The Urantia Book and Human Evolution

[AV1611VET]

I don't know. Even according to the story Jesus was supposed to be half human. Unless there was something special about Mary's DNA, Jesus would have had half her genes. He would have had at least half a sin nature. Can't really see a way out of that.

Jesus was fully-human and fully-divine.

And the sin nature comes from the father, not the mother.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Jesus was fully-human and fully-divine.

And the sin nature comes from the father, not the mother.

Aah. How convenient. So, by that logic, the 50% of genes received from the mother are completely without original sin, so therefore at least half of women's genes are without original sin, so women, at the very least, only have half as much orginal sin as men. Unfortunately that would mean her other children all have less original sin as well. The maths gets a bit weird for that.

Unless original sin is a sex linked gene. Is that how it works?

 

[AV1611VET]

Aah. How convenient. So, by that logic, the 50% of genes received from the mother are completely without original sin, so therefore at least half of women's genes are without original sin, so women, at the very least, only have half as much orginal sin as men. Unfortunately that would mean her other children all have less original sin as well. The maths gets a bit weird for that.

Unless original sin is a sex linked gene. Is that how it works?

Goodbye.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Goodbye.

There's no need for you to leave the forum, you could just say you don't know.

 

[rikerjoe]

There's no need for you to leave the forum, you could just say you don't know.

I think you hit a sore spot there..

 

[mzungu]

If that were true, then Jesus of Nazareth would have carried the sin nature, and would Himself be in need of a Saviour.

Are you implying that the sin nature only comes from the father? Was it not Eve who first tasted the forbidden fruit of knowledge? Why be born at all and not just appear? After all he is claimed to be God himself?

 

[AV1611VET]

Was it not Eve who first tasted the forbidden fruit of knowledge?

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

It does not appear that Satan attempted the man; the woman said: The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. Adam received the fruit from the hand of his wife; he knew he was transgressing, he was not deceived; however, she led the way, and in consequence of this she was subjected to the domination of her husband: Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee; Ge 3:16. There is a Greek verse, but it is not English law, that speaks a language nearly similar to that above:-

gunaiki d' arcein ou didwsin h fusiv.

For nature suffers not a woman's rule.

God has not only rendered her unfit for it, but he has subjected her, expressly, to the government of the man.

What I find interesting, is that you guys would rather attack Christianity here than Urantia.

Satan knows who are currently his, doesn't he?

 

[mzungu]

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

What I find interesting, is that you guys would rather attack Christianity here than Urantia.

Satan knows who are currently his, doesn't he?

No one is attacking Christianity. What we are attacking are the Chistians who impose upon science in order to supplant science with religion. Most people who accept ToE here are Christians and they do not feel threatened by science as their faith seems to be strong enough to not allow their spiritual beliefs to be threatened by empirical science.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

What I find interesting, is that you guys would rather attack Christianity here than Urantia.

Satan knows who are currently his, doesn't he?

I don't follow why sin passes down the paternal line if Eve is in any way guilty. Either she is guilty and sin passes down with her or she isnt and it doesn't. Or she is partially guilty and only some passes with her. It seems to me that the church has made a major fudge in order to make sure that Jesus is somehow absolved of having both a human mother and human original sin. Oh yes, He has a human mother, but sin only passes down the paternal line, because...er, because...er, well, you see Adam wasn't deceived but Eve was, which means...er, well, it passes down the male line and that's that."

So no sin form the mother even though she is human? "No." So Eve is without original sin? "Oh no, of course not, but you see, she is dominated by her husband, and it's a patriarchal society, and she's guilty by association and by being deceived and..." But she passes on no original sin? "No."

So this isn't just a convenient excuse, albeit a terrible one that doesn't make the slightest sense, to prevent Jesus having anything to do with the original sin that you say all humanity is enslaved by? "No, Of course not, the very idea. By jove, what a thought. Hahahahaha. What will you say next?"

I see.

 

[AV1611VET]

What we are attacking are the Chistians who impose upon science in order to supplant science with religion. Most people who accept ToE here are Christians and they do not feel threatened by science as their faith seems to be strong enough to not allow their spiritual beliefs to be threatened by empirical science.

Then you certainly have enough in this thread to criticize.

Urantia: Criticism of its science

Provided Satan will allow it.

 

[Yoder777]

If that were true, then Jesus of Nazareth would have carried the sin nature, and would Himself be in need of a Saviour.

Where do you get the idea that sin is passed down by procreation?

 

[Yoder777]

Then you certainly have enough in this thread to criticize.

Urantia: Criticism of its science

Provided Satan will allow it.

The Urantia Book is more in tune with modern science than young earth creationism. This is an article about the Urantia Book and science:
http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/doc100.htm

 

[AV1611VET]

Where do you get the idea that sin is passed down by procreation?

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

 

[AV1611VET]

The Urantia Book is more in tune with modern science than young earth creationism.

I have no doubt about that, whatsoever.

You said a mouthful there, my friend.

 

[Yoder777]

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

That talks about how sin entered the world in general, not how it is passed through the act of sex.

 

[USincognito]

Does it at least provide evidence for the Urantia Book's teaching that lemur-like creatures were our earliest ancestor? Did Ida walk upright or somewhat upright?

No and no.

The second part first. Ida's species did not walk upright or somewhat upright. Bipedalism didn't evolve in primates until Australopithecines. For the former, that question is loaded, bogus and based on the "author's" knowledge of primatology in the decade when the Urantia hoax was written. It was known for at least a century before this "book" was produced that so-called pro-simians were the closest relatives of simians.

 

[Yoder777]

No and no.

The second part first. Ida's species did not walk upright or somewhat upright. Bipedalism didn't evolve in primates until Australopithecines. For the former, that question is loaded, bogus and based on the "author's" knowledge of primatology in the decade when the Urantia hoax was written. It was known for at least a century before this "book" was produced that so-called pro-simians were the closest relatives of simians.

What about all the excitement when Ida was first discovered that it was the long anticipated missing link?

 

[USincognito]

What about all the excitement when Ida was first discovered that it was the long anticipated missing link?

Journalism and sales trumping science. The same applies to "Archaeoraptor", and ironically, good science came from both cases. Ida is a wonderfully preserved fossil from her lineage and is thus very important. "Archaeoraptor" was bogus as a singular specimin, but was fabricated from two very informative and valuable legitimate fossils.

And there is no "missing link". That's an antiquated 19th Century concept. There are myriad lines of evidence for human evolution - molecular, genetic, anatomical and fossil. With all the Ardipithecus, Australopithecus and Homo genera fossils found, the only way one could claim there's a "missing link" is to appeal to Zeno's paradox.

 

[Yoder777]

Journalism and sales trumping science. The same applies to "Archaeoraptor", and ironically, good science came from both cases. Ida is a wonderfully preserved fossil from her lineage and is thus very important. "Archaeoraptor" was bogus as a singular specimin, but was fabricated from two very informative and valuable legitimate fossils.

And there is no "missing link". That's an antiquated 19th Century concept. There are myriad lines of evidence for human evolution - molecular, genetic, anatomical and fossil. With all the Ardipithecus, Australopithecus and Homo genera fossils found, the only way one could claim there's a "missing link" is to appeal to Zeno's paradox.

The authors of the paper describing Darwinius classified it as a member of the primate family Notharctidae, subfamily Cercamoniinae,[3] suggesting that it has the status of a significant transitional form (a "link") between the prosimian and simian ("anthropoid") primate lineages.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinius#cite_note-8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinius

Is Ida no longer as significant as it was first thought to be?

 

[Yoder777]

According to the Urantia Book, our oldest human ancestor was a lemur-like creature in Asia.

Early Human Ancestor Disproved?