Faith and science together

[Fez]

As a theistic evolutionist (an oxymoron) you can't believe Adam was literal. Jesus referred to Adam as an historic person - was Jesus wrong? Was the Word (Jesus Christ) with God in the beginning - according to your worldview?

Did Jesus even set foot on earth? When evolution removes any possibility for "Original Sin" and a woman to bite an apple then it knocks everything over like dominoes.

P.s. I'm on the train home and I can see "Jesus" the Sun of God "walking on water" across the river. It's quite the stunning reflection actually!

I have warned you before. One more like that and I will have to act.

[Fez]

Waldoz,

I might be completely wrong on this (and I apologize if I am), but a little gizmo in my head tells me that you are a (strong) atheist poking at us.

Ciao

- viole

I second that, he shows little glimmers of light (as well as his overall tone of knowledgeable yet ignorant and outlandish) like I did on another forum where I pretended to be creationist and snuff up a few arrogant atheists. It was actually quite fun while it lasted, and I made a few atheists' head spin while I was at it, priceless. Like Viole I apologize if I'm wrong, but I picked up more than one or two cues.

We do not let our guard down, but we do let Jesus work, pink unicorns aside.......

[Fez]

As a theistic evolutionist (an oxymoron) you can't believe Adam was literal. Jesus referred to Adam as an historic person - was Jesus wrong? Was the Word (Jesus Christ) with God in the beginning - according to your worldview?

Did Jesus even set foot on earth? When evolution removes any possibility for "Original Sin" and a woman to bite an apple then it knocks everything over like dominoes.

P.s. I'm on the train home and I can see "Jesus" the Sun of God "walking on water" across the river. It's quite the stunning reflection actually!

I have warned you before. One more like that and I will have to act.

Hnnnnnggg! Okay sir

EDIT: wait, so would you say the threshold is somewhere around the "smarty pants" line? I've expressed my personal beliefs of what I think the Bible is telling us--with all due respect and in all seriousness--which was exactly along the lines of my "smarty pants" comment. Except I said it to aid discussion and not to "mock" as I'm assuming you saw it.

"Jesus" the Sun of God "walking on water" across the river.

What part of the above does "not" constitute mockery which is against the Tos?

[ByFaithAlone]

BFA, can you please answer me something? If we say Adam was metaphorical, what does that say about Jesus? What exactly did he die for then if "sin entered the world through one man" isn't the right interpretation? I've never been given a proper answer that is free of fallacies.

An understandable conundrum from an atheist perspective especially if you haven't done much work with the language and style of Genesis (please forgive me if you have and I come off as a jerk, that is not how I intend it to sound). Now I think I may have mentioned this before but Genesis is written in a poetic style (especially the first few chapters) unlike the gospels (although parts of the gospels are in the form of parables). Sin entering through the first humans and being solved through the man of Christ has no logical contradiction that I can see.

Here are some ideas on such a matter: http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-fall

How exactly do you claim that Jesus viewed Adam literally?

[Jesus} answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

Of course but if we see that God's method of creation was through evolution then no conflict exists. Male and female are how humans exist so yeah... that makes sense.

Here Jesus plainly affirms that: (1) There was a beginning, (2) The first couple was made, (3) They were male and female. When Christ spoke of Adam and Eve being “made,” He used the aorist Greek verb epoisesen, stressing the fact that this pair was made by single acts of creation. Had the Lord subscribed to the notion that the first humans evolved over vast ages of time, he would have employed the Greek imperfect tense, which is designed to emphasize progressive action at some time in the past. Thus, Christ actually verbally refuted the concept of evolutionary development.

A few problems with this argument.

1. Matthew was most likely written in Aramaic and possibly Hebrew (the languages of Matthew and Christ himself) and was then translated into Greek.

2. Secondly, the choice of the word can also be used in the sense of a set of actions given over a determined set of time in the past.

Ex: Matthew 21:25

But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that He had done, and the children who were shouting in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they became indignant.

The words "had done" in this context are also from "epoiēsen" indicating that Christ had done these acts over a given period of time (presumably when he was at or near Jerusalem). Even though these events were progressive and in the past, as long as they were contained within a finite set of time, the verbage is still valid. Similarly, although evolution is a non-ending process, the finite set of time from the beginning of life or the universe for that matter to the formation or evolution of homo sapiens can still be described with the word epoiēsen with no bad grammar involved.

To read the Bible’s parables, allegories, etc., and then to read Genesis is to know that Genesis bears no faint resemblance to any of these, but that it appears to be what it asks us to believe it is—historical fact. ~ Genesis: Historical or Mythological?, Edward C. Wharton

The quotes are all fine and dandy but unfortunately scholars also exist that tend to disagree with this interpretation. Genesis is written in an epic poetic form (especially within the first few chapters). I can reference NT Wright and Marcus Borg back at you and I will say that most early Christians tend to side with my interpretation of but I don't want to get into a game of fallacies in which we both appeal to authority.

[slowpoke55]

Cytochrome C is found in about every living thing (not just man and great apes). Are you suggesting we share a common ancestor with earthworms? The fact that cytochrome C is thus found we can easily consider it to be a component routinely employed by a common designer. If not, why not?

Another fallacious argument- Appeal to Ignorance

http://www.fallacyfi...g/ignorant.html

An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.

Edited October 16, 2012 by slowpoke55

[Guest HisG]

Hold the bus...

some atheists here (Viole, D-9, Fallen) think Waldoz is a fellow atheist in disguise as a Christian

...D-9 knows the game, he played it on other atheists on another forum. He posed as a Christian (would have loved to have been a fly on the wall with that one!!)

Seems like an atheist who feels threathened by someone calling themselves a Christian will suddenly announce that in fact the Christian is really an atheist toying with them...its an atheist game that they play ....

Laughable.

PS: Let's watch how it pans out.....

[slowpoke55]

You just continue to show that you have no idea what a fallacy is even when it bites you on your tongue, that's why you continue making invalid arguments.

And what should I be careful of? As long as I comply with the TOS, I will be fine.

That my reasoning as to why God doesn't exist is not sufficient for you is insignificant, considering that you have nothing but invalid arguments and misrepresentations. That you disagree with it is only encouraging.

[Guest HisG]

Hold the bus...

some atheists here (Viole, D-9, Fallen) think Waldoz is a fellow atheist in disguise as a Christian

...D-9 knows the game, he played it on other atheists on another forum. He posed as a Christian (would have loved to have been a fly on the wall with that one!!)

Seems like an atheist who feels threathened by someone calling themselves a Christian will suddenly announce that in fact the Christian is really an atheist toying with them...its an atheist game that they play ....

Laughable.

PS: Let's watch how it pans out.....

• 
  

[j102]

Hold the bus...

some atheists here (Viole, D-9, Fallen) think Waldoz is a fellow atheist in disguise as a Christian

...D-9 knows the game, he played it on other atheists on another forum. He posed as a Christian (would have loved to have been a fly on the wall with that one!!)

Seems like an atheist who feels threathened by someone calling themselves a Christian will suddenly announce that in fact the Christian is really an atheist toying with them...its an atheist game that they play ....

Laughable.

PS: Let's watch how it pans out.....

i just lost all respect for D-9 now

[slowpoke55]

Genetic similarity can be used as evidence for common design as easily as it can be used for common ancestry, therefore it neither proves nor disproves either. Your notion regarding man-chimp common ancestry remains what it has always been - a religious belief. If you want to prove it is science then you will need to give us some real science to support your creation myth.

Waldoz,

If you speculated that you had family that originated in a specific small village in Europe and that they had lived there for hundreds of years but there was no written record, do you think you could narrow down who you were closely related to and who you weren't closely related to just through DNA testing?