independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > to the bible literalists...
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 4 <1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 04/27/06 1:45pm

SupaFunkyOrgan
grinderSexy

avatar

Lammastide said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:



How great tho that they were actually having relations with black women lol Fuckers.

It was some pretty heinous stuff. disbelief But, for some black parents who had the "luxury" of forfeiting their daughters, it was the best way to ensure those girls... and their children and grandchildren (ad infinitum)... might enjoy a life of freedom and mobility.


What a horror scene this country was disbelief
2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 04/27/06 1:53pm

HereToRockYour
World

avatar

HiinEnkelte said:

cborgman said:



so how would you get two black parents with an asian baby?


the baby simply grows up and identifies as asian, that's how.



spit
oh noes, prince is gonna soo me!!1!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 04/27/06 1:56pm

HereToRockYour
World

avatar

Lammastide said:

HereToRockYourWorld said:




I, too, appreciate the bravery of jumping in here.

But it doesn't work. Adam and Eve having all of that genetic material ( whofarted ) would not result in the racial differences that we see in the world. Unless God did a WHOLE lot of fiddling, in which case, why bother giving the little buggers all of the DNA in the first place?

Doesn't. Make. Sense.

I'm neither a geneticist nor a Bible literalist, but this isn't impossible at all.

Even at a hypothetical extreme, a single sub-Saharan African woman today has sufficient genetic information to produce just about any human phenotype presently walking the earth in several short generations given certain breeding. We see it all the time in animal husbandry.

As it were, we're talking 11 generations between Adam and Noah's sons, Shem, Ham and Japhet -- and we're talking virtually countless generations between those three progenitors and the people who now populate the planet. Very distinct variety can arise in only a fraction of that time... and I haven't even mentioned the effects of migration and environment in triggering certain genes.



It's not that there isn't room in the human genome for the information to be tucked in there. It's that these different races wouldn't spotaneously spring from an original breeding pair, unless given huge amounts of time -- amounts of time that bible literalists have to deny the possibility of in order to avoid the inevitability of evolution.
oh noes, prince is gonna soo me!!1!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #33 posted 04/27/06 2:01pm

Lammastide

avatar

HereToRockYourWorld said:

Lammastide said:


I'm neither a geneticist nor a Bible literalist, but this isn't impossible at all.

Even at a hypothetical extreme, a single sub-Saharan African woman today has sufficient genetic information to produce just about any human phenotype presently walking the earth in several short generations given certain breeding. We see it all the time in animal husbandry.

As it were, we're talking 11 generations between Adam and Noah's sons, Shem, Ham and Japhet -- and we're talking virtually countless generations between those three progenitors and the people who now populate the planet. Very distinct variety can arise in only a fraction of that time... and I haven't even mentioned the effects of migration and environment in triggering certain genes.



It's not that there isn't room in the human genome for the information to be tucked in there. It's that these different races wouldn't spotaneously spring from an original breeding pair, unless given huge amounts of time -- amounts of time that bible literalists have to deny the possibility of in order to avoid the inevitability of evolution.

If we look at the variation in one species -- the Dachsund -- over the 19th century alone, we can see marked differences in leg, neck and spine length; bone density; musculature; facial profile; coloring and hair texture and length; etc. While I am hardly married to the theological notion of a "young earth," the variations we see in humans needn't take anywhere near 35,000 to 195,000+ years.

...And as spontaneous mutation goes, have you been following the recent findings about the development of the "Caucasoid" profile!? Pretty amazing stuff.
[Edited 4/27/06 14:04pm]
Ὅσον ζῇς φαίνου
μηδὲν ὅλως σὺ λυποῦ
πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐστὶ τὸ ζῆν
τὸ τέλος ὁ χρόνος ἀπαιτεῖ.”
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #34 posted 04/27/06 2:02pm

cborgman

avatar

Lammastide said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:



How great tho that they were actually having relations with black women lol Fuckers.

It was some pretty heinous stuff. disbelief But, for some black parents who had the "luxury" of forfeiting their daughters, it was the best way to ensure those girls... and their children and grandchildren (ad infinitum)... might enjoy a life of freedom and mobility.


that's horrible
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #35 posted 04/27/06 2:03pm

Lammastide

avatar

cborgman said:

Lammastide said:


It was some pretty heinous stuff. disbelief But, for some black parents who had the "luxury" of forfeiting their daughters, it was the best way to ensure those girls... and their children and grandchildren (ad infinitum)... might enjoy a life of freedom and mobility.


that's horrible

Yep. sad
Ὅσον ζῇς φαίνου
μηδὲν ὅλως σὺ λυποῦ
πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐστὶ τὸ ζῆν
τὸ τέλος ὁ χρόνος ἀπαιτεῖ.”
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 04/27/06 2:11pm

PurpleRein

cborgman said:

if we are all the descendants of adamn and eve, and then again decendants of noah and his wife, how is it that there are different races of human?



the bible..the old testament anyway...most learned rabbi's who aren't of the orthodox cloth, will tell you that the story of creation, and the early parts of the bible..up until Jacob and Esau...are not to be taken literally. They're actually an attempt to explain how people came to be. In judaism, there is now law or commandments given until Moses goes up to Mt. Sinai.
Therefore, I do not take the genesis story literally. Perhaps man evolved by intelligent design. Till I die, I won't know if there's a God, but for now, I believe there is, and that ultimately he/she is responsible one way or another for what happens. Be it different races came it be by his hand, or by some other fashion which goes back to God
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #37 posted 04/27/06 2:11pm

SensualMelody

Lammastide said:

HereToRockYourWorld said:




I, too, appreciate the bravery of jumping in here.

But it doesn't work. Adam and Eve having all of that genetic material ( whofarted ) would not result in the racial differences that we see in the world. Unless God did a WHOLE lot of fiddling, in which case, why bother giving the little buggers all of the DNA in the first place?

Doesn't. Make. Sense.

I'm neither a geneticist nor a Bible literalist, but this isn't impossible at all.

Even at a hypothetical extreme, a single sub-Saharan African woman today has sufficient genetic information to produce just about any human phenotype presently walking the earth in several short generations given certain breeding. We see it all the time in animal husbandry.

As it were, we're talking 11 generations between Adam and Noah's sons, Shem, Ham and Japhet -- and we're talking virtually countless generations between those three progenitors and the people who now populate the planet. Very distinct variety can arise in only a fraction of that time... and I haven't even mentioned the effects of migration and environment in triggering certain genes.

I agree here.
I don't believe God made a set of black dogs, a set of brown dogs..nor did he have to create red roses, and white roses....etc.
I believe he made a "kind" and that these reproduced after their "kind".
Humans are a "kind". The differences are varieties within the species. An easy thing for God to accomplish....a built-in ability.
Who knows anyway the "race" of Adam and/or Eve?
Could one have been of the Caucasion persuasion spiced with other characteristics?, and the other of the Negroid persuasion with other charateristics that we have come to call "ethnic"?
Racial differences represent variety among humans accentuated by divisions; and these were then categorized are designated by man.
So...how's everybody doing? smile
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #38 posted 04/27/06 2:18pm

cborgman

avatar

PurpleRein said:

cborgman said:

if we are all the descendants of adamn and eve, and then again decendants of noah and his wife, how is it that there are different races of human?



the bible..the old testament anyway...most learned rabbi's who aren't of the orthodox cloth, will tell you that the story of creation, and the early parts of the bible..up until Jacob and Esau...are not to be taken literally. They're actually an attempt to explain how people came to be. In judaism, there is now law or commandments given until Moses goes up to Mt. Sinai.
Therefore, I do not take the genesis story literally. Perhaps man evolved by intelligent design. Till I die, I won't know if there's a God, but for now, I believe there is, and that ultimately he/she is responsible one way or another for what happens. Be it different races came it be by his hand, or by some other fashion which goes back to God


my belief in the bible is mostly in a philosophical and parable (parabilic?) way, but that often runs afoul od the literalists. and genisis is key amongst the biblical stuff that i see as parable.
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #39 posted 04/27/06 2:20pm

HereToRockYour
World

avatar

Lammastide said:

HereToRockYourWorld said:




It's not that there isn't room in the human genome for the information to be tucked in there. It's that these different races wouldn't spotaneously spring from an original breeding pair, unless given huge amounts of time -- amounts of time that bible literalists have to deny the possibility of in order to avoid the inevitability of evolution.

If we look at the variation in one species -- the Dachsund -- over the 19th century alone, we can see marked differences in leg, neck and spine length; bone density; musculature; facial profile; coloring and hair texture and length; etc. While I am hardly married to the theological notion of a "young earth," the variations we see in humans needn't take anywhere near 35,000 to 195,000+ years.

...And as spontaneous mutation goes, have you been following the recent findings about the development of the "Caucasoid" profile!? Pretty amazing stuff.
[Edited 4/27/06 14:04pm]



Come ON. The Dachsund was purposely bred for certain traits, drastically accelerating the process. Humans were not.

It wouldn't require an evolutionary timescale. My point was that it would require a timescale longer than what the Bible says we've had. And if Christians are going to give that up, then they're going to have to accept evolution, because if Earth is as old as science says it is, evolution is/was totally inevitable.
oh noes, prince is gonna soo me!!1!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #40 posted 04/27/06 2:23pm

HereToRockYour
World

avatar

And this discussion is completely ignoring actual evidence of how human variation came to be. We not only have to make up a story, but we have to explain how the story the scientists tell is wrong.

I feel really sorry for . . . embarrassed for. . .somebody trying to explain how all of humanity came from Adam and Eve, in the face of the evidence. It's just. . . nuts.
oh noes, prince is gonna soo me!!1!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #41 posted 04/27/06 2:26pm

SensualMelody

HereToRockYourWorld said:

And this discussion is completely ignoring actual evidence of how human variation came to be. We not only have to make up a story, but we have to explain how the story the scientists tell is wrong.

I feel really sorry for . . . embarrassed for. . .somebody trying to explain how all of humanity came from Adam and Eve, in the face of the evidence. It's just. . . nuts.

That's your humble opinion.
Many many scientists believe the Adam and Eve theory.
So...how's everybody doing? smile
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #42 posted 04/27/06 2:27pm

SupaFunkyOrgan
grinderSexy

avatar

SensualMelody said:

HereToRockYourWorld said:

And this discussion is completely ignoring actual evidence of how human variation came to be. We not only have to make up a story, but we have to explain how the story the scientists tell is wrong.

I feel really sorry for . . . embarrassed for. . .somebody trying to explain how all of humanity came from Adam and Eve, in the face of the evidence. It's just. . . nuts.

That's your humble opinion.
Many many scientists believe the Adam and Eve theory.


What kind of scientists???? Please Melody!
2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #43 posted 04/27/06 2:51pm

HereToRockYour
World

avatar

SensualMelody said:

HereToRockYourWorld said:

And this discussion is completely ignoring actual evidence of how human variation came to be. We not only have to make up a story, but we have to explain how the story the scientists tell is wrong.

I feel really sorry for . . . embarrassed for. . .somebody trying to explain how all of humanity came from Adam and Eve, in the face of the evidence. It's just. . . nuts.

That's your humble opinion.
Many many scientists believe the Adam and Eve theory.



No, they don't. Or, they don't believe in it as a theory in the scientific sense of the word. Being a scientist requires use of scientific method, and any honest scientist who believes in the Adam and Eve "theory" (<- that term actually means something specific in science, which Christians gloss over in referring to things as "just theories") has to admit that they are relying on faith rather than science in this case.

Scientists should be offended by creationists referring to themselves as scientists. If I call myself a Christian, does that make me one?
[Edited 4/27/06 14:52pm]
oh noes, prince is gonna soo me!!1!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #44 posted 04/27/06 3:07pm

HereToRockYour
World

avatar

Die, thread, DIE. . . pray
oh noes, prince is gonna soo me!!1!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #45 posted 04/27/06 7:44pm

Lammastide

avatar

heretorockyourworld said:
Come ON. The Dachsund was purposely bred for certain traits, drastically accelerating the process. Humans were not.

It wouldn't require an evolutionary timescale. My point was that it would require a timescale longer than what the Bible says we've had. And if Christians are going to give that up, then they're going to have to accept evolution, because if Earth is as old as science says it is, evolution is/was totally inevitable.

I'm assuming you cling to the roughly 6000-year timespan that biblical literalists hang their hats on. As a believer, I abide by no such standard -- nor is it somehow officially required of all believers. And if it is, please show me that memo. confuse

As it were, even if I did subscribe to a literal Young Earth position, the adaptability of humans could absolutely fit into a 6000-year span of development. I mean, just how different do you think humans are!?!? confuse lol We’re talking mere variations of pigment and hair follicle shape -- not wings, gills and extra limbs.

Again, from the beginning of the European insurgence of sub-Saharan Africa (c. 1440 A.D.) to now, there have been roughly only about 14 generations by a conventionally read Old Testament standard of 40 years. (And, by the way, there are several approaches to calculating a biblical “generation”.) Since that time -- look around yourself -- those claiming African distraction run the gamut from Alek Wek to Mariah Carey, neither of whose variability was "purposefully accelerated.”

And this discussion is completely ignoring actual evidence of how human variation came to be. We not only have to make up a story, but we have to explain how the story the scientists tell is wrong.

I feel really sorry for . . . embarrassed for. . .somebody trying to explain how all of humanity came from Adam and Eve, in the face of the evidence. It's just. . . nuts.

OK, now you’ve crossed from critical discourse to a game of ideological Dozens. We can go there if you want, but it may get ugly shrug

Um... The faith-based and scientific communities have been generally in agreement for years that microevolutionary adaptation (that is, below the species level) stems from genetic anomalies, migration and environmental cues. All have been forthrightly mentioned in some detail here. And I see nowhere an effort to plunder scientific theory on this matter. In fact, SensualMelody even QUOTED an international body of scientists convened by a secular organization! confuse

Perhaps you’re confusing this microevolutionary conversation with a macroevolutionary one. (The latter is where the REAL debate comes in… and it hasn’t even been an issue here, really.) If you’re gonna be embarrassed, be embarrassed by that.


No, (scientists) don't (believe the Adam and Eve theory). Or, they don't believe in it as a theory in the scientific sense of the word. Being a scientist requires use of scientific method, and any honest scientist who believes in the Adam and Eve "theory" (<- that term actually means something specific in science, which Christians gloss over in referring to things as "just theories") has to admit that they are relying on faith rather than science in this case.

Scientists should be offended by creationists referring to themselves as scientists. If I call myself a Christian, does that make me one?


hmmm Um…
http://www.christiananswe...tists.html

You seem to be splitting hairs now between an empirical and general definition of “theory.” That’s cool, except nowhere in the rulebook for this thread does it say SM should be abiding by empiricist nomenclature. confuselol

However, your point is well-taken. A large part of faith is, in fact, hypothetical. But show me a scientist who claims empiricism has, in fact, ever “proven” anything. hmmm

Nothing can be proven… through religion or science. The former explores reason and spiritual meaning in the material world; the latter merely observes and acknowledges pattern. Though empiricism as a formal process is relatively young, I remind you that science once held (and tightly) that the earth was flat and that the sun orbited the earth, too. confused

But just to humor you, many of the scientists who adhere to Genesis’ account of human proliferation do so from both a faith-based AND scientific standpoint. Have you not heard of Common Ancestry Theory? Mitochondrial Eve? Y-Chromosome Adam? These do not corroborate fundamentalist beliefs, but they are just some of the points of research in evolutionary science -- based on solid and roundly respected biological evidence -- that explore the interface of faith and science. And the scientists exploring these are every bit as Christian… or Muslim, or Jew, or Hindu (etc.) as their more literalist brethren. What’s more, they are every bit as much scientists as their naturalist professional counterparts.
[Edited 4/28/06 15:52pm]
Ὅσον ζῇς φαίνου
μηδὲν ὅλως σὺ λυποῦ
πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐστὶ τὸ ζῆν
τὸ τέλος ὁ χρόνος ἀπαιτεῖ.”
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #46 posted 04/27/06 7:47pm

Lammastide

avatar

.
[Edited 4/27/06 19:47pm]
Ὅσον ζῇς φαίνου
μηδὲν ὅλως σὺ λυποῦ
πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐστὶ τὸ ζῆν
τὸ τέλος ὁ χρόνος ἀπαιτεῖ.”
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #47 posted 04/27/06 9:19pm

SensualMelody

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

SensualMelody said:


That's your humble opinion.
Many many scientists believe the Adam and Eve theory.


What kind of scientists???? Please Melody!


Many of the science professors I have had believe in the Bible and the biology teaches I have worked with, and the one I study the Bible with.
My son, who is a chemical engineer believes in the Bible. My doctor has a Bible in every waiting room.

Among Jehovah's Witnesses there are scientists; biologists; physicists, astronomers; chemists; medical doctors; surgeons..you name it. All these believe in the Adam and Eve theory.
So...how's everybody doing? smile
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #48 posted 04/27/06 9:21pm

SensualMelody

Lammastide said:

heretorockyourworld said:
Come ON. The Dachsund was purposely bred for certain traits, drastically accelerating the process. Humans were not.

It wouldn't require an evolutionary timescale. My point was that it would require a timescale longer than what the Bible says we've had. And if Christians are going to give that up, then they're going to have to accept evolution, because if Earth is as old as science says it is, evolution is/was totally inevitable.

I'm assuming you cling to the roughly 6000-year timespan that biblical literalists hang their hats on. As a believer, I abide by no such standard -- nor is it somehow officially required of all believers. And if it is, please show me that memo. confuse

As it were, even if I did subscribe to a literal Young Earth position, the adaptability of humans could absolutely fit into a 6000-year span of development. I mean, just how different do you think humans are!?!? confuse lol We’re talking mere variations of pigment and hair follicle shape -- not wings, gills and extra limbs.

Again, from the beginning of the European insurgence of sub-Saharan Africa (c. 1440 A.D.) to now, there have been roughly only about 14 generations by a conventionally read Old Testament standard of 40 years. (And, by the way, there are several approaches to calculating a biblical “generation”.) Since that time -- look around yourself -- those claiming African distraction run the gamut from Alek Wek to Mariah Carey, neither of whose variability was "purposefully accelerated.”


OK, now you’ve crossed from critical discourse to a game of ideological Dozens. We can go there if you want, but it may get ugly shrug

Um... The faith-based and scientific communities have been generally in agreement for years that microevolutionary adaptation (that is, below the species level) stems from genetic anomalies, migration and environmental cues. All have been forthrightly mentioned in some detail here. And I see nowhere an effort to plunder scientific theory on this matter. In fact, SensualMelody even QUOTED an international body of scientists convened by a secular organization! confuse

Perhaps you’re confusing this microevolutionary conversation with a macroevolutionary one. (The latter is where the REAL debate comes in… and it hasn’t even been an issue here, really.) If you’re gonna be embarrassed, be embarrassed by that.


No, (scientists) don't (believe the Adam and Eve theory). Or, they don't believe in it as a theory in the scientific sense of the word. Being a scientist requires use of scientific method, and any honest scientist who believes in the Adam and Eve "theory" (<- that term actually means something specific in science, which Christians gloss over in referring to things as "just theories") has to admit that they are relying on faith rather than science in this case.

Scientists should be offended by creationists referring to themselves as scientists. If I call myself a Christian, does that make me one?


hmmm Um…
http://www.christiananswe...tists.html

You seem to be splitting hairs now between an empirical and general definition of “theory.” That’s cool, except nowhere in the rulebook for this thread does it say SM should be abiding by empiricist nomenclature. confuselol

However, your point is well-taken. A large part of faith is, in fact, hypothetical. But show me a scientist who claims empiricism has, in fact, ever “proven” anything. hmmm

Nothing can be proven… through religion or science. The former explores reason and spiritual meaning in the material world; the latter merely observes and acknowledges pattern. Though empiricism as a formal process is relatively young, I remind you that science once held (and tightly) that the earth was flat and that the sun orbited the earth, too. confused

But just to humor you, many of the scientists who adhere to Genesis’ account of human proliferation do so from both a faith-based AND scientific standpoint. Have you not heard of Common Ancestry Theory? Mitochondrial Eve? Y-Chromosome Adam? These do not corroborate fundamentalist beliefs, but they are just some of the discussions in evolutionary science that explore the reconciliation of faith and science – and the scientists exploring these are every bit as Christian…. Or Muslim, or Jew, or Hindu (etc.) as their more literalist brethren. What’s more, they are every bit as much scientists as their naturalist professional counterparts.
[Edited 4/27/06 20:02pm]

Thank you for basing yur post on facts. hug
So...how's everybody doing? smile
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #49 posted 04/28/06 1:06am

Heiress

Lammastide said:

But just to humor you, many of the scientists who adhere to Genesis’ account of human proliferation do so from both a faith-based AND scientific standpoint. Have you not heard of Common Ancestry Theory? Mitochondrial Eve? Y-Chromosome Adam? These do not corroborate fundamentalist beliefs, but they are just some of the discussions in evolutionary science that explore the reconciliation of faith and science – and the scientists exploring these are every bit as Christian…. Or Muslim, or Jew, or Hindu (etc.) as their more literalist brethren. What’s more, they are every bit as much scientists as their naturalist professional counterparts.
[Edited 4/27/06 20:02pm]


Oh my, I'm coming in late on this discussion... fascinating so far.

I thought the idea of the "mitochondrial eve" was the standard... very mainstream information. There's been Time and Newsweek magazines in recent years expounding this theory to the masses... Complete with pictures of what a "complete human mutt" of a modern female might resemble.

There must be some articles of this sort online...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #50 posted 04/28/06 1:08am

Heiress

SensualMelody said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:



What kind of scientists???? Please Melody!


Many of the science professors I have had believe in the Bible and the biology teaches I have worked with, and the one I study the Bible with.
My son, who is a chemical engineer believes in the Bible. My doctor has a Bible in every waiting room.

Among Jehovah's Witnesses there are scientists; biologists; physicists, astronomers; chemists; medical doctors; surgeons..you name it. All these believe in the Adam and Eve theory.


Even Richard Dawkins admits that it's far more logical to be agnostic than athiest... to not rule out this possibility of God.

From him, that's a strong statement.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #51 posted 04/28/06 3:17am

Thetan

People who read the Bible literally are generally unintelligent people who are too thick and narrow-minded to read it any other way.

They no nothing of symbolism or metaphor. That is not what they are seeking.

They desire a simplistic, literal faith and that is what they find when they 'read' the Bible in their particular way.

They want a moral code that instructs them how to live their life's because they do not want to, or are not able to, think for themselves.

They crave a literal, blow-by-blow account of what will happen when they die and to the world in the future. Once again, they ensure they get that by interpreting the Bible in a very simple way and by wrenching various passages out-of-context.

Most of these believe they are going to Heaven or into eternal life and you are not. This is what is known as being 'THICK AND PROUD'.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, a large population of these idiots are ruling the world.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #52 posted 04/28/06 5:11am

GeorgeWBush

avatar

Thetan said:

People who read the Bible literally are generally unintelligent people who are too thick and narrow-minded to read it any other way.

They no nothing of symbolism or metaphor. That is not what they are seeking.

They desire a simplistic, literal faith and that is what they find when they 'read' the Bible in their particular way.

They want a moral code that instructs them how to live their life's because they do not want to, or are not able to, think for themselves.

They crave a literal, blow-by-blow account of what will happen when they die and to the world in the future. Once again, they ensure they get that by interpreting the Bible in a very simple way and by wrenching various passages out-of-context.

Most of these believe they are going to Heaven or into eternal life and you are not. This is what is known as being 'THICK AND PROUD'.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, a large population of these idiots are ruling the world.


stop sitting on the fence. so what is your position then? smile
The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology. - Michael Parenti
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #53 posted 04/28/06 11:38am

Rhondab

Thetan said:

People who read the Bible literally are generally unintelligent people who are too thick and narrow-minded to read it any other way.

They no nothing of symbolism or metaphor. That is not what they are seeking.

They desire a simplistic, literal faith and that is what they find when they 'read' the Bible in their particular way.

They want a moral code that instructs them how to live their life's because they do not want to, or are not able to, think for themselves.

They crave a literal, blow-by-blow account of what will happen when they die and to the world in the future. Once again, they ensure they get that by interpreting the Bible in a very simple way and by wrenching various passages out-of-context.

Most of these believe they are going to Heaven or into eternal life and you are not. This is what is known as being 'THICK AND PROUD'.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, a large population of these idiots are ruling the world.


I'm not a literalist but this is an unfair assessment of those who are. Once again, those who feel they are so open-minded seem to be as closed minded as those they criticize. confused


This has been an interesting thread. Kudos to Melody nod
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #54 posted 04/28/06 11:45am

HiinEnkelte

avatar

Rhondab said:

Thetan said:

People who read the Bible literally are generally unintelligent people who are too thick and narrow-minded to read it any other way.

They no nothing of symbolism or metaphor. That is not what they are seeking.

They desire a simplistic, literal faith and that is what they find when they 'read' the Bible in their particular way.

They want a moral code that instructs them how to live their life's because they do not want to, or are not able to, think for themselves.

They crave a literal, blow-by-blow account of what will happen when they die and to the world in the future. Once again, they ensure they get that by interpreting the Bible in a very simple way and by wrenching various passages out-of-context.

Most of these believe they are going to Heaven or into eternal life and you are not. This is what is known as being 'THICK AND PROUD'.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, a large population of these idiots are ruling the world.


I'm not a literalist but this is an unfair assessment of those who are. Once again, those who feel they are so open-minded seem to be as closed minded as those they criticize. confused


This has been an interesting thread. Kudos to Melody nod


and to Lamma. nod
Welcome to the New World Odor and
the Mythmaking Moonbattery of Obamanation.

Chains We Can Bereave In

LIBERALISM IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #55 posted 04/28/06 11:58am

roanmairin

avatar

HereToRockYourWorld said:


I, too, appreciate the bravery of jumping in here.


Bravery? This is just a discussion. No-one is fighting a bear or a shark in here.

HereToRockYourWorld said:


But it doesn't work. Adam and Eve having all of that genetic material ( whofarted ) would not result in the racial differences that we see in the world. Unless God did a WHOLE lot of fiddling, in which case, why bother giving the little buggers all of the DNA in the first place?

Doesn't. Make. Sense.



Doesn't have to. It's religion.

If it made sense it would have fewer followers.

Religious types don't want the truth. They want some mysatical reason for being here. They can't face the fact that one day they will be worm food just like fluffy the cat who got hit by a car.

This need for something more is a side effect of being intelligent beings. We have imaginations so we can come up with this stuff.

Many people just can't stand the fact that we mill about everyday doing are jobs, raising our families, fighting wars, etc. and that when we are gone someone else will fill our spot and most of us will have left barely an imprint.

So we have created this elaborate fantasy. Many people create their own fantasies, Harry Potter, Star Wars, Winnie the Pooh and escape into those.

For those that can't or don't want to create there own, or want something with a larger following which is easier to pass off as something more, choose religion.

It is that simple. We could think it up so we did.

Dogs don't have heaven because they can't concieve of it. So they become worm food. So do we, we can just imagine much more while we are here.
"What a lovely fat beat with a zompige baslijn"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #56 posted 04/28/06 8:39pm

PurpleJedi

avatar

Please do not use the "Mariah Carey" example to try to prove Adam & Eve.
hmph!

Mariah...and Dawn...and Prince...are the result of cross-breeding of different races already existing.

Adam & Eve supposedly spawned Caucasians & Amerindians & Africans & Asians & Aborigenes & so on in a span of 6,000 years (sorry folks but if you're going to stick by the Creationist origin story then you have to stick by the Creationist timeframe as well).

Doesn't jive.
By St. Boogar and all the saints at the backside door of Purgatory!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #57 posted 04/29/06 12:15am

Lammastide

avatar

PurpleJedi said:
Please do not use the "Mariah Carey" example to try to prove Adam & Eve.
hmph!

Mariah...and Dawn...and Prince...are the result of cross-breeding of different races already existing.

Adam & Eve supposedly spawned Caucasians & Amerindians & Africans & Asians & Aborigenes & so on in a span of 6,000 years…


First, I’m hardly interested in “proving Adam & Eve.” That's not my duty… and didn’t I suggest earlier that nothing could be proven?

Nah... I’m far less ambitious. I’m simply suggesting Young Earth variability from common ancestry is possible (even as I don't personally buy the theory.)

The Mariah example was meant to show the immense change possible in a relatively short time from a singular phenotypical starting point, albeit with some influence from an “opposite pole,” so to speak. The Dawn and Prince examples were meant to show that much smaller, yet still visibly pronounced, variations could happen in a single generational jump. And, because geneticists have found that variation is much more broad within racial groups than between them, these subtle changes are often more than enough to peg a person one race as opposed to another.

But your point is well taken. I could’ve used “specimens” of more like parentage for a more solid example. To that end, here’s some theory, if you care to read…

The Origin of Man's "Colors"

Most people, when they speak of a “race,” refer to the racial characteristic of skin coloration. For the purpose of the present discussion, I will limit my discussion, for the most part, to the origin of such a characteristic (being careful to do so only in an accommodative sense). In humans, production of the skin coloring agent melanin is controlled by two pairs of genes. We can designate them Aa and Bb, the capital letters representing dominant genes and the small letters recessive genes. A and B, being dominant, produce melanin very well; being recessive, a and b produce melanin to a lesser degree.

Gary Parker, in his book, Creation: The Facts of Life (1980, pp. 77-81), has observed that if Adam and Eve were both AABB, they could have produced only children with the darkest coloration possible, and they themselves likewise would have been dark. That, barring genetic mutations (to be discussed later), would have produced a world composed only of dark-skinned people. But, as has been noted already, the Negroid race composes less than 10% of the world’s population, so by a process of elimination, this choice can be ruled out.

If Adam and Eve both had been aabb, they could have had only children that were aabb, that being the lightest coloration possible. Then, the world would contain no other groupings. But it does. So, this option also is ruled out by a process of elimination.

The real question is this: Is there a mechanism by which the racial characteristics which we see today could have originated with one human couple—in the short, few thousand year or so history of the Earth?

The answer is a resounding yes! If Adam and Eve had been “heterozygous” (AaBb; two dominant, two recessive genes), they would have been middle-brown in color. And, from them—in one generation—racial differences could have occurred quite easily. Figure 1 expresses the genetic possibilities that could result if Adam and Eve had been heterozygous. Note that in a single generation, one could expect (theoretically) these colorations to be produced: 1 darkest; 4 dark; 6 medium; 4 light; and 1 lightest.

A person born AABB carries genes for the darkest coloration possible, and since all genes are dominant, has no genes for lightness. If that person married another person who likewise carried all dominant genes, and moved to an area where no intermarriage with people of different colors occurred, the offspring resulting from this marriage then would carry the same dominant genes. These offspring will have “lost” the ability to be “white.” Conversely, if a person who is aabb, and thus the lightest possible, marries another person who likewise carries all recessive genes, and moves into an area where no intermarriage with people of other colors occurs, henceforth this union will produce only offspring of the lightest possible coloration. The offspring so produced will have “lost” the ability to be “black.” They no longer have the genes necessary to produce enough melanin for the black color.

Thus, starting with any two parents who were heterozygous (i.e., middle-brown in color), extreme racial colors (black and white, to name only two examples) could be produced in such a way that races would have permanently different colors. Of course, it also is possible to produce a middle-brown race that will have a fixed middle-brown color. If the original middle-brown parents produce offspring of either AAbb or aaBB, and these offspring marry only others their own color, avoiding intermarriage with those not of their own genetic makeup, their descendants will be a fixed middle-brown color.


Is it likely that people of various colorations intermarried? The preponderance of so many colorations in the world is evidence aplenty that they did. Interestingly, even the evolutionists agree on this point. Rensberger says:

Race mixing has not only been a fact of human history but is, in this day of unprecedented global mobility, taking place at a more rapid rate than ever. It is not farfetched to envision the day when, generations hence, the entire “complexion” of major population centers will be different. Meanwhile, we can see such changes taking place before our eyes, for they are a part of everyday reality. (1981, p. 54.)

Dr. Francisco Ayala of the University of California has observed that if the process started out with a couple that had only a 6.7% heterozygosity (which is the average in modern humans), the different combinations possible would be 1x102,017 before the couple would have one child identical to another! (1978, p 63)!

As Parker observed, it is likely that Adam and Eve were heterozygous. Otherwise, their descendants would have lacked variation. However, one might suggest that Adam and Eve began with all dominant (or all recessive) sets of genes, but that changes occurred after the Creation as the result of mutations. Indeed, many of the genetic differences, and many of the genetic disorders, no doubt have arisen since the first couple was removed from that original, pristine environment. Thus, the possibility that some heterozygosity is a product of mutations cannot be ruled out.

-- Taken from The Origin of Races, by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Originally published in Reason & Revelation, August 1990, 10[8]:33-36.


So, again, could two phenotypically similar individuals produce phenotypically different progeny? And could they do it in 6000 years… or less? No doubt, many scientist are skeptical… on biological ground. Yet many are confident in the notion… on biological, not just mystical, lofty faith-based, ground, as some people would love to believe.

(sorry folks but if you're going to stick by the Creationist origin story then you have to stick by the Creationist timeframe as well).

no no no! Once again, not at all a necessary adherence. In a nutshell…



Four Views of the
Biblical Creation Account


1. The Calendar-Day Interpretation - Often called the literal view, the traditional view, or the twenty-four-hour view, the Calendar-Day perspective may be described very simply. It accepts the first chapter of Genesis as historical and chronological in character and takes the creation week as consisting of six twenty-four-hour days, followed by a twenty-four-hour Sabbath. Since Adam and Eve were created as mature adults, so the rest of creation came forth from its Maker. The Garden included full-grown trees and animals, which Adam named. Those holding this view believe this is the normal understanding of the creation account and that this has been the most commonly held understanding of this account both in Jewish and Christian history.

2. The Day-Age Interpretation - The six days of the Day-Age view are understood in the same sense as "in that day" of Isaiah 11:10-11—in other words, as periods of indefinite length and not of 24 hours duration. The six days are taken as sequential but as overlapping and perhaps merging into one another. According to this view, the Genesis 1 creation week describes events from the point of view of the earth, which is being prepared as the habitation for man. In this context, the explanation of day four is that the sun only became visible on that day, as atmospheric conditions allowed the previous alternation of light and darkness to be perceived as coming from the previously created sun and other heavenly bodies. The Day-Age construct preserves the general sequence of events as portrayed in the text and is not merely a response to Charles Darwin and evolutionary science. From ancient times there was recognition among Bible scholars that the word "day" could mean an extended period of time.

3. The Framework Interpretation - The distinctive feature of the Framework view is its understanding of the week (not the days as such) as a metaphor. According to this interpretation, Moses used the metaphor of the week to narrate God’s acts of creation. Thus, God’s supernatural creative words or fiats are real and historical but the exact timing is left unspecified. The purpose of the metaphor is to call Adam to imitate God in work, with the promise of entering His Sabbath rest. Creation events are grouped in two triads of days: Days 1-3 (creations kingdoms) are paralleled by Days 4-6 (creation’s kings). Adam is king of the earth; God is the King of Creation.

4. The Analogical Days Interpretation - According to the Analogical view, the "days" of Genesis 1 are God’s workdays, analogous (but not necessarily identical) to human workdays. They set a pattern for our rhythm of work and rest. The six days represent periods of God’s historical supernatural activity in preparing and populating the earth as a place for humans to live, love, work, and worship. These days are broadly consecutive. That is, they are successive periods of unspecified length. They may overlap in part, or they may reflect logical rather than chronological criteria for grouping certain events on certain days.

-- From the Report of the Creation Study Committee" posted on PCAnews.com, July 6, 2000. The 92-page document, presented to the 28th General Assembly of the PCA, results from the committee’s two-year study of Genesis 1-3 and of the meaning of "day" in that creation account.




Doesn't jive.

May not jive. But it certainly does jibe. thumbs up!
Ὅσον ζῇς φαίνου
μηδὲν ὅλως σὺ λυποῦ
πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐστὶ τὸ ζῆν
τὸ τέλος ὁ χρόνος ἀπαιτεῖ.”
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #58 posted 04/29/06 3:11am

Rhondab

roanmairin said:

HereToRockYourWorld said:


I, too, appreciate the bravery of jumping in here.


Bravery? This is just a discussion. No-one is fighting a bear or a shark in here.

HereToRockYourWorld said:


But it doesn't work. Adam and Eve having all of that genetic material ( whofarted ) would not result in the racial differences that we see in the world. Unless God did a WHOLE lot of fiddling, in which case, why bother giving the little buggers all of the DNA in the first place?

Doesn't. Make. Sense.



Doesn't have to. It's religion.

If it made sense it would have fewer followers.

Religious types don't want the truth. They want some mysatical reason for being here. They can't face the fact that one day they will be worm food just like fluffy the cat who got hit by a car.

This need for something more is a side effect of being intelligent beings. We have imaginations so we can come up with this stuff.

Many people just can't stand the fact that we mill about everyday doing are jobs, raising our families, fighting wars, etc. and that when we are gone someone else will fill our spot and most of us will have left barely an imprint.

So we have created this elaborate fantasy. Many people create their own fantasies, Harry Potter, Star Wars, Winnie the Pooh and escape into those.

For those that can't or don't want to create there own, or want something with a larger following which is easier to pass off as something more, choose religion.

It is that simple. We could think it up so we did.

Dogs don't have heaven because they can't concieve of it. So they become worm food. So do we, we can just imagine much more while we are here.


shake

you guys are killing me with this stuff.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #59 posted 04/29/06 3:58am

SpecialEd

avatar

Heiress said:


Even Richard Dawkins admits that it's far more logical to be agnostic than athiest... to not rule out this possibility of God.

From him, that's a strong statement.


Eh, by the same argument it's FAR more logical to be agnostic than claiming a belief in one of the religious faiths. shrug
Glug, glug like a mug
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 4 <1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > to the bible literalists...