Does the fact of Evolution .... (moved)

[LittleLambofJesus]

Does the fact of Evolution question the idea of marriage to one partner for life?

A little something to reflect upon:

'....
Some scientists view both social and sexual monogamy in humans as a societal structure rather than a natural state.

"I don't think we are a monogamous animal," said Pepper Schwartz, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington in Seattle.
"A really monogamous animal is a goose – which never mates again even if its mate is killed."

She added, "Monogamy is invented for order and investment – but not necessarily because it's 'natural.'"....' ( http://www.livescience.com/32146-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html )

Very interesting.

I remember watching the movie "Orca" some time back concerning Killer Whales, and how they are considered monogamus, and like humans, they are very defensive when it comes to protecting their mate. Great movie and photography!

Gen 1:21
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind:
and God saw that it was good.
....


................................................................

.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is #1?

My guess: the Rapture of the Church.

Unless they are including the rise in pestilences, information and earthquakes that precede it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Doesn't cut it, AV1611. You forgot all about God's mercy and forgiveness, which traditionally were understood as meaning we do not get what we deserve. For example, Augustine argued we should stop complaining about God being unjust. The reprobate got what they deserve; the elect are the ones who got what they definitely did not deserve, salvation. The elect were taken to be only lucky reprobate and so in no way did they merit or deserve salvation. Read Calvin and Luther. My point is that God is loving and therefore does not seek to coerce others by threats. The problem is that much Christianity presents a highly contradictory image of God where God appears to be saying, "Love me or I"ll beat the tar out of you."

Don't get me started on Calvin and Luther, Hoghead, or I'll get moderated.

And for the record, I challenged you (?) to a simple match-the-term-with-its-definition quiz.

I don't need a whole paragraph translating to: "I can't."

And if it wasn't you (I'm too lazy to look), then big deal -- I was wrong.

 

[Hoghead1]

Look, AV1611, don't break your arm, patting yourself on the back. Your criticisms would not hold a patch, compared to those coming from the academic world. For example. the classical or traditional Christian model of God, provided by the church fathers, has been debunked, start to finish, by contemporary theologians such as myself. Often, the scholarly critical apparatus is directed to issues the laity has not an inking of. How many laity, especially how many Lutherans, are aware of the fact that Luther was a raging anti-semitc, who, along with encouraging the nobility to exterminate the peasants and gypsies, wrote a book titled "The Jews and Their Liie," in which he recommended a policy strinikinglyu similar to what Hitoler carried out?

 

[Hoghead1]

Sorry, AV1611. My computer is subject to glitches where posts are sent out before I have edited them and am done with them. The last sentence should read, "The Jews and Their Lies," in which he recommended a policy strikingly similar to what Hitler carried out? For that matter, most laity are generally unaware of what exactly classical theism is or what criticisms are being made of it? Anyhow, the problem I have on this forum is that members sometimes dump on a major figure, providing no supporting evidence, and making a snide remark that doesn't even begin to fit the facts. Augustine had many faults, but stupidity is not one of them. The church fathers had many faults, but being heretics is not one of them. In your earlier posts, you simply made remarks without providing any supporting evidence. In your later ones here, yes, you did at least make the effort to provide supporting evidence, which I am inclined to agree with.

 

[AV1611VET]

In your earlier posts, you simply made remarks without providing any supporting evidence. In your later ones here, yes, you did at least make the effort to provide supporting evidence, which I am inclined to agree with.

Interesting way you put this.

Let me know if I'm supposed to have goosebumps.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't know about goosebumps, AV1611. I do know, however, that you should do a far better job of providing supportive arguments and evidence than you are doing.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know about goosebumps, AV1611. I do know, however, that you should do a far better job of providing supportive arguments and evidence than you are doing.

Excuse me?

I don't owe you anything.

I say what I believe, and I speculate where speculation is called for.

If what I believe isn't good enough, or convincing enough, too bad.

Again, I loved the way your worded your previous post.

It says a lot.

In your earlier posts, you simply made remarks without providing any supporting evidence. In your later ones here, yes, you did at least make the effort to provide supporting evidence, which I am inclined to agree with.

Notice in the first sentence how I definitely didn't provide any supporting evidence?

Then when I gave you something you agreed with (miracles still happen), you said I "at least made an effort."

That tells me all I need to know about who I'm dealing with.

 

[dad]

Look, AV1611, don't break your arm, patting yourself on the back. Your criticisms would not hold a patch, compared to those coming from the academic world. For example. the classical or traditional Christian model of God, provided by the church fathers, has been debunked, start to finish, by contemporary theologians such as myself.

In your own minds, maybe but who really cares?

Often, the scholarly critical apparatus is directed to issues the laity has not an inking of.

God gave us scripture and His spirit so we have all that we need, unlike the talking heads.

How many laity, especially how many Lutherans, are aware of the fact that Luther was a raging anti-semitc, who, along with encouraging the nobility to exterminate the peasants and gypsies, wrote a book titled "The Jews and Their Liie," in which he recommended a policy strinikinglyu similar to what Hitoler carried out?

I have heard that he did get nasty with Jews. At least he didn't bulldoze their houses did he?

 

[HitchSlap]

My guess: the Rapture of the Church.

Unless they are including the rise in pestilences, information and earthquakes that precede it.

But there's been a decrease in pestilence and earthquakes, so does not comport.

 

[AV1611VET]

But there's been a decrease in pestilence and earthquakes, so does not comport.

The calm before the storm?

Such as like here ...

Revelation 8:1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The calm before the storm?

Such as like here ...

Revelation 8:1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.

I am looking forward to it!
AMEN! Come LORD!

Zephaniah 1:7
Be-hushed! before my Lord YAHWEH, that near Day of YAHWEH.
That YAHWEH prepares a Sacrifice and He sanctifies ones-being-Called of Him.
8 And it becomes in Day of Sacrifice of YHWH.........




Zechariah 2:13
Be-hushed! All of flesh from faces of YHWH,
that He is roused from habitation of holiness of Him

Reve 8:1
And when it opens the seventh Seal, there became a Hush in the heaven, as half-hour.
[Zeph 1:7/Zech 2:13]


.............................................................................

.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am looking forward to it!
AMEN! Come LORD!

Me too!

 

[Hoghead1]

What brought al this up, AV1611? I am simply responding to your posts on the church fathers, not miracles. You asked me if you are supposed to have goosebumps. So your asked about what I thought you should be doing. I answered you. And yes, you owe it to your readies to provide solid arguments for your claims. That is the responsibility everyone has in theological discussions.

 

[HitchSlap]

The calm before the storm?

Such as like here ...

Revelation 8:1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.

But you said there was a rise in... Oh NVM.

You guys just don't get it, do you?

Oh well, pearls and swine, horses to water.

 

[juvenissun]

Does the fact of Evolution question the idea of marriage to one partner for life?

Humans do not need marriage. But they have marriage.
This is an excellent evidence for that human is not an evolved life form.

 

[Shemjaza]

Humans do not need marriage. But they have marriage.
This is an excellent evidence for that human is not an evolved life form.

That doesn't really follow.

Human's ability to form complicated social structures is in no way evidence against the theory of evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

That doesn't really follow.

Human's ability to form complicated social structures is in no way evidence against the theory of evolution.

Evolution will make a system go or not go. It will not make a system go and not go.

 

[Shemjaza]

Evolution will make a system go or not go. It will not make a system go and not go.

Maybe I'm not following you, but speciation is basically the definition of evolution going and not going.

 

[Armoured]

Does the fact of Evolution question the idea of marriage to one partner for life?

A little something to reflect upon:

'....
Some scientists view both social and sexual monogamy in humans as a societal structure rather than a natural state.

"I don't think we are a monogamous animal," said Pepper Schwartz, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington in Seattle. "A really monogamous animal is a goose – which never mates again even if its mate is killed."

She added, "Monogamy is invented for order and investment – but not necessarily because it's 'natural.'"....' ( http://www.livescience.com/32146-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html )

Humans probably didn't evolve to be monogamous. But we didn't evolve to live in cities, have space travel, or practice representative democracy, either. The special thing about humanity is that our sentience allows us to transcend our mere biology. So no, we didn't evolve for monogamy, however we are capable of consciously choosing and then promoting and supporting monogamy as a paradigm.