Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[IndigoChild5559]

Even a lie can be based on evidence. That some idea is based on evidence doesn't make it necessary true.

Since my previous post actually addresses this, it is obvious you didn't read what I wrote. I will quote the pertinent part. Please read it this time:

Science doesn't tell us everything, but the things it does tell us, we know because they are based on evidence. The loyalty is not to the conclusions, but to the evidence. Thus, if new evidence comes to light that would alter the conclusions even a little, we follow that evidence to the new and better conclusion. Your best bet, when trying to understand origins, is to stick with science. Not misinterpret a myth as being literal.

 

[1213]

...The loyalty is not to the conclusions, but to the evidence. Thus, if new evidence comes to light that would alter the conclusions even a little, we follow that evidence to the new and better conclusion. ...

Well, that's not much incentive for to take conclusions very seriously, when they can be wrong and change when people get more knowledge. For me the problem is with the conclusions, not with the evidence.

 

[Kathryn]

Okay, let me be a little more serious for @Kathryn . The Gospel of Luke has the date at 6CE for the birth of Jesus. He specifically referred to the census of Quirinius. The Romans kept good records of that. We know when it happened and where Quirinius was before that. Apologists will try to make excuses, but biblical scholars recognize this as an error. Matthew has the date in around or before 4 BCE. Herod the Great was still alive in his version of the Nativity myth. By the way, that actually would make a census of Judea at that time out of the question. Judea was not part of the Roman Empire under Herod. It was a client kingdom. That means that they had their own rule. They were a buffer between Rome and its possible enemies. Until Herod's son that took over Judea failed so badly that rebellion almost happened that Rome stepped in and took over. That was why a census was needed. Rome made Judea part of Rome in the year 6CE. They needed to tax it since it was now part of the empire. That was why a census was held:

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So you said that Luke has the date at 6 BCE but Matthew has the date in, around, OR BEFORE 4 BCE? This is a problem to you? I'd like to see those verses by the way. Thanks.

 

[Kathryn]

The exact date is not given, but the years are. Oh, and my sources are Matthew and Luke

Sorry, I meant for you to please POST your sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I meant for you to please POST your sources.

I know I was having some fun. All right I thought that I did go back and ad the information. But Luke specifically names Quirinius and the census that he ran. That was in 6 CE. In fact if you study history at all you would know that Rome could not have ordered a census before then. Here are the verses:

"2 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register."

Please note there are the following errors in that short passage. There was no one single census of Rome until about 75CE. So it was not the entire world or even the entire Roman world. In fact Rome could and would only run a census in its own territories. Until 6 CE Judea was a client kingdom with self rule. There were laws against a census dating back to the time of King David. There are very good records of when Quirinius became governor there so it could not have been earlier. Last the census was for the purposes of taxation which would mean that people would be counted where they lived and worked. Unless Joseph was a rich absentee landlord, and the Bible implies that he was not wealthy there would have been no reason for him to go to Bethlehem. Even worse, where he lived at that time was not part of Rome proper it was another client kingdom. When Herod died his kingdom was divided into four parts going to his sister and three of his sons. Nazareth and Bethlehem were under control of different sons. Judea was under Archelaus. He messed up so badly that the Romans took over the country. Which was why a census was needed.

The author of Luke was not a "great historian". The claims of that come from Christians because he got places and their names correct. That would mean the he might have been a great geographer. Knowing what the local cities are named and where they are is geography, not history.

Okay, on to Matthew.

Matthew claims quite clearly that Herod was still the king when Jesus was born. And Herod died around 4 BCE so the nativity would have to have been before that.

Here is the start of Matthew 2 where King Herod is mentioned more than once:

"
2 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi[a] from the east came to Jerusalem 2 and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

3 When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. 5 “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:"

By the way this is nothing new. It is well known by biblical scholars and the vast majority can see that one of the two is wrong at least and the odds are good that both stories are made up. For example Matthew's slaughter of the innocents is thought to be fictional.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Well, that's not much incentive for to take conclusions very seriously,

Sure it is. What is the other option? To believe things that are NOT supported by evidence? YIKES!

 

[1213]

Sure it is. What is the other option? To believe things that are NOT supported by evidence? YIKES!

Personally I choose to believe things that are well supported by evidence and are reasonable and good.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Personally I choose to believe things that are well supported by evidence and are reasonable and good.

You believe many many things that are not supported by evidence, beginning with belief in God, who can be neither proven nor disproven. After that would be your belief that the Bible is the word of God. That sets you up to pretend that the Bible can be used as documentation for other truths. It is not. Religious texts are not evidence.

 

[Bthoth]

I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too.

Far reaching commentators.

But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus.

most every culture has claims of first man/women long before jesus.

The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?

The fall? What fell? To observe the story in genesis, woman was conscious and taught the man to think before a fear. I view it as a great day in which the woman was conscious and capable. As written, the god of the story was happy about the man becoming capable too.

Apologies for the clumsiness of my points, you can tell that I'm not a theologian. I am however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years and for the last 10 keeps finding it again but then having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

Ask the cardinal to read the story before accepting the stories that people make up:

NIV And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.

 

[1213]

You believe many many things that are not supported by evidence, beginning with belief in God

Life and the Bible are evidence for God. I don't think either of those would exist without God.

After that would be your belief that the Bible is the word of God. That sets you up to pretend that the Bible can be used as documentation for other truths. It is not. Religious texts are not evidence.

Everything is evidence for something, because it doesn't come from nothing.

 

[metis]

Everything is evidence for something, because it doesn't come from nothing.

Then what created God? If you say that God was always then you refute what you posted above.

 

[Audie]

Well, that's not much incentive for to take conclusions very seriously, when they can be wrong and change when people get more knowledge. For me the problem is with the conclusions, not with the evidence.

The (your) problem is a need for and
belief in the existence of certainties
Handed out by some sky god to certain
poor shepherds of old

Starting with that need and assumption,
offered by faith, combined with scanty education and
underdeveloped thinking skills of course
you're a sucker for moldy myths.

Your problem is that to realize the Bible
myths are not true would shatter your world


Your problem is with evidence. You know very lititle of it and understand less. No idea how or why theories
were developed.

You've got nothing resembling an explanation
for the evidence for such as deep time and
evolution.

You don't understand the nature of a scientific "conclusion."
its, " given what we know, we conclude this is the best explanation so far."
The best theory. Not a false " truth" from " god" to
numb the mind of the incurious and easily satisfied.

Scientific actually works with evidence.
As opposed to your ancients who didn't have a clue
so they made things up. Every culture / religion made
up different stories. Of course none of them
were correct.

You mght get something right if you didn't
act like a stubborn schoolboy who expends far
more energy refusing and resisting than it would
take to learn.

 

[Audie]

Life and the Bible are evidence for God. I don't think either of those would exist without God.

Everything is evidence for something, because it doesn't come from nothing.

Fine. Bible texts are evidence
of what? Try for best explanation,
providing good and suifficient evidence,
and, negation of all other explanations.

 

[Kathryn]

OK, so someone stated that Matthew and Luke differ significantly about the date of Jesus' birth. This I think is ridiculous because the "error" is two years AT MOST from what I can tell. And that's ambiguous.

 

[1213]

Fine. Bible texts are evidence
of what? Try for best explanation,
providing good and suifficient evidence,
and, negation of all other explanations.

If God would have told the things that are in the Bible, we would have that in the book, or orally told. That we have a such book, is evidence that all the things may have happened. However, one could claim also that they are evidence for that people made ups stories out of nothing. And this leads to question, what is the best explanation for the Bible. And I think it is God, because people seem to be too stupid and evil to make it on their own. IF Bible would be from people purely, atheists would not have so much troubles to understand it without contradictions.

 

[1213]

Then what created God? If you say that God was always then you refute what you posted above.

Can God be called a thing? I don't think so. I meant everything in this world. God is spirit, according to the Bible, and not a physical thing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If God would have told the things that are in the Bible, we would have that in the book, or orally told. That we have a such book, is evidence that all the things may have happened. However, one could claim also that they are evidence for that people made ups stories out of nothing. And this leads to question, what is the best explanation for the Bible. And I think it is God, because people seem to be too stupid and evil to make it on their own. IF Bible would be from people purely, atheists would not have so much troubles to understand it without contradictions.

The Bible is filled with evil and stupid things.

 

[metis]

Can God be called a thing? I don't think so. I meant everything in this world. God is spirit, according to the Bible, and not a physical thing.

Still, there's the issue of causation. If you state that spirits have no cause, first how would you supposedly know that, and second what evidence do you have of that?

 

[YoursTrue]

If God would have told the things that are in the Bible, we would have that in the book, or orally told. That we have a such book, is evidence that all the things may have happened. However, one could claim also that they are evidence for that people made ups stories out of nothing. And this leads to question, what is the best explanation for the Bible. And I think it is God, because people seem to be too stupid and evil to make it on their own. IF Bible would be from people purely, atheists would not have so much troubles to understand it without contradictions.

Aside from people's predilections, Jesus told his disciples to pray for God's kingdom. If he thought this was such a terrific world he would not have offered that prayer. (Hope that helps.)

 

[1213]

Still, there's the issue of causation. If you state that spirits have no cause, first how would you supposedly know that, and second what evidence do you have of that?

I know that in material world everything has a cause. Spirit is not material, therefore it can be without cause. But, it is just my belief that God, the Spirit, has no cause and has been always. I can't be absolutely sure about that, because I have no way to confirm it.