- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOriginally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually i do not know if you noticed but i, as i have now for the third time stated, did not give any type of figurative nor metaphorical value to the passage that BBarr cited while ascribing a purely materialistic one elsewhere. I have merely stated that God, in his wisdom, has initiated self perpetuating systems of which this was a poetic descrip ...[text shortened]... has instituted and utilised the evolutionary process and they know i am correct and become mad.
Well at least you tried.
Sadly, your attempt is at best contradictory, but even if we fix that it suffers a more fundamental flaw.
Here is the bit that sounds contradictory:
Actually i do not know if you noticed but i, as i have now for the third time stated, did not give any type of figurative nor metaphorical value to the passage that BBarr cited while ascribing a purely materialistic one elsewhere.
...yet later on, you said:
thus what is in fact happening, is a real meteorological process being described in poetic or figurative terms.
...and you still reject the possibility that the aspects of the creation story that you think contradict evolution are similarly figurative.
So it seems to me that precisely what you have done is give a type of figurative or metaphorical value to the passage that BBarr cited while ascribing a purely literal one elsewhere. Not that I would call god directly creating Adam and Eve 'materialistic' as such.
But the more fundamental flaw is this: you say that Job clearly has many figurative passages. But unless you are a young earth creationist and reject modern physics and cosmology, you will have to conclude that there are figurative passages in Genesis also.
Now hopefully you can see just how erroneous the claim is to either literal or metaphorical interpretation, for the process is clearly physical, its description figurative, thus there is not a preponderance of one over the other as you and BBarr have erroneously tried to assert.
This is contradictory. You have said that the description is figurative. So surely it is a metaphor for the physical process? I have not said there is a 'preponderance of one over the other ' and I don't think bbarr did either.
Now Sharky my man, you shall be no doubt wondering why one can attribute a purely materialistic designation to the evolutionary process, and the real simple answer is, that there is no scriptural references to it ,
There are no scriptural references to the meteorological processes either as far as I know, unless you count the passage bbarr cited. Yet you accept meteorology despite the lack of scriptural references. That's inconsistent.
If on the other hand, you want to argue that Job is referencing the water cycle but in a figurative way, then we are back where we started, because you still have not explain why the references to creation are not similarly a figurative way of describing god bringing life about in its diversity. We now have good evidence for the meteorological explanation of rain and the evolutionary explanation of the diversity of life.
So, in summary, you seem to be without a robust way of choosing which parts of the bible are figurative and which are literal, and this allows you to cherry pick.
1 edit
Originally posted by RenarsLol, its not so bad when you realise that Fabian and Noobster are spiritually bereft and need all the encouragement they can get, any little scrap of spirituality that percolates deep into their psyche may plant a seed of spiritual truth. Problem is that the soil needs to be cultivated and conditioned, its either too rocky or too acidic. Never the less, we are their only hope! 😉
me too, Robbie (no pun intended)..but don't forget that religion (incl. Christianity) and its track record is not much better..
p.s.
you must have the skin of a rhino to withstand the bullies like Fab.. 😉
Originally posted by karoly aczelits not really a paradox.
Now I LOOSELY agree with this point but cannot add to it at this time...
Having said that I also agree with Proper Knob, Zalanhzi and FabianFnas.
Yes I know, it seems contradictory, but I have long contended that the universe is a paradox.
As for your "debating" techniques, it seems the better the point is someone makes against you the more underhanded your are in you response.
the probability of intelligent life appearing is pretty small but from our point of view it is 1. we are here asking this question. in another universe maybe some sentient rocks are sitting in a crystal garden wondering what would carbon based lifeforms look like.
and there are universes where everything is a radiation soup with no atoms ever having formed. in that universe nobody is asking any questions
Originally posted by Lord Sharkyou still reject the possibility that the aspects of the creation story that you think contradict evolution are similarly figurative,
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Well at least you tried.
Sadly, your attempt is at best contradictory, but even if we fix that it suffers a more fundamental flaw.
Here is the bit that sounds contradictory:
[b]Actually i do not know if you noticed but i, as i have now for the third time stated, did not give any type of figurative nor ...[text shortened]... rts of the bible are figurative and which are literal, and this allows you to cherry pick.
yes i have shown else where not only are they mutually exclusive but that there is no basis for anything other than a literal interpretation. If you have any evidence to the contrary, or any reason whatsoever for stating that the creation account should be viewed as allegorical then let it be heard. i have no reason and therefore do not assert that it is.
No i need not reject either modern physics, nor cosmology, simply the evolutionary hypothesis that the diversity of life has arisen through gradual 'aberration', at a molecular level. All else can be accommodated.
i have stated that the description is poetic, sometimes figurative, however, it generally always describes a physical process. The passage that bbarr cited is an excellent example of a meteorological process described in poetic terms in the pages of Gods word, the water cycle of evaporation, condensation and dissipation.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieno.
thankyou Zhalanzi, in order to make room for the evolutionary idea we must ignore certain parts of the Bible. What are we to do, when Christ, Peter, Paul quote from the flood account, quote from the book of Genesis? make references to Sodom and Gomorrah? must we say to ourselves these are simple metaphors that did not really happen for they contradi ...[text shortened]... al theories, what in fact has occurred is that one has encroached upon and supplanted the other?
nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say we should abandon jesus and god. no where does it say that we should not love each other.
when do christ peter or paul ever quote genesis? they also quote that women should be subservient to man is that also to be followed exactly to the letter? "suffer not a woman to teach" should that be also followed nowadays?
doctrines change. jesus changed them himself and put forth new ones. before him it was unheard to love your enemies. so if he changes things, why can't we? as long as we stick to the guidelines he put forth.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie, my contact with you given me insights that makes me glad I'm not a christian like you are. Why would anyone want to be christian when they learn that they risque to be like robbie? That I cannot understand. But of course, they are such a small fraction of the christianity so they don't do much harm.
Lol, its not so bad when you realise that Fabian and Noobster are spiritually bereft and need all the encouragement they can get, any little scrap of spirituality that percolates deep into their psyche may plant a seed of spiritual truth. Problem is that the soil needs to be cultivated and conditioned, its either too rocky or too acidic. Never the less, we are their only hope! 😉
Originally posted by Zahlanziwhere do Christ and Peter ever quote Genesis?
no.
nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say we should abandon jesus and god. no where does it say that we should not love each other.
when do christ peter or paul ever quote genesis? they also quote that women should be subservient to man is that also to be followed exactly to the letter? "suffer not a woman to teach" should that be also foll ...[text shortened]... s. so if he changes things, why can't we? as long as we stick to the guidelines he put forth.
(Matthew 19:3-6) And Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and saying: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?” In reply he said: “Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. . .
Christ quotes directly from Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:2
(Matthew 24:36-39) . . .“Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.
Christ all alludes to Genesis 7:7
(2 Peter 2:5)he did not hold back from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a deluge upon a world of ungodly people;
Peter alludes to the flood account and particularly Genesis 8:18
need i go on?
Originally posted by ZahlanziNo its not. But to start on the road to true understanding, we must first use the premise that it is a paradox. Of course from a higher dimension all opposites are reconciled and there is no paradox.
its not really a paradox.
the probability of intelligent life appearing is pretty small but from our point of view it is 1. we are here asking this question. in another universe maybe some sentient rocks are sitting in a crystal garden wondering what would carbon based lifeforms look like.
and there are universes where everything is a radiation soup with no atoms ever having formed. in that universe nobody is asking any questions
like Fabian says" science and religon can never mix". No. not from a traditional, linear point of view. From an enlightened view it could be said there is no religon or science. But until then we have religon and science.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut that's not from the real bible, is it? Only the JW copy of yours?
where do Christ and Peter ever quote Genesis?
(Matthew 19:3-6) And Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and saying: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?” In reply he said: “Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leav ...[text shortened]... dly people;
Peter alludes to the flood account and particularly Genesis 8:18
need i go on?
Originally posted by RenarsFabian may be a bully but he's not as bad as Robbie. I think its called intellectual dishonesty, or something like that. At least Fabian has a coherent viewpoint.
me too, Robbie (no pun intended)..but don't forget that religion (incl. Christianity) and its track record is not much better..
p.s.
you must have the skin of a rhino to withstand the bullies like Fab.. 😉
Originally posted by karoly aczelThank you for those words, karoly.
Fabian may be a bully but he's not as bad as Robbie. I think its called intellectual dishonesty, or something like that. At least Fabian has a coherent viewpoint.
If I'm a bully, I'm only a bully to bullies.
There are numerous times that I have to experience rude behaviour from robbie. An I'm not the only target. If he accept this kind of behaviour from himself, I think that he can withstand some of it from elsewhere too. When he whines about others bullying, he is like a little girl standing in the skirts of his mother saying 'They are bad to me', but thinking 'I'm the only one that can be bad around here!'
Originally posted by karoly aczelwell, coherence = right to bully ? I wish I could help Robbie but religion is not my thing (I haven't even read the Bible) nor is evolution, for that matter. Sometimes I have this feeling that Fabian believes that Robbie is running for a position of headmaster at a local school in Malmo or for an MP in The Riksdag and that he needs to stop him, no matter what - be it bullying, calling a culter (is that even a proper name?), God forbids having a JW running a school or a country.
Fabian may be a bully but he's not as bad as Robbie. I think its called intellectual dishonesty, or something like that. At least Fabian has a coherent viewpoint.
Originally posted by RenarsAgree. But that will never happen where I live. But there are a bucnch of creationists that wants to take over good ol' US of A. So a threat is there, for sure. Until now they've faild, thanks god.
God forbids having a JW running a school or a country.
Please don't see me as a bully. Robbie has approvad a certain degree of bullyness.
If I may quote robbie:
"haha Fabidoooooo, boo hoo hoo, moo moo moo, floo floo floo, goo goo goo!"
"read it and weep Fabidoo!"
"ennsy weensy Fabian climbed up the water spout"
And so he goes. Rather rude if you ask me. And childish.
I don't whine, he can do that. I can deal with rude robbies.
But he can be nice too. I give him that.
2 edits
Originally posted by Renarsfear not they virtually know nothing about spirituality, have no recourse to reason, cannot debate, produce ludicrous assertions, all they have is personal attacks and vague references to intellectual dishonesty (like he knows what's inside my person and motivates me, that's the level we are dealing with)
well, coherence = right to bully ? I wish I could help Robbie but religion is not my thing (I haven't even read the Bible) nor is evolution, for that matter. Sometimes I have this feeling that Fabian believes that Robbie is running for a position of headmaster at a local school in Malmo or for an MP in The Riksdag and that he needs to stop him, no matter what ...[text shortened]... a culter (is that even a proper name?), God forbids having a JW running a school or a country.
Take Fabian for example, he states that the translation I use is unsound, again a vague and unfounded assertion, he offers no reason why this should be the case? All i need to do is find an alternative translation and post it and hes left sucking his thumb while Karoly Poly sends him valentines cards, its like flicking a bothersome fly away from encroaching upon your Chardonnay.
i dont mind the personal attacks and slander, but when they state that i am dishonest without any foundation, then that is time to get serious. As for Fabian, there seems to be like a symbiotic relationship with those who are prepared to stand up to him and say, no Fabian, your talking nonsense, he i think secretly respects that, whereas if you let him, he shall walk all over you and not even flinch.