nPeace
Veteran Member
"brothers being made adversaries", is understood to mean the brothers become adversaries - opposed to each other. Not so?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christian Evolutionist debate (using scripture)
- Thread starter TheWingMan
- Start date
AlexanderG
Active Member
Thanks for the reply and thoughts. I think scriptural interpretation is constantly playing catch-up with science. As science disproves more and more of what various religious scriptures appear to plainly state, these verses are then re-interpreted as metaphorical, allegorical, or somehow superseded by some other verse that says the opposite somewhere else. We see religions being pulled along behind the vanguard of moral progress as well, such as civil rights like freedom of speech, women's rights, gay rights, etc.
Chemistry can trace its origins to alchemy, which nonetheless gives no support to the principles of alchemy. Likewise, modern science rocketed upwards out of natural philosophy because it is a clearly superior tool for understanding reality. That was basically my point. Considering religious scriptures, interpretations, and philosophical arguments are an interesting exercise, but they can never inform or supersede empirical evidence that contradicts their speculative conclusions.
Granted, science can't fully tell you how to live a good life, or whether you'd prefer a sandwich or pasta for lunch, or if you should love your mother. Religion is good at encouraging us to be introspective and to think about our motivations, goals, and feelings. But I think it has so much immoral, outdated baggage that at this point its better to leave the religion behind and just do the introspection without any more time spent on superstitious beliefs, faith, or bad reasoning.
Oh, and no one "holds Darwin infallible." He was the first person to publish a rough scientific model. The model, which is the scientific theory of evolution, has been expanded, refined, and validated in ways he could never have imagined. Science doesn't have prophets, dogmas, or unquestionable authorities. It only has data and evidence derived using methods that can be shown to reliably correspond to reality, and the reasonable tentative conclusions drawn from such. Nothing in science is infallible; even the scientific method itself is open to improvement if evidence supports that improvement.
God had asked Abraham to murder his own son, Isaac. Abraham tied up his son, and obviously was willing to carry out the order, but angels said that he didn't have to, so he didn't. Suppose that this was not a test of Abraham's faith and loyalty to God. Suppose, instead, it was a test of the goodness of Abraham.
On this subject, consider a Twilight Zone episode of an old man and his hound dog that died in an accident at the same time. He was walking on the road to the afterlife when he came across what was apparently the gates of heaven. He was about to go in, but he found out that they didn't accept dogs. So, he refused to go if his dog was not accepted. He continued to walk down the road, and he came across another gate to what appeared to be heaven. He asked if hound dogs were allowed, and was told, sure, come right in. He said that the last heaven wouldn't take hound dogs. The angel at the gate said, good thing you didn't go in there, it's really hell.
Abraham was tested for his goodness. Had he killed his son Isaac, God would have known that he was merely following the power of God, not the spirit of God.
The old man with the dog was tested for his goodness...Instead of accepting heaven for himself, alone, he wanted his dog to enjoy it too.
In both cases, it was a test of goodness.
Obviously, if murderers were accepted into heaven, heaven would be a hellish place.
If power is worshiped, and goodness is not even a consideration, one might as well worship Satan. God knows this, and weeds out the unworthy using tests.
TheWingMan
Christian Evolutionist
That certainly happens in life yes. Even so, it's not very productive in a more social or work type setting. I alluded to how brothers are able to utilize each other for benefit, even when there are adversarial components at work.
No, we see religions taking us back to the Dark Ages when women were chattel (property), Blacks were slaves, Gays must comply, and morality takes a back seat to worship.
The Taliban is forcing 12 year old girls to marry (with sex). There are a variety of human rights abuses.
Christians have campaigns to prevent Gay marriages.
TheWingMan
Christian Evolutionist
I'll agree with most of this, only people matter, cultures matter, religions matter, and history matters. These are roots, and without the roots is it even possible to truly understand and appreciate human history and progress?
It's like I'm gonna build a cabinet out of wood. I don't really know how, but I'm gonna learn. It's a process and our abilities increase the more we learn. That's life, religion, history, science and present day reality.
TheWingMan
Christian Evolutionist
People seem to use all sorts of things to justify all sorts of things that many find unappealing, unpleasant, immoral, and in some cases the term evil is utilized to characterize something disagreed with.
Society, social norms and acceptance issues are typically both the voice for change and opposition. Religions, some of which have no bearing on those outside of that religion, are often vilified for their accepted practices and traditions. What about society? Is society infallible in this type of democracy? I'm not suggesting I agree with many practices. I'm simply suggesting that we are often the problem as opposed to those we sometimes villify. Sometimes intervention is needed, but often times it isn't.
As mentioned by @Rival , the patriarchs had no scripture yet practiced faith. I would assume that the Christians in China that were not allowed to have Bibles, did the same.
Why is the value of scripture? The same value of having a math book, Algebra I and II books, Calculus book et al. You don't have to rediscover faith, you can hyper-jump from what someone else already learned.
Incidentally.
why did you quote scripture?ADDED
Prov. 17:
TLB
A true friend is always loyal, and a brother is born to help in time of need.
MSG
Friends love through all kinds of weather, and families stick together in all kinds of trouble.
TheWingMan
Christian Evolutionist
As mentioned by @Rival , the patriarchs had no scripture yet practiced faith. I would assume that the Christians in China that were not allowed to have Bibles, did the same.
Why is the value of scripture? The same value of having a math book, Algebra I and II books, Calculus book et al. You don't have to rediscover faith, you can hyper-jump from what someone else already learned.
Incidentally.
ADDED
Prov. 17:
TLB
A true friend is always loyal, and a brother is born to help in time of need.
MSG
Friends love through all kinds of weather, and families stick together in all kinds of trouble.
First things first. That needed to be addressed in order to move forward with this thread. Faith is always important. It permeates every aspect of our existence.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Oh, I thought you referenced the scripture for a reason, and were alluding to what it was saying. I did not know you mentioned the scripture without any application to it.
Sorry, apparently I misunderstood the OP.
What did you mean by "using scripture"?
TheWingMan
Christian Evolutionist
I did allude to it actually, which is why I quoted it in the first place. Should I assume you haven't kept up, or simply that you missed it in the op?
And as the two translations I quoted, it seems that we are in agreement with what it says (as I read your other posts)
nPeace
Veteran Member
TheWingMan
Christian Evolutionist
Incorrect? Explain please.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I just did. I lined to the explanation. Here it is again.
The text is not saying "brothers being made adversaries".
Being made adversaries is to become enemies opposed to each other.
TheWingMan
Christian Evolutionist
That's how I explained my position but then sometimes both are true. Actually they're both true pertaining to different people. Different translations help explain the intent. Literal like the nasb and esv convey it as written, whereas the niv or simple English uses a more dynamic translator bais as a basis. Both are accurate.
nPeace
Veteran Member
How does one arrive at it being true? How do you arrive at it being true?
TheWingMan
Christian Evolutionist
It's an observational reality for many many people.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Observational reality? Not scripture then. Okay, but then the title would not be accurate. The "(using scripture)" bit would not fit. Unless.... and I hope this is not the intent... sciptures are used but they are irrelevant.
TheWingMan
Christian Evolutionist
First things first: application of passages in play.
1. For betterment to help iron sharpen Iron or brother shapen brother
2. For adversarial purposes only, which is unscriptural entirely.
Why is this first point? It's important in understanding the relevency of the whole
Born for adversity, made for adversity, born for times of adversity...all of which, when nt scripture is taken into account allude to the former point (1) as opposed to the latter point (2).