« first day (590 days earlier)      last day (4094 days later) » 

6:35 AM
@DavidStratton I really can't decide, so I will leave it up to the rest of the community to keep it open or close it. I could use some work for sure, I will say that. There is maybe a theistic evolution spin that could be placed on this. idk? Like I said, uninteresting anyway. I really wanted to answer the android one.
 
 
1 hour later…
8:02 AM
@DavidStratton It isn't very well put, but the core question that could be answered seems to be about how Catholic doctrine defines inteligence and why that does or does not apply to non humans. That actually seems like a reasonable question. The androids version was very poorly put together, but the apes one hits a little closer to target. I'm not quite sure what you see in that to put it out of bounds. Could you explain?
Aaa the assumptions people make.
> Thanks goodness you're not a Presbyterian, if you were we couldn't have just had this great conversation.
Said not by some stranger on the internet, but over a cup of tea in my kitchen by a man I'm keeping under my roof.
 
9:02 AM
0
Q: Reopen: The biblical basis for rejecting public foot washing by religious leaders

Jan TuroňMy question was closed as non-constructive: I updated the title according to Mike's suggestion I read the FAQ and added a doctrine as suggested Is there any other problem with the question to re-open it?

 
 
2 hours later…
11:24 AM
@Caleb and @fredsbend (ane everyone) I may be too picky on that question, I realize. My original reaction to it, however, is that as much as it's couched to look like it's about Christianity it's still really not. It's about whether something qualifies as "human". I think it illustrates a flaw in how we've been thinkingon some things, but I haven't thought it through all the way..
So since I haven't thought it through, I'm going to throw out my original gut reaction here and let everyone chew on it and hopefully, someone will either tell me where my logic is flawed (a distinct possibility) or come up with a better way of describing what's wrong with those questions.
So here goes: My original gut reaction was "Huh? This is just asking if something qualifies as sentient/thinking/human based on some arbitrarily selected definition of sentient/thinking/human. That has nothing to do with Christianity at all. Even if it did, the question has a bad smell. You could take this same question and plug in 'dog' in place of 'android' or 'ape' or maybe plug in computer, toilet paper, etc, and it would be no more or less valid"
Then, after a few moments of consideration "The only thing that makes this a possible fit is that it asks it as 'according to doctrine x' but that's till not a good question because it's not something doctrine x would likely have an official statement on. The sentience of an android? Really. Maybe just couching things as 'according to whom' isn't a cure-all for bad questions, and it's allowing bad questions to stand when they should be closed"
end of original gut reaction
I think what bothers me more is that it feels like a setup for some straw-man argument. It seems like the question is using carefully selected (not arbitrary as I first thought) definitions designed to set up a question where someone can say "aha! got you!
Humans aren't really special in God's eyes! look a how Joe answered this for proof!"
I don't really know the OP's motives, so that's not really valid, but I can't get by the idea tat it's a formula question where you can plug in any variable to replace "android" and that it's really not about Christian doctrine, even though it follows our guide about attaching the phrase "according to..."
 
12:19 PM
@DavidStratton I'm almost convinced your gut is right, but I'm about to walk out the door and don't feel comfortable using the mod-hammer without time to know clearly why I'm taking action and explain to the OP.
 
 
6 hours later…
6:44 PM
@waxeagle So, I'm writing a blog post on this, and it starts with a quote about how if the Genesis genealogies are telescoped, then Adam and Eve could have been alive as far back in the past as 60,000 BC. Behavioral modernity (when humans start acting like humans) is generally believed by secular scientists to have happened around 50,000 BC. If the Flood happened relatively soon after that, then a local flood would've been all that was needed to wipe every human alive at the time.
Thus, the Biblical narrative wouldn't actually have to change all that much.
 
@El'endiaStarman reasonable. We know those hebrew genealogies are not generation for generation. If they were only the notable figures form the lines then that's perfectly reasonable
 
7:05 PM
@El'endiaStarman I think Theistic Evolution is bunk, but I am interested to see where you take this line of thought. Perhaps there is something significant about the names and their meanings. So and so raised livestock it says. That could be called the shift from hunter gatherer to agrarian. The lifespans, being so long, could be called figurative of shortened ages. Enoch could be the realization of God as One; the birth of religion.
 
@fredsbend At the moment, as I'm exploring a somewhat-figurative explanation of the Flood that places it in the distant past, I'm finding that it fits with scientific evidence remarkably well. Much better than a literal interpretation.
 
@fredsbend I think your reading to much into it. Remember that Genesis is an historical book, but it's a different kind of history than what we typically read. Our history records what happened and why, I'd guess ancient Hebrew history was quite different.
 
@waxeagle I would think that "what" and "why" is about the only reason anyone writes any history.
What happend, why is that important, although the second is sometimes left unanswered
 
@fredsbend right, but modern history is obsessed with facts, I'm saying that reading Genesis as a book of facts is probably not the best way to interpret it (I'm still moving around on how I interpret it tbh).
The point of Genesis is to get from the beginning to Egypt and to tell the Hebrews how they got there. The first few chapters are mostly about getting from the beginning to Abraham (from which point we have a pretty solid chronological account).
 
There are two reasons that I can think of off the top of my head why ancient history (particularly Genesis) wouldn't have been quite so obsessed with facts: 1) oral transmission - harder to memorize loads of pretty-much-useless facts, 2) writing and books were expensive back then.
 
7:12 PM
@El'endiaStarman and the beginning of Genesis at least predates written language.
 
@waxeagle Right, that too.
 
@waxeagle True that ancients were more concerned with the conclusions that you should draw from the history; they almost used history persuasively; to make points or highlight glory. That does not mean that the basic facts are also suspect.
 
@fredsbend that's exactly why the basic facts are suspect.
 
@fredsbend In addition to wax's comment, also consider this: would the ancient Hebrews understood an account of the billions of years of cosmological/terrestrial development and biological evolution? Or is your point better served by saying "God made the universe."?
 
to be clear. i don't think the Genesis account is wrong. But I don't think it's the whole story either. It's in the Bible for a reason. it's the origin we need to know about.
 
7:15 PM
@waxeagle So then you would say Moses wrote the accounts (basically lies) just to give the Israelites a sense of who they are and what have you. That makes Moses much less than a prophet. A fraud even.
 
@waxeagle That's the way I look at it. Genesis is True, but not literally.
 
@waxeagle I don't see how you can say it's not wrong in light of other things you are considering as fact.
 
@fredsbend Lies are intended to deceive. Moses' writings were not intended to deceive, but rather give the Israelites an explanation of why they were important and special.
 
@fredsbend no, you misunderstand me. God gave Moses an origin story his people would understand. It's true but it's not the whole story
to be clear. I don't fully buy theistic evolution either.
I'm fairly agnostic on the beginning times debate. I have a pretty good understanding of what Science says, and I'm familiar with the YEC arguments.
 
Come to think of it, there's a more-modern example. Jesus' inclusion of anger into murder and lust into adultery. Anger is not literally murder, but it is murder, if that makes sense.
 
7:19 PM
@El'endiaStarman Read the stories closely; to a secular historian it sound like a slave revolt and nothing more. Modern Haiti is a prime example of how a religion was born out of a slave revolt. The stories of Moses only makes sense if God is involved. If God is involved I don't think He would have Moses say seven days, when ages or something would have been more appropriate.
@waxeagle Whole story or partial really seem irrelevant to calling what we do have as literal or figurative.
 
@fredsbend I assume your familiar with the day-age controversy?
 
@waxeagle Yes. If I were to be swayed though on the Earth and Universe being old it would at the part "God was hovering over the waters" etc. The first day does seem longer and more went on.
 
@El'endiaStarman Hmmm. I should probably edit the question to fit within scope and be more objectively-answerable.
 
@fredsbend it's quiet unclear how a "day" would be measured when there is no sun to mark it. But that only accounts for universal origins not biological ones.
 
7:24 PM
@fredsbend Universe created vs 1. First day doesn't start till vs 3.
 
@El'endiaStarman only if you can do it without nullifying the answers. I can't see it right now to know :(
 
(That's how the Witnesses interpret it, anyway.)
 
@TRiG Right, it seems that way and I have considered it.
 
@waxeagle Just a change from "best interpretation" to "main interpretations".
 
@El'endiaStarman seems legit :)
 
7:28 PM
@waxeagle The sun has never been the measure. Sounds crazy, but look closely at the verses. A day is from evening to evening. The evenings and mornings still pass on the first two days because God put light and darkness over the Earth and separated them before he made the Sun.
 
@fredsbend Where'd the light come from then?
By the way, I think it's important to note that I avoid miraculous explanations in situations such as these because I think it's an escape of convenience.
 
@fredsbend yeah, I always found that to be an interesting element of the passage. light has to have a source...
@El'endiaStarman yes. When a mundane solution is available the miraculous is the easy way out.
 
7:49 PM
@waxeagle Theistic Evolution is hardly a mundane solution. Neither is saying that the first and second days were not the same kind of days as three through seven.
@El'endiaStarman idk. I don't want to say it was miraculous either, but it is surely a mystery for a literalist.
I'm willing to not loose faith over it.
 
@fredsbend which is why I don't really care for any of the interpretations of Genesis that I've seen :)
 
@waxeagle Oh. Fair enough. I guess that's what you meant by agnostic about it.
 
@fredsbend The stars and planets arising from gravitationally-formed clumps of matter, on one of which life develops by the occasional beneficial mutation and genetic drift...does seem to me to be a mundane solution.
Another by the way: I call myself a Theistic Evolutionist out of convenience (har har), just like I'll call myself Wesleyan if pressed for a denomination, or Christian if pressed for a religion.
 
@fredsbend I also believe we get hung up on it too much. In the end does it matter who is right in this debate? The Bible tells us an account of what happened, but it's something that was passed down over millennia through oral histories (and I believe those were guided by God and that we have the version we are meant to have). Science tells us what it looks like happened. In the end I don't see a true need to reconcile the two accounts.
 
@waxeagle Among Christians, it doesn't matter. If you're talking to someone who is skeptical because the Bible doesn't match up with Science, then yes, it matters.
 
7:54 PM
I'll do my best when pressed, and I'm a scientist at heart so I'd like to know why but I'm not sure it's truly knowable
 
@El'endiaStarman whaaa ... Definition of mundane. The first calls God and the Creation boring, the second says it is without spiritual meaning.
@El'endiaStarman This
@Wax ^^^
 
@El'endiaStarman it's something people get hung up on because we have failed.
we've made believing that essential and missed the gospel.
the focus on the creation story is a misdirection, it takes the focus off of Jesus and puts science and religion into conflict. I'm not saying we should be know nothings like the agnostics. But I am saying that when we allow people to steer the debate towards that issue we've already lost
 
@waxeagle Heh, good point. On the other hand, many atheists and agnostics will not regard emotional/spiritually based evidence before they consider physical/scientific evidence.
 
@waxeagle The gospel without the same history leads to divisions. I would rather see a unified Church. However, too many are too petty to worship the same God even though they differ on opinion for minor doctrines. If you then say, ok every belief is just alright with me, then you look like a hippie fool without any faith of your own. That's why it is important.
 
@El'endiaStarman sure, which is why I find Calvinism comforting. It's God's job to convince someone he is real, not mine. (that's not to say I haven't and won't try)
@fredsbend the church is divided for a reason. Unity will not happen until the end. We're divided because if we don't divide we don't multiply
 
7:59 PM
@waxeagle Okay, that's an idea I haven't heard before.
 
@waxeagle What!?
 
...well, not in a religious context. I mean, scientifically, mitosis...
 
@El'endiaStarman lol. Rabbits too
 
@fredsbend read Acts. the disciples are stuck insulating themselves in Jerusalem until Saul starts persecuting them, then they split out and start going out.
 
@fredsbend Rabbits divide? o.O
 
8:00 PM
@El'endiaStarman I was hoping you'd miss that.
 
Christians have to be forced out of their comfort zones. God often uses divisions and I believe it's an important part of his strategy
 
@waxeagle They are persecuted and their faith is strengthened. They are not arguing over doctrine, becoming petty wieners, then telling the rest of the Church to consider so and so a heretic. That ultimately weakens faith of the Church.
 
@fredsbend that came later in the book
 
@waxeagle But is was always set straight.
that's why the book is so useful for developing doctrine
The letters too
 
@fredsbend What about Apollos?
 
8:04 PM
@waxeagle Remind me of the chapter
 
Arg! Don't know the chapter off the top of my head!
[grabs Bible]
 
@El'endiaStarman [feverishly thumbs pages]
 
@fredsbend 1 Corinthians 3-4 are where Paul talks about him. He's mentioned in Acts as well
 
Yeah, I remember the mention in Acts.
 
18 and 19 in Acts
 
8:06 PM
@waxeagle Darn you. You searched online, didn't you? :P
 
@El'endiaStarman of course, I, sadly, don't have a bible at my desk
plus, when you're looking for something specific it's a lot easier to do a text search :)
 
1 cor 3:22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God. Claiming Christ is all that is needed to make brothers in Christ. That's how it should be.
 
@waxeagle Yeah, I realized I could just search online, but I wanted to look for it in my Bible... :P
 
@El'endiaStarman fair enough
he's not actually the one I was thinking of either...
 
The Acts mention of Apollos is 18:24-28.
He's probably the one you're thinking of. I think.
> 24 Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
> 27 When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers and sisters encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. When he arrived, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. 28 For he vigorously refuted his Jewish opponents in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah.
 
8:10 PM
@El'endiaStarman Of significant note is that Paul and Apollos were never in argument. It was common believers making non-existent factions or lineages.
 
@fredsbend Good observation.
 
@waxeagle Yeah, it doesn't really support your first claim: there was division in the 1 century church.
 
@fredsbend agreed there. I'm thinking of another passage that I'm trying to find right now
 
@waxeagle Just ping me. I gotta go now. Bye.
 
@fredsbend sure
 
8:24 PM
Alright, here's the blog post. And now I'm off to a conference. I won't have internet access until Sunday afternoon, so I'll talk to you all later! Seeya! :)
 
@fredsbend galatians is pretty scathing. I'm not saying heretics should not be corrected. I'm saying that doctrinal disagreements lead to the church spreading. Sometimes a doctrinal disagreement is a heresy, sometimes it's a misunderstanding, sometimes it's a minor quibble. But when a church splits it's an opportunity for the Lord to grow both parts, not just the one that's "right".
in a sense, in the absense of persecution, God has used division instead.
(still hunting the specific passage I'm thinking of though)
also splits happen over administrative matters (see the Paul & Barnabas break up over the readiness of Mark)
 
 
2 hours later…
10:25 PM
4
A: Is there external historic or scientific evidence of a particular flood that corresponds to the Genesis 7 account?

Jon EricsonObservations on the Genesis flood It was not a historical event in the technical sense that we have no surviving written contemporary accounts. However, it was recent enough prehistory that it could be located in a particular location in the Genesis genealogies. There are also a number of de...

 
Is it really simply a scam? Is that all it is?
 

« first day (590 days earlier)      last day (4094 days later) »