Creation vs evolution

[jmt09]

No but the weather people are giving the weather 3 days or more in advance.

The analogy is, that Prophecies that were given a little over 2000 years ago, some Prophecies go back a little further than 2000 years ago, are now coming to be fulfilled and some are still to be fulfilled in the future from us yet.

What prophecies are you referring to? Can you state a couple?

I do agree with you concerning Christ's return. I'm uncomfortable with the language of it being 'verified' (for precisely the reason that it is a future event). To use words like 'verified' seem to be too strong.

 

[jmt09]

That's absolutely right, the whole bible in it's self does verify it's self.

For instance the Bible verifies by Prophecy that there shall come mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lust, These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lust, their mouths speaking great swelling words, But these speak evil of those things, which they have no knowledge about.

All this Prophecy that was given a little over 2000 years ago, is now coming to it's fulfillment.

Therefore you have bible Prophecy given verifying the bible to be true.

I am just seeing this post, but I responded to your second one...Disregard where I asked to provide examples. I see them here ...

Could it be that this prophecy came true shortly after Jesus' day too? Were there murmurers, complainers, etc. in Jesus' day? I probably hold more to N.T. Wright's view that many of the 'prophecies' that Jesus gave were predicting the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. It's not to say that Christ will not return ( I think he will). It's just to say that it would seem weird for Jesus to be telling his disciples about the "end times" when they would be long gone.

 

[jmt09]

Given that this forum is a 'creation vs. evolution' forum...I'm interested in what non-theists think about theistic evolution—

Credit where it is due though, even the concept of a beginning to the universe was dismissed as 'religious pseudoscience' by many atheists and called 'big bang' in mockery until not so very long ago.

Genesis also correctly depicts an Earth of one great ocean, then one ocean and one land mass, that life originated in the ocean and culminated with mankind.. lucky guesses?

I think I agree though- that it's not meant to be a technical manual, the details are for us to discover, what better way to appreciate any creation?

I guess I'm inclined to think about that as being incidental. The main thrust (as I see it) of Genesis 1 and 2 is to say that there is this being God that created the universe and is actively involved with it and cares for it. Indeed, the metaphor of the 'spirit hovering over the waters' invokes an image of a mother hen resting over her chicks. It's quite poetic and profound. Though I'm sure my non-theist friends may see it differently.

 

[jmt09]

Because nothing was wrong with being naked. That's a shame that god saddled them with. Too bad he couldn't have picked something less consequential, like eating boogers.


But it was god who infused nudity with shame.

Gen. 3:7
At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves.
​

After all, god could do anything he wanted, but for some odd reason he chose the shame of nudity. Go figure.


Depends on the sex; homosexual sex and adultery, yes indeed---I'm sure you know the verses by heart. And why would he imbue nudity with a sense of shame if he felt it was okey dokey? But to prove he did condemn nudity all one has to do is consult Leviticus.

Leviticus 18:6-23 (ESV)
“None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. ...
​

Seems like quite a bit of condemnation of nudity going on right there.

.

.

I think it's important to take these passages in their context. It won't do to simply quote these passages that are written and recorded for a particular group of people in a particular time. Also, it is important to note that the term 'naked' doesn't always denote 'absolutely no clothing' but rather refers to 'not wearing conventional garb'. Similar to how we might say to someone who is wearing a T-shirt and shorts during a blizzard as being 'naked.'

Furthermore, in Biblical theology, God's original intent and desire was Eden—where they were naked and without shame. This only changed because God now has to accommodate for a corrupted people. For instance, let's assume that lust is wrong...it would not be good for us to live on a nudist colony where many of us would have strong inclination to lust and be lusted after. It would lead to shame, comparison, abuse, etc.. This was not the case in Eden but it is the case currently. So, one might think that God instituted these rules for precisely these protective purposes. These laws were for the good of human relationships.

 

[Skwim]

I think it's important to take these passages in their context. It won't do to simply quote these passages that are written and recorded for a particular group of people in a particular time. Also, it is important to note that the term 'naked' doesn't always denote 'absolutely no clothing' but rather refers to 'not wearing conventional garb'. Similar to how we might say to someone who is wearing a T-shirt and shorts during a blizzard as being 'naked.'

Boy, I wish I had a dollar every time I heard this sorry apologetic---no insult intended. Maybe I should copy my answer to a notepad to save me from having to retype it. Anyway (short version):

The reason Bibles use the words they do is because they were chosen to best express the meaning in the original text. If the translators honestly thought the Hebrew עֶרְוָה in Leviticus 18:6 meant "not wearing conventional garb" why would they deceive the reader by using a word like "naked" which doesn't convey that meaning at all, but instead means "without clothing"? They wouldn't. They would say something along the lines of:

"None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to display their lack of conventional garb. I am the Lord."
​

But they didn't.

So, in as much as they didn't choose "lack of conventional garb," but chose to use "naked" it only makes sense that that's what they intended: "without clothing." Furthermore, if one buys the story that the Bible is god's inspired word, and as such best conveys his intended meaning, then every word used carries his approval of its common meaning rather than some equivocal definition the reader must guess at or puzzle out. I'm sure most Christians don't believe god likes to intentionally mislead is followers.

Furthermore, in Biblical theology, God's original intent and desire was Eden—where they were naked and without shame. This only changed because God now has to accommodate for a corrupted people.

But there was no "has to." God was under no obligation to do anything except what he wished. He could have simply given A&E a "slap on the wrist" rather than pass along their punishment to the millions of guiltless people that followed. An act that reeks of pure evil---of course god did admit that he creates evil, so I guess his action following the A&E incident should come as no surprise.

For instance, let's assume that lust is wrong...it would not be good for us to live on a nudist colony where many of us would have strong inclination to lust and be lusted after. It would lead to shame, comparison, abuse, etc.. This was not the case in Eden but it is the case currently.

And isn't it obvious why it's now the case?

.

 

[Faithofchristian]

What prophecies are you referring to? Can you state a couple?

I do agree with you concerning Christ's return. I'm uncomfortable with the language of it being 'verified' (for precisely the reason that it is a future event). To use words like 'verified' seem to be too strong.

Well there's the Prophecy how there shall come in the last days mockers of the scriptures.

And there's the Prophecy which Christ Jesus has given, how many shall come in his name to deceive many.
In Mark 13:6

And there's the Prophecy which Christ Jesus given, And you shall hear of wars and rumours of war. Mark 13:7

And there's the Prophecy which Christ Jesus given, For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.
Mark 13:8.

And there's the Prophecy which Christ Jesus given, that these are the beginnings of sorrows, Mark 13:8.

And there's the Prophecy which Christ Jesus given, How the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful"
Mark 4:19.
All These Peophecy's are taking place now, and people don't even realize it.

 

[Looncall]

Well there's the Prophecy how there shall come in the last days mockers of the scriptures.

And there's the Prophecy which Christ Jesus has given, how many shall come in his name to deceive many.
In Mark 13:6

And there's the Prophecy which Christ Jesus given, And you shall hear of wars and rumours of war. Mark 13:7

And there's the Prophecy which Christ Jesus given, For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.
Mark 13:8.

And there's the Prophecy which Christ Jesus given, that these are the beginnings of sorrows, Mark 13:8.

And there's the Prophecy which Christ Jesus given, How the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful"
Mark 4:19.
All These Peophecy's are taking place now, and people don't even realize it.

Seeing that the scriptures are just ancient folk tales and propaganda, any sensible person would expect these events to occur.

Not impressive ... at all!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well there's the Prophecy how there shall come in the last days mockers of the scriptures.

And there's the Prophecy which Christ Jesus has given, how many shall come in his name to deceive many.
In Mark 13:6

And there's the Prophecy which Christ Jesus given, And you shall hear of wars and rumours of war. Mark 13:7

And there's the Prophecy which Christ Jesus given, For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.
Mark 13:8.

And there's the Prophecy which Christ Jesus given, that these are the beginnings of sorrows, Mark 13:8.

And there's the Prophecy which Christ Jesus given, How the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful"
Mark 4:19.
All These Peophecy's are taking place now, and people don't even realize it.

But you have already demonstrated that all prophecy is worthless. Or did you forget how you did that already?

If prophecy does not meet certain requirements of being clear and having only one possible answer then prophecies are meaningless since every religion can claim that sort of prophecy. You have made Christian "prophecy" no more special than Muslim "prophecy". You have merely shown that you can reinterpret your book so that it only appears that prophecies have been fulfilled. The Muslims can do the same.

If every religion can make the same sort of claim about their prophecies as you make about yours you only degrade the concept. You have become your own religion's worst nightmare.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I am just seeing this post, but I responded to your second one...Disregard where I asked to provide examples. I see them here ...

Could it be that this prophecy came true shortly after Jesus' day too? Were there murmurers, complainers, etc. in Jesus' day? I probably hold more to N.T. Wright's view that many of the 'prophecies' that Jesus gave were predicting the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. It's not to say that Christ will not return ( I think he will). It's just to say that it would seem weird for Jesus to be telling his disciples about the "end times" when they would be long gone.

When Jesus and his disciples were leaving the temple, his disciples said to Jesus---
--"Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here.

And Jesus answering said to him, See you these great buildings, There shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down"

You know this Prophecy has not come to it's fulfillment Yet.
Notice Jesus did say ( there shall not be one stone left upon another)

Over in Israel, you have what the people of Israel calls the wailing wall, which is part of the temple buildings
Jesus did say, ( there shall not be one stone left upon another that not be thrown down)
Have you any idea when that wailing wall which is part of the temple buildings, will come down, bringing the fulfillment of the Prophecy which Jesus given.
In Matthew 24:1,2, Mark 13:1,2.

Note that Jesus did say ( not one stone) but yet there is the wailing wall, which is made of stones.which is still standing.

Therefore, have you any idea when that wall will come down bringing the fulfillment of the Prophecy which Jesus had given to it fulfillment ?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Seeing that the scriptures are just ancient folk tales and propaganda, any sensible person would expect these events to occur.

Not impressive ... at all!!

You call them, ancient folk tales, But yet those ancient folk tales as you call them, are showing You fulfilling those ancient folk tales, Now that is amazing.
Your just to funny, seeing how your fulfilling Prophecy. Now that is to funny.

 

[Woberts]

You call them, ancient folk tales, But yet those ancient folk tales as you call them, are showing You fulfilling those ancient folk tales, Now that is amazing.
Your just to funny, seeing how your fulfilling Prophecy. Now that is to funny.

I was not aware that I was fulfilling a prophecy. Would you care to explain?

 

[Faithofchristian]

I was not aware that I was fulfilling a prophecy. Would you care to explain?

Hey why should I explain, when you seem to know it all. Go Figure

 

[ChristineM]

Hey why should I explain, when you seem to know it all. Go Figure

You are making the claims, surely you don't believe people can read your mind?

 

[Faithofchristian]

You are making the claims, surely you don't believe people can read your mind?

Ok, so what exactly do you want to know, care to explain ?

 

[ChristineM]

Ok, so what exactly do you want to know, care to explain ?

Ok, so what exactly do you want to know, care to explain ?

Woberts asked the question

I was not aware that I was fulfilling a prophecy. Would you care to explain?

Your response was a rather childish, refusal, ad hominem and petty expletive all in one short sentence

Hey why should I explain, when you seem to know it all. Go Figure

If you are unwilling to honestly answer the question why should i or anyone else consider your foot stomping anything more than foot stomping

 

[Faithofchristian]

Woberts asked the question




Your response was a rather childish, refusal, ad hominem and petty expletive all in one short sentence




If you are unwilling to honestly answer the question why should i or anyone else consider your foot stomping anything more than foot stomping

Look I was ask the question and I answered it, If a person had read what I posted, then they would have seen what I said in my post.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well there's the Prophecy how there shall come in the last days mockers of the scriptures.

And there's the Prophecy which Christ Jesus has given, how many shall come in his name to deceive many.
In Mark 13:6

And there's the Prophecy which Christ Jesus given, And you shall hear of wars and rumours of war. Mark 13:7

And there's the Prophecy which Christ Jesus given, For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.
Mark 13:8.

And there's the Prophecy which Christ Jesus given, that these are the beginnings of sorrows, Mark 13:8.

And there's the Prophecy which Christ Jesus given, How the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful"
Mark 4:19.
All These Peophecy's are taking place now, and people don't even realize it.

Such things have always been going on.

 

[ChristineM]

Look I was ask the question and I answered it, If a person had read what I posted, then they would have seen what I said in my post.

So your answer was (and in quote)

Hey why should I explain, when you seem to know it all. Go Figure

Brilliant, Christianity must be so proud to have you as as mouthpiece.

 

[jmt09]

Gen. 3:1 calls the serpent (snake) the most subtle BEAST OF THE FIELD, who was later cursed to crawl on it's belly and eat dust Gen 3:14. So is satan a beast of the field who eats dust or a fallen angel/spirit that possesses people? Which is it? Where in the bible does it ever say Satan is a fallen angel?
Pasted below is the definition of the word serpent from dictionary.com:​

serpent

[sur-puh nt]

noun
1. a snake.
2. a wily, treacherous, or malicious person.
3. the Devil; Satan. Gen. 3:1–5.
4. a firework that burns with serpentine motion or flame.
5. an obsolete wooden wind instrument with a serpentine shape and a deep, coarse tone.
Compare ophicleide.
6. (initial capital letter) Astronomy. the constellation Serpens.

Are these typ

Boy, I wish I had a dollar every time I heard this sorry apologetic---no insult intended. Maybe I should copy my answer to a notepad to save me from having to retype it. Anyway (short version):

The reason Bibles use the words they do is because they were chosen to best express the meaning in the original text. If the translators honestly thought the Hebrew עֶרְוָה in Leviticus 18:6 meant "not wearing conventional garb" why would they deceive the reader by using a word like "naked" which doesn't convey that meaning at all, but instead means "without clothing"? They wouldn't. They would say something along the lines of:

"None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to display their lack of conventional garb. I am the Lord."
​

But they didn't.

So, in as much as they didn't choose "lack of conventional garb," but chose to use "naked" it only makes sense that that's what they intended: "without clothing." Furthermore, if one buys the story that the Bible is god's inspired word, and as such best conveys his intended meaning, then every word used carries his approval of its common meaning rather than some equivocal definition the reader must guess at or puzzle out. I'm sure most Christians don't believe god likes to intentionally mislead is followers.


But there was no "has to." God was under no obligation to do anything except what he wished. He could have simply given A&E a "slap on the wrist" rather than pass along their punishment to the millions of guiltless people that followed. An act that reeks of pure evil---of course god did admit that he creates evil, so I guess his action following the A&E incident should come as no surprise.


And isn't it obvious why it's now the case?

.

Why think that God is against nakedness when presumably he created us naked? If he was truly against us being naked, then why not create us with some covering? So, whatever the passage you reference means, it CAN'T mean that God is against nakedness given other considerations. This much seems obvious to me.

Further, I'm not sure how you imagine God 'passing along' the guilt. There are many ways to think about this other than the way you espouse. For instance, one way that guilt is 'passed along' is simply through very natural social dynamics. For instance, a father physically abuses his child. This naturally predisposes the child to act violently (it doesn't necessitate it, but makes it more likely than if the child were raised with proper care).

Or you might think of Adam as being the representative of humanity and his guilt has tainted human guilt. Christians believe that Jesus reversed this. Jesus is the 'second Adam' so-to-speak and his sacrifice transfers to those that believe (or everybody, depending on how you look at it).

The picture you seem to paint is that Adam sinned and God said, "Well, that's it! I'm going to punish everyone else now." I don't think that's an adequate (or charitable) way to look at what's happening.

 

[Skwim]

Why think that God is against nakedness when presumably he created us naked? If he was truly against us being naked, then why not create us with some covering? So, whatever the passage you reference means, it CAN'T mean that God is against nakedness given other considerations. This much seems obvious to me.

I never said god was against nakedness. I said the shame of nakedness is something he saddled A&E with.

Further, I'm not sure how you imagine God 'passing along' the guilt.

I didn't say he passed along the guilt. I said he passed along the punishment; the curse of original sin.

Or you might think of Adam as being the representative of humanity and his guilt has tainted human guilt.

What human guilt do you feel was tainted by Adam's guilt?

The picture you seem to paint is that Adam sinned and God said, "Well, that's it! I'm going to punish everyone else now." I don't think that's an adequate (or charitable) way to look at what's happening.

Well, whether you find it a charitable way to look at it or not it's how Christianity presents it: we all suffer from the fall of man, stemming from Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden.

.