:
Yes and astrophysicists say that the sun sets, and they don't qualify it with the sun appears to set

They also talk about one football team murdering another.
That would be because everybody who hears them knows what the physical evidence is.

OTOH Christians felt so strongly that contradicting Joshua and the other verses was a threat to the credibility of the Bible that they brought Galileo up on charges.
When Heliocentrism was first being considered Luther dismissed the idea, citing Joshua.

Calminian said:
You can rant and rave all you want about other posts

You made claims that I demonstrated were false, I had already pointed out the central verse to you. Apparently you prefer to ignore inconvenient posts.

Or were you referring to my comments on the posts in which you claimed I was backpeddling, a claim you repeatedly refused to back up.

Calminian · Feb 23, 2005

Robert the Pilegrim said:
I made a case, I also pointed out what other Christians believed.

I'm not asking what they believed I'm asking what they based that belief on. You have no quotes from them at all. You're making this whole thing up and being called on it. Besides an off-handed remark by Luther you have nothing at all to show.

Robert the Pilegrim said:
Despite all your dissembling the Bible says repeatedly that the Earth is fixed in its place and distinctly states in a historical passage that the Sun stopped moving And that plain, common sense reading is how every worshipper of God interpretted it for well over 2000 years.

Every worshipper of God interpreted it this way?? Then it should be easy for you to come up with some quotes from the expositors of that day. All youve provided so far are sunset sunrise type quotes from the Bible, language you yourself use. Is this all you have?

Robert the Pilegrim said:
But you claim they were wrong. Why?

I claimed they were wrong about sunsets? Show me the quote. Why would I? I use the same terminology.

Robert the Pilegrim said:
OTOH Christians felt so strongly that contradicting Joshua and the other verses was a threat to the credibility of the Bible that they brought Galileo up on charges.

Thank you for finally removing all doubt about your ignorance in this area. You truly have no idea what the Galileo issue was about. It was not the theologians that were railing on Galileo, it was the "scientists" of the day. They ridiculed him so much he basically withdrew, practically becoming a hermit for a period of time.

What you fail to understand is that the Copernicus Galileo view was the minority view of the astronomer-philosophers (the experts of the day). Many in the church, much like today, went with the majority view and allowed that view in influence the way the interpreted scripture. Ironically it is the OECs and TEs that more closely resemble Galileo's opponents.

If anyone is confused about this issue I suggest the following article:
The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?

The lesson we should learn from the Galileo affair is simple. We should not let non christian philosophies influence our interpretation of scripture. Yet we are repeating history again, this time allowing the philosophy of naturalism (instead of aristotelian philosophy) to dictate what certain passages mean.

Robert the Pilegrim said:
When Heliocentrism was first being considered Luther dismissed the idea, citing Joshua.

Yes about 4 years before Copernicus book, Luther made an off hand remark thats never quoted in its entirety. He was criticizing Copernicus about trying to be in opposition to everything. He did cite Joshua's long day. There isnt a word recorded about the issue since. People misspeak in extemporaneous situations all the time. Why is there no clear teaching on the subject from Luther anywhere to be found. We have plenty from Luther about the days of creation. Why no exposition on geocentrism being it was such a hot issue? Could it be he saw no biblical case to make?

rmwilliamsll · Feb 23, 2005

The lesson we should learn from the Galileo affair is simple. We should not let non christian philosophies influence our interpretation of scripture. Yet we are repeating history again, this time allowing the philosophy of naturalism (instead of aristotelian philosophy) to dictate what certain passages mean.

actually, 'fixity of the species' is imported into Christian philosophy via Aristotle and the 'perfection of the original creation' is a neo-Platonic constellation of ideas imprinted onto the interpretation of Gen 1.

Calminian · Feb 23, 2005

rmwilliamsll said:
actually, 'fixity of the species' is imported into Christian philosophy via Aristotle and the 'perfection of the original creation' is a neo-Platonic constellation of ideas imprinted onto the interpretation of Gen 1.

Sounds like another unsupported claim. You posted a while back claiming most of the early fathers did not approach Genesis literally until Luther. I gave quite a lengthy reply but heard nothing back from you. I'd like you to back up both that claim and the one you're making now. Tell me how these beliefs were imported into the early church.

rmwilliamsll · Feb 23, 2005

Calminian said:
Sounds like another unsupported claim. You posted a while back claiming most of the early fathers did not approach Genesis literally until Luther. I gave quite a lengthy reply but heard nothing back from you. I'd like you to back up both that claim and the one you're making now. Tell me how these beliefs were imported into the early church.

I gave quite a lengthy reply but heard nothing back from you.--->i am unaware of this. what thread and message number?

fixity of the species is pure and simple Aristotle, i googled several essays on his effect in Christian theology. It is a well attested principle.
http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/evolutiontheory.html
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant570/topics/Evolution.pdf
http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter7.htm

The neoplatonist connection between the platonic concept of a perfect ideal world reflected imperfectly in the physical world is really best seen in the Manicheans and via Plotinus to us in Augustine. the key idea is that the pre-fall world in Hebrew thinking was good yet in Christian theology the platonic idea of perfect is usually substituted. I don't know of a full length treatment but several books on Augustine bring up the issue.
I'm sure if you are interested an hour or so googling will bring up more pieces like these:
http://www.fordham.edu/gsas/phil/klima/augustine/Saint Augustine.htm
http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/hwp202.htm

which show the details of the neoplatonic thinking effects on Augustine and thus into Christian theology.

....

Robert the Pilegrim · Feb 23, 2005

Calminian said:
rmwilliamsll said:

actually, 'fixity of the species' is imported into Christian philosophy via Aristotle and the 'perfection of the original creation' is a neo-Platonic constellation of ideas imprinted onto the interpretation of Gen 1.

Click to expand...

Sounds like another unsupported claim.

http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/abouthistory.html

The intellectual heritage of baraminology stretches back to Aristotle. Aristotle believed that for knowledge and science to be possible, the subjects of science (the things that are known) must be immutable, for if change was possible, then what you "know" today would be invalid tomorrow. This idea, along with many others, was married to Christian theology through the efforts of Aquinas and other medieval theologians. At the time of Linnaeus, scientists applied this theological thinking to the study of living organisms and developed the idea that biological species must be immutable. Linnaeus accepted species fixity not because a careful reading of the Bible revealed it to him. Rather, Linnaeus advocated species fixity because of the Aristotelian bias of his intellectual heritage. Essentialist species fixity is an Aristotelian concept. It is important to note here that as Linnaeus neared the end of his life, he began to doubt species fixity. As he struggled with interspecific hybridization in particular, he began to suspect that genera rather than species were fixed in the strict Aristotelian sense.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1697082

Fixity of Species refers to the set of beliefs derived from the ideas of Plato, Aristotle and Carolus Linnaeus which held that species have remained unchanged since their appearance on earth.

The essential ideas behind Fixity of Species can be traced to classical philosophy. Plato's Theory of Forms drew a distinction between our material reality and a separate realm of Forms. These Forms are supposed to be eternal, ideal and abstract representations of things in our world.

The above ideas were consolidated and formalized by Linnaeus' Typological Concept of Species in the 18th century. He stated that entire species could be represented by one ideal specimen, called the holotype. These eternal holotypes were created by God and have remained static ever since. Species were supposed to be discrete classes which remain eternally unchanged.

Robert the Pilegrim · Feb 23, 2005

Calminian said:
I'm not asking what they believed I'm asking what they based that belief on. You have no quotes from them at all.

See below

Calminian said:
Thank you for finally removing all doubt about your ignorance in this area. You truly have no idea what the Galileo issue was about. It was not the theologians that were railing on Galileo, it was the "scientists" of the day. They ridiculed him so much he basically withdrew, practically becoming a hermit for a period of time.
[]
If anyone is confused about this issue I suggest the following article:
The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?

Ah, I should have known, an AiG tract complete with straw men, half truths and severe distortions.

AiG said:
We should not forget that in 1615, a first trial against Galileo before the Court of Inquisition was decided in favour of Galileo, because of benevolent expert evidence of the leading Jesuit astronomers.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

Catholic Encyclopedia said:
He was presently interrogated before the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5 March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any advocating the Copernican system.

So, if you consider having to reverse ones position to avoid penalty to be a victory, well I guess it went his way. <rolls eyes>

From my previous post: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

Catholic Encyclopedia said:
but what, more than all, raised alarm was anxiety for the credit of Holy Scripture, the letter of which was then universally believed to be the supreme authority in matters of science, as in all others. When therefore it spoke of the sun staying his course at the prayer of Joshua, or the earth as being ever immovable, it was assumed that the doctrine of Copernicus and Galileo was anti-Scriptural; and therefore heretical.

I find it amusing that at the end of the following Cardinal Bellarmine echoes my own arguments concerning astrophysicists. The following quote comes immediately after his statement that given evidence he would reaccess his interpretation of scripture rather than deny facts.

And please note that at that time there was no proof. It was only after the use of elipses that heliocentrism made better predictions, Keplar's laws suggested that something real was going on, butTycho Brahe's theory fit the facts just fine. It wasn't until Newton that there was real theoretical backing, and not until 1838 was parallax measured.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/letterbellarmine.html

Bellarmine said:
I may add that the man who wrote: The Earth abideth for ever; the Sun also riseth, and the Sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place whence he arose, was Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was wise and learned, above all others, in human sciences and in the knowledge of created things. As he had all this wisdom from God Himself, it is not likely that he would have made a statement contrary to a truth, either proven or capable of proof.

If you tell me that Solomon speaks according to appearances, inasmuch as though the Sun seems to us to revolve, it is really the Earth that does so, just as when the poet says: The shore is not receding from us, I answer that, thought it may appear to a voyager as if the shore were receding from the vessel on which he stands rather than the vessel from the shore, yet he knows this to be an illusion and is able to correct his judgment, for his experience tells him plainly that the Earth is standing still and that his eyes are not deceived when they report that the Sun, Moon and stars are in motion.

While there is an Aristotlian "taint" on geocentrism, the position was also based on common sense/literal reading of the Bible and on the evidence, lack of parallax.

Calminian said:
You're making this whole thing up and being called on it.

The fact is that I pointed you at the main verse of contention, at a quote from a major player stating that heliocentrism would require reinterpreting the Bible and at the opinion of the Catholic Church about what was disputed as well as demonstrating the common sense reasoning behind why one would get a geocentrist view from the Bible. You have evaded questions and made accusations misread my posts, claimed I was backpeddling and then failed to back it up.

<plonk>

Calminian · Feb 24, 2005

rmwilliamsll said:
I gave quite a lengthy reply but heard nothing back from you.--->i am unaware of this. what thread and message number?

fixity of the species is pure and simple Aristotle, i googled several essays on his effect in Christian theology. It is a well attested principle.
http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/evolutiontheory.html
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant570/topics/Evolution.pdf
http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter7.htm

The neoplatonist connection between the platonic concept of a perfect ideal world reflected imperfectly in the physical world is really best seen in the Manicheans and via Plotinus to us in Augustine. the key idea is that the pre-fall world in Hebrew thinking was good yet in Christian theology the platonic idea of perfect is usually substituted. I don't know of a full length treatment but several books on Augustine bring up the issue.
I'm sure if you are interested an hour or so googling will bring up more pieces like these:
http://www.fordham.edu/gsas/phil/klima/augustine/Saint Augustine.htm
http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/hwp202.htm

which show the details of the neoplatonic thinking effects on Augustine and thus into Christian theology.

....

You can't just explain why you believe christians got the idea of the fixity of the species from other sources than the Bible? What a cop out. IOW even though their own scriptures clearly state it, they ignored them and went to an outside source?

My reply to your previous post should be easy enough to find. If you're unwilling to go back and look, apparently your not interested. Thats okay though.

An evolutionist, TE, OEC and YEC all walk up to a bar...

Senior Veteran

The Lady Kate

Guest

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

avid reader

Senior Veteran

God Made Me A Skeptic

The Lady Kate

Guest

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

avid reader

Senior Veteran

avid reader

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency