| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"IknowHimDoYou" |
| Date: |
20 Jul 2003 11:26:50 AM |
| Object: |
The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 1 |
The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 1
(this is not for the atheistic evolutionist)
No. 1 Denial of the Central Biblical Teachings
The Bible is the authoritative source of informationand bears witness that
we are dealing with the truth authored by God. The Lord Jesus Christ says
His words will never pass away(Matt 24:35). He guarantees that everything
that is written, will be fulfilled(Luke 18:17). He authorized all the
meaningful elements of the text of the Bible(Luke 16:17) and confirmed
that all Biblical accounts described real historical events including the
creation of the first human couple(Matt 19:4-5), the universality of a
global flood and the destruction of all air-breathing creatures(Matt
24:39-39), and the history of Jonah(Matt 12:40-41). It seems reasonable
to listen to what the Lord Jesus Christ himself said if one says he is a
believer does it not?
The Bible gives a factual report of:
a. Biological, astronomical and anthropolgical facts given in a didactical form.
b. As is customary for present-day measuring, techniques, and appropriate
methods for measuring the physical time units "day" and "year" are
given(Gen 1:14.
c. In the Ten Commandments God bases the six wourking days and one day of
rest on the same time span(Hebrew-yom- singular, not yomim-plural) as is
done in Genesis creation account.
d. In the NT Jesus frequently refers to facts of creation(Matt 19:4-5).
e. Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation
account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.
There are no references to magic or myths such as the Summarian and other
pagan accounts.
The doctrine of theistic evolution tries to undermine this basic way of
reading the Bible as vouched for by the Lord Jesus Christ, the prophets
and the apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical
imagery, and understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in
word and meaning is scorned and regarded as superstitions.
I Sam 15:23b:
"Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you..."
Acts 13:46b:
"Since you reject it(the word of God) and do not consider yourselves
worthy of eternal life..."
.
|
|
| User: "Tiger" |
|
| Title: Re: The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 1 |
25 Jul 2003 02:45:17 PM |
|
|
(Glenn (Christian Mystic)) wrote in
news:3f2187a7.23540663@news.ev1.net:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 09:26:50 -0700,
(IknowHimDoYou) wrote:
The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 1
(this is not for the atheistic evolutionist)
No. 1 Denial of the Central Biblical Teachings
Like 2 Cor. 3:6 telling us NOT to take it too literally ? I think
THAT is the "Creationist's" mistake
Touche!
--
Tiger
"Flowing water never stagnates."
- Chinese proverb
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 1 |
20 Jul 2003 01:25:49 PM |
|
|
(IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-2007030926500001@pm6-30.kalama.com:
The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 1
(this is not for the atheistic evolutionist)
No. 1 Denial of the Central Biblical Teachings
The Bible is the authoritative source of informationand bears witness
that we are dealing with the truth authored by God. The Lord Jesus
And you know this how? Because some jerk in a three-piece suit told it
to you, I'll bet.
Christ says His words will never pass away(Matt 24:35). He guarantees
that everything that is written, will be fulfilled(Luke 18:17). He
He DID fulfill everything that was written about Him. Moreover, I
haven't noticed any dearth of copies of the gospels. But what has any of
this to do with your silly claim that Genesis 1-11 is a literal history?
authorized all the meaningful elements of the text of the Bible(Luke
16:17) and confirmed that all Biblical accounts described real
historical events including the creation of the first human
couple(Matt 19:4-5), the universality of a global flood and the
And from this, you get an endorsement of Genesis as literal history? How
about you and your spiritual mentors just take a collective course in
remedial English with emphasis on reading for meaning?
destruction of all air-breathing creatures(Matt 24:39-39), and the
history of Jonah(Matt 12:40-41). It seems reasonable to listen to
what the Lord Jesus Christ himself said if one says he is a believer
does it not?
It does, to a certain point. It does not make sense to expect Jesus to
have known any more about quantum electrodynamics or origins than His
contemporaries did, though. That would be denying Him his kenosis. I
realize that heretics like you have dropped key doctrines like this and
turned Jesus into some kind of plastic demigod who you then use as a
rubber stamp for your idolatry, but I do not consider myself bound by the
illogic of heretics.
The Bible gives a factual report of:
a. Biological, astronomical and anthropolgical facts given in a
didactical form.
And your scientific evidence for this is where?
b. As is customary for present-day measuring,
techniques, and appropriate methods for measuring the physical time
units "day" and "year" are given(Gen 1:14.
Which means nothing in a piece that is entirely metaphoric and
allegorical.
c. In the Ten Commandments God bases the six wourking days and one day
of rest on the same time span(Hebrew-yom- singular, not yomim-plural)
as is done in Genesis creation account.
That's nice. This is now talking about an observance.
d. In the NT Jesus frequently refers to facts of creation(Matt
19:4-5).
He refers to the Torah, that's true. And He came to teach moral lessons
from it, not argue about its science.
e. Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the
creation account should be understood in any other way than as a
factual report. There are no references to magic or myths such as the
Summarian and other pagan accounts.
No, but the flood myth is just about a sanitized carbon copy of a
Babylonian myth that doesn't even pretend to be anything else.
The doctrine of theistic evolution tries to undermine this basic way
of reading the Bible as vouched for by the Lord Jesus Christ, the
prophets and the apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced
to mythical imagery, and understanding of the message of the Bible as
being true in word and meaning is scorned and regarded as
superstitions.
No, it reverts to much more traditional ways of reading the Bible, some
of them almost lost since the first centuries of Christianity, though
better-preserved in Judaism.
I Sam 15:23b:
"Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected
you..."
Acts 13:46b:
"Since you reject it(the word of God) and do not consider yourselves
worthy of eternal life..."
It is creationist "liars for Jesus" who reject the word of God. They are
so intent on defending their private interpretation of scripture that
they will misrepresent the work of scientists, use fallacious logic in
liberal doses and even outright lie. But of course "thou shalt not bear
false witness" is only to be taken literally when someone does it to YOU
to get your ca$h.
Sorry, I don't buy into your heresy and am not going to start just
because you misinterpret scripture and yell a few imprecations. Liars
end up here:
Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and
murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
which is the second death.
I WON'T be joining you there....
What IS the devil paying for the souls of YEC's these days? I'm curious.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Kenosis (wasRe: The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 1) |
21 Jul 2003 11:18:31 AM |
|
|
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:b9rnhvooecvo1edd2t023dlkltjgbv64qu@4ax.com:
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-2007030926500001@pm6-30.kalama.com:
kenosis
As James Spader once remarked, in a famous film - there's a funny
word.
What could it mean?
""Kenosis," then, the corresponding noun, has become a technical term
for the humiliation of the Son in the incarnation, but in recent years
has acquired a still more technical sense, i.e. of the Son's emptying
Himself of certain attributes, especially of omniscience."
[http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Def.show/RTD/ISBE/Topic/Ken
osis]
In other words, there's a very clear and categorical synonym for -
kenosis - as 'popularly' understood. And that synonym is - "trendy".
But onto this:
The Bible is the authoritative source of informationand bears
witness that we are dealing with the truth authored by God. The
Lord Jesus
And you know this how? Because some jerk in a three-piece suit told
it to you, I'll bet.
Scriptures is not all of Tradition, of course. Volumes could have been
written. And Revelation, all of Tradition, is preserved only by The
Church, not Prot denominations, and frankly, not most of the churchmen
in the institutional church, today - which, no, is not ironic (it's
happened many times, before, just not to this degree).
Christ says His words will never pass away(Matt 24:35). He
guarantees that everything that is written, will be fulfilled(Luke
18:17). He
He DID fulfill everything that was written about Him. Moreover, I
haven't noticed any dearth of copies of the gospels. But what has any
of this to do with your silly claim that Genesis 1-11 is a literal
history?
You still question this historicity of Adam and Eve?
As a step in mankind's spiritual history, I do not. As genetic history
it just does not correspond with fact. There is no genetic bottleneck at
6,000 or even at 10,000ya. None--no trace of it. Moreover we see modern
humans, at least anatomically, going back as much as 350kya.
authorized all the meaningful elements of the text of the Bible(Luke
16:17) and confirmed that all Biblical accounts described real
historical events including the creation of the first human
couple(Matt 19:4-5), the universality of a global flood and the
And from this, you get an endorsement of Genesis as literal history?
How about you and your spiritual mentors just take a collective course
in remedial English with emphasis on reading for meaning?
They are described in the genealogies, for example. They are treated
as historical figures - as you . . well know.
Well then you have to explain the reason the physical evidence shows NO
sign of any genetic bottleneck, modern humans are found MUCH earlier than
any chronology based on the Bible and there is absolutely NO evidence of
a GLOBAL flood in historic times (and much evidence against the idea).
Either Genesis 1-11 is intended to be interpreted figuratively, or we
need to call into question its entire status as inspired scripture. But
young-earth creationists want to have their cake and eat it too. The
trouble is, you can only do so much with real logic before you descend
into rationalizations, sophistry and--eventually--lies about the physical
data.
destruction of all air-breathing creatures(Matt 24:39-39), and the
history of Jonah(Matt 12:40-41). It seems reasonable to listen to
what the Lord Jesus Christ himself said if one says he is a believer
does it not?
It does, to a certain point. It does not make sense to expect Jesus
to have known any more about quantum electrodynamics or origins than
His contemporaries did, though. That would be denying Him his
kenosis.
Well, no, it would be denying Him Godhood. That's a pretty basic
heresy. And heresy is the 'word', in these 'interesting times'. Maybe
there's some 'nuancing' that would keep you from denying, outright,
the God-Man. But you'd have to say what that 'nuance' happens to be.
Jesus was not some demi-god. We are taught that He was, in all things,
human as we are. This is not to say that He could not have prayed to the
Father for such information and received it, had He so desired. But He
did not possess all knowledge automatically, while in the flesh as Jesus.
c. In the Ten Commandments God bases the six wourking days and one
day of rest on the same time span(Hebrew-yom- singular, not
yomim-plural) as is done in Genesis creation account.
That's nice. This is now talking about an observance.
Note the reference made to His Work, His Creation.
Again, why does this mean we should take it literally and treat the days
as anything more than a poetic device that came to have traditional
significance?
d. In the NT Jesus frequently refers to facts of creation(Matt
19:4-5).
He refers to the Torah, that's true. And He came to teach moral
lessons from it, not argue about its science.
Did Jesus say none of it ever happened? You want to be careful about
not just adding to, but . . . taking away . . from what God has said.
You really do.
Jesus didn't. It is nature itself that shows us that some of it never
happened--at least not the way modern bibliolaters think it did.
No, but the flood myth is just about a sanitized carbon copy of a
Babylonian myth that doesn't even pretend to be anything else.
Or refers to a great Flood, recorded over the entire region by various
peoples. There's always that possibility. The Hebrew Bible explains
why . . the Flood. It gives a reason for The Flood - your 'moral
lesson', which perhaps you would prefer not to stick with, in this
case?
Yep...there is some fairly good reason for interpreting "ha aretz" in
this case to mean "the land" as in "the nation." It's also interesting
that the Septuagint's chronology places Noah and his ark in just about
the time frame of the Black Sea inundation. But that means the modern
bibliolaters with their global flood in 2250BC are wrong on two counts.
The doctrine of theistic evolution tries to undermine this basic way
of reading the Bible as vouched for by the Lord Jesus Christ, the
prophets and the apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced
to mythical imagery, and understanding of the message of the Bible
as being true in word and meaning is scorned and regarded as
superstitions.
No, it reverts to much more traditional ways of reading the Bible,
some of them almost lost since the first centuries of Christianity,
though better-preserved in Judaism.
Of course. Only reestablished and reformed Judaism is the true
guardian of God's Word and Revelation. Sure.
I didn' say that.
Maybe you should be a little more clear about what Catholics forgot -
or 'almost' lost - since the "first centuries", that the ever-trusty
trendy 'scholarship' of the PC present day has managed to un-earth, as
it were.
I'd love to hear it.
I'm simply pointing to the fact that neither the earliest Christians, nor
the Jews were in the habit of numbering verses and memorizing out-of-
context "proof texts" for their contentions. Rather, they memorized the
whole Bible (no verse numbers were yet available) and knew it all. And
Jews had the Talmud, where Christians had the homily between the
scripture readings of the mass to explain the meaning.
Protestants lack this coherence, having no liturgical calendar, no solid
body of traditional interpretation and often taking texts wrested from
their context, frequently reified to mean things the original authors of
scripture did not intend. For example, there is the undue emphasis on
the "born again" metaphor (which appears 3 times in the New Testament
only) while, apparently, the negative references to "false witness" are
underplayed (8 in the NT alone).
I Sam 15:23b:
"Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected
you..."
Acts 13:46b:
"Since you reject it(the word of God) and do not consider yourselves
worthy of eternal life..."
It is creationist "liars for Jesus" who reject the word of God. They
are so intent on defending their private interpretation of scripture
that they will misrepresent the work of scientists
But we're talking evolutionism, here, remember - not science?
Evolution is science. "Evolutionism" is a straw man false religion
invented by creationists for the purpose of appearing to bash the science
of evolution.
use fallacious logic in liberal doses and even outright lie.
Ironic, considering the libral orthodoxy that underpins evolutionism -
of course.
Your straw man.
But of course "thou shalt not bear
false witness" is only to be taken literally when someone does it to
YOU to get your ca$h.
Or when the Jews brought in false witnesses against Our Lord. Perjury
Exactly.
went unpunished. Though in a lesser way, we've seen that the general
principle of that still held, in the last years of the 20th century.
The libral thing, again, and so in the same context, the same irony.
Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and
murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all
liars
Who say not only is salvation not found exclusively in The Catholic
Church - for Outside The Church there is no salvation - and not that
all, or even most, Catholics, are saved, but who also do things such
as lie about Republicans, or 'conservatives', or 'those people', and
so on. I don't believe it's a lie to say but that there are the many
Dem.
You seem to think God is a Republican capitalist. Maybe George W. Bush
is your REAL deity?!? Personally, I think Gerry Ford was a MUCH better
president.
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and
brimstone: which is the second death.
I WON'T be joining you there....
That's not the boast of a Saint. The Saints feared for their souls
I'm no candidate for the calendar of saints. But I'm also not about to
join in a campaign of lies and slander against scientists just because
some jerk in a three-piece says that his false god wants me to.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Kenosis (wasRe: The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 1) |
22 Jul 2003 05:25:19 AM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:b9rnhvooecvo1edd2t023dlkltjgbv64qu@4ax.com:
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-2007030926500001@pm6-30.kalama.com:
kenosis
As James Spader once remarked, in a famous film - there's a funny
word.
What could it mean?
""Kenosis," then, the corresponding noun, has become a technical term
for the humiliation of the Son in the incarnation, but in recent years
has acquired a still more technical sense, i.e. of the Son's emptying
Himself of certain attributes, especially of omniscience."
[http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Def.show/RTD/ISBE/Topic/Ken
osis]
In other words, there's a very clear and categorical synonym for -
kenosis - as 'popularly' understood. And that synonym is - "trendy".
You still question this historicity of Adam and Eve?
As a step in mankind's spiritual history, I do not. As genetic history
it just does not correspond with fact. There is no genetic bottleneck at
6,000 or even at 10,000ya. None--no trace of it. Moreover we see modern
humans, at least anatomically, going back as much as 350kya.
350 thousand . . years? How can you have "modern humans", people, who
were not . . . . people, who could not say they were made in the image
of God? Explain that to me, other than by this notion that two
'people' were chosen, among a host of others living side by side, to
be 'imbued' with the 'image of God' - which is ridiculous.
And from this, you get an endorsement of Genesis as literal history?
How about you and your spiritual mentors just take a collective course
in remedial English with emphasis on reading for meaning?
They are described in the genealogies, for example. They are treated
as historical figures - as you . . well know.
Well then you have to explain the reason the physical evidence shows NO
sign of any genetic bottleneck, modern humans are found MUCH earlier than
any chronology based on the Bible
Then you have some explaining to do.
and there is absolutely NO evidence of
a GLOBAL flood in historic times
I don't know about covering the whole planet. But for a massive local
Flood, has anyone really looked?
(and much evidence against the idea).
What 'evidence'? I seem to remember asking when it took place - since
it was only a short year that it flooded, and completely receded. What
did they find at those places, where they found strata for that
particular year? And what year . . was it?
Heck what about the fact that Noah was 600 years old? How often did
_that_heppen? or what was meant by it? if it's all 'allegory'.
Either Genesis 1-11 is intended to be interpreted figuratively, or we
need to call into question its entire status as inspired scripture.
Maybe your interpretation of Genesis is simply wrong. Maybe the church
fathers held other opinions, for example.
It does, to a certain point. It does not make sense to expect Jesus
to have known any more about quantum electrodynamics or origins than
His contemporaries did, though. That would be denying Him his
kenosis.
Well, no, it would be denying Him Godhood. That's a pretty basic
heresy. And heresy is the 'word', in these 'interesting times'. Maybe
there's some 'nuancing' that would keep you from denying, outright,
the God-Man. But you'd have to say what that 'nuance' happens to be.
Jesus was not some demi-god. We are taught that He was, in all things,
human as we are.
God and Man. It's heresy - and one of the oldest, and as gnosticism,
even, one of THE most persistent to the present day - to pick one over
the other. It's both. That's what The Church teaches.
This is not to say that He could not have prayed to the
Father for such information and received it, had He so desired. But He
did not possess all knowledge automatically, while in the flesh as Jesus.
Not to get overly agitated, here, as I often do, but He was fully God
and fully Man. Our Lord . . was . . and IS . . perfect - in fact,
Pefection. No other "human as we are" could ever say the same of
themselves, not even His Mother, Our Blessed Mother, who was the most
perfect of God's creatures, but not even comparable to Her Son. It's a
great Mystery, indeed, that The Creator - the 6-days, rest on the 7th
.. . etc? - would make Himself Flesh in order to save us, His fallen
and disobedient and covenant breaking children. Only God could pay the
price of a holocaust . . to God. Our Lord was fully human. Our Lord
was fully God. There's no alternative, no 'fallback' position, no
clever rewording and redefinition. This is simple Catholic dogma. And
if one doesn't confess it - they're a heretic . Bam . . just like
that. It's not complicated.
c. In the Ten Commandments God bases the six wourking days and one
day of rest on the same time span(Hebrew-yom- singular, not
yomim-plural) as is done in Genesis creation account.
That's nice. This is now talking about an observance.
Note the reference made to His Work, His Creation.
Again, why does this mean we should take it literally and treat the days
as anything more than a poetic device that came to have traditional
significance?
Okya. Well, some fathers insisted day had to mean 24 hours, at least
after a point, and other said, no. But I 'don't hear Him saying' in
those NT quotes that it's all purely just an allegory and didn't
happen like that, at all.
He refers to the Torah, that's true. And He came to teach moral
lessons from it, not argue about its science.
Did Jesus say none of it ever happened? You want to be careful about
not just adding to, but . . . taking away . . from what God has said.
You really do.
Jesus didn't. It is nature itself that shows us that some of it never
happened
Adam and Eve. He does mention them, in regard to marriage - if you'll
remember my mentioning that, as well.
No, but the flood myth is just about a sanitized carbon copy of a
Babylonian myth that doesn't even pretend to be anything else.
Or refers to a great Flood, recorded over the entire region by various
peoples. There's always that possibility. The Hebrew Bible explains
why . . the Flood. It gives a reason for The Flood - your 'moral
lesson', which perhaps you would prefer not to stick with, in this
case?
Yep...there is some fairly good reason for interpreting "ha aretz" in
this case to mean "the land" as in "the nation." It's also interesting
that the Septuagint's chronology places Noah and his ark in just about
the time frame of the Black Sea inundation. But that means the modern
bibliolaters with their global flood in 2250BC are wrong on two counts.
What was the year, roughly - considering calendar changes or whatever
in the intervening millenia. 2000 BC _does_ seem a bit recent,
perhaps. And one way to suggest if it did Flood - other than yearly,
or even 'flood of the century' floods - would be to see if there is
some lack of evidence back to 2000 BC. I suspect it's a strong
negative argument, and that there is that very negative argument, for
something as 'recent' as 4000 years ago (which is a HECK of a long
time - given our natures, fallen as they are, and desire to accomplish
on every new day, and how much history there would have been between
2000BC and 1000BC, an entire millenia).
Maybe you should be a little more clear about what Catholics forgot -
or 'almost' lost - since the "first centuries", that the ever-trusty
trendy 'scholarship' of the PC present day has managed to un-earth, as
it were.
I'm simply pointing to the fact that neither the earliest Christians, nor
the Jews were in the habit of numbering verses and memorizing out-of-
context "proof texts" for their contentions.
There would be the standard of Revelation in the Apostolic Age. People
were not just . . there . . but some were specifically infused with
holiness by God, The Holy Spirit, in a way you didn't see since the
Apostolic Age (which is why The Church says that's when Revelation
ceased).
whole Bible (no verse numbers were yet available) and knew it all. And
Jews had the Talmud, where Christians had the homily between the
scripture readings of the mass to explain the meaning.
The Mass was derivative of the local services they'd known. All the
Apostles, Our Lord, Himself, were at Capharnum, and so on, as you can
read, and certainly at the Jerusalem Temple, the Second Temple, when
Judaism was Temple based (as some want it to be, again, in preparation
for the anti-Christ).
Protestants lack this coherence, having no liturgical calendar, no solid
body of traditional interpretation and often taking texts wrested from
their context, frequently reified to mean things the original authors of
scripture did not intend. For example
Well, for example, pick any modern 'catholic theologian' you like.
It's all the same. That's why most don't like to read the fathers,
unless they can treat those writings in the same 'cafeteria' fashion.
They don't like to read the encyclicals, the conciliar anathemas, or
the writings of those canonized as Saints, great priests,
missionaries, and so on.
there is the undue emphasis on the "born again" metaphor
It's a fair understanding of it, as von Hildebrand would explain. But
it needs a Catholic understanding, not that of a Calvin, or the like.
Evolution is science. "Evolutionism" is a straw man false religion
invented by creationists
Actually, by evolutionists. That's the problem.
use fallacious logic in liberal doses and even outright lie.
Ironic, considering the libral orthodoxy that underpins evolutionism -
of course.
Your straw man.
Just the facts.
Who say not only is salvation not found exclusively in The Catholic
Church - for Outside The Church there is no salvation - and not that
all, or even most, Catholics, are saved, but who also do things such
as lie about Republicans, or 'conservatives', or 'those people', and
so on. I don't believe it's a lie to say but that there are the many
Dem.
You seem to think God is a Republican capitalist.
I would doubt God looks favorably on atheistic socialism - or
Protestant capitalism. I doubt God looks favorably on the schemes of
lying socialist Democrats - or the failure to defend 'family values'
and even Catholic teaching itself, by the Rep.
Maybe George W. Bush is your REAL deity?!?
I suspect he's a mason.
Personally, I think Gerry Ford was a MUCH better president.
But he was a Rep. And the Dem didn't like that. So the press called
him a fool, and made Jimmy Carter out to be the reincarnation of JFK,
big teeth and all. And did we ever learn, otherwise. The press will do
anything to get a libral elected. Anything. They figure just by
repetition of falsehood, alone, that a marginal group of the weak will
be enticed either to vote for their candidates, or not vote for the
legitimate challengers against them. We'll see how it goes with this
CA recall - if 'Arnold' and 'Di-fi' and other libs so split their
vote, that the petition's organizer or one or two other more
'conservative' types might pull off the upset, not splitting that vote
as much.
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and
brimstone: which is the second death.
I WON'T be joining you there....
That's not the boast of a Saint. The Saints feared for their souls
I'm no candidate for the calendar of saints.
Do you want to be? Have you read Dietrich von Hildebrand,
Transformation in Christ? There are many smaller tomes, from TAN
Publishing, particularly, the Catholic reprint house, that make the
point as well, or better.
Peace.
------------------------------------------------------------
* When one finds nothing more to say to God,
* but just knows He is there --
* that, in itself, is the best of prayers.
[Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Kenosis (wasRe: The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 1) |
23 Jul 2003 07:23:25 AM |
|
|
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:m8hshvstialog6p0u63avqppibj9fe6afd@4ax.com:
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:ro3qhvg6d2ik20ra8hccapdtdebt2snaa4@4ax.com:
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:b9rnhvooecvo1edd2t023dlkltjgbv64qu@4ax.com:
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-2007030926500001@pm6-30.kalama.com:
You still question this historicity of Adam and Eve?
As a step in mankind's spiritual history, I do not. As genetic
history it just does not correspond with fact. There is no genetic
bottleneck at 6,000 or even at 10,000ya. None--no trace of it.
Moreover we see modern humans, at least anatomically, going back as
much as 350kya.
350 thousand . . years? How can you have "modern humans", people,
who were not . . . . people, who could not say they were made in the
image of God? Explain that to me, other than by this notion that two
'people' were chosen, among a host of others living side by side, to
be 'imbued' with the 'image of God' - which is ridiculous.
I dunno. These were anatomically the same as you and me. YOU do the
spiritual math any way you like. Just be sure not to start making
physical predictions that can be tested unless you're willing to live
with the test results.
"the same"? That should take some explaining, don't you think? I would
think so. 350K years ago, there were people? What did they do? What
did they write? What were the trade routes? and so on?
Or are you saying this - that you believe that down to the DNA, and in
all respects, 350K years ago there lived creatures indistinguisable
from any man or woman you'd meet today? Or were they, rather, not
human?
If they were bathed, combed and dressed, you couldn't tell them from
anybody else, except they probably spoke no language known to humans
today. They made tools and clothing. We don't know their language or
religion and can only guess at their trading patterns from artifacts left
behind.
Nope....the physical facts speak for themselves. Those who claim
Genesis is literal history are the ones who need to explain things.
I'm rather more interested in what you have, by way of explanation.
Clearly, this is your reference and touch-point, above.
No, actually this is just common knowledge in the field of
paleoanthropology.
I don't know about covering the whole planet. But for a massive
local Flood, has anyone really looked?
The Black Sea inundation corresponds nicely with the Noah story and
with the date assigned to it by the Septuagint's translators.
When was this, and what was the extent? Remember, the Flood subsided
to "dry land" in about a year's time. Was that true for this flood?
Not really. And that's the problem for literalists. What happened was
the Mediterranean Sea broke through the Bosporus and flooded the
depressed plain surrounding the lake that was then all that there was of
the Black Sea. It very quickly opened into a brine waterfall of several
Niagara's dimension which lasted until the basin filled in. However, it
IS consistent with the Noah story on some other counts. The foothills of
the Ararat range would have been a perfectly sensible landing spot for
refugees and the description of the "fountains of the deep" opening up is
pretty accurate for that kind of intrusion into the water table. Not
only that, there would have been a lot of rain and mist due to the spray
at the falls.
Heck what about the fact that Noah was 600 years old? How often did
_that_heppen? or what was meant by it? if it's all 'allegory'.
Personally, I think the calendar in Genesis either deals with
dynasties, or else it's in synodic lunar months, not years prior to
the flood.
So a year, isn't a year? It's a month? The Flood rose and receded to
"dry land" in about . . . a month?
That's darned fast, for waters that carried a gigantic ark up the side
of a mountain.
Well, it's right at that point that the calendar changes. Besides, a
wooden boat that large won't cut it. Go ahead. Any creation scientist
who claims that was a real boat is invited to produce a 450 foot wooden
boat using bronze age tech.
Either Genesis 1-11 is intended to be interpreted figuratively, or
we need to call into question its entire status as inspired
scripture.
Maybe your interpretation of Genesis is simply wrong. Maybe the
church fathers held other opinions, for example.
Maybe. I'm not a professional Hebrew scholar.
The LXX was in Greek, was it not?
Yes.
God and Man. It's heresy - and one of the oldest, and as gnosticism,
even, one of THE most persistent to the present day - to pick one
over the other. It's both. That's what The Church teaches.
This is not to say that He could not have prayed to the
Father for such information and received it, had He so desired. But
He did not possess all knowledge automatically, while in the flesh
as Jesus.
Not to get overly agitated, here, as I often do, but He was fully
God and fully Man. Our Lord . . was . . and IS . . perfect - in
fact, Pefection. No other "human as we are" could ever say the same
of
But that perfection is a moral perfection, not perfection of
scientific knowledge, which NO MAN has ever (or can ever) achieve in
this world.
God-Man, not just man. No man, no creature (and I don't mean 350K
years ago), is perfect. God is perfect.
Yes, but Jesus could not be human and omniscient at the same time.
Now trendy doubt and skepticism, which either steps over or flirts
with open heresy, is one thing. Trying to understand the Incarnation,
in this way, is another. But we do know, and confess as Catholics (I'm
posting from a Catholic ng), is that The Church teaches - Jesus Christ
was fully God, and fully man.
Yep. But He set His omniscience aside to become man. No other way to do
it, really.
Trying to make light of either, has been the road to heresy - as
history shows.
themselves, not even His Mother, Our Blessed Mother, who was the
most perfect of God's creatures, but not even comparable to Her Son.
It's a great Mystery, indeed, that The Creator - the 6-days, rest on
the 7th . . etc? - would make Himself Flesh in order to save us, His
fallen and disobedient and covenant breaking children. Only God
could pay the price of a holocaust . . to God. Our Lord was fully
human. Our Lord was fully God. There's no alternative, no 'fallback'
position, no clever rewording and redefinition. This is simple
Catholic dogma. And if one doesn't confess it - they're a heretic .
Bam . . just like that. It's not complicated.
Still, to imply that His words had scientific implications when He was
clearly teaching morality, not science, is to put YOUR words in God's
mouth--a blasphemy.
To say the opposite is putting words in His mouth. He said what He
said. What you 'hear him saying', is typically something else. You
have a touch-stone in your 350K years. But to understand this you need
No, I have the remains of those PEOPLE. It's up to you Churchianites to
decide if they were human in the spiritual sense or not.
a touch-stone of Catholic teaching. First you need to see what The
Church teaches, then what patristics would suggest on the open
questions, the writings of the Doctors and Saints, too. There are many
open questions. Knowing SO little as we do of the nature of God, not
even knowing the questions to ask, we still write VOLUMES on the
questions raised on that tiny bit that God has given us to know.
So, if some 1st century Roman thought the world was flat we are supposed
to just take HIS word for it because he is a Doctor or a Saint? Of
course we still write volumes on this. But the physical facts must
either be accommodated, or lied about. The first MAY be compromise, but
the latter is sin.
Adam and Eve. He does mention them, in regard to marriage - if
you'll remember my mentioning that, as well.
Yes, and we take Him at His word and treat marriage as a sacrament
But you think he meant to imply that Adam and Eve were completely made
up as fictional characters?
No, I think they are symbols for the first humans to fully experience
communion with God and that their sin is representative of what happens
to every one of us. (Usually about the time we start telling mom that
"not me" was responsible for the empty cookie jar).
What was the year, roughly - considering calendar changes or
whatever in the intervening millenia. 2000 BC _does_ seem a bit
recent, perhaps. And one way to suggest if it did Flood - other than
yearly, or even 'flood of the century' floods - would be to see if
there is some lack of evidence back to 2000 BC. I suspect it's a
strong negative argument, and that there is that very negative
argument, for something as 'recent' as 4000 years ago (which is a
HECK of a long time - given our natures, fallen as they are, and
desire to accomplish on every new day, and how much history there
would have been between 2000BC and 1000BC, an entire millenia).
Actually, the Black Sea inundation took place about 7500 years ago.
Long time.
Yep. But Jericho had been an inhabited town for more than 2500 years by
this time.
Goes to your 350K year question, as well. What were people doing in
all that time? We're not talking just two centuries, nor even three
four, nor ten, and that's right, not even a 100, but over 300. That's
More than 3000 actually. And their lifestyle was meagre. Mostly they
followed game around. The ice covered Europe, Northern Asia and North
America. These people arose in an Africa that was in an arid phase. It
was not until their descendants migrated to the lush Fertile Crescent,
after the ice age that agriculture really began. And that marks a
watershed change in the way humans saw themselves. All of a sudden there
was a need for political order to decide who owned what land and who
would till it. There was a need to keep records, to settle debts.
. . . well, I'll be interested to see what you say. I mean, you'd
think people would have betrayed God over the course of 300 centuries,
bringing upon themselves, in God's time, some retribution.
True, but they probably did not invent writing. Their traditions would
have been entirely oral. Of course we're still not sure where in this
history to place the mutations that make speech possible.
There would be the standard of Revelation in the Apostolic Age.
People were not just . . there . . but some were specifically
infused with holiness by God, The Holy Spirit, in a way you didn't
see since the Apostolic Age (which is why The Church says that's
when Revelation ceased).
Actually, I think you DO see it since the apostolic age, just not in
such numbers. St. Francis immediately comes to mind.
Not the same. Revelation goes to what is truth - categorically true -
God's Truth. Dogma. The 'rulebook' and 'handbook' of life, that every
is always asking about. It's what The Church teaches, if not the
majority of churchmen, today. The visions of the Saints, while from
Well, you seem to have confused certain ideas with dogma that are not
necessarily dogma at all. Dogma stops at what is necessary for
salvation. The rest, however nice-sounding is largely the speculation of
priests and bishops. Important to read and understand, to be sure, but
subject to the correcting hand of God through the ages. Not even the
apostles claimed perfect knowledge of God.
God, the stigmata, the words of the great Doctors and priests, and the
rest - the cult of Saints, and all it means - is not Revelation, but
not necessarily unworthy of belief, either, simply because it is not
from the Apostolic Age.
whole Bible (no verse numbers were yet available) and knew it all.
And Jews had the Talmud, where Christians had the homily between the
scripture readings of the mass to explain the meaning.
The Mass was derivative of the local services they'd known. All the
Apostles, Our Lord, Himself, were at Capharnum, and so on, as you
can read, and certainly at the Jerusalem Temple, the Second Temple,
when Judaism was Temple based (as some want it to be, again, in
preparation for the anti-Christ).
The basic liturgy seems to have been given to the apostles by the Lord
Himself.
From the Passover, on Holy Thursday, and from the experience of those
Catholics who literally had been in the Temple priesthood, or were
associated with it. Our Lord gave Himself, as the Chief and High
Priest during the consecration, as in every legit and valid Mass
today, just as at The Last Supper, on Holy Thursday, in The Eucharist,
even at . . . The Last Supper, BEFORE His Crucifixion. It IS The Mass
which replaced the bloody sacrifice of The Temple. God Himself is
always the Sacrifice. But don't try telling the 'Third Temple' types
that. They're not going to want to listen. And the Apocalypse says
they won't, and will reinstitute this sacrifice, building a Third
Temple on the Temple Mount, thinking it's demanded by God - when it's,
rather, The Mass which is, and which has been forced practically
underground by an institutional church given over, itself, to
diabolism (as at many points, historically - and I don't refer to the
Prot 'Reformation').
You sound like you're a bit at sea spiritually. I mean this with no
personal animosity, but you have an evident bitterness towards the
present Roman rite leadership, yet you will not abandon some of the worst
of what got them to this place. Have you considered placing yourself
under the discipline of a real, Orthodox confessor?
Evolution is science. "Evolutionism" is a straw man false religion
invented by creationists
Actually, by evolutionists. That's the problem.
See you invent your straw man then you blame it on the straw man.
But there's no straw. If someone says he believe in SR, and I ask him
to define SR, and he doesn't know where to begin then a) SR is a
fiction or b) he doesn't know enough about it to say one way or the
other that it is right.
Yes, but nobody except a few numbskulls "believes in" evolution. Most of
us accept the physical evidence that points to it and the logical
inferences that flow from that physical evidenc.
Now I, myself, was asked for a definition of SR. And I promptly
provided one. For the debate among quantum theorists, I still provided
a statement of The Theory of Quantum Mechanics. Someone even asked me
for a The Theory of Color. And I provided one, which would likely be
very uncontroversial to professionals in various fields. Which brings
us back to - The Theory of Evolution? What the heck is it? So I keep
asking, and then wondering if I find a The Theory . . if anyone will
dare to agree with it. They did, before.
You were given several variants, with only minor differences and rejected
them all. Tough turds.
We'll see.
How convenient.
use fallacious logic in liberal doses and even outright lie.
Ironic, considering the libral orthodoxy that underpins
evolutionism - of course.
Your straw man.
Just the facts.
No, if you were interested in JUST the facts you would not kick around
straw men
Myself - _I_ don't.
You do.
and make unsupported allegations of spiritual and moral
wrongdoing on the part of some vague, unnamed person whom you wish to
be understood to be scientists who teach evolution.
Who is the 'unnamed person'. Should I even ask?
You'll no doubt make it sufficiently clear who we're supposed to suspect.
Have you read Ken Miller's book?
Is there a reason I should want to? whatever the title?
Yes, there is.
You seem to think God is a Republican capitalist.
I would doubt God looks favorably on atheistic socialism - or
What about Christian socialism? The socialists of North America in
the early 20th century had a strong Christian component.
Belloc, Nickerson (?), and assorted, you mean? Well, the socialism
How about Andrew, Peter, John, etc., Christian socialists of the 1st
Century!
still leads in the same direction. And it's not entirely academic. It
obviously is a scheme for failure. But bureacracy has this tendency to
both promote such people, and to insulate itself from bad reports.
Witness the emerging 'euro'.
Why is it a scheme for failure? Nobody ever tried it.
Protestant capitalism. I doubt God looks favorably on the schemes of
lying socialist Democrats - or the failure to defend 'family values'
and even Catholic teaching itself, by the Rep.
Maybe George W. Bush is your REAL deity?!?
I suspect he's a mason.
Well, he claims to be a Methodist
I would assume a lot of masons are.
Personally, I think Gerry Ford was a MUCH better president.
But he was a Rep. And the Dem didn't like that. So the press called
Still, of all the presidents of the 20th century, he was probably the
one who knew his way around the Congress and the Senate the best,
possibly closely followed by LBJ.
him a fool, and made Jimmy Carter out to be the reincarnation of
JFK, big teeth and all. And did we ever learn, otherwise. The press
will do anything to get a libral elected. Anything. They figure just
by
And, of course, anyone to the left of Himmler is automatically "evil,"
right?
How can you be to the 'left' of Himler, unless you were Stalin,
himself? The Nazis promoted something called, National Socialism.
Yes...and the word "Socialism" meant nothing because it was simply
popular at that time to be called "socialist." They did NOT do any
socialist things. Instead they kept the means of production in private
hands. Even what they stole from Jewish entrepreneurs they handed over
to their own. There was NO move to give the working class a voice in
their destiny any more than there was in the Stalinist bloc. It was
simply a new elite aristocracy. If you want to see working class
socialism at work, you need to look at how it transpired in Britain and
certain parts of the Commonwealth as well as in parts of the USA.
repetition of falsehood, alone, that a marginal group of the weak
will be enticed either to vote for their candidates, or not vote for
the legitimate challengers against them. We'll see how it goes with
this CA recall - if 'Arnold' and 'Di-fi' and other libs so split
their vote, that the petition's organizer or one or two other more
'conservative' types might pull off the upset, not splitting that
vote as much.
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and
brimstone: which is the second death.
I WON'T be joining you there....
That's not the boast of a Saint. The Saints feared for their souls
I'm no candidate for the calendar of saints.
Do you want to be? Have you read Dietrich von Hildebrand,
Depends on who is making the decision. I'm nobody's poster-boy for
***** and I don't care what hats the BS source is wearing.
But to use you word, it's BS to denigrate Sainthood. You asked me
about an author, above. Let me ask you about this one - Dietrich von
Hildebrand, Transformation in Christ?
Can't say that I've read it, but I'm keeping it in mind.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Kenosis (wasRe: The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 1) |
26 Jul 2003 05:06:13 AM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:m8hshvstialog6p0u63avqppibj9fe6afd@4ax.com:
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:ro3qhvg6d2ik20ra8hccapdtdebt2snaa4@4ax.com:
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:b9rnhvooecvo1edd2t023dlkltjgbv64qu@4ax.com:
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-2007030926500001@pm6-30.kalama.com:
You still question this historicity of Adam and Eve?
As a step in mankind's spiritual history, I do not. As genetic
history it just does not correspond with fact. There is no genetic
bottleneck at 6,000 or even at 10,000ya. None--no trace of it.
Moreover we see modern humans, at least anatomically, going back as
much as 350kya.
350 thousand . . years? How can you have "modern humans", people,
who were not . . . . people, who could not say they were made in the
image of God? Explain that to me, other than by this notion that two
'people' were chosen, among a host of others living side by side, to
be 'imbued' with the 'image of God' - which is ridiculous.
I dunno. These were anatomically the same as you and me. YOU do the
spiritual math any way you like. Just be sure not to start making
physical predictions that can be tested unless you're willing to live
with the test results.
"the same"? That should take some explaining, don't you think? I would
think so. 350K years ago, there were people? What did they do? What
did they write? What were the trade routes? and so on?
Or are you saying this - that you believe that down to the DNA, and in
all respects, 350K years ago there lived creatures indistinguisable
from any man or woman you'd meet today? Or were they, rather, not
human?
If they were bathed, combed and dressed, you couldn't tell them from
anybody else, except they probably spoke no language known to humans
today.
Well, that's probably even true, today, if you found some Amazonian
tribe as yet 'unstudied'.
They made tools and clothing.
350K years ago? What about 340K years ago? That give them 10 centuries
to learn stuff. That's longer than all of recorded history. So what
new tools were they making? what new cities were they building? 340K
years ago?
We don't know their language or
religion and can only guess at their trading patterns from artifacts left
behind.
What about 330K years ago? That's 20 centuries! What changed in 20
centuries (!) (and did I mention - - !!!!), with these 'people' who
are 'just like us' - but apparently, in 20,000 years, never learned
how to bathe (or what was it?)?
It just startles me you'd say this. Now - if they weren't human, then
there would be no reason to believe that they'd have changed beyond
the level of animal instinct. But that's not what you're saying.
You're saying these are 'people' - just 'like us'.
That's what you're saying. And I don't see that. Before you cut this
out, let me just say, people 1000 years ago (just 1000 years, not 10K,
not 20K, just 1K - one . . lousy k) spoke languages that may be lost,
today, did things that have no lasting records, but whose descendants,
in 1K years, maybe learn less, but have produced more, and have
learned - after a fashion. 1000 years is a long time. 10,000 years is
a lot longer - longer than all of recorded history, in fact. You're
talkin - 300,000 years!
I'm rather more interested in what you have, by way of explanation.
Clearly, this is your reference and touch-point, above.
No, actually this is just common knowledge in the field of
paleoanthropology.
What 'knowledge'? That apparently 'people like us' - 300,000 YEARS
AGO? - couldn't figure out this whole knowledge thing? Or were they
really, people like us? Were they - simply - even people?
I don't know about covering the whole planet. But for a massive
local Flood, has anyone really looked?
The Black Sea inundation corresponds nicely with the Noah story and
with the date assigned to it by the Septuagint's translators.
When was this, and what was the extent? Remember, the Flood subsided
to "dry land" in about a year's time. Was that true for this flood?
Not really. And that's the problem for literalists. What happened was
the Mediterranean Sea broke through the Bosporus and flooded the
depressed plain surrounding the lake that was then all that there was of
the Black Sea. It very quickly opened into a brine waterfall of several
Niagara's dimension which lasted until the basin filled in. However, it
IS consistent with the Noah story on some other counts. The foothills of
the Ararat range would have been a perfectly sensible landing spot for
refugees and the description of the "fountains of the deep" opening up is
pretty accurate for that kind of intrusion into the water table. Not
only that, there would have been a lot of rain and mist due to the spray
at the falls.
So is there any evidence, perhaps, of a remarkably catastrophic,
'young earth' type Flood (if you don't mind what apparently is a
loaded phrase on certain ngs), between that period, that Flood, and
the present? And when it reads that the water receded in about a year,
could that have happened in and around Palestine?
Heck what about the fact that Noah was 600 years old? How often did
_that_heppen? or what was meant by it? if it's all 'allegory'.
Personally, I think the calendar in Genesis either deals with
dynasties, or else it's in synodic lunar months, not years prior to
the flood.
So a year, isn't a year? It's a month? The Flood rose and receded to
"dry land" in about . . . a month?
That's darned fast, for waters that carried a gigantic ark up the side
of a mountain.
Well, it's right at that point that the calendar changes. Besides, a
wooden boat that large won't cut it. Go ahead. Any creation scientist
who claims that was a real boat is invited to produce a 450 foot wooden
boat using bronze age tech.
Think of all the trees. Again, there's nothing wrong with taking it
all as a 'moral lesson', with subsequent refrains to Our Lord's day,
even perhaps to the present. But if it really happened, as well, there
might still be evidence. And the context, here, is science and
physical evidence.
God-Man, not just man. No man, no creature (and I don't mean 350K
years ago), is perfect. God is perfect.
Yes, but Jesus could not be human and omniscient at the same time.
What specifically couldn't Our Lord do, then - or couldn't He know?
Now trendy doubt and skepticism, which either steps over or flirts
with open heresy, is one thing. Trying to understand the Incarnation,
in this way, is another. But we do know, and confess as Catholics (I'm
posting from a Catholic ng), is that The Church teaches - Jesus Christ
was fully God, and fully man.
Yep. But He set His omniscience aside to become man. No other way to do
it, really.
Specifically, how did He further humble Himself, in your opinion? The
'wisemen' knew He was God. His mom and dad knew He was God. Even
cousin 'Liz' knew, and we have something called, The Magnificat. Are
you trying to say . . . He didn't?
To say the opposite is putting words in His mouth. He said what He
said. What you 'hear him saying', is typically something else. You
have a touch-stone in your 350K years. But to understand this you need
No, I have the remains of those PEOPLE. It's up to you Churchianites to
decide if they were human in the spiritual sense or not.
You're saying they were 'just like us'. I'm saying . . if they were
just like us . . . why weren't they just like us? 2000 years ago, Our
Lord walked in a province of the Roman Empire. Much of that
construction remains . . . 2000 years, later; the remains of one, in
particular, in Jerusalem not just the stuff of perhaps almost
contemporary prophecy but a real point of contention among seriously
warring factions. That system, even, transformed by the conversion
under Constantine and Theodocius, informs the bulk of what still
passes for 'justice' in the 'new world order'. Admittedly, that's only
two centuries. And maybe they were smarter, back when - or maybe
'education', today, is just particularly incompetent and even
diabolical. But people have learned. And they learned over 4000 years,
and 6000 even, back to the beginnings of recorded history. That's what
people have always done. People.
a touch-stone of Catholic teaching. First you need to see what The
Church teaches, then what patristics would suggest on the open
questions, the writings of the Doctors and Saints, too. There are many
open questions. Knowing SO little as we do of the nature of God, not
even knowing the questions to ask, we still write VOLUMES on the
questions raised on that tiny bit that God has given us to know.
So, if some 1st century Roman thought the world was flat
I thought you said no one thought the world was flat. Which is it?
to just take HIS word for it because he is a Doctor or a Saint? Of
course we still write volumes on this. But the physical facts must
either be accommodated, or lied about.
You're referring to the Incarnation. It's takes The Church to tell you
about it. Going it on your own is the ignorant path to heresy.
And they've already got names for all sorts. It's . . been done.
But you think he meant to imply that Adam and Eve were completely made
up as fictional characters?
No, I think they are symbols for the first humans to fully experience
communion with God and that their sin is representative of what happens
to every one of us. (Usually about the time we start telling mom that
"not me" was responsible for the empty cookie jar).
But if we take nothing from the 'cookie jar', it's still our
preference even against an act of will. Fallen nature. So - in true
'evolutionist' fashion, remember - we . . . . inherit . . that trait,
and those traits. This life is a tragedy. Only God and His Church
offer us salvation, and the way to God.
Actually, the Black Sea inundation took place about 7500 years ago.
Long time.
Yep. But Jericho had been an inhabited town for more than 2500 years by
this time.
So 10K years ago, people built cities. What about 20K years ago?
And, umm . . if Jericho was the center of a kingdom, then it suggests
such kingdoms lasted longer than the Roman Empire, even as a vestige
of itself through the centuries . . correct?
But there's no evidence people lived longer, correct? or that they
used 'lunar years', rather than year years? etc.
Goes to your 350K year question, as well. What were people doing in
all that time? We're not talking just two centuries, nor even three
four, nor ten, and that's right, not even a 100, but over 300. That's
More than 3000 actually.
300. Or 350+, to use your exact number. That's what the, k, is for.
And their lifestyle was meagre. Mostly they
followed game around. The ice covered Europe, Northern Asia and North
America. These people arose in an Africa that was in an arid phase.
Unlike today? When people think Africa, they don't think igloos (or
tall ice-capped peaks - a few, maybe). They think heat, and dryness.
Lots of sun.
was not until their descendants migrated to the lush Fertile Crescent,
after the ice age that agriculture really began. And that marks a
watershed change in the way humans saw themselves. All of a sudden there
was a need for political order to decide who owned what land and who
would till it.
So when the hunters had a problem, they what - fought it out? Maybe
they decided on treaties, and who got to hunt what land? That wouldn't
have changed. And even hunters need a place to sleep at night, even if
they carry it all on their backs. Have to be safe hunting grounds,
etc.
There was a need to keep records, to settle debts.
Same if the hunters traded. That's what traders used to do - hunt, and
get paid for what they would sell of the carcass. Still, today.
And if agriculture were the problem, then there still were fountains,
and mountains, and springs, in parts of Africa, where precisely such a
civilization might have been built, with science (trial and failure,
and genuine learning from same) in irrigation methods. We're talking
300 centuries here, to figure that out. Something doesn't add up.
Maybe these weren't really people, just like us. Maybe the
identification is a little weak. Maybe even the dating is wrong. But
something doesn't add up.
. . . well, I'll be interested to see what you say. I mean, you'd
think people would have betrayed God over the course of 300 centuries,
bringing upon themselves, in God's time, some retribution.
True, but they probably did not invent writing.
But there's your assumption. They didn't come from the fertile cresent
- the garden - Eden - Adam and Eve. Now, there's no reason to believe
Adam and Eve had a written language. But they had a spoken language,
quite obviously. And they were people - like we are their descendants,
people. They might have created a system of writing, fairly quickly -
being people. And maybe Adam had to write down the names he come up
with, over all those years or centuries, using a form of writing,
even.
Of course we're still not sure where in this
history to place the mutations that make speech possible.
If that's how one insists it heppened, that is. But it doesn't really
follow - and not just for the failure of people, here, to agree on any
particular statement of The Theory of.
Actually, I think you DO see it since the apostolic age, just not in
such numbers. St. Francis immediately comes to mind.
Not the same. Revelation goes to what is truth - categorically true -
God's Truth. Dogma. The 'rulebook' and 'handbook' of life, that every
is always asking about. It's what The Church teaches, if not the
majority of churchmen, today. The visions of the Saints, while from
Well, you seem to have confused certain ideas with dogma that are not
necessarily dogma at all. Dogma stops at what is necessary for
salvation. The rest, however nice-sounding is largely the speculation of
priests and bishops.
Don't you be confused. Catholic dogma is based in Revelation. It's
simply the Truth. It's not up for review. It's can't be 'reformed'.
Now there are degrees of opinion from that, and many open questions.
But, for example, the Creed of the Apostles, is dogmatic. It is
'nice-sounding'. But it's also categorically the Truth o God,
Revelation - Tradition.
Important to read and understand, to be sure, but
subject to the correcting hand of God through the ages. Not even the
apostles claimed perfect knowledge of God.
But that 'argument from perfection', never works. It's pointless. And
they were given to know what they knew - by . . . . God. Thus . . .
Revelation . . . Tradition.
As for patristics, you need to know what the fathers had to say, and
the Saints and Doctors, on these 'difficult passages'. Often they
don't agree. But it has to be part of the study, somewhat like
'reviewing the literature' in seriously publishing a scientific paper
is expected (perhaps from some). Of course, even if one actually
performs the review, and actually understands what they said, or how
they were really wrong, it's not quite the same as consulting these
great Catholics who, typically, walked with God, as it says of Noah,
and so had the inspiration to understand the true senses of various
passages, where perhaps you or I would not.
As I wrote:
God, the stigmata, the words of the great Doctors and priests, and the
rest - the cult of Saints, and all it means - is not Revelation, but
not necessarily unworthy of belief, either, simply because it is not
from the Apostolic Age.
From the Passover, on Holy Thursday, and from the experience of those
Catholics who literally had been in the Temple priesthood, or were
associated with it. Our Lord gave Himself, as the Chief and High
Priest during the consecration, as in every legit and valid Mass
today, just as at The Last Supper, on Holy Thursday, in The Eucharist,
even at . . . The Last Supper, BEFORE His Crucifixion. It IS The Mass
which replaced the bloody sacrifice of The Temple. God Himself is
always the Sacrifice. But don't try telling the 'Third Temple' types
that. They're not going to want to listen. And the Apocalypse says
they won't, and will reinstitute this sacrifice, building a Third
Temple on the Temple Mount, thinking it's demanded by God - when it's,
rather, The Mass which is, and which has been forced practically
underground by an institutional church given over, itself, to
diabolism (as at many points, historically - and I don't refer to the
Prot 'Reformation').
You sound like you're a bit at sea spiritually. I mean this with no
personal animosity, but you have an evident bitterness towards the
present Roman rite leadership
Nothing to match their bitterness for those Catholics, like myself.
It's a war out there. It's always been. When I point out to you that
heresy in The Church is nothing new, I don't think you understand me.
But Martin Luther . . wasn't always a Lutheran. Thomas Cranmer didn't
get appointed to Canterbury because the next day he was going to be
burnt at the stake for renouncing Catholicism, and otherwise
personally seeking in every way to undermine the Faith in England.
Arias wasn't . . always . . . an Arian, one would think. And so on.
Long history of that. There were entire regions, historically, that
lost the Faith, and were recognized as such by Rome. There were
periods where people argued that Rome lost the Faith, and this before
the Protestant Rebellion. Well . . it's happened again, and because of
this age of mass communication, the heresies reach to every corner of
the world (I know the world's not pointed). You have a Pope who
embraces novelty and 'innovation', against the advice of even Vatican
II, and also seems, on occasion, to reflect sound Catholic teaching,
as on the matter of priestly celibacy, and minimally the horror of
permissive abortion. But the messages are less mixed, in recent years.
And the tendency has been toward 'reform', which is the very sort of
'reform' for which Cranmer was known (books have been written showing
the frightening similarity between the methods of his day, and those
of today).
of what got them to this place. Have you considered placing yourself
under the discipline of a real, Orthodox confessor?
But they don't confess the papacy any more than Martin Luther did.
What they've done, where they actually have, is preserved, as a living
history museum, the practices that long predate 'reform'. But the
liturgies are illicit, because the papacy is cut out - they preserve
the rite, but cut out of it God, Himself, who must be Present. But the
Schism was centuries ago. And unlike your 350K 'people', things change
rapidly in even less than one, single millenium. Maybe the Greek
practice isn't so pristine. I don't know. But that's the sense of the
Greek, where they do get it right. And, ironically, for even the false
borrowing and misrepresentation of such practice by the 'reformists',
about which Ottaviani, Bacci, et al complained, it is that very
'reform' which tends to put off the Greek.
Now I, myself, was asked for a definition of SR. And I promptly
provided one. For the debate among quantum theorists, I still provided
a statement of The Theory of Quantum Mechanics. Someone even asked me
for a The Theory of Color. And I provided one, which would likely be
very uncontroversial to professionals in various fields. Which brings
us back to - The Theory of Evolution? What the heck is it? So I keep
asking, and then wondering if I find a The Theory . . if anyone will
dare to agree with it. They did, before.
You were given several variants, with only minor differences and rejected
them all.
I didn't reject a one. I thought they were all as good as another,
frankly. I don't believe in evolutionism. So I could care less. But I
couldn't get any of you guys to specifically - that is, scientically -
agree on any one. It startles me. I didn't have that problem the last
time. There were some things I wanted to ask.
No, if you were interested in JUST the facts you would not kick around
straw men
Myself - _I_ don't.
You do.
Speaking for myself - I don't. As for the straw man - you - created,
here, well . . that's you.
Have you read Ken Miller's book?
Is there a reason I should want to? whatever the title?
Yes, there is.
Before you tell me the title, what's the reason?
You seem to think God is a Republican capitalist.
I would doubt God looks favorably on atheistic socialism - or
What about Christian socialism? The socialists of North America in
the early 20th century had a strong Christian component.
Belloc, Nickerson (?), and assorted, you mean? Well, the socialism
How about Andrew, Peter, John, etc., Christian socialists of the 1st
Century!
Oh, please. Godless socialism. You mean the first Pope? That Pope
wasn't this Pope. That Pope, in fact, was martyred, upside down. And I
can't see St. Peter saying the UN ought to decide the fate of Iraq, or
that the Holy See needs moral guidance from the same outfit that
engineered the oil fer food scam, and so on. I don't think St. Peter
was exactly a NWO kind of guy. JP II, might be another matter.
still leads in the same direction. And it's not entirely academic. It
obviously is a scheme for failure. But bureacracy has this tendency to
both promote such people, and to insulate itself from bad reports.
Witness the emerging 'euro'.
Why is it a scheme for failure? Nobody ever tried it.
Socialism? I do hope you're not . . . . serious. I mean - that's
classic lib answer, #1. Just not the right people have tried it -
right? As Quarrel said to Freelance as he offered her a seat - "you
can't mean it".
himself? The Nazis promoted something called, National Socialism.
Yes...and the word "Socialism" meant nothing because it was simply
popular at that time to be called "socialist."
And:
". . . the embarrassing fact for the Left is that if you subtract the
peculiar bigotries of Nazism (Communism had its own bigotries) you are
left with a fairly conventional centralized socialistic approach to
governing. This is just one of the reasons Stalin insisted that all
Soviet and Comintern propaganda only use phrases like “Anti-Fascist
League” of this or the “Anti-Fascist Society” of that."
[http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldbergprint011201.html]
They did NOT do any
socialist things. Instead they kept the means of production in private
hands.
Not . . . . . exactly:
"Modern conservatives have no trouble seeing that Nazism was evil
incarnate, but for generations Leftists had trouble seeing that Stalin
belongs in the adjacent cubicle in Hell. One of the reasons for this
is that conservatism holds that all totalitarianism grows from the
same poisoned fruit, while the Left must make incredibly esoteric
distinctions based upon the motives of the social planners doing the
killing. If you are on the road to an egalitarian paradise it’s okay
to break a few eggs (don’t even bother, this metaphor cannot be
saved). But if the motives of the centralized experts differ from
Leftist dogma, well, it’s evil Fascism.
How else to explain three decades of Castroite sycophancy among
American journalists and editorialists? Cuba has free health care!
Free education! Free housing! The only thing not free in Cuba are the
people, an objection to which armies of sophisticated liberal civil
libertarians in America can barely stifle a yawn.
Well, I doubt that Cuba’s free goodies, especially health care, could
possible compare to what the State provided in Hitler’s Germany, and
yet if someone says, “Well, you know, Hitler did some good things for
the German people, like build the autobahn” you are immediately, and
rightly, called an apologist for Nazism."
[http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldbergprint011201.html]
to their own. There was NO move to give the working class a voice in
their destiny any more than there was in the Stalinist bloc. It was
simply a new elite aristocracy. If you want to see working class
socialism at work, you need to look at how it transpired in Britain and
certain parts of the Commonwealth as well as in parts of the USA.
Yes, we know. That's why the GOP is in charge, nominally, of both
Houses of Congress and the Presidency. As for Britain and the general
'euro' . . . . . well, they can't just keep doling it out on that
scale. It's going to hit, here, in about ten years. And it's ONLY the
Dem that have opposed any privatization to save Social Welfare.
Do you want to be? Have you read Dietrich von Hildebrand,
Depends on who is making the decision. I'm nobody's poster-boy for
***** and I don't care what hats the BS source is wearing.
But to use you word, it's BS to denigrate Sainthood. You asked me
about an author, above. Let me ask you about this one - Dietrich von
Hildebrand, Transformation in Christ?
Can't say that I've read it, but I'm keeping it in mind.
Peace.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Jim: I'm sure a tremendous number of people will want to attend his funeral.
Sir Humphrey: To pay tribute to a great man.
Jim: Yeah, and to make sure he's dead.
- Yes, Prime Minister, A Diplomatic Incident
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Kenosis (wasRe: The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 1) |
26 Jul 2003 11:08:35 AM |
|
|
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com>:
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
[snip]
350K years ago? What about 340K years ago? That give them 10 centuries
to learn stuff. That's longer than all of recorded history. So what
new tools were they making? what new cities were they building? 340K
years ago?
No cities then. Probably barely worked stone tools. Perhaps
something like rope of some sort, but that does not get preserved
so we have less evidence.
[snip]
What about 330K years ago? That's 20 centuries! What changed in 20
centuries (!) (and did I mention - - !!!!), with these 'people' who
are 'just like us' - but apparently, in 20,000 years, never learned
how to bathe (or what was it?)?
Read Jared Diamond's books: _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ and _The
Third Chimpanzee_ for a very good evidence based take on these
questions.
[snip]
That's what you're saying. And I don't see that. Before you cut this
out, let me just say, people 1000 years ago (just 1000 years, not 10K,
not 20K, just 1K - one . . lousy k) spoke languages that may be lost,
today, did things that have no lasting records, but whose descendants,
in 1K years, maybe learn less, but have produced more, and have
learned - after a fashion. 1000 years is a long time. 10,000 years is
a lot longer - longer than all of recorded history, in fact. You're
talkin - 300,000 years!
The "great leap forward" probably comes with agriculture, some 30
years ago.
[snip]
What 'knowledge'? That apparently 'people like us' - 300,000 YEARS
AGO? - couldn't figure out this whole knowledge thing? Or were they
really, people like us? Were they - simply - even people?
Sure, much like North Koreans.
[snip]
Not really. And that's the problem for literalists. What happened was
the Mediterranean Sea broke through the Bosporus and flooded the
depressed plain surrounding the lake that was then all that there was of
the Black Sea. It very quickly opened into a brine waterfall of several
Niagara's dimension which lasted until the basin filled in.
Actually probably not. They way overshot the evidence.
However, it
IS consistent with the Noah story on some other counts. The foothills of
the Ararat range would have been a perfectly sensible landing spot for
refugees and the description of the "fountains of the deep" opening up is
pretty accurate for that kind of intrusion into the water table.
Quite a few places, not just the spot in Turkey, have
historically been identified as the Ararat of the Bible.
Not
only that, there would have been a lot of rain and mist due to the spray
at the falls.
So? Anyway, the whole Black Sea/Noah story is misguided, it
assumes that the Bible story requires some special explanation.
There are flood stories of various types around the world. Pretty
much if people live in an area that floods, they have floods in
their stories. There is no reason to look for some extraordinary
event to explain the Noahic flood.
So is there any evidence, perhaps, of a remarkably catastrophic,
'young earth' type Flood (if you don't mind what apparently is a
loaded phrase on certain ngs), between that period, that Flood, and
the present? And when it reads that the water receded in about a year,
could that have happened in and around Palestine?
Nope. Palestine has a Mediterranean coast that flooding several
million years ago, and some hills, which have not seen any
particular flooding.
BTW, you do know that the Babylonian flood stories are remarkably
like the Biblical ones, don't you? And popular enough that the
people in "Palestine" 2,500 years ago would have known them.
Quite likely what they cared about was the *differences* between
the Biblical and Babylonian story, not the account of some flood.
[snip]
Well, it's right at that point that the calendar changes. Besides, a
wooden boat that large won't cut it. Go ahead. Any creation scientist
who claims that was a real boat is invited to produce a 450 foot wooden
boat using bronze age tech.
Think of all the trees.
Should we think of anything in particular or is this some guided
imagery to help us relax?
Again, there's nothing wrong with taking it
all as a 'moral lesson', with subsequent refrains to Our Lord's day,
even perhaps to the present. But if it really happened, as well, there
might still be evidence. And the context, here, is science and
physical evidence.
And there is *no* such evidence. Again, this was the default view
until the beginning of the 19th C. Scientists went out with the
idea of finding evidence to support the Bible. They did not find
that. Instead they found evidence that contradicts the
descriptive interpretation of Genesis. What they found included:
1) No evidence of a single world-wide flood killing all existent
life.
2) Strong evidence that life has changed dramatically over time.
3) Strong evidence that the world was much older than they
assumed.
How this happened is a different question from what happened.
God-Man, not just man. No man, no creature (and I don't mean 350K
years ago), is perfect. God is perfect.
Yes, but Jesus could not be human and omniscient at the same time.
What specifically couldn't Our Lord do, then - or couldn't He know?
Could he know he was going to be crucified? Could he know he was
going to go back to being all-powerful?
Actually, the Black Sea inundation took place about 7500 years ago.
Long time.
Yep. But Jericho had been an inhabited town for more than 2500 years by
this time.
So 10K years ago, people built cities. What about 20K years ago?
And, umm . . if Jericho was the center of a kingdom, then it suggests
such kingdoms lasted longer than the Roman Empire, even as a vestige
of itself through the centuries . . correct?
That Jericho existed does not mean it was the center of a
kingdom. Rome still exists, after all. And has been the center of
a kingdom and of a republic and of an empire as various times.
[snip]
was not until their descendants migrated to the lush Fertile Crescent,
after the ice age that agriculture really began. And that marks a
watershed change in the way humans saw themselves. All of a sudden there
was a need for political order to decide who owned what land and who
would till it.
So when the hunters had a problem, they what - fought it out? Maybe
they decided on treaties, and who got to hunt what land? That wouldn't
have changed. And even hunters need a place to sleep at night, even if
they carry it all on their backs. Have to be safe hunting grounds,
etc.
Hunters really do have different social structures, you might
want to read some anthropology. For one thing, they all fight,
not just the "soldiers". As such, they are much less likely to
risk anything. They also don't have the stored resources to
engage in long term conflict. Nor the need to stay in place as
opposed to moving away.
There was a need to keep records, to settle debts.
Same if the hunters traded. That's what traders used to do - hunt, and
get paid for what they would sell of the carcass. Still, today.
Hunter/gatherers do not have the same record keeping needs. They
know what they have, they can see it. They carry it from place to
place. When they trade, they are done with it. Really truly,
there were people without written language, we actually have
evidence for this stuff. The oldest records seem to be trading
accounting. That suggests they are the origin of writing, but it
is not conclusive evidence. We have a reasonable tentative
explanation for this, other evidence might show it is wrong. Or
we may never know for sure.
And if agriculture were the problem, then there still were fountains,
and mountains, and springs, in parts of Africa, where precisely such a
civilization might have been built, with science (trial and failure,
and genuine learning from same) in irrigation methods. We're talking
300 centuries here, to figure that out. Something doesn't add up.
Maybe these weren't really people, just like us. Maybe the
identification is a little weak. Maybe even the dating is wrong. But
something doesn't add up.
No matter when it started you could ask this very question: why
did it start then and not before. Again, read _Guns, Germs, and
Steel_, he gives the best answer to this question I have seen.
I didn't reject a one. I thought they were all as good as another,
frankly. I don't believe in evolutionism. So I could care less. But I
couldn't get any of you guys to specifically - that is, scientically -
agree on any one. It startles me. I didn't have that problem the last
time. There were some things I wanted to ask.
One more time: read the FAQs at www.talkorigins.org. They have
well accepted presentations of the theory.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Kenosis (wasRe: The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 1) |
27 Jul 2003 10:34:20 AM |
|
|
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com>:
Matt Silberstein <matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com>:
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
350K years ago? What about 340K years ago? That give them 10 centuries
to learn stuff. That's longer than all of recorded history. So what
new tools were they making? what new cities were they building? 340K
years ago?
No cities then. Probably barely worked stone tools. Perhaps
something like rope of some sort, but that does not get preserved
so we have less evidence.
Well, the civic structures would have.
How so? You seem to claim here that we should have evidence today
of the "civic" structure of 300,000 years ago (assuming there
were people then). (BTW, civic is almost certainly the wrong
word, it refers to city and all the evidence says there nothing
resembling cities existed then).
Ten centuries . . . is a long
time, even if you have you chip away every last stone and column you
use. You'd probably even get the knack after a few years. And you
might even pass on some tricks and skills to others, who will live
after you.
Assuming you have time to learn and some reasonably faithful
mechanism for passing on knowledge. The first seems to require
agriculture or some very special situation. The second requires
language. And written language works even better.
What about 330K years ago? That's 20 centuries! What changed in 20
centuries (!) (and did I mention - - !!!!), with these 'people' who
are 'just like us' - but apparently, in 20,000 years, never learned
how to bathe (or what was it?)?
Read Jared Diamond's books: _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ and _The
Third Chimpanzee_ for a very good evidence based take on these
questions.
"If you are looking for a last minute Christmas present, Guns, Germs
and Steel is a book which should appeal to anyone who enjoys history
or popular science."
[http://dannyreviews.com/h/Guns_Germs_Steel.html]
As for the rest, the reviewer might be very credulous, and have
swallowed the author's conclusions past the sinker. I don't know.
Hey, I have an idea, why don't you actually read a book rather
than just the review. Or read somewhat better reviews than that.
BTW, GGS won the Pulitzer Prize, others liked it as well.
What do you 'hear Diamond saying', personally?
Nope, I am not going to play that game with you. He wrote a long,
if very accessible, book with lots of evidence, read it.
That's what you're saying. And I don't see that. Before you cut this
out, let me just say, people 1000 years ago (just 1000 years, not 10K,
not 20K, just 1K - one . . lousy k) spoke languages that may be lost,
today, did things that have no lasting records, but whose descendants,
in 1K years, maybe learn less, but have produced more, and have
learned - after a fashion. 1000 years is a long time. 10,000 years is
a lot longer - longer than all of recorded history, in fact. You're
talkin - 300,000 years!
The "great leap forward" probably comes with agriculture, some 30
years ago.
Typo, right?
Yeah, 30,000. I have good reason to suspect that agriculture is a
bit older than 30 years.
[snip]
However, it
IS consistent with the Noah story on some other counts. The foothills of
the Ararat range would have been a perfectly sensible landing spot for
refugees and the description of the "fountains of the deep" opening up is
pretty accurate for that kind of intrusion into the water table.
Quite a few places, not just the spot in Turkey, have
historically been identified as the Ararat of the Bible.
Probably. There can only be one.
At most one.
only that, there would have been a lot of rain and mist due to the spray
at the falls.
So? Anyway, the whole Black Sea/Noah story is misguided, it
assumes that the Bible story requires some special explanation.
Sure it does. Flood to wipe out even the things that crawled on the
earth, sent by God, The Creator, as punishment for Man's sins?
Why does this story, and not the Chinese and Navaho and such,
require a special explanation?
Yeah, if it happened, people might be curious. Just not you, I guess?
I am curious about what the evidence tells us. My belief in the
Torah does not change with the evidence.
There are flood stories of various types around the world. Pretty
much if people live in an area that floods, they have floods in
their stories.
Yup . . yup, yup. Yup.
And this was not just another . . flood story - yup?
What *evidence* says otherwise? If you hold the Bible holy then
the story is important, sure. But I really do not understand how
you go from holding the Bible holy to needing to see physical
evidence for the Flood. The only thing that makes sense to me is
that *you* are questioning your faith. So *you* need to see
physical evidence. But what if that evidence is not there? What
if the evidence says there was no such Flood? Does that change
your faith at all? This is a serious question, I truly don't
understand the creationist position on this.
There is no reason to look for some extraordinary
event to explain the Noahic flood.
Apart from it being an extraordinary report, just in that way.
It is not particularly extraordinary. Pretty much all of the
elements are found in some flood story or another. The Genesis
Flood story resembles in detail other flood stories from the same
area. What matters, I suspect, is how it differs from the
well-known Gilgamesh story.
There
was more to it than just recording a flood. But the flood is important
to the story. It was the Divine instrument of destruction. It was the
end of their world.
Plenty of other flood stories make the same claim. In fact, the
Navaho story has the previous world getting destroyed, so they
had to come here. That story has the advantage of leaving behind
the potential evidence.
Did it happen?
Not according to any of the evidence we see. If we shrink down
the flood as you suggest, then it no longer is the end of the
world. You are willing to toss away the importance of the flood
in order to retain the historicity.
So is there any evidence, perhaps, of a remarkably catastrophic,
'young earth' type Flood (if you don't mind what apparently is a
loaded phrase on certain ngs), between that period, that Flood, and
the present? And when it reads that the water receded in about a year,
could that have happened in and around Palestine?
Nope. Palestine has a Mediterranean coast that flooding several
million years ago, and some hills, which have not seen any
particular flooding.
No flooding in the Jordan River valley - huh? Goes down quite a way,
so you could see just by looking at the walls, I would think.
Apparently, water levels were once much higher.
Flooding of the Jordan would not flood Palestine. It would be an
even smaller local flood than one in Mesopotamia.
BTW, you do know that the Babylonian flood stories are remarkably
like the Biblical ones, don't you? And popular enough that the
people in "Palestine" 2,500 years ago would have known them.
Quite likely what they cared about was the *differences* between
the Biblical and Babylonian story, not the account of some flood.
Or the various accounts describe . . the same Flood, without
appropriating a foreign account. Could happen you know.
So why accept one story over the other?
[snip]
Trees. A 450 foot wooden ship is made of . . . wood. That grows as
trees.
So - trees. And probably quite a little factory to mass produce all
the timber. Must have been something - if it ever happened. Wonder if
people will ever find any remnants of Noah's 'mill' - if it ever
happened?
What are you arguing for? It seems you are pointing out even more
evidence we lack. If you start down the path of examining how
Noah could have built the Ark you quickly realize that is
impossible as well. One family building a 450 ft long boat in one
year? You can't even season the wood in one year.
Again, there's nothing wrong with taking it
all as a 'moral lesson', with subsequent refrains to Our Lord's day,
even perhaps to the present. But if it really happened, as well, there
might still be evidence. And the context, here, is science and
physical evidence.
1) No evidence of a single world-wide flood killing all existent
life.
Good to know. What about around the area of the Dead Sea?
What about it? There have been various local floods in various
places around the world. If you want to deny the message and text
of the Bible to hold to some historical flood, go ahead. I can't
see why you are doing this. Would you explain our point here?
2) Strong evidence that life has changed dramatically over time.
The dinosaurs are dead.
Various different kinds of dinosaurs are dead. We have evidence
for over 100,000,000 years of dinosaurs, with lots of changes
during that time. And evidence of other organisms that lived
before the dinosaurs that died out by the time of the dinosaurs.
We have evidence for lots and lots of changes over time.
3) Strong evidence that the world was much older than th | | | | | | | |
