Evolution/creation video

[Drich]

Because again I have indeed tested out most of those religions and have only found the one God to fulfill what their holy book promised.

How do you test a religion? Especially one from another? Promises are a vague thing, but whatever.

All relgions have a quid pro quoe. you do ABC the deity provides XYZ..

Find out the ABC do it and see what happens.

If the ABC has to happen through and indivisual/preist whatever then the test is tainted. if the result of your ABC has to be interpreted by a priest or what ever the test is tainted.

The God of the bible works with people directly.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

How do you test a religion? Especially one from another? Promises are a vague thing, but whatever.

All relgions have a quid pro quoe. you do ABC the deity provides XYZ..

Find out the ABC do it and see what happens.

If the ABC has to happen through and indivisual/preist whatever then the test is tainted. if the result of your ABC has to be interpreted by a priest or what ever the test is tainted.

The God of the bible works with people directly.

But a lot of gods (notably the Greek franchise) work directly with people.  And - based on the stories - sometimes came through for them in a pretty stunning fashion.

Boru

[Mister Agenda]

I've never gotten the conflict between the Bible and evolution. So God created a man out of dust and breathed life (or a soul?) into him. If you're not committed to it happened in an instant like magic, evolution gets you from dust (microbes) to people. The Catholics are (officially) fine with evolution being 'how God did it' starting the clock for being human at the point when God added souls. If Catholics can reconcile the Bible and evolution, evangelicals ought to be able to pull it off too.

[EgoDeath]

I've never gotten the conflict between the Bible and evolution. So God created a man out of dust and breathed life (or a soul?) into him. If you're not committed to it happened in an instant like magic, evolution gets you from dust (microbes) to people. The Catholics are (officially) fine with evolution being 'how God did it' starting the clock for being human at the point when God added souls. If Catholics can reconcile the Bible and evolution, evangelicals ought to be able to pull it off too.

Well, that's the issue, isn't it? An alarmingly large number of Christians are committed to interpreting the Bible in a totally literal way, thereby forcing them to assume that Adam truly was, literally, born of dust. The Bible doesn't say that he eventually came from dust and evolved into other things that evolved into other things that eventually became a man.... he was made from dust, in god's image. Plain and simple.

[Jehanne]

I've never gotten the conflict between the Bible and evolution. So God created a man out of dust and breathed life (or a soul?) into him. If you're not committed to it happened in an instant like magic, evolution gets you from dust (microbes) to people. The Catholics are (officially) fine with evolution being 'how God did it' starting the clock for being human at the point when God added souls. If Catholics can reconcile the Bible and evolution, evangelicals ought to be able to pull it off too.

The Catholic Church likes to change its tune:

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12] (Humani Generis, 37)

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12human.htm

[Nay_Sayer]

Oh please do Slavery.

[AFTT47]

You have very nice handwriting.

Boru

I feel you fall short in complimenting Drich.

He has a very soothing, narrating voice. Not quite Orson Wells but nice.

His choice of colors provides good contrast.

The cut of the construction paper suggests the use of rounded scissors, thus making a statement of non-violence.

He makes an honest attempt to answer critiques of Genesis - even if that attempt is at the level of a 5-year-old.

It's a good start.

[Jehanne]

He makes an honest attempt to answer critiques of Genesis - even if that attempt is at the level of a 5-year-old.

It's a good start.

He's on a sinking ship; evangelical Christian fundamentalism is in decline.

[Drich]

All relgions have a quid pro quoe. you do ABC the deity provides XYZ..

Find out the ABC do it and see what happens.

If the ABC has to happen through and indivisual/preist whatever then the test is tainted. if the result of your ABC has to be interpreted by a priest or what ever the test is tainted.

The God of the bible works with people directly.

But a lot of gods (notably the Greek franchise) work directly with people.  And - based on the stories - sometimes came through for them in a pretty stunning fashion.

Boru

Actually they worked in the mythos with people (in their holy books stories and writings) but reserved direct populace contact of everyday people through priest prophets and emissaries. (think leonitius/the three hundred where he had to seek the consouls of the fortune tellers/witches and through them did he find out that he would be able to keep the hords at bay lng enough to rally the rest of greece but it would cost him his life.

Here we have a king without direct access to his gods. why would these same gods give access to the common man?

The average smow did not have access to the gods unless through the temple or a representative of said God.

---

I've never gotten the conflict between the Bible and evolution. So God created a man out of dust and breathed life (or a soul?) into him. If you're not committed to it happened in an instant like magic, evolution gets you from dust (microbes) to people. The Catholics are (officially) fine with evolution being 'how God did it' starting the clock for being human at the point when God added souls. If Catholics can reconcile the Bible and evolution, evangelicals ought to be able to pull it off too.

Again 2 narratives when it comes to the origins of man.

1 chapter 1 God the father creates man after his own image outside the garden. This man does not have the be the idea of understand of the term we have now IE this may not be 'man' in his current day form. This very well could be evolved man. This is the genetic stock and biodiversity we find in our genepool. Evolved man is not been recorded in having been given a soul.

Chapter 2: Jesus creates ADAM a specific man. This one he made from a lump f clay and in him breathed a living soul.

Chapter 2 is a garden only narrative as it was created to be a completed version of the earth (what the earth looked like 6000 years ago) and Adam the individual was placed in this completed paradise and remained in there indefinitely while everything outside the garden grew/evolved.  

Why is Genesis/creation a battle ground?
Jesus Himself mentions a 7 day creation. and John the Apostle records that Jesus is the Word of God" YWHW" who was the creator and author of chapter 2.
So if there was no creation then John is wrong about Christ and Christ Himself is wrong about creation.. which leaves questions about his deity.

---

I've never gotten the conflict between the Bible and evolution. So God created a man out of dust and breathed life (or a soul?) into him. If you're not committed to it happened in an instant like magic, evolution gets you from dust (microbes) to people. The Catholics are (officially) fine with evolution being 'how God did it' starting the clock for being human at the point when God added souls. If Catholics can reconcile the Bible and evolution, evangelicals ought to be able to pull it off too.

Well, that's the issue, isn't it? An alarmingly large number of Christians are committed to interpreting the Bible in a totally literal way, thereby forcing them to assume that Adam truly was, literally, born of dust. The Bible doesn't say that he eventually came from dust and evolved into other things that evolved into other things that eventually became a man.... he was made from dust, in god's image. Plain and simple.

Again Gen 1 shows man outside of the Garden and he was not said to be made of dust. He is said to be made in the image of God... From that it is possible he evolved.

Chapter 2 was a garden only narrative and a specific person Adam was created from mud and fast tracked into a fully developed homosapien. As such his given a soul.

---

You have very nice handwriting.

Boru

I feel you fall short in complimenting Drich.

He has a very soothing, narrating voice. Not quite Orson Wells but nice.

His choice of colors provides good contrast.

The cut of the construction paper suggests the use of rounded scissors, thus making a statement of non-violence.

He makes an honest attempt to answer critiques of Genesis - even if that attempt is at the level of a 5-year-old.

It's a good start.

thank you.

Actually i used post its. so no scissors.
I was going for 8 year olds as I am speaking directly to a large and varied group of people. When teach a large or unknown group you generally have to speak to the 'youngest' person in the room. 

The orginal video was an hour and 30ish mins long (which is why some of the post-its tabs seem worn..) As I have several takes and made several attempts to spin everything down to a simple 10 min video. The simpler things are the shorter the video as you do not have to explain as much.

Colors mean different things
Green blocks of time or days.
Red researched material from a lexicon 
orange core additions/my theory base
blue my theory explained.. 

I left the video short and simple so you can take the conversation anywhere you like. It is just a foundation we can use to start a discussion.

---

He makes an honest attempt to answer critiques of Genesis - even if that attempt is at the level of a 5-year-old.

It's a good start.

He's on a sinking ship; evangelical Christian fundamentalism is in decline.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_...ion_growth

3 billion in the next 30 years.. It seems to me Christianity is growing in every aspect except Old school orthodoxy. China alone is expected to repersent 1/3 of world wide growth.

Seems to me someone thinks what goes on in the west represents what goes on in the world.

[EgoDeath]

Again Gen 1 shows man outside of the Garden and he was not said to be made of dust. He is said to be made in the image of God... From that it is possible he evolved.

Chapter 2 was a garden only narrative and a specific person Adam was created from mud and fast tracked into a fully developed homosapien. As such his given a soul.

And who is to say which creation story we're to give credence to? In the time that Genesis was written, it's said there was no need for consistency in story-telling; that the narrative was more than just a linear recounting of events. But does that hold up today? I'd say not. If we're to take the creation story as literal, then which one was it? Was it Chapter One or Chapter Two that defined the true creation? Or are we not to take the creation story as literal? And in that case, why pay it any attention at all, as scientific thinkers? Surely, if you're interested in understanding that period of time, the stories in Genesis can provide something for you. But if you're looking for an account of things that actually happened, is Genesis helpful at all?

That's the real question at the bottom of all of this.