Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

As I recently made clear I have almost no respect for you.

Well, that's not much of a basis for conversation.

Have a nice day.

True enough. But it is a good base for further critical commentary.

Knock yourself out. Go to town. Write your little heart out. Have fun.

See if it pays off for your effort.

[henry quirk]

An essay just to tell someone to get bent?

Ivory Tower dwellers...

The essay, as you call it, had something to do with a direct way of speaking, but it really is about issues that totally supersede the personal. Personal bickering is a fun pastime, at times, but there really are far more important issues at stake.

Yeah, I don't care, guy.

If you're gonna tell somebody to get bent, get in and get out, that's what I'm sayin'.

Writin' a lot to say very little diminishes the umph.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Knock yourself out. Go to town. Write your little heart out. Have fun.

See if it pays off for your effort.

My efforts always pay off. In all instances I set as my object to gain.

[Alexis Jacobi]

that's what I'm sayin'.

Duly noted. I have been studying some posts which I think might help me. You know, to recover some of that wasted umph. I'd like to consider myself teachable. But the road is long.

[henry quirk]

that's what I'm sayin'.

Duly noted. I have been studying some posts which I think might help me. You know, to recover some of that wasted umph. I'd like to consider myself teachable. But the road is long.

*That there post of mine is too long (still it was shorter, and, frankly, more on point, than yours).

Anyway: that's enough of that.




*edited out unnecessary crap

[Nick_A]

Surely, after so many posts, if a newbie asked: "I still don't understand. What is the purpose of Jesus mission and how does his life and death reflect it?" Who can answer him in a rational way?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Anyway: that's enough of that.

*edited out unnecessary crap.

Keeping things always serious, yet also light, I offer this — for fun! If we are not having fun that’s no fun! Seriously!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Surely, after so many posts, if a newbie asked: "I still don't understand. What is the purpose of Jesus mission and how does his life and death reflect it?" Who can answer him in a rational way?

The real question (in my own non-conforming view) is what is our mission to be when we examine all that revelation and mystical theology present and propose to us. We are the subjects. Our choices are paramount.

[Harry Baird]

The idea that the human race descended from just one mating pair whose children had to commit incest with one another to propagate the species doesn't make sense to me.

And yet, it's inevitable.

No, it's not. I've offered an alternative: that God created many different humans to start with. You had no argument against that possibility, offering in return only "I see no reason to think that". I've offered two: it avoids incest and it better explains the existence of different human races.

Let's forget Genesis. Instead, let's consider the Evoluntionary Hypothesis, particularly as it applies to human beings.

[Snip discussion of evolution]

While I appreciate you laying that all out, over the years I've come to believe ("see"? "understand"?) that evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense is incapable of explaining that which it purports to explain, so I don't find it useful to even explore it in this case.

In any case, what you've got is not "incest" but consanguinity. There's no "incest" where there has never been a prohibition against it.

Dude. You propose that Cain had sex with his sister. That literally conforms to the definition of incest, whether there's a prohibition against it or not.

Though why you care, at this point in history / evolution, I have a hard time imagining.

I care because it's a crucial element in the Biblically literalist account to which you and other Christians hold, so it speaks to the plausibility of that account.

If a couple of pre-human cave persons were a little close in their original mating [...]

We're not discussing "pre-human cave persons" though, are we? We're discussing the first humans.

Given enough time, things like height, eye shape, skin colour and so forth can change.

(Emphasis added). That's exactly the point: there needs to be enough time. Here's what I'd written within respect to that point, which you ignored (again, emphasis added):

Next: I don't see why there would be the bunch of different human races with substantially different genetic/phenotypic traits that there are if we all descend from just two people (of some given race; I'm not sure that's specified in the Bible), presumably only a few thousand years ago on the literalist account to which you presumably subscribe - such that even if you did (do?) believe in micro-evolution, there's not enough time for it to take place.

Maybe, though, you believe that the Earth is older than a few thousand years, such that there has been enough time. Do you? More specifically, how old do you think planet Earth is?

[Immanuel Can]

Knock yourself out. Go to town. Write your little heart out. Have fun.

See if it pays off for your effort.

My efforts always pay off. In all instances I set as my object to gain.

Good luck.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Good luck.

Not a question of luck but one of will.

[Immanuel Can]

The idea that the human race descended from just one mating pair whose children had to commit incest with one another to propagate the species doesn't make sense to me.

And yet, it's inevitable.

No, it's not. I've offered an alternative: that God created many different humans to start with. You had no argument against that possibility, offering in return only "I see no reason to think that". I've offered two: it avoids incest and it better explains the existence of different human races.

Well, the second reason, I already showed is no good. And the first one, I've addressed, too.

Briefly: even Evolutionism requires an original mating pair, and incest isn't a sin before it has even been forbidden. As for the postulate of God creating "multiple different humans to start with," you have two further problems: one is that it contradicts Genesis. But secondly, I'm pretty sure you don't believe in God at all. So that's not a serious proposition, from your perspective.

While I appreciate you laying that all out, over the years I've come to believe ("see"? "understand"?) that evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense is incapable of explaining that which it purports to explain, so I don't find it useful to even explore it in this case.

That's fine.

Are you serious, then, about the idea of God creating multiple human beings at once? Is that actually your propsal?

You're still afoul of Genesis. But I suppose you can make that one up out of whole cloth if you want.

In any case, what you've got is not "incest" but consanguinity. There's no "incest" where there has never been a prohibition against it.

You propose that Cain had sex with his sister.

I said the truth: that the Bible does not explicitly tell us. To carry on your hypothesis, how do you know God didn't create multiple person, and Cain married one of them?

But it doesn't matter. There was, in the days of Genesis, absolutely no prohibition on consanguine marriage. It was simply not a transgression.

Though why you care, at this point in history / evolution, I have a hard time imagining.

I care because it's a crucial element in the Biblically literalist account t[/quote]
Not a bit. You've got the wrong end of the equation.

The center of Christianity is...(drumroll, please...) Christ. As I said earlier: a person could have doubts about Cain's wife, or the Red Sea, or Daniel's prophecies, or anything else, and still be a Christian, provides his/her response to Christ is the appropriate one. The Bible itself does not promise anything like that a person has to have a plausible wife for Cain before he can be saved.

The very supposition is a bit hilarious, actually. Imagine a man hanging his soul on that!

Next: I don't see why there would be the bunch of different human races with substantially different genetic/phenotypic traits

There are not.

All you can find is different-looking members of exactly the same species. That's a biological fact. Your allegation is wrong: those are not different "races." They're just variations within a single species.

Or are you a racist, and think some folks who look different from you are actually a different "species"? But you'll run afoul of both science and the Bible on that one.

...there's not enough time for it to take place.

Are you a follower of Bishop Usher? I'm not.

You've got your facts wrong. We don't know what the timespans involved are. We know that "day" and "period or phase" are used interchangeably in Hebrew. Which one this refers to, well, you can't say for sure.

Where do you get your critiques from, a colouring book? I've heard all these exact superficial objections before, and I haven't the slightest doubt you're not even remotely concerned about any of them. Nobody is. In fact, you got them all second-hand. There isn't a single fresh, interesting critique in them, nothing that hasn't already been abundantly asked and answered in multiple books, lectures and websites.

Seriously: are you wanting me to think that the thing that keeps you from believing in God is that you can't live without knowing that Cain had a wife that he wasn't related to? Seriously?

I have to doubt you're looking for reasoned explanations, either. It seems to me you're just hoping to fend off the demands of Scripture on you personally, by appealing to whatever remote and tangetial issues you can cook up. But you need better sources. The ones you're culling right now are severely dated and completely unoriginal.

If you're serious, then face Christ. Deal with Him, not with Cain, or the whale, or the angels that might dance on the head of a pin. Look at Him, and at what He said. Face it, decide what you will do, and live and die with the result. That's what an honest man does.

[Immanuel Can]

Good luck.

Not a question of luck but one of will.

Yes, yes...you're a wonder to us all.

[Harry Baird]

I'm pretty sure you don't believe in God at all.

Pretty sure, but wrong. I just have a different conception of God than the standard Christian conception. That said, my conception isn't entirely clear, and I remain to an extent in a state of theological confusion.

Are you serious, then, about the idea of God creating multiple human beings at once? Is that actually your propsal?

Whether it was God or some other agency that created humans: yes, it is much more plausible to me that multiple different humans rather than a single mating pair were created to start with.

I said the truth: that the Bible does not explicitly tell us. To carry on your hypothesis, how do you know God didn't create multiple person, and Cain married one of them?

Oh, so, you're open to that hypothesis? I thought that you were doctrinally convinced that there was only a single original mating pair.

Or are you a racist, and think some folks who look different from you are actually a different "species"?

I haven't said or implied anywhere that race is equivalent to species, and I don't believe it to be the case (except when "race" is used loosely, as in "the human race"). And recognising the reality that there are different human races doesn't in and of itself make one a racist. I think instead that it's useful in opposing racism.

Seriously: are you wanting me to think that the thing that keeps you from believing in God is that you can't live without knowing that Cain had a wife that he wasn't related to?

No. It's not my position and I haven't said it. In any case, it's possible to be a non-literalist Christian, so even though in my view the literalist Christian account is implausible to the point of absurdity, that's not a sufficient reason to reject the faith.

But you need better sources. The ones you're culling right now are severely dated and completely unoriginal.

I'm not drawing from sources, at least not consciously. It's possible of course that I've encountered the points I've raised previously and forgotten.

[Nick_A]

Surely, after so many posts, if a newbie asked: "I still don't understand. What is the purpose of Jesus mission and how does his life and death reflect it?" Who can answer him in a rational way?

The real question (in my own non-conforming view) is what is our mission to be when we examine all that revelation and mystical theology present and propose to us. We are the subjects. Our choices are paramount.

I asked uwot if he knew the difference between knowledge and understanding. Of course he avoided it. Now I ask you. Would you agree that knowledge consists of all our associations. However understanding is defined by what we do. We know many facts but if we absorbed them we wouldn't do the opposite.

A person may have great knowledge as to the dangers of smoking but continue to smoke. They understand their desire to smoke regardless of what they know. What is our mission and why don't we understand it regardless of what we know? What is the value of knowledge if we don't understand it? A thermometer has a lot of degrees and you know what you can do with that.