For christians who accept evolution

Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
For christians who accept evolution

1. If the book of Genesis is not to be taken literally-why did god send himself in human form to die in order to save us from symbolic sin commited by a  metaphorical character (Adam) who never existed?

If Genesis did not happen,when, how, and why did original sin enter the world?

2. If you accept the current theory of evolution,just with god as the starter of it,when did souls come into existence? Did the first single celled organism have a soul? Will members of Homo habilis go to hell for not hearing the word of god? Or did a Homo erectus one day give birth to a being with a soul? Why should homo sapiens be the ones to go to hell? It's not our fault jesus decided to get killed by us and not a previous hominid.

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I'd love to hear some

I'd love to hear some Christians answer this.

Have you thought of posting this on some Christian blogs and reposting the answers here?  I think that at this time, we don't have enough theists to get a good idea of the average theist's answer to these very important questions.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Can we sticky this? These

Can we sticky this? These are really good questions.


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Thanks Hamby and Kevin. I'd

Thanks Hamby and Kevin. I'd also like some theist responses here. Actually I thought these up while I couldn't sleep last night, I'm surprised they haven't been asked before.

I'd like to expound on my second question:

Through evolution, everything is related,since we evolved from the same first single cell.OK? So,if that first cell had soul,that means eveything has a soul, as it was passed along in evolution. You, your dog,pot plant, that lettuce you ate. So,that means eitther heaven will have alot of cattle and produce in,or they will be suffering in hell. After all,when last did you tell your lettuce the good news?
 

Either that,or god choose a singualar point in evolution to introduce the soul.What did they the bearer of that first soul do? Was the bible around? Were they saved? Did the have the terrible luck to be the first soul in hell because christianity wasn't around yet,or did he introduce the soul after that and give everyone who lived before a free pass to heaven?

 

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:1. If the book of

Loc wrote:

1. If the book of Genesis is not to be taken literally-why did god send himself in human form to die in order to save us from symbolic sin commited by a  metaphorical character (Adam) who never existed?

If Genesis did not happen,when, how, and why did original sin enter the world?

2. If you accept the current theory of evolution,just with god as the starter of it,when did souls come into existence? Did the first single celled organism have a soul? Will members of Homo habilis go to hell for not hearing the word of god? Or did a Homo erectus one day give birth to a being with a soul? Why should homo sapiens be the ones to go to hell? It's not our fault jesus decided to get killed by us and not a previous hominid.

Shit. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Justin, didn't I ask you the

Justin, didn't I ask you the question of who the first person with a soul was?  Like... maybe a year ago?  Maybe I just meant to ask you.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If you accept the

Quote:

If you accept the current theory of evolution,just with god as the starter of it,when did souls come into existence?

This is a really good point. One of the reasons there is religious opposition to evolution is that as a principle it completely destroys two ideas central to the way of thinking that is found in religious metaphysical principles. Those two ideas are Platonic essentialism and the Great Chain of Being. But of course, these ideas are cut down by Darwinian natural selection. There is no Great Chain of Being, and man does not rest on the upper echelons of some sort of "heirarchy" of beings. Man is another branch, another lineage in the vast Darwinian tree of life, no more special to natural selection than cyanobacteria or clownfish, just a later arrival. Naturally, within the religious idea of man near the pinnacle of a Great Chain of Being comes the idea that man has a special distinction from the other taxa in the form of his consciousness, which is completely seperate from the mundane workings of neurology which is possessed by every other animal. Descartes first formally put forth this idea as Cartesian dualism. But of course this is absurd. If we understand the principles of Darwinian Evolution correctly, we shall find that such distinctions are impossible. We should instead view the various taxa which have some sort of organ analogous to the brain in an ordered continuum, where as the lineage progresses and natural selection favours more sophisticated neural circuitry, it naturally gets progressively more complex and intricate. There is no room for the idea that somewhere, in a wholly arbitrary lineage under a meaningless notion of "seperate kind", that coinsciousness was suddenly injected into one branch of the lineage. We can find no room to accomodate this principle under Darwinian Evolution. I would really like to see someone address your question.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Justin,

Hambydammit wrote:

Justin, didn't I ask you the question of who the first person with a soul was?  Like... maybe a year ago?  Maybe I just meant to ask you.

 

Maybe, but I'm not totally sure. 

I've been thinking about these questions for a few years now, ever since I studied evolution formally.  I must admit, the reality of our history as a species has forced me to reconsider my faith.  But the thing is, I'm nowhere near the kind of Christian I was when I first converted at age 18 anyway--and that's a good thing in my mind.  I used to be a fundamentalist and a biblical literalist, but then I studied Heidegger and Nietzsche and learned how to read Greek, and all that fundamentalism went right down the toilet. 

The bottom line is, I really have no idea what a soul is to begin with, let alone who the first person was that had one.  I'm totally open to the possibility of rotting in the ground after I die, though the thought of that is quite depressing to me.  The truth is the truth whether it makes me feel good or not, though--the truth is indifferent.  I'll probably always live my life within the context of Christianity, whether it is a reaction or an homage.  I can't imagine there being a point in time where Christianity doesn't factor in either way, and I'm fine with that.  It is what it is.  I can't undo any of it, so I might as well make peace with it. 


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
jmm wrote:Loc wrote:1. If

jmm wrote:

Loc wrote:

1. If the book of Genesis is not to be taken literally-why did god send himself in human form to die in order to save us from symbolic sin commited by a  metaphorical character (Adam) who never existed?

If Genesis did not happen,when, how, and why did original sin enter the world?

2. If you accept the current theory of evolution,just with god as the starter of it,when did souls come into existence? Did the first single celled organism have a soul? Will members of Homo habilis go to hell for not hearing the word of god? Or did a Homo erectus one day give birth to a being with a soul? Why should homo sapiens be the ones to go to hell? It's not our fault jesus decided to get killed by us and not a previous hominid.

Shit. 

So what context was this comment in?

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Although I consider myself a

Although I consider myself a poor choice for the task, and although my understanding of evolution is sketchy.  I will undertake answering thesse questions.  I accept evolution as a scientific fact.

Loc wrote:
1. If the book of Genesis is not to be taken literally-why did god send himself in human form to die in order to save us from symbolic sin commited by a  metaphorical character (Adam) who never existed?

Because a sin which disordered the intent of God's Creation was committed by an actual set of first parents, and that sin needed to be set to rights.  The sin was not necessarily eating the literal fruit from a literal tree, but was an act of pride by which Man sought to elevate himself to the status of a god.

Quote:
2. If you accept the current theory of evolution,just with god as the starter of it,when did souls come into existence?

I can't give a date, not am I familiar enough with the ascent of man to attribute the ensoulment of man to a certain hominid ancestor.  It is my understanding that researchers have concluded that we are all descended from a single female ancestor.  It is to her that I would look for the answer to this question.

Quote:
Did the first single celled organism have a soul?

The short answer is yes.  The Hebrew Scriptures use two different words for animal souls (nefesh) and human souls (neshama).  There is a difference, however, in that only man's soul is eternal.

Quote:
Will members of Homo habilis go to hell for not hearing the word of god?

If they were possessed of the neshama they are accountable to God, but I doubt Hell is a certainty, just as Hell is not a certainty for those who are alive now who haven't heard the Word. 

Quote:
Or did a Homo erectus one day give birth to a being with a soul?

Perhaps, but again I'm loathe to date with any exactitude.

Quote:
Why should homo sapiens be the ones to go to hell?

Because we are the ones created specifically to dwell with God eternally.  We are the union between the created and the infinte realm.  We are the ones through whom God acts in this world and we're the ones who have the capability to execute His will or to muck it all up.

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I can't give a date,

Quote:
I can't give a date, not am I familiar enough with the ascent of man to attribute the ensoulment of man to a certain hominid ancestor.  It is my understanding that researchers have concluded that we are all descended from a single female ancestor.  It is to her that I would look for the answer to this question.

Your understanding is essentially wrong.  The thing is, the concept of a species is (forgive me) specious.  There are several things you must understand about speciation and the divisions we make.  First, we can only identify a species after the fact.  That is to say, if we go out to a pond and gather up an entire population of say... bluegills, it's entirely possible that one of those bluegills is going to be the father or mother of an entirely new species.  It's also possible that several of them will be relocated to a new environment, and collectively, they will be the start of a new species.  The thing is, we won't know for a LONG time, and by the time the new species is actually here, any real hope of finding the exact individual or individuals who started the new branch is completely lost.

You have to wrap your brain around the idea that every organism on the planet is descended from the same individual.  You just have to go back a long damn way.  At the time of the emergence of homo erectus, there were most likely at least several other hominids who were in the process of branching out in various directions.  In the end, all of them ended up going extinct, but to be scientifically accurate, they too were descended from an ancestor common to both us and them... the same mitochondrial Eve, if you like that name.  However, for this "Eve" to be the mother of us all, she would necessarily have to be NOT Homo sapien.  Once Homo sapien was clearly delineated enough to be called a species, there was no way to point to a single Homo sapien as the mother of all Homo sapiens.

The next thing you must understand is that there isn't actually a clear scientific definition of species.  That fact makes a lot of zoologists wiggle uncomfortably in their seats, but it's true.  The problem is what I mentioned earlier.  Make sure you give this some time to settle into your brain:  Every single organism that has ever lived was a "transitional organism."

Evolution doesn't create species.  It creates individuals, and because of the nature of the math, many of the individuals share enough genetic material that they appear to be the same thing, and they are sexually compatible.  The thing is, sexual compatibility isn't a good measure, though.  There are lots of animals who can mate across species.  They just don't, usually.  In the end, what we're left with is a planet full of trillions of individual organisms.  We can't very well treat each one as a brand new genetic puzzle, so we group them as well as we can.  The best scientists remember this, and treat the idea of a species with a grain of salt.  Any individual of any species on the planet has the potential to father or mother a new species.

So, in the end, there was effectively no single individual who could be called the mother or father of humanity.  Even if we found one that appeared to be "Eve," we could simply look at her mother and say, "See... it was actually her."

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Your

Hambydammit wrote:
Your understanding is essentially wrong.  The thing is, the concept of a species is (forgive me) specious.

Hmmmm....I think my kid was trying to get this same concept through my thick skull a coupla weeks ago.  I forewarned you that I am a layman, not a scientist.  You explained it much better than he did.  Thanks for an interesting education indeed.

However, I don't see that all hominids possessed of souls must, of necessity, even be of the same species.  Do you think that would be a necessity?

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


BrainFromArous
BrainFromArous's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2008-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You have to wrap your

Quote:
You have to wrap your brain around the idea that every organism on the planet is descended from the same individual.

It's worse than that... at some point there was no organic life at all. Egad.

 

Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Quote:I

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
I can't give a date, not am I familiar enough with the ascent of man to attribute the ensoulment of man to a certain hominid ancestor.  It is my understanding that researchers have concluded that we are all descended from a single female ancestor.  It is to her that I would look for the answer to this question.

Your understanding is essentially wrong. 

(snip)

 

So, in the end, there was effectively no single individual who could be called the mother or father of humanity.  Even if we found one that appeared to be "Eve," we could simply look at her mother and say, "See... it was actually her."

Actually, I believe what he's referring to is "Mitochondrial Eve", the matrilineal most recent common ancestor of all living humans. They've done mitochondrial studies that show we all go back to a single small population which likely survived a massive extinction-level event, and which all, at a point likely before the ELE, could trace their matrilineal lines to a single matriarch. For further reading, might I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve ?

Do keep in mind that Mitochondrial Eve is a construct of DNA drift studies, and has no connection with Biblical Eve. She is not theorized to be the first human, simply a single individual from whom all of the female survivors of a prior apocalypse were descended from... and so, so are we all.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
In my experience, the

In my experience, the Christians who accept evolution are either habitual Christians, who accept both Christianity and evolution because by and large this is what society believes in, or they are academic Christians who want to think that Christianity is compatible with science, but despite their large brains are actually entirely flawed in this view.

So here's my explanation. This is probably as good as any explanation here. In the Primordeal Eden Soup Garden, God made a molecule that could make copies of itself. He said to the molecule, who probably didn't understand. You may eat from any other chemical, but not that one because that is the chemical of knowledge of good and evil. I know you don't understand, but your descendants in about 4 billion years time will, and they'll be punished if you do. So time passed, and the little molecule grew lonely, so God said: "Replicate you little prick" and the molecule did, and thus molecule Eve came into being. And so the two molecules swam happily around the soup garden until one day, a wriggly wormlike molecule came to the Eve molecule and said "Eat of this chemical and your descendents will have knowledge of good and evil." The Eve molecule, not understanding what knowledge or good or evil or descendent meant, ate the chemical, and she showed it to the Adam molecule, who also thought it was mighty tasty. And so God got angry, for what really was quite petty, and mostly his own fault for leaving such chemicals lying around. So, he cast Adam molecule and Eve molecule out of the Primordeal Eden Soup Garden, although he quickly put them back because he didn't want them to die. So Adam molecule and Eve molecule started replicating, and each had about 2 trillion offspring, and after a long life of about 2 hours, they died of old age. Many years later, some of the descendants of Adam molecule turned into hominids, and were then probably clever enough for God to start punishing them for the crime of Adam molecule and Eve molecule.  But after about 40,000 years he decided he would send his son, who coincidentally looked like one of these hominids, down to die for their sins.

So, this makes sense right?


Religious_Rebel
Religious_Rebel's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2008-03-05
User is offlineOffline
Blah blah blah. Why lump

Blah blah blah. Why lump every Christian together?  In fact, isn't Revelation a warning about organized religion if you decide to take it that way?  Ghandi said that he likes Jesus but doesn't like Christians because we are nothing like our Christ.  You are acting like organized religion is something that all Christians subscribe to.  I like almost everything Jesus said and pretty much nothing that most churches say.  Who's the better Christian, me or some jackass who wears a collar and hands the leash over to a pastor? 

For the number one point, I'd say that people who give up their rational mind because God wants them to, that's just blasphemous to the notion of God.

I do like your 2nd question however except for the part about homo habilis not going to heaven because they never heard "the word"...   That logic is for the fucktard birds who let old men with silly thoughts control their every action.  (Sorry I'm not in the best of moods towards this topic, it's not directed at anyone.)  Anyway I'd use my mind to try and derive exactly how it works. 

I believe in what you could compare to an intricate safety net, for all beings, created by God.  I believe God loves everyone more than anyone else possibly could, and nothing religious nut jobs try to say will convince me otherwise.  They do this mostly indirectly, saying that God despises homosexuals, well guess what those people have 'spouses' who love them very much, and if it is possible for a human to love another human more than God loves that person, that'd just be a freaking shame of enormous proportions. 

Go ahead and flame away, I know for a fact my mind is freer because I don't pick sides until I know what the truth is.  And saying "but Jesus is the truth" doesn't get someone very far in my book.  If Jesus is the truth why doesn't your church teach you to emulate him instead of judging other people.

It is said the great ones catch teardrops in their hands.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Go ahead and flame

Quote:
Go ahead and flame away, I know for a fact my mind is freer because I don't pick sides until I know what the truth is.

Hard to find something to flame.  If anything, I could say it doesn't look to me like you answered the questions in any meaningful way, but clearly it means something to you.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If you pick any group of

If you pick any group of individuals, of any species, you can, in principle, trace back to a "Most Recent Common Ancestor".

For sexually reproducing creatures this will be a different individual depending whether you trace back thru the male or the female line. The counterpart of 'Mitochondrial Eve' is Y-chromosomal Adam'. DNA analysis across a wide sample of living groups suggest we have to go back about 60000 years. For mitochondrial Eve, the corresponding figure is 140000 years. These are both estimates of most likely date, but could be way out if there was some consistent unknown factor 'biasing' the pattern of mate selection.

If you did the same analysis many generations earlier, where you included ALL the ancestors of the current group, the ancestor would have to be found earlier, to cover those lines which didn't produce a descendant into the later group.

Any attempt to map these ideas to the Biblical creation myth simply betrays a major misunderstanding of what they mean. At any period in the past, there would have been a whole population of individuals, these ideas simply reflect the fact that not all of those individuals would have descendants into our time, and on the reasonable assumption that at each generation, mating partners were selected from within relatively restricted groups, ie, not randomly from everyone on the planet at the time. So if you go back far enough, there is likely only one individual of each sex whose line continues to today.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Genesis is of course totally

Genesis is of course totally incompatible with evolution, as well as biology in general, cosmology, geology, physics, etc, etc., so if you really accept evolution, you have to accept Genesis as allegory or myth, and honestly accept the implications for the whole original sin question. 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Any attempt

BobSpence1 wrote:

Any attempt to map these ideas to the Biblical creation myth simply betrays a major misunderstanding of what they mean. At any period in the past, there would have been a whole population of individuals, these ideas simply reflect the fact that not all of those individuals would have descendants into our time, and on the reasonable assumption that at each generation, mating partners were selected from within relatively restricted groups, ie, not randomly from everyone on the planet at the time. So if you go back far enough, there is likely only one individual of each sex whose line continues to today.

And of course, the corollary to this is: if you go back farther, you start to spread out the trees again, as every ancestor of each of those individuals then becomes someone 'from whom everyone on earth is descended'.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Religious_Rebel
Religious_Rebel's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2008-03-05
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Quote:Go

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
Go ahead and flame away, I know for a fact my mind is freer because I don't pick sides until I know what the truth is.

Hard to find something to flame.  If anything, I could say it doesn't look to me like you answered the questions in any meaningful way, but clearly it means something to you.

 

Aye, sorry mate, I guess my whole point was all that crap is for the inane.  Or at least people who refuse to see it for what it is.  I respect most atheists views of those stories more than the average theist.

I remember getting into a huge argument when I was in school because I was selling the point of Sodom and Gomorrah being about men wanting to rape (angels), not men being homosexual.  It's just how you look at it.  Obviously the world wasn't created in seven days and then poof, man and woman appeared.  So why bring such questions to the surface when you know only idiots believe in that stuff.  (I do like your question of "when was the first soul?" etc in our evolutionary progress.)

It is said the great ones catch teardrops in their hands.


draggycat
draggycat's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
3. How do you know the

3. How do you know the answers to any of the questions you've responded to?


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Religious_Rebel wrote:Blah

Religious_Rebel wrote:

Blah blah blah. Why lump every Christian together?

Well it was only the ones that accept evolution really.

Religious_Rebel wrote:
In fact, isn't Revelation a warning about organized religion if you decide to take it that way?  Ghandi said that he likes Jesus but doesn't like Christians because we are nothing like our Christ.  You are acting like organized religion is something that all Christians subscribe to.  I like almost everything Jesus said and pretty much nothing that most churches say.  Who's the better Christian, me or some jackass who wears a collar and hands the leash over to a pastor?

Sorry if you take offence,but it seems every post you make contains a lot of No True Scotman.In fact,just about a whole No True Scotland.I don't know who's the better christian,and don't think I care terribly.

Religious_Rebel wrote:
For the number one point, I'd say that people who give up their rational mind because God wants them to, that's just blasphemous to the notion of God.

Please come tell that to every christian I know.

Religious_Rebel wrote:
I do like your 2nd question however except for the part about homo habilis not going to heaven because they never heard "the word"...   That logic is for the fucktard birds who let old men with silly thoughts control their every action.  (Sorry I'm not in the best of moods towards this topic, it's not directed at anyone.)  Anyway I'd use my mind to try and derive exactly how it works. 

So what exactly is wrong with it?

Religious_Rebel wrote:

Go ahead and flame away, I know for a fact my mind is freer because I don't pick sides until I know what the truth is.  And saying "but Jesus is the truth" doesn't get someone very far in my book.  If Jesus is the truth why doesn't your church teach you to emulate him instead of judging other people.

Eh,I don't want really want to flame.What's ever the point.

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I think the key point here

I think the key point here is once someone is prepared to accept large chunks of the Bible as mythical or allegorical, ie not to be taken literally, by what means could you decide that any of it was to be taken literally? You would logically require some independent reference, IOW, the Bible can no longer be regarded as a source of absolute truth about anything.

The whole belief system is then revealed for what it is, made up out of pure speculation based on fragmentary hints of ancient events, forever unverifiable until someone invents a time machine...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Religious_Rebel
Religious_Rebel's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2008-03-05
User is offlineOffline
Greetings,You make a fair

Greetings,

You make a fair point about the NTS fallacy.  But that said, is it so unlike labeling Christians in the manner you did with the original post?  I  don't consider someone Christian just because they go to church and call themselves that.  I consider most theists perverts in a sense.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I think the key point here is once someone is prepared to accept large chunks of the Bible as mythical or allegorical, ie not to be taken literally, by what means could you decide that any of it was to be taken literally? You would logically require some independent reference, IOW, the Bible can no longer be regarded as a source of absolute truth about anything.

The whole belief system is then revealed for what it is, made up out of pure speculation based on fragmentary hints of ancient events, forever unverifiable until someone invents a time machine...

 

Another good point.  There are a few beliefs that some hold, such as the message of the bible being corrupted by man, the choosing of the books of the bible as a corruption in itself, and of course the fact that many religions can turn their followers into slaves of the system.  Is it wrong to cherry pick when these (and other) situations arise? 

Like Ghandi said and I said earlier, Christians are so unlike their Christ it's nauseating.  A lot of this has to also do with cherry picking, but instead on the other side, when the pervert ignores the message of righteousness due to a small passage in the bible or the Koran etc.

 http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/not-into-organized-religion

That website has the perfect example of cherry picking a self-defeating logic.   Why use your mind when you have the bible and vice versa too.  There are so many pastors out there who say Islam is the scourge of the earth but they don't use the bible they use their hateful little brains.

Ask if you need clarification.  Everyone definitely seems to cherry pick in one fashion or another.

 

It is said the great ones catch teardrops in their hands.


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Religious_Rebel wrote: You

Religious_Rebel wrote:

 

You make a fair point about the NTS fallacy.  But that said, is it so unlike labeling Christians in the manner you did with the original post?  I  don't consider someone Christian just because they go to church and call themselves that.  I consider most theists perverts in a sense.


 

I can largely agree that most of the christians I know I wouldn't have considered true christians, back when I was one.However,if someone says they are a christian, you can't exactly tell them they aren't. If that's how they choose to identify themselves,then that's what they are.Unless they call themselves that but are clearly followers of another faith,in which case who knows what they're on about.

Anyway,I still don't really get what you mean by mentioning my first post,I was asking a specific set of christians a specific question.

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


BrainFromArous
BrainFromArous's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2008-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Religious_Rebel wrote:Ask if

Religious_Rebel wrote:

Ask if you need clarification.  Everyone definitely seems to cherry pick in one fashion or another.

Please clarify, then. What do you consider to be the irreducible core of Christian doctrine and belief?

Does it make any concrete claims about the natural world, or is it essentially supernatural / mystical?

Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:jmm wrote:Loc

Loc wrote:

jmm wrote:

Loc wrote:

1. If the book of Genesis is not to be taken literally-why did god send himself in human form to die in order to save us from symbolic sin commited by a  metaphorical character (Adam) who never existed?

If Genesis did not happen,when, how, and why did original sin enter the world?

2. If you accept the current theory of evolution,just with god as the starter of it,when did souls come into existence? Did the first single celled organism have a soul? Will members of Homo habilis go to hell for not hearing the word of god? Or did a Homo erectus one day give birth to a being with a soul? Why should homo sapiens be the ones to go to hell? It's not our fault jesus decided to get killed by us and not a previous hominid.

Shit. 

So what context was this comment in?

The context of humor. 


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
I remember my catholic

I remember my catholic father saying a nun told him one time we cant know when did god insert sols to humans. So ye sometime after homo sapiens appeared god inserted the sole maybe after that genesis happened or something making 6000 years true LOL.

I never tooth about this I where more a dist before my atheism.
 

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I remember my catholic

Quote:

I remember my catholic father saying a nun told him one time we cant know when did god insert sols to humans. So ye sometime after homo sapiens appeared god inserted the sole maybe after that genesis happened or something making 6000 years true LOL.

I never tooth about this I where more a dist before my atheism.

Please take this in the spirit of love and respect:

For the Love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, would you please get a spell checker?!  That's hardly English.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is onlineOnline
Loc wrote:1. If the book of

Loc wrote:

1. If the book of Genesis is not to be taken literally-why did god send himself in human form to die in order to save us from symbolic sin commited by a  metaphorical character (Adam) who never existed?

If Genesis did not happen,when, how, and why did original sin enter the world?

2. If you accept the current theory of evolution,just with god as the starter of it,when did souls come into existence? Did the first single celled organism have a soul? Will members of Homo habilis go to hell for not hearing the word of god? Or did a Homo erectus one day give birth to a being with a soul? Why should homo sapiens be the ones to go to hell? It's not our fault jesus decided to get killed by us and not a previous hominid.

Well most churches just tell their members basically believe whatever you want to believe about evolution/conflicts with science. This is what's good for business, they don't want people quitting the church over any of these sticky issues. So among Christians in the same church, you have some that believe Genesis is a myth, some believe it is literally true but most just really don't care to resolve this conflict. That would require the use of rational thought and they just don't want to go there.

You're just waisting your time tring to understand the thinking of delusional people.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Religious_Rebel wrote:I

Religious_Rebel wrote:
I remember getting into a huge argument when I was in school because I was selling the point of Sodom and Gomorrah being about men wanting to rape (angels), not men being homosexual.


You were right.

The most that is said about homosexuality in the story of Sodom is that homosexual gang-rape is wrong. If homosexual gang-rape makes homosexuality in general sinful then, to be consistent, heterosexual gang-rape makes heterosexuality in general sinful. When this is pointed out to them, they'll either repeat themselves ad nauseum or start with their fallacious special pleading.

Anyhow, let's look at the story. In Genesis 13, Lot and Abraham decided to go separate ways. Abraham settled in Canaan. Lot settled in Sodom. You can walk from the one to the other in just an afternoon. In Genesis 18, around noon, God shows himself to Abraham and three men approach Abraham's encampment. Abraham rushed to the visitors, bowed to them, and offered food and water. God favored Abraham's hospitality, so the visitors promised the blessing of a child, later known as Isaac. Sarah thought the visitor's promise was in jest. Abraham then pointed them on their way, to Sodom. Genesis 19 begins with two angels (who were probably two of the men who had visited Abraham earlier) entering Sodom in the evening. Lot seen them approach the gates, bowed to them, and offered food, water, and shelter. When the mob approaches, Lot and his family went to drastic measures to protect their guests. Lot told his sons-in-law to escape before God destroyed Sodom. Like Sarah, they thought the promise was in jest. They did not escape. God favored, and therefore preserved, Lot and his daughters.

Those who think Genesis 19 speaks of homosexuality ignore the obvious parallelism in the stories. When interpreted as parallels, the morals of the stories are clear. The first moral is that God's promises are not in jest, as shown by the (later) birth of Isaac and the death of Lot's sons-in-law. The other moral is that God blesses those who bless others, as shown by God favoring Abraham and Lot and his family (except the sons-in-law). The main focus of the stories is hospitality. As such, it is logical to conclude that the story of rape was intended to show the extreme lengths that Lot and his daughters would go through in order to be hospitable to their guests. Lo and behold, Ezekiel 16.48 says, "This was the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." In other words, Sodom's sin was inhospitality.

Genesis 18-19 spoke against inhospitality and thinking that promises were in jest, with rape being used as a form of extreme inhospitality, and they do not speak against homosexuality at all. Those who interpret the story as being about homosexuality have completely missed the point, as illustrated by the correct interpretation and by their general lack of hospitality in putting forward their arguments.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:1. If the book of

Loc wrote:

1. If the book of Genesis is not to be taken literally-why did god send himself in human form to die in order to save us from symbolic sin commited by a  metaphorical character (Adam) who never existed?

The symbolic sin would be symbolic of a real human failing. We have plenty to choose from. Maybe it represents all of them and it's just explained as a single rebellion against God so that even the lowest common denominator can comprehend.

If I had to interpret the story of Jesus I'd suggest that it was his example, including his self-sacrifice that is meant to save us from our negative traits (original sin).

My problem with the Adam and Eve myth is the form that the transgression takes. It's too much like Pandora's box. Their crime represents one of our best qualities as a species. Curiosity.

 

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley wrote:In my

Jacob Cordingley wrote:

In my experience, the Christians who accept evolution are either habitual Christians, who accept both Christianity and evolution because by and large this is what society believes in, or they are academic Christians who want to think that Christianity is compatible with science, but despite their large brains are actually entirely flawed in this view.

That may be the case in the USA but in the rest of the civilised world creationists would very much be in the minority amongst Christians. At least 2 popes have accepted that we evolved. Most Catholics don't have a problem with evolution. Naturally they'd argue that it was guided by God but that's not the argument here. I've known a large number of Christians who genuinely belived but also didn't reject evolution. Mostly Catholic but some other denominations too.

I've actually only met 4 creationists here in Australia. Unfortunately one is my Uncle and 3 (including my uncle) are teachers. - shudder.

 

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I think the

BobSpence1 wrote:

I think the key point here is once someone is prepared to accept large chunks of the Bible as mythical or allegorical, ie not to be taken literally, by what means could you decide that any of it was to be taken literally? You would logically require some independent reference, IOW, the Bible can no longer be regarded as a source of absolute truth about anything.

Maybe the point remains even if it's all symbolic. When it comes down to it, at least in a modern context Jesus is a symbol for believers. It may not even be relevant if he really existed or not. Whether the events took place or it's a divinely inspired myth the example would mean the same.

I'm in devil's advocate mode today. I couldn't find any believers to disagree with. You guys seem to have scared off all the worst of them.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
I was ignoring this question

I was ignoring this question because I'm not Christian and I have no desire to defend the an historical Jesus as absolute truth. However, there seems to be an interesting discussion brewing since that doesn't involve necessarily defending that viewpoint so I've decided to throw in my two-pence and get involved.

Loc wrote:

1. If the book of Genesis is not to be taken literally-why did god send himself in human form to die in order to save us from symbolic sin commited by a  metaphorical character (Adam) who never existed?

If you pare genesis down to the barest elements (an excellent method for understanding symbolism) then the original sin is simply a divergence from a path.

A little conceptual diagram of Genesis Jesus Now:

........................Sin_____Jesus______Now

___Eden____/______________Unknown Alternative

......................\ ______________Unknown Alternative

 

Now if sin is a symbolic representation of some point of divergence from a particular path in the history consistent with this humanity, then it follows if the 'message' of theology is to be believed that the point of Jesus is to represent some counter balancing divergence away from the path consequential to the sin direction

So then you have:

........................Sin___________Unknown Alternative

......................../........\Jesus______Now

___Eden____/______________Unknown Alternative

......................\ ______________Unknown Alternative

 

Loc wrote:

If Genesis did not happen,when, how, and why did original sin enter the world?

Well clearly in my view Genesis did happen and sin entered the world, though it could also be stated that a genesis of man occurred and humanity entered the world of sin (and the story of Genesis implies this equally ie Adam and Eve's newly discovered shame (genesis of a mental state) and exodus of Eden for the world beyond the gate).

Loc wrote:

2. If you accept the current theory of evolution,just with god as the starter

I don't justify my acceptance of evolution with "God as the starter of it" however..

Loc wrote:

when did souls come into existence?

The Soul always existed.

Adam and Eve -(basically I consider these two to be a composite symbol for early states of human evolution characterised as being more naive, ignorant and/or oblivious than the modern type human)- represent a level of interaction with the "soul" concept which is given by theology to be less potent than the interaction between the soul and man of higher intellect. That is to say: modern man, due to its 'big brain', is capable of having more potent impact on the state of the "soul".

If we were to suppose that this were true then it would make sense in light of our impact on the earth environment (as a consequence of our expanded intellectual abilities) that the genesis concept of the soul may refer to our earth environment (at least in part) rather than to the ghost-like apparition usually connected to the concept.  This is not out of step with most original theology.

Loc wrote:

Did the first single celled organism have a soul?

Yes. The likely explanation here is that the single celled organism was like us aware of its place within existence as a whole and used some part of itself to reference its potency in terms of all existing things. The single celled organism wouldn't have abstractly conceived of this as a 'soul' or an 'environmental system' as we do, but it would have been aware of something of that nature being in existence.

Loc wrote:

Will members of Homo habilis go to hell for not hearing the word of god?

Definitely not, they would categorically be unable to conceive of the systems that define this idea "hell" short of a radical (genesis-like) change in their physical system. 

In short I am saying that this core tenet of theology philosophically refers to a psyche-environment feedback loop (the soul) and the projected consequences of feeding certain mental states (knowledge of good and evil OR do unto others) into this loop.  

 

NB: I edited to fix some awful grammar and add a little clarity to the post.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Well the only honest (yet

Well the only honest (yet stupid) Christians are the fundamentalists ones. Once you start saying Adam and Eve might not literally have existed and the the bible isnt the perfect word of god why not then say

 

1) Jesus might not have literarly existed

2) So obviously  he might not have literally died for our sins

3) We might not literarlly have original sin

4) In fact god might not even literally existed

5) Heaven and hell might not literally exist

 

It all just falls apart, and you might as well just concentrate on being a decent human being


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
mrjonno wrote:Well the only

mrjonno wrote:

Well the only honest (yet stupid) Christians are the fundamentalists ones.

 

I'd suggest the opposite. The fundamentalists are the least honest Christians. The title 'fundamentalist' suggests their own opinion that they follow the bible fundamentally (and literally) but really they dishonestly manipulate parts of it to support their own predjudices.

The honest Christians are the ones who try to follow the example of Jesus rather than justifying hatred with carefully chosen parts of the old testament.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic wrote:That

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

That may be the case in the USA but in the rest of the civilised world creationists would very much be in the minority amongst Christians. At least 2 popes have accepted that we evolved. Most Catholics don't have a problem with evolution. Naturally they'd argue that it was guided by God but that's not the argument here. I've known a large number of Christians who genuinely belived but also didn't reject evolution. Mostly Catholic but some other denominations too.

I've actually only met 4 creationists here in Australia. Unfortunately one is my Uncle and 3 (including my uncle) are teachers. - shudder.

 

You're damn lucky. I've never met a evolutionist christian.Even the most liberal christian I know is a creationist.I think it probably has alot to do with the teaching of evolution in school,I didn't go to a public school so I don't know if or how it's mentioned.I don't think it really is though. (I'm in SA BTW)

Thanks for your 2 cents Eloise.I'm going to go read it again..

 

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
The % of creationist

The % of creationist Christians outside America is extremely low.

The Catholic church has large number of scientists working for it not all of them are even catholic. While you may get the Pope misquoting/misusing  science you are not going to have a modern day Gallileo anymore. The Vatican will just reinterpret the bible to match the science rather than deny the discovery itself. The Vatican even officially abolished hell (obviously it existed pre 20th century but god had a change of plan).

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
When did the Vatican get rid

When did the Vatican get rid of Hell? Obviously nearly nobody believes in everything in the Bible 100% - obviously nobody thinks disobedient children and people who work on Saturdy/Sunday should be stoned to death. Even the most rabid fundies cerry pick - especially since some things in the Bible contradict each other.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Could be wrong on the

Could be wrong on the cathloics might be the C of E but then some of the English leaders are probably agnostics anyway.

Pretty they don't go for the burning hell fire just somewhere when you are detached from gods love (which I assume for an atheist would be pretty much the same as earth)

You are right any christian who follows 100% of the bible is likely to be in jail very quickly