Convictions or Reasons - which come first? (page 5)

funkyderek

snowbird:

The Bible doesn't say how long humans have been here, and neither should anyone else.

Yes it does, if you take it literally. If you genuinely believe that Adam and Eve existed and that Biblical chronology is accurate, then human creation can be dated to around 6,000 years ago. But then, you don't seem to feel the need to base your beliefs on anything at all; they apparently just pop into your head, fully formed and immutable.

However, civilization can only be traced back to around 6,000 years. Shouldn't that tell us something?

Civilisation has been around for 10,000 years or more. And what that tells us is that civilisation has been around for 10,000 years or more. Humans have been around a lot longer.

I certainly do because there is overwhelming evidence that we did not evolve from simians.

That's absolute nonsense. There's no such evidence, and anyway, since when did evidence start mattering to you? If it did, you would recognise the superabundance of evidence for the fact that we are closely related to other apes, our genetic and morphological similarities as well as the hundreds of hominid fossils.

Ever looked an ape in the eye?

Yes I have. Like most people, I was struck with just how human they look.

I believe Pangea was flooded thousands of years ago, yes.

That's so nonsensical and irrelevant that it's not even wrong.

John Doe

Sylvia, I like you, but you are being intellectually dishonest.

funkyderek

snowbird:

The only reason I believe the loaves and fish story is that I'm convinced a Jewish rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth, God Incarnate, walked this earth, preached a gospel of love and reconciliation, wrought miracles, died in place of us, and promised to come again to rule His creation.

Yes, you believe one part of the story because you've already decided to believe the entire story. I'm glad you at least acknowledge that this is the only reason.

He turned the then-known world upside down. Nothing has ever been the same since. Whether you believe this is a myth or not, you'll have to admit He influenced the course of human events.

Christianity was little more than a sect of Judaism until, through various accidents of history it was adopted by the Roman Empire. The fact that it became very popular lends not a whit of support to its veracity.

snowbird

It most certainly does. There is a listing of all the generations between Adam and Jesus, and by calculating the lifespan, times of rulership of Judean kings, etc., one comes up with a "date of creation" of the first man at around 4000 BC.

I beg to differ.

The genealogy from Adam to Jesus skips some generations so it's impossible to build a time frame from that.

The lifespan of Judah, in whose line the Messiah was prophesied to appear, is not even listed.

I wonder why?

Sylvia

BurnTheShips

Christianity was little more than a sect of Judaism until, through various accidents of history it was adopted by the Roman Empire. The fact that it became very popular lends not a whit of support to its veracity.

Natural science was little more than a branch of Western Christian philosophy, and through various accidents of history has become adopted by many as the sole source of knowledge. The fact that it is becoming very popular lends not a whit of support to this view.

BTS

Awakened07

This thread is a lesson in futility.

It is also a lesson, I think, in "Pascal's wagerism"; 'I choose to believe, just in case'.

What we take as a priori knowledge of our surroundings and our senses, are pieces of information that make certain predictions. "If this is the case, then this should also be the case". "Is it?" "Yes, it turns out it is". OK, so we've found one tiny piece of 'truth' about our surroundings. Step by step, these pieces of 'truth' accumulate, and gives us a pretty reliable composite image of reality. It's not a case of 'anything goes, and is equally valid'. IMO.

As for 'ganging up on snowbird', it's unfortunate that she becomes the focus of attention, but I think she represents quite a few people in society and people who post here. Plus, others should feel free to 'gang back'.

I personally, am out (see top of post).

sir82

The genealogy from Adam to Jesus skips some generations

It does? Where in the Bible does it say that? Which generations are skipped? How do you know?

The lifespan of Judah, in whose line the Messiah was prophesied to appear, is not even listed.

Does that even matter? According to Paul, the time period between Abraham & Moses was 430 years. Judah lived & died within that time frame - or was Judah one of the ones who left Egypt?

I see no "gap" allowing for a discrepancy of several thousand years between the literal 6000 years of Bible chronology, vs. the 10,000+ years indicated by numerous lines of evidence (previously mentioned).

WTWizard

It seems obvious that reason should come first. Otherwise, the beliefs are pure guesswork and may be based on a blatant scam. You could get stuck with a belief system that absolutely prohibits critical analysis later, and regret it.

hillary_step

Snowbird,

The genealogy from Adam to Jesus skips some generations so it's impossible to build a time frame from that.
The lifespan of Judah, in whose line the Messiah was prophesied to appear, is not even listed.

I presume that this is the Whitcomb inspired rationale which he used hoping to stretch the pattern of patriarchal geneologies to 10,000 years? Unfortunately, even given the ommissions of the life span of Judah and the ommission of Cainan from Genesis we are talking of a possible discrepancy of scores of years, not thousands.

Your point however does suggest correctly that the Bible is unreliable when it comes to chronology. Why believers just cannot take it as a book of faith alone puzzles me. It is so obviously flawed as a book of history, science and chronology. Jesus, if he existed, according to Matthew summed up the Old Testament in a simple phrase that suggested that love of God, mankind and ourselves was all that we needed to know. The Sermons On the Mount being a manifesto that few people would complain about.

Who would criticize the suggestion to 'love your neighbour'? Very few people I would think. Most who have researched the subject would however crticize the Genesis myth.

HS

snowbird

I don't give a rat's bummy about Pascal's wager, a priori, empirical, or confirmation bias.

I believe in and have faith in the God of the Holy Bible.

I'm not seeking attention or glorying in that which I'm receiving.

Why should I keep silent about my beliefs, especially when directly challenged?

Sylvia

Convictions or Reasons - which come first?

Share this