Part IV Post your tough Questions on Christianity

Ok, this time it is my turn to continue this discussion;

I have read his books such as Origin of the Species and historically documents about Evolution and as I have pointed out early Europeans especially during the age of exploration and colonization were racially motivated with their evolutionary theory.


As I have stated, the wrong linguistic usage has a big effect that is why it is now being rectify because back then they got it wrong. Why use ape why not use the term human? If human can evolve from single ancestor that according to you is an ape, why can't we also claim that the common ancestor was actually a human-primate and apes evolve from that? And ape somehow split from primate-human to become apes and primate-humans continue to evolve to become modern human? IMO, the reason they use ape is because they want to discriminate the natives, for them the natives evolve from apes and are not human enough to be like them.

Very simple, early European scientist consider only them as human and the natives as apes. Plus, do we really know what that first or godfather primate really look like or is he / she a human or ape? It could easily be a human just as it can be an ape? But those European scientist decided to term or called it an ape mainly addressing it to the natives not to themselves.

Early Europeans compare the natives to apes because of the skeletons they find and the superior intelligence of Europeans have over this natives. Skulls they discover plus the physical similarities gave this European scientist to come up with theories why these native need to be rule or enslave.

I guess you did not read through this link, Scientific Racism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#Charles_Darwin

I have provided you links to proof first that science are divided there are one group who continue to follow the old order that humans evolve from apes and there is the other group that believe humans evolve from a primate that is not an ape as we know it the traditional monkey.

Again the common ancestor is still a theory, plus who is this common ancestor is it an ape or homo sapien? Why ape, why not homo sapien?

The vast amount of evidences all points that humans and apes are distinctly different that for million of years none of the known apes that we have now have evolve to become humans. But humans have evolve to become more and more intelligent and sophisticated.

This is just one link, I have provided you with several links back then.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/p...0/>2012.html

I have understood everything that is being said including what you strongly believe that humans and apes evolve from one common ancestor and according to you it is an ape. But what you have failed to grasp and understood the history of evolution that had a racial agenda by early white European explorers and scientist to justify the enslavement, colonization and declaration of the superiority of the white European race.

I found it, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) he was the one who introduce the theory that humans evolve from apes.

The idea of ape to human evolution found its original spark in the 18th century. The voyages of discovery had revealed the existence of chimpanzees, orangutans, and gibbons (the gorilla remained unknown to European science until the 1840s, and the bonobo, until the 1920s).

Anatomical comparisons soon suggested these animals were somehow connected with human beings. As the Comte de Buffon put it, an ape "is only an animal, but a very singular animal, which a man cannot view without returning to himself" (Histoire naturelle, vol. 14, p. 4, 1766).

The fact that humans and apes share many anatomical traits did not escape Linnaeus, who is often cited as the first classifier to assign the two to a single taxonomic order. In the first edition of Systema naturae (1735), he placed both in Order Anthropomorpha, which he later renamed as Order Primates (10th ed., 175. He said nothing about ape to human evolution, but his categorization of humans with the apes certainly encouraged later naturalists to think of the two as related by descent. As early as 1794, the philosophe Delisle de Sales (Histoire philosophique du monde primitif) commented that the apes "seem to form an intermediate line between animals and human beings."

Early scientist were mostly racist or racially motivated,;
Read this links and you will be surprise and hopefully understand why the word ape was use, in fact the word ape was originally imply to none whites especially to natives of the Pacific, and Africa even the great explorers such as Capitan Cook hold the same view.

These are consider scientific racism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...Charles_Darwin

Yes, I know now that ape is not being use to point to a certain race but not back then the original purpose and reason behind the theory that humans evolve from apes was to point to a certain race. That is why modern science have rectify that wrong to use the proper scientific term which is Primate and from that primate two species will evolve out of it homo sapiens and apes.

As I have said before, we are not sure what that first and common ancestor really was was it a an ape or human?

It is very sad and I hope that I am wrong that you and maybe others as well have failed to grasp the racially motivated purpose of early Europeans explorers and scientist in classifying and introducing ape to refer to the native and not to themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Races_and_skulls.png

 

Why are they two threads on this?

 

I was tempted to take the time and effort required to point out the errors and simple minded ignorance spread throughout the OP.

Then I remembered who started it....and decided against it.

 

Because the OP in the other thread doesnt answer questions. Although I completely disagree with Wan Ren on many issues at least he stands by his ideology and answers questions. Therefore he deserves his own thread since he is doing all of the heavy lifting in the other.

 

Well I agree...I disagree with everything he says to but at least he confronts the demons so to speak.

 

When Moses first came off the mountain with the 10 commands, he found people worshiping Egyptian gods and proceeded to murder 3000 of them.

How does this square with "Thou shalt not kill"?

 

In response to your answer regarding my post about the hardening of Pharoah's heart, you say that it really means the opposite of what the text says and you say that is because God will show signs and wonders to Egypt and Pharoah won't bend.
That proves nothing at all. God is saying that in spite of signs and wonders that would change any normal man's heart, God will have hardened Pharoah beyond what would happen to any normal human being in the circumstance. He does it, as He states, to let everyone see the greatness of Him. It is God that hardens Pharoah's heart, not Pharoah.
In another post you said you have to meditate on the scripture to understand it and have it's meaning revealed. So your position there is that God has revealed to you personally what scripture means, in spite of scripture giving a completely different message in its text.
You have given no rational explanation for why God hardens Pharoah's heart, and not just the one time you choose to cite, but ten different times in the book of Exodus. It isn't grey or clever or metaphorical or mystical. It's very straight forward and clear as crystal in the text.
Maybe you should start a thread about answering incredibly easy questions about Christianity, because the tough ones are clearly out of your reach.

 

Sure, maybe some of them. However, Thomas Huxley, called "Darwin's Bulldog" debated in 1860 against Bishop Wilberforce. One of the main topics was humanity's shared common ancestry with apes.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/first_primates.htm

No, once again you are mincing the words of people. Nobody is arguing that non-human apes and humans did not have a common ancestor except Creationists.

The common ancestor of modern non-human apes and humans would have been considered a part of the Great Ape family.

No, you keep saying that we are distinctly different and we really aren't. You claimed that non-human apes couldn't use tools. They can. Then you claimed they couldn't make weapons. They can. Non-human apes are incredibly intelligent creatures. Sure, our intelligence is much greater, but most of that intelligence is built from the compounded effort of thousands of years of technological advancement.

Nobody is arguing against the fact that people two hundred years ago.

Once again, the old use of a word has no bearing on its present use.

 

There are two explanation here:
1. According to Moses thinking that was an act of great betrayal, back then betrayal carries the penalty of death practice by every tribes and nationalities such as the Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, Babylonians etc. all have very harsh penalty for traitors.
2. After Moses did what he did, he handed power to Jacob and he went to Mt. Nebo located in what is now Jordan there he died. It was said that it was an act of self seclusion or punishment from God, that Moses will never enter the promise land.

So to your question was the killing an act that goes against "Thou shalt not kill?"
Yes, that is why IMO Moses was banned from entering the Promise Land and he will die in an unmarked grave.

 

No offense but you're kind of weak on your scripture.

 

I really wish that you would stop putting your opinions out there, primarily because they are wrong 90% of the time.

You tout yourself as having answers to tough questions and shout down others who say things that conflict with your beliefs and ignore posts straight from the Bible that conflict with your beliefs.

The worst is that you can not even be bothered to check out easily knowable facts and then claim that others to not know scripture.

Moses was not kept out of the promise land because he killed a few rebels.

http://www.jewfaq.org/moshe.htm

 

It seems like he makes it up as he goes along. But then again, why should he be any different then 2000 years of christianity?

 

The scripture is very clear but if you will just pick on that particular verse "But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go". Then it will mean what you wanted it to mean which according to you God harden Pharaoh's heart. If you read the whole gospel you will then learn that it does not mean what you claim it is;
Exodus 4:
21 The Lord said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.
22 Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son,
23 and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me.” But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.’”

Ok, here is another interpretation of mine, in verse 22 - 23 God demanded that the Pharaoh should let the Hebrews go and if the Pharaoh refuse God will kill all the Egyptian first born, but if the Pharaoh worship God or let the Hebrews go so that they can worship God then no harm will come to Egypt. In these passage God did not harden Pharaoh's heart but God had Moses deliver a stern warning to convince Pharaoh to worship Him and or let the Hebrews go free because if the Pharaoh worship God then there will be no reason for the Pharaoh to enslave the Hebrews.

Going to verse 21, God command Moses to perform all the miracles to proof God's power so that the Pharaoh will let the Hebrews go. The next sentence said "but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go" God will harden the Pharaoh's heart only on that moment so that to convince Pharaoh to worship Him it is not about letting the Hebrews go it is about God demonstrating His ultimate powers so that the Pharaoh and Egypt will worship Him that would lead to the freedom of the Hebrews, because if God had not harden Pharaoh's heart the Pharaoh will not worship God and still enslave the Hebrews, Pharaoh's heart was already harden that is why the Hebrews were being enslave.

Having the Pharaoh to worship God is important and it is the key to free the Hebrews from slavery. In other words, the Hebrews being the chosen people was to be use by God to convince others in this case the Egyptians to worship Him.

 

You continue to deny that the use of the ape has its origin with racism coin and use by early Europeans scientist. Another positive point to Charles Darwin was that he refuse to jump into the ban wagon of those racist scientist. Today the word ape is no longer being use by the main stream sceince to refer to the common ancestor it is either Primate or Hominidae.

The use of ape is similar to the use of the N word against African-Americans, ape just like the N word were use mainly as a derogatory and racist reference to African-Americans.

Scientist now are still searching what that common ancestor is:
1. Is it really an ape?
2. Is it a Hominidae or human
3. Or is it both?

One thing for sure is that human and apes are distinctly different.

And this goes back to the Bible that God created every living things according to their kind.

Genesis 1:
20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

I just hope that the reason you continue to use the word ape has no racial underlining in it. And as you continue to spread that humans evolve from apes which is not so, I will continue to spread and educate the public that humans are not apes that we did not evolve from apes.

 

Maybe you should read your own link,
Moses was not perfect. Like any man, he had his flaws and his moments of weakness, and the Bible faithfully records these shortcomings. In fact, Moses was not permitted to enter the Promised Land because of a transgression (Deut. 32:48-52). Moses was told to speak to a rock to get water from it, but instead he struck the rock repeatedly with a rod, showing improper anger and a lack of faith (Num. 20:7-13).

Moses died in the year 2488, just before the people crossed over into the Promised Land (Deut. 32:51). He completed writing the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) before he died.

Killing 3000 Hebrews was a grave anger on his part and for that he was banned from entering the Promise Land.

What I say does not conflict with my faith or beliefs it however refute all the anti Christian claims and made the truth known.
Do you understand scripture or are you here to destroy the Holy Scripture?

 

I doubt that you know anything about Holy Scripture.

For 2000 years Christians were hunted and persecuted because they dare to spread the truth, while anti Christ kept on coming up with new means and ways to destroy the Truth.

 

Question.

What did god acomplish?
If god wanted the pharaoh to worship him how come there's no record of a jewish pharaoh?


Proof any of it happened?
Did god magically pick up all the trash and pottery that would have been archaeological proof of a migration?
Did god erase Egypt record of them losing 2 million slaves (1/4 of their population)? I'm sure something that devastating would be written on a hieroglyph and common knowledge by now.
If you lose 1/4 of your population and slave force why didn't Egypt suffer a depression?
How come there's no record in Israel/Palestine of 2 million Jews showing up out of the middle of nowhere?

 

Oh hell! Here we go with the persecution CARD.....when are you going to get over it? Christianity obviously is not the TRUTH if it were the whole world would buy it. Anti Christ? Any non believer can be one. How many non believers are there? More trumped up BS.

 

Show what you believe to be "obvious" as you have used the term in your statement.

 

What part of my link did you not think I read ?

Moses was kept out of the promised land because "Moses was told to speak to a rock to get water from it, but instead he struck the rock repeatedly with a rod, showing improper anger and a lack of faith"

It was not for killing the 3000 as you suggested earlier. This is a fantasy you made up and has nothing to do with reality.

 

What is the pharaoh's name? Egypt had many pharaohs.

 

Any proof that documents were recorded before 2488BCE? As I don't know if written words was done yet?

 

There we go again denying the history that Christians were persecuted, and that it was Constantine who stop the official persecution, do you deny that the holocaust did happen to?
If Christianity is not the Truth you won't be here arguing that it is not.

 

2488BCE?

 

This link;
http://www.jewfaq.org/moshe.htm

How do you know, maybe you have an answer for Alfalfa his / her question about the killing of the 3000? I am assuming that for you it was a justify murder?

The striking on the rock is a metaphor or just a cover up if you like the truth is the reason he was not allowed to enter the Promise Land because he committed a great sin in anger he order the killing of 3000 Hebrews for worshipping a pagan god.
For you the reason is that because he strike a rock, what that rock represent?