Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

If Evolution is True, why do Humans need a Savior but the Great Apes do Not?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    ???? That doesn't even make sense. Your trolling is slipping.

    I am not even TE, I was just helping Gary out by giving him the answer that TE's have given me in the past. Your post was just a complete non sequitur to the whole topic. Just an attempt to derail it like you do every thread. This thread isn't about whether souls exist or not. If you want to discuss that, start a new thread. You know how to do that right?
    Always quick to blame others, eh Sparko.

    Your response to the OP was (in post #2) that non-human animals don't need saving in that "they don't have an immortal soul so there is nothing to save". Gary’s response was (in Post #3): “How, when, and where did humans receive an immortal soul?" This theme continues in Post #4 and Post #5 and etc.

    It seems to me that the alleged existence of human souls, to the exclusion of other animals, is the very core of the discussion. So perhaps it’s YOU who’s derailed the thread and should walk away with your tail between your legs. After all, Gary himself says to YOU in Post #9: “You do not seem to believe in Evolution, so I am confused why you are choosing to enter this discussion.”

    So why?
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gary View Post
      Interesting, but not the topic of this thread. This thread is addressed to Christians such as "Adrift" and Stein who believe in Evolution and also seem to believe that humans need a Savior. To me these positions are contradictory. I am trying to understand how so many "moderate" Christians can simultaneously hold these two positions.
      In case anyone is still reading, and would still like an answer:

      Suppose a train in a story, and a train existing in everyday life. The two trains will not collide, because a train that exists as a real material object is of a different order of being from a train that exists only in a story. The two trains are of different orders of being - they are incommensurable. They are related, not by encountering each other - because they are incommensurable, they cannot do that - but by both being related to a third something, namely, the mind of the person who thinks about both of them.

      Rather than taking the Genesis 1-11 narrative and the evolution narrative as narratives of the same kind, both meaning to tell the same kind of truth, and colliding with each other, ISTM that the two narratives are talking about the same subject -the origin of the material universe, and of life on earth - but from utterly unrelated POVs, that do not in themselves depend on or imply each other. There is no conflict between them, because there is no collision.

      Genesis 1 has been set against biology. That makes as much sense as setting the Silmarillion against seismology and geography. It would be illegitimate to argue to the reality of the very cold Grinding Ice and the freezing location of the Mountains of Thangorodrim, from the reality of the Arctic Circle. The locations in Tolkien's myth are of a different order from locations on the maps of this world. Those locations are real in their own way, which is not that of the cartography and geography of the Primary World of human life.

      The proper term of comparison with Genesis 1 is not modern palaeontology or biology, but an ancient theological document like the so-called Babylonian Creation Epic - that might more accurately be called The Exaltation of Marduk. The Jews were faced by foreign polytheisms, and threats to the integrity and purity of their religion - not by doctrines of biological evolution. Gen.1-11 even contains passages - like the Flood narrative and the Tower of Babel story - that are perhaps to be understood as rebukes to Babylonian legends and ideas. To use Genesis to stave off the doctrine of evolution, or to belittle Genesis in order to advocate evolution, is a category error. And the result is not only to cause needless friction between the doctrine of creation, and the sciences, but also to fail to appreciate Genesis 1-11 in comparison with other myths of origins.
      Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 08-10-2016, 05:35 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
        The scriptures teach that people are in the image of God. There's nothing said about what image animals have. And God said animals were the domain of people. There's no teaching of the people and animals being equal.
        Could that be, because they were created same day, but people did not evolve from other animals?
        http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

        Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
          How, when, and where did humans receive an immortal soul?
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          God gave it to them, how else? And why do we have to know when?
          He might be hinting at certain scenarios of "when" being impossible?

          At least on the Christian view he doesn't share.
          http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

          Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
            In case anyone is still reading, and would still like an answer:
            I came here just today.

            Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
            Suppose a train in a story, and a train existing in everyday life. The two trains will not collide, because a train that exists as a real material object is of a different order of being from a train that exists only in a story. The two trains are of different orders of being - they are incommensurable. They are related, not by encountering each other - because they are incommensurable, they cannot do that - but by both being related to a third something, namely, the mind of the person who thinks about both of them.
            True enough. Even so they can encounter each other, if the person thinking of both is writing the story.

            Example, when I started writing Chronicle of Susan Pevensie a few years ago, I checked Times from 1949 for a trainwreck story to match the trainwreck which ended The Last Battle and begins my fan fiction. That is why Susan Pevensie is going to Sevenoaks when going to identify her parents and siblings.

            This means a coordination of the two train wrecks.

            Also, there is a question of intention.

            My train wreck in Sevenoaks conflicts with the trainwreck on the way to Bristol, because both stories (canon and my fan fic, CSL and me) intend to write about the train wreck killing the Seven Friends of Narnia and the parents of the Pevensies.

            In a similar way, both Genesis 1-11 [and "modern science"] can intend to tell the story of our exact real origins and therefore conflict.

            Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
            Rather than taking the Genesis 1-11 narrative and the evolution narrative as narratives of the same kind, both meaning to tell the same kind of truth, and colliding with each other, ISTM that the two narratives are talking about the same subject -the origin of the material universe, and of life on earth - but from utterly unrelated POVs, that do not in themselves depend on or imply each other. There is no conflict between them, because there is no collision.
            ISTM = ISMT = I Sub-Mit That?

            I counter, the utterly unrelated POV's is false.

            There is a collision, as much as between a trainwreck happening in Sevenoaks on the way to Kent or on another line on the train to Bristol.

            Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
            Genesis 1 has been set against biology. That makes as much sense as setting the Silmarillion against seismology and geography. It would be illegitimate to argue to the reality of the very cold Grinding Ice and the freezing location of the Mountains of Thangorodrim, from the reality of the Arctic Circle. The locations in Tolkien's myth are of a different order from locations on the maps of this world. Those locations are real in their own way, which is not that of the cartography and geography of the Primary World of human life.
            Genesis 1 has been set against a certain theory of biology.

            Similarily, Genesis 25:25 has been set against a certain theory of astronomic horoscopes relating to characters and fates of those born under it (namely by St Augustine in Confessiones).

            "It would be illegitimate to argue to the reality of the very cold Grinding Ice and the freezing location of the Mountains of Thangorodrim, from the reality of the Arctic Circle."

            More like some border of the Ice Age. And yes, Devil or Nimrod as his tool bringing it on is one theory, not mine, but a rather instructive one.

            My own is more like Nimrod's project provoking it as a medical measure from God, having also as side effect of its causation of higher cosmic radiation a rapid growth of C14 content of atmosphere.

            It is in conflict with Tolkien's and with the scientist Würm's, but has more in common with JRRT than with ... sorry, Würm is not a scientist describing the glaciation, but a river to which it reached, an affluent of the Danube. It seems the source for the non-Silmarillion theory is Albrecht Friedrich Karl Penck et Eduard Brückner, Die Alpen im Eiszeitalter, Leipzig, Chr. Herm. Tauchnitz, 1909. So, mine ows more to JRRT than to AFKP or EB.

            All three as a matter of fact do conflict, because all being about the cause of things like the drumlin in Andechs (if, in JRRT's case, not quite seriously and referring technical details about the Drumlin to Penck/Brückner.)

            It is true that a fantasy not intended to give literal truth about facts is in another order of being than the facts, but so is a fantasy intended to give one. I, as well as Penck/Brückner and between us Woodmorappe et al. intend to actually explain in principle and as factual information, not joke, the drumlin.

            But even if one of us is right, the fantasy which coincides with the facts and the one which seriously or jocosely contradict them have more in common ontologically than the true one (if yet given) has with the facts as physical events independent of human minds perceiving them.

            So, a fantasy and a physical fact are always in the same order of being sufficiently to either contradict or agree.

            "Those locations are real in their own way, which is not that of the cartography and geography of the Primary World of human life"

            Rather, mundane cartography and maps of Tolkien are as real about paper and minds as only one of them is translatable directly to what is real about water and rocks, to mention two of the physical objects mentioned in either cartography.

            The map of Middle-Earth is not meant to be "a spiritual place" in the same meaning as "Arras is a spiritual place" of the Grail Romance. They are only spiritual in the sense of being objects of the mind, or of paper objects meant to influence objects of the mind via the eyes. And so are the objects on any real world map.

            There is one mountain range which can be clearly related to Ural - and one coastline which is like the West coast of Africa and Europe previous to Mediterranean coming to be, if you look at the map in LotR. There are two rather small islands outside a bay, which could be imagined to have grown into Great Britain and Ireland.

            That imagination is not less real as a mental fact than supposedly scientific facts like the Thetys sea. And if only one of these can be a real map of the past at a certain moment, that of Tolkien is as likely to be right about facts of the pre-Flood past as the Thetys sea and such consecutive world maps of geology are.

            As an amateur geologist, including believer in Old Age (at least tentatively, probably a bit too eagerly) Tolkien would probably have taken some pride in construing his fantasy so that it would work as a scientific theory as well, namely not be bluntly contradicted by how a drumlin is placed. Or the fact of there being any.

            It is not superfluous or idiotic, but rather instructive to distinguish:
            * where does Silmarillion agree with known and in present observable facts?
            * where does it definitely (if anywhere) disaree with them (apart from Biblical chronology)?
            * where do known and in the present observable facts give no clue at all about possibility or impossibility of Silmarillion?

            If we take the facts like drumlin in Andechs showing there must have been a huge mass of ice gliding there, all three or four stories (my story about Nimrod, JRRT's about Morgoth, Penck/Brückner's about four ice ages, Woodmorappe's about a single one, which I agree on, but related to mechanical causes involved in Global Flood only, without spiritual significance) explain that.

            If we take the kind of facts which would rule out one or more, I see only Genesis and its genealogies.

            Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
            The proper term of comparison with Genesis 1 is not modern palaeontology or biology, but an ancient theological document like the so-called Babylonian Creation Epic - that might more accurately be called The Exaltation of Marduk. The Jews were faced by foreign polytheisms, and threats to the integrity and purity of their religion - not by doctrines of biological evolution. Gen.1-11 even contains passages - like the Flood narrative and the Tower of Babel story - that are perhaps to be understood as rebukes to Babylonian legends and ideas. To use Genesis to stave off the doctrine of evolution, or to belittle Genesis in order to advocate evolution, is a category error. And the result is not only to cause needless friction between the doctrine of creation, and the sciences, but also to fail to appreciate Genesis 1-11 in comparison with other myths of origins.
            Babylonian Creation Epic is also, for similar reasons, in conflict with things like, not just Genesis, not just Silmarillion, but also Big Bang and Evolution theories.
            http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

            Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              I'ts absurd to believe that folk tales are literally true.
              I come from Austria, where I read "Sagen aus Österreich". One of the "Sagen" deals with Richard the Lionhearted being taken captive on his way through Austria, ruled by a Duke he had insulted, and being placed in a castle called Dürnstein.

              It's a folk tale.

              If you think I should not believe that, do you believe Richard the Lionhearted and that Duke of Austria existed?

              Was Richard Lionheart a prisoner, and were they trying to and succeeding in exacting ransom?

              Was it in Austria that he was taken a prisoner, or was it in some other place not mentioned by the folk tale?
              http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

              Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                I come from Austria, where I read "Sagen aus Österreich". One of the "Sagen" deals with Richard the Lionhearted being taken captive on his way through Austria, ruled by a Duke he had insulted, and being placed in a castle called Dürnstein.

                It's a folk tale.

                If you think I should not believe that, do you believe Richard the Lionhearted and that Duke of Austria existed?

                Was Richard Lionheart a prisoner, and were they trying to and succeeding in exacting ransom?

                Was it in Austria that he was taken a prisoner, or was it in some other place not mentioned by the folk tale?
                Richard the Lion-heart is Richard 1 of England, a well documented historical figure as is Leopold V, Duke of Austria whereas, in comparison, the bible stories are folk-tales concerning an alleged miracle-working prophet and cannot be viewed as historically accurate.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  Richard the Lion-heart is Richard 1 of England, a well documented historical figure as is Leopold V, Duke of Austria whereas, in comparison, the bible stories are folk-tales concerning an alleged miracle-working prophet and cannot be viewed as historically accurate.
                  Richard Lion-Heart's existence and that of Leopold V, I was not asking about these.

                  English chroniclers (which is what I presume you mean by "well documented") were hardly bothering whether it was Dürnstein or elsewhere he was kept prisoner.

                  I know, so far, this fact only from the Austrian folk tale and from authors so late they could very easily depend on it.

                  Folk tales have an origin, and often in fact.
                  http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                  Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                    Richard Lion-Heart's existence and that of Leopold V, I was not asking about these.

                    English chroniclers (which is what I presume you mean by "well documented") were hardly bothering whether it was Dürnstein or elsewhere he was kept prisoner.

                    I know, so far, this fact only from the Austrian folk tale and from authors so late they could very easily depend on it.

                    Folk tales have an origin, and often in fact.
                    Many folk-tales have an origin in fact but it’s near impossible to discern just how much they may have been misremembered and embellished over time...especially those of a religious nature where the intention is to impress and convince the audience. But, as you indicate with your Dürnstein example, some folk-tales are more reliable than others.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      But, as you indicate with your Dürnstein example, some folk-tales are more reliable than others.
                      I am rather taking the Dürnstein example as very typical.

                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      Many folk-tales have an origin in fact
                      If you mean popular legend as opposed to popular entertainment fairy tale, it is more like asking whether there even are any folk tales that do not have an origin in fact.

                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      but it’s near impossible to discern just how much they may have been misremembered and embellished over time
                      That is antipopular prejudice, and the changes or more often banale adaptations or even leaving things out than embellishing.

                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      especially those of a religious nature where the intention is to impress and convince the audience.
                      The intention when telling things is usually to inform on fact.

                      In religious cases, facts are almost always impressive, unless there is also religious actual fraud and not just folk tale.
                      http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                      Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                        Richard Lion-Heart's existence and that of Leopold V, I was not asking about these.

                        English chroniclers (which is what I presume you mean by "well documented") were hardly bothering whether it was Dürnstein or elsewhere he was kept prisoner.

                        I know, so far, this fact only from the Austrian folk tale and from authors so late they could very easily depend on it.

                        Folk tales have an origin, and often in fact.
                        Ancient mythology, legends, and folk tales may have a limited origin in facts, but many do not. The limited and I mean limited factual basis in these ancient accounts is not a reason for justifying their degree of factual basis in history.

                        The myths and legends of Genesis are indeed rooted in older folk stories from Babylonian, Ugarite, Canaanite, and Phoenician myths and legends. The myth of a catastrophic world flood is indeed common to most ancient cultures, often attributed to Divine retribution, are related to geomorphological evidence for local and region floods which are common events in history. Other common events like catastrophic earthquakes are also attributed to Divine intervention in ancient cultures world wide.
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-24-2016, 11:37 AM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          Ancient mythology, legends, and folk tales may have a limited origin in facts, but many do not. The limited and I mean limited factual basis in these ancient accounts is not a reason for justifying their degree of factual basis in history.
                          You presume the origin in fact is "I mean limited". Prove it. You say "many do not". Examples?

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          The myths and legends of Genesis are indeed rooted in older folk stories from Babylonian, Ugarite, Canaanite, and Phoenician myths and legends.
                          According to a popular urban legend, not rooted in fact but in bad Prussian scholarship.

                          Logically speaking, the similarities give three possible interpretations:

                          * 1) a factual account was correctly or less correctly preserved from event to extant versions of traditions

                          (and this gives something of a measure on how much tradition can distort an account, at least if one side for theological reasons decide to distort it)

                          * 2) Babylonians etc borrowed a non-factual Hebrew account but with deliberate theological modifications of polytheistic inspiration
                          * 3) Hebrews borrowed Babylonian etc non-factual accounts but with deliberate theological modifications of monotheistic inspiration.

                          The bad Prussian scholar was only deciding between 2 and 3, first because as Evolutionist he was a gradualist, and second because he shared your prejudice about "folk tales".

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          The myth of a catastrophic world flood is indeed common to most ancient cultures, often attributed to Divine retribution, are related to geomorphological evidence for local and region floods which are common events in history.
                          The geomorphological evidence is actually such that it supports a global flood - which of course can imply a support of very many regional and local ones.

                          The commonality to most ancient cultures is rather an evidence the folk tale is fact based.

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          Other common events like catastrophic earthquakes are also attributed to Divine intervention in ancient cultures world wide.
                          I attribute the Earthquake in St Benedict's basilica in Nursia/Norcia to divine intervention to this day. The benedictines should not have been supporting "Pope Francis", especially after his deciding to visit ecumenically the worst Lutherans available in Sweden - the regular version of the State Church or former such.
                          http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                          Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                            Logically speaking, the similarities give three possible interpretations:

                            * 1) a factual account was correctly or less correctly preserved from event to extant versions of traditions

                            (and this gives something of a measure on how much tradition can distort an account, at least if one side for theological reasons decide to distort it)

                            * 2) Babylonians etc borrowed a non-factual Hebrew account but with deliberate theological modifications of polytheistic inspiration
                            * 3) Hebrews borrowed Babylonian etc non-factual accounts but with deliberate theological modifications of monotheistic inspiration.
                            The evidence indicates that the written records that include the flood, and similar myths, predate any possible known Hebrew written language, and other sections of the Old Testament like the Psalms contain excerpts of more ancient known written texts before any known written Hebrew language.


                            The geomorphological evidence is actually such that it supports a global flood - which of course can imply a support of very many regional and local ones.

                            The commonality to most ancient cultures is rather an evidence the folk tale is fact based.
                            I am a geologist and a geomorphologist with published papers. The evidence of local and regional flooding are of different types of floods at different dated times, some separated by in some cases thousands of years, of occurrence in history and not related in a worldwide context. The evidence does not remotely support any sort of worldwide event. The commonality of the folk tales does not remotely related to one event. In fact most of the world land surface shows no evidence of a catastrophic flood at any time.

                            I attribute the Earthquake in St Benedict's basilica in Nursia/Norcia to divine intervention to this day. The benedictines should not have been supporting "Pope Francis", especially after his deciding to visit ecumenically the worst Lutherans available in Sweden - the regular version of the State Church or former such.
                            Such earthquakes occur in regions of natural occurrence, and natural explanations. This is one anecdotal claim which fails when compared to the over all pattern and occurrence of earthquakes in human history and the geologic record. Actually this region Seismically is a plate of broken glass with common historical earth quakes with documented natural causes.
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-24-2016, 01:23 PM.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                              I am rather taking the Dürnstein example as very typical.
                              No! The “Dürnstein example” is history, not a folk-tale. A folk-tale by definition means: “A story originating in popular culture typically passed on by word of mouth”. (Oxford Dictionary). In short, 'oral tradition'.

                              That is antipopular prejudice, and the changes or more often banale adaptations or even leaving things out than embellishing.
                              Oral tradition is typically embellished, as are the resultant narratives based upon it...including the gospels.

                              The intention when telling things is usually to inform on fact.

                              In religious cases, facts are almost always impressive, unless there is also religious actual fraud and not just folk tale.
                              Religious stories are embellished to make them more wondrous than they actually are in an effort to impress, convince and convert others. It’s no accident that “most contemporary scholars agree that from a purely historical perspective Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of Pontius Pilate”. Raymond E Brown. ‘The Death of the Messiah’. IOW most contemporary scholars discount the miraculous elements surrounding the Jesus story.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                The evidence indicates that the written records that include the flood, and similar myths, predate any possible known Hebrew written language, and other sections of the Old Testament like the Psalms contain excerpts of more ancient known written texts before any known written Hebrew language.
                                It is possible that the Hebrew language was not written very early, and rather certain we don't have papyri or tablets dated to before Babylonian tablets (unless there is some Smithsonian conspiracy to hide them, as with giants). This is to the point exactly how?

                                I am talking about Hebrew tradition, not about Hebrew manuscripts.

                                That the earliest Adamic tradition was Hebrew from start is evidenced by the tradition that Hebrews did not participate in Tower Building of Babel and were therefore spared the dispersion of tongues. They just needed to keep successfully shirking from Nimrod's slave hunters, that is all.

                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                I am a geologist and a geomorphologist with published papers. The evidence of local and regional flooding are of different types of floods at different dated times, some separated by in some cases thousands of years, of occurrence in history and not related in a worldwide context. The evidence does not remotely support any sort of worldwide event. The commonality of the folk tales does not remotely related to one event. In fact most of the world land surface shows no evidence of a catastrophic flood at any time.
                                I suppose you don't consider Alps or Himalaya as evidence for the Flood, or the Lagerstätten of Cretaceous or Permian or whatever else fossils? I do.

                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Such earthquakes occur in regions of natural occurrence, and natural explanations. This is one anecdotal claim which fails when compared to the over all pattern and occurrence of earthquakes in human history and the geologic record. Actually this region Seismically is a plate of broken glass with common historical earth quakes with documented natural causes.
                                Existence of natural explanations does not preclude them from expressing God's providence.

                                If you find a parking place when you pray for it, there is usually a natural explanation to why the parking place was free, but this does not preclude the prayer being heard from being an answer by God's providence.

                                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                No! The “Dürnstein example” is history, not a folk-tale. A folk-tale by definition means: “A story originating in popular culture typically passed on by word of mouth”. (Oxford Dictionary). In short, 'oral tradition'.
                                But so far, I have my best and most complete version of the Dürnstein example from precisely Nether Austrian oral tradition, as collected by an anthropologist or a team of such around a hundred years ago. If you speak German, check out Sagen aus Österreich. My point is, oral tradition is usually rather reliable.

                                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                Oral tradition is typically embellished, as are the resultant narratives based upon it...including the gospels.
                                I don't know what you mean by embellished, but if you mean "by events that did not really occur, recognisable by feeling larger than life", I think you are totally wrong about what is typical.

                                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                Religious stories are embellished to make them more wondrous than they actually are in an effort to impress, convince and convert others. It’s no accident that “most contemporary scholars agree that from a purely historical perspective Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of Pontius Pilate”. Raymond E Brown. ‘The Death of the Messiah’. IOW most contemporary scholars discount the miraculous elements surrounding the Jesus story.
                                You don't regard oral tradition as a reliable source. I don't regard contemporary scholars as a typically reliable source. Especially not those who take this type of stand.

                                By the way, his stated "most contemporary scholars" only refers to scholars with his type of Academic credentials (which are the wrong ones), or even, "most" can have been one of the errors of transmission of an oral tradition within Academia.
                                http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                                Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                142 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                425 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X