Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[Audie]

Small children love story time, and do not get upset if the rabbit in the story can talk, even if science can discredit this. In terms of brain development, the brain development of a child is in an accelerating state, compared to an adult. Yet they like story time the most. Why does story time appeal to the stage connected to the most accelerating human brain development?



The baby and small child's brain reminds me of springtime. In the spring, so much growth occurs in a very short time; trees bud, bloom and leaf up in a week or two. This full tree foundation, sets the stage for the rest of the year, until the fall.

Why would mythology and fairy tales appeal to the most accelerated stage of brain development? Children are not yet biased and migrate to stories naturally. The child's brain, by growing the fastest is developing all the core foundational structures, for the brain and consciousness. This spring tree brain time is the foundation for the summer tree. It appears story time appeals to the foundational brain, more than to the brain facade that comes last, with its slower growth rate. The latter is more targeted to specialty areas.

Mythology is actually connected to spatial thinking; right brain while science is more differential; left brain. Children know rabbits do not talk, but they do not fixate on that, since their faster brain thinks more in 3-D; symbols. This is harder to put into words do they more of the imagination to process it internally. It is interesting that at five years old, the brain is nearly full grown and many children start to question Santa Claus. They start to differentiate more; migrate more to the left brain.

Say a small child was taught religious stories, like Christmas and baby Jesus. Even if they become an Atheists, as an adult, when the brain slows, they will still remember these memories. These young child memories, may now upset them, but they are still part of the foundational brain, that may no longer suit the facade of the slower adult brain stage. The inner child and inner self is more about this foundational framework. Science is good for the outer brain, while religion symbolism can better reach the inner or foundational brain.

Is that "science" or your chosen opinions.

 

[metis]

But, what do you think, is death penalty the same as murder? In Bible there is basically death penalty for evil people. Do you think God should allow evil people to live forever?

Seems you forgot what Jesus said about stoning the woman found guilty of adultery.

If one supports the death penalty, then they simply cannot be pro life.

 

[Bthoth]

Something relevant to the title of the thread

"
In comments that may shock some staunch Catholics, Cardinal George Pell has described the biblical story of Adam and Eve as a myth.

He appeared alongside renowned evolutionary biologist and atheist, Professor Richard Dawkins, on the ABC's Q&A program last night.

Cardinal Pell said the existence of Adam and Eve was not a matter of science but rather a mythological account.


"It's a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world," he said.

"It's a religious story told for religious purposes."

According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve as the first man and woman and all people are descended from them.

Cardinal Pell's explosive comments came after he was questioned about evolution.

He said it was impossible to say when there was a first human.

It is widely accepted in the scientific community that life on Earth has evolved over about four billion years.""

 

[metis]

Catholicism accepts the ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.

 

[Brian2]

You just said that God has the right to kill his children.

I was seeing Sponge Bob's drawings as his creations and as a lot inferior to Sponge Bob even if drawn in Sponge Bob's image.
So I don't see that as being an analogy of human parents killing their children.

 

[Brian2]

However, it really doesn't say that in the Judeo-Christian scriptures or even hint of it. This is by no means are the only secular injections into scripture based on the area and the culture.

I do get the idea of resurrection and judgement from the Judeo-Christian scriptures however.

IMO, it's the general message that's important to me, so I don't expect the scriptures to be objective, and the one message that really resonates is Jesus' Two Commandments whereas he says all the others are contained in them. Even Spinoza agreed with that.

Jesus commandments of love usually stick with people I guess, even if they reject the dying and rising for our sins part of the story. But rejecting that part of the story is to reject Jesus and the gospels for what they claim to be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was seeing Sponge Bob's drawings as his creations and as a lot inferior to Sponge Bob even if drawn in Sponge Bob's image.
So I don't see that as being an analogy of human parents killing their children.

Oh my. whoosh! You missed the point.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was seeing Sponge Bob's drawings as his creations and as a lot inferior to Sponge Bob even if drawn in Sponge Bob's image.
So I don't see that as being an analogy of human parents killing their children.

I was talking about this:

"It's better to realise that God is our judge and has the right to kill us than to say that the Bible is just wrong imo."

 

[metis]

I do get the idea of resurrection and judgement from the Judeo-Christian scriptures however.

Yep.

Jesus commandments of love usually stick with people I guess, even if they reject the dying and rising for our sins part of the story. But rejecting that part of the story is to reject Jesus and the gospels for what they claim to be.

That's only a problem if one is into literalism, which I'm not. Assuming there is a "judgment', which I don't assume one way or another, I don't think it'll be based on being legalistic as that also would go against what Jesus said about his Two Commandments. Those Two resonate with me because it's basically universal and not just tied to the last 2000 years.

 

[joelr]

This one wants the Galilean Jesus to start the day in a different place (sunrise) in stead of where the Judean Jews started it (sunset). That is supposed to reconcile the accounts. That is a simple explanation if one is after an explanation, which you are not.

Conflict of the Synoptics and the Gospel of John in Resurrection Accounts | Bible Exposition Commentary

versebyversecommentary.com

That creates a 3rd story different for the other 2. That is a problem.

I will take a simple explanation, but that is not simple. You are now saying one account is wrong.

So you repeat the speculation of Bart Ehrman and that is supposed to prove your case.

Well first Ehrman is a PhD in NT history, is reading the original Greek and studies this with the thought in mind that it's the true, accurate word of God and nothing is going to change his faith. So he wasn't looking to discredit the Gospels. He sees a discrepancy. But the Gospels prove the case. You already tried to change one Gospel, which also proves the case.

As far as I can see the synoptics have Jesus die on the Friday and John's gospel does also.
So it is just a matter of finding why Jesus and His disciples might have eaten the passover a day early.
More than one possible reasons seems to exist. I have no problem with that but people who want to discredit the gospels do.

Mark clearly has Jesus die on Passover day, they even have the time.

"
After the disciples eat the Passover meal they go out to the Garden
of Gethsemane to pray. Judas Iscariot brings the troops and performs
his act of betrayal. Jesus is taken to stand trial before the Jewish au¬
thorities. He spends the night in jail, and the next morning he is put
on trial before the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, who finds him
guilty and condemns him to death by crucifixion. We are told that
he is crucified that same day, at nine o’clock in the morning (Mark
15:25). Jesus, then, dies on the day of Passover, the morning after the
Passover meal was eaten.
"
In John it's on the day of preparation and even gives the time:

"
After the meal they go out. Jesus is betrayed by Judas, appears
before the Jewish authorities, spends the night in jail, and is put on
trial before Pontius Pilate, who finds him guilty and condemns him
to be crucified. And we are told exactly when Pilate pronounces the
sentence: “It was the Day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was
about noon” (John 19:14). "

Again, John is the first to call Jesus the lamb of God so it makes perfect sense John changed it for a theological purpose.
Demonstrating these stories are being made up.

The writers are very clear here and to do the changes like you suggested above you have to say one Gospel was mistaken, which means they have an inconsistency.

"Noon? On the Day of Preparation for the Passover? The day the
lambs were slaughtered? How can that be? In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus
lived through that day, had his disciples prepare the Passover meal,
and ate it with them before being arrested, taken to jail for the
night, tried the next morning, and executed at nine o’clock a.m. on
the Passover day. But not in John. In John, Jesus dies a day earlier, on
the Day of Preparation for the Passover, sometime after noon.
I can’t give a full analysis here, but I will point out a significant
feature of John’s Gospel—the last of our Gospels to be written,
probably some twenty-five years or so after Mark’s. John is the only
Gospel that indicates that Jesus is “the lamb of God who takes away
the sins of the world.” This is declared by John the Baptist at the
very beginning of the narrative (John 1:29) and again six verses
later (John 1:35). Why, then, did John—our latest Gospel—change
the day and time when Jesus died? It may be because in John’s
Gospel, Jesus is the Passover Lamb, whose sacrifice brings salvation
from sins. Exactly like the Passover Lamb, Jesus has to die on the
day (the Day of Preparation) and the time (sometime after noon),
when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple. "

In other words, John has changed a historical datum in order to
make a theological point: Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. And to convey
this theological point, John has had to create a discrepancy between
his account and the others.”

 

[Brian2]

I was talking about this:

"It's better to realise that God is our judge and has the right to kill us than to say that the Bible is just wrong imo."

So?

 

[Brian2]

Yep.

That's only a problem if one is into literalism, which I'm not. Assuming there is a "judgment', which I don't assume one way or another, I don't think it'll be based on being legalistic as that also would go against what Jesus said about his Two Commandments. Those Two resonate with me because it's basically universal and not just tied to the last 2000 years.

Judgement of all people seems to come down in some way to the commandments of love. Christians also need to follow those.
But what is literalist about believing in the atoning death of Jesus as prophesied in the OT? Surely it is just accepting what happened and why as told in the New Testament.
Where is there a figurative way in the New Testament to understand the gospels. Isn't any figurative way to view it just ways for people who do not believe the gospels, to say they are not true.
What sort of figurative way do you interpret the gospels anyway?

 

[joelr]

Ok, thanks, that is interesting. I think still it is possible that the dimensions are not of same circle and therefore can't be said they define pi. But, I have no problem with the idea that they are not even meant to be super accurate dimensions.

Bible Hub also has interpretations.

By what the Bible tells, lamb was eaten 14th day evening/night, so it must have been killed just before it. I have understood the lamb was killed right in the beginning of 14th day about 21:00. Jesus was killed later that same day. But, I think the point is not to have Jesus exactly as sacrificial lamb, only to point the similarity.

Ehrman says:

I can’t give a full analysis here, but I will point out a significant
feature of John’s Gospel—the last of our Gospels to be written,
probably some twenty-five years or so after Mark’s. John is the only
Gospel that indicates that Jesus is “the lamb of God who takes away
the sins of the world.” This is declared by John the Baptist at the
very beginning of the narrative (John 1:29) and again six verses
later (John 1:35). Why, then, did John—our latest Gospel—change
the day and time when Jesus died? It may be because in John’s
Gospel, Jesus is the Passover Lamb, whose sacrifice brings salvation
from sins. Exactly like the Passover Lamb, Jesus has to die on the
day (the Day of Preparation) and the time (sometime after noon),
when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple.

In other words, John has changed a historical datum in order to
make a theological point: Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. And to convey
this theological point, John has had to create a discrepancy between
his account and the others.”

 

[Brian2]

That creates a 3rd story different for the other 2. That is a problem.

I will take a simple explanation, but that is not simple. You are now saying one account is wrong.

I don't see a 3rd story, I see all the gospels having Jesus die on the Friday.

Well first Ehrman is a PhD in NT history, is reading the original Greek and studies this with the thought in mind that it's the true, accurate word of God and nothing is going to change his faith. So he wasn't looking to discredit the Gospels. He sees a discrepancy. But the Gospels prove the case. You already tried to change one Gospel, which also proves the case.

Ehrman is a PhD in NT history and has gone from believer to materialist over the years.
He has his speculations and interpretations about things.
It is easy to see a discrepency between the gospel of John and the synoptics because of the language used in each but the stories are the same imo.

Mark clearly has Jesus die on Passover day, they even have the time.

"
After the disciples eat the Passover meal they go out to the Garden
of Gethsemane to pray. Judas Iscariot brings the troops and performs
his act of betrayal. Jesus is taken to stand trial before the Jewish au¬
thorities. He spends the night in jail, and the next morning he is put
on trial before the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, who finds him
guilty and condemns him to death by crucifixion. We are told that
he is crucified that same day, at nine o’clock in the morning (Mark
15:25). Jesus, then, dies on the day of Passover, the morning after the
Passover meal was eaten.
"
In John it's on the day of preparation and even gives the time:

"
After the meal they go out. Jesus is betrayed by Judas, appears
before the Jewish authorities, spends the night in jail, and is put on
trial before Pontius Pilate, who finds him guilty and condemns him
to be crucified. And we are told exactly when Pilate pronounces the
sentence: “It was the Day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was
about noon” (John 19:14). "

Again, John is the first to call Jesus the lamb of God so it makes perfect sense John changed it for a theological purpose.
Demonstrating these stories are being made up.

The writers are very clear here and to do the changes like you suggested above you have to say one Gospel was mistaken, which means they have an inconsistency.

"Noon? On the Day of Preparation for the Passover? The day the
lambs were slaughtered? How can that be? In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus
lived through that day, had his disciples prepare the Passover meal,
and ate it with them before being arrested, taken to jail for the
night, tried the next morning, and executed at nine o’clock a.m. on
the Passover day. But not in John. In John, Jesus dies a day earlier, on
the Day of Preparation for the Passover, sometime after noon.
I can’t give a full analysis here, but I will point out a significant
feature of John’s Gospel—the last of our Gospels to be written,
probably some twenty-five years or so after Mark’s. John is the only
Gospel that indicates that Jesus is “the lamb of God who takes away
the sins of the world.” This is declared by John the Baptist at the
very beginning of the narrative (John 1:29) and again six verses
later (John 1:35). Why, then, did John—our latest Gospel—change
the day and time when Jesus died? It may be because in John’s
Gospel, Jesus is the Passover Lamb, whose sacrifice brings salvation
from sins. Exactly like the Passover Lamb, Jesus has to die on the
day (the Day of Preparation) and the time (sometime after noon),
when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple. "

In other words, John has changed a historical datum in order to
make a theological point: Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. And to convey
this theological point, John has had to create a discrepancy between
his account and the others.”

You have already been given plausible reasons for the different language used in the different gospels and you choose to not believe any of those but to keep saying that there cannot be any plausible reasons.
That's fine, keep doing that, but your arguments have been answered if you ever want to change your mind.

 

[joelr]

I don't see a 3rd story, I see all the gospels having Jesus die on the Friday.

Which goes against one Gospel

Ehrman is a PhD in NT history and has gone from believer to materialist over the years.
He has his speculations and interpretations about things.
It is easy to see a discrepency between the gospel of John and the synoptics because of the language used in each but the stories are the same imo.

No Jesus dies on a different day, different time in Mark and John.

You have already been given plausible reasons for the different language used in the different gospels and you choose to not believe any of those but to keep saying that there cannot be any plausible reasons.
That's fine, keep doing that, but your arguments have been answered if you ever want to change your mind.

They were in Israel in the capital. They all did the same ceremony. The day and time are given , they are different. It's one ceremony, not 2 different groups doing things at different times. The story is about the SAME EVENT?!?!?!

 

[Brian2]

Which goes against one Gospel

No Jesus dies on a different day, different time in Mark and John.



They were in Israel in the capital. They all did the same ceremony. The day and time are given , they are different. It's one ceremony, not 2 different groups doing things at different times. The story is about the SAME EVENT?!?!?!

You seem to think that it was OK in Jerusalem for people to be crucified and left hanging on the cross on Passover sabbath and that would not start some sort of riot against the Romans.
Even the Talmud has Jesus hanged on the eve of Passover.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem to think that it was OK in Jerusalem for people to be crucified and left hanging on the cross on Passover sabbath and that would not start some sort of riot against the Romans.
Even the Talmud has Jesus hanged on the eve of Passover.

That was part of the punishment. The Romans did not give a rip about the religions of the people that they subjugated. Seeing a body on cross got the message across in a very powerful way. Having it up over a holiday gets the message across in an even more powerful way. Why would they take him down?

 

[Brian2]

That was part of the punishment. The Romans did not give a rip about the religions of the people that they subjugated. Seeing a body on cross got the message across in a very powerful way. Having it up over a holiday gets the message across in an even more powerful way. Why would they take him down?

Some Roman Governors were cruel and viscious, and I guess that was part of the job, but they all wanted peace in their areas of concern and the Jews had a bad name for being trouble makers, particularly when it came to their religions.
It was the practice to take bodies down from the crosses on the sabbaths and I see no reason it would be different in this case.
There really was no message to get across, it was an individual fault, not the fault of the whole community.
The Jewish leaders also would not want riots and killing of Jews by the Romans.
That seems to be part of the reason they got Jesus killed, so that the crowds in Jerusalem for the Passover would not claim Jesus as the Messiah and start attacking the Romans, because they saw the Messiah as a political ruler who would free them from oppression, ie the Roman rule.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some Roman Governors were cruel and viscious, and I guess that was part of the job, but they all wanted peace in their areas of concern and the Jews had a bad name for being trouble makers, particularly when it came to their religions.
It was the practice to take bodies down from the crosses on the sabbaths and I see no reason it would be different in this case.
There really was no message to get across, it was an individual fault, not the fault of the whole community.
The Jewish leaders also would not want riots and killing of Jews by the Romans.
That seems to be part of the reason they got Jesus killed, so that the crowds in Jerusalem for the Passover would not claim Jesus as the Messiah and start attacking the Romans, because they saw the Messiah as a political ruler who would free them from oppression, ie the Roman rule.

Which would be why the body would have been left up.

 

[1213]

In other words, John has changed a historical datum in order to
make a theological point: Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. And to convey
this theological point, John has had to create a discrepancy between
his account and the others.”

Sorry, I don't think John changes that. Jesus died 14th day, similarly as the Passover lamb. However, I don't think the meaning is that Jesus is actually a sacrificial lamb. Jesus was not killed for to make forgiveness possible. It was possible to forgive without death. But, because Jesus declared sins forgiven and was killed at least partially because he did so, he can be seen as a sacrificial lamb.