(September 17, 2012 at 1:21 am)apophenia Wrote:(September 16, 2012 at 11:14 am)Polaris Wrote: The definition of secular.
:of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
:not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred)
That's fascinating. It still doesn't explain how you know which came first 70,000 years ago, and as noted, your own source claims that you can't have one without the other. Maybe you should pick sources that don't undermine your main points.
(September 16, 2012 at 11:14 am)Polaris Wrote: There was no secular because their world to them between what you label secular and religious was one and the same.
And we know this because religion was the beginning of their society [bare assertion] and because like paleontologists, archeologists have ample evidence to back up their published findings...
Evidence such as what? The only actual evidence you've presented is a 70,000 year old carving of a snake, and unlike the serpent in the garden of Eden, it can't talk in order to tell us, "No, no, there was no separation between the religious and the secular when I was carved; trust me."
So I'll ask you again. How do you know this fact about the relationship between the sacred and the secular 70,000 years ago, because it isn't in either of your citations. Quote me one working archeologist or paleontologist who claims that there was no secular aspect to the social life of hominids 70,000 years ago, or that morality appeared in the religious life of hominids before there appeared secular morality. (And it just occurred to me that there were three separate hominid species between then and now, and a secular morality could have arisen first in any of the three and been spread to the others. That's going to be quite a challenge for you, er, I mean your archeologists, seeing as we only have a few bone fragments of Denisova. Yet we know these species intersected as the genome of homo sapiens sapiens includes Denisova and Neanderthal DNA, which indicates interbreeding. Good luck with that one.)
(And besides, who would trust a talking snake, anyway? I mean, sheesh!)
That was evidence I just found by a five-minute search and was half the evidence I posted. You know that secular implies that there is a separation between itself and religion, right?
It started with the Neanderthals as I probably already stated especially since the other two were not around at the time the Neanderthals were developing their worship. The Denisova DNA strand is only expressed in a small number of people (ethnic Oceanians) and was a rather late addition, around the time of the Cro-Magnon.
But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, His Son, purifies us from all sin.