Early Man....Question

[Doveaman]

The bible uses metaphors; tons of metaphors. As Christians we need to remember how to crrctly interpret mythology and separate the fact from fiction As Christians, truth should be the goal at hand.

Which one of these two men is a metaphor:

It is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit...

The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven...

And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. - 1 Cor 15:45-49

Which man is the metaphor, and which man isn’t? and why?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Bingo! We have a winner.

Much better than listening to you or I seeing as in addition to his Masters in Theology he also happens to have a Master of Science degree majoring in Anthropology. Eminently more qualified than you or I in this field I'd say.

BTW, I made a typo in my previous post. It's MarVin not Martin.

So a Master's in Theology makes him closer to God than you or I, and a master's in Science makes everything he says automatically true -- check.

 

[Doveaman]

Anyway, I am excited to more share ideas with you guys, so I will cut this one short and save some for next time. Laters.

Welcome to CF. Hope you enjoy your stay.

 

[Tomatoman]

Dove:

You obviously don't know God.

Nor do you. You haven't got a clue. No one has. But you have the sheer conceit, the pomposity, the self centred stupidity to claim otherwise. Wow, talk about an ego. so much for Christian humility. You know God, indeed. Pfft. I doubt you know what day of the week it is most of the time.

 

[Doveaman]

Dove:

Nor do you. You haven't got a clue. No one has. But you have the sheer conceit, the pomposity, the self centred stupidity to claim otherwise. Wow, talk about an ego. so much for Christian humility. You know God, indeed. Pfft. I doubt you know what day of the week it is most of the time.

Where I live, the day of the week is a sunny day most of the time.

 

[YoDude]

Sorry to dip my little fly in your ointment, but some Christians are "science people" too and manage with faith perfectly well

Excellent, sounds like we agree.

 

[Tomatoman]

Dove:

Where I live, the day of the week is a sunny day most of the time.

Yes, I believe Lalaland has a reputation for nice weather.

 

[Cabal]

You will find my posts somewhat dogmatic and unapologetic, its too time consuming to try to pre-console those who may disagree. My post stands as is, I think you misunderstood it. But, I am happy to clarify (with love) any point you care to discuss.

Or maybe I misunderstood your point.

"Science people" is far too general a term for the point you were trying to make, given that "science people" does not rule out Christians who are able to reconcile their faith with contemporary science or Christians who work in the sciences.

 

[YoDude]

I edited my previous response, anyway I think you did understand my original post - I have no problem with you attempting to clarify it for others, though. Just don't expect me to change the way I speak or write, I don't follow political correctness, and I don't typically apologize when others don't understand.

 

[Cabal]

I edited my previous response, anyway I think you did understand my original post - I have no problem with you attempting to clarify it for others, though.

Well, the only person who can really do that is you - so I'm assuming you realise that many Christians are "science people" too?

Just don't expect me to change the way I speak or write, I don't follow political correctness, and I don't typically apologize when others don't understand.

It's not really anything to do with political correctness - generalising language is at best misleading, at worst appalling logic.

And if others don't understand, that does reflect somewhat on how you put your point across in the first place.

 

[YoDude]

[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']generalising language is at best misleading, at worst appalling logic.[/FONT]

I am so glad the Grammar Police are hard at work on the job, I tried to find a common ground with you. I just give up, now - go ahead and have the last word, you know you want it.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

To the OP, I recommend a book by Jerry Coyne, "Why Evolution Is True." It is well written and succinctly details theory of evolution in layman's terms. This will give you a good starting point. You don't need to give up your religious convictions to accept current scientific data. You can effectively meld the two, without having to give up your faith.

 

[Skaloop]

To the OP, I recommend a book by Jerry Coyne, "Why Evolution Is True." It is well written and succinctly details theory of evolution in layman's terms. This will give you a good starting point. You don't need to give up your religious convictions to accept current scientific data. You can effectively meld the two, without having to give up your faith.

Agreed. I just finished it myself. Definitely good for the layman or person new to evolution, but not too simplified for the more experienced, either.

Also, it lacks the fervent atheism of Dawkins, which is nice. I like most of Dawkins work on both topics, but when he mixes the two, it rubs me the wrong way. Coyne doesn't go lightly on Creationists, to be sure, but it's precisely Creationists (not Christians or the religious in general) that he is addressing.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Agreed. I just finished it myself. Definitely good for the layman or person new to evolution, but not too simplified for the more experienced, either.

Also, it lacks the fervent atheism of Dawkins, which is nice. I like most of Dawkins work on both topics, but when he mixes the two, it rubs me the wrong way. Coyne doesn't go lightly on Creationists, to be sure, but it's precisely Creationists (not Christians or the religious in general) that he is addressing.

My sentiments exactly.

I just finished "Climbing Mt. Improbable," and he wasn't so vociferous against religion. I have noticed a definite trend with later books to contain diatribes against religion in his biology writings. He has claimed that is why he wrote "The God Delusion," however it did creep into his last book a little.

 

[Cabal]

[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']generalising language is at best misleading, at worst appalling logic.[/font]

I am so glad the Grammar Police are hard at work on the job, I tried to find a common ground with you. I just give up, now - go ahead and have the last word, you know you want it.

I made no reference to your grammar. Why are you bringing it up?

My point was, generalising language like "science people" is something you should be aware of when entering into a discussion on this topic, particularly if you want to broadbrush an entire group of people as not understanding faith - a bad enough idea to begin with, but especially so when your remarks appear to apply to other Christians as well.

Science gets conflated with atheism in this topics fairly often, so it's a good idea to be clear when talking about those who accept science.

 

[Doveaman]

Because some are backed up with evidence while others are not.

There is no reason to believe that the writers of the Bible had no evidence. Many of their writings do predict much of the human conditions we observe today.

Since their predictions are supported by observed facts today, then we can conclude from these observations that the source of those writings is quite reliable.

 

[BananaSlug]

There is no reason to believe that the writers of the Bible had no evidence. Many of their writings do predict much of the human conditions we observe today.

Since their predictions are supported by observed facts today, then we can conclude from these observations that the source of those writings is quite reliable.

So if we follow through with this logic, would you say that predictions that have come true in other religions means they are equally reliable?

 

[Nostromo]

There is no reason to believe that the writers of the Bible had no evidence.

Why bother pretending that it matters? People here can present you with evidence of many things you disagree with, but you reject it. When it comes to the Biblical authors however, you're quite happy to assume they had evidence.

 

[Cabal]

Why don't you just stop responding, it is clear you are an argumentative person. This is a forum, it's called free speech

Irony much?

You are welcome to say what you want - that's free speech. You are also not exempt from having fair criticism leveled at you - that's also free speech.

Stop trying to correct posts and try and to find common ground with people.

What, you mean generalise? I'm just trying to point out to you that Christians who accept science (well, just evolution really) frequently get called atheists or apostates or whatever on a fairly regular basis and that you might want to consider your words carefully in relation to that - the Bible does say to watch what you say and to encourage other Christians after all....

Is this how you typically treat new members? I certainly hope you do not represent the attitude of the rest of the members here. If so, I won't be a member here long - is that your goal?

Nope - but you don't get kid glove treatment for putting forward a hasty generalisation if you're new....

I have seen your type before, I just wasn't expecting it on a Christian website.

...or if you happen to have the same faith icon as me.

You really are full of yourself, aren't you? - perhaps try some humility on occasion, Mr. 'generalising'

Yup, this coming from the person who refuses to apologise for what they say and how they say it

 

[YoDude]

Irony much?



What, you mean generalise?



You shouldn't get kid glove treatment for putting forward a hasty generalisation if you're new....



...or if you happen to have the same faith icon as me.



Yup, this coming from the person who refuses to apologise for what they say and how they say it

You have proven my point.