How can you accept evolution and still have a spiritual reality, and/or a God faith

[Audie]

Give me a break. Do you have any idea how many falsehoods I've allegedly fostered here? I miss one and you have to point it out to me! Gee, thanks. Don't know what I'd do without your input.

So you're not on my side? Well, that just ruined my day. I was counting on your support.

Thanks giving me credit for me being right about my misunderstanding (at least half right I guess, but I'll take whatever I can get).

Post 403 is very short and to the, ah, point.

Took you less time to read than to complain here.

i did not "allege" your falsehood.. That is quite dishonourable,
using such weasel words to try to get out of the
FACT that you simply made up things I allegedly said, but in
fact did not.

TRY THIS:

Dont make things up and you may be shocked
at how the corrections stop.

 

[rrobs]

At least you realize that you have made quite a few falsehoods.

That would be alleged falsehoods I admitted to. They include pretty much every word I've written. There's undoubtedly even something wrong in that statement. I'm sure someone will enlighten me on it though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Chinese astronomers, many of them brilliant men by any standards, continued to think in flat-earth terms until the seventeenth century" Wikipedia

I'm not sure what the evidence was, nor am I interested in learning what it was, but they must have had something. Like Wiki says, many were brilliant by anybody's standard. I'm sure you could find a lot more info in our Google Overlord. Google knows all.

When using a source one always needs to link it, that is part of your homework. That way people can check to see if your claim is accurate or honest. If you had done so we would have seen that you were not exactly honest with this quote out of context. Here is a fuller version of that quote:

"In a passage of Zhang Heng's cosmogony not translated by Needham, Zhang himself says: "Heaven takes its body from the Yang, so it is round and in motion. Earth takes its body from the Yin, so it is flat and quiescent". The point of the egg analogy is simply to stress that the earth is completely enclosed by heaven, rather than merely covered from above as the Kai Tian describes. Chinese astronomers, many of them brilliant men by any standards, continued to think in flat-earth terms until the seventeenth century; this surprising fact might be the starting-point for a re-examination of the apparent facility with which the idea of a spherical earth found acceptance in fifth-century BC Greece."

Flat Earth - Wikipedia

As you can see in context the belief that the Earth was flat by those astronomers was not a scientific one, but a religious one based upon the belief in Yin and Yang.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That would be alleged falsehoods I admitted to. They include pretty much every word I've written. There's undoubtedly even something wrong in that statement. I'm sure someone will enlighten me on it though.

Nothing alleged about them. They were explained to you at the time.

 

[Audie]

They're fictional book titles I made up to satirise the American tendency to sanitise, bowdlerise, self agrandise and mythologise their history.

Ah so, a little not-displaced satire. Yes.

I expect you would find it would be how many
people see things.

I have heard it said Europeans did the natives a great
favour, showing up as they did.

 

[Audie]

When using a source one always needs to link it, that is part of your homework. That way people can check to see if your claim is accurate or honest. If you had done so we would have seen that you were not exactly honest with this quote out of context. Here is a fuller version of that quote:

"In a passage of Zhang Heng's cosmogony not translated by Needham, Zhang himself says: "Heaven takes its body from the Yang, so it is round and in motion. Earth takes its body from the Yin, so it is flat and quiescent". The point of the egg analogy is simply to stress that the earth is completely enclosed by heaven, rather than merely covered from above as the Kai Tian describes. Chinese astronomers, many of them brilliant men by any standards, continued to think in flat-earth terms until the seventeenth century; this surprising fact might be the starting-point for a re-examination of the apparent facility with which the idea of a spherical earth found acceptance in fifth-century BC Greece."

Flat Earth - Wikipedia

As you can see in context the belief that the Earth was flat by those astronomers was not a scientific one, but a religious one based upon the belief in Yin and Yang.

Intellectual dishonesty from the astronomers,
And
The one who brought it up.

These religious folk, Honestly!!!

 

[rrobs]

Post 403 is very short and to the, ah, point.

Took you less time to read than to complain here.

i did not "allege" your falsehood.. That is quite dishonourable,
using such weasel words to try to get out of the
FACT that ))you simply made up things I allegedly said, but in
fact did not.

TRY THIS:

Dont make things up and you may be shocked
at how the corrections stop.

Read my post 406, I quoted something you said to someone else regarding intellectual bankruptcy and how I took that to me being flat broke intellectually i.e not knowing anything. I even admitted to making an assumption that I was included in those intellectually bankrupts who believe the Bible, so I left it open to correction, which you didn't do. What makes that dishonorable?

You know what? I have to tell you now, this whole thing is getting boring. I'm moving on. I won't be reading any more in this thread. I'm sure when I'm gone there'll be plenty of comments on how I'm running away, can't take the heat, that all Christians do the same thing etc. etc. Undoubtedly somebody will say something like that, so I just want to be honest and let you and everybody else know that I won't be around to read it. I'll just get the message ahead of time. Everybody can have the last word because I'm out of here!

Maybe some other conversation in another thread down the road, but this one is over for me. Take care...

 

[oldbadger]

But a "Deist" is still a "theist"?

I don't think so.
Deism and Theism are quite different, hence the differing titles.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And my copy of Genesis (a) says plants existed before the sun did, and (b) never mentions an atmosphere, let alone one imagined to be 'previously too thick with gas and debris'.

No, again, it doesn’t. Where do you think the light in the second Day comes from?
It’s the Sun, grief! It just wasn’t able to be seen, till the fourth Day.

Everything in Genesis 1 is explained to us from the perspective of an observer, as if by a person on the Earth. It’s simple to deduce, by meditating on the account.

You probably think Genesis is talking about literal days, too.... but Paul’s commentary in Hebrews 4, regarding God’s Rest Day (the seventh), reveals it isn’t. In fact, that Rest Day is still continuing, according to Paul.

What do you think the import of Luke 10:21 is?

 

[oldbadger]

Really. You know that "any" scientist can be forced
to reluctantly confess that there is a god.

Sure.
No probs.

You simply made that up.

Lovely! So at least you can't accuse me of plagiarism, or copying others' ideas! Excellent.

Or you are thinking of the Inquisition?

Huh? Wot?

Not that your quip in any way addresses the
fact that there is not one datum point ever
detected that supports any sott of "god",
which as always, is just speculation.

Oh..... I see....... so you think that you know it all....... hmmmmm.

As for "reason" = "god", I have seen assertions,
seen equivocation, but that is a champion.

I wouldn't expect you to figure that 'The reason for the existence of all' can so easily be be called ........ God. Nor could you ever disprove it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, again, it doesn’t. Where do you think the light in the second Day comes from?
It’s the Sun, grief! It just wasn’t able to be seen, till the fourth Day.

Everything in Genesis 1 is explained to us from the perspective of an observer, as if by a person on the Earth. It’s simple to deduce, by meditating on the account.

You probably think Genesis is talking about literal days, too.... but Paul’s commentary in Hebrews 4, regarding God’s Rest Day (the seventh), reveals it isn’t. In fact, that Rest Day is still continuing, according to Paul.

What do you think the import of Luke 10:21 is?

Then why does it say that God created them on the fourth Day? Understanding that the story is mythical explains how they did not associate the Sun, which is bright but if one thinks it is small it would not be sufficient to light the day, with daytime. And you are merely reinterpreting the Bible after the fact. Luke does not support your claim. I have a feeling that Paul does not either.

 

[exchemist]

Funny you should say that. If you look closely at my posts I never said evolution was not possible. I simply offered an alternative view on it. I've maintained all along the evolution can and does occur within a genus.

The scientific view changes as new discoveries are made. A good scientist doesn't know what he or she doesn't know, so they allow for changes in a given theory. That makes good sense. I understand there is more to it, much more, but if anybody is interested there is a ton of information on the Internet about the scientific method.

In short, there is nothing in the Bible to preclude the scientific view. It does indicate that science doesn't have the story 100% correct, but I think a good scientists is always aware that their theories are subject to change as more info is gathered.

Well that is excellent, as it is what I have maintained all along. The evolutionary view is consistent with the bible.

As a Christian, one can see the universe as having been created with certain governing principles and laws which enabled - perhaps even mandated - life to arise. And then the world as we know it grew and unfolded, quite possibly in accordance with the view of modern science (though of course a religious text will quite properly not commit itself to endorsing a particular theory).

 

[Audie]

Sure.
No probs.


Lovely! So at least you can't accuse me of plagiarism, or copying others' ideas! Excellent.


Huh? Wot?


Oh..... I see....... so you think that you know it all....... hmmmmm.


I wouldn't expect you to figure that 'The reason for the existence of all' can so easily be be called ........ God. Nor could you ever disprove it.

Wise , for someone so confused.

You figured out that "god" (aka "some reason")
cannot be disproved!!

Like Batboy and his secret lab on the
moon!

God and Batboy share two iortant things
in common.

They cant be disproved.
Zero evidence for their existence.

 

[Audie]

Well that is excellent, as it is what I have maintained all along. The evolutionary view is consistent with the bible.

As a Christian, one can see the universe as having been created with certain governing principles and laws which enabled - perhaps even mandated - life to arise. And then the world as we know it grew and unfolded, quite possibly in accordance with the view of modern science (though of course a religious text will quite properly not commit itself to endorsing a particular theory).

One can see?

Isnt that

"One can imagine.."

 

[Audie]

Read my post 406, I quoted something you said to someone else regarding intellectual bankruptcy and how I took that to me being flat broke intellectually i.e not knowing anything. I even admitted to making an assumption that I was included in those intellectually bankrupts who believe the Bible, so I left it open to correction, which you didn't do. What makes that dishonorable?

You know what? I have to tell you now, this whole thing is getting boring. I'm moving on. I won't be reading any more in this thread. I'm sure when I'm gone there'll be plenty of comments on how I'm running away, can't take the heat, that all Christians do the same thing etc. etc. Undoubtedly somebody will say something like that, so I just want to be honest and let you and everybody else know that I won't be around to read it. I'll just get the message ahead of time. Everybody can have the last word because I'm out of here!

Maybe some other conversation in another thread down the road, but this one is over for me. Take care...

When you stop making things up you will find
things go better. Good luck.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wise , for someone so confused.

You figured out that "god" (aka "some reason")
cannot be disproved!!

Like Batboy and his secret lab on the
moon!

God and Batboy share two iortant things
in common.

They cant be disproved.
Zero evidence for their existence.

His version of "god" is worse than something that cannot be disproved. It is on the order of redefining any number greater than one as "two". The definition used is of no value in explaining anything.

 

[exchemist]

One can see?

Isnt that

"One can imagine.."

The expression "one can see [such and such] as [such and such]" is well understood. It acknowledges a point of view that is valid in terms of the argument under discussion, without prejudging whether to endorse that point of view or not.

It is a useful turn of phrase when one does not wish to make a tendentious statement. That is why I chose it.

 

[metis]

Yes, religions change. God, and His word do not change.

I am not Catholic but I taught Christian theology for many years, and I hate to say this but simply do not have much of a background in theology or church history. Therefore, I'm not going to waste my time or yours since you seem impervious to objective information.

For example, the RCC prays to saints while the Bible says that everybody that ever died will stay dead until God raises them from the dead for judgment as per the Book of Revelations.

Catholics pray through the saints and through Jesus, although by far the vast majority of liturgical prayers are directly to God. Maybe go to a mass and see for yourself. I'm going to add another post after this to show you that what you believe is simply nonsense that you've seemingly have been effectively brainwashed to believe.

You just have to make up your mind as to who knows best, the Bible or the RCC.

And when you get around to actually studying church history, you will understand how condescending, judgmental, and idiotic the above is. You seemingly can't get it through your head that the CC chose your Bible and has been studying and teaching it for far longer than the probable Protestant church you likely belong to, such as what I grew up with and left because of their dishonesty. I no longer am affiliated with any denomination.

[continued]

 

[metis]

Here you can find the order of the mass, although there are some additional prayers to God that are sometimes injected depending on the liturgical calendar: Order of Mass

 

[metis]

I don't think so.
Deism and Theism are quite different, hence the differing titles.

"Theism" is the broad category that includes any believe in a deity or deities, and "Deism" is one form of theism.