Christians Believing Badly

[whag]

That clarification is a better way to state it.

Isn't it, though? ;)

Sisters Webb and Porter have their stuff together. They're gentle, patient, and persistent.The LDS is making decent progress in this ward, particularly at my apartment complex.

[Adrift]

Tass has the teleological part of natural theology right.

Here's the rest:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae

Tassman said, "Natural Theology is basically the argument that the appearance of design indicates the existence of a designer." That's not quite right. The teleological argument is just one of many in Natural Theology, and teleological arguments are not limited to only those that deal with biological evolution directly (for instance, the fine-tuning of the universe argument).

Other arguments in Natural Theology include various cosmological arguments, the argument from consciousness, the argument from reason, the argument from evil, moral arguments, argument from experience, ontological arguments, and so on and so on.

[Adrift]

Apparently you claim the right to present a view but not to defend or discuss it – a rather pointless exercise for a discussion board I would have thought.

Of course I claim that right. I imagine that if you believe that anytime someone brings up something you may be unfamiliar with, that that's an opportunity to get into an argument with them, then you probably don't have many friends.

By contrast, the view I'm presenting, which you refuse to discuss, is that the Genesis creation narratives do not hold up in the face of the consensus scientific view that the age of the Earth is roughly 4.54 billion years and the age of anatomically modern humans is c.200,000 years.

I already know that that's your view. You're allowed to have that view if you'd like. I'm not standing in your way.

It seems to me that believers are in the position of having to choose between believing the Genesis narratives at face value and accepting the 6,000 year divine fiat scenario, regardless of the wealth of scientific evidence contradicting it.

OR, coming up with tortuous rationalizations, such as your Keller/Kidner approach, in an attempt to harmonize the Genesis story with established scientific knowledge.

OR, accept the incontrovertible scientific evidence which underlies the formation of Earth and the evolution of life and view the Genesis legend as allegory. This is the only viable approach in my view.

Alright, well you're more than welcome to it.

[jordanriver]

By contrast, the view I'm presenting, which you refuse to discuss, is that the Genesis creation narratives do not hold up in the face of the consensus scientific view that the age of the Earth is roughly 4.54 billion years and the age of anatomically modern humans is c.200,000 years.
.

ok, I googled, and in my books found nariokatome boy over a million years, closest to modern humans that is not us,
H heidelbergensis over half a million year, Neanderthals 200,000 but extinct now.......


but

where did you get that exact 200,000 year number

[whag]

ok, I googled, and in my books found nariokatome boy over a million years, closest to modern humans that is not us,
H heidelbergensis over half a million year, Neanderthals 200,000 but extinct now.......


but

where did you get that exact 200,000 year number

That's why I said the distinction between modern human beings and earlier species is becoming blurred. That makes teleologies that talk about subhuman species being mere material for Adam's spirit to inhabit more than a little absurd.

I always questioned the part about Adam having no childhood and no parents.


A million years ago, our brains were exploding with fear and knowledge. We bested wildebeast--requiring amazing intelligence--yet we worshipped them as well. That's ironic but makes sense, given animism.

[Adrift]

That makes teleologies that talk about subhuman species being mere material for Adam's spirit to inhabit more than a little absurd.

I'm not aware of this view. Do you have a source?

[jordanriver]

I always questioned the part about Adam having no childhood and no parents.

.

I bet you question the part about Jesus' resurrection

[whag]

I'm not aware of this view. Do you have a source?

http://thinkchristian.reframemedia.c...ible-scenario/

[whag]

I bet you question the part about Jesus' resurrection

So did Thomas. One thing at a time.

[Adrift]

That'd be the view that the first couple came from hominids. They became the first human couple having been enspirited. Plantinga is a popularizer of this teleology:


"Finally, it certainly seems that there is no conflict between current science and a literal Adam and Eve who fell into sin. Some scientists speak of a bottleneck (perhaps 160,000 to 200,000 years ago) in the line leading to current humans, when the relevant population dwindled to 10,000 to 12,000 individuals. Here’s a possible scenario. At that time God selected a pair of these individuals, bestowing on them a property in virtue of which they are rightly said to be made in the image of God. This pair was wholly innocent, with properly directed affections. Nevertheless, they fell into sin, which in some way altered their natures (original sin). Furthermore, both the image of God and original sin were heritable, and also dominant in the sense that if either parent has either of these properties, their offspring will also have those properties. In this way both properties spread through the whole population, so that at present all human beings are descendants of this original pair, and all human being possess both the image of God and original sin."

http://thinkchristian.reframemedia.c...ible-scenario/

Hmm. Can you highlight in that paragraph where you believe he's saying that Adam and Eve were some sort of subhuman species and the thing about Adam's spirit being put into them?

[jordanriver]

So did Thomas. One thing at a time.

God let Thomas know.

....but I bet you question the part about Jesus being God




. oh, before I forget the specifics
....... (not God the Father or God the Holy Spirit, i'm not a oneness Pentecostal)

[whag]

Hmm. Can you highlight in that paragraph where you believe he's saying that Adam and Eve were some sort of subhuman species and the thing about Adam's spirit being put into them?

Image of God implies those pre-Adam human beings didn't have God's image. That phrase means more than surface appearance but actual cognition, behaviors, and relational capabilities (that we clearly had way before 200,000). Can we have the image of God without spirit?

Also, I think our million year-old ancestors had many positive virtues that got them "to Eden," as it were, meaning they didn't need to be imprinted.

Properly directed affections is interesting language. Who's doing the directing here?

[whag]

God let Thomas know.
oneness Pentecostal)

That's absolutely correct. According to the bible, God let Thomas know.

....but I bet you question the part about Jesus being God

I question a lot. So did the disciples.

[Adrift]

Image of God implies those pre-Adam human beings didn't have God's image. That phrase means more than surface appearance but actual cognition, behaviors, and relational capabilities (that we clearly had way before 200,000). Can we have the image of God without spirit?

Also, I think our million year-old ancestors had many positive virtues that got them "to Eden," as it were, meaning they didn't need to be imprinted.

Properly directed affections is interesting language. Who's doing the directing here?

So this view about "subhuman species" and "Adam's spirit" is not anything that you can actually show in the paragraph, its just sort of your own conjecture based on what you assume Plantinga might think about the "Image of God" or something.

[whag]

So this view about "subhuman species" and "Adam's spirit" is not anything that you can actually show in the paragraph, its just sort of your own conjecture based on what you assume Plantinga might think about the "Image of God" or something.

Not at all. You know what he means, so clarify it for him.