Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 1 of 18  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 18 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Mother's Day & Biblical Literalism
5 years ago  ::  May 12, 2013 - 10:10AM #1
HouseofDavid
Posts: 620
Happy Mother's Day!  Here's a timely example of how the Bible is not a science textbook, and why the Bible should be viewed in its proper context with respect to modern scientific knowledge.

In the paper this morning, celebrating Mother's Day in the US, a local author describes her own experience as a recent and again-expecting mother.  She describes her spiritual experience with motherhood, citing (emphasis mine) Ecclesiates 11:5:

"As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things." (NIV)

"God made everything, and you can no more understand what he does than you understand how new life begins in the womb of a pregnant woman. (GNT)"

Keeping in mind that the existence of sperm was not even visually comfirmed until 1677, with the advent of the microscope, you can't fault whoever wrote Ecclesiates 11:5 for finding baby-making mysterious and incomprehensible.   

Likewise, whoever wrote Genesis did not have enough geological, astronomical, and all the other scientific knowledge at their disposal to accurately describe the creation of  our solar system and the history of life on earth.  They had no idea that civilizations were flourishing in other parts of the world, with their own recorded histories.

Today, we know how babies are conceived and grow, how and where the wind will blow, we know that Adam and Eve are not the original two humans on the planet, and that there was not a global flood a few thousand years ago that killed everyone everyone except Noah, his family, and a bunch of animals.

Can the YECs please just get over it ?
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 12, 2013 - 11:06AM #2
57
Posts: 28,191

May 12, 2013 -- 10:10AM, HouseofDavid wrote:

Happy Mother's Day!  Here's a timely example of how the Bible is not a science textbook, and why the Bible should be viewed in its proper context with respect to modern scientific knowledge.

In the paper this morning, celebrating Mother's Day in the US, a local author describes her own experience as a recent and again-expecting mother.  She describes her spiritual experience with motherhood, citing (emphasis mine) Ecclesiates 11:5:

"As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things." (NIV)

"God made everything, and you can no more understand what he does than you understand how new life begins in the womb of a pregnant woman. (GNT)"

Keeping in mind that the existence of sperm was not even visually comfirmed until 1677, with the advent of the microscope, you can't fault whoever wrote Ecclesiates 11:5 for finding baby-making mysterious and incomprehensible.   

Likewise, whoever wrote Genesis did not have enough geological, astronomical, and all the other scientific knowledge at their disposal to accurately describe the creation of  our solar system and the history of life on earth.  They had no idea that civilizations were flourishing in other parts of the world, with their own recorded histories.

Today, we know how babies are conceived and grow, how and where the wind will blow, we know that Adam and Eve are not the original two humans on the planet, and that there was not a global flood a few thousand years ago that killed everyone everyone except Noah, his family, and a bunch of animals.

Can the YECs please just get over it ?



Here we go again.  Yet another who would have Jesus die because of a mutation. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 12, 2013 - 11:24AM #3
rsielin
Posts: 4,997

May 12, 2013 -- 11:06AM, 57 wrote:

Here we go again.  Yet another who would have Jesus die because of a mutation.


Mutations are an aspect of biological sciences. Jesus' death is an aspect of theology. You have confused the two. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 12, 2013 - 11:34AM #4
McAtheist
Posts: 9,224

57: Here we go again.  Yet another who would have Jesus die because of a mutation.


No, just another person who recognizes that the importance of the bible lies in its message, not in its minutiae.


An excellent OP for this thread, HouseOfDavid, and neatly tied into mothers' day.  Thanks!

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 12, 2013 - 4:04PM #5
HouseofDavid
Posts: 620

May 12, 2013 -- 11:06AM, 57 wrote:

Here we go again.  Yet another who would have Jesus die because of a mutation. 


Its not clear what is meant by this, but I figure its irrelevant, being that the life of Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 12, 2013 - 5:14PM #6
Midutch
Posts: 5,975

May 12, 2013 -- 11:06AM, 57 wrote:

Here we go again.  Yet another who would have Jesus die because of a mutation. 


You don't even have any evidence that Jesus ever existed, let alone what he died of.


FYI the fairy tale book that he is mentioned in is NO MORE evidence that he existed than Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince is evidence that Harry Potter exists.

"creationism" ... 2000+ years worth of ABYSMAL FAILURE ... and proud of it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 12, 2013 - 5:21PM #7
HouseofDavid
Posts: 620

Yes; other than the canonical and other non-canonical gospels (e.g., Nag Hammadi scriptures), are there other documents that show Jesus existed ?  How about the census that is described in at least one of the gospels?  Did the Romans maintain/retain records of executions?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 12, 2013 - 5:44PM #8
Midutch
Posts: 5,975

May 12, 2013 -- 11:06AM, 57 wrote:


May 12, 2013 -- 10:10AM, HouseofDavid wrote:

Happy Mother's Day!  Here's a timely example of how the Bible is not a science textbook, and why the Bible should be viewed in its proper context with respect to modern scientific knowledge.

In the paper this morning, celebrating Mother's Day in the US, a local author describes her own experience as a recent and again-expecting mother.  She describes her spiritual experience with motherhood, citing (emphasis mine) Ecclesiates 11:5:

"As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things." (NIV)

"God made everything, and you can no more understand what he does than you understand how new life begins in the womb of a pregnant woman. (GNT)"

Keeping in mind that the existence of sperm was not even visually comfirmed until 1677, with the advent of the microscope, you can't fault whoever wrote Ecclesiates 11:5 for finding baby-making mysterious and incomprehensible.   

Likewise, whoever wrote Genesis did not have enough geological, astronomical, and all the other scientific knowledge at their disposal to accurately describe the creation of  our solar system and the history of life on earth.  They had no idea that civilizations were flourishing in other parts of the world, with their own recorded histories.

Today, we know how babies are conceived and grow, how and where the wind will blow, we know that Adam and Eve are not the original two humans on the planet, and that there was not a global flood a few thousand years ago that killed everyone everyone except Noah, his family, and a bunch of animals.

Can the YECs please just get over it ?



Here we go again.  Yet another who would have Jesus die because of a mutation. 


Just trying to hijack the thread do to an inability to counter the obvious inaccuracies in the Bible.


"creationism" ... 2000+ years worth of ABYSMAL FAILURE ... and proud of it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 12, 2013 - 7:12PM #9
MMarcoe
Posts: 20,907

May 12, 2013 -- 4:04PM, HouseofDavid wrote:


May 12, 2013 -- 11:06AM, 57 wrote:

Here we go again.  Yet another who would have Jesus die because of a mutation. 


Its not clear what is meant by this, but I figure its irrelevant, being that the life of Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.





I can explain what is meant by this.


It comes from a proposed evolutionary explanation of sin that I (and maybe some others) have advanced on this board. The explanation is that "sin' is behavior that results from self-consciousness -- meaning awareness of oneself as distinct from the rest of all phenomena. I have proposed that self-consciousness was a natural part of the evolution of our brains in the last 100,000 or so years.


I've also proposed that self-consciousness is something we will inevitably evolve out of, and folks like Jesus have been helping us do it.


I don't recall ever saying that a mutation was responsible for all this, but 57 likes to grab onto that as an easy thing and not let go of it.


 

1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is the original nothingness of the universe.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 12, 2013 - 9:05PM #10
farragut
Posts: 4,481

"evolve out of,"


Could you comment on what this might mean?

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 18  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 18 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook