Does evolution have a purpose?

[Dropship]

Those who think, agree that the gospels are apocryphal. Those who do not; the faithful, true believers who base belief on emotion and tradition, believe the Bible authoritative.
Alas, you can lead a true believer to scholarship, but you can't make him think.

Most enlightened Christians nowadays think that Matt Mark Luke John either wrote the gospels themselves, or as they entered old age, dictated them to others to set them down on paper for posterity.
For examp Mohammed and Elvis did that and never wrote a word themselves as far as we know..

 

[ratiocinator]

Most enlightened Christians nowadays think that Matt Mark Luke John either wrote the gospels themselves, or as they entered old age, dictated them to others to set them down on paper for posterity.

Let me guess; those Christians who actually follow the evidence and scholarship aren't "enlightened Christians"....?

No true Scotsman.

 

[Dropship]

Does evolution have a purpose?
-If yes what is it?
-If no, why not?

As far as the human race is concerned, the purpose is to spiritually evolve during our lifetime, rather than just say "there's no God" and quit.-
Jesus said - "The work God requires is to believe in the one he has sent" (John 6:28 )

Then if we've spiritually evolved enough when we die, our souls are released from our squishy bodies and become purely spiritual life forms -
"So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable...it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.. flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 15:42-50)

Some sci-fi shows have touched on the theme like this alien who we saw transform at the end-

 

[Valjean]

Most enlightened Christians nowadays think that Matt Mark Luke John either wrote the gospels themselves, or as they entered old age, dictated them to others to set them down on paper for posterity.
For examp Mohammed and Elvis did that and never wrote a word themselves as far as we know..

What is an "enlightened Christian?" It sounds suspiciously oxymoronic....

 

[Valjean]

As far as the human race is concerned, the purpose is to spiritually evolve during our lifetime, rather than just say "there's no God" and quit.-

Who's quitting? Why does rejection of God preclude spirituality or spiritual growth?

 

[Dropship]

What is an "enlightened Christian?" It sounds suspiciously oxymoronic....

Anybody who's not afraid to think outside the box can be called "enlightened"..

 

[Dropship]

Who's quitting? Why does rejection of God preclude spirituality or spiritual growth?

But surely the spiritual growth of anybody who rejects the notion of a god is at a standstill?

 

[Valjean]

But surely the spiritual growth of anybody who rejects the notion of a god is at a standstill?

What?!
The Abrahamic idea of God as a lawgiver and judge is an unusual one. The Greek and Roman gods weren't like this. The Vedic deities aren't like this, and the Buddhists often ignore the whole concept of God.

Spiritual growth is a personal affair that has nothing to do with God. In fact, I'd say the reliance on coercive threats and rewards, or a a list of thou shalts and thou shalt nots is a moral crutch that impedes spiritual growth or the development of an internalized morality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I was passing a bunch of cows today. They were munching on grass. Humans eat cows. I cannot imagine it just happened by evolution that these grass grazing animals evolved differently from carnivores with sharp teeth and claws. But I know a lot of people don't agree with me on that.

Nature has a much bigger imagination then you do.


In any case, this is borderlining argument from ignorance and incredulity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So would you then say that evolution is not biologically socially conscious? Or... conscious at all?

Off course it isn't.

It's just an invetiable process that occurs when certain parameters are in place. Like "falling".

 

[Dropship]

The Abrahamic idea of God as a lawgiver and judge is an unusual one.
Spiritual growth is a personal affair that has nothing to do with God. In fact, I'd say the reliance on coercive threats and rewards..

You either like Jesus or you don't..
"You're my friends if you follow me. I don't call you servants, but I call you friends"- (John 15:15)

 

[ratiocinator]

You either like Jesus or you don't..

Never met the guy (born 2000 years too late, and in the wrong country). The bible character is a bit of a mixed bag.

"You're my friends if you follow me. I don't call you servants, but I call you friends"- (John 15:15)

What translation are you using? This doesn't appear to be John 15:15 in any of the versions on Bible Gateway.

Regardless, you still don't seem to have grasped the obvious and simple fact that your favourite 'holy book' is not going to cut any ice with people who don't share your faith.

 

[Astrophile]

Gospel-writers Matt Mark Luke and John had a ringside seat and when they wrote them nobody, NOT A SINGLE PERSON ever dare come forward to say "Baloney, it never happened", because they knew they'd just be making fools of themselves..

On the other hand, there isn't much documentary evidence to support the gospels. St. Paul wrote his epistles before the gospels were written, but he never mentions Jesus's miracles, except for the resurrection, or his parables. Josephus (90s CE), Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger (ca. 110-120 CE) wrote about the Christians, but they never mention any Christian literature.

People may well have said, "Baloney, it never happened", but hasn't it ever occurred to you that when Christians obtained power, they destroyed the works of sceptical authors. Specifically, during the late 2nd century and the 3rd century CE, Lucian of Samosata, Celsus (On the True Doctrine) and Porphyry (Against the Christians) wrote books attacking Christianity. Lucian, for example, called Jesus a 'crucified sophist'. The books of Celsus and Porphyry have vanished, and we know of their existence only from quotations by Christians attempting to refute them.

 

[YoursTrue]

One day I was looking at the periodic table -and realized it looked like a set of toy blocks.

I just got a copy of the periodic table. Of course, it's very interesting, but as you said -- so much goes into it. Despite their teeny, tiny size.

These extremely complex "element" blocks came into existence by being arranged from that which already existed...One difference between such a self and our own selves is that such a self would have increasing input into its own arrangement -and that of its environment (initially both simple and not separate).
We have zero input into our selves until we awaken into already-extremely-complex and -capable bodies -and assume there never was any sort of "input" to cause that specific output.

Naturally, a baby is a baby and does not think like an older person.
As Paul aptly wrote, "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me." 1 Corinthians 13:11

 

[YoursTrue]

On the other hand, there isn't much documentary evidence to support the gospels. St. Paul wrote his epistles before the gospels were written, but he never mentions Jesus's miracles, except for the resurrection, or his parables. Josephus (90s CE), Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger (ca. 110-120 CE) wrote about the Christians, but they never mention any Christian literature.

People may well have said, "Baloney, it never happened", but hasn't it ever occurred to you that when Christians obtained power, they destroyed the works of sceptical authors. Specifically, during the late 2nd century and the 3rd century CE, Lucian of Samosata, Celsus (On the True Doctrine) and Porphyry (Against the Christians) wrote books attacking Christianity. Lucian, for example, called Jesus a 'crucified sophist'. The books of Celsus and Porphyry have vanished, and we know of their existence only from quotations by Christians attempting to refute them.

Paul was writing to the Christians. Further, there was (1) persecution of the early followers of Christ so that really should support the fact that there was a person they were following and giving up their lives for, and (2) other writings supporting that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Those who think, agree that the gospels are apocryphal. Those who do not; the faithful, true believers who base belief on emotion and tradition, believe the Bible authoritative.

Alas, you can lead a true believer to scholarship, but you can't make him think.

Your comment reminds me of medical testing. If a person gets better from a particular medicine then that medicine 'worked' for them. If that same medication is giving to another, it may not work to get him better.

 

[Valjean]

Your comment reminds me of medical testing. If a person gets better from a particular medicine then that medicine 'worked' for them. If that same medication is giving to another, it may not work to get him better.

But religion isn't a treatment modality, it's an claim of ontological truth.

 

[YoursTrue]

But religion isn't a treatment modality, it's an claim of ontological truth.

I have a few questions regarding that. I was reading a book about Greek ancient culture today and see the authors bring out about their ancient gods and goddesses and how they base much of their history on these gods as related to them through that time. From the past, of course. So my question is: one might say the Bible is the same thing, but -- it's really not. Because even though Moses wrote about the past, he did not make it up. He learned about it from another person. How and why it was related to Moses is another subject, but -- the point is he knew this from somewhere. (Again, another subject.)
And the history dealt considerably with God's relationship with the nation of Israel, and in producing the Messiah to the nation and then the world. So now, the Bible has been translated in many, many languages, and is still a going book today. Because I don't like long posts, I'll stop there for now.

 

[Valjean]

I have a few questions regarding that. I was reading a book about Greek ancient culture today and see the authors bring out about their ancient gods and goddesses and how they base much of their history on these gods as related to them through that time. From the past, of course. So my question is: one might say the Bible is the same thing, but -- it's really not. Because even though Moses wrote about the past, he did not make it up. He learned about it from another person. How and why it was related to Moses is another subject, but -- the point is he knew this from somewhere. (Again, another subject.)
And the history dealt considerably with God's relationship with the nation of Israel, and in producing the Messiah to the nation and then the world. So now, the Bible has been translated in many, many languages, and is still a going book today. Because I don't like long posts, I'll stop there for now.

Do you really believe Moses wrote the Torah? Scholars don't. As a matter of fact, who or what Moses was is pretty much anyone's guess, as there are no sources for the stories outside of legend.

Moses learned about the past from other people's stories, like a game of Telephone? Would such stories be accurate, factual accounts? Would any orally transmitted stories be accurate after a thousand retellings? Family stories and stories of historical figures only a century old are often found to be inaccurate. Why would we expect completely legendary stories, from two or three thousand years ago, with zero supporting evidence, to be accurate?

 

[Valjean]

Your comment reminds me of medical testing. If a person gets better from a particular medicine then that medicine 'worked' for them. If that same medication is giving to another, it may not work to get him better.

Which is why medical testing relies on repeated, blinded studies of thousands of patients.
Science doesn't rely on gossip or rumor. It relies on testing.