Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Wow -- He sure didn't fool you, did He?As for the Flood, there is no doubt in my mind that a global flood 4,300 years ago or so cannot have happened. (alternately, God intentionally hid all the evidence that it did happen, making Him a liar).
Oh look, non-literal interpretation!
Third, there are other ways for stories to be fictional than allegory.
Fourth, however the Biblical authors personally considered the stories, all your examples have them using the non-literal truths of the story.
It was common at that time to make up geneologies. Aeneus had a geneology going back to Apollo. Does that make Apollo a real god?
In this case, there is a theological reason to make such a geneology: to tie the "father" of the Israelites back to the supposed first man.
I fear that the two of us may be talking past each other. I've already presented two examples of animal behavior. Chimpanzees kill each other, and human beings, and other animals for no reason other than that it's their nature to do so. Male cats kill each other and kill kittens just because. As I see it, these two examples flatly contradict what you're saying here. They show that animals, including the most intelligent and social animals, will regularly kill while showing no empathy or concern for the victims of their killing. How can this possibly be squared with the claims you're making?If you Google 'animal morals' and read scientific articles about it you'll see that social animals do have morality. Following are two relevant quotes. The first is by Mike, the person who solved the problem of the first question in my original post and the second one is by myself and was an answer to a question in another thread. Also, I have a thread going called "Can someone explain what Sin is?" in the Ethics and Morality forum to work on the problem of the second question from my original post.
...
To say hi to others is good. To kill them is bad. These two things are not arbitrary. If every member of a species was prone to do the latter that species would die out.
So the 'rationale' for social animals (animals that depend on the group to survive), especially mammals, is:
Kill my kind
I die
Don't kill my kind
I live
Hurt my kind
I hurt
etc.
I don't think you need anything special to explain empathy (or extrapolation - "I prefer not to be murdered, perhaps others of my kind feel the same way"). Why would empathy be any harder to develop than any other concept we conceive of with our relatively advanced, homo sapiens brains (God given through evolution or not)?
Until I get an answer to these questions, I simply can't understand the claim that morality exists among animals.
The father -- Joseph -- is the same, but the geneologies are wrong about that, aren't they? Joseph isn't the biological father, is he?You mean the father?
I stand corrected. I was looking at the great grandfather, but it appears that Matthat and Matthan are different people, too.Jesus' grandfathers were Jacob (maternal) and Heli (maternal).
I was counting from David. However, I notice you source says "modern scholars tend to view the genealogies as theological craftsmanship rather than historical fact." Modern scholars also view the creation stories in Genesis 1-3 the same way. But, of course, you don't.Try 36 -- source.
That's quite an admission. But it does explain a lot.I don't read.
Why not? First, should we be reading the stories literally to begin with? If we were people living in 500 BC and were reading (or hearing) the creation stories in Genesis 1-3, would we have thought they were literal history? No. Why not? Because we would have known the social, historical, and theological context.If the stories in the Bible that we can scientifically investigate prove fictional, why should we assume other unverifiable stories are literal?
That's it, the non-literal truth. Let's face it, having Adam created before Eve does not mean that women should be subservient to men. The order of creation doesn't confer subservience. What's more, Paul knew very well that in Genesis 1 men and women are created together. So Paul is using a well-known story as his rationalization that women should be subservient to men. As I discuss in more detail below, you can argue that Paul's conclusion is faulty and contrary to God's intention. That Paul uses what turns out to be a "false" creation story is actually beneficial for God, isn't it?What's the non-literal truth of this one, that women should be subservient to men?:
1 Timothy 2:13

For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
What's the non-literal truth of this one?:
Jude 1:14

It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, [/quote]
You stopped the context. Why? Let's go back to verse 4: "For certain men whose condemnation was written about [fn] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. "
So, the author wants to condemn people who are preaching what Jude considers false things. What Jude cares about is Enoch's prophecy, not Adam. Let's go to verse 15:
"to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
The point of all this is a prophesy against the preachers that Jude says are preaching false things. Jude also invokes the disciples in verse 17 "But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. "
The argument and prophecy stand independent of a literal Adam.
But the points they are making do not depend on the story being literal history. Everyone knows the story, so Paul can use it as a rationalization. In Jude, the point is the prophecy, not a literal Adam. You can take out "in the seventh generation from Adam" and nothing changes in Jude's argument.If the Biblical authors did personally consider these stories literal history it means they were misinformed individuals, which is significant.
I think that is significant. It looks like God is preventing the authors from any important theological message being dependent upon a literal Adam. In fact, it's the opposite. In your example, only a faulty theological message is tied to a literal Adam and Eve. In Paul's argument, the conclusion is faulty, isn't it? God didn't really intend for women to be subservient to men. What better way to correct Paul's mistake than to have Paul's argument based upon a faulty premise?
I never said the Bible makes God a real god. I only said "It was common at that time to make up geneologies. Aeneus had a geneology going back to Apollo. Does that make Apollo a real god?" See? A genealogy going back to Apollo doesn't make Apollo real. A genealogy going back to Adam doesn't make Jesus the son of God.No, so how does the Bible make God a real god?
What makes Jesus the son of God? You should know this.
Here you are worrying about "the scriptures" Stop doing that. Your real concern is God, isn't it? Or maybe not. Maybe your real concern is the scriptures and not God.How is that theologically useful? Doesn't it discredit the scriptures?
For the Jews, it is important that the first man be a Jew. That helps make them the "Chosen People" and gives them a (false) sense of superiority over any other group. When you get to Genesis 4-5 take careful note of which nations are descended from Cain and which from Seth, then compare that to Israel's enemies, friends, and neutrals.
Now, in the geneaologies the important thing is to tie Jesus to the House of David. Why? Because the common belief among Jews was that the Messiah will be from the House of David. And Jesus is claimed to be the Messiah. Tying him back to Adam is an afterthought and comes only because David (as a Jew) traces his ancestry back to Adam.
No.The father -- Joseph -- is the same, but the geneologies are wrong about that, aren't they?
It appears that the "no reason" is incorrect. Chimps will kill invaders into their territory. This includes humans.II've already presented two examples of animal behavior. Chimpanzees kill each other, and human beings, and other animals for no reason other than that it's their nature to do so.
First, felines are not social animals. They are solitary predators. So male cats killing each other and kittens is not "just because". They are protecting their hunting territory.Male cats kill each other and kill kittens just because. As I see it, these two examples flatly contradict what you're saying here. They show that animals, including the most intelligent and social animals, will regularly kill while showing no empathy or concern for the victims of their killing.
1. There's a difference between having morality and making moral judgements. Do you see that? We are being wise in not making moral judgements outside our species. Our morals are for us and our behavior. We have no justification for extending them beyond H. sapiens. One reason is that we teach members of our species what is, and isn't, "moral" behavior. Therefore we can hold those members responsible for following, or not, those teachings. We have not, and due to the communication barrier, cannot teach our moral principles to members of other species.When a human being attacks another human being, we can make moral judgments about it. Generally we'll say it's morally wrong unless there's a mitigating circumstance such as self-defense. But I've never heard anyone applying the concepts of moral right and wrong to what Travis did. He attacked that woman because it was his nature as a chimpanzee to be violent.
Within their species, yes that is moral. Cats are solitary animals, not social ones. As predators they need a large territory with enough prey to sustain them. Killing over control of territory is self-defense for them. Also, access to females is limited. Again, it's a form of self-defense to kill rivals to females and kill kittens not their own. When they do that, then the females ovulate and the tomcat can have children of its own.Tom cats will fight each other to the death over control of territory and females. They'll also kill any kittens other than their own. Are these actions morally right or wrong?
Many soldiers do not. Over the centuries humans have trained other humans to be violent. Some consider the ramifications of being violent. But most of the rank and file do not. They just do their jobs. I suggest reading the works of David Drake and Rudyard Kipling. Yes, it's fiction, but Drake and Kipling have insight into the psychology of soldiers and it's more fun reading them than dry scientific papers.If an animal is trained to be violent, does it ever put a paw to its chin and contemplate the moral ramifications of being violent?
And there you note that the genealogies are wrong about Jesus being the son of Joseph!No.
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
You might want to read some of the other posts here, instead of [apparently] just chiming in with your microscope.And there you note that the genealogies are wrong about Jesus being the son of Joseph!I wondered if you would find that verse. Good for you. Thank you for proving my point.
Therefore, even tho Luke continues with the entire genealogy, that genealogy is wrong.
Can you show me in the J1 J2 haplotype where the Hebrew genetic DNA is "wrong"? Where they do not line up with the geneologys that we get from Luke? Can you demonstrate that Abraham is not the father of the Hebrew nation and the Arab nation? That Sarah is not the mother of the Hebrew nation and that Hagar is not the mother of the Arab nation as the Bible teaches us. Can you show us that in the mtDNA? From the Evolutionary tree of Human mitochondrial DNA.Therefore, even tho Luke continues with the entire genealogy, that genealogy is wrong.
The Hebrew tradition for one thing. They do not question this at all. It's a fact to them. Christians and Hebrews keep track of the geneology of Abraham and his decendants. Actually if you were to study the Bible it is very very easy to trace the geneology from Abraham back to Moses and back to Adam.How then is it certain they got the rest of the genealogy right?
The two lines (Joseph's & Mary's) merge at David:The Hebrew tradition for one thing. They do not question this at all. It's a fact to them. Christians and Hebrews keep track of the geneology of Abraham and his decendants. Actually if you were to study the Bible it is very very easy to trace the geneology from Abraham back to Moses and back to Adam.
The Hebrew tradition for one thing. They do not question this at all. It's a fact to them.
Christians and Hebrews keep track of the geneology of Abraham and his decendants. Actually if you were to study the Bible it is very very easy to trace the geneology from Abraham back to Moses and back to Adam.
First, should we be reading the stories literally to begin with?
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
When defining morality, I refer to Aristotle, who posited that there are six stages of moral development, arranged in a hierarchy from lowest to highest. Every human being enters the world at the lowest stage and moral development consists of moving to higher ones. Not all humans beings reach the highest stages. The six stages are explained at greater length on this page, but I'll give a summary.I'll respond but I just want to see how you're defining 'morality'. These two definitions below are from dictionary.com. Are we agreed on the definitions of these words?:
morality: conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
morals: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?