Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Table - Group Book Reads
>
Creation Strikes Back - How Chimpanzees Devolved From Man
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
Robert
(new)
Feb 14, 2014 11:49PM
So, Brent, I can relate the entire Adam and Eve story faithfully, but intimate that they communicated with God nonverbally rather than verbally and I'm somehow going to be excommunicated for not following my infallibility creed. No, I diagree - I wasn't literal, but still infallible and making a whole lot more sense. Have you any idea how long it takes for language skills to develop? No, of course you don't, that would require an actual rounded education. Probably you think they spoke English! Were they anglo, Brent? Cut their hair in a bob? Wear a crucifix around their neck?
reply
|
flag
Haha, as long as they didn't wear Catholic crosses (;
Oh, and I commit the "English only" fallacy in WEIGHTY matters. What WEIGHTY matter is that? That I read the Bible, but failed to recognize men of renown were actually angels based on an ancient translation?In the context of the book, it doesn't change much. Instead of God reincarnating the descendants of Seth to impregnate the sorrowful womenfolk of the lineage of Cain, He used angels instead. Yep, that's WEIGHTY alright, much more of a sin than not knowing DNA from spaghetti-O's.
Ned - two can play the bias game. At least I won't have to waste my time reading yours to rate it.
Robert or Brent, you need to get your book attached to this thread. Then it will be spread to all who have the book on their list.
Robert,The bias game? Of course I'm biased. Our biases make us who we are. Everything I encounter is filtered through my biases. Brent's review is unbelievably charitable and you still castigate him for it. I thought you wanted honest opinions (which you asked for,) but it turns out that you get angry and defensive when you get them. It looks like you really seek ego-stroking yes men.
I regard your book as a good example of syncretism; the merging of disparate beliefs to form a new belief system. That's not a compliment. Syncretism has been a problem for the church since its inception. You ought to get used to the criticism that is sure to come, especially once your book is read by well grounded Christians. As it is,I only see your book appealing to postmodern relativists who have little idea what they believe.
As to my book that you refuse to read, I have not written a book. You have referred to this non-existent work a few times now despite the fact that you received no evidence for doing so. You leapt to an unwarranted conclusion; a microcosmic illustration given the topic at hand.
The fact that Lee, resident liberal heretic, likes your book very much, coupled with the fact that Brent and I do not particularly, ought to tell you something.
Ned - my apologies, Ned, I thought you'd authored a book - I must have you confused with some other lurker. Your viewpoint that the entire Bible is literal is moronic. Without some additional elucidation, Genesis makes NO sense to anyone with a scintilla of critical thinking ability.I tried to merge proven, higher tier science with a largely intact Scriptural version and get crucified for it because some knuckledragger can't think for himself, but can only digest what's been spoon-fed to him forever. I shouldn't waste time, but I'll set you straight, if you're capable of illumination in anything other than the Arts.
A new earth is physically impossible, an old earth is the only possible scenario and the Big Bang is not only plausible, but supports God. Being a literalist, you must be a new earther so you are failing to merge facts that should be merged. I'll accuse you of ostrich-syndrone and you do your God no favors by stubbornly counting generations. God didn't say 6000 years, He only allowed you to count and that's as high as your mathematics get. No wonder you have no imagination.
As a slavish drone to a literal Bible you probably haven't any real conception of theoretical particle physics or the intricate workings of a human cell. If you'd open your eyes, you'd see the tide has shifted in the scientific community by recent discoveries in these fields toward a belief in some creative force other than just the Laws of Nature. To me that says science is creeping toward God although most scientists haven't gone that far yet. So guess what, Ned, despite your protestations and obstinancy, two things that God created will eventually merge (Biblical and scientific Truth).
I don't expect you to applaud me as visionary, but at least I'm not afraid to stick my neck out to anticipate this merger. What you study so diligently hasn't changed in 2000 years so it attracts staid, stolid, unimaginative automatons like you, I just hope I never have to sit through one of your boring, stultified presentations.
Brent - from your standpoint, 3 stars is fine and fair, I'm not lambasting you over that, as Ned contends. I do not see my presentation of Genesis as anything but inerrant and infallible, but I am not a believer in a literal, cast iron Bible. So I AM calling you to task for presenting trivial concerns that try to paint me as a heretic.
Robert,If my belief in God's supernatural intervention makes me a "knuckledragging moron incapable of critical thinking" (blah blah blah. Very mature!) in your eyes then so be it.
Many things recounted in the bible are "physically impossible." Raising the dead, miraculous cellular regeneration, turning water to wine, feeding 5,000 with five loaves and two fish, etc. You have confessed that you believe some of these "physically impossible" things, have you not? So just where do you draw the line between self-proclaimed intellectual brilliance and "moronic knuckledragger?"
Obviously, you have no idea. Your positions are contradictory and inconsistent. Your delineation is completely arbitrary based on biases of your own, presumably that which makes you "comfortable."
Ned - I think you'rr mistaking me for you, but you even take it one step farther. You ban dancing and drinking, that's extra-Biblical. You have dress codesand hair length restrictions, that's extra-Biblical. You disallow interracial dating - that's extra-Biblical. And most of all you evaluate churchgoers by their ability to pay tithes rather than their need of the Lord, and that's REALLY extra-Biblical. You're nothing but a hypocritical, anti-intellectual fakir who gives Christianity a bad name.
Ned - Lee probably didn't agree with the precepts of my book much more than you do. He rated and reviewed it on literary merit as a book should be treated. Now I know your literary knowledge is about like your scientific knowledge, virtually nonexistant, but Lee (because you won't listen to me) might give you some criteria you should examine when evaluating literature so you can get your next rating opportunity right. By your criteria, Ernest Hemingway's works would all be 1-starred because they're too prurient for your Puritan constitution and you're not well-read enough to recognize good writing when you read it. (No, I'm not comparing myself to Hemingway, but I'm better than your designation).
Robert, any edgy book in the arena of religion is going to garner some bad ratings, often with no written review. Warriors for God come out of the woodwork and dish out bad ratings for anything which disagrees with their beliefs.I had a couple one-star ratings by people before my books ever came out, and I know they were not given a review copy, so I know it has nothing to do with the writing or research. It's done for God, and it's something you'll have to get used to as an author.
I've come to realize I'm not much interested in reading any book that got no bad reviews.
Lee - oh, I expected to be attacked both by religious fundamentalists and scientific purists. I was prepared for that, but I wasn't prepared for being betrayed by people I corresponded with on a religious board who knew I fought the good fight for Christ. Now I know how Caesar felt.
But you DON'T fight the good fight for Christ. To someone more conservative than you, you are just another liberal like me. Welcome aboard.
Ha! Ha! Lee, that's hilarious and the first time I've been called a liberal in my entire life.
Lee - yesterday morning I woke up secure that I was a Christian Conservative and part of Hillary's vast right wing conspiracy (although it never became clear precisely what I was conspiring for or against).By midnight I had become a card-carrying pinko commie tool of the Godless socialist liberal takeover plot.
Lee - this is going to take some getting used to!
:) kinda fun being a Robin Hood, isn't it? Careful, it might grow on you.
Brent - you describe yourself as an historian. That would entail much more breadth in your reading than you indicate. Do you really mean you're mildly aware of a few of the events that transpired in nations where Christianity was prevalent? If I wanted to know a specific occurence that happened in Russia during the reign of Tsar Fyodor the Bell Ringer, would you be the person to consult or can you barely locate Russian on a map? If the latter, I wish you'd refer to yourself as a Biblical historian like Lee does. If the "education" you're getting is a mile deep in fundamentalism but only an inch wide in any other area I want to know so I never bother hiring a Liberty graduate.
I'm not solely picking on Liberty - unless I was planning a domestic insurrection, I wouldn't hire anyone from UC-Berkeley.
Wow! What a nightmare that would be if you had only two applicants from each of those 2 universities. Let's see: do I want the religious fruitcake who doesn't believe in electricity, or the pothead nutcase who spends his weekends blowing up buildings?
OK, I've finished ranting - at least for today!
If we don't get to listen to any more rants (fun while it lasted), maybe we could pick up the discussion? pp 129-130 tells how amphibians crawled out of the water and took to land, but why? Robert speculates God needed them to eat all the insects who were overrunning Eden. Eden needed frogs and lizards and spiders and things to be more Eden-like.
Robert, it's probably buried in the book somewhere, but could you explain WHEN the garden of Eden came about, how soon mankind was placed therein, and what kept it secluded from all the ravenous beasts outside the garden? I think I missed some details there.
Sure, the Garden of Eden came about when God created plants. He needed a place of temperate climate and fertile soil to nurture them. Mankind arrived about 6 million years ago (incredibly recently unless you're a new earther). The moving apart from Pangaea through continental drift kept a water barrier between Eden and the really fearsome critters. For Adam and Eve, frogs, and lizards, and most spiders were fine and dined on the really pesky insects in swarms that wanted to invade.
Ah, yes, I recall that now. And do you attach significance to the phrase "God breathed into Adam and he became a living soul?"
Yes, of course, I'm out to resolve the Bible with evolution, not destroy either.
Actually, I meant does that moment elevate mankind above the animal kingdom? Perhaps with the granting of a soul?ok, so do we have an island of Eden now with mankind planted there? Surrounded by water? I don't think you picture an island because immediately man gets tossed out on the mainland and Eden needs heavenly guards to keep them out.
I have a map in the book, Lee, why don't you look at it again and you can see where Adam and Eve came to roost after their exile. And, yes, man has a soul and is elevated above the animal kingdom (that is until the menfolk descendants of Cain run afoul of God, subsequently losing their soul and their Homo status). Drat, I'm spoiling my own book!
Aw, sorry, didn't mean to get ahead.I do see your map, but it doesn't show any water barriers around Eden; it's a map of today's land formations, so it's not helping me picture what you have in mind.
Ok, sorry, I guess I should have revisited it myself. That entire area except to the east would be enclosed by water. The Euphrates and Tigris Rivers (yep, them again) run high or low according to snow melt from the Anatolian Mountains. In times of ferocious predators (say dinosaurs), God could have easily kept his animal (no, not humans yet) Eden inhabitants safely ensconced west of the Euphrates and kept it running high. The only other entrance would be from the northeast, but that would entail crossing several high mountain chains with sub-freezing temperatures. Not an environment suited to cold-blooded creatures.
Nobody asked me, but I'll tell you anyway, because if you're not curious, you should be. Religion and science are destined to merge, it's unavoidable, if not in Christianity then in Messianic Judahism. All the phenomena scientists study were created by God. They merely discover the incredibly complex interwoven tapestry of the various factions of God's universe. Atheists dominate most ot the influential positions in the scientific hierarchy, but that is changing and will continue. Good science follows the evidence and the evidence points to a Supreme Creator.Old time, learn by rote and fiat, by-the-book religion is eroding and will continue to. The internet and social media dive deep into the backwards crannies where rigid Fundamentalism thrives. It will be harder for autocratic parents to keep their children ignorant of universal fields of knowledge and they will search for the truth. This will result in some major, uncomfortable changes as all upheaval dictates, with the inevitable heading down blind alleys. Eventually, though, if Christianity is to survive, wisdom rather than fear, will be the guiding light. It is still in the best interest of scientists finacially to maintain that every dilemma is understandable by the "Laws of Physics" and if you'll just keep throwing us money, we'll find the answer for you. But many young scientists with integrity know this not to be the case and are about to holler "Stop the nonsense, some systems are far too complex to have origins understandable by man - there's a higher force at work here." Similarly, control in closed religious societies requires a "barefoot, pregnant, and uninformed" mentality where a few at the top reap profits, that will gradually disappear as the rest of the world makes inroads. God abhors evil, and evil is keeping God's handiworks separated for any reason, but especially by the greed of the scurrilous.
It's a slow process, Robert, made slower by religious dogma. As I wrote in my review, "Proper science cannot be shackled by religious belief." Your determination to make sense of scientific finding in light of the book of Genesis highlights the problem; science may be moving toward the evidence of a creator, but it is at the same time moving away from the myths of old.I think it is a worthwhile exercise to go through your last post and highlight those statements that are based on faith. Once the "uncomfortable change" of removing faith-based claims from the picture is accomplished, what remains may be insightful.
It is the faith-based assumptions which hold science back, whether yours or those of extreme fundamentalists.
I claim they merge, Lee, not that one replaces another. You think Genesis is a myth, I think it's just an outline waiting for elucidation which I've tried to provide. Others have done the same and more will follow. Eventually, Genesis will be fully "filled in" and understood, but subsequent findings will merely augment most of it, not contradict the entire Creation account. I suppose your science that is being "held back" is that same-sex couples are really anatomically and psychologically better and heterosexuality is just a myth.
I didn't really say one replaces another. Perhaps our religions and our sciences will bend toward each other until they merge; I dream of that day, too.Science is bending. Religion is bending. Let's hope they keep bending more and more.
Please tell me I'm not going to have to agree with Lee. As Lucy in Peanuts says, "Aaarrrrrgh, I've been kissed by a dog!" Science has to bend to follow the evidence. Religion doesn't have to and could easily go extinct.
If all religions keep bending - then I'm just going to declare myself an atheist and be done with the whole thing. But I have a Bible that does not bend. So i'm okay. (you have my permission to continue bending your sciences and religions until they resemble...?)
Ok, Rod, I understand your position but could you do me a favor? I'm a sailor and used to own a really nice cruiser/racer that I could take offshore, but really wasn't suited to mountainous waves. If this book sells dynamically (doubtful, too narrow a target audience) then I'd like to get a real Blue Water Cruiser capable of sailing round the world. My problem, and I know you can help me with this, is my sailing charts don't show where the edge of the earth is. Nor can I find it in any reference book. Because you're "IN" on this flat earth secret could you just sorta slip me a detailed map by e-mail indicating where I ought to turn around. I know you wouldn't want to heedlessly doom a fellow Christian even if he is part heretic.
Robert do you not see the Holy Spirit as an essential ingredient in Biblical understanding? You keep showing how it's all up to US and OUR logic. No thanks.How many historic sailors do you seriously think "assumed" the world was flat?
Any semi intelligent person would look up and say: "The sun is round, the moon is round, close stars appear round...we can see different surfaces of the moon..."
Science is great - but it appears you may be limiting YOUR science for your own personal biases. Good luck with that.
Rod, the diameter of a spherical earth was measured 300 years before Christ, yet that doesn't keep religious folks from clinging to the truths they've always heard, particularly among the uneducated. I mean, good grief, there are religious people today who still think evolution is a lie!!
NO Lee, there are people who do not easily and gullibly bow their knee and worship at the altar of desperate secular pseudo-science. I can see how you hate these people. It makes perfect sense.Lee have you read books by Scientists from the other side? I doubt it.
I have seen so many hilarious assumptions and bad thinking from evolutionary militants that there has to be something wrong with it. And i'm NOT a scientist.
I hate uneducated people? Gee, I'm glad somebody told me.
Where does the Holy Spirit say "there's no such thing as electricity, or man can't fly, or gravity is a myth, or the earth is exactly 6000 years old." I relish the Word of God as much as anyone, but I don't put words in His mouth.
Are you lurking again, Guillermo? Get kicked off the atheist board for corresponding with Christians?
Donkey is just another name for raptor in the bible.
You really need to cut back on the drugs, Guillermo.
I've been sober for a while now Robert. What's your excuse? You're the one trying to defend creationism.
I'm curious Robert, are you a young earth creationist?
NO! Science that I have reason to believe puts the Universe at about 14-15 billion years old and the earth at 4.55 billion. I place Adam and Eve at about 6 million years ago and The Flood at about 4 million.Noah's civilization, with the help of God, who seemed to be fully involved at that time, could well have been quite advanced. The Flood wiped all evidence away without a trace, but it's buried near the Euphrates and north to the Sea of Marmara. Get your shovel out, Guillermo, and find some Biblical history.
