God Evolved

[HitchSlap]

Genesis 1:6


Then GOD made a mistake sir

The authors of G1/2 (they were different and written approx 300 years apart) would have no way of knowing what we know about the cosmos now, and were doing their best to explain what they had no way of knowing. It’s the Hebrew version of earlier creation myths.

 

[HitchSlap]

If you don’t believe there is a GOD why are you here and involved in a thread which is discussing something (though false) about GOD

Im interested in science and discourse. Why are you here?

 

[miknik5]

The authors of G1/2 (they were different and written approx 300 years apart) would have no way of knowing what we know about the cosmos now, and were doing their best to explain what they had no way of knowing. It’s the Hebrew version of earlier creation mwyths.

Im interested in science and discourse. Why are you here?

im interested in the truth and maintaining it

Not lies and myths and men stating that age old lie: “GOD didn’t really say”


GOD really did say

Genesis 1:6 trumps what others have suggested over GOD’s WORD

 

[HitchSlap]

im interested in the truth and maintaining it

Not lies and myths and men stating that age old lie: “GOD didn’t really say”


GOD really did say

Genesis 1:6 trumps what others have suggested over GOD’s WORD

I sense a bit of cog dis with you. On the one hand, you say you value truth, on the other, you say an ancient myth written by an unknown author trumps what we actually know to be true. You can’t have it both ways. Either you accept the myth or you accept reality. Your claim of valuing truth rings hollow, madam.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Water sir. The whole earth and universe was a mass of formless dark and void soupy watery cosmos before GOD said let there be a firmament to separate the waters above from the waters below

Genesis 1:6

In the Hebrew cosmological paradigm, yes. Which is the paradigm which the ancient Hebrew writers would have spoken about the cosmos; as they shared certain key concepts with other ancient near eastern peoples.

It's fair enough to ask to what degree ancient peoples understood their mythological motifs as being literal, because we ourselves are the inheritors not of the ancient near eastern way of thinking, but the ancient classical way of thinking borne from the Greeks, and it is the Greeks whose own philosophical meanderings gave us the kind of scrutiny to ask the question "What is the cosmos?".

It is therefore fair to ask to what degree ancient people looked to certain aspects of their mythology as having a definitive objective basis, or whether they looked to it to inform them of their place in the world.

The point of the creation myths in Genesis ultimately isn't about cosmology as a scientific or philosophical discipline, but rather theology: asking the question not so much of "What was the play-by-play for how the material universe got here?" but "What is our place in the universe?" There is also worth noting the way in which the Hebrew narrative seems to intentionally undermine the mythologies of their Pagan neighbors. When we compare Genesis 1 with, say, the Enuma Elish we find that where the primordial waters, Tiamat, is personified, a goddess of pure primordial chaos out of which the gods are born who then clash violently with one another chaotically to produce the universe. In Genesis, however, in the beginning isn't primordial chaos, but God, who shapes the primordial chaos into an orderly world with purpose. The sun and moon and stars are not divine beings, but mere creatures which inhabit day and night for the purpose which God gives them. The poetical framing device of dividing the creation into six days, with clear parallels (days 1-3 with days 4-6) cannot be mere coincidence, but intentional; there is even a repeating refrain, "There was evening and there was morning".

Genesis 1 is mythology, but mythology of a kind to be deliberately subversive. Which insists on the uniqueness of the one God of Israel who uniquely and single-handedly brings order from chaos, and who is above every other "power"--all the cosmic powers of the ancient near east, treated as gods in their own right, are reduced to mere creatures who serve a purpose and function in God's creation. And it grants human beings their specific purpose as the image-bearers of the one God, who not only bear the divine image but serve as priests, in a sense. God's house is not a building of stone, but the heavens and the earth themselves are, and He has no idol but instead human beings are His image-bearers.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ophiolite]

miknik5, I did not wish to embarrass you publicly, any further than you have done yourself, so I intended to send this by pm. Unfortunately you seem to have disabled that option.

Okay “newbie”

That is a disappointing response. You had inaccurately described me as a newcomer, with the implication that this somehow reduced the value of my comments. It was a perjorative use of the term, made doubly inappropriate by being incorrect.

I demonstrated clearly that you were in error, but rather than apologise you sought to hide behind the automatically generated title that accompanies my name. That is not positive behaviour. I would hope you would wish to set a better example.

Here is something for you to consider. I noted earlier in the thread that I was raised as a Christian. My commitment to and involvement in the religion was such that family members imagined I would enter the ministry. What initiated my move towards agnosticism and eventual rejection of Christian theology was behaviour, by Christians, of the type you have exhibited here. Eventually, such behaviour played no part in justifying my agnosticism, but it did start the ball rolling.

There is a risk that your manner of posting and negative behaviour of the type I am highlighting here may start one or more forum lurkers to question their faith. Now this is, from my perspective, a good thing, but surely it is not something you would wish to be responsible for. It pains me to see you acting in a way that is antithetical to your beliefs.

I recommend you consider the behaviour of two of your fellow Christians on the thread, Osscar and ViaCrucis, both of whom are respectful, informative, open and polite. I fear you will ignore this, just as you ignore all the other advice. In the hope that I am mistaken I shall wait 48 hours and, if no concilatory response occurs, I shall place you on Ignore. This will minimise the risk that I continue to give you unwelcome advice on this and other threads.

Sincerely yours,
Ewan

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is simple and straightforward, and I like simple and straightforward. Might not work for you, but it sure works for me! Hey, I know when we will find out the true answer to all this. Five minutes after we are dead!

While alive, I prefer to accept ideas that are supported by multiple lines of observational evidence, have been thoroughly tested, and have the greatest explanatory and predictive power. But it takes all sorts...

 

[miknik5]

Oh my goodness. I’m not in the least embarrassed. I have nothing to be embarrassed about

 

[miknik5]

miknik5, I did not wish to embarrass you publicly, any further than you have done yourself, so I intended to send this by pm. Unfortunately you seem to have disabled that option. That is a disappointing response. You had inaccurately described me as a newcomer, with the implication that this somehow reduced the value of my comments. It was a perjorative use of the term, made doubly inappropriate by being incorrect.

I demonstrated clearly that you were in error, but rather than apologise you sought to hide behind the automatically generated title that accompanies my name. That is not positive behaviour. I would hope you would wish to set a better example.

Here is something for you to consider. I noted earlier in the thread that I was raised as a Christian. My commitment to and involvement in the religion was such that family members imagined I would enter the ministry. What initiated my move towards agnosticism and eventual rejection of Christian theology was behaviour, by Christians, of the type you have exhibited here. Eventually, such behaviour played no part in justifying my agnosticism, but it did start the ball rolling.

There is a risk that your manner of posting and negative behaviour of the type I am highlighting here may start one or more forum lurkers to question their faith. Now this is, from my perspective, a good thing, but surely it is not something you would wish to be responsible for. It pains me to see you acting in a way that is antithetical to your beliefs.

I recommend you consider the behaviour of two of your fellow Christians on the thread, Osscar and ViaCrucis, both of whom are respectful, informative, open and polite. I fear you will ignore this, just as you ignore all the other advice. In the hope that I am mistaken I shall wait 48 hours and, if no concilatory response occurs, I shall place you on Ignore. This will minimise the risk that I continue to give you unwelcome advice on this and other threads.

Sincerely yours,
Ewan

My comment regarding you being a ”newcomer” had to do with your faulty insight into my use of caps


That’s all it had to do with.

I have no reason to apologize to you for that

Actually sir it is you who should apologize for your misrepresenting and faulty insight....especially since I had already explained to you my use of caps on another thread

 

[Ophiolite]

My comment regarding you being a ”newcomer” had to do with your faulty insight into my use of caps


That’s all it had to do with.

My insight into your use of capital was not faulty. It is silly, annoying, contrived and will cause some readers to automatically reject your message.
Calling me a Newbie, when I am not was an error on your part. Now you reveal yourself as an individual who cannot admit to error. How distasteful.

I have no reason to apologize to you for that

Not for that, but you do have reason to acknowledge your error. And it would be a nice gesture if you were to apologise for having been careless enough to make it.

Actually sir it is you who should apologize for your misrepresenting and faulty insight....especially since I had already explained to you my use of caps on another thread

I have misrepresented nothing.
I have no faulty insight.
I have no idea why you think I don't understand why you use capitals. I do understand it. I understood it before you explained it to me.
I was simply giving you a heads up that the technique is defective. You are free to use a defective technique as often as you wish.

However, I shall give this apology. Don't bother replying you go straight on Ignore after this.

miknik, I am truly sorry you are so wrapped up in your wordlview, so hostile to any hint of a different perspective that you reject advice, treat fellow members disparagingly and generally come across as a most unpleasant person. I hope the world treats you much more kindly than you appear to deserve.

 

[miknik5]

My insight into your use of capital was not faulty. It is silly, annoying, contrived and will cause some readers to automatically reject your message.
Calling me a Newbie, when I am not was an error on your part. Now you reveal yourself as an individual who cannot admit to error. How distasteful.

Not for that, but you do have reason to acknowledge your error. And it would be a nice gesture if you were to apologise for having been careless enough to make it.


I have misrepresented nothing.
I have no faulty insight.
I have no idea why you think I don't understand why you use capitals. I do understand it. I understood it before you explained it to me.
I was simply giving you a heads up that the technique is defective. You are free to use a defective technique as often as you wish.

However, I shall give this apology. Don't bother replying you go straight on Ignore after this.

miknik, I am truly sorry you are so wrapped up in your wordlview, so hostile to any hint of a different perspective that you reject advice, treat fellow members disparagingly and generally come across as a most unpleasant person. I hope the world treats you much more kindly than you appear to deserve.

Your insight into my use of caps was indeed faulty

If I tell you you are wrong about something concerning myself who are you to correct me?

I know what I am doing and just as the WORD says. No man can know the spirit of another man save the man

So you tell me what I mean when I tell you that you are wrong?

I did not read any further then this as I have no interest in reading your many faulty words regarding my person

 

[miknik5]

Please don’t offer your input opinions suggestions thoughts on my feelings behind my words

You tried to do that on another thread as well

Your insight is faulty

 

[miknik5]

By the way, @Ophiolite I am confused. Your thread regarding the words and testimony of Jesus on that other thread

If you can’t even believe when one testifies of themselves as I did regarding my use of caps. Why would you believe when others testify of JESUS. and how or why would you believe the WORD of JESUS?

you had said in that other thread you had hoped to hear the words as from Jesus?


But why?

Would that make a difference?

I’m telling you the reason behind why I use caps but you have much to say as if somehow I’m confused and really didn’t mean what I said

I know what I mean and I know what I said is the truth about me

You sir just don’t believe m
That’s fine

But don’t tell me I’m wrong or I made a mistake

You are wrong
And you made the mistake of misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I really said and meant

 

[HitchSlap]

By the way, @Ophiolite I am confused. Your thread regarding the words and testimony of Jesus on that other thread

If you can’t even believe when one testifies of themselves as I did regarding my use of caps. Why would you believe when others testify of JESUS. and how or why would you believe the WORD of JESUS?

you had said in that other thread you had hoped to hear the words as from Jesus?


But why?

Would that make a difference?

I’m telling you the reason behind why I use caps but you have much to say as if somehow I’m confused and really didn’t mean what I said

I know what I mean and I know what I said is the truth about me

You sir just don’t believe m
That’s fine

But don’t tell me I’m wrong or I made a mistake

You are wrong
And you made the mistake of misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I really said and meant

I know you somehow think a point is being made when using cap locks, but what we’re trying to tell you is, it comes across as arrogant and boorish, rendering the very point you’re trying make, ineffective. You are essentially sabotaging yourself.
This has been pointed out several times by others, yet you refuse to acknowledge they may have a point. Assuming you’re an adult, with at least some sense of self awareness, why continue in this vein of behavior?

 

[miknik5]

I know you somehow think a point is being made when using cap locks, but what we’re trying to tell you is, it comes across as arrogant and boorish, rendering the very point you’re trying make, ineffective. You are essentially sabotaging yourself.
This has been pointed out several times by others, yet you refuse to acknowledge they may have a point. Assuming you’re an adult, with at least some sense of self awareness, why continue in this vein of behavior?

Because I have no control over others and what they think. And I know what my intentions are and why I cap and I’ll leave myself to GOD who will judge rightly. Who knows and sees where you can’t

 

[Speedwell]

Because I have no control over others and what they think. And I know what my intentions are and why I cap and I’ll leave myself to GOD who will judge rightly. Who knows and sees where you can’t

It's really not that big a deal. By internet convention, "all caps" is taken to mean shouting. You should be aware of it, that's all.

 

[miknik5]

It's really not that big a deal. By internet convention, "all caps" is taken to mean shouting. You should be aware of it, that's all.

I am aware of it and have testified that I’m not shouting GOD’s name or GODLY things in a halty jerky manner


I’m not using all caps so that should have been obvious

 

[miknik5]

For example. In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with GOD and the WORD was GOD


I’m not yelling in some sort of intermittent way