Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[SkepticThinker]

Or the sugar plantations of Jamaica and Haiti.
Life expectancy of about two years.

Or King Leopold and his ivory trade.
"Heart of Darkness" hardly touched it.

Tho he describes blacks emaciated, sick, and dying.

Of course! If you fed them they could have the
strength to rebel against carrying ivory out of the bush

Excellent examples.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think, if the whole Bible is obeyed, one can be slave for life, only if he agrees to be. It would not be possible against person's own will to be a slave for life.

That was never a requirement. In fact it could not have been since the "whole Bible" was probably not written until about 600 years after the verses that said that you could not only own slaves, but also gave the owners permission to beat them until they were almost dead.

 

[Audie]

That was never a requirement. In fact it could not have been since the "whole Bible" was probably not written until about 600 years after the verses that said that you could not only own slaves, but also gave the owners permission to beat them until they were almost dead.

The boy don't know his own book

 

[Subduction Zone]

The boy don't know his own book

They never do. That is why they will claim things like "History supports the Bible". Well yes and no. There are clear historical errors in the Bible. "Archaeology supports the Bible". Again yes and no. There are clear events that refute the Bible again. "Prophecy supports the Bible." Not at all. Not if one can be honest. "Science supports the Bible." Oh no, now I am just laughing.

 

[Audie]

They never do. That is why they will claim things like "History supports the Bible". Well yes and no. There are clear historical errors in the Bible. "Archaeology supports the Bible". Again yes and no. There are clear events that refute the Bible again. "Prophecy supports the Bible." Not at all. Not if one can be honest. "Science supports the Bible." Oh no, now I am just laughing.

Those are going to be your typical fundamentalists
who are characteristically ill educated.

 

[joelr]

That is like saying, humans have two eyes, fish also have two eyes, humans must be fishes. I think rather idiotic it is to think that way.

No it's like saying we have a line of hominids that begin as chimp like creatures who begin to walk to 2 legs more than in trees and over millions of years, each new species, walks more, grows taller, loses bodyhair, brain size grows, begins using tools, and we still have the DNA of a late one.

We know homo sapien came directly after homo heidelburgensis. We are the last to evolve in that line.


The origin of the genus Homo in Africa signals the beginning of the shift from increasingly bipedal apes to primitive, large-brained, stone tool-making, meat-eaters that traveled far and wide. This early part of the human genus is represented by three species: Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Homo erectus. H. habilis is known for retaining primitive features that link it to australopiths and for being the first stone tool makers. Little is known about H. rudolfensis except that it had a relatively large brain and large teeth compared to H. habilis and that it overlapped in time and space with other early Homo. Our understanding of the paleobiology and evolution of the larger-brained H. erectus is enhanced due to its rich fossil record. H. erectus was the first obligate, fully committed biped, and with a body adapted for modern striding locomotion, it was also the first in the human lineage to disperse outside of Africa. The early members of the genus Homo are the first to tip the scale from the more apish side of our evolutionary history toward the more human one.

For the first, four million years or so of hominin evolution, the hominin fossil record is characterized by, among other trends, canine reduction and postcranial metamorphosis in the following genera: Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, and Paranthropus. As the Pliocene epoch came to a close and global climate was shifting at about 2.5 million years ago (deMenocal 2004), there is a concomitant change in the hominin fossil record. In this increasingly cooler world, something new, both anatomically and behaviorally, emerged. This is the origin of the genus Homo.

But, Bible is not speaking of pi in any way. It is just a poor interpretation.

It's describing exactly what pi is needed for?


The relevant passage is 1 Kings 7:23, which states “Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference.” This verse describes a cylindrical vessel built at the order of Solomon.


there are endless contradictions in scripture. Here is a question, when was Jesus killed? On Passover or on the preparation day for passover?

 

[joelr]

Please give one example of similar book as the Bible.

The Bible is a collection of books, every religion had books? The NT is a mystery religion and is very similar to all other older mystery religions.

OT comparison:

The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.
Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible



similarities in all mystery religions/NT


{e) Myth and rite


The best way to tackle the question of what the aim of the performance of the mysteries was, or in other words what kind of salvation the mystery cults promised, is to attempt to determine the relationship between myth and rite. Every cult is based on its own divine myth, which narrates what happens to a god; in most cases, he has to take a path of suffering and wandering, but this often leads to victory at the end. The rite depicts this path in abbreviated form and thus makes it possible for the initiand to be taken up into the story of the god, to share in his labours and above all in his victory. Thus there comes into being a ritual participation which contains the perspective of winning salvation (awrqpia). The hope for salvation can be innerworldly, looking for protection from life's many tribulations, e.g. sickness, poverty, dangers on journey, and death; but it can also look for something better in the life after death. It always involves an intensification of vitality and of life expectation, to be achieved through participation in the indestructible life of a god (cf in general terms Burkert 11: mysteries 'aimed at a change of mind through experience of the sacred').

The Religious Context of Early Christianity


A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions

HANS-JOSEF KLAUCK

Probably from Jews.

No the Egyptian Wisdom books are older, so are the Mesopotamian wisdom books. But way to just make something up so it fits with what you want. to be true. Shows you don't really care about what is actually true but what you want to be true.

Interestingly Bible says:
The God who made the world and all things in it, this One being Lord of Heaven and of earth, does not dwell in handmade temples,
Acts 17:24

Not what early Israelites believed. All temple finds have huge footprints leading Yahweh to the inner sanctum where he lived while in the temple.

If you read the whole text, you can notice it was a man, who was also called a god. Not the God.

No one interprets that visit by Yahweh as another God. He named him Israel. Moses also walked with Yahweh, he rode his chariot in the desert, Yahweh fought a sea monster, he trampled mountains. He was a warrior deity.

To me that shows person doesn't really know God.

Maybe they don't know your modern made-up version. Fransesca's new book God: A Body, goes through dozens of examples in the original Hebrew of descriptions of Yahweh's body parts and physical acts he did.
Song of Songs 5. 10-16 explains his good looks. Ephesians 5.2 Yahweh enjoys the smell of an odor. Psalms 18 9-13 Yahweh is a storm God.

She is a OT Hebrew scholar, of course she understands the text? Later theologians and councils wanted God to be more spirit-like so they decided on that. Totally made up based on Greek conceptions rather than the original Mesopotamian.

This depends on, in what way they saw Him.

And he said, You are not able to see My face; for no man can see Me and live.
Ex. 33:20

Well they saw him, even his nose was described as long in one passage.


Ex has some contradictions:


xodus


In the book of Exodus, God tells Moses, “I appeared to Abraham,


Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name ‘The LORD’


[= Yahweh] I did not make myself known to them” (Exodus 6:3).


How does this square with what is found earlier, in Genesis, where


God does make himself known to Abraham as The LORD: “Then


he [God] said to him [Abraham], ‘I am The LORD [= Yahweh] who


brought you from Ur of the Chaldeans’” (Genesis 15:7)?





Or consider one of my all-time favorite passages, the description of


the ten plagues that Moses brought down on the heads of the Egyp¬


tians in order to compel Pharaoh to “let my people go.” The fifth


plague was a pestilence that killed “all of the livestock of the Egyp¬


tians” (Exodus 9:5). How is it, then, that a few days later the seventh


plague, of hail, was to destroy all of the Egyptian livestock in the


fields (Exodus 9:21—22)? What livestock?

Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted

 

[1213]

The NT is a mystery religion

I disagree with that

...a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.
Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible

Jews were forced there. Probably those writings were their, or influenced by them.

No the Egyptian Wisdom books are older, so are the Mesopotamian wisdom books.

I don't believe their context is older.

In the book of Exodus, God tells Moses, “I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name ‘The LORD’ [= Yahweh] I did not make myself known to them” (Exodus 6:3). How does this square with what is found earlier, in Genesis, where God does make himself known to Abraham as The LORD: “Then he [God] said to him [Abraham], ‘I am The LORD [= Yahweh] who brought you from Ur of the Chaldeans’” (Genesis 15:7)?

I think it can be that at one point God had not used the name Yahweh for them. It is not a contradiction, if it is told that later he used that name for them. Crucial is not is it said in Genesis or Exodus, but about what tie period they are speaking of.

Or consider one of my all-time favorite passages, the description of the ten plagues that Moses brought down on the heads of the Egyptians in order to compel Pharaoh to “let my people go.” The fifth plague was a pestilence that killed “all of the livestock of the Egyptians” (Exodus 9:5). How is it, then, that a few days later the seventh plague, of hail, was to destroy all of the Egyptian livestock in the fields (Exodus 9:21—22)? What livestock?

Is it really not possible that they got new?

 

[1213]

No it's like saying we have a line of hominids that begin as chimp like creatures who begin to walk to 2 legs more than in trees and over millions of years, each new species, walks more, grows taller, loses bodyhair, brain size grows, begins using tools, and we still have the DNA of a late one.

It is amazing how you can believe all that.

It's describing exactly what pi is needed for?

The relevant passage is 1 Kings 7:23, which states “Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference.” This verse describes a cylindrical vessel built at the order of Solomon.

Bible is not describing pi in any way. It gives two measurements and then some people interpret they give number for pi.

Bible tells distance from brim to brim (1) and circumference (2). Because 1 is ten and 2 is 30, it means 2 is the inside dimension and 1 is the outside dimension. This means, inside diameter was ~9.55, outside diameter 10 and so the thickness of the bowl was about 0.225. One can't really say Bible is giving wrong idea of pi in that.

Here is a question, when was Jesus killed? On Passover or on the preparation day for passover?

It appears Jesus was killed on Wednesday (14th), the day before Passover Shabbat (15th). Passover Shabbat is not the same as weekly Shabbat (Saturday). In this it is good to notice, Jewish day begins at 21:00 and ends 21:00. 15th day is a special Shabbat day, as in regular Shabbat, no work should be done then. So, the reason why people have difficulties to understand this is that they don't know Passover as taught in the Bible.

Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old. You shall take it from the sheep, or from the goats: and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month; and the whole as-sembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at evening.
Exod. 12:5-6
They shall eat the flesh in that night, roasted with fire, and un-leavened bread. They shall eat it with bitter herbs. Don't eat it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roasted with fire; with its head, its legs and its inner parts. You shall let nothing of it re-main until the morning; but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire. This is how you shall eat it: with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste: it is Yahweh's Passover.
Exod. 12:8-11
On the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleav-ened bread to Yahweh. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. In the first day you shall have a holy convocation. You shall do no regular work. But you shall offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh seven days. In the seventh day is a holy convoca-tion: you shall do no regular work.'"
Lev. 23:6-8

 

[1213]

And then there are the non-Hebrew slaves ...
Leviticus 5:44-46
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

I think, if Jews would follow all their rules, all their slaves would also be counted Hebrew.

 

[1213]

Actions don't make people good or evil but an evil person is someone who does evil actions?

If person would not be evil, he would not do evil things. The point is, all actions come from persons mind. If one has evil mind, he does also evil actions. Actions are only result of what the person is. Similarly as a fruit doesn't define a tree, actions doesn't really define person. Actions only tell what kind of person one is, similarly as a fruit tells what kind of tree it's producer is. If ones actions are evil, it is because of what kind of person he is.

Because that's what it says.

That is the problem of reading just one line, ignoring the rest and forming a religion of ignorance around it.

 

[1213]

It certainly is possible. Read some history of the United States, for starters.

They didn't seem to know even half of what is said in the Bible.

 

[1213]

Also, a muslim would tell you that the quran is actually the "correct" version of the bible while the bible has been corrupted and altered over the centuries.

It would be nice to know, how they know, and what is corrupted and what was the original message, if Bible has corrupted message. I think their ignorant answer would tell that their message is not from actual God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It would be nice to know, how they know, and what is corrupted and what was the original message, if Bible has corrupted message.

Ask a muslim

I think their ignorant answer would tell that their message is not from actual God.

I think it's noteworthy that out of everything I said, this is the only bit you decided to reply to, ignoring everything else that actually mattered to the point I was making.

By doing this, you are only confirming every point I made by exposing how you view the world with bible-blinders and -goggles on.
You should come out more and talk to people who believe differently then you do and actually consider viewing the world through their lense and realize that their lenses are not different from yours. They are of the same species.

Every bad and good thing you can say about them when it comes to why they follow / believe their scriptures, applies to yourself in the exact same way.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If person would not be evil, he would not do evil things. The point is, all actions come from persons mind. If one has evil mind, he does also evil actions. Actions are only result of what the person is. Similarly as a fruit doesn't define a tree, actions doesn't really define person.

That makes no sense at all. In fact, your last sentence directly contradicts what came before it.
When you say of a person that that person is "evil", what you really mean is that that person engages in evil actions. ACTIONS are evil (or good). A person is just a person. A person that doesn't undertake any actions, is neither good nor evil.

So the exact opposite of your last statement is true. Actions DO define a person.
When we say of a person that (s)he is evil, what we really mean is that his/her actions are evil. Thus we define the moral worth of a person as a DIRECT result of the actions that person has taken.

Hitler was evil. Why? WW2, racist policies, holocaust.
Ted Bundy was evil. Why? The many murders he committed.


They weren't evil people when they were 5 years old and normal kids who hadn't engaged in any evil behavior yet.
They only became recognized as being evil people when they engaged in evil actions that defined them as such.

The reverse also occurs.
People who became evil after doing evil things, went to jail, repented fo their behavior and then became good people. Not because of the mere change of heart - those are just words, but rather as a result of the actions they did from that point on.

Actions only tell what kind of person one is, similarly as a fruit tells what kind of tree it's producer is. If ones actions are evil, it is because of what kind of person he is.

Even that analogy isn't accurate.
I have a walnut tree in my garden.
Last year, 80% of the walnuts were total horsesh!t. Disgusting. Small black-ish inedible stuff that only would make you sick.
This year, exact same tree, yet over 80% of those walnuts are absolutely delicious.

Following your analogy logic, I should have chopped the tree down last year.

That is the problem of reading just one line, ignoring the rest and forming a religion of ignorance around it.

Ironic

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They didn't seem to know even half of what is said in the Bible.

Says the guy who has demonstrated nothing but selective reading of the bible to suit his personal narrative.

 

[Audie]

It would be nice to know, how they know, and what is corrupted and what was the original message, if Bible has corrupted message. I think their ignorant answer would tell that their message is not from actual God.

Well! In view of your rather fantastically
ignorant ideas-!

 

[Muffled]

Okay, first off you should learn how to keep your beliefs to yourself until you can demonstrate that they are justified. Merely stating that one has a belief and then not supporting it is no different from admitting that one was wrong.

Let's start with the scientific method. It is how scientists learn new ideas.

Here is a rough flow chart of how the scientific method is applied. It is not the only way that one does it, but it is close enough:

View attachment 83774

Do you see the third step? Construct a hypothesis. That is one must have a testable idea that explains what one has observed. It is a very important part of the scientific method. And do you know what scientists try to do next? He tries to show that his idea is wrong. I know, sounds crazy, but it makes sense as we move on through the process. Before he tests it you would be valid to call his idea "speculation". He does not really know if it works or if it doesn't work.

But by trying again and again to refute his work. Adjusting it as needed, that is what happens when ones idea fails a test but is not irredeemably broken, he begins to have valid confidence in his work. Now if everything goes right he eventually gets to the bottom. But his idea is nowhere near being a theory yet. Now he has to communicate his results. He has to tell the whole world what he did, how he did it, the procedures that he used, every boring detail of his work. Proper communication is a very very important part of the scientific method. Now others will take his idea and test it themselves. That is why it is in the best interest of a scientist to honestly try to refute his own work It is rather unpleasant to have one's work refuted by others. And there is very little friendship when it comes to scientific ideas and claims.

This is just the bare bones to get you to realize that scientists are not just guessing. His ideas have to run several gauntlets. First he tries to refute it. Then his work is submitted for peer review and experts look for "obvious" (to them not to us) errors that the scientist may have missed. And then the whole world attacks his idea. If it survives all of that it is probably true. It is treated as being "provisionally true" since the sciences cannot absolutely prove an idea.

Are you with me so far? Do you have any questions at all? I may be referring back to this later.

I believe I don't admit I am wrong by doing that. I don't believe learning falsehoods does me any good.

 

[Muffled]

Read the story and this time without the bias in your head.

I believe I don't have bias. I may have preconceived ideas based on the rest of the Bible but that means my interpretation is informed.

 

[Muffled]

As usual. You are just making things up.

I believe I do not see your point. I think you will have to add more detail or you are just blowing smoke.