User talk:Rocky - Revision history

Rocky: /* Please, feel free to talk here. */

2008-05-30T00:34:52Z

Please, feel free to talk here.

Rocky: /* Please, feel free to talk here. */

2008-05-14T23:12:50Z

Please, feel free to talk here.

Rocky: re:/* Theistic Evolution */

2008-05-14T23:11:50Z

re:Theistic Evolution

Philip J. Rayment: /* Theistic Evolution */ p.s.

2008-05-13T02:53:13Z

Theistic Evolution: p.s.

Philip J. Rayment: /* Theistic Evolution */ Real Adam and Eve necessary.

2008-05-13T02:43:35Z

Theistic Evolution: Real Adam and Eve necessary.

Aschlafly: /* Theistic Evolution */ reply

2008-05-13T02:17:29Z

Theistic Evolution: reply

Rocky: /* Theistic Evolution */

2008-05-13T01:29:37Z

Theistic Evolution

Rocky: re:/* Theistic Evolution */

2008-05-13T01:25:41Z

re:Theistic Evolution

Aschlafly: reply

2008-05-12T23:26:59Z

Rocky: /* Theistic Evolution */

2008-05-12T21:35:30Z

Theistic Evolution

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:34, May 30, 2008
Line 3:		Line 3:
	== Please, feel free to talk here. ==		== Please, feel free to talk here. ==

−	~~I will not be back until either June 1st or June 2nd. However~~, ~~please leave~~ me stuff ~~because I want to respond as soon as possible~~. ~~Thanks~~ --[[User:Rocky\|Rocky]]	+	Well, the time has come for me to return! Please write stuff down. --[[User:Rocky\|Rocky]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:12, May 14, 2008
Line 3:		Line 3:
	== Please, feel free to talk here. ==		== Please, feel free to talk here. ==

−	~~It stinks~~, ~~man~~ because ~~nobody talks~~ to ~~me, man. So, why don't you. Man~~. --[[User:Rocky\|Rocky]]	+	I will not be back until either June 1st or June 2nd. However, please leave me stuff because I want to respond as soon as possible. Thanks --[[User:Rocky\|Rocky]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:11, May 14, 2008
Line 82:		Line 82:
	‘In England it was geology and the theory of evolution that changed us from a Christian to a pagan nation.'[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5737]}}		‘In England it was geology and the theory of evolution that changed us from a Christian to a pagan nation.'[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5737]}}
	[[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 12 May 2008 (EDT)		[[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	I think that God guided evolution, unlike most people seem to believe, which is that most people that believe in evolution are athiests. I do think, however, that Adam and Eve did not exist. I think that sin is human beings going to their animalistic instincts. For instance, people that chose to have sex with multiple partners that they don't really care about. That is like an animal because all animals except humans are not capable of loving one another and simply have sex to procreate. Also, when someone kills someone else, that could be a territorial thing. For instance, if someone broke into my house, I would be scared and might kill them because they are invading my territory. However, with this one, humans can be worse than animals because humans are the only animals that kill for pleasure. --[[User:Rocky\|Rocky]]
		+
		+	PS. Although I will not be back for some time, please do respond because when I come back on June 1st, I want to know somebody wanted to answer. Thanks. --[[User:Rocky\|Rocky]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:53, May 13, 2008
Line 76:		Line 76:

	[[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)		[[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	P.S. I just read this:
		+	{{QuoteBox\|Sherwood Taylor, Curator of the Museum of the History of Science, Oxford, said in 1949:
		+	<br /><br />
		+	‘In England it was geology and the theory of evolution that changed us from a Christian to a pagan nation.'[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5737]}}
		+	[[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:43, May 13, 2008
Line 67:		Line 67:

	:::: My own objection to the [[theory of evolution]] is scientific. But I point out there is really no such thing as theistic (Christian) evolution, except as way-station leading someone away from Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 12 May 2008 (EDT)		:::: My own objection to the [[theory of evolution]] is scientific. But I point out there is really no such thing as theistic (Christian) evolution, except as way-station leading someone away from Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	Whilst strict theistic evolution would have no Adam and Eve, a modified version could have God creating an actual Adam and Eve, or creating souls for a pair of existing hominids who then became Adam and Eve. But of course this is a compromise view because the naturalistic evolutionary view simply doesn't fit the biblical account, and if you are going to reject the naturalistic view, why not just stick with what the Bible says?
		+
		+	Andy is right that theistic evolution leads people to abandon faith in Jesus (although that doesn't mean that it will always happen).
		+
		+	The problem with suggesting that Adam and Eve are merely symbolic is that while symbolism is useful for making conceptual connections and illustrating ideas, it is not a ''basis'' for doctrine. So if we say that Jesus came to save us from sin, which was introduced with Adam and Eve, but that Adam and Eve are only symbolic, then symbols can't introduce sin, so sin is either non-existent or symbolic, and in either case we don't need to be saved from it, which means that we don't need Jesus. The following quote is from an atheist who that understands this better than many Christians:
		+	{{QuoteBox\|It becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.}}
		+
		+	[[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:17, May 13, 2008
Line 63:		Line 63:

	:::Also, how could Jesus' life and the Crusifiction and Resurrection not have made sense without Adam and Eve? --[[User:Rocky\|Rocky]]		:::Also, how could Jesus' life and the Crusifiction and Resurrection not have made sense without Adam and Eve? --[[User:Rocky\|Rocky]]
		+
		+	:::: Jesus' Crucifixion and Resurrection was redemption for the original sin committed by one Adam and Eve, which passed through them to all descendants. This is [[Christianity]].
		+
		+	:::: My own objection to the [[theory of evolution]] is scientific. But I point out there is really no such thing as theistic (Christian) evolution, except as way-station leading someone away from Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:29, May 13, 2008
Line 61:		Line 61:

	:::It is pretty clever. However, why are Adam and Eve not known symbollically instead of reality? What I mean by that is, why does it matter if they really existed because the story symbolizes a lot more than their existance, right? --[[User:Rocky\|Rocky]]		:::It is pretty clever. However, why are Adam and Eve not known symbollically instead of reality? What I mean by that is, why does it matter if they really existed because the story symbolizes a lot more than their existance, right? --[[User:Rocky\|Rocky]]
		+
		+	:::Also, how could Jesus' life and the Crusifiction and Resurrection not have made sense without Adam and Eve? --[[User:Rocky\|Rocky]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:25, May 13, 2008
Line 59:		Line 59:

	:: Jesus's life and [[Crucifixion]] and [[Resurrection]] make little sense without one [[Adam]] and [[Eve]], who could not have existed under any [[theory of evolution]]. What theistic evolution does is persuade people to abandon [[faith]] in [[Jesus]] without immediately realizing it. Clever, isn't it?--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 12 May 2008 (EDT)		:: Jesus's life and [[Crucifixion]] and [[Resurrection]] make little sense without one [[Adam]] and [[Eve]], who could not have existed under any [[theory of evolution]]. What theistic evolution does is persuade people to abandon [[faith]] in [[Jesus]] without immediately realizing it. Clever, isn't it?--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	:::It is pretty clever. However, why are Adam and Eve not known symbollically instead of reality? What I mean by that is, why does it matter if they really existed because the story symbolizes a lot more than their existance, right? --[[User:Rocky\|Rocky]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:26, May 12, 2008
Line 57:		Line 57:

	:Did Adam and Eve really exist? I don't know because I wasn't there. However, I don't care if they really existed because it is more important to link Adam and Eve symbolically than it is to say that they actually existed and that people that don't believe it are wrong. Jesus was the new Adam, symbolically because Jesus was man's next attempt to be sinless (for lack of a better word). Maybe there was a humanlike creature, one male and one female, that came from evolution to be Adam and Eve (again, I wasn't there). However, what I believe is more important than saying that they existed and you shouldn't say anything different than that, is less important than how much, symbolically, Adam and Eve are intertwind. --[[User:Rocky\|Rocky]]		:Did Adam and Eve really exist? I don't know because I wasn't there. However, I don't care if they really existed because it is more important to link Adam and Eve symbolically than it is to say that they actually existed and that people that don't believe it are wrong. Jesus was the new Adam, symbolically because Jesus was man's next attempt to be sinless (for lack of a better word). Maybe there was a humanlike creature, one male and one female, that came from evolution to be Adam and Eve (again, I wasn't there). However, what I believe is more important than saying that they existed and you shouldn't say anything different than that, is less important than how much, symbolically, Adam and Eve are intertwind. --[[User:Rocky\|Rocky]]
		+
		+	:: Jesus's life and [[Crucifixion]] and [[Resurrection]] make little sense without one [[Adam]] and [[Eve]], who could not have existed under any [[theory of evolution]]. What theistic evolution does is persuade people to abandon [[faith]] in [[Jesus]] without immediately realizing it. Clever, isn't it?--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:35, May 12, 2008
Line 56:		Line 56:
	Rocky, does your "theistic evolution" include one Adam and Eve? Real evolution does not. But Christian doctrine relies on one Adam and Eve. The Catholic Church expressly forbids in [[Humani Generis]] teaching anything contrary to that, for obvious reasons: the meaning of [[Jesus]] depends on Adam.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 19:21, 11 May 2008 (EDT)		Rocky, does your "theistic evolution" include one Adam and Eve? Real evolution does not. But Christian doctrine relies on one Adam and Eve. The Catholic Church expressly forbids in [[Humani Generis]] teaching anything contrary to that, for obvious reasons: the meaning of [[Jesus]] depends on Adam.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 19:21, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

−	:Did Adam and Eve really exist? I don't know because I wasn't there. However, I don't care if they really existed because it is more important to link Adam and Eve symbolically than it is to say that they actually existed and that people that don't believe it are wrong. Jesus was the new Adam, symbolically because Jesus was man's next attempt to be sinless (for lack of a better word). Maybe there was a humanlike creature, one male and one female, that came from evolution to be Adam and Eve (again, I wasn't there). However, what I believe is more important than saying that they existed and you shouldn't say anything different than that, is less important than how much, symbolically, Adam and Eve are intertwind. --[[User\|Rocky\|Rocky]]	+	:Did Adam and Eve really exist? I don't know because I wasn't there. However, I don't care if they really existed because it is more important to link Adam and Eve symbolically than it is to say that they actually existed and that people that don't believe it are wrong. Jesus was the new Adam, symbolically because Jesus was man's next attempt to be sinless (for lack of a better word). Maybe there was a humanlike creature, one male and one female, that came from evolution to be Adam and Eve (again, I wasn't there). However, what I believe is more important than saying that they existed and you shouldn't say anything different than that, is less important than how much, symbolically, Adam and Eve are intertwind. --[[User:Rocky\|Rocky]]