Humans did NOT evolve from Apes...

[DogmaHunter]

I had at least hoped to get an actual answer to that, among the run on...oh well.

What's wrong with my answer?
If a text does not correspond to the facts of reality, then it is the text that is wrong - not reality.

What is the problem with that?

Lots of bitterness/hatred in there though

What?? It's "hatred" and "bitterness" to state that if a text doesn't correspond to reality - it is a problem for the text, not for reality?

, maybe we can make you somewhat interesting after all, would you like to talk about what's causing all that?

No idea what you are talking about.

Again... if a text says A, but reality shows B, then A is incorrect.

It really is that simple.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Let's assume we lived during the times of Jesus and that he was real, that the accounts we are given are accurate. After he left we STILL would have no absolute proof or scientific explanation of what we witnessed. At best we could only tell others what we witnessed, future generations would be left with our story.

You can take this paragraphe and replace "Jesus" with just about any character from any religion or legend: hercules, achilles, perseus, mohammed, etc

So my point is, if some of these accounts are accurate we would be where we are right now. If they are NOT accurate then we are left to believe common Jewish fisherman left Judaism to create a fiction wherein they are less than heroic and a female prostitute was the first to believe while the boys hid out in doubt. Theses men stuck with their very controversial story even to their persecution and death.

And again the same can be said concerning just about any religion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because you're going on science, and I'm going on faith.

That just raises even more questions then it answers.

 

[Colter]

You can take this paragraphe and replace "Jesus" with just about any character from any religion or legend: hercules, achilles, perseus, mohammed, etc



And again the same can be said concerning just about any religion.

And you are correct again, there have been many Messiah claimants before and after Jesus. And again, IF the Son of God did in fact come as he did, quietly, naturally, then carried out his public ministry as he did and returning to heaven, we would have what we have. Note, even those religious leaders who witnessed Jesus were unconvinced by miracles. They even concluded he must be aligned with dark forces.

At the end of the day your heavenly Father isn't going to rob you of the thrilling adventure of discovering the existential truth from finitude.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And you are correct again, there have been many Messiah claimants before and after Jesus. And again, IF the Son of God did in fact come as he did, quietly, naturally, then carried out his public ministry as he did and returning to heaven, we would have what we have.

And IF the undetectable extra-dimensional dragons created the universe and all it contains in its present state, just 5 seconds ago, we would also have what we have.

I don't see the point of such "if"s.

Note, even those religious leaders who witnessed Jesus were unconvinced by miracles. They even concluded he must be aligned with dark forces.

So the story goes, yes.

At the end of the day your heavenly Father isn't going to rob you of the thrilling adventure of discovering the existential truth from finitude.

At the end of the day, this "heavenly Father" seems indistinguishable from a non-existing one.

 

[Colter]

And IF the undetectable extra-dimensional dragons created the universe and all it contains in its present state, just 5 seconds ago, we would also have what we have.

I don't see the point of such "if"s.



So the story goes, yes.



At the end of the day, this "heavenly Father" seems indistinguishable from a non-existing one.

Its important for nonbelievers to realize that believers didn't arrive at faith through a path of logical deduction. We didn't go to the religious superstore and "pick the right one" based on a logic path which can then be retraced and explained to a nonbeliever in the store.

* The gift of faith is a generic endowment of mind first for humans all over the world in diverse religions.

Quotes for explanation emphasis mine:

"Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs. It is much easier for men to agree on religious values—goals—than on beliefs—interpretations. And this explains how religion can agree on values and goals while exhibiting the confusing phenomenon of maintaining a belief in hundreds of conflicting beliefs—creeds. This also explains why a given person can maintain his religious experience in the face of giving up or changing many of his religious beliefs. Religion persists in spite of revolutionary changes in religious beliefs. Theology does not produce religion; it is religion that produces theologic philosophy.

That religionists have believed so much that was false does not invalidate religion because religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience. Religion, then, is based on experience and religious thought; theology, the philosophy of religion, is an honest attempt to interpret that experience. Such interpretative beliefs may be right or wrong, or a mixture of truth and error.

The realization of the recognition of spiritual values is an experience which is superideational. There is no word in any human language which can be employed to designate this "sense," "feeling," "intuition," or "experience" which we have elected to call God-consciousness. The spirit of God that dwells in man is not personal—the Adjuster is prepersonal—but this Monitor presents a value, exudes a flavor of divinity, which is personal in the highest and infinite sense. If God were not at least personal, he could not be conscious, and if not conscious, then would he be infrahuman." UB 1955

 

[DogmaHunter]

Its important for nonbelievers to realize that believers didn't arrive at faith through a path of logical deduction.

Myeah... most of us are well aware of that.
It's, in fact, exactly the reason why I am not a believer.

 

[dad]

Looks to me that you already have. If it says what was made that Day, that doesn't mean that it was made that Day, you say?

The ONLY things made on any particular day was what was made that particular day. To obsess on some part of what was made on day five and chose to interpret that to mean all things on all days is obviously wrong.

It's called a scientific discovery, a Fact.

No one discovered a planet of the apes actually, or a world under your lake Van.

Your problem seems to be that you don't know what Day it is. The sons of God (prehistoric people) were created and brought forth from Water on the 5th Day Gen 1:21 since they "moveth". We know they moved because Lucy was the First of THEIR kind who walked upright some 4 Million years ago.

Saying it doesn't make it true. We do not know that the fossil creature you cite lived when you say either. Those dates are belief based entirely. By the way just because something 'moves' does not in any way mean that what moved had to be strange monkey men or children of angels or whatever it is you pretend is the 'truth of god'.

Come on Dad and catch up. Our world has NEVER suffered a Global Flood.

That is where you dive off the deep end.

Our Earth is a Rock covered in water. That's WHY it will be burned. ll Peter 3:10

?? Rocks in water must be burned? I thought they got wet? I see no purpose in discussing bible prophesy or the end of this world and the new one with you. Yes, God will burn the surface of the earth with fire, and there will be no more oceans. That doesn't help your submerged fantasy world under a lake, man...or your planet of the angel apes...etc.

Not so, since there was some 9 Billion years, in man's time, from the first Day until Adam was made the 3rd Day.

Oh? And how many million years before Eve was made from Adam? How many billions of years did plants live before the sun was created? Etc? Thank God we don't have to take your word for it.

Then, there was some 9 more Billion years from the time of Adam to when the sons of God (prehistoric people) appeared in the Water on our Earth.

Ha. Why stop there? How bout 1000 billion?

Since today is the 6th Day and Adam was made on the 3rd Day BEFORE the Big Bang, EACH of God's Days/Ages is some 4.5 Billion years in length in man's time. You do the math.

Once you start assuming billions of years without being able to support it from science or the bible, I guess anything goes.

All men can be born again actually...no planet of the apes needed.

Does that get us in a magic bubble under the lake? Does it take billions of years to say the salvation prayer? Keep us posted eh?

Apes don't need to be "created" since they came forth from the water already "created" by the Trinity. FYI, The Trinity (God) ALWAYS creates Eternally. Innocent Apes, don't know good and evil and are not subject to God's perfect Law.

Let's add that to the fairy tale book then. We had the planet of the apes, the magic world under the sea, the planet of the angel apes, and now the 'innocent apes'!

They are bound for Heaven but mankind MUST be born again by the AGREEMENT of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Gen 1:28 Gen 5:1-2 John 14:16 God bless you

If we believe on Jesus the Father agrees. The Spirit also.

 

[Colter]

Myeah... most of us are well aware of that.
It's, in fact, exactly the reason why I am not a believer.

Logic is overrated and not always reliable.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Logic is overrated and not always reliable.

LOL!!

 

[Aman777]

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind, (Trinity's kind) and every winged fowl after His kind: (Jesus' kind) and God saw that it was good.

I have no evidence to support my view except for the words of the KJV Bible and a proper understanding of old English grammar. But you want to dismiss it as not being evidence of itself?

Please identify the "old English grammar" which tells you that the above is speaking only of water creatures. I don't think you can.

*** You really shouldn't go rewriting the bible to suit your needs. "their kind" and "his kind" (notice that they are not capitalised in the KJV) do not refer to the Trinity and Jesus.

I capitalized them to show others what I believe. I notice that you have NO explanation. Many believe that they mean nothing because they haven't noticed that Their kinds (Trinity) are always ETERNAL kinds and His kinds are Jesus kinds or TEMPORARY kinds such as mankind, beasts of the field and birds. I suppose it's because deep study goes against their religion/belief.

*** Seriously, if you want to insist on the KJV as the source of truth then I'm going to insist on two things: 1) that you quote the real text, not your edited version, and 2) that you learn to understand Jacobean English. Come back when you've done that and we can have a sensible discussion of what the words actually mean.

That's foolish until you explain what great benefits will come from studying old English, which you failed to do with this post. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

The ONLY things made on any particular day was what was made that particular day. To obsess on some part of what was made on day five and chose to interpret that to mean all things on all days is obviously wrong.

No one discovered a planet of the apes actually, or a world under your lake Van.

Saying it doesn't make it true. We do not know that the fossil creature you cite lived when you say either. Those dates are belief based entirely. By the way just because something 'moves' does not in any way mean that what moved had to be strange monkey men or children of angels or whatever it is you pretend is the 'truth of god'.



That is where you dive off the deep end.
?? Rocks in water must be burned? I thought they got wet? I see no purpose in discussing bible prophesy or the end of this world and the new one with you. Yes, God will burn the surface of the earth with fire, and there will be no more oceans. That doesn't help your submerged fantasy world under a lake, man...or your planet of the angel apes...etc.


Oh? And how many million years before Eve was made from Adam? How many billions of years did plants live before the sun was created? Etc? Thank God we don't have to take your word for it.

Ha. Why stop there? How bout 1000 billion?



Once you start assuming billions of years without being able to support it from science or the bible, I guess anything goes.


Does that get us in a magic bubble under the lake? Does it take billions of years to say the salvation prayer? Keep us posted eh?


Let's add that to the fairy tale book then. We had the planet of the apes, the magic world under the sea, the planet of the angel apes, and now the 'innocent apes'!
If we believe on Jesus the Father agrees. The Spirit also.

Have you been born again?

 

[Colter]

LOL!!

Consider this:

"Scientists may some day measure the energy, or force manifestations, of gravitation, light, and electricity, but these same scientists can never (scientifically) tell you what these universe phenomena are. Science deals with physical-energy activities; religion deals with eternal values. True philosophy grows out of the wisdom which does its best to correlate these quantitative and qualitative observations. There always exists the danger that the purely physical scientist may become afflicted with mathematical pride and statistical egotism, not to mention spiritual blindness.


Logic is valid in the material world, and mathematics is reliable when limited in its application to physical things; but neither is to be regarded as wholly dependable or infallible when applied to life problems. Life embraces phenomena which are not wholly material. Arithmetic says that, if one man could shear a sheep in ten minutes, ten men could shear it in one minute. That is sound mathematics, but it is not true, for the ten men could not so do it; they would get in one another's way so badly that the work would be greatly delayed.

Mathematics asserts that, if one person stands for a certain unit of intellectual and moral value, ten persons would stand for ten times this value. But in dealing with human personality it would be nearer the truth to say that such a personality association is a sum equal to the square of the number of personalities concerned in the equation rather than the simple arithmetical sum. A social group of human beings in co-ordinated working harmony stands for a force far greater than the simple sum of its parts.

Quantity may be identified as a fact, thus becoming a scientific uniformity. Quality, being a matter of mind interpretation, represents an estimate of values, and must, therefore, remain an experience of the individual. When both science and religion become less dogmatic and more tolerant of criticism, philosophy will then begin to achieve unity in the intelligent comprehension of the universe."

 

[Kenny'sID]

What's wrong with my answer?
If a text does not correspond to the facts of reality, then it is the text that is wrong - not reality.
What is the problem with that?

It wasn't one, but no rule here says you have to answer, or that you can't pretend you did.

What?? It's "hatred" and "bitterness" to state that if a text doesn't correspond to reality - it is a problem for the text, not for reality?

That's ok, you don't have to address it.

 

[Halbhh]

And again the same can be said concerning just about any religion.

Interesting assertion, so I'm curious as to the examples, but that aside, religions are all efforts to find God, and most don't succeed that well, since He is transcendent. The thing is though, that He chose a person with a lot of faith (Abram), in order to begin the slow, long, often incremental process of lifting us up out of our natural barbarism (rule of man, rule of might), towards the rule of law -- much of the old testament is this 1.5 steps forward, 1 step backward process. The people could not even keep a simple general law as laid out in the 10 commandments, and thus lots of little incremental regulations followed, but they were stepping stones, or steps on a stair. Now we have the law perfected, completed, and it's this:

"So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law"

.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It wasn't one, but no rule here says you have to answer, or that you can't pretend you did.

You asked me how I would decide which parts are to be taken literally and which aren't - which kind of implies that we will assume that text must be true one way or the other.

My answer is that as a general rule of thumb, if the text doesn't correspond to reality - then it can't be literally true.

Again, how is that not an answer to your question?
I mean... a claim is true if it corresponds to reality, right? If you don't agree to that, you're going to have to define to me what you mean by "true" - because in that case, I have no idea what you are talking about.

So, a claim that doesn't correspond to reality, by definition can't be a true claim, right? ....right?

So if your text doesn't correspond to reality - then taking it literally would mean that the text is wrong. So if you are going to insist to accept the text, your only other option is to take it non-literal.

I'm having trouble understanding why you don't consider that an answer to your question.

That's ok, you don't have to address it.

Please answer my question.

After all, that was quite an accusation from you.
It's okay to retract it if you feel like you should.
If you don't feel like retracting it, then please explain what was so "hatefull" and "bitter" about what I stated?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Interesting assertion, so I'm curious as to the examples,

He's basically saying that if the story is false, then a lot of people were duped into believing it.

Well... yeah. Isn't that always the case with false religions?

but that aside, religions are all efforts to find God, and most don't succeed that well, since He is transcendent.

Except the religion you happen to follow, I bet?

The infamous Hitchslap comes to mind, where he says "All these religions make mutually exclusive claims . They can't all be right... At best only one is right. But they CAN all be wrong. Most likely, since they all make the same kind of claims, all of them are wrong."

The thing is though, that He chose a person with a lot of faith (Abram), in order to begin the slow, long, often incremental process of lifting us up out of our natural barbarism (rule of man, rule of might), towards the rule of law -- much of the old testament is this 1.5 steps forward, 1 step backward process. The people could not even keep a simple general law as laid out in the 10 commandments, and thus lots of little incremental regulations followed, but they were stepping stones, or steps on a stair. Now we have the law perfected, completed, and it's this:

"So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law"

That idea is far older then christianity OR judaism and several cultures around the world independently came up with that very basic and simple idea.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You asked me how I would decide which parts are to be taken literally and which aren't - which kind of implies that we will assume that text must be true one way or the other.

My answer is that as a general rule of thumb, if the text doesn't correspond to reality - then it can't be literally true.

Again, how is that not an answer to your question?
I mean... a claim is true if it corresponds to reality, right? If you don't agree to that, you're going to have to define to me what you mean by "true" - because in that case, I have no idea what you are talking about.

So, a claim that doesn't correspond to reality, by definition can't be a true claim, right? ....right?

So if your text doesn't correspond to reality - then taking it literally would mean that the text is wrong. So if you are going to insist to accept the text, your only other option is to take it non-literal.

I'm having trouble understanding why you don't consider that an answer to your question.



Please answer my question.

After all, that was quite an accusation from you.
It's okay to retract it if you feel like you should.
If you don't feel like retracting it, then please explain what was so "hatefull" and "bitter" about what I stated?

To the first, I already answered, but I will add your answer went without saying, I guess I was hoping for something more.

On the second, general attitude, and regardless how I put it, detailed or not, you will disagree so no need to comment further. Actually, none of this is getting us anywhere at all, so I'll waste no more of our time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

To the first, I already answered

Yeah, by calling it "bitter" and "hatefull".

, but I will add your answer went without saying, I guess I was hoping for something more.

Such as?

On the second, general attitude, and regardless how I put it, detailed or not, you will disagree so no need to comment further. Actually, none of this is getting us anywhere at all, so I'll waste no more of our time.

I figured.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Please identify the "old English grammar" which tells you that the above is speaking only of water creatures. I don't think you can.

That was your homework, to be done before posting again. Now why don't you go away and study? If you're too lazy to do that, then I suggest you have a look at other translations of the same passage to see what the meaning is. You don't have to limit yourself to English - if you speak any other language try reading in that language and see what you get.

Please don't post again until you have done so, then come back and let us know what you have learned.

I capitalized them to show others what I believe. I notice that you have NO explanation. Many believe that they mean nothing because they haven't noticed that Their kinds (Trinity) are always ETERNAL kinds and His kinds are Jesus kinds or TEMPORARY kinds such as mankind, beasts of the field and birds. I suppose it's because deep study goes against their religion/belief.

Blah blah blah. This is unsupported, meaningless piffle.

That's foolish until you explain what great benefits will come from studying old English, which you failed to do with this post. God Bless you

Seriously? You can't see what great benefit you'd get from understanding what your chosen text actually means?