Sign in to follow this  
cuchulain

history and faith

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Rev. Calli said:

Greetings to you my brother,

 

Oh dear, I don't even believe in Adam and Eve, does that make me less of a Christian?  

 

In solidarity,

Rev. Calli

 

 

 

It means that your understanding is not mainstream.  It's not a problem for me.  I doubt that it's a problem for you.

 

:D

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

It means that your understanding is not mainstream.  It's not a problem for me.  I doubt that it's a problem for you.

 

:D

 

 

Greetings to you my brother,

 

I don't know.  For most of the Christians I know, it is a mainstream viewpoint.  We just don't shout as loud as some of my more fundamentalist brothers and sisters.

 

In Solidarity,

Rev. Calli

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Rev. Calli said:

Greetings to you my brother,

 

I don't know.  For most of the Christians I know, it is a mainstream viewpoint.  We just don't shout as loud as some of my more fundamentalist brothers and sisters.

 

In Solidarity,

Rev. Calli

 

 

There is much to be said for being flexible.  In the winds of change, grass bends.  Trees break.

 

The truth of evolution is a disaster for fundamentalists.  Without a literal, historic Adam and Eve, there is no "Fall".  No Original Sin.  Nothing to be saved from.  No need for redemption or redeemer.  No need for the Lamb of God to be sacrificed -- because there was no fall.  The core theology turns to dust.

 

Of course you (plural) don't shout as loud.  You're not afraid.  They are.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎4‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 8:37 PM, Rev. Calli said:

Greetings to you my brother,

 

You're missing the obvious point that the Bible is a book of faith, not science.  If you try to take it and come up with the age of the world, or history is we would understand it, you miss the point completely.  The bible is a history of how the people of ancient Israel and early Christianity came to understand their relationship with God.  Is it infallible?  Not in the way my fundamentalist brothers and sisters would insist.  It teaches us what God wants us to know about being a people of faith, and especially when we get into the New Testament, how we are to live in relationship with each other, as Christ taught.

 

In solidarity,

Rev. Calli

I can certainly see that it's not a book of science, nor of history.  That is my point, however...that many MANY of its followers insist it IS, and that we should operate the world on the "Science" contained within.  

 

You are correct in pointing out that I am making bad generalizations about ALL Christians, however.  I am sorry for that.  There are so many different groups of Christians with so many different beliefs about their book that I really should do better about that, and I try.  But sometimes I fail.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

The truth of evolution is a disaster for fundamentalists.  Without a literal, historic Adam and Eve, there is no "Fall".  No Original Sin.  Nothing to be saved from.  No need for redemption or redeemer.  No need for the Lamb of God to be sacrificed -- because there was no fall.  The core theology turns to dust.  

I've known a lot of Christians who do not believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve, but still believe in the Fall and Original Sin as metaphor. They still believe in a need to be saved, and in a need for a redeemer.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, mererdog said:

I've known a lot of Christians who do not believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve, but still believe in the Fall and Original Sin as metaphor. They still believe in a need to be saved, and in a need for a redeemer.

 

Hmm, it seems that maybe I fall somewhere in the middle on this one. For me, Adam (first man) and Eve (first women) had to have existed. Without an Adam and an Eve mankind could not have existed.

 

On 4/4/2018 at 7:39 AM, cuchulain said:

Don't they all?  "In the beginning..." and all that?  Where their God is directly talking to them?  I mean, if they believe in Adam and Eve literally, wouldn't that have made them the first "Christians"?  I know I am using the term lightly, as Christians are technically followers of Christ who didn't live back then and all that, but I am talking about that prime source, if you can see where I am aiming.  I am wondering what happened from direct knowledge of God, from Adam and Eve, that led their people to descend into worshipping different beings, when their parents KNEW God was real(that is, if any of it was real).

 

Ok, let me see if I can cover this with the short version.

Adam & Eve lived in "the Garden". They ate the fruit off of the trees and there was always something in season to eat. There were no predators. They communed with YHVH in the cool of the evening. A subordinate of YHVH conned them into seeking the knowledge of the Angels. YHVH says nope ..... not in my Garden. You want that knowledge let them ( the rebellious Angels) teach you to make it on your own. Adam and Eve no longer communed with YHVH in the cool of the evening. The bad Angels taught men to make fire, and wooden spears with pointy rock tips and then they taught them to mine metals and fashion them into all sorts of shapes. ( do you see where I'm aiming?) Think Greek Roman Norse Gods. Since Adam and Eve got the boot YHVH has only had direct communication with a few select individuals. You know, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses.......

 

 

17 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

There is much to be said for being flexible.  In the winds of change, grass bends.  Trees break.

 

The truth of evolution is a disaster for fundamentalists.  Without a literal, historic Adam and Eve, there is no "Fall".  No Original Sin.  Nothing to be saved from.  No need for redemption or redeemer.  No need for the Lamb of God to be sacrificed -- because there was no fall.  The core theology turns to dust.

 

Of course you (plural) don't shout as loud.  You're not afraid.  They are.  

 

 

 

Without a literal Adam (first man) and a literal Eve (first woman) there is no "human race". We've talked before so I'm sure you already understand that I see the story more metaphorically than literally. Never the less without a first man and a first woman coming into existence at the same time there could not be a human race. IMO

Edited by Pastor Dave

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎4‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 4:18 PM, Pastor Dave said:

 

Hmm, it seems that maybe I fall somewhere in the middle on this one. For me, Adam (first man) and Eve (first women) had to have existed. Without an Adam and an Eve mankind could not have existed.

 

 

Ok, let me see if I can cover this with the short version.

Adam & Eve lived in "the Garden". They ate the fruit off of the trees and there was always something in season to eat. There were no predators. They communed with YHVH in the cool of the evening. A subordinate of YHVH conned them into seeking the knowledge of the Angels. YHVH says nope ..... not in my Garden. You want that knowledge let them ( the rebellious Angels) teach you to make it on your own. Adam and Eve no longer communed with YHVH in the cool of the evening. The bad Angels taught men to make fire, and wooden spears with pointy rock tips and then they taught them to mine metals and fashion them into all sorts of shapes. ( do you see where I'm aiming?) Think Greek Roman Norse Gods. Since Adam and Eve got the boot YHVH has only had direct communication with a few select individuals. You know, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses.......

 

 

 

Without a literal Adam (first man) and a literal Eve (first woman) there is no "human race". We've talked before so I'm sure you already understand that I see the story more metaphorically than literally. Never the less without a first man and a first woman coming into existence at the same time there could not be a human race. IMO

 

 

Did the planet need a literal first male cat and a literal first female cat -- before the world had kittens?  No?  That is how we managed without a historic Adam and Eve.

 

Unless you want to say that cats were also a special creation.  Maybe you do.  

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎4‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 12:02 PM, mererdog said:

I've known a lot of Christians who do not believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve, but still believe in the Fall and Original Sin as metaphor. They still believe in a need to be saved, and in a need for a redeemer.

 

 

We need to be saved from a metaphor?  Is Hell Fire and Damnation also a metaphor?  

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Did the planet need a literal first male cat and a literal first female cat -- before the world had kittens?  No?  That is how we managed without a historic Adam and Eve.

 

Unless you want to say that cats were also a special creation.  Maybe you do.  

Yeah, there had to be a first pair of cats too. 

They may have started out as kittens though.

No need for them to be a "special creation " .

 

Unless you want to say that all of a sudden a different, unrelated,  species experienced some kind of mass mutation and produced  thousands of felines by random chance all at the same time instead of reproducing their own kind. 

 

That takes a special kind of faith now doesn't it.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Pastor Dave said:

Yeah, there had to be a first pair of cats too. 

They may have started out as kittens though.

No need for them to be a "special creation " .

 

Unless you want to say that all of a sudden a different, unrelated,  species experienced some kind of mass mutation and produced  thousands of felines by random chance all at the same time instead of reproducing their own kind. 

 

That takes a special kind of faith now doesn't it.

 

That is not how evolution theory works.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

That is not how evolution theory works.  

 

Would you care to elaborate?

 

I mean at some point  there had to be a recognizable feline that came from something that was not feline in order for evolution theory to work. Was it a single pair or were  there dozens or hundreds or thousands that all came to be, during the same generation in the same area of the world? 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Pastor Dave said:

 

Would you care to elaborate?

 

I mean at some point  there had to be a recognizable feline that came from something that was not feline in order for evolution theory to work. Was it a single pair or were  there dozens or hundreds or thousands that all came to be, during the same generation in the same area of the world? 

 

 

Consider a species of lizard.  The members of this species are searching for food.  Some of them will end up in a muddy swamp.  Some of them will end up in a hot, dry dessert.

 

In each group, some individuals will thrive.  They will reproduce and pass on their genes.  Others in that group will perish.  They will not pass on their genes.

 

Over many generations -- a process too slow to be observed -- far longer than an individual life span -- changes will show up and accumulate.  In time --  a long time -- the two groups will not be able to mate with each other.  That is evolution theory.  At least, as I understand it.  

 

There is a major false idea that gums up understanding.  This is not about species advancement.  This is about species change.  Sharks are very old.  Much older than fish.  They don't have bone.  They didn't have to change into fish.  They were so successful that they stayed as they were.

 

Consider the old joke.  "Which came first.  The chicken or the egg?"  If the line is traced back far enough -- over many generations -- over many accumulated changes -- we find a reptile.  There was never a point that a lizard gave birth to a chicken.  That is not how it works.  

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

......

Over many generations -- a process too slow to be observed -- far longer than an individual life span -- changes will show up and accumulate.  In time --  a long time -- the two groups will not be able to mate with each other.  That is evolution theory.  At least, as I understand it.  

.....

 

Ahhh, we're making progress. 

 

Let's stay with cats though. 

 

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, we have this species, that isn't a feline per se, and a group of them slowly mutated into cats. At what point do they stop being the "proto species" and become feline?  What was that proto species? If this is what happened where is the evidence of that intermediate stage? 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmmm, let's see if these articles can help us.

 

Cats and dogs had a common ancestor, and here it is

New fossils of Dormaalocyon latouri, a 55 million-year-old species believed to be closely linked to the origin of carnivoraformes – carnivorous mammals such as cats, dogs, bears, and weasels – were recently uncovered by scientists

 

Wow, that sure makes the job of saving life on Earth from an extinction level event a lot easier. Just save the proto carnivore and then genetically engineer  cats, dogs, bears, and weasels from there.

 

Did cats evolve from bigger felines or was it the other way around?

The oldest known cat is the extinct Proailurus, which was only a little bit larger than a domestic cat. It is presumed that Proailurus is an ancestor to Pseudaelurus [4] who is considered the last common ancestor to all cats, including the existing cats and the extinct branches such as the saber toothed tigers.

Modern cats, both large and small, all evolve from a rather big cat, Pseudaelurus, which was up to 5 feet long and 50 pounds, and existed 8 to 20 million years ago. However, many believe an earlier, smaller animal, Proailurus (first cat), weighing in at about 20 pounds, is the first true cat,

 

And this one.

 

Proailurus

Proailurus (meaning "before the cat") is an extinct carnivoran felid that lived in Europe and Asia approximately 25 million years ago in the Late Oligocene and Miocene.

....

One recent phylogeny places it as a basal member of the Feliformia, the suborder that includes mongooses, civets, hyenas, and cats; but other studies suggest that it instead was a felid (a true cat).

....

Proailurus was a likely ancestor of Pseudaelurus, which lived 20-10 million years ago, and probably gave rise to the major felid lines, including the extinct machairodontines and the extant felines and pantherines, although the phylogeny of the cats is still not precisely known.

 

Words like one recent phylogy followed by other studies suggest  indicate to me a level of uncertainty. Words like a likely ancestor and probably also tell me that the author is trying to lead us to an unsupported conclusion. The truth of the matter is that the phylogeny of the cats is still not precisely known.

Edited by Pastor Dave

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Pastor Dave said:

Hmmmm, let's see if these articles can help us.

 

Cats and dogs had a common ancestor, and here it is

New fossils of Dormaalocyon latouri, a 55 million-year-old species believed to be closely linked to the origin of carnivoraformes – carnivorous mammals such as cats, dogs, bears, and weasels – were recently uncovered by scientists

 

Wow, that sure makes the job of saving life on Earth from an extinction level event a lot easier. Just save the proto carnivore and then genetically engineer  cats, dogs, bears, and weasels from there.

 

Did cats evolve from bigger felines or was it the other way around?

The oldest known cat is the extinct Proailurus, which was only a little bit larger than a domestic cat. It is presumed that Proailurus is an ancestor to Pseudaelurus [4] who is considered the last common ancestor to all cats, including the existing cats and the extinct branches such as the saber toothed tigers.

Modern cats, both large and small, all evolve from a rather big cat, Pseudaelurus, which was up to 5 feet long and 50 pounds, and existed 8 to 20 million years ago. However, many believe an earlier, smaller animal, Proailurus (first cat), weighing in at about 20 pounds, is the first true cat,

 

And this one.

 

Proailurus

Proailurus (meaning "before the cat") is an extinct carnivoran felid that lived in Europe and Asia approximately 25 million years ago in the Late Oligocene and Miocene.

....

One recent phylogeny places it as a basal member of the Feliformia, the suborder that includes mongooses, civets, hyenas, and cats; but other studies suggest that it instead was a felid (a true cat).

....

Proailurus was a likely ancestor of Pseudaelurus, which lived 20-10 million years ago, and probably gave rise to the major felid lines, including the extinct machairodontines and the extant felines and pantherines, although the phylogeny of the cats is still not precisely known.

 

Words like one recent phylogy followed by other studies suggest  indicate to me a level of uncertainty. Words like a likely ancestor and probably also tell me that the author is trying to lead us to an unsupported conclusion. The truth of the matter is that the phylogeny of the cats is still not precisely known.

 

There are large gaps in my science education.  More precisely, these matters are not known to me.  That does not mean that they are not known.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Pastor Dave said:

 

Ahhh, we're making progress. 

 

Let's stay with cats though. 

 

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, we have this species, that isn't a feline per se, and a group of them slowly mutated into cats. At what point do they stop being the "proto species" and become feline?  What was that proto species? If this is what happened where is the evidence of that intermediate stage? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The process of evolution -- of change -- never stopped.  It continues.  They are all intermediate stages.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

We need to be saved from a metaphor?  Is Hell Fire and Damnation also a metaphor?  

The belief I mentioned is that the Genesis account of the Garden of Eden is a metaphor designed to describe real things. The idea there is that it is the real things you need to be saved from, not the metaphors used to describe them. The story of the Tortoise and the Hare is not an accurate account of real events that happened to literal animals, but it teaches about real dangers like overconfidence, right? It's the same basic concept.

Some of those people do believe that Hell Fire is a metaphor. Some believe that souls that cannot be reconciled cease to exist, and that the fires are meant to be descriptive of that process. Some believe that Hell is real, but that the fires are descriptive of some more metaphysical cause of anguish. There is a fair amount of variety in Christian thought.

Edited by mererdog

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

There are large gaps in my science education.  More precisely, these matters are not known to me.  That does not mean that they are not known.

 

 

 

 

The statement I made was in reference to the wiki article. Perhaps you should suggest a change to the wiki article. 

 

Just now, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

......

They are all intermediate stages.  

 

I was speaking of the specific intermediate stage between the proto carnivore and the proto feline. 

 

Every book and article that I have ever read on evolution theory is  filled with terms like, may have, could have, probably, leads us to believe, likely, and other such gibberish. 

 

Why is it that evolution theory is not held to the same strict standards of observable, testable, predictable, repeatable, falsifiable  evidence as other areas of science?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

At what point do they stop being the "proto species" and become feline? 

It's an arbitrary distinction. Humans came up with classification systems that make sense to us, in order to organize our ideas and make communication easier. Those classification systems change over time as our knowledge grows, our understanding changes, and our communication needs evolve.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, mererdog said:

It's an arbitrary distinction. Humans came up with classification systems that make sense to us, in order to organize our ideas and make communication easier. Those classification systems change over time as our knowledge grows, our understanding changes, and our communication needs evolve.

 

Ok I can go with that. Good point. Our language itself influences where that distinction can be made.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this