|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Problems with Genesis: A Christian Evolutionist's View | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3820 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
They wouldn't be known to the writers either! And if God magically poofed that knowledge into the writers' minds, then he could have done it to the readers too. As you have it, God has tricked all those ancient Jews and is a prankster.
Probably not, the writers were just taking dictation. But the actual author would have realized he could not have said things that no one could possible relate to directly, and so the literary art of chosing word with a double intendre, a meaning for them but cleverly, a deeper meaning for us today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3491 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
So, instead of saying things that no one could relate to directly, he went with a talking snake and a magic tree and a woman made out of a rib?
Do you hear yourself? If it were the case that God refrained from saying certain things because they would come off as nonsensical, he wouldn't have went with the Eden story as a substitute, which is equally nonsensical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
I have a different feeling. I think Genesis is a good way for the Creator to communicate to many cultures that human beginnings are rooted in the supernatural.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
You didn't answer my question:
Why are you assuming that the Bible is literally true?
They wouldn't be known to the writers either! And if God magically poofed that knowledge into the writers' minds, then he could have done it to the readers too. As you have it, God has tricked all those ancient Jews and is a prankster. Probably not, Blasphemy. How dare you speak for the almighty God and place limits upon his powers.
the writers were just taking dictation. Does God have a mouth with a tongue in it? Or does he shoot magic mind words straight into their brains? You realize that you don't know this stuff and are just making it up, right?
But the actual author would have realized he could not have said things that no one could possible relate to directly, and so the literary art of chosing word with a double intendre, a meaning for them but cleverly, a deeper meaning for us today. Yeah, your god is a prankster. Awesome magic powers to control humans and make them write magical books, not to mention the creation of the universe, but too impotent to tell his story without lying to an entire culture of people. A culture, by the way, who has been lead to think they are his chosen ones while actually getting the whole story entirely wrong. Hmph, you're god is really kind of a dick. Why would he do that to them? Certainly he has the power to do it some other way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3820 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
kofh2u: the writers were just taking dictation. Catholic:Does God have a mouth with a tongue in it? Or does he shoot magic mind words straight into their brains The writers of the Bible were consciously setting down ideas and thoughts that came to them from the ancient of anciets who we call the phylogenetic Unconscious mind. That part of our psyche, (soul), is regenerated by the genetic code and born again in every baby brought forth out of the womb back into the living. The writers of the Bible were privy to the intercourse between that facility wherein is stored the memories of all the experiences of our species and even before.This "god within" is the son of the ever unfolding Creator of Reality that mankind has experienced and added to his memories gentically. He is Truth, tried by the purifying experiences of evolution and millioins of years of existence in that real world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The writers of the Bible were consciously setting down ideas and thoughts that came to them from the ancient of anciets who we call the phylogenetic Unconscious mind. That part of our psyche, (soul), is regenerated by the genetic code and born again in every baby brought forth out of the womb back into the living. So then I've got a few thousand years on them... Its apparent that they got a lot of stuff wrong. Why are you assuming that they got everything right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
That part of our psyche, (soul), is regenerated by the genetic code and born again in every baby brought forth out of the womb back into the living. Evidence? Yeah, I thought not........."The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kofh2u writes:
Your definition is wrong. Reality does not correspond one-to-one with any ideal concept. The church persecuted Galileo because his observations of reality did not conform to their ideal concept of what reality "should" be.
Of course there is am ideal concept of Truth because theree is one Reality to which Truth corrrsponds one-to-one by definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kofh2u writes:
The important thing to understand is that any model we have is only an image of reality. If there is a "Truth", our models - all of them, including the religious ones - are only imcomplete images. You can not know Truth.
Of course Tuth is not Reality anymore than the son is the father, but for man, we can not tell the difference between the two.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
quote: Ringo, is this a true statement that we can know ?Or is this a statement the truth of which we cannot know because we cannot know Truth ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jaywill writes:
I make a distinction between truth and Truth, which I usually call "Truth" to draw attention to the distinction. Little-t truth can be varified by observation. It is true that the sun rises in the east (or appears to). Ringo, is this a true statement that we can know ? If big-t Truth is an "ideal" that cannot be observed directly, then it can not be little-t truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
I make a distinction between truth and Truth, which I usually call "Truth" to draw attention to the distinction. Little-t truth can be varified by observation. It is true that the sun rises in the east (or appears to). If big-t Truth is an "ideal" that cannot be observed directly, then it can not be little-t truth. Okay. Was "Truth cannot be known" itself a big T Truth or a little t truth ? Wouldn't you have to be able to observe big T Truth in order to observe that no one can KNOW big T Truth ? How did you observe that big T Truth cannot be known unless you know big T Truth and noticed by observation that no one could apprehend big T Truth? But if you yourself don't know or recognize big T truth, then I think you have to be agnostic about it. It is POSSIBLE that someone knew big T Truth and you didn't realize that this was what was being known. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jaywill writes:
All real truth is little-t truth.
Was "Truth cannot be known" itself a big T Truth or a little t truth ? jaywill writes:
If somebody claims to know big-t Truth, he has to be able to demonstrate how he observed it. Without repeatability, his claim is unreliable.
It is POSSIBLE that someone knew big T Truth and you didn't realize that this was what was being known.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
If somebody claims to know big-t Truth, he has to be able to demonstrate how he observed it. Without repeatability, his claim is unreliable. And this concept you have written is a little t truth or a big T Truth ? I am also not sure if you are saying that discribing how one observed big T Truth and repeatability have to go together. I guess you are saying that one observes big T truth necessarily has to be able to advize the next person how to repeat that experience. This is of course assuming that the second person is interested in having that experience. Upon being advized, for reasons of his own, he may decide to go the other way and not repeat what was claimed to be experienced. I think you are saying there has to be ability to advize on one side.Perhaps, then there has to be willingness to follow on the other party's part. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jaywill writes:
As I said, all real truth is little-t truth, observable truth, repeatable truth.
And this concept you have written is a little t truth or a big T Truth ? jaywill writes:
That's a copout. You're claiming that anybody who doesn't confirm your claims has an ulterior motive. That in itself is just another unconfirmed claim. This is of course assuming that the second person is interested in having that experience. Upon being advized, for reasons of his own, he may decide to go the other way and not repeat what was claimed to be experienced. You don't have to be able to demonstarte your claims to everybody but it also isn't enough to demonstrate your claims to somebody. You have to be able to demonstrate your claims to a group of more-or-less randomly-chosen people and they have to come to a consensus. Think of it like jury selection.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024