- Reaction score
- London, UK, Malkhut she'be'Assiyah
indeed - it was Written in the style it was so it would be futureproofed against the way humans would develop; i personally find the cleverness with which this was done superhuman; i just don't see how humans could have done it; of course not everyone agrees with my assessment.IowaGuy said:The bible wasn't written to be a science textbook because the scientific method as we know it didn't exist at the time.
yes, but not the *scientific* unknowns about the *scientific* universe and *homo sapiens* - rather, the *conceptual* unknowns about the *moral* universe and humanity - and that's just the surface level.But don't you think it was written to answer those "unknowns" about how the universe and mankind began?
i must admit i have trouble with the "begats"; i have no idea why that is there other than to demonstrate conceptually how we're all part of one family. i suppose, thinking about it, the "begats" could actually be seen as an attempt to give humans a clue that generations (i.e. evolution) might be important and that they ought to look into it when they were ready; however, a hardcore atheist would ridicule such an assertion, unfairly in my view, but there you go.do you think Genesis was just filler material?
then they are mistaken about both science and "the bible". how can they possibly presume to understand the Divine Word?Like it or not, the bible IS taken as a science textbook by many who believe it to be the literal word of god.
but that's the point - it's like comparing apples to wednesdays.If you think modern scientific findings should override the explanations in Genesis, what other parts of the bible do you think should be deemed irrelevant because of modern philosophy/science?
absolutely not. evolution has resulted in a whole shedload of things about humans, some of which are quite inconvenient (the appendix, male genitalia, only having two eyes) but they are how they are and can't be helped, it's just how things have turned out. the point about evolution is that we have evolved to the point of understanding that it exists; that, to me, is like the very special type of consciousness that you need to deduce and worship the Divine. the point is this: having developed this consciousness, what do we then do with it? we have attained moral agency; if we simply reduce everything about us to evolutionary drivers, i can't see us caring so much about things that are frankly very important - a rock guitar solo (or, if you prefer, a physics PhD thesis) may, on one level, nothing but a version of the bird of paradise's tail as a competitive sexual display behaviour, but it has significance beyond mere sexual display that is, i think, rather critical.But I wonder, if you think the age of the earth is irrelevant to what it means to be a human, would you say the same about evolution?
in that particular case, yes.Do you think that whether life started as a single-cell organism and we ultimately evolved from a monkey-like creature; or OTOH whether Adam was created from dirt and Eve from his rib (and both in "god's" image); is the answer to that question relevant to what it means to be human?
then they're idiots.Because the age of the earth is very relevant to the issue of evolution, and many folks use the Inerrant Bible as evidence that evolution didn't/doesn't occur...
er, technically, everyone's descended from *noah*, but i don['t see how there's any human who isn't "divine" in that sense.Saltmeister said:We know from the accounts in Genesis and other places in the Bible that of all the "races" in the world, Adam is definitely the ancestor of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are therefore divine. So that's one group. Because Abraham was a descendant of Adam, all descendants of Abraham are also "divine." The Arabs, the descendants of Ishmael were descendants of Abraham, so therefore Arabs are also divine (and it doesn't really matter if they're Muslim or not -- it isn't about faith).
no, in hasidic thought it's a late concept, based on a particular position on the structure of the soul and, moreover, it's one which is not subscribed to. the idea is that jews somehow have some extra part of the "Divine sparks" that fell as part of the kabbalistic "breaking of the vessels" and non-jews don't; it is not a popular idea, for obvious reasons and it is not reflected in the halakhah or in prevalent philosophy; unfortunately popular xenophobia is to be expected in the less well-educated.I don't know if this is a coincidence or not, but I've read how some Hasidic groups see all non-Jews as "subhuman" and Hasidic groups take a mystical approach to Judaism. I think we can all agree with the idea that any part of the human race is "subhuman" is wrong, but it's the weirdness of the mysticism and kabbalah that leads to that concept. What gets me interested in what these Hasidic groups are thinking is whether the mysticism gets them close to a point Genesis might be making, even if they get the crucial aspect wrong -- the status of non-Jews.
well, quite - there's an early talmudic statement that supports this that would tend to overrule the zoharic statements of later provenance.The reason why we can't regard one segment of the human race as "lower life-forms" (apart from the wrongness of considering some people subhuman) is because now that the Divine and Biological Humans have mingled and intermarried over so many generations, we're all more or less in the same boat now. Most of us now have a divine soul.