[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
That is a more intelligent statement. What specific inconsistencies make it’s origin stories unacceptable?[/quote]
There are many, but one example is the contradiction in the stories of Paul’s visitation:
Acts 9:7
“And the men which journeyed with him [Paul] stood peechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.”
Acts 22:9
“And they that were with me [Paul] saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of Him [Christ] that spoke to me.”
Here are a few inconsistencies and/or contradictions:
It is a greater problem for biblical literalists, but if you aren’t a literalist why would you doctrinally oppose the idea of evolution in the first place?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
As I’ve stated before, I don’t believe that religion and science are inherently at conflict. I believe they are explorations in different realms. Science and religion attempt to answer different questions and each is truely out of the others scope. The Bible in this sense isn’t a scientific textbook. It’s about things like morals, write and wrong, your eternal soul, est all outside of anything science should attempt to tackle.
[/quote]
It does beg the question though:
If the bible is incorrect about its claims (there was no Adam, Moses never parted the red sea, Jesus never healed the leper, etc.) then how is it any different from a moralistic fable?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
No, I believe it is inspired by God. But God didn’t present everything in the literal sense to man 1000s of years ago (when knowledge would’ve been far more limited). [/quote]
How then do you know what was literal and what was not? Where do the fairy tales end and the facts begin?
What about the possibility that “God” itself, in the literal sense, is a concept that has evolved over time and doesn’t reflect objective reality?
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
That is a more intelligent statement. What specific inconsistencies make it’s origin stories unacceptable?
There are many, but one example is the contradiction in the stories of Paul’s visitation:
Acts 9:7
“And the men which journeyed with him [Paul] stood peechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.”
Acts 22:9
“And they that were with me [Paul] saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of Him [Christ] that spoke to me.”
Here are a few inconsistencies and/or contradictions:
It is a greater problem for biblical literalists, but if you aren’t a literalist why would you doctrinally oppose the idea of evolution in the first place?[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
As I’ve stated before, I don’t believe that religion and science are inherently at conflict. I believe they are explorations in different realms. Science and religion attempt to answer different questions and each is truely out of the others scope. The Bible in this sense isn’t a scientific textbook. It’s about things like morals, write and wrong, your eternal soul, est all outside of anything science should attempt to tackle.
It does beg the question though:
If the bible is incorrect about its claims (there was no Adam, Moses never parted the red sea, Jesus never healed the leper, etc.) then how is it any different from a moralistic fable?
[/quote]
There is a huge difference between saying inferring scientific classifications, theories, and knowledge from the Bible and saying it wasn’t literal about Jesus.
Like when Jesus healed the blind man with the mud. From this you can obviously say there was a mutated virus in the mud that attached to his retinas and reversed the desease. NO, it didn’t say that. But at the same time why couldn’t it have been Godly intervention through scientific means? It could have, just as much as it could have been done without it according to the bible.
My point is saying God didn’t work through the process of evolution is only as much in line with the bible as saying he used evolution to accomplish parts of creation.
It’s not a literal or not question when the subject is never addressed. The existence of Jesus, Moses, est. was directly addressed, evolution wasn’t.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No, I believe it is inspired by God. But God didn’t present everything in the literal sense to man 1000s of years ago (when knowledge would’ve been far more limited).
How then do you know what was literal and what was not? Where do the fairy tales end and the facts begin?
What about the possibility that “God” itself, in the literal sense, is a concept that has evolved over time and doesn’t reflect objective reality?
[/quote]
I don’t take my faith, practices, and beliefs through scripture alone. I come to it through the Church. I’m informed of my faith through scripture AND apostolic tradition/sucession.
By the way, are we discussing a specific topic? Or, are we going to expand this into some kind of defense of the Christian faith as a whole?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No, I believe it is inspired by God. But God didn’t present everything in the literal sense to man 1000s of years ago (when knowledge would’ve been far more limited).
How then do you know what was literal and what was not? Where do the fairy tales end and the facts begin?
What about the possibility that “God” itself, in the literal sense, is a concept that has evolved over time and doesn’t reflect objective reality?
I don’t take my faith, practices, and beliefs through scripture alone. I come to it through the Church. I’m informed of my faith through scripture AND apostolic tradition/sucession.
By the way, are we discussing a specific topic? Or, are we going to expand this into some kind of defense of the Christian faith as a whole?[/quote]
Sorry just curious,
I take the bible as literal in all teachings, but that is my choice and the way that I choose to follow.
As for parables they are specifically stated as such.
But in research and science I remove my religion from my study. How many who promote the theory of evolution (speaking mor from the origin and speciatic shift aspects) can say that. Not many I would wager.
What I am getting at is it is not acceptable for some one to answer a gap with “because the designer made it that way”, but is acceptable for someone to answer a gap with “because of evolution” without question or appropriate scientific support.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There is a huge difference between saying inferring scientific classifications, theories, and knowledge from the Bible and saying it wasn’t literal about Jesus.
[/quote]
Why are you willing to accept the old testament stories as fables, but unwilling to question the stories about Jesus?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I don’t take my faith, practices, and beliefs through scripture alone. I come to it through the Church. I’m informed of my faith through scripture AND apostolic tradition/sucession.
[/quote]
So the stories in your particular holy book may be fables rather than fact, yet you don’t question the practices of your church as possibly being based on fables rather than facts? How do you know that is not the case?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I don’t take my faith, practices, and beliefs through scripture alone. I come to it through the Church. I’m informed of my faith through scripture AND apostolic tradition/sucession.
So the stories in your particular holy book may be fables rather than fact, yet you don’t question the practices of your church as possibly being based on fables rather than facts? How do you know that is not the case?
[/quote]
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The books Paul wrote and Genesis are independent.[/quote]
Aren’t you just picking and choosing now? I think it’s about time God offered you a major revision to reflect the changes humanity has gone through. If anything, He should have given us a revision PRIOR to the Dark Ages where Christianity held human progress back hundreds of years.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
There is a huge difference between saying inferring scientific classifications, theories, and knowledge from the Bible and saying it wasn’t literal about Jesus.
Why are you willing to accept the old testament stories as fables, but unwilling to question the stories about Jesus?
[/quote]
Once again, I never said anything was a fable. I said certain things aren’t addressed.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
The books Paul wrote and Genesis are independent.
Aren’t you just picking and choosing now? I think it’s about time God offered you a major revision to reflect the changes humanity has gone through. If anything, He should have given us a revision PRIOR to the Dark Ages where Christianity held human progress back hundreds of years.[/quote]
No, I’m not addressing my religion or faith at all, only forelife’s argument. I can sit here are argue technical consistency of the new testament, but it will take forever and is off topic. All I’m saying is that his argument of discrediting Genesis using the new testament doesn’t hold water.
And the new testament is the revision. The other, more recent “revision” available would be the book of Mormon. Though that too was written many moons ago.
You have got to be kidding me. I know you punks find the concept of a God-less universe to be frightening and lonely, but creationism and intelligent design have nothing to do with reality and remain your pathetic attempts to maintain the status quo. About my last Marxist leaning really is the one about religion being an opiate for the masses.
So go ahead, curse the darkness. Blame science for being a faulty methodology and how the bible truely is God’s word. While you’re busy signing waivors for your kids not to be exposed to evolution, you’ll probably want to get them exposed to a class on biblical math so they won’t tax themselves with pesky equations.