APP - Hypothetical Scenario for Thinkers

PostmodernProphet said:
narrative is normally considered factual history....that would be opposed to poetry, for example, which like poetry today may communicate factual history but not necessarily in an obvious way.....
Click to expand...

Okay, let me rephrase. How do you determine what is a parable, or symbolic, and what is factual history. If Adam and Eve are factual history, then how do you know what is parable, or symbolism. Whatever, you get the picture.
 
Beefy said:
Okay, let me rephrase. How do you determine what is a parable, or symbolic, and what is factual history. If Adam and Eve are factual history, then how do you know what is parable, or symbolism. Whatever, you get the picture.
Click to expand...

you have to examine the genre....for example, I mentioned the presence of the word translated as "now" as signaling Hebrew poetry....Revelation is another symbolic genre, apocalyptic literature....it was a popular way of communicating anti-government sentiment during the era of persecution in the first and second century AD....
 
for example, you ask about Adam and Eve....look at Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty....

then look at Genesis 4
1 Adam [a] lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man." 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.
then it is followed by
Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil.

you see?.....the bible says things about Adam and Eve which are narrative and things about Adam and Eve which are poetry....you cannot treat them as the same....it doesn't mean any of the things said aren't true, it simply means you have to examine it in a different way....

for example, when Carl Sandberg wrote "the fog crept in on little cat feet" he was communicating something understandable about fog.....but it had nothing to do with fur and claws.....
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
It is 500 years in the future. Man has perfected a way to travel to distant galaxies, and has discovered a planet much like Earth. In fact, it is ecologically just like Earth, with slightly less water and oxygen. However, after our initial explorations, it appears there is very little life on the planet. No advanced life whatsoever, only some simple vegetation in certain areas. We've explored the oceans and find nothing living there either. No signs of any kind of civilization, no intelligent life has been found, in spite of our advanced equipment which is designed to detect any kind of life as we know it. Aside from the rare and sparse vegetation, there is no sign of any life on the planet.

What we have discovered, is puzzling. The planet is full of mechanical devices of all kinds. Machines are running everywhere, producing things, computing things, making other machines. Some machines, we simply don't know what they are for, or what they are doing. There are buildings, but they are very simple structures, seemingly designed to just keep out the elements and protect the running machines. No bathrooms or running water, except where water is needed for the machines to produce. We've scratched our heads over this for a decade, and science is still baffled. Where are the people? Who made the machines? How did they get there? The questions are endless, as we grapple with the details of this new world.

The question posed by this hypothetical scenario... what is your conclusion? Did machines "evolve" into existence? Did some source of intelligence we can't detect or which no longer exist, make the machines? Is this some project erected by another civilization on another planet?
Click to expand...

Interesting scenario. I didn't read the previous replies so I hope I'm not accused of plagiarism.

Considering it's been a decade I'd say some source of intelligence we can't detect or which no longer exists made the machines. As for the machines being built by another civilization currently living on another planet I'd say we best be prepared the worst ass-kicking we ever had if we interfered in their production. :D
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it doesn't?....are you simply speaking of your faith in science to perform in the future, because otherwise, the fact there is no scientific explanation certainly means there is no scientific explanation.....
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. I'm not saying that science will definitely explain it in the future, but that the possibility certainly exists.
 
Beefy said:
Is the bible a history book? I'm just curious.
Click to expand...

I'm replying to this without reading his response first: Yes. He thinks this is the case. He said so explicitly in another thread and was belittling me for having "faith" in real history books and not the bible as though they were perfectly equal.

Edit: Turns out it was Spurt that said it:

Yurt said:
the bible is a history book as well as religious texts....and you're dead wrong, there are "real" history books (as you call them) that support the bible...

but i'm sure you'll continuing your famous debate style of declaring everything you dont' agree with "retarded" as if that word makes you right....i guess you saying retarded enough times does make you right

if god can create the earth, surely jonah surviving in a whale is no big deal...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The bible is definitely one of the most important books in studying ancient history in and around the middle east - most of the others ones describing the area were burned because they were heretical.

But you have to study it to figure out what you are willing to accept and what is clearly bunk.
 
ib1yysguy said:
I'm replying to this without reading his response first: Yes. He thinks this is the case.
Click to expand...
looking for new and novel ways to make yourself look like an idiot?.....ingenious!....

next time, instead of trying to "predict" what I say, maybe you could try a new approach.....like reading what I say and responding to it......some people do that, you know.....
 
Beefy said:
Trip out.

How about the rest of the bible?
Click to expand...
1. I'm curious as to what you mean by that.
2. Depends on which section- sometimes both. PMP gave you an excellent answer that I can't improve upon.

The bottom line is that you have to read the Bible yourself instead of relying on others to do it for you.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
looking for new and novel ways to make yourself look like an idiot?.....ingenious!....

next time, instead of trying to "predict" what I say, maybe you could try a new approach.....like reading what I say and responding to it......some people do that, you know.....
Click to expand...
LOL And they claim liberals are open minded. *shrug*
 
PostmodernProphet said:
what established science?.....if we're going to be comparing, I would like to know which apple I am balancing my orange against.....are we dealing with the origin of the universe, the origin of life?.....what is your thesis?.....I don't want to get half way through this and have you pretend you were debating something else again.....

state what it is that you intend to prove.....
Click to expand...
Hey you choose your poison. I'm just asking you to, for once, back up what you stated with some facts. If you wish to discuss speciation, then do so, but I'd advise you not to bring up discredited pseudo-sciences, such as, Intelligent Design.

So once again, please explain in detail how things were made to happen, through what mechanism(s) and why your explanations are more plausible then established science (The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena using methodological naturalism.)?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
also, it would be rather illogical to consider there is a designer out there who wouldn't qualify for the title "god"........
Click to expand...
Well that's assumed.

Intelligent design cannot be distanced from its creationist antecedents. Anyone with any understanding what so ever of the history of the creationist movement knows that the term "Intelligent Design" is a code word for "God" and is used as a breath taking inane attempt to do an end around the Lemon Test. An attempt, it should be pointed out, that unsurprisingly failed.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
which account?....there are three in Genesis and a fourth (my personal favorite) in the book of Job....

the first, complete in Genesis 1:1 is in a variation of Hebrew imperative....the sense would be "Remember this! In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth!".....

the second begins at Genesis 1:2 and continues to Genesis 2:3.....it is in the form of Hebrew poetry, the type of narrative that would have been told around the campfires by the eldest of the tribal unit on special occasions....this is signaled by the beginning word translated into English as "Now"....it is frequently used in the OT.....

personally, I think this version is amazing in it's revelation of some pretty basic understandings of science, given the fact that it comes from a nomad tribe of sheepherders....consider the sequence of creation.....first, time....second, the laws governing nature....third, matter....fourth, the planets and stars, followed by life which becomes more and more complex, ending with humanity.....

the third, which is a simple narrative, comprises the balance of Genesis 2.
Click to expand...
Does it matter? Why can't you just answer his question?
 
Southern Man said:
1. I'm curious as to what you mean by that.
2. Depends on which section- sometimes both. PMP gave you an excellent answer that I can't improve upon.

The bottom line is that you have to read the Bible yourself instead of relying on others to do it for you.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about. He didn't answer Beefy's question. "Read the Bible and decide for yourself."? That's not an answer to Beefy's question. It was, in fact, a complete evasion of Beefy's question.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
are more plausible then established science
Click to expand...

I repeat, which "established science".....I have no intention of beginning another debate with you, only to have you pretend we weren't having it.....do you claim there is established science explaining the origin of the universe?....established science explaining the origin of life....we can't begin a debate until we both know what we are debating about.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top