This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Change to story of humankind - We didn't evolve from apes!
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Deepthought
Why would I quote something I'm linking to? That would be redundant. The quote is from another CDC page:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/05facts/moreboys.htm
I assumed you were linking it as a citation.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Well it depends if you believe in evolution or not. Would you like a creationist or an evolutionist answer?
Either, or both. I'd just like to know how anyone rationalizes some divine entity making something in the image of himself, but said image being so flawed.
Creationist: We were created perfect with no need for micro-evolution or adaptation because we lived in a paradise. Once the fall occurred and we started encountering the hardships of the world as punishment, or bodies has to begin to adapt. Adaption necessarily involves compromise, so the body sacrifices some things in order to do other things better.
Evolutionist: Because God made a changing world he knew that humans would need to adapt to survive, so he gave all living things the ability to adapt and evolve so as to combat these things. Adaption necessarily involves compromise, so the body sacrifices some things in order to do other things better.
I am taking image of God figuratively. If I weren't I'd have said we are demigods.
You did not answer my question. What makes you think you can choose what to take literally and what to take figuratively?
Take everything as true on all levels (literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical) unless reason can show that one or more of the levels can't be true.
Post by
TheMediator
Take everything as true on all levels (literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical) unless reason can show that one or more of the levels can't be true.
So you believe the Invisible Pink Unicorn literally exists, since you can't show that it he does not not exist. He is your true god. Worship him now.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Tis late here, I should be more clear from now on rather than writing quickly.
I know what Micro-evolution is. I was asking for YOUR definition not the stock internet definition. The two can occasionally be different.
Mine isn't any different.
And regarding the image of God thing. Up until recently (within the last few hundred years) the God's image was taken to be literal. As in this is what God looks like, we were make in his image. Hence God will look like us when we get up there. Nowadays due to advances in medical knowledge we are far more aware of our imperfections and there has been a subtle change in the "God's image" now meaning what he decided what we should look like.
In other words, the words stay the same but the meaning and context changed. Lawyers do it all the time :p
A significant development of the biblical account was the distinction between image and likeness, introduced by St. Irenaeus, according to which “image” denotes an ontological participation (methexis) and “likeness” (mimêsis) a moral transformation (Adv. Haer. V,6,1; V,8,1; V,16,2). According to Tertullian, God created man in his image and gave him the breath of life as his likeness. While the image can never be destroyed, the likeness can be lost by sin (Bapt. 5, 6.7). St. Augustine did not take up this distinction, but presented a more personalistic, psychological and existential account of the imago Dei. For him, the image of God in man has a Trinitarian structure, reflecting either the tripartite structure of the human soul (spirit, self-consciousness, and love) or the threefold aspects of the psyche (memory, intelligence, and will). According to Augustine, the image of God in man orients him to God in invocation, knowledge and love (Confessions I, 1,1).
16. In Thomas Aquinas, the imago Dei possesses an historical character, since it passes through three stages: the imago creationis (naturae), the imago recreationis (gratiae), and the similitudinis (gloriae) (S.Th. I q.93 a.4). For Aquinas, the imago Dei is the basis for participation in the divine life. The image of God is realized principally in an act of contemplation in the intellect (S.Th. I q.93 a.4 and 7). This conception can be distinguished from that of Bonaventure, for whom the image is realized chiefly through the will in the religious act of man (Sent. II d.16 a.2 q.3). Within a similar mystical vision, but with a greater boldness, Meister Eckhart tends to spiritualize the imago Dei by placing it at the summit of the soul and detaching it from the body (Quint. I,5,5-7;V, 6.9s).
Irenaeus lived in the 2nd Century.
Augustine in the 4th to 5th.
And Aquinas in the 13th.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Take everything as true on all levels (literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical) unless reason can show that one or more of the levels can't be true.
So you believe the Invisible Pink Unicorn literally exists, since you can't show that it he does not not exist. He is your true god. Worship him now.
Nope because that's not in the Bible.
You asked you're question in the context of scripture and then take what I said and applied it outside of it. That's a fallacy.
Post by
TheMediator
Take everything as true on all levels (literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical) unless reason can show that one or more of the levels can't be true.
So you believe the Invisible Pink Unicorn literally exists, since you can't show that it he does not not exist. He is your true god. Worship him now.
Nope because that's not in the Bible.
You asked you're question in the context of scripture and then take what I said and applied it outside of it. That's a fallacy.
No I didn't. I said what makes you think you can decide what it taken literally and what isn't. You said that something is true until proven false. Prove the Invisible Pink Unicorn false, or worship him.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
Anyway, just thought i'd say it was interesting and thanks for the new information but tis 2am here and I need sleep so no more logic from me.
What are you doing up at 2?
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No I didn't. I said what makes you think you can decide what it taken literally and what isn't. You said that something is true until proven false. Prove the Invisible Pink Unicorn false, or worship him.
I'm going to be blunt. You're being a ^&*! at this point.
The context of ~10 posts before yours was about taking "image of God" literally or figuratively. The fact that you didn't make any effort to get out of that context means that yes "You asked your question in the context of scripture."
Yes, I did say something is true until proven false. And that "something" is scripture.
Post by
312559
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
No I didn't. I said what makes you think you can decide what it taken literally and what isn't. You said that something is true until proven false. Prove the Invisible Pink Unicorn false, or worship him.
I'm going to be blunt. You're being a ^&*! at this point.
The context of ~10 posts before yours was about taking "image of God" literally or figuratively. The fact that you didn't make any effort to get out of that context means that yes "You asked your question in the context of scripture."
Yes, I did say something is true until proven false. And that "something" is scripture.
Its unfortunate that you won't see the flaw in your logic. So if the context of something is literal, and they make another statement, in that context it should be taken as literal. If that doesn't make sense, then perhaps one might consider then, that you mistook the original context, and that the original context is figurative. Of course you won't though, because you're don't use logical reasoning. I really doubt you decided for yourself what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken figuratively, and your ideas were formed for you by your Church, and you're too scared to get outside of your comfort zone.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Its unfortunate that you won't see the flaw in your logic. So if the context of something is literal, and they make another statement, in that context it should be taken as literal. If that doesn't make sense, then perhaps one might consider then, that you mistook the original context, and that the original context is figurative.
I think you don't understand our concept of scripture. There can be more than one level present in a given statement. So as I said, we take all 4 as true for given passage x, unless one or more can be reasoned to be false.
Of course you won't though, because you're don't use logical reasoning.
No comment.
I really doubt you decided for yourself what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken figuratively
All of it. Except what can be reasoned false. So in a sense you could say reason is what decided it.
and your ideas were
formed
developed for you by your Church
^
and you're too scared to get outside of your comfort zone.
Oh trust me, I've been there done that already.
Post by
TheMediator
I think you don't understand our concept of scripture. There can be more than one level present in a given statement. So as I said, we take all 4 as true for given passage x, unless one or more can be reasoned to be false.
Alright, now, so the way your brain works is that you take something, and then assume its true in every sense right? So, disprove the Invisible Pink Unicorn - now comes the part where you admit you only treat the Bible that way, because for some reason the Bible is true just cuz. And that's where the logic fail is. What hard evidence supports the Bible compared to any other source? Because if the Bible has no reason to be true, why would one assume it to be true, unless they assume everything to be initially true or one just fails at logic?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Alright, now, so the way your brain works is that you take something, and then assume its true in every sense right?
If by "something" you mean scripture, yes.
So, disprove the Invisible Pink Unicorn
I'm still at a loss what unicorns have to do with the Bible.
- now comes the part where you admit you only treat the Bible that way, because for some reason the Bible is true just cuz.
I treat the Bible that way because it is the inspired word of God.
And that's where the logic fail is.
Who ever said anything about logic? It's called religion, faith, and/or belief.
What hard evidence supports the Bible compared to any other source?
Who ever said anything about evidence? It's called religion, faith, and/or belief.
Because if the Bible has no reason to be true, why would one assume it to be true
Because God's a truthful guy.
unless they assume everything to be initially true or one just fails at logic?
You're moving on to the indefinite pronoun. Improvement.
Just remember 'they' is plural and one is 'singular'
Post by
TheMediator
So you admit you have no reason to believe God, other than the fact that someone told you to, and you don't want to change your mind? So one of your parents told you there's a god, named God, and then told you some story was factual... and now you trust that as factual because your parents told you? Did you parents ever tell you about Santa? And then they told you Santa didn't exist later? Problem was, no one ever told them God didn't exist, because before that their parents didn't tell them God exists, and so on, all the way back to the first lie. God is pretty much Santa, minus the giving you presents, cuz God loves you but loves you so much he thinks you're better off without presents for some reason. Maybe if you came to the realization that Santa didn't exist on your own, you might be in the proper mindset to break free from the lies you've built around yourself.
Post by
leonheart87
It means we have intelligence and will, which none of the other animals have.
Yes, they do.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
It means we have intelligence and will, which none of the other animals have.
Yes, they do.
You're going to have to do better than that.
Post by
TheMediator
It means we have intelligence and will, which none of the other animals have.
Yes, they do.
You're going to have to do better than that.
O rly? Prove that animals don't have any intelligence.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.