|
Replies: 126
| visibility 1,251
|
Orange Blooded [2162]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2579
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Sin
1
Oct 4, 2023, 8:12 AM
|
|
Why would god create billions and billions of species, and only instill the notion of sin into ONE of these species?
Doesn't it make more sense that we evolved and created these societal rules?
|
|
|
|
 |
All-TigerNet [11993]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10563
Joined: 9/19/01
|
What is the survival value
2
Oct 4, 2023, 8:19 AM
|
|
of a perfectly good reptile beginning to develop feathers and stubby winglets that would only ruin his camoflage and slow him down running from predators, and which woouldn't allow his progeny to fly for thousands of generations?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [138253]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63896
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Therefore, evolution isn't real.***
2
Oct 4, 2023, 8:24 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
That's your argument against evolution?
2
Oct 4, 2023, 8:55 AM
[ in reply to What is the survival value ] |
|
For one, feathers aren't exclusively for flight. We have flightless birds now, flightless dinosaurs had feathers. We also have animals that can fly without feathers at all.
Feathers ruin camoflage and slow reptiles down? What? They do however provide insulation and attract mates.
TBH it just shows pure ignorance to think that evolution had flight in mind at all, that's not how it works and that's not how any scientist says it works. There is no end-goal in mind because evolution is process, not a sentient thing. That is a misunderstanding propagated by religious people who have a vested interest in denying a scientific fact.
Seriously, have you actually looked into the fossil or DNA record? Go look up ERVs, actually study it and come back and tell us how it points to anything other than every species having a common ancestor. Do that, and not only will you convince us, you'll win a Nobel Prize for it.
It just blows my mind how silly the arguments are, you are literally the flat-earthers of biology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: That's your argument against evolution?
Oct 4, 2023, 2:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11993]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10563
Joined: 9/19/01
|
You don't need fossils
1
Oct 5, 2023, 9:39 AM
[ in reply to That's your argument against evolution? ] |
|
you should be able to take a walk in the woods and see numerous examples of transitional forms living and walking/crawling/flying around, since there must by necessity be many more of those than the terminal species.
Where are the millions of living transitional forms?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: You don't need fossils
2
Oct 5, 2023, 9:53 AM
|
|
> you should be able to take a walk in the woods and see numerous examples of transitional forms living and walking/crawling/flying around, since there must by necessity be many more of those than the terminal species.
Again, I'm saddened by our education system. Every organism is a fully formed one, there are no special "transitional" organisms in the sense that you are saying. In fact, you could consider every organism to be a transitional organism.
There is no half-reptile, half-bird thingy that religious people have brainwashed you with.
A reptile like organism with feathers is its own complete organism, it is not partially-formed in any sense of the word.
Also, even if we do take your question seriously, what would you consider the flightless birds we have to be? Or the mole rats with skin completely covering theirs eyes? or the manatees with toenails on their flippers?
So, when we look at the fossil records and we see that birds don't exist anytime before a certain period and then they appear. Or mammals don't exist anytime before a certain period and then they appear. or that the farther back in the record you go, the simpler life tends to be?
What does that mean to you? how do you twist that in to "god did it all at once"?
I really want to know.
In conclusion though, you are correct, we don't need fossils to prove evolution. DNA is FAR more damning.
> Where are the millions of living transitional forms?
Everywhere, you are one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11993]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10563
Joined: 9/19/01
|
Convenient selective reasoning
Oct 5, 2023, 10:07 AM
|
|
When did reptiles stop evolving into birds?
Was it 'punctuated equillibrium?'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: Convenient selective reasoning
Oct 5, 2023, 10:11 AM
|
|
> When did reptiles stop evolving into birds?
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: Convenient selective reasoning
1
Oct 5, 2023, 10:18 AM
[ in reply to Convenient selective reasoning ] |
|
ok, probably shouldn't just lol, you are asking so here goes:
> When did reptiles stop evolving into birds?
The first thing you need to get out of your head is that there is an "end goal" with evolution. While Birds did evolve from reptiles, that didn't necessarily have to be the case. Evolution does not mean "reptiles will eventually be birds", that is not what evolution is, stop listening to creationists bs if you actually want to learn about evolution.
Evolution is not linear, populations evolve, and they branch into multiple species. Birds are just one of those branches. Birds did not HAVE to exist at all, that's just what was selected for.
Also, single organisms do not evolve. An organism will always remain the same species it was born as. Populations evolve.
Last point, evolution has not nor has it ever stopped, it is a continual process.
> Was it 'punctuated equillibrium?'
no that's not what that term means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11993]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10563
Joined: 9/19/01
|
It all makes sense now
Oct 5, 2023, 10:24 AM
|
|
a bunch of fully-formed birds, ready to procreate, popped out of lizard eggs at the same place and same time.
Praise Random Chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: It all makes sense now
1
Oct 5, 2023, 11:53 AM
|
|
> a bunch of fully-formed birds, ready to procreate, popped out of lizard eggs at the same place and same time.
Who says that? Are you actually wanting an honest discussion on this or not? This isn't religion, evolution has actual answers backed by hard evidence. I can show you.
So, are you honestly asking? If you are going to run from the discussion, go ahead and do it now and save us both some time. Otherwise, I'm happy to discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11993]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10563
Joined: 9/19/01
|
I can't wait***
Oct 5, 2023, 12:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: I can't wait***
1
Oct 5, 2023, 1:21 PM
|
|
I’ll take that as a yes.
Let’s start with the simple stuff and see what it is you are having trouble with.
Do you agree that we have fossils and that we can date them accurately?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2162]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2579
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: I can't wait***
1
Oct 5, 2023, 3:14 PM
|
|
How do you know the dating is accurate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: I can't wait***
1
Oct 5, 2023, 3:59 PM
|
|
Valid question. The short answer is that the reliability of radiometric dating is bolstered by the fact that consistent results across multiple dating methods are found.
Radiometric dating is quite simple, you just measure the difference in the number of isotopes (which tells you how many have decayed). Since we know the rate of decay, you can calculate how long it took for that many isotopes to decay.
If we were getting random measurements back, then yeah, I wouldn't trust that. But we don't, we get consistent answers when we measure similar fossils in similar layers of the earth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2162]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2579
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: I can't wait***
1
Oct 5, 2023, 4:26 PM
|
|
How do you know the rate of decay and how do you know it has remained constant?
It's hard to imagine being able to confirm something that happened 60 million years ago.
Just to kind of play devils advocate here...you don't want to believe we can confirm events from 2000 years ago, but you want me to believe it's a fact that something happened millions of years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: I can't wait***
1
Oct 5, 2023, 4:45 PM
|
|
> How do you know the rate of decay
It can be directly observed. You measure, wait a while, measure again. Calculate the difference and divide by the time.
> how do you know it has remained constant
Well we can't go back a billion years and measure, but every measurement we do have has been consistent, even testing samples from outerspace that have travelled billions of years to get here have had consistent readings.
Basically, we have no evidence to suggest that it isn't constant. If that changes, yeah I agree, that would call this into question.
> It's hard to imagine being able to confirm something that happened 60 million years ago.
With a simple calculation like this? I don't see how.
> Just to kind of play devils advocate here...you don't want to believe we can confirm events from 2000 years ago, but you want me to believe it's a fact that something happened millions of years ago.
These two things are not the same. We are talking about direct, testable, empirical evidence. Not, an author stating a claim thousands of years ago for which we have little to no corroboration, nor can we interview or test the claims in any way.
I don't see how saying, look we can measure the rate of decay consistently across multiple dating methods, and then applying that extremely simple math to older samples is anywhere near the claim of something supernatural.
Also, I don't want you to "believe". I want you to look at the evidence. Also, while the fossil record demonstrates evolution happened on it's own, the evidence for DNA is way more damning. We are taking baby steps here as people are obviously not aware of the evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: I can't wait***
1
Oct 5, 2023, 4:47 PM
|
|
I forgot to mention, that if the decay rate did indeed vary over time, then that would throw all of physics into question as well.
Not saying that's not a possibility, but it is highly unlikely and we would have far more problems than discussing whether evolution was true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2162]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2579
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: I can't wait***
1
Oct 5, 2023, 4:58 PM
[ in reply to Re: I can't wait*** ] |
|
> It can be directly observed. You measure, wait a while, measure again. Calculate the difference and divide by the time.
Yes that part is clear, but you're talking about what...a few hundred years of data when trying to determine what happened over millions and billions of years?
> Well we can't go back a billion years and measure, but every measurement we do have has been consistent, even testing samples from outerspace that have travelled billions of years to get here have had consistent readings.
This I need a lot more evidence for. How can you possibly know something traveled billions of years?
> These two things are not the same. We are talking about direct, testable, empirical evidence. Not, an author stating a claim thousands of years ago for which we have little to no corroboration, nor can we interview or test the claims in any way.
True but you can't interview a dinosaur either. You just find it buried in the dirt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: I can't wait***
1
Oct 5, 2023, 5:13 PM
|
|
> Yes that part is clear, but you're talking about what...a few hundred years of data when trying to determine what happened over millions and billions of years?
I think you might be confused over how the measurements are used? This is quite simple, if you know the rate, and it is linear, you just extrapolate it. What is the confusion?
> Well we can't go back a billion years and measure, but every measurement we do have has been consistent, even testing samples from outerspace that have travelled billions of years to get here have had consistent readings.
> This I need a lot more evidence for. How can you possibly know something traveled billions of years?
My bad, I wrote years instead of miles. The point was that even meterorites which can travel from vast distances (and thus time) have the same decay rate.
The main takeaway here is that the measurements have always remained consistent. We don't have a reason to think they haven't been the same. If you can provide a reason to think they do, let's hear it and we can discuss it.
> True but you can't interview a dinosaur either. You just find it buried in the dirt.
right... that's direct evidence. You found empirical data you can work with. When you find multiple of them, and you can date them, and similar fossils date similarly. And then you see that simpler fossils tend to be older than the more complex ones. And then you can date the change from fish to reptiles to birds. What does that tell you? It certainly doesn't point to everything being created in it's current form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2162]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2579
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: I can't wait***
1
Oct 5, 2023, 8:24 PM
|
|
How do you know it's linear? We see plenty of examples of the same material aging differently.
A shingle on a roof for example can age vastly different on one house compared to another right down the street.
A human being is an example of this. Every 50 year doesn't look the same depending on lifestyle choices like smoking, exercise, and nutrition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: I can't wait***
1
Oct 5, 2023, 9:35 PM
|
|
> How do you know it's linear? We see plenty of examples of the same material aging differently.
Sorry, got sloppy there at the end of the day, typing faster than I was thinking. "Predictable" is the word I should use, not linear as it's definitely not linear, it's exponential.
The point I'm trying to get across to you is that radioactive decay is not at all like decaying organic material. Two very different processes. Decaying in a shingle, for example, is the break down of the material overtime. The environment plays a huge role in this and can vastly affect the rate at which is breaks down (think a loaf of break decaying in your freezer vs the hot pavement).
Radioactive decay is where unstable atomic nuclei lose energy by emitting radiation. This rate is very stable and is considered a constant/intrinsic property. So it doesn't matter where we test or what conditions, the rate of decay is the same. It is considered stable/constant because every test has consistently shown that.
> A human being is an example of this. Every 50 year doesn't look the same depending on lifestyle choices like smoking, exercise, and nutrition.
Right, that's not true of radioactive decay. If you have two samples with the same ratio of element/isotope they WILL decay the same, every time. (based on experimentation)
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: I can't wait***
Oct 5, 2023, 9:58 PM
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, I believe the decay is completely random at the level of the individual atom, though collectively, the process is completely predicable as a half-life. That's one of the more mysterious things about existence - the role and nature of chaos and order themselves.
I put it in the same mystery bucket as "how can everything be mostly nothing?" if one compares the "empty" space in an atom relative to its nucleus and electron shells.
So, so many mysteries in the universe, and all we've got are five limited senses and a very limited brain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2162]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2579
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: I can't wait***
1
Oct 6, 2023, 7:15 AM
[ in reply to Re: I can't wait*** ] |
|
I’ll just have to take your word for it I guess. Hard for me to accept though that we can know for sure what was going on a billion years ago. There have been multiple ice ages, wild fires, meteorites, floods, etc…that have changed and shaped our planet.
I will say though evolution is much more fascinating than some all powerful being holding the key to everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: I can't wait***
1
Oct 6, 2023, 8:06 AM
|
|
> I’ll just have to take your word for it I guess.
No, definitely don't do that. I'm definitely not asking you to believe something just because I said it. I'm saying the evidence says it is fact. There are many experts that you can look up who can explain it to you better than I can.
> Hard for me to accept though that we can know for sure what was going on a billion years ago. There have been multiple ice ages, wild fires, meteorites, floods, etc…that have changed and shaped our planet.
Sure but none of those change radioactive decay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2162]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2579
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: I can't wait***
2
Oct 6, 2023, 2:53 PM
|
|
Pretty good read on it here. The geologic rates make an even more convincing case.
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0226-0#:~:text=Radiometric%20dating%2C%20which%20relies%20on,than%204.5%20billion%20years%20ago How Old is Earth, and How Do We Know? - Evolution: Education and Outreach Earth scientists have devised many complementary and consistent techniques to estimate the ages of geologic events. Annually deposited layers of sediments or ice document hundreds of thousands of years of continuous Earth history. Gradual rates of mountain building, erosion of mountains, and the motions of tectonic plates imply hundreds of millions of years of change. Radiometric dating, which relies on the predictable decay of radioactive isotopes of carbon, uranium, potassium, and other elements, provides accurate age estimates for events back to the formation of Earth more than 4.5 billion years ago. These and other dating techniques are mutually consistent and underscore the reality of “deep time” in Earth history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: I can't wait***
1
Oct 6, 2023, 3:21 PM
|
|
nice
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2162]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2579
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: I can't wait***
1
Oct 6, 2023, 4:24 PM
[ in reply to Re: I can't wait*** ] |
|
Creationists say the grand canyon points to the flood and that the fossil record shows that animals were buried suddenly and randomly, not from simply to complex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: I can't wait***
Oct 6, 2023, 5:36 PM
|
|
Well, the flood story (and there are multiple ones) could be a whole thread in itself. I might do one someday. But as a quick overview, here's what we have to work with from the Bible:
19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. 24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.
Now, to look at that description is a purely scientific way, there are a few problems. First, a cubit is about 18 inches. Mount Everest is about 29,000 feet high. To cover the highest mountains (and everything below it) to a depth of 15 cubits (about 22') would take far more water than there is on the earth, liquid or frozen, or in clouds above it.
Secondly, fish don't die from a flood, so every living thing on the face of the earth (unless one considers ponds and streams below the face of the earth) would not include fish. So everything didn't die.
Third, others could have boats too. Who knows?
Fourth, strata layers take thousands, if not millions of years to form, and so if the waters supposedly receded in 150 days, that would leave a layer of sediment and decaying bio-mass so thin it could probably not be detected.
Now, some oddities in the strata are found...like fish on mountaintops. But that comes from "uplift" which is one of the things that can happen when two tectonic plates collide. We generally call them earthquakes. And that's how the Himalayas (and Mt. Everest) were formed, by eon of earthquakes as one plate slid above another. Back when India crashed into Asia.
In that case, fish fossils at ground level were pushed as high as thousands of feet high by plates bumping into each other.
Wherever there are earthquakes, you'll usually, but not always, find plate joints.
So, science explains stratification and plate tectonics a lot better than creationism. In fact, creationism needs no explanation at all. God just snaps his fingers and "poof." But science shows a record of very long, gradual creation and destruction over time, not an instantaneous event, like a 5-month flood.
Now, the flood stories make more sense as allegorical stories, based on some reality. Particularly in the Mesopotamian basin, where floods are still incredibly destructive to this day. They don't make much sense in Israel, where the biggest river is the Jordan, but they make a lot of sense by the Euphrates and Tigris.
A recent flood in Iraq
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: I can't wait***
1
Oct 6, 2023, 5:55 PM
|
|
There's a great story about excavations at Hadrian's Wall in England, which is not even 2000 years old. It was built in 122 AD by the Romans, to keep crazy Scottish marauders out of England. At every mile or so along the wall, there was a guard station.
At these posts, the very deepest excavations, and thus, the very first occupants in 122 AD, had nothing but military gear. Swords, belt buckles, sandals, etc.
A little less deep, say in the 80-100 AD range, hair combs, necklaces, and ornamental things begin to show up. Stuff that women might wear or use. Because you know, wherever men are, women will follow, and vice versa.
And at the latest, and highest strata, maybe 60-80 AD range, you guessed it. Baby rattles, tiny toys, children's sandals, everything a child might wear showed up. Men>Women>Families.
Now, that's just an ultra-thin slice of the earth in one very small spot. But the soil does tell a story, and when you get to stuff like this...
You are literally looking millions of years into the past. A past that has been dug down into, or a past that has been pushed up to the surface by tectonic action below the surface.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: I can't wait***
Oct 6, 2023, 6:15 PM
|
|
Oops. Reverse those numbers. I'm in BC mode. Got distracted typing while I'm watching Rick Steves in ancient Turkey. The point is, old stuff deep, recent stuff high.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2162]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2579
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: I can't wait***
1
Oct 6, 2023, 6:58 PM
[ in reply to Re: I can't wait*** ] |
|
Great stuff. Very informative.
On the surface the creationist claim that god made the world to look old sounds silly but...
By all indication Adam was created as a fully grown human being, as was eve. He didn't create human beings, babies, that would look like they were born yesterday.
So I guess if he created the earth in it's current form just a few thousands years ago it would look like it had age.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: I can't wait***
1
Oct 6, 2023, 7:41 PM
|
|
Sure, if one believes in an omniscient God, anything, and I do mean anything, is a possibility. In that context, "God did it" is a perfectly acceptable answer for every explanation and every question.
But there are also scientific answers to explain part of why "the way things are," without the need for the supernatural.
And the middle ground would be "God created it...and then it has evolved on its own ever since then." That too is an idea subscribed to by some.
Curiously though, although all three of those answers are different ways of explaining the "how" of what we see in terms of the age and formation of the earth, none of those explain the "why."
Why does radioactive decay work the way it does? Why is the earth, and the universe even here at all? "Why" is a much, much more difficult question that "how."
As always, in the end it always comes down to faith, in whatever convinces one. Two thousand years ago Thor was a perfectly acceptable answer to explain lightening. Today, "electrostatic discharge" is a perfectly acceptable answer. But neither explains why lightening exists, in a greater sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: I can't wait***
1
Oct 6, 2023, 6:10 PM
[ in reply to Re: I can't wait*** ] |
|
Well we can confidently say that is wrong... unless... God made it APPEAR that we evolved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34126]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33644
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: You don't need fossils
1
Oct 5, 2023, 12:39 PM
[ in reply to You don't need fossils ] |
|
Ah, the concept of transitional forms! A fascinating subject that often generates some misunderstandings. You see, in evolutionary biology, the term "transitional form" refers to an organism that shows features typical of both ancestral and derived groups. However, it's a bit of a misnomer to think of them as "incomplete" or "imperfect," and it's also not accurate to say that there should be "millions of living transitional forms" walking around.
Let's unpack this step by step:
All Species are Transitional: From an evolutionary standpoint, every living species is transitional, because evolution is an ongoing process. The species you see today are not "terminal"; they're simply the current point in a long evolutionary trajectory. So, in essence, the woods are full of "transitional forms" if you look at it this way.
Adaptation to Environment: Organisms are adapted to their current environment, not to some future state. The idea of "terminal species" doesn't really exist in the evolutionary framework because it suggests an end goal, which evolution doesn't have.
The Fossil Record: Many of the classic "transitional forms" we think of, such as Archaeopteryx (part reptile, part bird), are known from the fossil record. The absence of these forms today doesn't negate their transitional nature; rather, they were suited to their own times and conditions.
Reptiles and Birds: The reason we don't see reptiles currently evolving into birds is largely due to the fact that this is a process that took millions of years the first time it happened. Moreover, the reptilian lineage that led to birds (the theropod dinosaurs) is just one branch of a much larger reptilian family tree. Other reptiles didn't have the specific set of mutations and environmental pressures that led to flight.
Stasis and Change: It's also worth noting that environmental pressures can favor stasis (i.e., not changing) rather than change for long periods. If an organism is well-adapted to its niche, we might not expect to see significant evolutionary changes.
So, when you're in the woods, you're actually surrounded by the latest "versions" of plants and animals that have been shaped by millions of years of evolutionary processes. It's a living laboratory of evolutionary biology, teeming with life forms that are transitional, in the grand scheme of things, between their ancestors and future descendants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2162]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2579
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: You don't need fossils
1
Oct 5, 2023, 12:52 PM
|
|
Nice explanation. I’ve always been confused by this as well and expected to see half monkey half humans walking around, but that makes much more sense now.
It sound much more fascinating and plausible to me than a magic sky daddy snapping everything into existence.
How did it start though? Evolution just happens? That’s the mind numbing part of it. How and why does it work that way? The answer that it just does….it’s natural….is almost as unbelievable as magic sky daddy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: You don't need fossils
1
Oct 5, 2023, 1:25 PM
|
|
> How did it start though? Evolution just happens? That’s the mind numbing part of it. How and why does it work that way? The answer that it just does….it’s natural….is almost as unbelievable as magic sky daddy.
The answer is not that “it just does” . Let me finish up my meetings and we can go over this. It’s actually not that complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2162]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2579
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: You don't need fossils
1
Oct 5, 2023, 1:54 PM
|
|
What do you mean it doesn't "just does"?
That's exactly what it does if it's a natural process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: You don't need fossils
1
Oct 5, 2023, 2:09 PM
|
|
I’m not sure I understand what you are asking then.
We can say why does it get dark at night: “it just does” or we can explain that the earth rotates and so the side that is facing away from the sun isn’t receiving light.
I thought you were asking for the latter. There is an explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2162]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2579
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: You don't need fossils
1
Oct 5, 2023, 2:30 PM
|
|
Someone designs a computer, or game console, or television set to operate the way it does.
Who designed or how does the evolution process just work?
Hope that makes sense lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: You don't need fossils
1
Oct 5, 2023, 2:34 PM
|
|
Evolution doesn’t appear to have a designer so I can’t answer that question
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2162]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2579
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: You don't need fossils
1
Oct 5, 2023, 2:43 PM
|
|
It's hard to imagine the world and all it's complexity just coming into existence and thriving the way it does with no knowledge behind it whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: You don't need fossils
1
Oct 5, 2023, 2:57 PM
|
|
Ok
That doesn’t mean we can explain how things work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2162]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2579
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: You don't need fossils
1
Oct 5, 2023, 3:14 PM
|
|
I'm not saying evolution doesn't happen. Just that it's hard to imagine it just happening to happen. I think there has to be something outside the natural world.
Is it an all powerful god that's gonna punish us for not following his rules? Probably not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: You don't need fossils
1
Oct 5, 2023, 4:00 PM
|
|
That's fine, but this thread is specifically about evolution. There is no need to invoke the supernatural to understand or explain it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2162]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2579
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: You don't need fossils
1
Oct 5, 2023, 4:49 PM
|
|
If you're just interested in how it works then no it wouldn't be necessary.
How someone was able to CREATE a device that will show me something that is happening on the other side of the world is equally if not more fascinating than how a TV works.
The fact that human beings have the knowledge to be able to do those things is even more fascinating.
"It just happened" is not a sufficient answer any more than "god did it".
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34126]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33644
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: You don't need fossils
1
Oct 5, 2023, 2:09 PM
[ in reply to Re: You don't need fossils ] |
|
Evolution works through a mix of genetic variation and natural selection. Genes change over time due to mutations and other factors. These changes can either help, harm, or have no effect on an organism's ability to survive and reproduce. Over long periods, beneficial traits become more common in a population, shaping species in response to their environment. While it might seem like it "just happens," it's a process guided by natural laws that operate over enormous timescales, making life as diverse as we see it today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2162]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2579
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: You don't need fossils
1
Oct 5, 2023, 2:32 PM
|
|
Right but my question is how did that process come to be?
It seems like there should just be nothing that exists.
But then again is nothing actually something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34126]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33644
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: You don't need fossils
1
Oct 5, 2023, 4:16 PM
|
|
Are you asking where the first living thing came from, or where the universe came from? Extremely different questions. Or are you asking something else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2162]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2579
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: You don't need fossils
1
Oct 5, 2023, 4:30 PM
|
|
I guess my question is who or what put evolution into motion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34126]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33644
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: You don't need fossils
2
Oct 5, 2023, 5:11 PM
|
|
Depends on which part you mean. If it's self-replicating life, there are theories of abiogenesis (the development of life from nonliving matter). If it's genetic mutation, that's just a component part of self-replicating life. If there are two life forms, and one randomly mutates into a form that better fits its environment, then it might hang around longer and reproduce more. From there, more mutations: some advantageous, some disadvantageous. The former survive and reproduce, the latter die out. Repeat for 3.5 billion years or so, and you can get a lot of interesting creatures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2162]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2579
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: You don't need fossils
1
Oct 5, 2023, 8:53 PM
|
|
My questions are less about the actual mechanics of the whole thing and more about how those processes just came to be. That's so unbelievable.
Just like god existing and not having a beginning.
How could anything just exist?
This age old apologetic argument still holds some merit...that if you walk up on a sand castle on the beach, you know the wave just didn't wash up and back down and create that. There had to be an intelligence behind it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34126]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33644
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: You don't need fossils
1
Oct 6, 2023, 9:58 AM
|
|
The question "Why does anything exist?" is the most difficult of them all.
It does not, however, lead to the conclusion that there is a god or any other intelligence.
The reason it does not lead to that conclusion is because the same question will remain, only it will be redirected. So instead of "Why does anything exist?" it will be "Why does some god or other intelligence exist?" It still lands us at that question of "Why anything?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2162]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2579
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: You don't need fossils
2
Oct 6, 2023, 2:29 PM
|
|
It does seem like simple to complex makes more sense. A being with the ability to create the universe just happening to exist is much less likely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [138253]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63896
Joined: 10/22/00
|
"I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in
1
Oct 4, 2023, 8:23 AM
|
|
evolution. We became too self aware, nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself. We are creatures that should not exist by natural law. We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, a secretion of sensory, experience, and feeling, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody is nobody."
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: "I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in
1
Oct 4, 2023, 2:11 PM
|
|
Consciousness, and self, are real bug-a-boos. It may be that we are like leaves on a tree, each thinking we are independent, when in fact we are all connected to a greater whole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [119915]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54577
Joined: 6/24/09
|
Doggos know when theyve sinned
3
Oct 4, 2023, 8:43 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: Doggos know when theyve sinned
1
Oct 4, 2023, 8:56 AM
|
|
I mean, sure, that dog deservers to be brutally tortured forever in hell because he ruined the carpet.
That makes about as much sense as what you are actually suggesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58586]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46402
Joined: 4/23/00
|
What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin
2
Oct 4, 2023, 12:04 PM
|
|
play?
I'm not saying there is no God, but there is certainly something wrong with the traditional concept of a God who can essentially snap his fingers and create our universe and know everything that will ever happen, yet chooses to involve himself in an eons long struggle against sin and evil.
Either such a God wants sin and suffering and evil to exist, or he is powerless to stop it, or accomplish what he wants without it. Which is it? A lot of people refuse to respond to that, claiming it's pointless because they've already explained it multiple times. Well they haven't explained it in any way that makes a lick of sense, or without giving a very lengthy response that never actually answers the question, all while ignoring the actual question. Lots of stories, anecdotes, sermons, metaphors, bible quotes, and more questions, and responses that only raise more questions, but no direct answers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin
3
Oct 4, 2023, 1:58 PM
|
|
Careful now, I’ve been given a lot of heat for suggesting that questions around here don’t actually get answered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13987
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Dang right.***
1
Oct 4, 2023, 3:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin
3
Oct 4, 2023, 2:17 PM
[ in reply to What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin ] |
|
I do think it'd interesting that sin, as defined as disobeying God, is a potential consequence of Free Will. I mean, if you give someone a choice, and an opinion, in anything, there is a chance that they will think, or act, in opposition to what you think. It's an inescapable possibility.
So in my mind, the question of "Why create sin?" is very closely related to "why create Free Will?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13987
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin
1
Oct 4, 2023, 3:24 PM
|
|
Sin might not be defined that way. God might not have created sin. An all powerful God can allow someone that ability, for reasons that are loved based. If that is true, sin would have a different definition.
We would agree that before asking "why" one has to establish "if", and your last sentence, tying those two questions together, makes one answer all the above, I think. Two good questions to put together. The second has to be decided first, I think: if we're talking about created things, that one would have come first chronologically.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58586]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46402
Joined: 4/23/00
|
And I am not suggesting that God created sin. My
1
Oct 4, 2023, 6:20 PM
|
|
understanding has always been that it started with satan's rebellion, then man did it to himself when Eve ate the apple. The concept of God I was raised with, and I think most people believe, is a God that knew Eve was going to eat that apple all along. Regardless, assuming God exists, we know for a fact that God either has chosen to allow it so far, and therefore wants it and has a purpose for it, or he can't stop it. I'm just trying to figure which it is. I think you have pretty much said he wants it, but can't bring yourself to say he wants it.
If he doesn't want sin to exist, why does he allow it? Being all-powerful, God has unlimited choices. He is not confined by any laws, rules, or realities. He would not have to allow it in order for us to have free will, or to learn lessons; if he does, his power is, by definition, limited. If his power is truly unlimited, any choice God makes must be exactly what he wants, what he has chosen from unlimited choices.
I am fully open, however, to the concept of a God that is all loving but is either limited in a way that forces him to allow for sin, or a God that does not see sin as a problem for his ultimate purpose, but rather as a man-made creation that serves a useful purpose or experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95529
Joined: 12/25/09
|
God limits his acts and behavior just as we do.
1
Oct 5, 2023, 8:08 AM
|
|
He has a code of ethics which we can relate to by examination of our code(s) of ethics. There are many things you can do but won't do because of your code of ethics. You won't sacrifice one of your children to Molech and you won't cut the brake lines on your wife's car.
You say you can do it, I say your love prevent you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: God limits his acts and behavior just as we do.
Oct 5, 2023, 1:32 PM
|
|
That’s interesting.so you’re saying it’s ridiculous to sacrifice one of your children but then you’ll turn around and defend, oh I don’t know, drowning the whole world?
That must’ve included some innocent children right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95529
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I took pottery for a visual arts class because I couldn't...
Oct 11, 2023, 2:21 PM
|
|
afford to buy a camera. I think it was visual arts, it's been a while and that is accurate to the best of my memory.
I 'threw,' many pots on the wheel and threw some against the wall when from rejection. Some of the student in my class were envious that I'd throw away things they would have been proud to present as their own.
What I never did was create life. Had I created life I would take life from the living as I please. God has every right to take any and all life from this universe because He alone created it.
The difference between Him and me is that I'd never have given my life for my creations. I would have blown up he entire pottery lab rather than sacrificed either of my sons or daughters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: I took pottery for a visual arts class because I couldn't...
Oct 11, 2023, 2:32 PM
|
|
> Had I created life I would take life from the living as I please.
Wow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin
1
Oct 4, 2023, 9:24 PM
|
|
An interesting perspective from Judaism on sin.
"Sins between people are considered much more severe in Judaism than sins between man and God. Yom Kippur, the holiest day of repentance in Judaism, can atone for sins between man and God, but not for sins between man and his fellow; that is, until he has received forgiveness from his friend."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95529
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Re: What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin
1
Oct 4, 2023, 11:10 PM
[ in reply to Re: What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin ] |
|
How would you feel had your wife been paid to marry you? Why would God want a wife like Israel and a bride for His Son like the Church if there was no love for God and Christ in the relationship?
Freewill is a vital part of my relationship with God. My love for Him would have no value to Him for I would behave like the stars and planets and do exactly and only what I was designed to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin
1
Oct 5, 2023, 12:38 AM
|
|
Sure, I can see that. My follow up question would be, "Why does God want love?"
That's unanswerable of course without knowing the mind of God, but I think an implication from that description of God would be that, for whatever reason, God does want love.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95529
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I love reading along in the Bible and having the subject...
1
Oct 5, 2023, 7:55 AM
|
|
change without noticing the transitions and therefore the relationship of one verse or passage to the previous. These transitions aren't hidden in the Bible. They are clear but when one particular concept is so amazingly profound that hangs in the mind and so overshadows that which follows that the true value of what the new concept and transition are pointing out is missed.
I'd heard the sermon of how wonderful Heaven is most of my life. I'm sure everyone has heard it. The preacher will ask everyone to turn to 1 Corinthians 2 and look down to verse 9 then after 15 or 20 seconds when everyone has quit flipping pages and looks up again he will read:
"9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."
Then he'll flip over to the passages which describe the pearly gates and the streets of pure gold and spend the next 20 plus minutes telling everyone about how wonderful Heaven is going to be.
This was a SS lesson I taught to my adult class one Sunday morning in the auditorium before morning services. I pointed out the value of the first word in the next verse, number 10. 'BUT...'
"10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."
So, Christians have the mind of Christ since we are born again in, and by, the Holy Spirit.
For those who do not have the mind of Christ, relax. God made a way for you to understand why He wants friends who respect Him (fear Him) for who and what He is. It's easy to understand why He wants to be loved.
When He created this world His pattern for much of it already existed. So many things in this world teach us about the spiritual realm and were designed to do so. The vine, branches and root in John 15 for example. Interesting read and profound to learn how dwelling in the Divine Vine helps us bear both the fruit of the Spirit, fruit for ourselves, and also lead others to Christ thereby bearing fruit for God.
We are created in God's image. Your desire to you wife is the physical manifestation of God's desire for us in that He loves us as you love her and wants that love returned to Him just as your wife's love for you satisfies a deep seated need within you to be loved.
That was God's love for Israel, His wife, and the love of Jesus for us, His Bride to Be. We really are created in God's image.
Fordtunate Son, any questions on anything in this post?
Message was edited by: ClemsonTiger1988®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: I love reading along in the Bible and having the subject...
1
Oct 5, 2023, 12:23 PM
|
|
>We really are created in God's image.
Yes, I would say that is further evidence to support that interpretation. We get angry, he gets angry. We love, he loves. We expect loyalty, he expects loyalty. We worry, he worries ("or man shall become one of us"). We live forever (as a soul), he lives forever. I'd say all that is very consistent as a concept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin
1
Oct 6, 2023, 6:39 AM
[ in reply to Re: What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin ] |
|
> How would you feel had your wife been paid to marry you?
Can we stop with these bad analogies? You always leave out the crucial piece that the wife would be facing eternal hell if she chose not to love you. That is a critical piece of what is being discussed.
What kind of choice is love me or I’ll torture you forever?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13987
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin
3
Oct 4, 2023, 3:16 PM
[ in reply to What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin ] |
|
I have seen that question answered here very reasonably, 16's well intentioned comment notwithstanding. The answers didn't satisfy you. That is very fine and reasonable. That seems to be the measure you are using to say no answer has been given. Is that what you want to stand on?
One good answer, which means it wasn't mine, was this (paraphrase):
If God can do anything, he can do anything. That means he can decide to allow you to do something he knows is not good for you, a point with which you disagree at that time. This means he can decide to allow something not of his desire, because he is all powerful and he can do that. He can decide that this is the most loving thing he can do for you, painful as it is for him, because he can do that. You not only demand this for yourself, but you have allowed your own children to make those same decisions, for those same reasons, so this is not a difficult concept.
That answer makes sense to many. It might or might not to you. No one will accuse you of failing to do anything if it does not. If it does not satisfy you, will people have "refused to respond?" If you are not satisfied, does that make you right?
Edit: I eliminated the last couple sentences of 3rd paragraph. Misworded (spell check says that's not even a word), but don't have time now to redo.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58586]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46402
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Then help me understand, because that doesn't make a lick
1
Oct 4, 2023, 4:23 PM
|
|
of sense.
You are saying that God allows things he doesn't like because it's for our benefit. But God is all powerful, and nothing is necessary in order for him to have his will done. Anything he wants could be accomplished without him having to do anything a certain way, or adhere to any limits, laws or rules, since he created all of it. Therefore, sin and suffering only exist because he allows them, not because they are necessary to fulfill his will, or so that we can learn or be better in some way.
And of course he can choose to do things he doesn't want to do, that has nothing to do with being all powerful. We all do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13987
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Then help me understand, because that doesn't make a lick
1
Oct 4, 2023, 9:34 PM
|
|
I cant. We all treat our own kids that way. We understand that us allowing them to make mistakes, and their resulting actions, is not us "fulfilling our will." You say you dont understand the concept. Why that is is above my pay grade. Might be my fault, might be yours.
That is not me "refusing to respond". That is you choosing to see a certain thing your chosen way. I do not consider you to have "refused to respond", and I wont accuse you of it. You dont have to live with my choice, I'm certainly not going to live with yours. That doesnt meant either of us has "refused to respond".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: Then help me understand, because that doesn't make a lick
2
Oct 4, 2023, 10:08 PM
|
|
It sounds like you stopped reading at "refusing to respond". That's not the takeaway of what he wrote at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58586]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46402
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Re: Then help me understand, because that doesn't make a lick
1
Oct 5, 2023, 12:25 AM
[ in reply to Re: Then help me understand, because that doesn't make a lick ] |
|
Let's say I am teaching my son to ride a bike. I start out by holding the bike so he doesn't fall as he pedals. At some point, of course, I let go of the bike and see if he can do it on his own. He goes a short distnce on his own, but it's not long before he falls. I help him up and we go again. He falls a few more times, gets scraped up a little, but he has to endure it in order to learn. I don't want him to fall at all, but I know it's necessary in order for him to learn. It's that way for all of us, that's just the way it is. here's what I mean when I say i don't understand that concept:
It's not like that for God at all when he wants us to learn something. If I could somehow teach my son to ride a bike just as well without ever falling, assuming he would learn everything he needed to know just as thoughroughly and completely, I certainly would. I only accept the falling and pain and chance he will be hurt because it's necessary in order for him to learn and understand. When God wants us to learn, since he's all-powerful, nothing is necessary, including us having to experience any pain or suffering or unhappiness or discomfort at all. With an all-powerful God creating the universe and the laws and rules that govern it, what is best for us is entirely up to him. There would be no reason for God to be unhappy, sad, disappointed, or angry, unless that were what he wanted. There would be no reason for sin if God didn't want it to exist. There is no reason for anything to exist unless God wants it to exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Then help me understand, because that doesn't make a lick
Oct 5, 2023, 1:00 AM
|
|
I've never thought of this before but reading your post gave me a sort of philosophical revelation.
That's what I really enjoy about the totality of the board's responses, whatever position each person takes. One never knows quite when a point or response will open an intellectual window or door.
I've been contemplating descriptions of God, which frequently refer to him as "All-Powerful."
But how can one know what "All-Powerful" truly is unless one is all powerful themselves?
Being lesser than God, how can we assess and conclude that he is in fact all powerful aside from faith in the word of someone who is describing him, who would also be human.
That would be like a student saying "My teacher knows everything about physics there is to know." Well, to a student, it might seem that way, but how can the student truly know that unless they themselves know everything there is to know about physics?
I think it would remove an awful lot of contradictions if God were seen in a different light. Because we're potentially fooling ourselves, just like the student, to think that he may be omnipotent, with no way to assess it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2162]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2579
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Then help me understand, because that doesn't make a lick
1
Oct 5, 2023, 8:27 AM
|
|
That thought popped into my mind as I read his post as well. How do we know god carries those attributes?
Like you said, it all goes back to whether or not you believe the biblical description of him.
But doesn’t the Bible also sort of contradict that all powerful notion? Doesn’t it say he tried to kill Moses but couldn’t?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: Then help me understand, because that doesn't make a lick
1
Oct 5, 2023, 9:16 AM
|
|
It also says he changes his mind. Which is odd if you know the future...
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Then help me understand, because that doesn't make a lick
1
Oct 5, 2023, 9:28 PM
[ in reply to Re: Then help me understand, because that doesn't make a lick ] |
|
Yes. That's a very odd part of Exodus 4
21 The Lord said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do.
24 At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses and was about to kill him. 25 But Zipporah (Moses's wife) took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. 26 So the Lord let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.)
Apparently, God was pixxed that one of Moses's two sons was uncircumcised.
Gen 17:10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant."
Everlasting, until James, Paul, and Peter decided it was no longer necessary at Antioch in about 50 AD. Paul justified the change of the "everlasting covenant" by saying Gentiles can have a "circumcision of the heart" that serves the same purpose.
The Big Dog
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Then help me understand, because that doesn't make a lick
Oct 5, 2023, 9:36 PM
|
|
>Like you said, it all goes back to whether or not you believe the biblical description of him.
In my own philosophy, there certainly could be something "out there"... call it a creator, an intelligence, or whatever, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is as described by those who wrote the Bible, or the Koran, or the Vedas. Though it could be. One description could be correct, or many descriptions could be correct, or no current descriptions could be correct. We each have to rely on our own experiences, and whatever we can learn from others, to make that call. Or there could be nothing at all out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2162]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2579
Joined: 6/4/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: Then help me understand, because that doesn't make a lick
1
Oct 5, 2023, 9:02 AM
[ in reply to Re: Then help me understand, because that doesn't make a lick ] |
|
Agreed. From my point of view, there are a lot of claims about who and what God is. But when you press people on how they know this, it comes down to they heard it from someone else or read it in the bible. Basically, it really all does just come down to faith. Which is fine. The problem is when they now push that on you and say you are choosing not to believe it as if it's some crystal clear thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Then help me understand, because that doesn't make a lick
Oct 5, 2023, 9:45 PM
|
|
>Basically, it really all does just come down to faith.
In my experience, that's what it ultimately comes down to. But that's just me, so I don't usually question other's experiences, because how can I know what they experienced?
The irony of it all is that if you need proof to justify a religion based on Faith, then you've kind of undercut the whole premise. That's why I see "wishful" prayer, (as opposed to thankful prayer), as diminishing faith. If one has to ask God to do, or not do, something, it indicates they do not trust what he is doing in the first place.
16and18
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: Then help me understand, because that doesn't make a lick
1
Oct 5, 2023, 10:00 PM
|
|
> In my experience, that's what it ultimately comes down to. But that's just me, so I don't usually question other's experiences, because how can I know what they experienced?
100% agree, I concede it's entirely possible that they are having divine experiences. But from my point of view, how could I possibly confirm that? Furthermore, people from conflicting faiths say they have these types of experience so to me, if one accepts that not all religions could be wrong (which by definition most religions think they are the only true one) that means it is demonstrably true that at least some people have false "religious experiences".
So the fact that people have these experiences, and I've had my own, just isn't very compelling to me. I remember telling my brother about an experience I had at church where I felt like I was suddenly in the room by myself, as if I was being singled out. It was super peaceful and borderline euphoric; I told him I thought it was God's presence. He looked at me like I had two heads, but I was convinced at the time.
I've since had extremely similar experiences through meditation so, unfortunately, doesn't appear to require anything supernatural, but it was cool at the time.
I've also had some other not-so-great life experiences, where I thought hey, you know, maybe I'm wrong and maybe God could help here. Well, if he's out there, he sure doesn't want to talk to me. I don't know what else I could have tried.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Then help me understand, because that doesn't make a lick
Oct 5, 2023, 10:21 PM
|
|
>that means it is demonstrably true that at least some people have false "religious experiences".
I don't quite see it that way, because I see individual religions as simply different ways God may have come to different people.
If he comes to one in terms of obedience, great, you're a Jew.
If he comes to one in terms of Faith, great, you're a Christian.
If he comes to one in terms of subservience, great, you're a Muslim.
Who's gonna say God can't wear different hats? I'm not the same to my wife as I am to my employees as I am to my weekend buddies. It's the concept of the "personal relationship with God" carried right down to the personal level, not the "religion" level. The religions are just broad-brush explanations to try and understand what is beyond understanding.
At least, that's today's philosophy. Tomorrow might be different  ">
>He looked at me like I had two heads, but I was convinced at the time.
Yes, when I was practicing I was 100% certain that my few experiences were the hand, or work, of God. They may have been, but the years have changed my perception of those events. Call it "mental evolution" lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: Then help me understand, because that doesn't make a lick
1
Oct 7, 2023, 9:06 AM
|
|
> I don't quite see it that way, because I see individual religions as simply different ways God may have come to different people.
The only reason I disagree is because the religions themselves have conflicting rules/idealogies, but I do see your point, that's fair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: Then help me understand, because that doesn't make a lick
1
Oct 5, 2023, 9:00 AM
[ in reply to Re: Then help me understand, because that doesn't make a lick ] |
|
> There would be no reason for God to be unhappy, sad, disappointed, or angry, unless that were what he wanted.
Exactly, it seems pretty obvious that it's ancient men trying to anthropomorphize their understanding of the universe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin
2
Oct 4, 2023, 6:19 PM
[ in reply to Re: What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin ] |
|
> That seems to be the measure you are using to say no answer has been given.
I think this is the issue. You are reading "has not been answered" as "no answer has been given". They are not the same.
"Hey, Dad, why does it rain?"
"That happens when the clouds are sad"
Sure, an answer was given: would you call that question "answered"? I wouldn't. THAT is what we are saying. THAT is the sense in which our questions are being "answered".
I think it would be extremely reasonable for that child to say that his question was not answered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58586]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46402
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Exactly.***
1
Oct 4, 2023, 6:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13987
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin
1
Oct 4, 2023, 9:24 PM
[ in reply to Re: What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin ] |
|
Not even a good try. His words were, "refuse to respond". That is very direct language, not unclear meaning. Addresses the answerer, not the answer. Or do we need a grammar lesson?
So, yes, my reading of 'no answer given' is what he said. Are you two actually trying to turn "refuse to respond" into something else? If a kid is caught with his hand in the cookie jar, saying he was wiping the counter is not a good look.
"Refuse to respond" was a BS accusation.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin
Oct 4, 2023, 10:00 PM
|
|
> A lot of people refuse to respond to that, claiming it's pointless because they've already explained it multiple times. Well they haven't explained it in any way that makes a lick of sense, or without giving a very lengthy response that never actually answers the question, all while ignoring the actual question.
Don't cherry-pick what he said. For one, he said a lot (not all) of people do that, and he went on to claim the very thing that you indeed do.
Well they haven't explained it in any way that makes a lick of sense, or without giving a very lengthy response that never actually answers the question, all while ignoring the actual question.
This is exactly what you do, and what you are doing right now is another diversion tactic.
> If a kid is caught with his hand in the cookie jar, saying he was wiping the counter is not a good look.
This makes absolutely no sense in this context. My example is spot-on with the "answers" you generally give.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13987
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin
Oct 4, 2023, 10:14 PM
|
|
So the whole post was about what a few people do? Not my misreading of "refuse to respond" like you first said?
You two talk a while and come back when you've decided what you're talking about. That's one of those caveat things, btw.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin
Oct 5, 2023, 9:02 AM
|
|
> You two talk a while and come back when you've decided what you're talking about. That's one of those caveat things, btw.
I'm sorry that you are so confused here, I don't know how to help you with that. It's pretty obvious what we are saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95529
Joined: 12/25/09
|
That's an amazingly accurate analogy.
Oct 5, 2023, 12:05 AM
[ in reply to Re: What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin ] |
|
At what age can a child comprehend the science behind why it rains. A child's attention span might be one of the limiting factors. Another, even more important might be his ability to retain some of the concepts and thereby establishing a framework for understanding how hotter air holds moisture and when it collides with a cooler condition might cause the vapor to condense and form droplets.
I am specifically not saying that anyone here is childlike or accusing anyone of being unable to comprehend the concepts involved in explaining what I believe about God. That is not my intent.
Imo, most of those who refuse my explanations are predisposed to do so. If you've already made up your mind why ask? Is it to simply prove your point? To whom, may I ask?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: That's an amazingly accurate analogy.
Oct 5, 2023, 9:11 AM
|
|
> Imo, most of those who refuse my explanations are predisposed to do so.
Or, hear me out, it's because your explanations amount to pointing to scripture while you completely ignore the question of why those should be trusted in the first place.
Would you just accept wisdom from the Quran? No of course not. Take a moment to ask yourself why. We both don't think the Quran is divinely inspired.
Now, if you'd actually answer the question: why should your particular religious scripture be taken as truth? I'm supposed to believe the bible because the bible itself says it's true?
> If you've already made up your mind why ask? Is it to simply prove your point? To whom, may I ask?
Again with this? Really? Why do we post the same questions on the football and politics boards, if we already have our minds made up? It's for the exact same reasons. Why do you guys act so confused about this when it's on a religion forum? I would love to know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17959]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8958
Joined: 12/24/96
|
Re: What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin
2
Oct 4, 2023, 3:24 PM
[ in reply to What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin ] |
|
Your statement “boxes” God into a singular category which no answer contrary to your box will provide any degree of satisfaction which suggests there is a different “box”. You say that God either wants sin and suffering, meaning He uses His power to cause it, OR, He is powerless to stop it [sin] or to accomplish His purpose without it [sin]. So, either way, God is [Bad].
Put God in the [Bad] box and make no room whatsoever for a [Good] box alternative.
Well, you certainly have the free will to say that, and think that, and promote that, and whatever else you wish to do with it. But you cannot justifiably state those are the [ONLY] options. You might not care for the other options, and you don’t have to. But, that is simply denial on your part, and not failure to provide an explanation on the part of another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58586]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46402
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Tell me what the other options are then.***
1
Oct 4, 2023, 4:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58586]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46402
Joined: 4/23/00
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17959]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8958
Joined: 12/24/96
|
Re: Just answer this ...
1
Oct 4, 2023, 9:57 PM
|
|
> Does God allow sin to exist because he can't stop it?
Ans: NO – He is patient with His creation. He sent His Son, Jesus, to save all who will come to Him for the forgiveness of sins. Why? Because his patience will not last forever. Punishment will come. But, consider this, it was through “free will” that sin was born. So, who created sin, then? God or man? And by what agency was man introduced to this “insufferable” free will situation? Was it God or was it Satan? And if it was Satan, perhaps God’s love, and patience with man, stems from His love and understanding for mankind because of the nature of the agency that is truly to blame. But the infection needs a cure. The cure, by God’s choice, is His Son, Jesus.
> Or, does he allow it to exist because it serves some purpose in his plan?
ANS: What plan do you refer to? Or, what specific part of the plan do you refer to?
> Or, some other reason you will explain.
ANS: Do not mistake patience with being powerless. Patience is empowered by love. God is patient because He would not have any perish. But, there will always be those who choose the “forbidden fruit” no matter what.
This is me offering you other alternatives. This is not running away. So, do you think the alternatives are possible? Your choice. Choose freely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: Just answer this ...
2
Oct 4, 2023, 10:07 PM
|
|
> So, do you think the alternatives are possible? Your choice. Choose freely.
Is this an alternative? If you are saying he is patient with it, that falls in to the "he wants/allows it" camp, no?
> God is patient because He would not have any perish.
What does this mean? Even the bible says that the path is narrow and few will find it. So the vast majority of people who every have and will existed will spend eternity being brutually tortured and you say he would not have any perish? It sounds like being "saved" is the extraordinary exception. That's gross.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58586]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46402
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Thanks for responding.
1
Oct 4, 2023, 11:19 PM
[ in reply to Re: Just answer this ... ] |
|
I don't think the alternatives you suggest make any sense whatsoever.
Lets say you're correct; God can stop sin anytime he wants. Then ... back to my original question in this thread:
Does God want sin to exist? If the answer is "yes", cool. That leads to another question though in my mind: Why does he allow it, if he doesn't want to, given the fact that he doesn't have to? What is the reason he allows things he doesn't want to allow? Remember, he is all powerful, and he could accomplish anything without allowing it; it's absolutely unnecessay.
If the answer is "no", again why does he allow it? Unless it serves some purpose that can't be fulfilled any other way, then he doesn't have to allow it; it's his choice. In other words, given the options, which for God are unlimited, he wants sin to be part of our existence. It makes no sense either way. And
God is patient because He would not have any perish. But, there will always be those who choose the “forbidden fruit” no matter what.
But God did create a reality, or universe, or whatever you want to call our existence, in which he knew many would choose the fruit, not accept his son as savior, and perish. Why? It wasn't necessary. Again, allowing sin to exist is entirely God's choice, and any purpose served by allowing it, like free will, could be served just as easily without it for a God with unlimited power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17959]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8958
Joined: 12/24/96
|
Re: Thanks for responding.
Oct 5, 2023, 7:39 AM
|
|
Well, at least you peeked over the edge of your box for a moment, though it was only for a moment.
I don't really think you have a question about God's power, or lack thereof. At best, you really just don't believe he exists and, at worst, you think He may but believe you would be better at being God than He is. That is the same thing Satan thought as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
This right here
Oct 5, 2023, 9:33 AM
|
|
pay attention @cCUintulsa®
This is exactly how the conversation breaks down with you guys as soon you get legitimate questions that you can not answer.
"I don't know" is a reasonable and more respectable answer, but instead look what happened. He was compared to Satan! lol
This is exactly the same thing as if I were to say you believed this stuff because you are a religious nut.
So yes, another non-answer. Big surprise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58586]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46402
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Also, I am not putting God into any category, but I would
1
Oct 4, 2023, 5:23 PM
[ in reply to Re: What purpose, toward God's ultimate objective, does sin ] |
|
argue that the concept of God that many believe in is already in that box; I didn't put him there. I could be wrong, absolutely; I am just asking for an sensible explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95529
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Man is the only species with an eternal soul.***
1
Oct 4, 2023, 11:00 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Man is the only species with an eternal soul.***
1
Oct 5, 2023, 1:32 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95529
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I hope that is the exception.
1
Oct 5, 2023, 8:21 AM
|
|
There are half a dozen dogs who once were a part of my life which I'd love to see when I get to Heaven. Although, I'm certain that my love for Him will cause them all to feel neglected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Man is the only species with an eternal soul.***
Oct 5, 2023, 12:33 PM
|
|
When I was a believer I was taught that that interpretation comes from Revelation 22, and who will be allowed into heaven:
14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
But I don't know of any others. And of course, one has to trust that John of Patmos had insider knowledge about Heaven, never having been there.
Do you know of any other scriptural evidence on this 88? That verse is all I was ever told.
ClemsonTiger1988®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2162]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2579
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Man is the only species with an eternal soul.***
1
Oct 5, 2023, 12:55 PM
|
|
Weird that it doesn’t say “outside are those that don’t believe in Jesus”.
Also wasn’t the apostle Paul a murderer? And King David sexually immoral?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Man is the only species with an eternal soul.***
1
Oct 5, 2023, 1:24 PM
|
|
I think Paul may have been present at the stoning of Stephen. He persecuted, but I don't know if he killed. And yes, David would be on the immoral list. He sent a guy to his death in battle so he could take the guy's wife while he was off at war. So, pretty bad, lol.
2 Samuel 11:26 "When the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. 27 And when her mourning was over, David sent and brought her to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95529
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Tnet Tmail is a sad thing.
1
Oct 6, 2023, 6:12 AM
[ in reply to Re: Man is the only species with an eternal soul.*** ] |
|
At one time I only got tmail notifications after logging back in after having logged off. I was not notified of a new unread tmail.
Are you asking if other scripture addresses the eternal existence of the human soul?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: Tnet Tmail is a sad thing.
1
Oct 6, 2023, 6:43 AM
|
|
I’ve asked you this numerous times. You quote scripture as though it’s true but you never explain why the scripture itself is trustworthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95529
Joined: 12/25/09
|
This is true:
Oct 7, 2023, 8:48 AM
|
|
Psalms Chapter 123:
"1 (A Song of degrees.) Unto thee lift I up mine eyes, O thou that dwellest in the heavens.
2 Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their masters, and as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress; so our eyes wait upon the LORD our God, until that he have mercy upon us.
3 Have mercy upon us, O LORD, have mercy upon us: for we are exceedingly filled with contempt.
4 Our soul is exceedingly filled with the scorning of those that are at ease, and with the contempt of the proud."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: This is true:
Oct 7, 2023, 9:00 AM
|
|
So let me get this straight, if I get a bit of text and then proclaim "this is true", that makes it so?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Tnet Tmail is a sad thing.
Oct 6, 2023, 3:58 PM
[ in reply to Tnet Tmail is a sad thing. ] |
|
No prob. I was asking if you were aware of any other scripture that denies the existence of animal souls.
The verse I cited implies that dogs will not be allowed in Heaven, and when I was a child that was used by my church as evidence that animals to not have souls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95529
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I believe there is a misunderstanding about that.
1
Oct 7, 2023, 8:05 AM
|
|
Sometimes the scripture says 'dogs,' with intent to refer to the 4 legged type. In Revelation 22 and Psalms 22 the dogs are those who do not believe Jesus is the Son of God.
I don't know of any scripture which says that animals have living souls. I don't know of any which say they don't.
The problem we have is that we eat animals. You and I don't eat dogs but it's not for moral reasons, it's because those in our families many generations ago decided pigs, cows and birds taste better. That's the secular view.
The Christian and Jewish view of animals having souls would be related to offering them as sacrifice for sin. Even though Christians know that the blood of sheep, goats and cows won't cleanse the human soul we also understand why God ordered Moses to sacrifice them in order to remind him and Israel that a Messiah was coming who would take away the sin of the world.
It seems that if animals are then a representative of Christ in the shedding of blood then animals are without sin. So are rocks, trees, wind, and everything else in this universe other than man and demons.
I believe that the reason my dogs won't go to Heaven is not because they are dogs but because there will be no time in my eternal life to play with them. There will be no boredom in Heaven and there will be no free time for I will be busy doing God's will, whatever that will be.
On a positive note: There will be no grief in Heaven after I grieve for my failures to worship, obey and serve God in this live. When Jesus sees that and wipes away my tears all my grief will end. All of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3227]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4096
Joined: 6/24/23
|
Re: Sin
1
Oct 6, 2023, 4:25 PM
|
|
There is no sin. Just societal norms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 126
| visibility 1,251
|
|
|
50
