(March 2, 2015 at 5:55 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(March 1, 2015 at 8:12 pm)Lek Wrote: How in the world did you come to that conclusion?

- No gay marriage
- Marriage is an institution reserved for the church
- Evolution is ok, but Adam&Eve were the first guys with souls and responsible for the initial fall.
- Most of the OT is alegorical/metaphorical, old rules for the peoples living at the time, not applicable to nowadays.

That says catholic all over. You just need to bow down to the pope.

And the prerequisites for joining the KKK






Just saying

---

(March 2, 2015 at 1:35 pm)JesusHChrist Wrote: 1. Modern humans are descedants of multiple lines of previous humans. Our source "Eve" and "Adam", lived apart in time (although probably within 10,000 years of each other) and apart in geography.
2. The human population around 6-8k years ago was about 4 million.
You seem to believe around 6-8k years ago, god infused some two humans with a "soul" and we are all descedants from those two. Except, from genetics we know that is impossible.

You are discussing the natural evolution of the human species. That's not what I'm discussing here. I'm saying that at some point in time, maybe 6,000 or so years ago, God chose one man and one woman and gave them souls. They were then spiritual beings and held accountable for their actions. They sinned and failed the test. I don't know if God, after that event, gave souls to all humans living at that time or just gave souls to all humans born after that event. It really doesn't matter to me.

Quote:3. The Bible plainly says we are descended directly from Adam and Eve. Even Jesus has Adam in one (or both?) of the geneologies. Yet, it is a virtual scientific certainty humans did not come about via Adam and Eve. So, the Adam and Eve story must be taken metaphorically. We're back to Jesus dying for a metaphor.

If Adam and Eve were the first two humans to possess a soul, and thus be able to experience God's eternal life, then all humans who have a soul, which is everyone now, are descended spiritually from them. If those two had children, then Jesus could have been physically descended from them. But, Jesus wasn't discussing genetics, of which they had no knowledge at the time. Jesus was discussing our salvation, on which our natural evolution has no bearing.

Quote:4. Per modern genetics, there have never been less than 10,000 human individuals traipsing around the earth.
So, the part that isn't clear to me is, just when and via what mechanism do you think god changed humans over from sinless/no soul, to sinners with a soul? Couldn't have been in 6000BC, unless he put that soul in all 4 million people existing at that time. And, for that to work, you mean to say, before 6000BC people were't sinners? How does that all work?

The mechanism God used was by special creation of our souls. As for all those humans living before that time, they were simply just the mostly highly evolved of the creatures on earth. They did things that we would consider "bad", but would not be held accountable by God any more than apes or lions. This is because they were no more spiritual beings than those were. They were not able to experience eternal life with God, as we are. Keep in mind that I'm not spouting doctrine here, but expressing some of my own thoughts about how things may have come about. In my mind, what makes humans different than all other animals, besides being the most highly naturally developed, is the possession of a spiritual nature.

---

(March 2, 2015 at 3:42 pm)h4ym4n Wrote: And the prerequisites for joining the KKK

Gimme a break!

Lek, in your post you said something very important.

(March 2, 2015 at 5:06 pm)Lek Wrote: Jesus was discussing our salvation,…

Indeed. But Evangelicals and literal-minded atheists think that in order for the Bible to be true it must be accurate in all its particulars and on every level. The problem is that a literalist approach reflects the bias of modern Western culture, not necessarily the most fruitful way to approach the text. A spiritual book must be interpreted from a spiritual perspective. To that end, its history, cosmology, geology and biology are instructive only for providing us with a picture of the Lord and His relationship with His creation.

(March 2, 2015 at 5:06 pm)Lek Wrote: I'm saying that at some point in time, maybe 6,000 or so years ago, God chose one man and one woman and gave them souls…The mechanism God used was by special creation of our souls. As for all those humans living before that time, they were simply just the mostly highly evolved of the creatures on earth.

Personally, I think you are trying to salvage some of your previous literalism. You’ll tie yourself up in knots trying to reconcile the biblical narratives with natural history. I think you’ve bought into the flawed apologetics of Evangelicals that have backed themselves into an indefensible corner. Here are two arguments that are particularly destructive:
First,
If the Bible is false on even a single small point then it cannot be trusted. Jesus would not have sacrificed himself for something that was not true. Jesus believed Adam, Noah and Jonah were real people. Therefore, the OT stories must be completely true in every particular.
It’s a silly argument because anyone can see that the biblical narratives contain contradictions and inaccuracies, from the value of pi to rabbits chewing the cud. But these contradictions and inaccuracies are not a reason to chuck the whole thing. If anything they should prompt people to read more deeply into the text.
Second,
In order for the Bible to serve as a sufficient rule and guide for our salvation it must be absolutely clear from a plain reading. If the text had any hidden allegorical or symbolic meanings then it would require extra-biblical interpretation and would thus not be sufficient.
This is also a silly and anti-intellectual argument that demands the most superficial reading of a complex text that rewards reflection. It’s sufficient for the simple who read the surface of the text and it’s sufficient for the learned who can delight in how the symbols provide spiritual instruction.

(March 2, 2015 at 5:06 pm)Lek Wrote: In my mind, what makes humans different than all other animals, besides being the most highly naturally developed

Not in any way a quantifiable fact, evolution isn't a podium.

Quote:, is the possession of a spiritual nature.

So, ghosts and such make us different, roger? No ghost puppies, or ghost weevils? Just sounds too ridiculous?

(March 2, 2015 at 6:35 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Indeed. But Evangelicals and literal-minded atheists think that in order for the Bible to be true it must be accurate in all its particulars and on every level. The problem is that a literalist approach reflects the bias of modern Western culture, not necessarily the most fruitful way to approach the text. A spiritual book must be interpreted from a spiritual perspective. To that end, its history, cosmology, geology and biology are instructive only for providing us with a picture of the Lord and His relationship with His creation.

(March 2, 2015 at 5:06 pm)Lek Wrote: I'm saying that at some point in time, maybe 6,000 or so years ago, God chose one man and one woman and gave them souls…The mechanism God used was by special creation of our souls. As for all those humans living before that time, they were simply just the mostly highly evolved of the creatures on earth.

Personally, I think you are trying to salvage some of your previous literalism. You’ll tie yourself up in knots trying to reconcile the biblical narratives with natural history. I think you’ve bought into the flawed apologetics of Evangelicals that have backed themselves into an indefensible corner. Here are two arguments that are particularly destructive:
First,
If the Bible is false on even a single small point then it cannot be trusted. Jesus would not have sacrificed himself for something that was not true. Jesus believed Adam, Noah and Jonah were real people. Therefore, the OT stories must be completely true in every particular.
It’s a silly argument because anyone can see that the biblical narratives contain contradictions and inaccuracies, from the value of pi to rabbits chewing the cud. But these contradictions and inaccuracies are not a reason to chuck the whole thing. If anything they should prompt people to read more deeply into the text.
Second,
In order for the Bible to serve as a sufficient rule and guide for our salvation it must be absolutely clear from a plain reading. If the text had any hidden allegorical or symbolic meanings then it would require extra-biblical interpretation and would thus not be sufficient.
This is also a silly and anti-intellectual argument that demands the most superficial reading of a complex text that rewards reflection. It’s sufficient for the simple who read the surface of the text and it’s sufficient for the learned who can delight in how the symbols provide spiritual instruction.

I don't disagree with what you've said here. That doesn't rule out the possibility of what I have laid out. Are you saying that we shouldn't claim that anything from the bible is a historical fact?

---

[quote='Rhythm' pid='889075' dateline='1425336501']

Quote:“I find something repulsive about the idea of vicarious redemption. I would not throw my numberless sins onto a scapegoat and expect them to pass from me" - Christopher Hitchens.

I'll bet that if he was sentenced to life in prison and I arranged to take the sentence for him, he'd take me up on the offer in a second.

That sounds like a fairly dismal appraisal of one's own inner demons to me, Lek. As much as the irony would tickle me, and as tempted as I'd be...it being you and all, afraid I simply couldn't. Can't speak for the dead, of course. Does it help you to imagine that others toil under the same lack of moral fortitude that you find in yourself?

(March 2, 2015 at 7:25 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That sounds like a fairly dismal appraisal of one's own inner demons to me, Lek. As much as the irony would tickle me, and as tempted as I'd be...it being you and all, afraid I simply couldn't. Can't speak for the dead, of course. Does it help you to imagine that others toil under the same lack of moral fortitude that you find in yourself?

Nothing to do with inner demons, just common sense. I'm doomed to eternal destruction with no way to get myself out of it. Jesus comes along and says that he'll forgive me, take care of the punishment for me and give me eternal life. It has nothing to do with moral fortitude, but rather with accepting forgiveness. If someone wrongs you and he comes to you asking for forgiveness, will you forgive him? If you do will you keep him indebted to you for the rest of his life or tell him to forget it? I'm so morally deranged to accept God's atonement for the sins I've committed!

---

(March 2, 2015 at 2:04 pm)Jenny A Wrote: I think fraternities and sororities are a silly comparison. Marriage is an agreement between spouses enforced by the state. It isn't a club to which all married people belong. Whether other people are married does not affect your marriage.

This nation has changed what it means to be married progressively over time. It has never only applied to Christians as Jewish people and involuntarily imported Africans were here pretty early and marrying. Not to mention American Indians. Many states banned inter-racial marriage with the same vehemence you want to ban gay marriage. That too has changed. For a while Utah had polygamy (theoretically that's over now).

Originally the marriage law in this country could be summed up this way: man and his wife are one person before the law and that one person is the man. That has thankfully ended. Simply by giving spouses equal rights in a marriage, we changed the definition of marriage radically.

Okay. You folks have made some good arguments concerning what the institution of marriage is for people as a whole. Like I said in my original post on the thread, I believe we're all entitled to equal rights and protection under the law and that's what I want to see. I know the definition of marriage is going to be changed, so I guess I won't like it, but I still have to live with it. Like the Christ said, his kingdom is not of this world. We live in this world, but our kingdom is not of this world.

(March 2, 2015 at 5:06 pm)Lek Wrote: I'm saying that at some point in time, maybe 6,000 or so years ago, God chose one man and one woman and gave them souls. They were then spiritual beings and held accountable for their actions. They sinned and failed the test.

Even if that story weren't as far fetched as Alpha Centauri, it still doesn't compute with an omniscient being. There could have been no test, since that being had to know the outcome before setting up the rules. Otherwise it wouldn't be omniscient.

In fact, that story doesn't compute on many levels. We, as a species, are nothing but a chicken fart in the chain of an evolving planets. If we were on the clock, we arrived a few minutes before midnight - and that's being generous. So far we've clocked off about 5 percent of the time dynosaurs walked the earth. That's how important we are in the history of our planet.

So there's some god, omniscient, but at the same time not, who chooses to show up a minute before midnight to create his own two Sims and have a little playing session with them. Why? Because he got bored?

(March 2, 2015 at 7:49 pm)Lek Wrote: Nothing to do with inner demons, just common sense.

I wasn't aware that stringing up a better man for your own failures was an issue of common sense.

Quote: I'm doomed to eternal destruction with no way to get myself out of it.

Sucks, how'd you get to be such a deplorable creature anyway?

Quote: Jesus comes along and says that he'll forgive me, take care of the punishment for me and give me eternal life.

Via the magic of scapegoating, I've heard the sales pitch.

Quote: It has nothing to do with moral fortitude, but rather with accepting forgiveness.

I disagree.

Quote: If someone wrongs you and he comes to you asking for forgiveness, will you forgive him?

Well, I certainly won't string him to a post and whip him, eh?

Quote: If you do will you keep him indebted to you for the rest of his life or tell him to forget it?

Neither.

Quote: I'm so morally deranged to accept God's atonement for the sins I've committed!

In a nutshell yeah, but only since you said it first.

(March 2, 2015 at 7:49 pm)Lek Wrote:

(March 2, 2015 at 7:25 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That sounds like a fairly dismal appraisal of one's own inner demons to me, Lek. As much as the irony would tickle me, and as tempted as I'd be...it being you and all, afraid I simply couldn't. Can't speak for the dead, of course. Does it help you to imagine that others toil under the same lack of moral fortitude that you find in yourself?

Nothing to do with inner demons, just common sense. I'm doomed to eternal destruction with no way to get myself out of it.

Why? Why do you believe that? Why would anyone believe that without evidence? It is ridiculous.

Quote:Jesus comes along and says that he'll forgive me, take care of the punishment for me and give me eternal life.

Forgive you for what? What punishment do you deserve? Why?

Quote:It has nothing to do with moral fortitude, but rather with accepting forgiveness.

Forgiveness for what?

Quote:If someone wrongs you and he comes to you asking for forgiveness, will you forgive him?

What has that to do with believing myths?

Quote:If you do will you keep him indebted to you for the rest of his life or tell him to forget it?

Forgive and forget.

Quote:I'm so morally deranged to accept God's atonement for the sins I've committed!

You are? Why? What sins? What is sin?