In the beginning, there was ...

Talk about anything under the sun or stars - but keep it civil. This is where we really get to know each other. Everyone is welcome, and invited!

This question: What's more likely?

God created Man in His own image
16
53%
Man created God in his own image
9
30%
fractals
5
17%
 
Total votes: 30

suminonA
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:19 am
Location: Anywhere

Postby suminonA » Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:25 pm

The point that I understood for Babel is that the people were trying to demonstrate independance from God by building a great tower. However, this is not something God wanted, because humans are not independant of Him, so He made it impossible for them to complete this project.
Well, mysterious are God’s ways…
To me it sounds like a very egoist individuality that doesn’t accept having His children accomplish great projects if it isn’t for His glory …
And a comment on the word "heaven" or "heavens": In the Tanach, they generally, if not always, refer to the sky.
I always parse the term “heaven” in religious context as “the house of God”. It made kind of sense in the metaphor of Babel. Still, I might be wrong.
If it is simply “sky” then the Babel Tower might be 10 feet high and the story would still be “true” … You managed to take away all grandeur from that episode for me.
I have a thought on your earlier question, but it'll have to wait until after my class.
I have lots and lots of patience. :)

The next question (the third) about the story of Babel: Do you consider it more plausible that the languages of Man have appeared suddenly at the command of God, rather than evolving in time in different human societies?

A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:28 pm

The point that I understood for Babel is that the people were trying to demonstrate independance from God by building a great tower. However, this is not something God wanted, because humans are not independant of Him, so He made it impossible for them to complete this project.
Well, mysterious are God’s ways…
To me it sounds like a very egoist individuality that doesn’t accept having His children accomplish great projects if it isn’t for His glory …
I think the issue here is more that they were trying to prove they did not need God. And that is a far bigger issue, because the whole of humanity needs Him. I would suggest, actually, that every act that is done in arrogance is done to prove God is not necessary and when one knows that God exists, it is spitting in His face. So it is not because God needs His ego, but because humans were trying to make permanent the rift between God and man.
And a comment on the word "heaven" or "heavens": In the Tanach, they generally, if not always, refer to the sky.
I always parse the term “heaven” in religious context as “the house of God”. It made kind of sense in the metaphor of Babel. Still, I might be wrong.
If it is simply “sky” then the Babel Tower might be 10 feet high and the story would still be “true” … You managed to take away all grandeur from that episode for me.
Okay, I probably did not make this as clear as I intended. It is not only futile, but silly to look at this reference to the heavens/sky/house of God in an empiracle context. The people for whom this story was written are not concerned with the physical aspects of such a tower or the possibility of completing it or what would techincally qualify as completion. What mattered to them is that the people of Babel were trying to build a tower to demonstrate their selfish pride. There is the beginning and the end of the important facts surrounding Babel and what happened there.
I have a thought on your earlier question, but it'll have to wait until after my class.
I have lots and lots of patience. :)

The next question (the third) about the story of Babel: Do you consider it more plausible that the languages of Man have appeared suddenly at the command of God, rather than evolving in time in different human societies?
I would be apt to say that God caused people to speak different languages and that those languages have evolved. The main point of the story, however, is to emphasise what I said earlier. In that way it does not matter whether the facts of the story happened that way or not. That said, if this story is indeed perfectly factual (and I fully believe that it very well could be and I'll admit a certain fondness if it did), I believe it entirely compatible with language evolution. After all, all God'd have to do is create different languages in people and then let the languages evolve from there. Language evolution is impossible to deny. Just look at Old English (no, not like Shakespeare), Middle English, and Modern English. But this doesn't mean that God did not cause someone or a tribe to speak the Indo-European language from which English and many others comes from.

And now for my belated reply on why just one language and one people. One thing that God did at creation is include us in the creation process by giving us roles that were traditionally reserved for the gods. An example of this is naming the animals, and also creating more humans. I believe that coming to one people with His word was another example of this. Israel is like Adam, a new creation by God. Then the people of Israel are sent Jesus, who instructs us to re-create others, calling them to follow Him. And in this, the Jews are led to call the Gentiles as well. This was a radical thing at the time. But because the Jews were given the Tanach, it was the responsibility of the new Christians to spread it and the teachings of Christ to the Gentiles. God left it to them to find a way of doing that. And this continues as the Bible was in an older langauge it must be translated into the newer languages so that it may be spread to people of today. So, God gave the Tanach and the New Testament to a single people and in one language each so that those people may have the role and privalege of sharing the good news of Christ, instead of God doing everything for us. I believe that this is part of being made in the image of God, that we do things that God does.

I hope that helped. Let me know if anything didn't make sense or follow.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:38 am

*zaps rei with a lightning bolt* wait... I don't control lightning? Damn.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

suminonA
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:19 am
Location: Anywhere

Postby suminonA » Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:39 am

I think the issue here is more that they were trying to prove they did not need God. And that is a far bigger issue, because the whole of humanity needs Him. I would suggest, actually, that every act that is done in arrogance is done to prove God is not necessary and when one knows that God exists, it is spitting in His face. So it is not because God needs His ego, but because humans were trying to make permanent the rift between God and man.
(emphasis added)
Who says the part that I bolded? How do you explain that “need” (to a non believer such as myself)?

The part that I underlined, well, that’s a tricky one. I can accept the possibility that the people involved in the “Babel Project” knew God existed (meaning that they had some sufficient proof). So in their case, the “interpretation” (i.e. they “spat in His face”) could be valid. Yet I see no way to extrapolate that to “all that is done in arrogance” by Man. I can name at least one person (myself) that doesn’t know that God exists. For me it is just a character in an ancient story. Am I arrogant? What if I want to build an “Anywhere Tower” to prove my capacities? I don’t do it to “spit in the face of God” because I have no sufficient reason to believe there is a God to offend. Or is that attitude my “fault/sin”? I’ve asked (into the “ether”) many times for “sufficient proof” yet every day I discover more evidence of the inconsistency of the “God story” (and that inconsistency is my sufficient proof to disbelieve the existence).

What mattered to them is that the people of Babel were trying to build a tower to demonstrate their selfish pride. There is the beginning and the end of the important facts surrounding Babel and what happened there.
Do we still agree that people should be judged on what they know? Would you call my confidence in my capabilities (as limited as they are) a “selfish pride”?

Plus, if the “important facts” are what you propose, then what’s the point in talking about the alteration of the languages of Man of Babel?
There is one thing to say: “there is a group of 1000 people building a tower. Yesterday they were cooperating because they were talking the same language. Today they can’t cooperate anymore because they speak different languages (as a result of divine intervention)”,

and there is another thing to say:
all God'd have to do is create different languages in people and then let the languages evolve from there.
Do you see the difference?

And now for my belated reply on why just one language and one people. One thing that God did at creation is include us in the creation process by giving us roles that were traditionally reserved for the gods. An example of this is naming the animals, and also creating more humans. I believe that coming to one people with His word was another example of this. Israel is like Adam, a new creation by God. Then the people of Israel are sent Jesus, who instructs us to re-create others, calling them to follow Him. And in this, the Jews are led to call the Gentiles as well. This was a radical thing at the time. But because the Jews were given the Tanach, it was the responsibility of the new Christians to spread it and the teachings of Christ to the Gentiles. God left it to them to find a way of doing that. And this continues as the Bible was in an older langauge it must be translated into the newer languages so that it may be spread to people of today. So, God gave the Tanach and the New Testament to a single people and in one language each so that those people may have the role and privalege of sharing the good news of Christ, instead of God doing everything for us. I believe that this is part of being made in the image of God, that we do things that God does.
That is an interpretation that I didn’t know before. Thank you. :)

To be honest though, for me, all it does is to “justify” a self-proclaimed “chosen people” (Israel) to “spread the truth”. Until I find sufficient proof of that “truth”, it is just another chapter in the “God story”. :(

On one hand, God is good and loves everybody just the same. On the other hand, He chooses a people to spread the truth to all the others, to allow that people to do “the things God does”. What about the others? Isn’t it “bad” for the “chosen people” to have a "very solid" reason to feel superior to the others? Isn't pride what this is all about?

I personally find it very difficult to accept that the things that I don’t understand about God (the incoherence of that story I mean) are due to my limited capabilities and not to the imperfections in a human creation … I just wanted to say this before anyone drops the "we can't understand the reasons of God" line.

A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.

suminonA
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:19 am
Location: Anywhere

Postby suminonA » Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:07 am

One more question for those that support the “God created Man” side of this poll: How many people did God create directly (by hand), as opposed to “by usual birth process”? I’ve heard somewhere that Adam didn’t have a belly button. Is that true?

A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.

User avatar
wizzard
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:10 pm
Title: if ever a wizz there was?
First Joined: 25 Jan 2003
Location: Chapel Hill

Postby wizzard » Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:46 am

One more question for those that support the “God created Man” side of this poll: How many people did God create directly (by hand), as opposed to “by usual birth process”? I’ve heard somewhere that Adam didn’t have a belly button. Is that true?

A.
Adam not having a bellly-button is just a logical conclusion from the fact that he was never in a womb, and would have no reason to have one. The Bible never makes any claims either way.

Not being a follower of the literal interpretation of the creation story, it doesn't really matter to me. As far as how many people God created directly, I'd say everyone, or no one. I believe God is constantly guiding everything, and if he stopped for one second, everything would fall apart. I don't think anyone was just created out of nothing, or out of dirt or anything.
Member since: January 25, 2003

"Morituri Nolumus Mori" -Rincewind

Don't feed the bezoar!

Eaquae Legit
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 5185
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
Title: Age quod agis
First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.

Postby Eaquae Legit » Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:16 pm

You can stick me in the guided evolution camp in response to that last question, Sunon. That is to say, the same history of human development that you likely believe in, with God as the one who guided it along.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:17 pm

So God directly created Charles Manson? God, since he knows everything, knew that the person he was creating would be a sick, twisted, murderer. God knowingly created a serial killer.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)

Postby eriador » Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:58 pm

Guided evolution is completely redundant! The theory of evolution is so cool, precisely because it eliminates any need for a divine being guiding it along.

Eaquae Legit
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 5185
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
Title: Age quod agis
First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.

Postby Eaquae Legit » Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:09 pm

It's also incomplete in parts. While it is by far and away the most complete model out there, it doesn't explain everything.

And it doesn't explain the origin of the universe as a whole. That wasn't what Sunon was asking, so I left it out, but really it's part of the same thing.

Anyway, what you are saying is that one can either be an athiest who believes in Evolution[TM], or a Christian who believes in Young Earth Creationism. (Insert other religion and un-scientific creation story as you please.) At least, it seems as if that's what you're saying.

Sorry, the world, the people in it, the theories we establish, and the existential questions we have are much more complex than that.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII

eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)

Postby eriador » Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:25 pm

I believe that it is possible for someone to believe that the universe was created by a God, who built the framework for evolution to occur, but I think that if that person were to believe that the God then helped "guide" evolution every step of the way they would not be able to claim that they believed in evolution. Yes, there are some holes in evolution, but I think that the idea of God "guiding" evolution refutes some of the principles of evolution.

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:25 pm

I lean toward the guided evolution position, as well.
I believe that it is possible for someone to believe that the universe was created by a God, who built the framework for evolution to occur, but I think that if that person were to believe that the God then helped "guide" evolution every step of the way they would not be able to claim that they believed in evolution. Yes, there are some holes in evolution, but I think that the idea of God "guiding" evolution refutes some of the principles of evolution.
What principles of evolution would a divine being who directs it be violating?

And yes, God created Charles Manson. I would be apt to say that God allows free will and that includes the will to do horrible things. A probably good book on why God would allow bad things to happen is The Problem of Pain, by C. S. Lewis.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

Eaquae Legit
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 5185
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
Title: Age quod agis
First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.

Postby Eaquae Legit » Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:46 pm

What someone like myself believes in is the mechanism of evolution. That complex organisms, particularly the specific forms we see today, came about by the process of gradual genetic change in response to environmental stimuli. I believe that the theory of evolution describes with great accuracy the process and the history of life.

What I do not believe in is the ideology. As a scientific method, the theory of evolution is used to explain what happened and what physical causes effected what. It does not pretend to pass a value judgment on God. The activity of God or the non-activity is not part of the model, nor should it be. It doesn't violate any "principles of evolution" to believe that God had a hand.

Evolution is a how, and in the realm of science. Testable. The activity of God is a why (regardless of your opinion on the subject), and is not in the realm of science. It is untestable.

One can affirm the "Science Question" and the "God Question," because they are two different questions. Saying you cannot give a "yes" to the God Question is as much a confusion of the two realms as Young Earth Creationism.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII

eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)

Postby eriador » Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:28 pm

One of the principles of evolution is that the change doesn't need (or have) any outside influences. I just don't see why God would need to help with evolution every step of the way, which is how I understand "guided evolution" works.

Eaquae Legit
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 5185
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
Title: Age quod agis
First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.

Postby Eaquae Legit » Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:42 pm

One of the principles of evolution is that the change doesn't need (or have) any outside influences.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Because evolutionary changes happen in response to environmental stumuli. Which is an outside influence.

If you mean by "principles" that evolution by definition excludes divine influence, you're still confusing my two questions. You're confusing the ideology of evolution with the theoretical model.

No wonder so many Christians reject evolution - they keep hearing that all their beliefs are nullified by it. That isn't the truth of the theory, but when you keep getting told it is, it's not a wonder you reject it.
I just don't see why God would need to help with evolution every step of the way, which is how I understand "guided evolution" works.
Perhaps you understand wrongly, then.

I'm sure some people believe that. Certainly not all of them. In my experience, they'd be the minority. It's confusing the two questions I mentioned before.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:44 pm

I think the issue here is more that they were trying to prove they did not need God. And that is a far bigger issue, because the whole of humanity needs Him. I would suggest, actually, that every act that is done in arrogance is done to prove God is not necessary and when one knows that God exists, it is spitting in His face. So it is not because God needs His ego, but because humans were trying to make permanent the rift between God and man.
(emphasis added)
Who says the part that I bolded? How do you explain that “need” (to a non believer such as myself)?
My reasons for the whole of humanity needing God go back to the need for redemption and the Goodness of God (I can’t remember if I discussed that in this thread or another). To a non-believer, the best I can offer to you is this framework in which it is true.
The part that I underlined, well, that’s a tricky one. I can accept the possibility that the people involved in the “Babel Project” knew God existed (meaning that they had some sufficient proof). So in their case, the “interpretation” (i.e. they “spat in His face”) could be valid. Yet I see no way to extrapolate that to “all that is done in arrogance” by Man. I can name at least one person (myself) that doesn’t know that God exists. For me it is just a character in an ancient story. Am I arrogant? What if I want to build an “Anywhere Tower” to prove my capacities? I don’t do it to “spit in the face of God” because I have no sufficient reason to believe there is a God to offend. Or is that attitude my “fault/sin”? I’ve asked (into the “ether”) many times for “sufficient proof” yet every day I discover more evidence of the inconsistency of the “God story” (and that inconsistency is my sufficient proof to disbelieve the existence).
Okay, let me try re-wording this as I didn’t quite say things the way I intended.

“I would suggest, actually, that every act that is done in arrogance is done to prove God is not necessary and when one knows that God exists, it is spitting in His face.”

What might be better to say is that every act that is done in arrogance is done to prove that someone is either wrong or not necessary, the act is prideful. And pride sets yourself up as the highest authority in something, which by definition puts yourself higher than God. In that way, when one knows that God exists, it is spitting in His face.

As for your further examples, they are largely irrelevant to the story. There is no direction that “thou shalt not devise tall towers for God shall surely divide thy language.” If you do not do something out of arrogance, then this story is not applicable.
Do we still agree that people should be judged on what they know? Would you call my confidence in my capabilities (as limited as they are) a “selfish pride”?
I still agree that people should be judged on what they know. And I think that I am unable to tell you when your confidence becomes pride.
Plus, if the “important facts” are what you propose, then what’s the point in talking about the alteration of the languages of Man of Babel?
There is one thing to say: “there is a group of 1000 people building a tower. Yesterday they were cooperating because they were talking the same language. Today they can’t cooperate anymore because they speak different languages (as a result of divine intervention)”,

and there is another thing to say:
all God'd have to do is create different languages in people and then let the languages evolve from there.
Do you see the difference?
The two points you describe here really are not comparable as they deal with entirely different topics and do not assist or disagree with each other.

The reason for dividing languages this way, from what I can see, was to divide the people so they could not complete this project and hold it as an idol of their greatness. That would be a reason why the ending is included in the story. Another reason being, obviously, that perhaps it did happen this way and the author felt it important to note the fact.

The point to which you compared the first deals rather with how we have different languages today. It is a comment on the development of language and not on the historical accuracy of the story by our logic. (And really, I think that even if God didn’t divide the language at Babel, we would have many different languages today because of people living in their smaller communities, forming accents, then dialects, then languages.)
To be honest though, for me, all it does is to “justify” a self-proclaimed “chosen people” (Israel) to “spread the truth”. Until I find sufficient proof of that “truth”, it is just another chapter in the “God story”. :(

On one hand, God is good and loves everybody just the same. On the other hand, He chooses a people to spread the truth to all the others, to allow that people to do “the things God does”. What about the others? Isn’t it “bad” for the “chosen people” to have a "very solid" reason to feel superior to the others? Isn't pride what this is all about?

I personally find it very difficult to accept that the things that I don’t understand about God (the incoherence of that story I mean) are due to my limited capabilities and not to the imperfections in a human creation … I just wanted to say this before anyone drops the "we can't understand the reasons of God" line.
I think I’ll answer this slightly out of order. First, the bit about having a reason to be proud. I do not think that pride is about having a reason to feel superior. That is something that nobody can control at all. Someone who is naturally very good at mechanics or art can not help being superior in their respective fields to someone who is naturally poor at working with machines or art. It is not possible, nor should they be blamed for it. So, that can not be pride. Pride, I would say, is taking delight in being superior or emphasising superiority inordinately. Looking down on others, the poor souls, who have not been granted the Word of God is also prideful. Pride is not an ability, but, rather, a mindset. So it is true that God gives the opportunity to be proud, but that does not justify being proud. God is certainly good and He does love everybody just the same, but this does not mean He teaches them all the same. Some people He teaches Himself, and to others He sends those whom He has taught.

On your ability to understand everything in the Bible, I wouldn’t worry too much. I know a nun who is always saying, if you ever get it all figured out she’ll build your shrine herself. It took her mother some sixty years to “get” the Lord’s Prayer, so if you do not understand something, you are definitely not alone. Even people who have been actively studying and practicing Christians their entire lives do not fully understand some of the most common stories.

And now, your search for proof. I suppose the best thing I could do is direct you to Mere Christianity, by C. S. Lewis, as it deals with that very topic.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

suminonA
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:19 am
Location: Anywhere

Postby suminonA » Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:22 am

Rei, I really appreciate your thorough replies. Thank you. I’d say my patience pays off here :)
“I would suggest, actually, that every act that is done in arrogance is done to prove God is not necessary and when one knows that God exists, it is spitting in His face.”

What might be better to say is that every act that is done in arrogance is done to prove that someone is either wrong or not necessary, the act is prideful. And pride sets yourself up as the highest authority in something, which by definition puts yourself higher than God. In that way, when one knows that God exists, it is spitting in His face.

As for your further examples, they are largely irrelevant to the story. There is no direction that “thou shalt not devise tall towers for God shall surely divide thy language.” If you do not do something out of arrogance, then this story is not applicable.
Ok, I see your point. It seems that I over-generalized the applicability of the “metaphor” of “tower building”. My bad.

The reason for dividing languages this way, from what I can see, was to divide the people so they could not complete this project and hold it as an idol of their greatness. That would be a reason why the ending is included in the story. Another reason being, obviously, that perhaps it did happen this way and the author felt it important to note the fact.

The point to which you compared the first deals rather with how we have different languages today. It is a comment on the development of language and not on the historical accuracy of the story by our logic. (And really, I think that even if God didn’t divide the language at Babel, we would have many different languages today because of people living in their smaller communities, forming accents, then dialects, then languages.)
Well, I was told by a religious teacher that the Babel incident was the explanation of the variety of languages in the World. I understand that you don’t claim the same thing. So we agree on this point. (I won’t question the truth value of the “Babel incident” as it is a story comparable with many “registered” divine interventions/miracles).
I think I’ll answer this slightly out of order. First, the bit about having a reason to be proud. I do not think that pride is about having a reason to feel superior. That is something that nobody can control at all. Someone who is naturally very good at mechanics or art can not help being superior in their respective fields to someone who is naturally poor at working with machines or art. It is not possible, nor should they be blamed for it. So, that can not be pride. Pride, I would say, is taking delight in being superior or emphasising superiority inordinately. Looking down on others, the poor souls, who have not been granted the Word of God is also prideful. Pride is not an ability, but, rather, a mindset. So it is true that God gives the opportunity to be proud, but that does not justify being proud. God is certainly good and He does love everybody just the same, but this does not mean He teaches them all the same. Some people He teaches Himself, and to others He sends those whom He has taught.

On your ability to understand everything in the Bible, I wouldn’t worry too much. I know a nun who is always saying, if you ever get it all figured out she’ll build your shrine herself. It took her mother some sixty years to “get” the Lord’s Prayer, so if you do not understand something, you are definitely not alone. Even people who have been actively studying and practicing Christians their entire lives do not fully understand some of the most common stories.

And now, your search for proof. I suppose the best thing I could do is direct you to Mere Christianity, by C. S. Lewis, as it deals with that very topic.
I must say I like the way you are thinking about the “pride” issue. I’ll look for the book(s) you proposed in your recent posts. :)

---

As for the “guided evolution” thing: I agree with Eaquae Legit: Science is trying to answer the “how” question, while religion is concerned with the “why”. I have no problem as long as the two “fields/realms” don’t draw conclusions that concern the other. Science cannot prove that there is (or not) a God, Religion says that we are here because God put us here. So no conflict there.

Yet my latest question about the “creation of Man” comes from the Bible, namely Genesis. Had Adam had a belly button or not? Genesis suggest he didn’t have one (i.e. he, just like Eve, didn’t have a mother). Evolution would certainly conclude that all human beings (including a hypothetical Adam) comes with a belly button. Here we have a conflict, don’t we?

So I rephrase the question (note that this is NOT the question that started this thread): In the face of the Theory of Evolution and the Book of Genesis, what do you think/accept: did God create Man separated form “monkey”*, or did Man evolve from the “monkey”?
As you can see this is a question about HOW did homo sapiens appear.

*I use the term “monkey” because I’m not suggesting that a present day monkey/ape would/could “evolve” into a homo sapiens. As I understand evolution, we (the species) happen to have a common ancestor even “less evolved” than the monkeys.

A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.

KennEnder
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 764
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:21 pm
Title: Secret Agent Man
First Joined: 0- 0-2000
Location: USA

Postby KennEnder » Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:34 am

Well, such is a debate that will certainly not be solved here... there will always be proponents of both arguments, as well as those (like me) who are willing to mix them. I'm a scientist, but I have come to terms with "the creation story" as an alagorical story about His role in creating Man, and not necessarily the means he used to do it. Here's why:

There are actually TWO creation stories in the Bible, both in the first (and therefore oldest and most controvercial) book: Genesis. Two stories? Yes. The first one is in Genesis 1:26-28, which gives an account of making man in His image but makes no mention of coming down to earth. The second, in Genesis 2:7, is where He comes down to earth and forms man from the dust and breathes life into his nostrils. Two very different stories. Why two? From what I understand, there were two stories floating around when they assembled the various writings, and they and they couldn't decide which was true, so they included both.

To me, that is enough to conclude that the stories are just that: stories. They explain to a people without the capacity to understand DNA, physiology, evolution, astrophysics, etc, that He did have a hand in their development... but not exactly HOW it was done. The Hebrews didn't know the Earth was round, they didn't know that water evaporated to form clouds, and they didn't know exactly what caused a woman to become pregnant; that all came later. So the story He told them had to be adapted for their level of understanding.

So what part do I feel He had in the development of man? A lot of what I now believe comes from a book called "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. Not all of it, and not directly, but it did provoke me to think about some of the issues... and my conclusions are not his (he became athiest, I believe). Anyway, it is no secret that "Adam" simply means "man" ... and when Adam had children, they were immediately able to find wives in the nearest town! What town could that be, if these were the FIRST people?

So "Adam" is simply the first individual to "KNOW" his place in the world, which was the gift of the Lord... and, therefore, there is no being without a bellybutton, sorry. In fact, in the creation stories, "Adam" and "Eve" lived peacefully among the animals in the garden completely naked ... sounds like something akin to "monkeys" to me. It was only after they became AWARE that they started to develop clothes to protect themselves from the cold, etc.

Anyway, my brain hurts now and I fear the attacks I'll get even as it is. Remember, I'm not trying to say this is an OFFICIAL interpretation... it is mine (and as far as I know, ONLY mine). I'm okay with that.
Share this dragon - If you do - Lucky end - For them and you! Petra

AnthonyByakko
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 663
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am

Postby AnthonyByakko » Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:39 am

It's the only one that makes any sense to me, Kenn.

suminonA
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:19 am
Location: Anywhere

Postby suminonA » Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:30 am

[…]
Anyway, my brain hurts now and I fear the attacks I'll get even as it is. Remember, I'm not trying to say this is an OFFICIAL interpretation... it is mine (and as far as I know, ONLY mine). I'm okay with that.
Thank you for taking the time to write down your views here. As an atheist (a person that knows no god) I appreciate the consistency (and rationality) of your position. So no “attacks” from me this time. :D

A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.

suminonA
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:19 am
Location: Anywhere

Postby suminonA » Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:44 am

One more open question, for those with knowledge of the Bible:
Are there dinosaurs mentioned in the Book of Genesis?

A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.

User avatar
lyons24000
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:46 pm
Title: Darn Red Shells!
Location: Texas
Contact:

Postby lyons24000 » Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:08 am

Not specifically, but in the book of Job the creatures "Behemoth" (which many believe is a Brontosaurus) and "Leviathan" (which many believe is a tyrannasaurus Rex). The creatures are mentioned along with:

"When Leviathan rises, the mighty are terrified; they withdraw because of his thrashing."-Job 41:25

"Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you. He eats grass like an ox."-Job 40:15
Those are the only two times that people think dinosaurs are mentioned. And the basic thought (among Genesis literalist) is that the dinosaurs died out in the flood of Noah's day.

Another thought that is gaining wider acceptance about Behemoth and Leviathan is that they are the hippopotamus and crocodile respectivally. I accept the latter theory of the croc and hippo.
"This must be the end, then."-MorningLightMountain, Judas Unchained

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:56 am

I can't even begin to get into all of the reasons-ethical, scriptual, historic, and otherwise- that the theory that they died out inot the flood is stupid. I can get into the details if you want, but it should be a no-brainer.

As to the second explanation, weren' the leviathan and behomoth much bigger?
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

Eaquae Legit
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 5185
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
Title: Age quod agis
First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.

Postby Eaquae Legit » Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:50 am

Kenn, it makes sense to me, and it's something I've heard floating around a lot. You aren't alone. :)
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:54 pm

One more open question, for those with knowledge of the Bible:
Are there dinosaurs mentioned in the Book of Genesis?

A.
I sort of figure dinosaurs are included with all of the other animals created in Genesis.

And when it comes to the leviathan, I really think it's way more fun to think the story is talking about a dragon. I mean, really. Crocodile or dragon? The dragon gets major cool points.

I don't remember about the behemoth for size, but the leviathan is supposed to be a huge, water-going, fire-breathing lizard of sorts.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:57 pm

I imagine it to be more like the kraken myself. And the behomoth was about as big and scary as the kraken.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:59 pm

I can go with that. Although I will not let go of the fire-breathing bits, and a fire-breathing kraken sounds good to me.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Wed Dec 13, 2006 6:55 pm

Can we name him Jeff?
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

Guest
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:25 am

Postby Guest » Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:38 pm

I think we should call him "Squishy"

suminonA
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:19 am
Location: Anywhere

Postby suminonA » Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:43 am

Can we name him Jeff?
I think we should call him "Squishy"
Well, if there was only one “Jeff/Squishy”, did he/her have a belly-button or not ? :D

A
It's all just a matter of interpretation.

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:38 pm

Squishy Jeff the Kraken and Destroyer of Worlds is a kraken. Krakens naturally don't have belly buttons, you silly goose.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:39 pm

Squishy Jeff the Kraken and Destroyer of Worlds is a kraken. Krakens naturally don't have belly buttons, you silly goose.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

suminonA
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:19 am
Location: Anywhere

Postby suminonA » Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:56 pm

[...] you silly goose.
Well, the question is, do geese have belly-buttons? I do, so I'm not one. :P

A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.

suminonA
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:19 am
Location: Anywhere

Postby suminonA » Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:47 am

Ok, one more question, for the road ;)

What is the "official position" of the "holy texts" concerning the life in the Universe? Are we (Earthlings) alone on this puny planet, in the middle of all the other galaxies, or are there more intelligent beings out there?

What about your personal stand?

A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.

User avatar
lyons24000
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:46 pm
Title: Darn Red Shells!
Location: Texas
Contact:

Postby lyons24000 » Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:13 am

Who knows the answer to your question. It's all hypothetical. The Bible starts out with:

"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth."-Genesis 1:1
Now, that doesn't really tell us anything, but when you go to verse two you find:

"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters."-Genesis 1:2
The fact that the Bible jumps from the creation of the universe to the creation of the earth allows a few possibilities to be taken into consideration.

1) Earth is the only planet that holds life
2) There is life on other planets but Earth was the first one God did anything with. After the creation of the Earth, God may have moved on to other planets.

The fact of the matter is The Bible doesn't say. I don't know about any other holy text so I am speaking only for the Bible.

Jehovah's Witnesses hold that there may be life on other planets but it is not for sure. The Bible doesn't say and so, while open for speculation, there is no other hard evidence. If we found out that there was life on other planets (Intelligent Life) it wouldn't shake our faith or really alter our beliefs in a big way.
Last edited by lyons24000 on Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"This must be the end, then."-MorningLightMountain, Judas Unchained


Return to “Milagre Town Square”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 55 guests