Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AgeOfEgos wrote:I apologize if I came across as suggesting an common early ancestor was spontaneously birthed by a monkey/ape

No, no, you didn't! It's more the talk about a common ancestor and the supposed existence of a unique Adam-and-Eve pairing that kind of sound as if it would suggest this. If there was an Adam and an Eve, I doubt they were on the same step in the evolutionary ladder.

As for humans still being apes ... that's something I wouldn't agree with, though I am certain my perception on this issue is more philosophical and less scientifical. Regardless of the evolutionary link, apes are animals, and humans managed to ascend many evolutionary steps ago. It's just something I link to a people's level of civilisation. Don't ask me where I would draw the line, though, because that would get real fuzzy, considering how smart some animals are.

AgeOfEgos wrote:While bottlenecks certainly may lead to less genetic variants over time--I'm not sure that it really shows rapid genetic expansion.

Well, I imagine it would depend on a lot of other factors, but if one subtype is better able to adapt to the post-event conditions than the others, or even better endure the event itself, then he gains a huge advantage against others with whom he has to contend for resources. I vaguely recall reading an article about one distant cousin of ours who was basically exterminated due to repeated clashes between "their" tribes and "ours". At the very least such a catastrophe, if it truly happened this way, would reduce the number of "relatives" and thus diversity ...

While I would disagree that humans are not apes and not credit too much civilization to our species, I can respect our disagreement and believe I understand the philosophical nuance you draw. An interesting read furthering that topic is "The Sex and Politics of Chimpanzees";

http://www.amazon.com/Chimpanzee-Politics-Power-among-Apes/dp/0801886562

After reading that, you might catch yourself thinking "Quit acting like a damn chimp" at work .

RE: Genetic expansion------Environmental conditions certainly contribute to natural selection (that is the essence of natural selection--environmental pressures favoring genetic mutation and diversity). Gould took that a bit further stating that evolution was stagnant until environmental catastrophes caused rapid expansion (punctuated equilibrium). I don't believe that, for a variety of reasons (For example, if that were true--the ability to mutate quickly would in itself become naturally selected--which means no more periods of stagnation should follow, etc.). Who the hell am I though?

That said, I will likely not post anymore on the subject in fear of dragging this completely OT--so don't take my lack of reply as a slight, simply being polite to the OP.

 generalgrog wrote:
I went to a Roman Catholic Website

So what?

Here's another Catholic website:

http://whosoeverdesires.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/moving-forward-with-polygenism/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:
When I hear "original sin", what springs to mind first is that the entire concept was used to suppress women and justify mysoginy throughout the middle ages.

EDIT: Read more better books.

AOE: Gotcha!

Manchu wrote:Read more books.

You know it's true, though.

We already went over interpretations and people conveniently reading into the scripture what they want - today as much as back then - so there's no need to lecture me on this not being the only view on Original Sin as I am already aware of it. I'm just pointing out historical facts, which are fairly important to understand certain issues which are still prevalent even in today's culture.

 Manchu wrote:
Here's another Catholic website:

http://whosoeverdesires.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/moving-forward-with-polygenism/

Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention.

So we can add hilarious ignorance of science to the list of the church's flaws? Or would that flaw be better described as stubborn refusal to accept that "god did it" isn't a good explanation?

How about you try to communicate your views without being rude about it?

The people you're talking with have been mostly very patient and polite with you. Could you make an effort to be friendlier?

Religious people who believe in evolution and the development of species still generally believe that the gods imbued us with the higher functions and inspiration which make humanity unique among the animals on Earth.

 Manchu wrote:
Hmm, Peregrine told me that I don't really believe in my religion, which is Christianity -- and which might actually be the most insulting thing anyone has ever said to me on Dakka -- in part because I don't read the Bible like he, a non-Christian, does.

No, if you read at all you would see that what I actually said was "you don't read the Bible like other Christians I've encountered do". Forget Peregrinism you seem to have invented Mancuism, your own brand of "Christianity" which changes everything to make it more appealing.

What every person can easily know about Christianity is that it is not about hatred and oppression.

Let me guess, the classic "no true Christian" argument is your explanation for why we should forget about the huge number of people who feel that their Christianity IS about hatred and oppression? Or are we supposed to believe them when they hate and oppress but call it "love"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Religious people who believe in evolution and the development of species still generally believe that the gods imbued us with the higher functions and inspiration which make humanity unique among the animals on Earth.

Read the source he cited again. It says that those things cannot be explained by purely natural events which ignores the overwhelming evidence that they were. It's no better than a theory saying that objects falling is too much for the theory of gravity to explain so we need to invoke "intelligent falling". I see absolutely no reason to approve of the church's decision to take an official position that contradicts everything we know about the subject.

And it IS a terrible explanation. There's absolutely no explanation of how "god did it", or exactly how the scientific theory is lacking, it's just an assumption that any theory the church can (officially) approve of has to include "god did it" somewhere in it. That might be fine for the average believer with little or no interest in the subject, but it's incredibly irresponsible for people in a position of authority to spread a (factually) terrible theory like that.

 Lynata wrote:
You know it's true, though.

That original sin, a doctrine about the nature of all human people, somehow has special, mysiognistic connotations. No, what I know is that your are speaking 100% from prejudice and 0% from knowledge.

 Mannahnin wrote:
How about you try to communicate your views without being rude about it?

The people you're talking with have been mostly very patient and polite with you. Could you make an effort to be friendlier?

It's a lot easier to do that when the people in question don't consistently misrepresent what I actually said. I've corrected him multiple times about the fact that "my" version of theology is not my own personal "Peregrinism" developed as an ignorant outsider, it's the theology that actual self-identified Christians have explained to me. And yet over and over again it's just "my invention as an atheist".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
That original sin, a doctrine about the nature of all human people, somehow has special, mysiognistic connotations. No, what I know is that your are speaking 100% from prejudice and 0% from knowledge.

Oh yeah, it can only be based on prejudice and not knowledge. There has never been a case where people in authority have blamed women specifically for original sin. You know, since Eve was a woman and was the weak one who tempted Adam and destroyed him.

And, like it or not, the people saying that were self-identified Christians.

 Peregrine wrote:

It's a lot easier to do that when the people in question don't consistently misrepresent what I actually said. I've corrected him multiple times about the fact that "my" version of theology is not my own personal "Peregrinism" developed as an ignorant outsider, it's the theology that actual self-identified Christians have explained to me. And yet over and over again it's just "my invention as an atheist".

Do you honestly think that makes what you say insightful? No, seriously, do you think that 1) we're going to accept everything you say as being an accurate depiction of what "actual self-identified Christians" explained to you, and 2) that those self identified christians actually knew what they were talking about?

No offense dude, but you'd be better off claiming it was your own interpretation. Saying "I got it from a guy that says he's christian" is like telling a judge "the guy on the subway said there was case law on this."

I mean, Fred Phelps is a "self identified christian," and I wouldn't rely on his interpretation of a Denny's menu.

 Polonius wrote:
2) that those self identified christians actually knew what they were talking about?

Well, given that the entire "proof" of why they're wrong so far has consisted of "that's not what I believe", then no, I don't see any reason to doubt that they know about their own religion.

No offense dude, but you'd be better off claiming it was your own interpretation. Saying "I got it from a guy that says he's christian" is like telling a judge "the guy on the subway said there was case law on this."

That's a terrible analogy. The guy on the subway is claiming factual knowledge that is objectively true or not, and it's easy to prove whether or not they were correct. The self-identified Christian is simply declaring their membership in a group related to a subject where there is no factual proof* for any side and what is "correct" is determined solely by the members of that group. There is no objective outside authority to say "X is a Christian belief, Y is not" if both of the people claiming X and Y are self-identified Christians.


*Besides the whole "there is no god" thing, even believers admit it when they say how important faith is.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
2) that those self identified christians actually knew what they were talking about?

Well, given that the entire "proof" of why they're wrong so far has consisted of "that's not what I believe", then no, I don't see any reason to doubt that they know about their own religion.

Yet, oddly... you see plenty of reason to doubt that everybody in this thread knows about their religion.

No offense dude, but you'd be better off claiming it was your own interpretation. Saying "I got it from a guy that says he's christian" is like telling a judge "the guy on the subway said there was case law on this."

That's a terrible analogy. The guy on the subway is claiming factual knowledge that is objectively true or not, and it's easy to prove whether or not they were correct.

 Polonius wrote:
That you think the issue of if there is case law speaking on in issue is an objective fact that is easy to prove is hilarious and charming. In any interesting matter it's always a contest between interpretations.

In this context purposes case law is objective. It's easy to independently verify the subway guy's qualifications (or lack of, more likely) by consulting the independent set of facts that everyone relevant has agreed on*. We can't do the same for the self-identified Christian because there's no independent set of facts to say that one branch of Christianity is "right" or "wrong" compared to another one. You might be able to say it in the case of the extremist "church" that consists of a crazy preacher and his immediate family, but you can't dismiss, say, biblical literalism as "wrong" as illegitimate like that since it's a much more common belief.


*Ok, yes, there is controversy in law. But I don't think the subway "lawyer" is referring to any legitimate areas of controversy.

Well, hold on there. there is no factual prove that there is a god. There is no factual proof that the Bible is the word of god.

There is no absolute proof, but only because it's impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything.

However, any sensible system of beliefs about the world includes some variation of "don't believe in the existence of things without good evidence" and there is absolutely no evidence for god. There isn't even a solid theoretical argument for the existence of god. It's just like the case of the celestial teapot: we can't prove that it doesn't exist, but belief in it is not rational and the incredibly small chance of being wrong doesn't stop us from saying "it doesn't exist".

There is plenty of factual proof about what the Bible says, what it means, and how christians interpret it, especially since nearly all agree on the same basic document. You can construct a geometric proof or anything, but there are strong reasons to accept one interpretation over another. The same way there are reasons to interpret any document.

Except the person in question rejected the idea of just using the words of the Bible and insisted that we have to look at the "true" meaning as established by the tradition of his personal branch of Christianity. A meaning which turns the entire story we were discussing into a symbolic one, where the symbolism is all incredibly subjective and never defined anywhere in the actual text of the Bible.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
That you think the issue of if there is case law speaking on in issue is an objective fact that is easy to prove is hilarious and charming. In any interesting matter it's always a contest between interpretations.

In this context purposes case law is objective. It's easy to independently verify the subway guy's qualifications (or lack of, more likely) by consulting the independent set of facts that everyone relevant has agreed on*. We can't do the same for the self-identified Christian because there's no independent set of facts to say that one branch of Christianity is "right" or "wrong" compared to another one. You might be able to say it in the case of the extremist "church" that consists of a crazy preacher and his immediate family, but you can't dismiss, say, biblical literalism as "wrong" as illegitimate like that since it's a much more common belief.


*Ok, yes, there is controversy in law. But I don't think the subway "lawyer" is referring to any legitimate areas of controversy.

Well, no. You're saying that in this context case law is objective. I mean, it sounds like what you're saying is that because Christianity is based on a set of texts, every person is going to walk away with a different meaning. Which is unlike the law in almost no meaningful way. Oh, sure, there's somebody who picks a winner from two competing interpretations when highly specific instances arise, but if the law were nearly as objective as you think, we would have a lot more unanimous supreme court decisions.

The only real difference between scripture and jurisprudence is that judges can make final rulings.

Well, hold on there. there is no factual prove that there is a god. There is no factual proof that the Bible is the word of god.

There is no absolute proof, but only because it's impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything.

However, any sensible system of beliefs about the world includes some variation of "don't believe in the existence of things without good evidence" and there is absolutely no evidence for god. There isn't even a solid theoretical argument for the existence of god. It's just like the case of the celestial teapot: we can't prove that it doesn't exist, but belief in it is not rational and the incredibly small chance of being wrong doesn't stop us from saying "it doesn't exist".

I'm not sure why you're teeing off on my statement that there is factual evidence for god's existence. I'd disagree about the sensibility about believing in things that can't be proven, but that's a given between any theist and atheist.

There is plenty of factual proof about what the Bible says, what it means, and how christians interpret it, especially since nearly all agree on the same basic document. You can construct a geometric proof or anything, but there are strong reasons to accept one interpretation over another. The same way there are reasons to interpret any document.

Except the person in question rejected the idea of just using the words of the Bible and insisted that we have to look at the "true" meaning as established by the tradition of his personal branch of Christianity. A meaning which turns the entire story we were discussing into a symbolic one, where the symbolism is all incredibly subjective and never defined anywhere in the actual text of the Bible.

What you seem to struggle with is that you can believe something to be true, but not literally true.

Science first showed that the bible can't be literally true about 500 years ago. More if you want to discard all the miracles.

So, yeah, many Christians don't' believe in a literal garden of eden. No matter how you shake it, Genesis is old. It's the creation story of semi-literate goat herders. Yeah, it doesn't start off with the big bang, a billion year so evolution, and the subtle shift from intelligence to sentience.

The point of the story is that God creates man, and man will inevitably disobey god (sin). Because of this, man cannot live in paradise, but most struggle and die.

I don't see why it matters if this literally happened 6500 years ago, or is a symbolic statement of the human condition.

 Peregrine wrote:

So we can add hilarious ignorance of science to the list of the church's flaws? Or would that flaw be better described as stubborn refusal to accept that "god did it" isn't a good explanation?

Thankfully, as the Church is not a scientific organization it really doesn't matter.

That's really one thing I always found odd about certain atheists, they seem to really enjoy attacking the relationship of a particular faith with science. In certain instances this makes sense, for example if we're talking about science education, stem cells, or any area of science where politics becomes a concern. But most of the time it simply doesn't matter because whether or not you believe in Evolution, Adam and Eve, Divine creation, or any of a host of other fairly esoteric concepts doesn't have much bearing on how you conduct your daily life.

 Polonius wrote:
Well, no. You're saying that in this context case law is objective. I mean, it sounds like what you're saying is that because Christianity is based on a set of texts, every person is going to walk away with a different meaning. Which is unlike the law in almost no meaningful way. Oh, sure, there's somebody who picks a winner from two competing interpretations when highly specific instances arise, but if the law were nearly as objective as you think, we would have a lot more unanimous supreme court decisions.

But, like I said, the guy on the subway is far outside that controversy and it's pretty easy to tell that his legal advice is absolute nonsense that no judge is going to consider seriously. On the other hand, when you're considering something like biblical literalism you can't say that it's objectively the wrong kind of Christianity. You can say that it isn't your Christianity, but it's absurd to say that a popular branch of the religion is not actually a part of it despite their self-identification as a part of it.

I'm not sure why you're teeing off on my statement that there is factual evidence for god's existence. I'd disagree about the sensibility about believing in things that can't be proven, but that's a given between any theist and atheist.

I'm just pointing out that "proof god doesn't exist" is a straw man of atheism. You might not have intended it that way but it's often followed by "you don't know 100% so STFU", when atheism actually claims something else. Call it a bit of preemptive defense if you want.

The point of the story is that God creates man, and man will inevitably disobey god (sin). Because of this, man cannot live in paradise, but most struggle and die.

I don't see why it matters if this literally happened 6500 years ago, or is a symbolic statement of the human condition.

Except I never argued for factual literalism about the story. What I said is that:

1) If we're going to take it as a symbolic statement about the human condition we need to consider the symbolism that is actually present in the text, not the symbolism that has been added by "tradition" independently of anything that's in the story.

and

2) The symbolic statements about the human condition are ethically horrible. If it's a symbolic lesson it's a bad one that we should strongly reject.

None of my criticism requires the Christian to believe in factual literalism, and "it's symbolic" doesn't dodge it one bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
Thankfully, as the Church is not a scientific organization it really doesn't matter.

Then the church needs to stop making statements about science. The source I was quoting from (linked by a Christian) says that evolution alone isn't good enough. It's a factual claim about a scientific subject, and an incorrect one. It's entirely appropriate to criticize the church for speaking from a self-appointed position of authority on a scientific subject.

 Peregrine wrote:

There is no absolute proof, but only because it's impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything.

That's actually not true, its simply very difficult to do so without narrowly defining the thing. I can quite easily prove that a given word does not exist on a given page in a given book. Proving the existence or nonexistence of God is only difficult because God is in itself difficult to define, and even more difficult to constrain spatially. Indeed, according to some interpretations of the concept God cannot be constrained spatially.

 Peregrine wrote:

Except the person in question rejected the idea of just using the words of the Bible and insisted that we have to look at the "true" meaning as established by the tradition of his personal branch of Christianity. A meaning which turns the entire story we were discussing into a symbolic one, where the symbolism is all incredibly subjective and never defined anywhere in the actual text of the Bible.

The Bible isn't a scientific text, or a philosophical treatise. It doesn't need to explicit in the same way poetry does not need to be explicit. The type of truth people find in the Bible is, in many ways, the same sort of truth people find in something written by Maya Angelou.

 dogma wrote:
That's actually not true, its simply very difficult to do so without narrowly defining the thing. I can quite easily prove that a given word does not exist on a given page in a given book. Proving the existence or nonexistence of God is only difficult because God is in itself difficult to define, and even more difficult to constrain spatially. Indeed, according to some interpretations of the concept God cannot be constrained spatially.

How? You can show me the book, but I can argue that you're just blind and can't see it. And I can keep coming up with possible-but-absurd excuses until you finally give up. Now, you will certainly establish overwhelming evidence that the word doesn't exist and that's sufficient to make nonexistence of the word the only rational belief, but it's not 100%.

Anyway, the whole point was just to cut off an argument that he wasn't actually going to make, so I don't see much purpose in continuing it.

 Peregrine wrote:
The Bible isn't a scientific text, or a philosophical treatise. It doesn't need to explicit in the same way poetry does not need to be explicit. The type of truth people find in the Bible is, in many ways, the same sort of truth people find in something written by Maya Angelou.

Ok, fine. It's symbolic. I already said that. But if we have, say, a poem describing torture and murder we should consider symbolism like "wow, humans are really awful to each other" not "humans are always kind and peaceful". And we certainly shouldn't throw out the symbolism about people being awful just because we want the poem to be about happy things. Anyone who has studied literature can tell you this, you have to work with the actual text, and freedom to interpret symbolism is not the same thing as freedom to invent any meaning you like.

The same is true of the story of Adam and Eve. The symbolism and moral lessons of the story are horrible, and the only reason to pretend otherwise is if you start from the assumption that Christianity has to be about good and happy things.

 Peregrine wrote:

Then the church needs to stop making statements about science. The source I was quoting from (linked by a Christian) says that evolution alone isn't good enough. It's a factual claim about a scientific subject, and an incorrect one. It's entirely appropriate to criticize the church for speaking from a self-appointed position of authority on a scientific subject.

Does anyone who actually works in a field where evolution is relevant pay any attention to what the Church says? The answer is, of course, no.

I think one problem here is that you misunderstand what is being said when the Church takes a particular position on science (at least when its acting correctly). It isn't a comment on the merit of the science itself. The Church is not claiming that evolution is a bad theory if it says it isn't enough, it is saying that it isn't enough to be spiritually satisfactory.

What I get from this is that Peregrine admits that it is poetic and symbolic, but that he also decided what it meant and that anyone that disagrees his interpretation is idiotic and he dismisses them. So, essentially, we have a zealot on our hands.

 Peregrine wrote:

How? You can show me the book, but I can argue that you're just blind and can't see it. And I can keep coming up with possible-but-absurd excuses until you finally give up. Now, you will certainly establish overwhelming evidence that the word doesn't exist and that's sufficient to make nonexistence of the word the only rational belief, but it's not 100%.

Anyway, the whole point was just to cut off an argument that he wasn't actually going to make, so I don't see much purpose in continuing it.

As I said, it has to do with definition (and also assumptions). You can always question the merit of a definition, but according to the parameters I have established for proof I can, with 100% certainty, prove the nonexistence of something.

 Peregrine wrote:

Ok, fine. It's symbolic. I already said that. But if we have, say, a poem describing torture and murder we should consider symbolism like "wow, humans are really awful to each other" not "humans are always kind and peaceful".

It depends on how the torture are employed in the poem. I think you're getting caught in your own hyperbole here, the Bible never indicates that people are always kind and peaceful. Quite the opposite, it describes how humans can behave in a way which is kind and peaceful while explicitly stating that their nature makes it difficult; at least as its presently arranged. After all, we've been fething around with canonization for quite some time.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
What I get from this is that Peregrine admits that it is poetic and symbolic, but that he also decided what it meant and that anyone that disagrees his interpretation is idiotic and he dismisses them. So, essentially, we have a zealot on our hands.

I was thinking it, but didn't want to say it.

 dogma wrote:
Does anyone who actually works in a field where evolution is relevant pay any attention to what the Church says? The answer is, of course, no.

Nobody who works in that field, but the church influences people who aren't biologists. We wouldn't be happy if the church taught that F = M/A instead of F = M*A and dismiss it with "oh, it's not like anyone who needs physics for their job listens", we'd be outraged about them spreading false knowledge. So why make an exception for evolution?

I think one problem here is that you misunderstand what is being said when the Church takes a particular position on science (at least when its acting correctly). It isn't a comment on the merit of the science itself. The Church is not claiming that evolution is a bad theory if it says it isn't enough, it is saying that it isn't enough to be spiritually satisfactory.

Except the quoted statement DOES make a comment on science and religious statements on evolution consistently use scientific language and an assumption that they're providing a legitimate scientific opinion not just spiritual guidance that stands entirely separate from science.

It depends on how the torture are employed in the poem. I think you're getting caught in your own hyperbole here, the Bible never indicates that people are always kind and peaceful. Quite the opposite, it describes how humans can behave in a way which is kind and peaceful while explicitly stating that their nature makes it difficult; at least as its presently arranged. After all, we've been fething around with canonization for quite some time.

Except the Bible doesn't just present flawed humanity and say "this is why we suck, we need to do better", it presents morally horrible actions with approval. Over and over again the supposedly "good" god does horrible things, or commands his followers to do horrible things. Over and over again we see horrible things presented as "virtue". And the fact that some Christians wave their hand and say "this is a story about good things" doesn't magically change it.

 Ahtman wrote:
What I get from this is that Peregrine admits that it is poetic and symbolic, but that he also decided what it meant and that anyone that disagrees his interpretation is idiotic and he dismisses them. So, essentially, we have a zealot on our hands.

No, I argued that if someone takes a symbolic interpretation that is completely opposed to the actual text there's a problem. We're not talking about a subtle difference in symbolic interpretation, we're talking about a dramatic change in the basic message of the story, and one that isn't supported at all by what it actually says.

So, please don't strawman my position anymore.

Manchu wrote:That original sin, a doctrine about the nature of all human people, somehow has special, mysiognistic connotations. No, what I know is that your are speaking 100% from prejudice and 0% from knowledge.

Wow, I guess that means stuff like the Malleus Maleficarum and the suppression of women didn't really happen, and the Vatican did not just publish a memo saying female priests to be "as sinful as child abuse" in 2010. I'm relieved!

"Women must cover their heads because they are not the image of God. They must do this as a sign of their subjection to authority and because sin came into the world through them. Their heads must be covered in church in order to honor the bishop. In like manner they have no authority to speak because the bishop is the embodiment of Christ. They must thus act before the bishop as before Christ, the judge, since the bishop is the representative of the Lord. Because of original sin they must show themselves submissive."
- Decretum Gratiani, Canon Law of the Catholic Church until 1918

"What else is woman but a foe to friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic danger, a delectable detriment, an evil of nature, painted with fair colours."
- Hammer of the Witches, published by Inquisitor Heinrich Kramer after receiving, via Papal Bull, full authority to prosecute, interrogate and punish supposed sorcerers and heretics

... or maybe it's you who needs to brush up on his knowledge. Regardless of what the original author meant as he wrote it down, this is what the church made of it. Denial won't change the truth, it only makes you look less objective.

Over and over again the supposedly "good" god does horrible things, or commands his followers to do horrible things

Ancient Judaism did not follow a a good vs evil dynamic. Like other ancient religious traditions of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greater Syria, it followed a dynamic of Order vs Chaos. God under this dynamic was Order. Doing moral good wasn't necessarily his goal. This changed somewhere between the 6th and 3rd centuries BCE after Zorastrianism exerted some influence with the rise of the Persian Empire.

The problem you present is one of cultural confusion, which is pretty much bound to happen in a religion with 3000+ years of baggage.

 Peregrine wrote:

Nobody who works in that field, but the church influences people who aren't biologists. We wouldn't be happy if the church taught that F = M/A instead of F = M*A and dismiss it with "oh, it's not like anyone who needs physics for their job listens", we'd be outraged about them spreading false knowledge. So why make an exception for evolution?

Because evolution is an esoteric concept and not a particular equation, and one which the Church does not dispute outside its merit with respect to spiritual doctrine.

And if the Church did what you describe I wouldn't care, it just means we ignore them unless they become violent or start making a significant effort to affect policy.

 Peregrine wrote:

Except the quoted statement DOES make a comment on science and religious statements on evolution consistently use scientific language and an assumption that they're providing a legitimate scientific opinion not just spiritual guidance that stands entirely separate from science.

It does, but it isn't a comment made by the Church.

 Peregrine wrote:

Except the Bible doesn't just present flawed humanity and say "this is why we suck, we need to do better", it presents morally horrible actions with approval. Over and over again the supposedly "good" god does horrible things, or commands his followers to do horrible things. Over and over again we see horrible things presented as "virtue". And the fact that some Christians wave their hand and say "this is a story about good things" doesn't magically change it.

The only Christians I've heard say its a story about "good things" are what my dad calls Sunday Christians. They go to Church, but don't really pay any attention to the underlying theology and have probably never read the Bible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

The problem you present is one of cultural confusion, which is pretty much bound to happen in a religion with 3000+ years of baggage.

Karen Armstrong's A History of God is a great way to get past some of that.

 LordofHats wrote:

Over and over again the supposedly "good" god does horrible things, or commands his followers to do horrible things

Ancient Judaism did not follow a a good vs evil dynamic. Like other ancient religious traditions of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greater Syria, it followed a dynamic of Order vs Chaos. God under this dynamic was Order. Doing moral good wasn't necessarily his goal. This changed somewhere between the 6th and 3rd centuries BCE after Zorastrianism exerted some influence with the rise of the Persian Empire.

The problem you present is one of cultural confusion, which is pretty much bound to happen in a religion with 3000+ years of baggage.

Ok, sure. Call it order vs. chaos. But you can't simultaneously say that somehow in 2012 it is a story of a good god and a book of symbolic lessons on how to be a virtuous person. And that's exactly the problem: modern Christians are claiming the Bible says something that it doesn't.

 dogma wrote:
Because evolution is an esoteric concept and not a particular equation, and one which the Church does not dispute outside its merit with respect to spiritual doctrine.

Except the quote in question is talking about the scientific merit.

It does, but it isn't a comment made by the Church.

It's a comment contained on a Catholic website, posted with approval by a Christian. And it's entirely consistent with other statements made by Christians (including those in positions of authority to speak for their churches) commenting on a scientific issue.

The only Christians I've heard say its a story about "good things" are what my dad calls Sunday Christians. They go to Church, but don't really pay any attention to the underlying theology and have probably never read the Bible.

Have you even been paying attention to this thread? The past few pages of argument have been about someone claiming that the story is about "good things", even if he didn't use those exact words.

No, it's lesson on how to be good, it itself is not a good story.

 youbedead wrote:
No, it's lesson on how to be good, it itself is not a good story.

And everything it says about how to be "good" is horrible. It's like saying a story that says "torture and kill people" is a lesson on how to be good.

 Polonius wrote:
Third, the very definition of hell is that it is removed from god. So, it's actually the one place he isn't.

Actually if God is omnipresent he is everywhere including hell (since he made it) But the people there, who have chosen to be there, cannot experience him and thus are eternally seperated from him.

 Peregrine wrote:

Except the quote in question is talking about the scientific merit.

No it isn't.

 Peregrine wrote:

Have you even been paying attention to this thread? The past few pages of argument have been about someone claiming that the story is about "good things", even if he didn't use those exact words.

To me the past few pages read as an atheist ranting about things he doesn't understand, and I say that as an atheist.