Tweet
Originally posted by grmorton
View Post
-
We had a nasty exchange on something concerning global warming years ago and I just wanted to say publicly that I wish a fellow scientist good luck in your health. -
The problem is what is the source of this fallible nature of humanity, which is fact that they can be very good, and very bad. I do not believe that Adam and Eve can be held accountable as the cause and scape goat for the sinful nature of humanity. Actually I believe more in the Jewish view of Genesis similar to the Baha'i view that there can be multiple understandings and interpretations for Genesis as well as lesson for the nature of being human.Originally posted by grmorton View Post
The Baha'i Faith considers Adam a real person in history and the beginning of the Adamic cycle in the evolution of the spiritual nature of humanity. One interpretation is that He is the first Manifestation of God to have a soul, and know God.
Sorry to hear that. My brother passed away from cancer in July and my brother in law is having a difficult time with Melanoma. I visited my family in Maryland last weekend.Hanging in, have kept the cancer at bay for 12 years so far, but it appears to be getting out of hand. Will know more in a few months.
Rock on and go with the flow the river knows . . .Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-31-2015, 10:12 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
-
I agree with all of what you say Rogue, I also think it would be embarassing for these academics to come out and endorse Balaam's donkey. As I said above, God is a useless appendage to their scientific views and God makes no difference in the story they would tell from that which their non-believing colleagues would tell.Originally posted by rogue06 View PostIncreasingly feeling my age
You? I know you had/have some serious health issues recently. 
I wonder if the fact that you are largely familiar with TEs who are scientists if that does not color their view somewhat. What I mean is that they are trained to look for natural explanations for things. Still, it surprises me that so many in your acquaintance would outright reject many miracles because, as you note, they do allow for the Resurrection which is a major miracle. The small handful of TEs that I know who are scientists are more like me than those who simply dismiss the miracles described in the OT.
Also, just because something might have a "natural explanation" doesn't automatically discount a miraculous element. Returning to the example of Lot's wife, even if turning into a pillar of salt is "merely" a way of saying that she had a stroke and died the very fact that it appears to have happened the moment that she disobeyed God's instructions seems to be more than mere coincidence.
And you may be correct that my experience with scientific academics who are Christians has colored my views of TE's. I always thought about that verse where Jesus says, If you deny me before men...
I have discussed health in other posts tonight (and I want no one feeling sorry for me, I have lived an incredible life). I want to comment on Lot's wife. Assuming your idiomatic interpretation is correct, I agree that it would still be a miracle of God. I love hot and spicy food. About the time I got my cancer, I started eating habaneros. Why? Cause Jalepenos had lost their thrill. So for 10 years, my consumption of habaneros increased. Then in the summer of 2013 the physicians assistant told me that I was the healthiest person she was going to see that day. Given the prognosis when my cancer was discovered in 2003 and the re-prognosis when it came back in 2007 requiring 7 weeks of radiation which didn't kill it off, I got to wondering what in the heck I might be doing differently to keep me healthy. I knew I ate hot peppers and most folk did. I found the following article in the premier Cancer journal--http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/66/6/3222.long. Look at figure 6. Mice given my kind of cancer and fed large doses of capsaicin had their cancers shrink. the authors in public interviews said it was equivalent to about 8 habaneros a week for a fat guy like me.
I had been eating that many habs for years. I can eat 9 at one sitting at lunch. Now, I had known nothing about hot peppers until 2013. Now, I consider it a miracle that just as I got cancer, I was given the desire to eat the really hot peppers. I believe that that was God's blessing on me. I suspect, can't prove, that my high capsaicin diet has helped holding my cancer back. I might be wrong about that, but, I do know, ultimately God has kept me around and if He chose to use habaneros, that is fine with me.
I know the atheists will claim fluke, but the timing was just like your example with Lot's wife. Knowledge came later.
Habs are not a cure, they do seem to delay the game. One guy guzzled habanero sauce (and my daughter in law called him a wimp for his small quantity),and it lowered the doubling time of his cancer. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2825034/
So, is this a miracle of timing for me? I think so, but one can't prove miracles.
Edited to add, since I left here, I retired from Anadarko as Exploration director for China, had radiation, then started starting businesses. I have run 4 different entrepreneurial endeavors, including selling a novel method of seismic inversion a real estate rental company, my ranch, and a geophysical consulting business. I suspect I will be having more time in the future given the price of oil. I may be taking a long vacation from two of my businesses. lolLast edited by grmorton; 07-31-2015, 10:31 PM.Comment
-
Sorry to hear about your brother. My brother died of cancer at age 29. Cancer is an obscenity.Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
If one looks at some of quantum's effects, backward causation may be possible, whereby our actions influence Adam and Eve as much as their actions influence us. Consider that if you look at a photon passing by a galaxy 2 billion years away, and you use particle detectors, you will see the photon go on one side or the other of the galaxy. But a person using wave detection equipment standing beside you will see the photon wave going on both sides of the galaxy. Our choice of which equipment with which to view the photon determines the photons behavior 2 billion years ago. There is a weird connectedness
with the past.
Take care my friend. Sorry for your loss, those times are toughComment
-
Thank you. I suspect neither of our views have changed. lolOriginally posted by Sea of red View PostComment
-
Unless I was misreading him, shunyadragon seemed to be suggesting that all OEC/TEs believe that Adam and Eve were specially created. But TEs like Leonhard and rogue seem to lean towards the idea that Adam and Eve were hominids of the non-special creation variety. As Leonhard put it they were possibly taken from a tribe of hominids, and given the gift of being the image bearers of God.Originally posted by grmorton View Post
OECs/TEs that do lean towards the idea Adam and Eve were specially created (I include myself in this group) don't necessarily have a problem with identifying Adam and Eve as hominids, but, being as they were specially created, I think it may be safe to say they weren't exactly part of the greater evolutionary chain. At least, in that they didn't themselves have ancestors. They were unique in some fashion (I think spiritually). They're descendants likely intermingled with other hominin, perhaps extinct species, or mixed species. (By the by, the personal genome website 23andme suggests that I'm 2.8% Neanderthal)Comment
-
The point is your belief in Adam and Eve as historical individuals, an actual couple, who were the first two human beings to know God. When and where do you believe they existed and what is your evidence for this belief? Is it simply belief in revelatory Baha'i texts or is it philosophical or based on some kind of genetic or archeological evidence or what? Did all human beings with souls having the capability of knowing God descend biologically from this first couple? Was their belief in God somehow instrumental in their evolutionary survival or are there still other quasi human creatures existing without this capability of knowing God?Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostLast edited by robrecht; 08-01-2015, 01:08 AM.βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃Comment
-
That was not the point of your assertion that belief in Adam as an actual person indicates some sort of literal interpretation of Genesis 1.Originally posted by robrecht View Post
Yes, it is in the Baha'i writings that Adam was the first manifestation of God in the Adamic cycle. The Baha'i Faith does not give a specific time in the past for the existence of Adam and Eve, nor does it describe Adam as the first physical human being. Yes, all humans descended from Adam and Eve have the capability to know God.
The scientific evidence for the Mitochondrial Eve and other genetic evidence indicates that humans evolve from a 'small' population in Africa 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. The first Adam could be interpreted as part of this 'small' population, and all modern humans descended from this Adam as the father of all modern humans, which would fit the science for evolution.
There is no philosophical (?) nor archeological basis for this belief.Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-01-2015, 06:27 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
-
No, it's an issue of context, and no, context is not subjective, and neither is interpretation. This is essentially saying that the truth of the Bible is subjective. You really need to rethink what you are saying. If these meanings are subjective, then I can just say your whole post agrees with me. Do you really want to go down that road?Originally posted by grmorton View Post
Oh, and remind me to say that interpretation is subjective next time I'm in Nat. Sci. 301, let's see how well that works.
I notice you din't answer this, and apparently didn't quote it properly.Originally posted by Cerebrum123
Actually, yours is the deterministic viewpoint because it necessitates God creating Satan to be evil, instead of doing what you describe here, and allowing such deviation to be possible. Again, nothing about free will necessitates that evil will follow.I beg to differ. If God wanted to give true freedom to a being so that he could actually choose for himself, it means he had to create a universe in which things could deviate from the perfect, deviate from his deterministic plan. Such a view of the universe is exactly like the universe envisioned by the materialists who deny we have souls and deny free will. I gather you have not read much of the philosophical literature on free will. Daniel Dennett takes La Place's position and claims that determinism means we have no free will. Determinism, remember is a totally determined universe, one which cant deviate from its course.
This doesn't address anything I've said at all.What Dennett doesn't really take into consideration is the thing that foils this materialistic determinism--quantum particles which pop into and out of existence, perturbing this predictable course of particles. quantum is what gives us freedom, but it brings with it, evolution. God created a world where the substrate of nature IS capable of deviation from the good as well. And in that sense, God created the best possible world, but not a perfect world.
Evolution necessitates a creation built on the evil of the last enemy which is death. The Bible says God created a "very good" creation, not an evil one. There is also the fact that only God Himself is perfect, yet He called the finished creation very good, which necessitates that it was free from moral evil, and as close as possible as any created thing can get to perfection.
Evolution requires the death of the unfit to work, and thus requires evil to operate. Animal death is not what God intended, and in the future he will do away with it so that even what are considered obligate carnivores no longer eat meat. Just like they were originally designed to be according to Genesis 1.
Isaiah 11:6-8New International Version (NIV)
6 The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling[a] together;
and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
Genesis 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.*” And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Genesis 9:1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants*, I now give you everything.
You can have the last word, as you've not been dealing with what I've said so far at all.
*Same phrase used for both plants being given to animals, and how plants were given to mankind for food. They are to be understood the same, that animals were originally intended to be vegetarian like humans were. If you say interpretation is subjective again, I'll take it to mean that you agree with me, since that's my subjective interpretation of your words.
Comment
-
Yes, it was my point. My reading of Genesis is that at least one/some of the original authors did not consider Adam and Eve to have been historical persons, whereas your Baha'i beliefs are based on a more literal belief in a historical core element behind the text. That is indeed a more literal reading of the text. You neglected one of my questions so I will ask again. If indeed all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, who were not necessarily the first physical human beings, was belief in God somehow instrumental in their descendents' evolutionary survival? Why would other physical human beings, those who did not know God, if they existed, not survive?Originally posted by shunyadragon View Postβλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃Comment
-
That's unfortunate, because the evidence is mounting that humans have influenced the naturally changing cyclic climate pattern. The question remains as to what degree this influence is.Originally posted by grmorton View PostGlendower: 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
-
I do not consider this an adequate analogy to justify the 'Fall' and Original Sin.'Originally posted by grmorton View Post
Thank you!Take care my friend. Sorry for your loss, those times are toughGlendower: 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
-
Having recently been instructed by a YEC to give Genesis a natural reading without any reference to theologists' explanations of the verse, and then see where the reading leads, I did as he suggested.Originally posted by Mossrose
What might be created before it has any physical existence?
The house, as one example, has been created the moment that the architect's blueprints are complete. An artist can see the blueprints and paint a picture of the house before any groundwork has even begun - it might be said that the artist looks upon the house and assesses it as good.
The novelist creates people, events and places, maybe even entire universes, that never existed and never will.
Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth, and the Earth was without form and void."
It starts with a natural reading of the verse: Having been created, the Earth had no shape and no content: in short, the Earth did not physically exist.
From there ...1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛Comment
-
-
YesOriginally posted by Adrift View Post1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛Comment
Comment