Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

How would have Jesus responded to Darwin?

Page 2 of 5 [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

If Jesus had heard about evolution he wouldve responded by...
exsorting his followers to stamp out the belief in evoluition 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
embracing the theory whole heartedly 24%  24%  [ 6 ]
ignoring it because he was about salvation and not about cosmology 56%  56%  [ 14 ]
other 20%  20%  [ 5 ]
Total votes : 25

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,959
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Jul 2011, 8:47 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
well being the son of god he would know that evolution was factual and congratulated Darwin for working it out, and also for not being bound to idiotic ideology that he and his dad found a real pain in the ass.


Thank you!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

25 Jul 2011, 8:58 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
well being the son of god he would know that evolution was factual and congratulated Darwin for working it out, and also for not being bound to idiotic ideology that he and his dad found a real pain in the ass.

And G^D sayeth...

"I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies." -- Amos 5:21 (NIV)

Good call!

:D



blunnet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,053

25 Jul 2011, 9:10 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
IDK, but I'd imagine that he'd tell Darwin to get back to his own century and then send him on his way back through time.

1. The suposition is not that Darwin travels back in time, but that he existed and did his work in that period in history.

2. A question: did Jesus take Genesis 1 literal? If he was a human being rather than a divine being, then he would have taken that literal, after all, he kept the Sabbath and would have rejected Darwin's work.

3. If he was a devine being, then he would know how the universe was formed and how life on earth works, and given the evidence we have, he would not have said anything regarding Darwin's work, other than the purpose of his mission, salvation.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

25 Jul 2011, 9:12 pm

blunnet wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
IDK, but I'd imagine that he'd tell Darwin to get back to his own century and then send him on his way back through time.

1. The suposition is not that Darwin travels back in time, but that he existed and did his work in that period in history.


Impossible. The empirical-rational-scientific modality did not exist 2000 years ago.

ruveyn



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

25 Jul 2011, 10:43 pm

blunnet wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
IDK, but I'd imagine that he'd tell Darwin to get back to his own century and then send him on his way back through time.

1. The suposition is not that Darwin travels back in time, but that he existed and did his work in that period in history.

2. A question: did Jesus take Genesis 1 literal? If he was a human being rather than a divine being, then he would have taken that literal, after all, he kept the Sabbath and would have rejected Darwin's work.

3. If he was a devine being, then he would know how the universe was formed and how life on earth works, and given the evidence we have, he would not have said anything regarding Darwin's work, other than the purpose of his mission, salvation.


Jesus - if you take a look at what is recorded of his commentary - not only was he not about to attempt the impossible - it is NOT possible to take even the Pentatech consistently literally - but he had a healthy understanding of Jerome's meanings, not words principle and rebuked the PPR hecklers of the day for the folly of putting words above sense. Read it.

The divinity of Jesus does NOT mean that while HERE as one of us he had access to all Truth. The record is abundantly clear that often he did not know things unless and until they were fed to him. It is most unlikely that he was privy to the useless [for his purposes] info on the creation. Do NOT get uppity, if solid mainstream Michganders can talk about creation the word should not set anyone off - http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm .

But as you say, this would be as irrelevant to his mission as Greek drama.



metaphysics
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 809
Location: Everywhere

25 Jul 2011, 11:18 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
he would most likely say
"?אני מצטער אני לא מדבר אנגלית. אתה רוצה דגים"
or
"?למה אתה לבוש כל כך מוזר"

but in a Aramaic accent so it would kinda come across like King James English.


Publius .... Maro, what is the meaning of these Hebrew?? I am so curious!! !! ! :heart: :heart:

Agree with Fnord and our linguist... :cheers:

I am so late :cry:



metaphysics
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 809
Location: Everywhere

25 Jul 2011, 11:21 pm

Philologos wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
I kinda meant the ideas of Darwn. Not the two of them actually meeting in person..
Like the book gets published in Rome or Athens say-hits the presses, and then the books get carted to all of the shopping malls in the Roman Empire via the Roman road system. So everyone in the Roman Empire kinda becomes aware of the book. But if any of you want to take it as Darwin personally-thats cool too ( have em both appear on Oprah maybe).

Good possible answers each from Phil, blunnet, brigdett, and Fnord.

"Many are called..."
Strange as that sounds that might be the closest to the mark so far.


No way everybody in the empire knows about it. Check out literacy rates, and the multiply it by the % of literates who have read it since 1859.

AND the Romans were not that I have been able to spot in the literature real big on books unless

A they were funny or risque

B they glorified Rome

C they were about politics.

Origin of Species - REALLY lucky if it sold twenty copies a year in first century Rome.


Twenty...too many, perhaps. Athens...Should be a little more than Rome :roll: ..but less than twenty.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

26 Jul 2011, 12:53 am

I tend to agre with you - the figure is too high. I originally was going to say twenty copies in Rome from Augustis to Domitian - to the end of the first century.

But that - while it may be realistic - struck me as discouraging fihures for Darwin, so I punched it up.

After all, some of the copies would go to for example Egyptians passing through Rome. I think the Egyptians would be interested. The Persians not so much.

I think Ashoka would have read it with interest- but he was way to early for a book published in 1st century Rome.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

26 Jul 2011, 12:59 am

naturalplastic wrote:
I kinda meant the ideas of Darwin.


Oh, well then you already had the Epicureans and their version of evolution, as portrayed in Cicero's letter De Natura Deorum.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,543
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

26 Jul 2011, 1:17 am

If you want to split teleologies:

If Jesus was who he says he is: he'd perhaps tell Darwin that the seven days of creation were relative, that thirteen billion years worth of creation happened within them.

If Jesus never really existed: He'd do the same thing as Harry Potter would if met with Darwin - Darwin would read him and he'd lay there like good print on a page is supposed to.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


metaphysics
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 809
Location: Everywhere

26 Jul 2011, 1:24 am

Philologos wrote:
I tend to agre with you - the figure is too high. I originally was going to say twenty copies in Rome from Augustis to Domitian - to the end of the first century.

But that - while it may be realistic - struck me as discouraging fihures for Darwin, so I punched it up.

After all, some of the copies would go to for example Egyptians passing through Rome. I think the Egyptians would be interested. The Persians not so much.

I think Ashoka would have read it with interest- but he was way to early for a book published in 1st century Rome.


Egyptians...Yes, Romanis may bring it to Egypt or Egyptians would buy them from Rome. And the book would be preserved in the Library of Alexandria..

http://www.bibalex.org/bafriends/Action ... doulou.pdf :wink: Let's inspire eath other!! !!...

But... :oops: perhaps... too much imaginations? :roll: ....Umm...:oops:



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

26 Jul 2011, 1:32 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
If you want to split teleologies:

If Jesus was who he says he is: he'd perhaps tell Darwin that the seven days of creation were relative, that thirteen billion years worth of creation happened within them.

If Jesus never really existed: He'd do the same thing as Harry Potter would if met with Darwin - Darwin would read him and he'd lay there like good print on a page is supposed to.


Those are not the only options. Within your own statement you have Jesus' existence or non-existence and relativeness or non-relativeness of the days of creation. That's meaning within the parameters of your own statement there's four options: Jesus' existence and the relativeness of the days of creation, Jesus' existence and the non-relativeness of the days of creation, Jesus' non-existence and the relativeness of the days of creation, and Jesus' non-existence and the non-relativeness of the days of creation.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,543
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

26 Jul 2011, 4:24 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
If you want to split teleologies:

If Jesus was who he says he is: he'd perhaps tell Darwin that the seven days of creation were relative, that thirteen billion years worth of creation happened within them.

If Jesus never really existed: He'd do the same thing as Harry Potter would if met with Darwin - Darwin would read him and he'd lay there like good print on a page is supposed to.


Those are not the only options. Within your own statement you have Jesus' existence or non-existence and relativeness or non-relativeness of the days of creation. That's meaning within the parameters of your own statement there's four options: Jesus' existence and the relativeness of the days of creation, Jesus' existence and the non-relativeness of the days of creation, Jesus' non-existence and the relativeness of the days of creation, and Jesus' non-existence and the non-relativeness of the days of creation.

I'd say there are three:
1) Jesus was who the bible says he is
2) Jesus did exist but wasn't who the bible says he is (perhaps as those in the Jewish community believe - a rabbi)
3) He's a cultural meme that somehow engrained itself with such force or with enough collective work that the story was taken literally and printed as such.

I went over options 1 and 3, not 2 and in the case of 2 I don't know what he'd say well enough or even who he was well enough to venture a guess. I didn't include nonrelative days of creation because, as far as I'm concerned, its been knocked out contention as a realistic possibility - then again that's my belief, relative days are what most Christians who accept that thirteen billion years worth of stuff occurred tend to believe. In the later case, if thirteen billion years worth of change occurred in what would match 7 revolutions of the earth - so be it, although if we're thinking of a description of things being rendered previous to light, I don't know how the earth would work as a gauge before it was built per say.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

26 Jul 2011, 4:46 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
If you want to split teleologies:

If Jesus was who he says he is: he'd perhaps tell Darwin that the seven days of creation were relative, that thirteen billion years worth of creation happened within them.

If Jesus never really existed: He'd do the same thing as Harry Potter would if met with Darwin - Darwin would read him and he'd lay there like good print on a page is supposed to.


Those are not the only options. Within your own statement you have Jesus' existence or non-existence and relativeness or non-relativeness of the days of creation. That's meaning within the parameters of your own statement there's four options: Jesus' existence and the relativeness of the days of creation, Jesus' existence and the non-relativeness of the days of creation, Jesus' non-existence and the relativeness of the days of creation, and Jesus' non-existence and the non-relativeness of the days of creation.

I'd say there are three:
1) Jesus was who the bible says he is
2) Jesus did exist but wasn't who the bible says he is (perhaps as those in the Jewish community believe - a rabbi)
3) He's a cultural meme that somehow engrained itself with such force or with enough collective work that the story was taken literally and printed as such.

I went over options 1 and 3, not 2 and in the case of 2 I don't know what he'd say well enough or even who he was well enough to venture a guess. I didn't include nonrelative days of creation because, as far as I'm concerned, its been knocked out contention as a realistic possibility - then again that's my belief, relative days are what most Christians who accept that thirteen billion years worth of stuff occurred tend to believe. In the later case, if thirteen billion years worth of change occurred in what would match 7 revolutions of the earth - so be it, although if we're thinking of a description of things being rendered previous to light, I don't know how the earth would work as a gauge before it was built per say.


As per the days issue, I view the explanation based on gravitational time dilation as being the most likely of cosmological models fitting with a reading of Genesis that doesn't involve argumentum ad vericundium with eisegesis. The days would be days of time according to the measure of length of time on Earth now, but further out from this galaxy we're in there would be the billions years of time passage. The Gamov model has a universe with no center of mass axiomatically assumed, but if that axiom is negated and a universe with a center of mass is assumed instead then, along with the universe expanding outward even now which means at one time it was altogether in a gravitational singularity, you have a rather lot of gravitational time dilation in the past and the closer to the center of mass the more pronounced the effect. At present density the effect is minimal (it would decrease as density decreases) but in the past there would have been much higher density of the matter of our universe meaning much higher effect upon the passage of time. Matter closer to the center of mass would proceed through time slower than matter toward the edge. As such, I believe it would be possible to have a young Earth in an otherwise ancient universe.



Scytholder
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jul 2011
Age: 184
Gender: Male
Posts: 20

26 Jul 2011, 6:23 am

Judging from how the Bible depicts Jesus, Jesus would've most likely shunned Darwin's theory. Despite what seem to be revolutionary views, he was still a fanatic Jew who seemed to have taken the Old Testament Scriptures more literally than what some of us believe.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Jul 2011, 6:47 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

As per the days issue, I view the explanation based on gravitational time dilation as being the most likely of cosmological models fitting with a reading of Genesis that doesn't involve argumentum ad vericundium with eisegesis. The days would be days of time according to the measure of length of time on Earth now, but further out from this galaxy we're in there would be the billions years of time passage. The Gamov model has a universe with no center of mass axiomatically assumed, but if that axiom is negated and a universe with a center of mass is assumed instead then, along with the universe expanding outward even now which means at one time it was altogether in a gravitational singularity, you have a rather lot of gravitational time dilation in the past and the closer to the center of mass the more pronounced the effect. At present density the effect is minimal (it would decrease as density decreases) but in the past there would have been much higher density of the matter of our universe meaning much higher effect upon the passage of time. Matter closer to the center of mass would proceed through time slower than matter toward the edge. As such, I believe it would be possible to have a young Earth in an otherwise ancient universe.


Nonsense. The earth is over four billion standard years old. There is little special or privileged about or physical makeup up or position in the cosmos.

ruveyn