The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Tarsonis]

Is this where you pretend to know anything about me? Oh. Yep! It is. Particularly since all but one your “reasonable” assumptions were completely wrong.
Sarcasm doesn’t work when you misread the context entirely, mate.
If you had bothered reading beyond the words “Occam’s Razor”, you’d have realized that I was using it to say that assuming that God had gone into Adam’s genes and made a bunch of mutations to make Eve at a greater rate than what would naturally happen is a bad argument. Didn’t use it to prove anything. Didn’t use it to disprove anything. Just discarded the idea of divine intervention beyond that which is already stated in the Bible. But no, you go ahead, try to score some more points.

I wasn’t aware that one had to agree with every single idea put out by a person in order to use some of their ideas. The Protestants on this thread probably don’t agree with Luther’s attacks on Jews. Einstein May have been wrong about the universal constant, but physics without his work would suck. I’m not sure why I get held to higher standards.

I imagine it’s the irony of using a priests idea as anti-theist argument.

[Kowani]

I wasn’t aware that one had to agree with every single idea put out by a person in order to use some of their ideas. The Protestants on this thread probably don’t agree with Luther’s attacks on Jews. Einstein May have been wrong about the universal constant, but physics without his work would suck. I’m not sure why I get held to higher standards.

Okay, I see why that would raise some eyebrows. But, irony is delicious, and so I must use it.
I imagine it’s the irony of using a priests idea as anti-theist argument.

[Tarsonis]

Okay, I see why that would raise some eyebrows. But, irony is delicious, and so I must use it.
I imagine it’s the irony of using a priests idea as anti-theist argument.

Sure, anyway one point of fact checking your debate with dio, the Church only requires a belief in a literal fall, imparted upon humanity by its first ancestors. It does not necessarily require a literal belief in genesis 2-3 (really 1-11 can all be taken figuratively. Once we get to Abraham that’s where the requirements really begin)

[Luminesa]

"Only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover." - William of Ockham, English Franciscan friar, logician, and theologian; known for Occam's (Ockham's) Razor

That’s not Occam’s Razor, mate. The actual Razor goes like this: Plurality must never be posited without necessity, and although the more well known version is technically not his, although it goes like this: Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity. What does this mean? Make as few assumptions as necessary to come to one’s conclusion. While the quote is absolutely wonderful, it doesn’t actually prove anything. It is an unsupported assertion.

It's not like there's a particularly hard and fast line between the two

Uhh...what? From Merriam-Webster.
Astrophysics-a branch of astronomy dealing especially with the behavior, physical properties, and dynamic processes of celestial objects and phenomena.
Geology-a science that deals with the history of the earth and its life especially as recorded in rocks
And although there is a second definition of geology that does have some overlap (a study of the solid matter of a celestial body), the only geology we can use on celestial bodies is the moon. The line is pretty easy to see, since astrophysics is far more than just the earth, and far more than the solid matter of anything. Additionally, uniformitarianism is an idea pretty specific to earth, what with empirical studies on everything else being somewhat difficult.

Adam had no harmful genes. Neither did Eve, because barring the genetic differences required to make a female female, they're genetically identical. Therefore the genes for hemophilia, the hapsburg chin, etc cannot be passed onto their children because they don't exist. Such genes began accumulating in their children- baraminology supposes a far higher rate of genetic mutation in past generations than the present, so genetic diversity increases from a base of whatever the differences to distinguish male and female constitute. Adam and Eve were both, genetically speaking, 100% fit. Their 33 sons and daughters(a pious tradition not officially found in scripture or taught by the church, but let's go with that) slightly less so, but more genetically diverse. Harmful genes can only be passed on once they begin to accumulate.
This also applies to the immediate aftermath of the fall; far fewer harmful genes existed at the time.

If they are genetically identical, then the children would suffer from genetic diseases all the same. It is not that they have harmful genes. (Speaking of which, your supposition about mutation rates in the past is something that we both know you can’t prove, so you really don’t get to hold it up as a cornerstone of your argument), it is that those 33 children will have more recessive genes than just about anything else. Heck, chimpanzees have more genetic diversity than all of humanity does today, because we hit a population bottleneck of 1,000 people. Now, a bottleneck of a single breeding pair is not catastrophic if the next generation experiences a giant population boost. Which we know from history, didn’t happen. From your own admission of 33 people, it didn’t happen. (Speaking of which, the Bible says that the garden is to the East, and well... the east of Israel does not get you to Africa, which is where we actually come from.) The thing is, if Adam and Eve work like humans, they must have had recessive genes by virtue of being humans. Eve being a genetic copy of Adam (sex differences aside), she would have those genes as well. Except recessive genes don’t code right. But if you have inbreeding, the closer the two genomes are, the chance of those recessive genes getting passed on skyrockets. In the equivalent of twins? It’s ridiculous. The 33 children would essentially be European monarchs, and their children even worse off, as their genes would not be any better.

Wait...are we talking about twins?...I happen to be a twin! But my sister and I don’t have all the same genetic things. And did you know that even twins do not have the same fingerprints? Just some random fun facts.

[Luminesa]

Now, let’s apply Occam’s razor

"Only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover." - William of Ockham, English Franciscan friar, logician, and theologian; known for Occam's (Ockham's) Razor

One can see he is clearly doing the “tsk tsk” motion with his fingers.

[Kowani]

Sure, anyway one point of fact checking your debate with dio, the Church only requires a belief in a literal fall, imparted upon humanity by its first ancestors. It does not necessarily require a literal belief in genesis 2-3 (really 1-11 can all be taken figuratively. Once we get to Abraham that’s where the requirements really begin)

That’s...better. Although Dio told me that the Church required Genesis 2 and 3 to be taken literally, is that not true?

[Tarsonis]

Sure, anyway one point of fact checking your debate with dio, the Church only requires a belief in a literal fall, imparted upon humanity by its first ancestors. It does not necessarily require a literal belief in genesis 2-3 (really 1-11 can all be taken figuratively. Once we get to Abraham that’s where the requirements really begin)

That’s...better. Although Dio told me that the Church required Genesis 2 and 3 to be taken literally, is that not true?

That’s what I’m fact checking. Dio is more traditionalist than I am, and much more literalist in his views.

However per the catechism:

390 “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.”


Essentially we’re bound to believe in the fall, we’re bound to believe in Original sin, but we’re not required to necessarily subscribe to the genesis account as a strict historical account of how it happened.

[Kowani]

That’s...better. Although Dio told me that the Church required Genesis 2 and 3 to be taken literally, is that not true?

That’s what I’m fact checking. Dio is more traditionalist than I am, and much more literalist in his views.

However per the catechism:

390 “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.”


Essentially we’re bound to believe in the fall, we’re bound to believe in Original sin, but we’re not required to necessarily subscribe to the genesis account as a strict historical account of how it happened.

Ahh. Thank you.
But now, I have another question. How does one believe in the Fall without believing in Adam and Eve?

[Tarsonis]

That’s what I’m fact checking. Dio is more traditionalist than I am, and much more literalist in his views.

However per the catechism:

390 “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.”

Essentially we’re bound to believe in the fall, we’re bound to believe in Original sin, but we’re not required to necessarily subscribe to the genesis account as a strict historical account of how it happened.

Ahh. Thank you.
But now, I have another question. How does one believe in the Fall without believing in Adam and Eve?

Well we still believe in first ancestors, I.e the first Homo sapiens sapiens, but that Adam and Eve are figurItive representations of these first ancestors who greatly fucked up. Essentially they’re parables.

*Personally* and not in any official capacity (I’m working on this as a potential doctoral thesis, it’s not official doctrine by any stretch of the means and could possibly be heretical) I see the fall as a natural progression of human ascendency through evolution into consciousness. the wounded human nature we describe as Original Sin is the conflict between our basic animalistic conditions, and our ascended conscious minds. IMHO a deeper reading of genesis 3 as well
As the writings of the early saints,(especially St. Irenaeus) supports this to be the case.

[Kowani]

Ahh. Thank you.
But now, I have another question. How does one believe in the Fall without believing in Adam and Eve?

Well we still believe in first ancestors, I.e the first Homo sapiens sapiens, but that Adam and Eve are figurItive representations of these first ancestors who greatly fucked up. Essentially they’re parables.

*Personally* and not in any official capacity (I’m working on this as a potential doctoral thesis, it’s not official doctrine by any stretch of the means and could possibly be heretical) I see the fall as a natural progression of human ascendency through evolution into consciousness. the wounded human nature we describe as Original Sin is the conflict between our basic animalistic conditions, and our ascended conscious minds. IMHO a deeper reading of genesis 3 as well
As the writings of the early saints,(especially St. Irenaeus) supports this to be the case.

Ahh. Thank you.
I wish you luck with your thesis.

[Pope Joan]

Well we still believe in first ancestors, I.e the first Homo sapiens sapiens, but that Adam and Eve are figurItive representations of these first ancestors who greatly fucked up. Essentially they’re parables.

*Personally* and not in any official capacity (I’m working on this as a potential doctoral thesis, it’s not official doctrine by any stretch of the means and could possibly be heretical) I see the fall as a natural progression of human ascendency through evolution into consciousness. the wounded human nature we describe as Original Sin is the conflict between our basic animalistic conditions, and our ascended conscious minds. IMHO a deeper reading of genesis 3 as well
As the writings of the early saints,(especially St. Irenaeus) supports this to be the case.

Ahh. Thank you.
I wish you luck with your thesis.

I heard a theory that Adam and Eve, as names, represented early civilizations or city-states. This is a pre literate time after all. It could be comparable to the story of the tower of Babel.

[Tarsonis]

Ahh. Thank you.
I wish you luck with your thesis.

I heard a theory that Adam and Eve, as names, represented early civilizations or city-states. This is a pre literate time after all. It could be comparable to the story of the tower of Babel.

I'd need to see some supporting evidence for that theory, because that would fly in the face of 5000 years of doctrine, history, and well all that we know.

[Kowani]

I heard a theory that Adam and Eve, as names, represented early civilizations or city-states. This is a pre literate time after all. It could be comparable to the story of the tower of Babel.

I'd need to see some supporting evidence for that theory, because that would fly in the face of 5000 years of doctrine, history, and well all that we know.

This. But change “some” to a lot.

[Philjia]

Ahh. Thank you.
I wish you luck with your thesis.

I heard a theory that Adam and Eve, as names, represented early civilizations or city-states. This is a pre literate time after all. It could be comparable to the story of the tower of Babel.

The only way you can rationalise any of Genesis as anything meaningful is divine revelation which was communicated as a metaphor. Or it might just be bollocks. The Bible's clearly not infallible, it's a collection of myths, oral traditions, personal accounts, letters, and alleged divine revelations, many of which are contradictory and/or of somewhat dubious providence or are clearly exaggerated or sexed up in some respect, and all of which have been translated and rewritten fuck knows how many times. That's not to suggest that there's no truth in it, but taking all the text at face value's not really an option.

[Tarsonis]

I heard a theory that Adam and Eve, as names, represented early civilizations or city-states. This is a pre literate time after all. It could be comparable to the story of the tower of Babel.

The only way you can rationalise any of Genesis as anything meaningful is divine revelation which was communicated as a metaphor. Or it might just be bollocks. The Bible's clearly not infallible, it's a collection of myths, oral traditions, personal accounts, letters, and alleged divine revelations, many of which are contradictory and/or of somewhat dubious providence or are clearly exaggerated or sexed up in some respect, and all of which have been translated and rewritten fuck knows how many times. That's not to suggest that there's no truth in it, but taking all the text at face value's not really an option.

It’s not infallible in that there’s no prepositional errors. There’s quite a few. It’s infalible in that it accurately conveys the truth of God.

[Diopolis]

That’s...better. Although Dio told me that the Church required Genesis 2 and 3 to be taken literally, is that not true?

That’s what I’m fact checking. Dio is more traditionalist than I am, and much more literalist in his views.

However per the catechism:

390 “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.”


Essentially we’re bound to believe in the fall, we’re bound to believe in Original sin, but we’re not required to necessarily subscribe to the genesis account as a strict historical account of how it happened.

Kind of ish. The church requires we believe in Adam and Eve as progenitors of the whole human race, the punishments listed against Adam and Eve for their transgressions as literal truth, and a literal fall IIRC. It’s not necessarily that 2-3 must be taken absolutely, strictly literally- even the most fundy literalists don’t- but that the topics at issue in 2-3 must.
I’m on a phone en. I’ll post sources and get back to Kowani later.
Sources on a literal Adam and Eve:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/e ... canum.html
[quote=Pope Leo XIII]We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time.[/quote]
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/e ... neris.html
[quote=Pope Pius XII]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 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent 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 with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[/quote]

[Tarsonis]

Ignoring the fact that we’d need sickle cell for malaria, what with the coming out of Africa and all,

The bible says we came out of the east, near the tigris and euphrates. That is not Africa.

that’s not all recessive genes do. They don’t code for proteins. It’s not so much that they code for bad things (although they do that as well), but rather that the proteins or should have one doesn’t.

That is legitimately an interesting and important objection that I don't have an answer for at the moment. I'm going to try to get back to you with information once I can do some more research.

To be fair the Bible mentions 2 other rivers that we don't really know where they were. Eden was a lot larger than just on the tigris and the euphrates, so even with a literal interpretation of the account, originating in Africa is still a valid claim.

[Tarsonis]

In other mews I bought an LOL cat Bible, and it’s amazing

[Northern Davincia]

In other mews I bought an LOL cat Bible, and it’s amazing

Is it as inspired as the Lego Bible?

[Tarsonis]

In other mews I bought an LOL cat Bible, and it’s amazing

Is it as inspired as the Lego Bible?

More so. Move over KJV, this is now the only inspired translation

[Salus Maior]

In other mews I bought an LOL cat Bible, and it’s amazing

You know, I wonder if making joke translations of the Bible is blasphemous.

I didn't really think about it until now, but now I'm leaning a bit to the yes it is side.

[Northern Davincia]

In other mews I bought an LOL cat Bible, and it’s amazing

You know, I wonder if making joke translations of the Bible is blasphemous.

I didn't really think about it until now, but now I'm leaning a bit to the yes it is side.

You haven't seen anything yet.

[Washingtonian Republic]

You know, I wonder if making joke translations of the Bible is blasphemous.

I didn't really think about it until now, but now I'm leaning a bit to the yes it is side.

You haven't seen anything yet.

Isn't Notch a devout atheist?... and a member of the "technoprogressive" Pirate Party?

[Tarsonis]

In other mews I bought an LOL cat Bible, and it’s amazing

You know, I wonder if making joke translations of the Bible is blasphemous.

I didn't really think about it until now, but now I'm leaning a bit to the yes it is side.

Sacrilege maybe but I wouldn’t say blasphemey.

[Cill Airne]

You know, I wonder if making joke translations of the Bible is blasphemous.

I didn't really think about it until now, but now I'm leaning a bit to the yes it is side.

Sacrilege maybe but I wouldn’t say blasphemey.

"Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name."

I'm not entirely sure, but having read the LOLcat Bible's first few sentences of "Genesis" I lean towards it being blasphemous, personally. I don't know about the others that were mentioned in passing.