157 replies to this topic

[Chris Weimer]

Ryz05, I think it was Chris who described evolution as a fact. I happen to define a fact in about the same way as you do. And I agree that a theory is a hypothesis with supporting evidence, and when the evidence is not simple observation but has to be interpreted indirectly, the theory cannot be established as a fact.

But evolution is a fact, it has been observed!!!! Evolutionary theory has not, which it is why it's a theory. Once again you're getting confused. Speciation has been observed, and that's a fact.

[Chris Weimer]

Ok, reading over it, I withdraw my arguements concerning evolution and religion. No more talking about it, OK? You obviously have your beliefs which won't change and I, well, stick to, eheu, I won't say it, it might be construed condescending.

Agree to disagree?

[MengTzu]

But evolution is a fact, it has been observed!!!! Evolutionary theory has not, which it is why it's a theory. Once again you're getting confused. Speciation has been observed, and that's a fact.

There's a third alternative in all this. Evolution is not merely factual, it is a construct. A theory is inevitably an effort to place observed facts into a structure of interpretation, and as such a theory is not a fact. Of course, the fact that evolution theory is not purely factual doesn't make 7-day creationism more compelling. I opine that, in attempting to refute 7-day creationism, it is dangerous to overestimate the ramifications of evolution theory -- it is nonetheless a theory, a human construct, albeit a scientific one.

[MengTzu]

It seems iffy.

But ... since it's all faith based anyways, if you really wanted to believe it, then it's as valid as anything else in the bible
BTW, have you heard that Jesus learned Buddhist teachings in his lost years?
http://reluctant-mes...er.com/issa.htm

It's not impossible to treat the Bible as a historical work. After all, even the Shiji contained supernatural details, but none would discard it because of them. Hence it is not warranted to dismiss the Bible offhand for historical investigations. Of course, one must keep in mind that in such an endeavor one must distinguish between doctrines of faith and empirical, historical researches.

[Yun]

Ok, reading over it, I withdraw my arguements concerning evolution and religion. No more talking about it, OK? You obviously have your beliefs which won't change and I, well, stick to, eheu, I won't say it, it might be construed condescending.

Agree to disagree?

OK. God bless you.

[Chris Weimer]

It's not impossible to treat the Bible as a historical work.  After all, even the Shiji contained supernatural details, but none would discard it because of them.  Hence it is not warranted to dismiss the Bible offhand for historical investigations.  Of course, one must keep in mind that in such an endeavor one must distinguish between doctrines of faith and empirical, historical researches.

I don't think anyone is dismissing the Bible offhand here, though. Though it may contain mythoi, at it's heart it has a historical ring to it. Such is the case of epic sagas, though. Even Homer had an historical core.

[TMPikachu]

So according to these guys, Chinese are the Jews' brothers. Besides the difference in appearances on a magnitude several times more than that between a Jew and a Caucasian, I guess it makes sense.

it makes plenty of sense. We both love money and business

(this is a joke, of course, being that the common stereotype of both cultures is their greediness and penny pinching attitudes. I will put up the trite, worthless comment that "hey, my Jewish friend thought it was funny" just because I feel like it should be there, though I myself am never convinced by such statements following disagreeable text")



As with evolutionary theory, Christian creationism, and who's more right...
all I have to say is that, by the 'logic' of things, it is just as likely that Zeus is still up there with his kids, and only death by combat gets you into Valhalla.
Beyond agreeing to disagree, I prefer to think it's just merely picking a side of many sides, and that's it. So I favor a side, and that favor I call it "right" and the sides I'm not on, they may bear the label "wrong", maybe.
or we're all really in 'The Matrix' in a world run by robots (who were decent enough to not kill us all, that's something to be thankful for)

May the force be with you





*I think the early bits of the bible are a sort of history of the Jehova people, and how the conquored/defeated the tribes of other Gods. How interesting that that tribe from thousands of years ago have flourished to all corners of the world.

[MengTzu]

I don't think anyone is dismissing the Bible offhand here, though. Though it may contain mythoi, at it's heart it has a historical ring to it. Such is the case of epic sagas, though. Even Homer had an historical core.

You misunderstood the intent of my statement, but I wasn't clear. I was addressing this statement by TMPikachu: "But ... since it's all faith based anyways, if you really wanted to believe it, then it's as valid as anything else in the bible"

As a matter of fact, the Bible can be treated as a source for historical studies, and students do not have to place any faith at all in the words of the Bible. People can study Romeo and Juliet to understand some social background of Shakespeare's time, but they don't have to believe that Romeo and Juliet was a true story.

[Ryz05]

Paul Phelps didn't say exactly that the Chinese are Jew's brothers, he said that the Chinese are Hebrews. He wrote an article on the difference between a Hebrew, Jew, and an Israelite. It's on his website.

In the article about the twelve tribes of Israel, Phelps wrote about how the lost tribes had migrated to China and assimilated into the Chinese culture through the generations. It's pretty interesting, so if you have the time please read it.

Edit: I heard Phelps' researched spanned over ten years and had just recently been completed in the year 2000. He had also taught the Bible in China for a couple of years, so he has some background in chinese culture as well.

Please tell us what you think of the writings.

[TMPikachu]

on a related note, one theory terrified Christians had on the Mongol force was that they were a lost tribe of Israel. Then they blamed the Jews.

[Yue Fei]

Not fuelling any debates here.

Just thought I'd share what I read in a published book.
It may or may not be coincidental, I leave it to any of the forumers here to decide and my post is in no way religious.

In the Chinese character of "boat", it is made up of 3 characters, boat/ship, 8 (as in the number/quantity) and mouth.

The writer of the book (I think it was The Story of Genesis... or The Story of Genesis Hidden in Chinese Characters... somewhere along these lines) find the parallel to the story of the Ark, whereby Noah, his wife, his 3 sons and 3 daughter-in-law (a total of 8 people or 8 mouth or kou the term used in Mandarin Chinese were in the Ark.

Among the characters he mentioned was ghost gui(3), yi(4) righteousness... among others, that explained the stories in the bible. I do not recall all the details and shall not go into that, lest it becomes too religious; however since we're all here to discuss and learn about anything related to the Chinese culture, we should be open minded and if need be, agree to disagree.

One would naturally presume that the book could be slanted towards a certain leanings, however personally, I find the book to be more informative rather than evangelical because it merely discuss the evidence but not to the point of arguing for converting.

Cheers!

[DaMo]

So no one built a boat before Noah's Ark?

[snowybeagle]

So no one built a boat before Noah's Ark?

No one really knows what the antediluvian world was like, so perhaps not.

[Yun]

I'm familar with that theory, but the problem with it is that the '8' in the character is not really an '8'.

[Chris Weimer]

I'm familar with that theory, but the problem with it is that the '8' in the character is not really an '8'.

It's just another crackpot theory which people pretend they know but in the end use bad linguistics and end up making a fool of themselves.

People should stop trying to justify mythology with bad science and enter into the 21st century. A global flood has already been disproved by science, no point in trying to look for parallels that just aren't there.