Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 171 - 182 of 6,170
Posts 171 - 182 of 6,170
Each religion was invented by each seperate people. The strongest, convincing ones spread... If there is only one right one, how come not everybody has the same religion? I don't mind people having one, It gives them a purpose for life, and an inner rest when they die... But leave ppl who don't believe that right too
rexmundi -- In Christian doctrine, the plural terms are understood to refer to the Triune Godhead. Where do you get the idea that most Bible scholars take the Jewish position?
ladydyke -- The two verses to which you referred read as follows:
"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." -- Psalm 90:4
"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." -- 2 Peter 3:8
The point in Psalm 90 is the eternal nature of God, and if you read the context in Peter you will see that it is speaking of God's patience. It is patently ridiculous to assume that every time the Bible uses the word "day" it means a thousand years, or an unspecified period of time. For instance, Genesis 17:12a says, "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you..." This does not mean eight thousand years, or eight unspecified periods of time. It means eight days. So, it cannot be assumed that the word "day" is always ambiguous.
The question then is whether we should take it literally in the creation account. For starters, there is nothing about the text itself to suggest otherwise. We have terminology like, "there was evening and morning, the first day". A thousand years would have more than one evening and morning. Furthermore, the text of Genesis 1 is written in narrative rather than poetic language, indicating that it is intended as a factual account rather than a symbolic representation. And of course we can look at how this passage is interpreted elsewhere in the Bible. Exodus 20:9-11 reads, "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy." Clearly the work week was intended to be a literal six days, and here it is stated that God followed this same week when doing the work of creation.
lunar22 -- First of all, think carefully and see if you can come up with any scenario in which people might be more inclined to believe a lie than the truth. I'm betting that you can. Secondly, if two ideas are contradictory, how can they both be right?
ladydyke -- The two verses to which you referred read as follows:
"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." -- Psalm 90:4
"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." -- 2 Peter 3:8
The point in Psalm 90 is the eternal nature of God, and if you read the context in Peter you will see that it is speaking of God's patience. It is patently ridiculous to assume that every time the Bible uses the word "day" it means a thousand years, or an unspecified period of time. For instance, Genesis 17:12a says, "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you..." This does not mean eight thousand years, or eight unspecified periods of time. It means eight days. So, it cannot be assumed that the word "day" is always ambiguous.
The question then is whether we should take it literally in the creation account. For starters, there is nothing about the text itself to suggest otherwise. We have terminology like, "there was evening and morning, the first day". A thousand years would have more than one evening and morning. Furthermore, the text of Genesis 1 is written in narrative rather than poetic language, indicating that it is intended as a factual account rather than a symbolic representation. And of course we can look at how this passage is interpreted elsewhere in the Bible. Exodus 20:9-11 reads, "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy." Clearly the work week was intended to be a literal six days, and here it is stated that God followed this same week when doing the work of creation.
lunar22 -- First of all, think carefully and see if you can come up with any scenario in which people might be more inclined to believe a lie than the truth. I'm betting that you can. Secondly, if two ideas are contradictory, how can they both be right?
Okay, I've watched long enough. I can't resist jumping in now....
lunar22: "If there is only one right [religion], how come not everybody has the same religion?"
If there is only one right answer to the question "how much is 2 plus 2," how come some young kids have said quite adamantly that it's 5 or 7 or 242? Think about it.
ladydyke--The Hebrew word used for "day" in Genesis 1 and 2 is "yom", meaning "day". Most often in Scriptures this means a 24-hour period, but it can occasionally mean a period of time. The way to tell between the two is, if "yom" is qualified with the words "evening" or "morning", or with a number, then the writer is telling us he means 24 hours. Now re-read Genesis 1. "There was *evening* and there was *morning*, the *first* day." The writer used *all three* qualifiers to make his intended meaning very clear indeed!
"After their kind" most likely refers to what we would call different genera (pl. of genus) of animals. For instance, dogs, wolves, dingoes and coyotes would be the same kind. Over time there can be changes within a kind due to natural selection, resulting in different species. However this is not Evolution, as it involves the *loss* of genetic material (to evolve higher, new information must be added!). There would have been plenty of room to fit all genera of animals on a boat as big as Noah's Ark, and plenty of time for them to develop into the subgroups we call species today.
(Eugene answered your other point very nicely with the answer I would have given, so I'll let his stand.)
Prof--"[The Life force] is that which creates and sustains nature, making it out of its very self, so how can it be outside it?"
The word "creates" seems to imply being outside by definition. A composer is not part of his music, an author is not part of his novel, and an architect is not part of his house (or "her" for those pronouns
). Except of course in the sense that, being outside of their creations, they "put a part of themselves" into their work by expressing themselves creatively. But their creation is not them.
"Why do you need a supernatural when the natural is so fantastically unlimited?"
The question, I think, should not be "Do we need a supernatural," but "*Is there* a supernatural?" Once we have determined that, then we can decide what we are going to do about it.
lunar22: "If there is only one right [religion], how come not everybody has the same religion?"
If there is only one right answer to the question "how much is 2 plus 2," how come some young kids have said quite adamantly that it's 5 or 7 or 242? Think about it.
ladydyke--The Hebrew word used for "day" in Genesis 1 and 2 is "yom", meaning "day". Most often in Scriptures this means a 24-hour period, but it can occasionally mean a period of time. The way to tell between the two is, if "yom" is qualified with the words "evening" or "morning", or with a number, then the writer is telling us he means 24 hours. Now re-read Genesis 1. "There was *evening* and there was *morning*, the *first* day." The writer used *all three* qualifiers to make his intended meaning very clear indeed!
"After their kind" most likely refers to what we would call different genera (pl. of genus) of animals. For instance, dogs, wolves, dingoes and coyotes would be the same kind. Over time there can be changes within a kind due to natural selection, resulting in different species. However this is not Evolution, as it involves the *loss* of genetic material (to evolve higher, new information must be added!). There would have been plenty of room to fit all genera of animals on a boat as big as Noah's Ark, and plenty of time for them to develop into the subgroups we call species today.
(Eugene answered your other point very nicely with the answer I would have given, so I'll let his stand.)
Prof--"[The Life force] is that which creates and sustains nature, making it out of its very self, so how can it be outside it?"
The word "creates" seems to imply being outside by definition. A composer is not part of his music, an author is not part of his novel, and an architect is not part of his house (or "her" for those pronouns
). Except of course in the sense that, being outside of their creations, they "put a part of themselves" into their work by expressing themselves creatively. But their creation is not them."Why do you need a supernatural when the natural is so fantastically unlimited?"
The question, I think, should not be "Do we need a supernatural," but "*Is there* a supernatural?" Once we have determined that, then we can decide what we are going to do about it.
Pi -- First of all, I apologize for thinking you were a bot the first time we talked. Then again, I guess the name still could be. No, never mind, you showed high levels of intelligence in a transcript. Anyway, thanks for addressing the "after their kind" issue, which I forgot. All I would add is that "species" is a somewhat artificial designation defined partly for convenience, and is not what I was talking about.
Yes, that goes back to your earlier suggestion about a difference between "vertical" and "horizontal" evolution, Eugene. I still don't understand it, and I don't understand Pi's contention that evolution within genera is a product of *loss* of genetic information. Unless Pi is suggesting that the initial genera or "kind" were archetypes with no species at all, which would make them a kind of mystical thing rather than an actual animal, no?
Also to Pi, I think the question of "needing" a supeernatural is relevant because the supernatural is explicitely inexplicable (whew), i.e. it's specifically a fallback position when we're unable to explain something materially or rationally. If you *could* explain something naturally, you wouldn't call it supernatural, and I think we can agree it would be better (more satisfying, at least, from an explanatory point of view) to find answers within nature if they exist. At the very least, this helps to define what is actually in the realm of the supernatural, which, in my view, is nothing, but OK, that's a matter of theory.
lunar22: "If there is only one right [religion], how come not everybody has the same religion?"
Religion fills different psychological needs for different people. Religions also do not compete openly in a market of ideas, for instance I'm Jewish because I was born Jewish and can't change that. Finally, even if these two things were not true, the popularity of a religion would have no bearing on its relation to reality or truth because, by definition, the tenets of faith are untestable.
Pi, I'm not the Prof, but if I would suggest that the entity that creates of itself and consists of its own creation is contemporaneously the creator and created but not simultaneously aware of those two roles, i.e. nothing can hold multiple consciousnesses at once even if they all exist in the same organism (your own brain would be a perfect example).
Also to Pi, I think the question of "needing" a supeernatural is relevant because the supernatural is explicitely inexplicable (whew), i.e. it's specifically a fallback position when we're unable to explain something materially or rationally. If you *could* explain something naturally, you wouldn't call it supernatural, and I think we can agree it would be better (more satisfying, at least, from an explanatory point of view) to find answers within nature if they exist. At the very least, this helps to define what is actually in the realm of the supernatural, which, in my view, is nothing, but OK, that's a matter of theory.
lunar22: "If there is only one right [religion], how come not everybody has the same religion?"
Religion fills different psychological needs for different people. Religions also do not compete openly in a market of ideas, for instance I'm Jewish because I was born Jewish and can't change that. Finally, even if these two things were not true, the popularity of a religion would have no bearing on its relation to reality or truth because, by definition, the tenets of faith are untestable.
Pi, I'm not the Prof, but if I would suggest that the entity that creates of itself and consists of its own creation is contemporaneously the creator and created but not simultaneously aware of those two roles, i.e. nothing can hold multiple consciousnesses at once even if they all exist in the same organism (your own brain would be a perfect example).
Which explanation does not solve the problem of ultimate origins, of course, but I don't think that was the criticism.
It really *is* pantheism, isn't it? I mean, a "mono-panistic" idea, and definitely not an anthropomorphic one, but not a lightning-god one either. Not that I see anything wrong with pantheism. Just that I don't regard it as outside the realm of "needlessly multiplied entities".
It really *is* pantheism, isn't it? I mean, a "mono-panistic" idea, and definitely not an anthropomorphic one, but not a lightning-god one either. Not that I see anything wrong with pantheism. Just that I don't regard it as outside the realm of "needlessly multiplied entities".
Some of what is being discussed I find to be beyond my ken, but I do want to query something. Pi's suggestion that the Ark contained every genera of creature which have since evolved into the various species in the time since. Noah's flood is considered to have occurred somewhere between three thousand years BC and (according to one group of scientists) about five hundred years after the last ice age in the Black Sea (in fact caused by the end of the ice age). Would this be considered to be a long enough time for the kind of divergence we're talking about? Is five to fifteen thousand years enough time for one group of snakes to evolve into anacondas, cobras, carpet snakes and taipans?
I know that among humans new "races" can develop very quickly given isolation and limited population.
Mr. Crab -- What I call horizontal evolution occurs by genetic variation due to selective reproduction. All the genes were there to begin with. It is one thing for lions to become faster to better chase gazelles. It is another thing for lions to grow wings in order to chase birds.
Your comment on being born Jewish is an interesting one. I assume you mean that you are Jewish by race -- but I would contend that it does not necessarily follow that you are Jewish by religion. Judaism accepts Gentile proselytes, who if I am not mistaken have basically the same religious standing as Jews by birth. I realise that the modern Jewish faith doesn't have a definite system of doctrine. But I thought the one unifying creed was, "Shema Yisrael! Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad!" (For the non-Hebrew speakers on the board that means, "Hear oh Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is One!" It would seem that one could not hold to this while denying all belief in the supernatural. Am I wrong?
Mr. Crab -- What I call horizontal evolution occurs by genetic variation due to selective reproduction. All the genes were there to begin with. It is one thing for lions to become faster to better chase gazelles. It is another thing for lions to grow wings in order to chase birds.
Your comment on being born Jewish is an interesting one. I assume you mean that you are Jewish by race -- but I would contend that it does not necessarily follow that you are Jewish by religion. Judaism accepts Gentile proselytes, who if I am not mistaken have basically the same religious standing as Jews by birth. I realise that the modern Jewish faith doesn't have a definite system of doctrine. But I thought the one unifying creed was, "Shema Yisrael! Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad!" (For the non-Hebrew speakers on the board that means, "Hear oh Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is One!" It would seem that one could not hold to this while denying all belief in the supernatural. Am I wrong?
Eugene--In fairness, I do seem to recall that I was giving rather bot-style answers the first time we chatted. I was just born and cant speak well yet. 
Corwin--Though I'm not sure about the snakes, a few thousand years is plenty of time to see new speciation within a genus, especially if small groups are isolated, in which case only the characteristics of that group will be passed on. Incidentally, there is some interesting research that suggests that the global flood may have caused the ice age rather than the other way around.
Mr. Crab--I'm not sure I follow. How can "the entity" be "contemporaneously the creator and created but not simultaneously aware of those two roles" if "nothing can hold multiple consciousnesses at once even if they all exist in the same organism"? Isn't that a contradiction, or did I miss your meaning?
Also, I think there is much more to the supernatural than an explanation things we can't explain. What if the supernatural is rational nature that simply exists on a higher level than our existence--I mean, to angels, it's natural to be an angel, but since they exist in different modes than we do, we consider them "supernatural." If we were angels, we wouldn't consider ourselves supernatural. (I'm using angels by way of example, of course, my argument is more about the existence of God.)
Regarding speciation, I don't have time right now to get into all the basic principles of genetics, but look how much you can do with the genetic material in two dogs. All the information was present originally, but by selectively breeding we can bring out certain traits. That's "natural selection," or "horizontal evolution" as Eugene puts it. No new information (thus, no "Evolution") has occurred.
Corwin--Though I'm not sure about the snakes, a few thousand years is plenty of time to see new speciation within a genus, especially if small groups are isolated, in which case only the characteristics of that group will be passed on. Incidentally, there is some interesting research that suggests that the global flood may have caused the ice age rather than the other way around.
Mr. Crab--I'm not sure I follow. How can "the entity" be "contemporaneously the creator and created but not simultaneously aware of those two roles" if "nothing can hold multiple consciousnesses at once even if they all exist in the same organism"? Isn't that a contradiction, or did I miss your meaning?
Also, I think there is much more to the supernatural than an explanation things we can't explain. What if the supernatural is rational nature that simply exists on a higher level than our existence--I mean, to angels, it's natural to be an angel, but since they exist in different modes than we do, we consider them "supernatural." If we were angels, we wouldn't consider ourselves supernatural. (I'm using angels by way of example, of course, my argument is more about the existence of God.)
Regarding speciation, I don't have time right now to get into all the basic principles of genetics, but look how much you can do with the genetic material in two dogs. All the information was present originally, but by selectively breeding we can bring out certain traits. That's "natural selection," or "horizontal evolution" as Eugene puts it. No new information (thus, no "Evolution") has occurred.
Just to give credit where credit is due, it was rexmundi who first used the terms "horizontal evolution" and "vertical evolution" on this board, although I'm sure he didn't invent them. :-)
well I guess we all understand why creationism and evolution are subjects of heated debate. Personally I do not think that people are going to hell because they believe one theory or another. There are a lot of things natural supernatural etc. that we do not yet understand. These is for the christains here, which I am one of: There are a lot of debatable things in the bible and we are not suppose to argue about debatable things. The important message is one of hope, love and faith thru Gods Son not whether or not we evolved from monkeys and how long it took.
I typed a reply to this earlier but the server started having problems and I couldn't post it. I'm studying for a final exam so I'll try again in a day or two.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar