Its interesting to hear the various points of view As a National Lab Scientist for an entire career, as well as a Christian the real Truth is no human beings of faith or otherwise know how God created life and until we meet the Creator in the end well never know exactly how this was done. It's difficult to look at the DNA of all living things and not see some commonality of life. The fossil record is hard to ignore as well. For those that insist Genesis has to be an exact recipe of how the Universe and life came to be, there are a few important things to consider. How did Christ himself convey a great many Truths to mankind? Through PARABLES, and parables are stories about hypothetical circumstances but the message is still Holy and considered God's Truth by all Christians. Why then cannot the Genesis story be a Creation Parable? My belief in the Bible as Gods Holy Word is not diminished in the least if the Genesis Creation story was actually a Parable to mankind. The other thing to consider is Einstein in his Noble Prize winning Relativity work showed time is not a constant but a variable that is dependent on the relative motion of the observer to what is being observed. If the difference approached the speed of light then a day could very well be a billion years. Much to think about and much we will never have answers for but I do not see the necessity for Faith being lessened one iota if the Creation of life actually occured by Evolution. Also if Genesis Creation story is another Parable story it doesnt diminish the Truth of the Bible one little bit either. None of us will know until we meet the Creator one day and he decides to reveal some of his secrets of Creation with us :)). I hate to see the Christian community split by Creation issues since we probably all believe in the Creator we just have different human rationales about the "How"...
"Why then cannot the Genesis story be a Creation Parable? " Besides the fact that this View contradict hundreds of Verses in the entire Bible, it also ignores that the Book of Genesis is a historical Book. The purpose of a Parable is to describe spiritual reality with earthly stories with Metaphors. But the Book of Genesis is NOT a Parable, and every attempt to make it fit with a fairy-tale like Evolution is a violation of the Bible and its context. That's what some Cults try to do (Theosophy and so called "christian Science")
@@fsdfmsbcxx So you believe in a flat earth then? Genesis 1:7 clearly describes a glass dome keeping away the waters above. If you are going to insist upon ultraliteralism you're going to need to be consistent about it.
@@fsdfmsbcxx Right, but you are excluding the possibility of evolution and I can't possibly imagine how you can do that legitimately without also ruling out a round earth. Please do make your case! How is "day" super ultraliteral but "firmament" is a poetic metaphor? Either you believe in a young flat earth, or you allow for an old round earth. Those are the only two biblical options. There is no possible way to read Genesis so that you arrive at a young round earth to the exclusion of all other possibilities.
if the genesis story is parable then that makes the bible untrustworthy because i don't know which story is true or a parable. most scholars agree that jesus was real but can we trust that jesus walked on water or raised people from the dead
I believe living things can evolve but it doesn’t change the fact that God made everything including living things ability to evolve and the original beings.
"If you believe in evolution, that means …" But there is no necessity for theists to believe what you say the stories mean. Adam and Eve need only be symbolic of the point in evolution where humans developed self-awareness and the ability to convey their thoughts to others. The fall could also be symbolic of the imperfection of the evolutionary process. But the real proof that you are wrong is that there are theists that are prominent biologists and that fight creationism.
Good thing that God doesn’t require a consistent view of Genesis for salvation, but why would you believe the salvation part but not the origins part as historical evidence. Noah’s flood claimed to be worldwide geological and biological destruction. Changing the face of the earth. Uniformitarianism versus catastrophism. That is the question! More discussion on these theories please.
A meandering river valley cannot be cut by a rapid flood. A steep walled canyon can, though. Geology must be a combination of the two, with gradualism punctuated by catastrophes, with the frequency of the catastrophes in an inverse relationship to their magnitude. Also, the language in Noah's flood is a figure of speech. Like when I get a giant pimple and I say "that's the biggest pimple ever!" it gets the point across but is not meant to imply that I actually measured it against every pimple every person has ever had. Likewise, there is good evidence of a massive flood, but I really really doubt that every single mountain top in the world was actually literally totally submerged because that just stops making physical sense at a certain point (especially if you've ever spent a good amount of time with large mountains). It's just a figure of speech so you get the idea that the flood was really, really bad which it really must have been.
I don't agree with Collins but I think I understand where he's coming from. As the head of the Human Genome Project he's obviously very keen on biology. I think he desires to intellectualise the process by which God made man, after all, this is his area of study. He's probably trying to unravel the process by which God made man from the stuff of the earth. The issue here is that he is trying to fit God into fallible human knowledge. Man was made miraculously by means beyond our knowing by God.
I also spent a good deal of time with a Catholic priest who spent five years in the Vatican studying Aquinas. So far, I've quoted Paul and CARM to back up my point. I don't see you quoting any sources for your claims. I'll be happy to give you more if you'd like.
Oh, okay. So, the Catholic Church made Galileo confess that he was wrong about the Earth rotating around the sun (he muttered under his breath, 'yet it moves" afterwards), but that really had nothing to do with why they banned his book and imprisoned him for life. You're so much more knowledgeable than the rest of us. It's truly amazing! Can you source this claim? Or is this yet more proof that you live in a bubble of revisionism?
Lots of Christians believe in evolution without any problems. There's nothing wrong with trying to combine theism and science together. But what's the purpose? Science gives us everything we really need.
But we didn't assume an unlimited Giant, The unlimited giant wrote a letter and sent it to us saying he did it. So theres that. The work is done not because if us but because the unlimited giant told us all things. From beginning the ending.
As you know, Christians can revise and rationalize their faith as needed to protect themselves from the realization that it is wrong. Back in the 60's when I asked our priest in catechism what this meant, he spoke of spiritual death. That, because of the fall, we were no longer guaranteed eternal life after the physical death. It doesn't matter that the Bible doesn't say that, you must "interpret the meaning from the whole context of the story". Gotta love that CONTEXT - it solves everything!
Quick comment: Please don't flag something as "spam" if it's abusive or you don't agree with it. You can vote it down, but unless it really is spam, let stupid or abusive comments be on display for all the world to see. :)
I agree. Don't ignore them. I grew up in a fundy bubble: home, school, church, community. It fucked me up. I'm still getting rid of the crap that was pumped into my brain. The people who did this to me were just as brainwashed as I was. The cycle continues. Most of the people in my town are fundamentalists.
Nor am I talking about AFTER. I'm not misunderstanding anything. Death through sin is absolutely equivalent to physical death (as well as spiritual death). That has been Christian doctrine as long as there has been a "Christianity."
Nor am I talking about BEFORE Jesus was born. I'm not misunderstanding anything. Death through sin is absolutely equivalent to physical death (as well as spiritual death). That has been Christian doctrine as long as there has been a "Christianity."
"In City of God Augustine saw in the fall of Adam an essential mystery: Evil enters the world, it persists, but it consists of nothing more than the perversity of dependent creatures, fleetingly anonymous in their rebellion. Through sin, death and all misery entered the world." James J. O'Donnell, Yale scholar and Provost of Georgetown University
Can people believe in evolution and Christianity? Yes. Are the two beliefs in direct conflict with each other? Yes. If you pick and choose which parts are "metaphor" and which parts are literally true, how can you know that ANY of it is true?
Maybe I didn't say that right. What I meant was humans are sequential being, that is, we think and act sequentially. Perhaps we can say, we feel "time" in a progressive manner and try to think about everything sequentially, forward, or backward. Sequential beings therefore cannot define non-sequential being. God, if we argue that He is the creator, then cannot be limited in a sequential system. Although He is not a sequential being, He can make His revelation to humans in a sequential manner.
In what way was Jesus NOT a human sacrifice? The Bible specifically teaches that his blood was shed to forgive sin. That is the very definition or religious human sacrifice. That they used the Romans to accomplish it does not change what the Bible clearly says the meaning of the event was. If you say it was voluntary - so what? It is thought that many, possibly the majority, of humans sacrificed by the Aztecs were (in a sense) volunteers.
Again, your beef isn't with me but traditional, orthodox Christian theology. I've given you numerous sources for this, which you dismiss without opposing sources. Your advocating a modern reading of the scriptures without regard to what has come before. I'm talking about traditional Christian theology which is still embraced by the orthodox.
BTW, the 1700 years of Christian theology teaches that the entire reason Jesus' sacrifice redeems us from physical death is BECAUSE HE WAS SINLESS!!! -- and therefore NEVER had to die. The immaculate conception was invented so that everyone understands that he didn't even have the taint of "original sin." Sin = Death is one of the most basic ideas in all of Christian theology. Ask your pastor.
Collins brushes over the big problem of The Fall. He says that we disobeyed God using our free will, but if we evolved, when exactly did The Fall occur? Theologically, The Fall is the reason for death (both physical and spiritual), and why his Jesus is necessary in the first place. Evolution might be compatible with belief in God, but it's certainly not compatible with 2000 years of Christian theology. But hell, Christians ignore everything else in their Bible, why not this, right?
Excuse me, but I did show you directly in Romans where it says that. You have a different interpretation of that verse -- an interpretation which runs counter to 1700 years of Christian theology. That sin was the cause of physical AND spriitual death is still the Orthodox position. Jesus' sacrifice conquered death -- not just spiritual! He rose again with a body of flesh and bone for a reason -- a very sound theological reason. Your argument is with Christianity, not me.
That's pretty big talk for someone who claims to know the Bible. I'll grant that animals and plants were not mentioned one way or another where death is concerned, but from the Tree of Life in Genesis, to Paul's writings it seems clear that Man was originally meant to be physically immortal.
Nope. Sin caused death. If you'll look at the chronology of this verse, you'll se that it takes place AFTER the Fall. The Tree of Life could have allowed them to live eternally after the Fall despite their sin. That's why they were kept from it.
"the big problem of The Fall." Playing devil's advocate here. Why couldn't the fall be symbolic of the imperfection of the evolutionary process? When humans gained self-awareness and the awareness of the consequence of their actions they also assumed the responsibility for their actions. PS. : Didn't god ban A&E from the garden and post a guard specifically to keep them from eating from the tree of life? ie- to keep them from becoming immortal and too god-like? They weren't created immortal.
Yeah, I studied nearly two years with a Jewish Theologian. I know my Torah pretty well along with the commentaries with a special emphasis on Maimonides. Why don't you tell me (and Maimonides) how Jewish law is supposed to be interpreted. Have you even read Maimonides?
Yeah, present and rejected! Which is why Galileo was locked up for life and Giordano Bruno and his ilk were burned at the stake. I so wish you were right about this. The middle ages would have been such a kinder, gentler time to live.
About 33% of scientists believe in God, while 18% believe in some sort of spirit or higher being. The rest either don't believe in either or don't know/refused to answer. With that being said, Dr. Collins is a little off in his statement that about 40% of scientists believe in a personal God, but he could be a little closer, since this poll is only of the members of American Association for the Advancement of Science. Source: pew-forum(dot)org
Where did he get his information that "40% of scientists are believers in a personal god"? He also said God's plan included evolution. That statement is fraught with problems, esp if he is presuming it's a Christian God.
You really have to start reading your Bible, and the history of Christian theology. Romans 5:12... "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men..." Now go on and tell me how Paul misspoke, or how 1700 years of Christian theology based on this verse is wrong -- and that you know better.
How do you read, "and hath caught her, and lain with her" and see that as consensual? Women didn't even have the right of consent. Women were property to be sold if their father's wished. And what about all the captive virgins? They got thirty days to mourn, and then had to marry their captors. Does that sound like consent. You are living in a dream world, my friend.
Scary how that stuff stays in your subconscious for years isn't it? I wasn't even raised a fundie, but it took me a long time to get rid of the remnants of my faith. Fear of the "Devil" and hell were the last to go.
You have it completely bass-akwards. The sin caused death, not the other way around. Again, you're argument isn't with me. It's with 1700 years of Christian theology.
"an interpretation which runs counter to 1700 years of Christian theology" The same thing happened with Galileo and yet we know see how science helped us understand the biblical text. And all the verses you showed could clearly be seen as talking about spiritual death. "death" and "dead" can mean a number of things in the bible.
We have to add to that comparison however, that Galileo did not directly contradict biblical passages per se, but the ancient tradition of aristotle-based astronomics, and the fact, that the catholic church took church history, and the integration of that ancient wisdom through augustin, with the same authority as the bible. But yes, such "Dogmas of interpretation" is really a problem.
The Catholic Encyclopedia? Can you cite a source for your "myth" claim? And what exactly are you claiming when you talk about the "Galileo myth." Do you really believe that Heliocentrism had nothing to do with his imprisonment? If so, why did they make him confess that he was wrong about it? This seems like crazy stuff to me. But so does everything you've said so far. So it wouldn't really shock me at this point.
Giordano Bruno, born 1548, was a philosopher, mathematician and astronomer. He proposed that the Sun was a star, that the universe contained an infinite number of inhabited worlds populated by other intelligent beings. On the morning of February 17, 1600, Giordano Bruno was burned, alive, by the Holy Roman and Apostolic Catholic Church. * _____________________________ * ( All civil verdicts were reviewed by the Holy Inquisition before sentence could be carried out at the behest of the Church. )
Why can't a perfect god write a book that is clear? It seems a bit fishy to me that so many people can believe so many different things from one book that is supposed to be the teachings of a perfect god.
because we are imperfect. if i make a movie on the big screen everyone will have a different opinion on it. that doesn't mean i did something wrong but i means people's brains are wired differently
The time to accept something exists is when evidence has been presented not before and the fact is that no gods in the history of the world has ever been proven to exist only continued to be argued and asserted that it is PERIOD
Well, I know too -- because I used to be like you. So, you're saying that the Bible really doesn't have God ordering genocide, or the murder of homosexuals, adulterers, sabbath-breakers, people of other faiths, sabbath-breakers? I'm just misinformed about all of these things? And Hell too? Jesus didn't really mean what he said about that? Wow! I was completely misinformed by me fellow Christians (and the Bible itself) all those years. Who know? Oh, yeah... you did. Please explain.
Of course misterdeity. Apologetic after apologetic with them! The bible really doesnt say that! Your taking it out of context! All bullshit explanations. You think this God could of done a better job! He doesnt exist! If so it is no way the 2 faced God of the bible. Nobodies God would be true. All would be wrong. God the father is a psychological projection. If Jesus was raised under a different faith he would be calling God the mother! Maybe he is an uncle? Take care father.
Plants don't have souls according to traditional Christian doctrine (animals didn't either), and don't technically "die" per se in the same way that humans and animals die. Remember the breath is life and spirit. Again, your argument is not with me. Just go to the sites of Christians who believe in a more traditional interpretation of scripture. That's what Christians believed for a long, long time. Yours is very new thinking.
A regular creator can be limited in a sequential system. A divine creator, if we go by the definition :the one who created everything, cannot be therefore limited in a sequential system. "Let there be light" might happen in a temporal space, but the temporal space itself was created. A chair cannot explain the maker of the chair & how he made the chair; we are limited in our capabilities& languages. You may see no reason to believe that there is a spider in your room bc your eyes didn't see any.
It does imply that humans could be immortal in the garden - And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” Gen 3:22. Apparently, at least humans could live forever.
It moves me to know that at the very least people are attempting to find middle ground even if what this speaker is saying isn't something you'd still fall back on. We are fighting thousands of years of conditioning and so I doubt we'll see a true middle ground any time soon but we have to start somewhere. Neither Theists or Atheists have all the answers, nobody has discovered all the secrets of the universe or if they have they're not spilling the beans any time soon.
Really? So, in the Garden, things were dying before Adam's sin? Can you tell me where that is in the Bible -- or in Christian theology? I thought Paul clearly stated that Adam's death brought sin into the world -- the wages of sin are death? No? I'm mistaken?
I can see how this fits with deism. It's a theory among many to explain things we just don't know. But I can't see as part of a logical progression one makes the leap of faith to the Christian Bible as opposed to versions put forward by any number of other faiths. And because you're so transparently working back from your myth instead of considering the implications for a modern understanding of science to change your views on so many things, what you're really doing is missing the point.
Well, again, according to traditional, orthodox Christian theology, they weren't created immortal, as sin (the cause of death) had not yet entered the world. And yes, you could take the entire Garden story as a metaphor. But then, where is the literal (instead of equally metaphorical) need for Jesus' blood-soaked sacrifice? In Christian theology, this was literally needed because only a perfect, sinless man (who therefore never had to die) could redeem mankind from The Fall and death.
Again, explain to me what your definition of theory is? Is it your "theory" that: 1. Ancient people didn't understand basic cosmology (Egypt)? 2. The moon can stop without flooding every continent (Earth keeps spinning while the tides are frozen)? 3. God couldn't light up the night sky without stopping the moon? 4. God did all this so Joshua could commit genocide?
So, this apologist just dismisses the entire Old Testament. No "creation" of or in the "Garden"? No everything created at the same time? So if Genesis is WRONG, then what follows based on the premise of Genesis must also be wrong. Especially the very notion of there being an "original sin" for which a Christ is required to expiate our "sins". If there was no "sin", then a "saviour" (Christ) is not required. If Christ is NOT the saviour he's NOT part of the "god head" of the Trinity, so no "god"?
And thus my point: if they were a myth, then no Original Sin, no Fall of Man, no reason for Jesus to die for our sins. If the story was indeed a myth, then Jesus' genealogy is problematic. Why would the author of Luke trace Jesus' genealogy to a mythical character? Did he not know it was supposed to be a myth? Is only part of the genealogy to be taken historically? If so, where and how do you set the demarcation? Sorry, trying to say it's a myth causes more theological problems than it solves.
I'm sure some apologist would say that the plant did not die, just the "fruit" thereof. Does this make sense? Perhaps in some cases. But does it need to make sense? No. It's religion.
Good questions. When I was in High School, I experienced school spirit death -- 'cause I couldn't care less about my high school or who won this or that game. It wasn't painful in the least.
Why don't you direct me then. In fact, direct me right to the Christian authorities over the last 1700 years that have said The Fall only refers to spiritual death. Give me something other than your personal philosophy on the matter.
You are right. If you believe in evolution and God there is much much to reconcile. It means the fall of man is not literally true and took man from some point of intelligence to even believe in one God. 10's of thousands! I God came through one man in Israel then for 10's of thousands of years ignored all other continents! Boy much to reconcile. Too much! The genocides this God commands. This does not compute with me. Offers no direct evidence of his existence! Yes nature can be beautiful but most of it is out to kill you! Why did God create ticks,fleas,parasites,tape worms,lice etc. etc. !!! Evolution by itself makes better sence with no God. There are too many evil things I dont want to blame a creator on. If course it is all blamed on us because of sin. It's all are fault. God also created a Devil against us as if life isn't hard enough. Then hell! I ain't buying it Francis Collins! Sorry. From Buddhist/Agnostic Lee.
Then why did Jesus have to physically die and overcome physical death? And why are we all getting resurrected too? Traditional Christian theology has Jesus conquering all the effects of the Fall -- physical and spiritual death. if the Fall only brought spiritual death, why did Jesus have to die? Or, were some of the early Christians right and Jesus was never an actual physical being?
jesus had to die, because humanity killed him. but with it happened the ultimate sacrifice. sacrifice was a central theme in all religions, including israelite religion. jesus ends all sacrifices, with the ultimate one, to end this idea once and for all. sacrifices were physical. jesus did not end physical death, obviously. i am pretty sure, some get a lot wrong about resurrection as well, as it was left largely a mystery, and should be something to give us hope. also we get a new body, so resurrection will not be physically restoring our corpses to life - but life will retain a physical quality.
So, the "lake of fire" specifically mentioned in the Gospels as the place that sinners would go to receive "eternal punishment" was added in the 1300s? I don't think so. However, if it was, what else in your Bible can't be trusted? The resurrection maybe?
if you believe the bible, why not just randomly believe other things that make no sense? You can believe whatever you want if you don't require any evidence.
This seems to be philosophical speculations as I how you can reconcile theism with evolutionary theory; doesn't seem to be actual but mere possible speculation.
I believe the answer is in finding out about how the animals said to have gotten in Noah's ark, became all the animals we see today. Also what type of life (if any, microbes or otherwise) would have survived through a flood of that calibur.
Right, I actually think rationalization would be more powerful than a god, since even the apologists are now backing down from Omnipotent to "as powerful as it is logically possible to be. God might have some limit, but I don't think stupidity and rationalization do.
No you cannot be a "Christian" and believe in Evolution. A real Christian believes in the bible. The bible says God is the creator of all things. Everything was created through him. In the beginning. Evolution thinks that we came from nothing and eventually through millions of years things turned into other things and today here we are products of nothing. Don't be stupid. That is the lie that God said would be told. Wake up. A God loves you and knows who you are. He created you.
If our sense of morality comes from evolution and society, then why do we need to conjure up a moral law giver to explain it? And why rely on some writings by strangers in the ancient middle east that were super ignorant to give us a sense of this moral lawgivers whims? Even if u have a metaphysical religious experience it doesn't make interpretations of desert sand-writings true.
It's better in one way - Collins won't be going to court to fight to have creationism taught along with evolution in our schools. While on the one hand, I can almost admire the fundies for accepting that if you're gonna live by faith, you should accept the full monte of bat shit that entails, I prefer to live around theists who adapt their theology to the facts - they may be just as wrong, but they're not as dangerous.
Sorry, the core dogma is that Adam & Eve were responsible for Original Sin, Jesus is a descendant of Adam, Jesus had to die for this Original Sin. Are you saying Luke's genealogy was somehow symbolic also? Surely not. The author of Luke considered Adam to be a real person, not some sort of metaphor.
Well, don't tell it to me. Tell it to Paul and all the Christian theologians from the last 1700 years -- including the current crop of theologians over at the Christian Research & Apologetics Ministry. The wages of sin is death -- physical and spiritual.
I never said it said that in the Old Testament. I'm talking about the Christian (Pauline) doctrine of the Fall and Atonement -- the reason Christian anti-evolutionist fight so vehemently for a young Earth. Again, please go check out their sites. They can argue this with you better than I.
"...we also know that sin has brought physical death into the world. When Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, they eventually died physically. Sin, which is breaking the law of God (1 John 3:4), brings both physical (Rom. 5:12) and spiritual death (Isaiah 59:2). So, Romans 6:23 can legitimately be interpreted to include both spiritual and physical death when it speaks of "the wages of sin." Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry website.
First, Maimonides is not 18th century -- can't you even Google this stuff? And so, you're saying God didn't really mean what he said? Then why did they kill an old man for picking up sticks on the sabbath? Hmmm, this God guy should make up his mind. What a poor communicator. Was the genocide in Canaan just a story too?
2:04 It's not compatible because that's not what the Bible says. The Bible says God created Adam from the Earth and gave him a soul and then he created Eve from Adam's rib. The Bible says God simply spoke the universe into existence. He said: Let there be light and there was light etc. The Bible doesn't mention a universe originating from a single point and expanding outward. There's no mention of a protoplanetary disc that over time turned into our solar system. Either the statements written in the Bible are correct or the claims of science are correct. Either all of humanity has two ancestors (Adam and Eve) or it doesn't. If the Bible was truly the world of God Almighty, the Creator of the universe and of Man, there would be much more specific descriptions of how the universe and humanity originated and those descriptions would be compatible with what we're seeing in science. Funny how the whole Bible only has concepts and information that were available to people in that era and in that region. Funny how there's no mention of kangaroos for example. Or dinosaurs. Or microbes. Or DNA etc. One might get the impression that it was written by people of that era using information and wisdom at hand. And one final thing. If the Bible was the world of God, you'd think there would be one passage saying: oh, and this is how you grow penicillin. And also this is how you make soap, itsaves lives, wash your hands with it. I could go on ... Try harder!
I see. So everything in the Bible that you don't like is a "mistranslation" or "misunderstanding" of what was really meant. Please explain this rape thing to me. And actually source something for once.
This view needs to be corrected. If God (if you want to define this as a sovereign being") endowed humans with free will, that means there exists such a thing as "possibility" that is even beyond God's mind. Then "possibility" is your true God. The other thing is that this view assumes that everything goes "sequentially". If the Scripture is believed to be true by all professing Christians, then it clearly shows that God does not live inside the time that He created.
It is not a possibility. God was always going to grant us a soul, special mind and free will. God operates out of time so millions of years is nothing to him
The argument "Time cannot be created" is not true by even just logical deductions a=b c=b, therefore a=c, considering that time is just another variable that can be "molded". Space and time are variables in relativity. If God is limited in a temporal zone, then he is not a true God. He created something out of nothing, and one can also argue that there can be absolutely no change whatsoever, in a system, but the time in the system, measured from another system, changes.
Do you? Why did Jesus have to "die" for god to "forgive" us for the sins invented by god? He is supposedly omniscient & omnipotent, so therefore before he created you & I he knew I would not believe in him, & you would. So this means that 1000's of years before I was born, I was doomed to burn in hell. Is this the actions of a 'loving & merciful' god?
As you say, there were many early Christian sects. Some even believed that the OT God was defeated and replaced by the NT God, which actually makes a lot of sense from the change in Goditude. There are many reputable scholars who claim that early manuscripts that became the NT were altered to disprove theology that was eventually declared heretical.
"Jesus' blood-soaked sacrifice?" Well that part takes a bit more rationalization than I can muster right now. And the idea that A&E were not created immortal but weren't going to die because death didn't exist yet confuses the hell out of me. What's the difference? And why would there be a tree of life? The only way I can put everything together is to conclude theist doctrine that says death was a consequence of the fall doesn't come from the story, it comes straight out of someone's ass.
No, the Eastern Orthodox do not hold a position similar to yours. I quoted the Eastern Orthodox position early in this thread. And anyway, wouldn't that be an "appeal to history/minority fallacy?" That the Bible can be endlessly reinterpreted as science proves the previous interpretations bullshit is not disputed by me. But then what is the point of thinking your Bible is in any way special or the Word of a transcendent Being? In your eyes, billions have believed incorrectly for 1700 years.
Unbelievable! This video is a perfect example of how some people waste their brain. And yet they can come up with the idea of calling it "house" designed by God. Life is so surprising giving us new stupidities every day.
I still reel in confusion over how such an intelligent man such as Francis Collins can hold such juvenile and superstitious beliefs. More significantly he stated that 40% of scientists hold a religious belief 10 seconds in 0:10. I could only find a reference in NY Times leading back to a suspect study which was published in the journal Nature back in 1997 Edward & Lamson. A dated if not dubious study. Do doctors, engineers & computer pseudo scientist get counted in? That would muddy the results.
i don't think you understood what i was saying, because if you did, you'd know that i said you're running the guilt trip, and you're insulting yourself.
It is the ultimate in egotism to say the universe exists soley for us. If we could not exist, due to some change in the laws of nature, that doesn't negate the universe from existing. We may just be an accident. The fact that life only exists in keeping with the constants we can measure in the univrse does not argue for a supernatural creator. Rather life that thirved in spite operating in violation of physical laws would. We have yet to find such life.
Please explain your definition of theory and then explain your theory. I tried reading through your entire discussion with Mr.D and every time he pinned you into a corner, you switched bibles and translations. Intellectual dishonesty doesn't further your cause.
@Connor Hogan This was so long ago. I can't tell if you agree with me or if you're trying to use science to disprove science. I had to rewatch the video before responding. Veritus Forum uses the human brain as evidence for his beliefs. Upon further review it is evidence against against intelligent design since god is perfectly capable of creating thinking beings without a fragile brain (angels, demons, Satan, etc). I used to work in a dementia ward at a nursing home. When the brain starts failing there's no "soul" that takes over. I've seen 6 foot 4, 250 lb men revert back to drooling infancy. If there is a soul trapped in that body, then they are already in hell. It would be the equivalent of putting a spare engine in the trunk of every car and having the main engine breakdown as soon as the spare engine started to rust.
Ok, say there were only 10 million people alive then, and only ten percent were infants or children......."god" was so "merciful" that he "only" deliberately drown a million children and infants because they were supposedly "corrupt." A truly loving and all powerful god would teach his "children" a better way, not drown them. Would you drown children and infants because their parents were "corrupt"? No doubt you are more moral than your "god."
The culture here in Australia is very different from America though. We don't have nearly enough religious people around and those that are tend to be very old. We (to quote our Prime Minister) "have a very low tolerance for bullshit". Even when the "tiny lunatic fringe" do lobby they'll be forced to stop as we don't have the same free speech rights you guys do in America meaning the government can and will do that. We have bigger things to worry about around here than God(s) it seems.
AND! genesis 3:19. AND! Jewish tradition and religion explicitly teach that Adam's eating from the tree of knowledge (not the tree of life) is the reason god punished him and Eve with mortality.
Ive always had this in the back of my mind like every time people would say now you cant believe in both YES I CAN finally i found a video
The scariest part is that 20% of people in the U.S. still think the sun revolves around the earth.
no they don't
Fuzzinator I sure as hell do
20% is def pushing it i would say 5 at the absolute max
@@ryan0150 I would say 10% as absolute max.
You mean it doesn't.
Its interesting to hear the various points of view As a National Lab Scientist for an entire career, as well as a Christian the real Truth is no human beings of faith or otherwise know how God created life and until we meet the Creator in the end well never know exactly how this was done. It's difficult to look at the DNA of all living things and not see some commonality of life. The fossil record is hard to ignore as well.
For those that insist Genesis has to be an exact recipe of how the Universe and life came to be, there are a few important things to consider. How did Christ himself convey a great many Truths to mankind? Through PARABLES, and parables are stories about hypothetical circumstances but the message is still Holy and considered God's Truth by all Christians. Why then cannot the Genesis story be a Creation Parable? My belief in the Bible as Gods Holy Word is not diminished in the least if the Genesis Creation story was actually a Parable to mankind. The other thing to consider is Einstein in his Noble Prize winning Relativity work showed time is not a constant but a variable that is dependent on the relative motion of the observer to what is being observed. If the difference approached the speed of light then a day could very well be a billion years.
Much to think about and much we will never have answers for but I do not see the necessity for Faith being lessened one iota if the Creation of life actually occured by Evolution. Also if Genesis Creation story is another Parable story it doesnt diminish the Truth of the Bible one little bit either.
None of us will know until we meet the Creator one day and he decides to reveal some of his secrets of Creation with us :)).
I hate to see the Christian community split by Creation issues since we probably all believe in the Creator we just have different human rationales about the "How"...
"Why then cannot the Genesis story be a Creation Parable? "
Besides the fact that this View contradict hundreds of Verses in the entire Bible, it also ignores that the Book of Genesis is a historical Book. The purpose of a Parable is to describe spiritual reality with earthly stories with Metaphors. But the Book of Genesis is NOT a Parable, and every attempt to make it fit with a fairy-tale like Evolution is a violation of the Bible and its context. That's what some Cults try to do (Theosophy and so called "christian Science")
@@fsdfmsbcxx So you believe in a flat earth then? Genesis 1:7 clearly describes a glass dome keeping away the waters above. If you are going to insist upon ultraliteralism you're going to need to be consistent about it.
@@theTavis01
No, I don't believe in a flat earth.
And i didn't speak about a flat earth at all.
@@fsdfmsbcxx Right, but you are excluding the possibility of evolution and I can't possibly imagine how you can do that legitimately without also ruling out a round earth. Please do make your case! How is "day" super ultraliteral but "firmament" is a poetic metaphor? Either you believe in a young flat earth, or you allow for an old round earth. Those are the only two biblical options. There is no possible way to read Genesis so that you arrive at a young round earth to the exclusion of all other possibilities.
if the genesis story is parable then that makes the bible untrustworthy because i don't know which story is true or a parable. most scholars agree that jesus was real but can we trust that jesus walked on water or raised people from the dead
I believe living things can evolve but it doesn’t change the fact that God made everything including living things ability to evolve and the original beings.
exactly!
"40% of scientists believe in a personal God" Francis Collins
✨I believe in god and evolution. ✨Don’t like it? ✨Too bad ✨
"If you believe in evolution, that means …"
But there is no necessity for theists to believe what you say the stories mean. Adam and Eve need only be symbolic of the point in evolution where humans developed self-awareness and the ability to convey their thoughts to others. The fall could also be symbolic of the imperfection of the evolutionary process. But the real proof that you are wrong is that there are theists that are prominent biologists and that fight creationism.
Good thing that God doesn’t require a consistent view of Genesis for salvation, but why would you believe the salvation part but not the origins part as historical evidence.
Noah’s flood claimed to be worldwide geological and biological destruction.
Changing the face of the earth.
Uniformitarianism versus catastrophism.
That is the question!
More discussion on these theories please.
Bigfoot Jesus said whosoever believe shall not perished, if you don’t you will perish man , repent alright man
A meandering river valley cannot be cut by a rapid flood. A steep walled canyon can, though. Geology must be a combination of the two, with gradualism punctuated by catastrophes, with the frequency of the catastrophes in an inverse relationship to their magnitude. Also, the language in Noah's flood is a figure of speech. Like when I get a giant pimple and I say "that's the biggest pimple ever!" it gets the point across but is not meant to imply that I actually measured it against every pimple every person has ever had. Likewise, there is good evidence of a massive flood, but I really really doubt that every single mountain top in the world was actually literally totally submerged because that just stops making physical sense at a certain point (especially if you've ever spent a good amount of time with large mountains). It's just a figure of speech so you get the idea that the flood was really, really bad which it really must have been.
I don't agree with Collins but I think I understand where he's coming from. As the head of the Human Genome Project he's obviously very keen on biology. I think he desires to intellectualise the process by which God made man, after all, this is his area of study. He's probably trying to unravel the process by which God made man from the stuff of the earth. The issue here is that he is trying to fit God into fallible human knowledge. Man was made miraculously by means beyond our knowing by God.
I believe God spoke matter into existence and let life sort itself out.
I also spent a good deal of time with a Catholic priest who spent five years in the Vatican studying Aquinas. So far, I've quoted Paul and CARM to back up my point. I don't see you quoting any sources for your claims. I'll be happy to give you more if you'd like.
Oh, okay. So, the Catholic Church made Galileo confess that he was wrong about the Earth rotating around the sun (he muttered under his breath, 'yet it moves" afterwards), but that really had nothing to do with why they banned his book and imprisoned him for life. You're so much more knowledgeable than the rest of us. It's truly amazing! Can you source this claim? Or is this yet more proof that you live in a bubble of revisionism?
Lots of Christians believe in evolution without any problems. There's nothing wrong with trying to combine theism and science together. But what's the purpose? Science gives us everything we really need.
0.29 How to explain everything:
Step 1: Assume an unlimited agent.
Step 2. Sit back and relax with a beer, all your explanatory work is done.
well fuck
But we didn't assume an unlimited Giant, The unlimited giant wrote a letter and sent it to us saying he did it. So theres that. The work is done not because if us but because the unlimited giant told us all things. From beginning the ending.
Francis Collins = real scientist
Now I like that...very understandable and relates to both judgements ( weighing both equally)
As you know, Christians can revise and rationalize their faith as needed to protect themselves from the realization that it is wrong. Back in the 60's when I asked our priest in catechism what this meant, he spoke of spiritual death. That, because of the fall, we were no longer guaranteed eternal life after the physical death. It doesn't matter that the Bible doesn't say that, you must "interpret the meaning from the whole context of the story". Gotta love that CONTEXT - it solves everything!
Quick comment: Please don't flag something as "spam" if it's abusive or you don't agree with it. You can vote it down, but unless it really is spam, let stupid or abusive comments be on display for all the world to see. :)
I agree. Don't ignore them. I grew up in a fundy bubble: home, school, church, community. It fucked me up. I'm still getting rid of the crap that was pumped into my brain.
The people who did this to me were just as brainwashed as I was. The cycle continues. Most of the people in my town are fundamentalists.
Nor am I talking about AFTER. I'm not misunderstanding anything. Death through sin is absolutely equivalent to physical death (as well as spiritual death). That has been Christian doctrine as long as there has been a "Christianity."
Nor am I talking about BEFORE Jesus was born. I'm not misunderstanding anything. Death through sin is absolutely equivalent to physical death (as well as spiritual death). That has been Christian doctrine as long as there has been a "Christianity."
"In City of God Augustine saw in the fall of Adam an essential mystery: Evil enters the world, it persists, but it consists of nothing more than the perversity of dependent creatures, fleetingly anonymous in their rebellion. Through sin, death and all misery entered the world." James J. O'Donnell, Yale scholar and Provost of Georgetown University
Can people believe in evolution and Christianity? Yes.
Are the two beliefs in direct conflict with each other? Yes.
If you pick and choose which parts are "metaphor" and which parts are literally true, how can you know that ANY of it is true?
Maybe I didn't say that right. What I meant was humans are sequential being, that is, we think and act sequentially. Perhaps we can say, we feel "time" in a progressive manner and try to think about everything sequentially, forward, or backward. Sequential beings therefore cannot define non-sequential being. God, if we argue that He is the creator, then cannot be limited in a sequential system. Although He is not a sequential being, He can make His revelation to humans in a sequential manner.
In what way was Jesus NOT a human sacrifice? The Bible specifically teaches that his blood was shed to forgive sin. That is the very definition or religious human sacrifice. That they used the Romans to accomplish it does not change what the Bible clearly says the meaning of the event was. If you say it was voluntary - so what? It is thought that many, possibly the majority, of humans sacrificed by the Aztecs were (in a sense) volunteers.
Again, your beef isn't with me but traditional, orthodox Christian theology. I've given you numerous sources for this, which you dismiss without opposing sources. Your advocating a modern reading of the scriptures without regard to what has come before. I'm talking about traditional Christian theology which is still embraced by the orthodox.
BTW, the 1700 years of Christian theology teaches that the entire reason Jesus' sacrifice redeems us from physical death is BECAUSE HE WAS SINLESS!!! -- and therefore NEVER had to die. The immaculate conception was invented so that everyone understands that he didn't even have the taint of "original sin." Sin = Death is one of the most basic ideas in all of Christian theology. Ask your pastor.
...anything is possible. We can believe what we want. We all have to move collectively. But that will never happen
Collins brushes over the big problem of The Fall. He says that we disobeyed God using our free will, but if we evolved, when exactly did The Fall occur? Theologically, The Fall is the reason for death (both physical and spiritual), and why his Jesus is necessary in the first place. Evolution might be compatible with belief in God, but it's certainly not compatible with 2000 years of Christian theology. But hell, Christians ignore everything else in their Bible, why not this, right?
It's funny that you call someone who knows their classical Christian theology better than you do "ignorant." What then does that make you?
Excuse me, but I did show you directly in Romans where it says that. You have a different interpretation of that verse -- an interpretation which runs counter to 1700 years of Christian theology. That sin was the cause of physical AND spriitual death is still the Orthodox position. Jesus' sacrifice conquered death -- not just spiritual! He rose again with a body of flesh and bone for a reason -- a very sound theological reason. Your argument is with Christianity, not me.
That's pretty big talk for someone who claims to know the Bible. I'll grant that animals and plants were not mentioned one way or another where death is concerned, but from the Tree of Life in Genesis, to Paul's writings it seems clear that Man was originally meant to be physically immortal.
Nope. Sin caused death. If you'll look at the chronology of this verse, you'll se that it takes place AFTER the Fall. The Tree of Life could have allowed them to live eternally after the Fall despite their sin. That's why they were kept from it.
"the big problem of The Fall."
Playing devil's advocate here. Why couldn't the fall be symbolic of the imperfection of the evolutionary process? When humans gained self-awareness and the awareness of the consequence of their actions they also assumed the responsibility for their actions.
PS. : Didn't god ban A&E from the garden and post a guard specifically to keep them from eating from the tree of life? ie- to keep them from becoming immortal and too god-like? They weren't created immortal.
Yeah, I studied nearly two years with a Jewish Theologian. I know my Torah pretty well along with the commentaries with a special emphasis on Maimonides. Why don't you tell me (and Maimonides) how Jewish law is supposed to be interpreted. Have you even read Maimonides?
Yeah, present and rejected! Which is why Galileo was locked up for life and Giordano Bruno and his ilk were burned at the stake. I so wish you were right about this. The middle ages would have been such a kinder, gentler time to live.
About 33% of scientists believe in God, while 18% believe in some sort of spirit or higher being. The rest either don't believe in either or don't know/refused to answer. With that being said, Dr. Collins is a little off in his statement that about 40% of scientists believe in a personal God, but he could be a little closer, since this poll is only of the members of American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Source: pew-forum(dot)org
Where did he get his information that "40% of scientists are believers in a personal god"? He also said God's plan included evolution. That statement is fraught with problems, esp if he is presuming it's a Christian God.
You really have to start reading your Bible, and the history of Christian theology. Romans 5:12... "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men..." Now go on and tell me how Paul misspoke, or how 1700 years of Christian theology based on this verse is wrong -- and that you know better.
How do you read, "and hath caught her, and lain with her" and see that as consensual? Women didn't even have the right of consent. Women were property to be sold if their father's wished. And what about all the captive virgins? They got thirty days to mourn, and then had to marry their captors. Does that sound like consent. You are living in a dream world, my friend.
Scary how that stuff stays in your subconscious for years isn't it? I wasn't even raised a fundie, but it took me a long time to get rid of the remnants of my faith. Fear of the "Devil" and hell were the last to go.
You have it completely bass-akwards. The sin caused death, not the other way around. Again, you're argument isn't with me. It's with 1700 years of Christian theology.
"an interpretation which runs counter to 1700 years of Christian theology" The same thing happened with Galileo and yet we know see how science helped us understand the biblical text.
And all the verses you showed could clearly be seen as talking about spiritual death.
"death" and "dead" can mean a number of things in the bible.
We have to add to that comparison however, that Galileo did not directly contradict biblical passages per se, but the ancient tradition of aristotle-based astronomics, and the fact, that the catholic church took church history, and the integration of that ancient wisdom through augustin, with the same authority as the bible. But yes, such "Dogmas of interpretation" is really a problem.
Collins inserts god where no god is needed, to make himself comfortable.
The Catholic Encyclopedia? Can you cite a source for your "myth" claim? And what exactly are you claiming when you talk about the "Galileo myth." Do you really believe that Heliocentrism had nothing to do with his imprisonment? If so, why did they make him confess that he was wrong about it? This seems like crazy stuff to me. But so does everything you've said so far. So it wouldn't really shock me at this point.
Giordano Bruno, born 1548, was a philosopher, mathematician and astronomer. He proposed that the Sun was a star, that the universe contained an infinite number of inhabited worlds populated by other intelligent beings.
On the morning of February 17, 1600, Giordano Bruno was burned, alive, by the Holy Roman and Apostolic Catholic Church. *
_____________________________
* ( All civil verdicts were reviewed by the Holy Inquisition before sentence could be carried out at the behest of the Church. )
Why can't a perfect god write a book that is clear? It seems a bit fishy to me that so many people can believe so many different things from one book that is supposed to be the teachings of a perfect god.
because we are imperfect. if i make a movie on the big screen everyone will have a different opinion on it. that doesn't mean i did something wrong but i means people's brains are wired differently
The time to accept something exists is when evidence has been presented not before and the fact is that no gods in the history of the world has ever been proven to exist only continued to be argued and asserted that it is PERIOD
Well, I know too -- because I used to be like you. So, you're saying that the Bible really doesn't have God ordering genocide, or the murder of homosexuals, adulterers, sabbath-breakers, people of other faiths, sabbath-breakers? I'm just misinformed about all of these things? And Hell too? Jesus didn't really mean what he said about that? Wow! I was completely misinformed by me fellow Christians (and the Bible itself) all those years. Who know? Oh, yeah... you did. Please explain.
Of course misterdeity. Apologetic after apologetic with them! The bible really doesnt say that! Your taking it out of context! All bullshit explanations. You think this God could of done a better job! He doesnt exist! If so it is no way the 2 faced God of the bible. Nobodies God would be true. All would be wrong. God the father is a psychological projection. If Jesus was raised under a different faith he would be calling God the mother! Maybe he is an uncle? Take care father.
I hope so. I've spent time in Perth (32 years ago) and loved it, and the people. I'd hate to see you have to deal with this crap.
Plants don't have souls according to traditional Christian doctrine (animals didn't either), and don't technically "die" per se in the same way that humans and animals die. Remember the breath is life and spirit. Again, your argument is not with me. Just go to the sites of Christians who believe in a more traditional interpretation of scripture. That's what Christians believed for a long, long time. Yours is very new thinking.
That is exactly what he said, human beings are special and our soul and minds were given to us by God in his image
A regular creator can be limited in a sequential system. A divine creator, if we go by the definition :the one who created everything, cannot be therefore limited in a sequential system. "Let there be light" might happen in a temporal space, but the temporal space itself was created. A chair cannot explain the maker of the chair & how he made the chair; we are limited in our capabilities& languages. You may see no reason to believe that there is a spider in your room bc your eyes didn't see any.
It does imply that humans could be immortal in the garden - And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” Gen 3:22. Apparently, at least humans could live forever.
It moves me to know that at the very least people are attempting to find middle ground even if what this speaker is saying isn't something you'd still fall back on. We are fighting thousands of years of conditioning and so I doubt we'll see a true middle ground any time soon but we have to start somewhere. Neither Theists or Atheists have all the answers, nobody has discovered all the secrets of the universe or if they have they're not spilling the beans any time soon.
Really? So, in the Garden, things were dying before Adam's sin? Can you tell me where that is in the Bible -- or in Christian theology? I thought Paul clearly stated that Adam's death brought sin into the world -- the wages of sin are death? No? I'm mistaken?
I can see how this fits with deism. It's a theory among many to explain things we just don't know. But I can't see as part of a logical progression one makes the leap of faith to the Christian Bible as opposed to versions put forward by any number of other faiths. And because you're so transparently working back from your myth instead of considering the implications for a modern understanding of science to change your views on so many things, what you're really doing is missing the point.
Well, again, according to traditional, orthodox Christian theology, they weren't created immortal, as sin (the cause of death) had not yet entered the world. And yes, you could take the entire Garden story as a metaphor. But then, where is the literal (instead of equally metaphorical) need for Jesus' blood-soaked sacrifice? In Christian theology, this was literally needed because only a perfect, sinless man (who therefore never had to die) could redeem mankind from The Fall and death.
Again, explain to me what your definition of theory is?
Is it your "theory" that:
1. Ancient people didn't understand basic cosmology (Egypt)?
2. The moon can stop without flooding every continent (Earth keeps spinning while the tides are frozen)?
3. God couldn't light up the night sky without stopping the moon?
4. God did all this so Joshua could commit genocide?
So much ignorance below.
So, this apologist just dismisses the entire Old Testament. No "creation" of or in the "Garden"? No everything created at the same time? So if Genesis is WRONG, then what follows based on the premise of Genesis must also be wrong. Especially the very notion of there being an "original sin" for which a Christ is required to expiate our "sins". If there was no "sin", then a "saviour" (Christ) is not required. If Christ is NOT the saviour he's NOT part of the "god head" of the Trinity, so no "god"?
And thus my point: if they were a myth, then no Original Sin, no Fall of Man, no reason for Jesus to die for our sins.
If the story was indeed a myth, then Jesus' genealogy is problematic. Why would the author of Luke trace Jesus' genealogy to a mythical character? Did he not know it was supposed to be a myth? Is only part of the genealogy to be taken historically? If so, where and how do you set the demarcation?
Sorry, trying to say it's a myth causes more theological problems than it solves.
I'm sure some apologist would say that the plant did not die, just the "fruit" thereof. Does this make sense? Perhaps in some cases. But does it need to make sense? No. It's religion.
Good questions. When I was in High School, I experienced school spirit death -- 'cause I couldn't care less about my high school or who won this or that game. It wasn't painful in the least.
Why don't you direct me then. In fact, direct me right to the Christian authorities over the last 1700 years that have said The Fall only refers to spiritual death. Give me something other than your personal philosophy on the matter.
I love how you say I have no knowledge of Biblical scholarship, and don't even know your Bible or Christian theology. Romans 6:23. Look it up.
Does spiritual death mean that your spirit's spirit goes to be judged for your spirit's sins? Does it risk spiritual hell?
The power of apologetics! Who needs an all-powerful God when you have the all-powerful rationalizations, right?
You are right. If you believe in evolution and God there is much much to reconcile. It means the fall of man is not literally true and took man from some point of intelligence to even believe in one God. 10's of thousands! I God came through one man in Israel then for 10's of thousands of years ignored all other continents! Boy much to reconcile. Too much! The genocides this God commands. This does not compute with me. Offers no direct evidence of his existence! Yes nature can be beautiful but most of it is out to kill you! Why did God create ticks,fleas,parasites,tape worms,lice etc. etc. !!! Evolution by itself makes better sence with no God. There are too many evil things I dont want to blame a creator on. If course it is all blamed on us because of sin. It's all are fault. God also created a Devil against us as if life isn't hard enough. Then hell! I ain't buying it Francis Collins! Sorry. From Buddhist/Agnostic Lee.
Then why did Jesus have to physically die and overcome physical death? And why are we all getting resurrected too? Traditional Christian theology has Jesus conquering all the effects of the Fall -- physical and spiritual death. if the Fall only brought spiritual death, why did Jesus have to die? Or, were some of the early Christians right and Jesus was never an actual physical being?
Adam and Eve were not killed by God either, they also suffered a moral fate so the point still stands
jesus had to die, because humanity killed him. but with it happened the ultimate sacrifice.
sacrifice was a central theme in all religions, including israelite religion. jesus ends all sacrifices, with the ultimate one, to end this idea once and for all. sacrifices were physical.
jesus did not end physical death, obviously.
i am pretty sure, some get a lot wrong about resurrection as well, as it was left largely a mystery, and should be something to give us hope. also we get a new body, so resurrection will not be physically restoring our corpses to life - but life will retain a physical quality.
So, the "lake of fire" specifically mentioned in the Gospels as the place that sinners would go to receive "eternal punishment" was added in the 1300s? I don't think so. However, if it was, what else in your Bible can't be trusted? The resurrection maybe?
you are absolutely right
@@ccnationnews5965
They always miss that detail.
if you believe the bible, why not just randomly believe other things that make no sense? You can believe whatever you want if you don't require any evidence.
This seems to be philosophical speculations as I how you can reconcile theism with evolutionary theory; doesn't seem to be actual but mere possible speculation.
I believe the answer is in finding out about how the animals said to have gotten in Noah's ark, became all the animals we see today. Also what type of life (if any, microbes or otherwise) would have survived through a flood of that calibur.
Right, I actually think rationalization would be more powerful than a god, since even the apologists are now backing down from Omnipotent to "as powerful as it is logically possible to be. God might have some limit, but I don't think stupidity and rationalization do.
No you cannot be a "Christian" and believe in Evolution. A real Christian believes in the bible. The bible says God is the creator of all things. Everything was created through him. In the beginning. Evolution thinks that we came from nothing and eventually through millions of years things turned into other things and today here we are products of nothing. Don't be stupid. That is the lie that God said would be told. Wake up. A God loves you and knows who you are. He created you.
If our sense of morality comes from evolution and society, then why do we need to conjure up a moral law giver to explain it? And why rely on some writings by strangers in the ancient middle east that were super ignorant to give us a sense of this moral lawgivers whims? Even if u have a metaphysical religious experience it doesn't make interpretations of desert sand-writings true.
It's better in one way - Collins won't be going to court to fight to have creationism taught along with evolution in our schools. While on the one hand, I can almost admire the fundies for accepting that if you're gonna live by faith, you should accept the full monte of bat shit that entails, I prefer to live around theists who adapt their theology to the facts - they may be just as wrong, but they're not as dangerous.
Sorry, the core dogma is that Adam & Eve were responsible for Original Sin, Jesus is a descendant of Adam, Jesus had to die for this Original Sin. Are you saying Luke's genealogy was somehow symbolic also? Surely not. The author of Luke considered Adam to be a real person, not some sort of metaphor.
1700 years of Christian theology.
Well, don't tell it to me. Tell it to Paul and all the Christian theologians from the last 1700 years -- including the current crop of theologians over at the Christian Research & Apologetics Ministry. The wages of sin is death -- physical and spiritual.
I never said it said that in the Old Testament. I'm talking about the Christian (Pauline) doctrine of the Fall and Atonement -- the reason Christian anti-evolutionist fight so vehemently for a young Earth. Again, please go check out their sites. They can argue this with you better than I.
"...we also know that sin has brought physical death into the world. When Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, they eventually died physically. Sin, which is breaking the law of God (1 John 3:4), brings both physical (Rom. 5:12) and spiritual death (Isaiah 59:2). So, Romans 6:23 can legitimately be interpreted to include both spiritual and physical death when it speaks of "the wages of sin." Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry website.
First, Maimonides is not 18th century -- can't you even Google this stuff? And so, you're saying God didn't really mean what he said? Then why did they kill an old man for picking up sticks on the sabbath? Hmmm, this God guy should make up his mind. What a poor communicator. Was the genocide in Canaan just a story too?
2:04
It's not compatible because that's not what the Bible says.
The Bible says God created Adam from the Earth and gave him a soul and then he created Eve from Adam's rib.
The Bible says God simply spoke the universe into existence. He said: Let there be light and there was light etc.
The Bible doesn't mention a universe originating from a single point and expanding outward.
There's no mention of a protoplanetary disc that over time turned into our solar system.
Either the statements written in the Bible are correct or the claims of science are correct.
Either all of humanity has two ancestors (Adam and Eve) or it doesn't.
If the Bible was truly the world of God Almighty, the Creator of the universe and of Man, there would be much more specific descriptions of how the universe and humanity originated and those descriptions would be compatible with what we're seeing in science.
Funny how the whole Bible only has concepts and information that were available to people in that era and in that region. Funny how there's no mention of kangaroos for example. Or dinosaurs. Or microbes. Or DNA etc.
One might get the impression that it was written by people of that era using information and wisdom at hand.
And one final thing. If the Bible was the world of God, you'd think there would be one passage saying: oh, and this is how you grow penicillin. And also this is how you make soap, itsaves lives, wash your hands with it.
I could go on ...
Try harder!
That’s a very literal way of seeing it
That’s a very literal way of seeing it
I see. So everything in the Bible that you don't like is a "mistranslation" or "misunderstanding" of what was really meant. Please explain this rape thing to me. And actually source something for once.
This view needs to be corrected. If God (if you want to define this as a sovereign being") endowed humans with free will, that means there exists such a thing as "possibility" that is even beyond God's mind. Then "possibility" is your true God.
The other thing is that this view assumes that everything goes "sequentially". If the Scripture is believed to be true by all professing Christians, then it clearly shows that God does not live inside the time that He created.
It is not a possibility. God was always going to grant us a soul, special mind and free will. God operates out of time so millions of years is nothing to him
The argument "Time cannot be created" is not true by even just logical deductions a=b c=b, therefore a=c, considering that time is just another variable that can be "molded". Space and time are variables in relativity. If God is limited in a temporal zone, then he is not a true God. He created something out of nothing, and one can also argue that there can be absolutely no change whatsoever, in a system, but the time in the system, measured from another system, changes.
Do you? Why did Jesus have to "die" for god to "forgive" us for the sins invented by god? He is supposedly omniscient & omnipotent, so therefore before he created you & I he knew I would not believe in him, & you would. So this means that 1000's of years before I was born, I was doomed to burn in hell.
Is this the actions of a 'loving & merciful' god?
As you say, there were many early Christian sects. Some even believed that the OT God was defeated and replaced by the NT God, which actually makes a lot of sense from the change in Goditude. There are many reputable scholars who claim that early manuscripts that became the NT were altered to disprove theology that was eventually declared heretical.
"Jesus' blood-soaked sacrifice?"
Well that part takes a bit more rationalization than I can muster right now. And the idea that A&E were not created immortal but weren't going to die because death didn't exist yet confuses the hell out of me. What's the difference? And why would there be a tree of life? The only way I can put everything together is to conclude theist doctrine that says death was a consequence of the fall doesn't come from the story, it comes straight out of someone's ass.
No, the Eastern Orthodox do not hold a position similar to yours. I quoted the Eastern Orthodox position early in this thread. And anyway, wouldn't that be an "appeal to history/minority fallacy?" That the Bible can be endlessly reinterpreted as science proves the previous interpretations bullshit is not disputed by me. But then what is the point of thinking your Bible is in any way special or the Word of a transcendent Being? In your eyes, billions have believed incorrectly for 1700 years.
Well technically, because they were allowed to eat the fruit in the garden, plant death was already occurring.
I'm glad to hear that.
However you don't have to worry we aren't the type to take anything lying down around here.
Unbelievable! This video is a perfect example of how some people waste their brain. And yet they can come up with the idea of calling it "house" designed by God. Life is so surprising giving us new stupidities every day.
I still reel in confusion over how such an intelligent man such as Francis Collins can hold such juvenile and superstitious beliefs. More significantly he stated that 40% of scientists hold a religious belief 10 seconds in 0:10. I could only find a reference in NY Times leading back to a suspect study which was published in the journal Nature back in 1997 Edward & Lamson. A dated if not dubious study. Do doctors, engineers & computer pseudo scientist get counted in? That would muddy the results.
i don't think you understood what i was saying, because if you did, you'd know that i said you're running the guilt trip, and you're insulting yourself.
@AgApE010 Is that to say the church was misreading scripture for 1700 years?
It is the ultimate in egotism to say the universe exists soley for us. If we could not exist, due to some change in the laws of nature, that doesn't negate the universe from existing. We may just be an accident.
The fact that life only exists in keeping with the constants we can measure in the univrse does not argue for a supernatural creator. Rather life that thirved in spite operating in violation of physical laws would.
We have yet to find such life.
Please explain your definition of theory and then explain your theory.
I tried reading through your entire discussion with Mr.D and every time he pinned you into a corner, you switched bibles and translations. Intellectual dishonesty doesn't further your cause.
A theory in the sciences can be accurately described as a:
claim with an abundance of verifiable and rigorously tested evidence that supports it.
@Connor Hogan This was so long ago. I can't tell if you agree with me or if you're trying to use science to disprove science. I had to rewatch the video before responding.
Veritus Forum uses the human brain as evidence for his beliefs. Upon further review it is evidence against against intelligent design since god is perfectly capable of creating thinking beings without a fragile brain (angels, demons, Satan, etc).
I used to work in a dementia ward at a nursing home. When the brain starts failing there's no "soul" that takes over. I've seen 6 foot 4, 250 lb men revert back to drooling infancy. If there is a soul trapped in that body, then they are already in hell. It would be the equivalent of putting a spare engine in the trunk of every car and having the main engine breakdown as soon as the spare engine started to rust.
Ok, say there were only 10 million people alive then, and only ten percent were infants or children......."god" was so "merciful" that he "only" deliberately drown a million children and infants because they were supposedly "corrupt." A truly loving and all powerful god would teach his "children" a better way, not drown them. Would you drown children and infants because their parents were "corrupt"? No doubt you are more moral than your "god."
The culture here in Australia is very different from America though.
We don't have nearly enough religious people around and those that are tend to be very old. We (to quote our Prime Minister) "have a very low tolerance for bullshit".
Even when the "tiny lunatic fringe" do lobby they'll be forced to stop as we don't have the same free speech rights you guys do in America meaning the government can and will do that.
We have bigger things to worry about around here than God(s) it seems.
AND! genesis 3:19. AND! Jewish tradition and religion explicitly teach that Adam's eating from the tree of knowledge (not the tree of life) is the reason god punished him and Eve with mortality.