Evidence for God from Science

Hugh: First Philip believed in the literal meaning of every word of the bible, and that any 'interpretation' version must not be correct

I did not say that EVERY word was meant to be taken literally. But I did say and mean that ALL of Scripture is "God-breathed" - that's what it says about itself. That's what the Apostles assert. That is what Christ asserted about the OT and the words of God. And what they also assert is that these fantastical, miraculous things, that people so often dismiss as myth, ARE meant to be taken literally. Again, there are figurative words and meanings in Scripture. There is metaphor. There is poetry. But if you don't take a foundational story, so important to the understandings of the fall, sin, the need for a savior, as speaking of REAL people - of which quite a few other places in Scripture, including the New Testament, saw them as literal, then you have to discount much of Scripture, including the New Testament, and including what Christ said about God's word, and what He very specifically said about the Old Testament. Don't believe it? Fine. Just don't assert that you can have any confidence in much of Scripture as being true/factual/historical or as understandable. And so many parts, like with Adam and Eve, the Flood, the plagues in Egypt, etc. - if they are only symbolic, then what the heck are they symbolic OF???!!! Either God allowed His word to become entangled in myth and imagination, and didn't mean for it to be understood - or He DID, as Christ and the Apostles frequently assert, concerning so many such miraculous passagers, that they ARE true, as commonly understood, even if the details of things like the Creation are explicitly spelled out.

Hugh: then he said that the bible did have to be 'interpreted', and the question became one of difference of interpretation; and now we're back to the literal/non-literal position again. I support my position with archaeology, history, science and Catholic doctrine; his is the entirely self-referential position that because the bible says it's the word of God, therefore it must be, which is logically unsound. His personal defense of this position consists of unsupported dogmatic assertions and rhetorical questions.

So, Hugh, the Bible says it is the word of God, but you question that (as in above) - and even though Catholic teachings validate much of what you question as being literal. So, you have no confidence that the Bible can be understood, and you don't believe what the Apostles or Jesus say about this subject. So why should we believe it necessary to have faith in Christ - how do you KNOW that, from writings that you question their literal understandings or the Divine origins of. You just can't logically have it both ways!


IF GOD gave and inspired all Scripture, as originally recorded, then how can one assert that to be impossible? You apparently assert that Scripture is God-given but that much of its key teachings are in some way symbolic and not to be literally understood - particularly, key, foundational passages that the rest depends upon to make sense. So, my questions are several: Was and is God in control of His word or not? If it is not to be understood, then what is its purpose or value, as how would we know what is what? The apostles and Jesus state that God's word is entirely trustworthy, but you would assert only that this means it is somehow God's word, but with much of it not literally true (as it is unscientific, etc.)

I do not believe that this statement is true "Hugh! NO interpretation - individual or collective is the measure of correct doctrine." Has Philip any evidence that it is?

It's what the Apostles and Jesus state to be true! You either believe it or not. And if you don't believe that, why believe anything they recorded or said that was recorded?

Hugh: I do not believe this statement "You do not see in the New Testament the apostles poring over words inspired by God, and then debating or voting on the meaning of such so as to interpret them." On the contrary, the apostles were continually puzzled by almost everything Jesus said, and frequently argued amongst themselves. While on earth Jesus attempted to make things clearer while he could, and as soon as he wasn't they started squabbling again - hence the divisions between Peter and Paul and the injunctions in most of Paul's letters.

What I mean is, you don't see them agonizing over what is commonly understood by them to be literal, as if it might not be. Yes, prior to the Resurrection, they struggled with understandings. And if you think they contradicted each other, you need to study theology more. When they assert teachings they are giving others, do you not understand that they believe 1) what they are teaching is factually true, and 2) that they expect their audiences to understand things plainly explained, just as it is given? Because, IF your answer to that is that we can't be expected to literally believe much of what is recorded in the New Testament - really, how can you have any confidence in ANY of it? Do we REALLY need to have faith in Jesus? WHY? Who said? Did they REALLY and literally mean that? How do you know? Maybe they were mistaken? Maybe it is symbolic? Maybe the author was mistaken when it records Jesus words about the Old Testament. Really, such a view makes the Bible worthless to you, as you have absolutely no way of knowing what is true and what is not. And so much of what was said and recorded cannot be discerned by science or archaeology, etc.

And, Hugh Farey, your beliefs about Adam and Eve are not in sync with Catholic teachings (from Catholic.com):


Adam and Eve: Real People
It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:But you are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom sin originated and propagated to the human race. That is de fide hugh.

Interesting.

Can you post the proof of that?

If it is so then that makes zero chance of me ever being a Christian.
Its a complete insult to anyonevwith half a brain, fully on a par with
being required to believe J Smith found gold books.

That's an emotional response as it clearly demonstrates you did not read a word I said.

Oh? then who did say this?

But you are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom sin originated and propagated to the human race. That is de fide hugh.

Of course I said that, but where in any of what I said above or elsewhere did I even remotely suggest anything related to biology or evolution in any way? Unless you're not referring to biological evolution yourself, in which case my apology for the wrong assumption. But in that case you would need to elaborate on what you meant because it doesn't make sense to me.

Philip, you are only reiterating your previous comments, without apparently reading mine. I wish you well.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: Interesting.

Can you post the proof of that?

If it is so then that makes zero chance of me ever being a Christian.
Its a complete insult to anyonevwith half a brain, fully on a par with
being required to believe J Smith found gold books.

That's an emotional response as it clearly demonstrates you did not read a word I said.

Oh? then who did say this?

But you are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom sin originated and propagated to the human race. That is de fide hugh.

Of course I said that, but where in any of what I said above or elsewhere did I even remotely suggest anything related to biology or evolution in any way? Unless you're not referring to biological evolution yourself, in which case my apology for the wrong assumption. But in that case you would need to elaborate on what you meant because it doesn't make sense to me.

I dont suppose you intend it that way but the 'emotional response' thing is real easy to
interpret as a way to negate any value to the other person's words. You know?

In any case, I certainly did read what you wrote.

I do recognize that such concepts as below are of great meaning and value to Christians.


But you are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom sin originated and propagated to the human race.

And I could have kept my comment to myself. My capacity to accept such and yours are quite different. I might make a theist of so me sort some day, but a Christian, no, and
that is an example of why. It has little-to-nothing to do with "evolution: per se.

Hugh: Philip, you are only reiterating your previous comments, without apparently reading mine. I wish you well.

No, Hugh, I read them. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Have a great week!

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

If it is so then that makes zero chance of me ever being a Christian.
Its a complete insult to anyonevwith half a brain, fully on a par with
being required to believe J Smith found gold books.

That's an emotional response as it clearly demonstrates you did not read a word I said.

Oh? then who did say this?

But you are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom sin originated and propagated to the human race. That is de fide hugh.

Of course I said that, but where in any of what I said above or elsewhere did I even remotely suggest anything related to biology or evolution in any way? Unless you're not referring to biological evolution yourself, in which case my apology for the wrong assumption. But in that case you would need to elaborate on what you meant because it doesn't make sense to me.

I dont suppose you intend it that way but the 'emotional response' thing is real easy to
interpret as a way to negate any value to the other person's words. You know?

You're right, we ought to weigh our words more before choosing them. I meant it in the sense that it seemed to me as a knee-jerk response. I'm not sure that changes your read on it (I hope it does) but what I can tell you for certain is that it was not meant in a derogatory or dismissive way at all.

Audie wrote:In any case, I certainly did read what you wrote.

I do recognize that such concepts as below are of great meaning and value to Christians.


But you are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom sin originated and propagated to the human race.

And I could have kept my comment to myself. My capacity to accept such and yours are quite different. I might make a theist of so me sort some day, but a Christian, no, and
that is an example of why. It has little-to-nothing to do with "evolution: per se.

Then help me understand. If not from an evolutionary perspective then on what basis do you reject the possibility that our spiritual parents can be traced back to Adam and Eve?

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:
That's an emotional response as it clearly demonstrates you did not read a word I said.

Oh? then who did say this?

But you are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom sin originated and propagated to the human race. That is de fide hugh.

Of course I said that, but where in any of what I said above or elsewhere did I even remotely suggest anything related to biology or evolution in any way? Unless you're not referring to biological evolution yourself, in which case my apology for the wrong assumption. But in that case you would need to elaborate on what you meant because it doesn't make sense to me.

I dont suppose you intend it that way but the 'emotional response' thing is real easy to
interpret as a way to negate any value to the other person's words. You know?

You're right, we ought to weigh our words more before choosing them. I meant it in the sense that it seemed to me as a knee-jerk response. I'm not sure that changes your read on it (I hope it does) but what I can tell you for certain is that it was not meant in a derogatory way at all.

Audie wrote:In any case, I certainly did read what you wrote.

I do recognize that such concepts as below are of great meaning and value to Christians.


But you are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom sin originated and propagated to the human race.

And I could have kept my comment to myself. My capacity to accept such and yours are quite different. I might make a theist of so me sort some day, but a Christian, no, and
that is an example of why. It has little-to-nothing to do with "evolution: per se.

Then help me understand. If not from an evolutionary perspective then on what basis do you reject the possibility that our spiritual parents can be traced back to Adam and Eve?

Thanks on the clarification. "Knee jerk" of course, may mean utterly without thought.
Automatic. But then, it is immediate, no thought needed, to be unreceptive when the mormons come to call. You have, after all, long since measured their ideas in the balance and found them wanting. That is the nature of my response to the A and E thing.

If a person had a time machine, or there were a reception line of all your ancestors
and you went back along the line, I do not believe there would ever be any "Adam and Eve' by those or any other names.

It would be quite the experience, i'd like an afterlife just for that! And I'd sure have to hope I am worthy of all their struggle and sacrifice, that let my life be possible.

And yeah, I believe that as one went down the line, you'd see ancestors less and less and less like me, or any other human, living or otherwise.

"Spiritual parents"..? I dont know what that means, prease exprain?

Audie wrote:

And yeah, I believe that as one went down the line, you'd see ancestors less and less and less like me, or any other human, living or otherwise

Audie,

No matter where I have ever looked, I don't see anyone quite like you!

Evolution might be a story that explains the physical, however there is nothing to explain our consciousness, intentions, creativity, spirituality and the like -- and why we amongst all creatures possess such to a high degree.

So as it turns out, evolution is too simple. While it explains humans as physical animals, it explains very little about what makes humans "human". It doesn't really explain much about us at all.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

And yeah, I believe that as one went down the line, you'd see ancestors less and less and less like me, or any other human, living or otherwise

Audie,

No matter where I have ever looked, I don't see anyone quite like you!

Ha. You would not know it was me or not.

Kurieuo wrote:Evolution might be a story that explains the physical, however there is nothing to explain our consciousness, intentions, creativity, spirituality and the like -- and why we amongst all creatures possess such to a high degree.

So as it turns out, evolution is too simple. While it explains humans as physical animals, it explains very little about what makes humans "human". It doesn't really explain much about us at all.

"To such a high degree". Think 'bout that.

Audie wrote: "Spiritual parents"..? I dont know what that means, prease exprain?

I think we're talking past each other so let me suggest a summary and a regrouping.

You had objected to my statement to hugh about Adam and Eve. In turn, I had clarified that if your objection had anything to do with evolution then it's no objection at all since what I said is concerning our link to Adam and Eve in the spiritual sense, not the physical.

You then assured me your objection had nothing to do with evolution, to which I asked for clarification. And now you come back with an argument from evolution.

Let me see if I can restate my position more clearly. I have no issue one way or another with evolution including common descent. I was asked how I can reconcile my theism with evolution and presented a case where Adam and Eve are the recipients of the first rational soul which makes them our spritual ancestors (if not biological).

Now, given that I have no issue with evolution, what do you base your objection?

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote: "Spiritual parents"..? I dont know what that means, prease exprain?

I think we're talking past each other so let me suggest a summary and a regrouping.

You had objected to my statement to hugh about Adam and Eve. In turn, I had clarified that if your objection had anything to do with evolution then it's no objection at all since what I said is concerning our link to Adam and Eve in the spiritual sense, not the physical.

You then assured me your objection had nothing to do with evolution, to which I asked for clarification. And now you come back with an argument from evolution.

Let me see if I can restate my position more clearly. I have no issue one way or another with evolution including common descent. I was asked how I can reconcile my theism with evolution and presented a case where Adam and Eve are the recipients of the first rational soul which makes them our spritual ancestors (if not biological).

Now, given that I have no issue with evolution, what do you base your objection?

It is just a story, from my prrspective.

But I like your explanation if it.

Good enough place to exit the topic?

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Evolution might be a story that explains the physical, however there is nothing to explain our consciousness, intentions, creativity, spirituality and the like -- and why we amongst all creatures possess such to a high degree.

So as it turns out, evolution is too simple. While it explains humans as physical animals, it explains very little about what makes humans "human". It doesn't really explain much about us at all.

"To such a high degree". Think 'bout that.

I have, please explain how the physical body accounts for consciousness in any way and you'd have solved a centuries old problem (i.e., the mind-body problem).