A word to those who invoke The Deity constantly.

Post Reply New Topic

I enjoyed AngelRho's post. I have also found it interesting how the 6 day story can be seen as a metaphor of the fossil record. But even if it is, how did the writer know about evolution then? Good pointsabout the obviously metaphorical parts of the bible too. I used to be into creationism as a child and even went to see Ken Ham speak with my church, but I was never really convinced by it. I still have some Ham books somewhere, and his new much-mocked theme park sounds wild.

But Ruveyn... The Bible has gold edges,,,those gold edges demolish your science! (LINK)

Well, I don't see the Creation account as a "metaphor." What you have to understand about Moses is that people of his time just assumed that creation came about as the result of the actions of gods. They didn't necessarily have the means nor the desire to examine rock layers and fossils. So they told the story of creation the best way they knew how.

We believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and as such God could have revealed or confirmed the oral tradition of creation to Moses when He instructed him to write it down. This simply means that Moses and the Israelites had a BASIC conception of the process of creation, NOT a deep understanding of the intricate mechanics of it. What we see in the present day are two possible predominant alternatives: Evolution OR some kind of special creation. Most of us are aware of what evolution is as described by the science community. Special creation is not a mystery because it assumes that God is powerful enough to bring it about in His own way. By God dictating or inspiring the writing of Creation, God leaves this mystery open to those who are incapable or ill equipped to understand all the "how's" and "why's." There is no empirical evidence either way nor any way to conclusively and for all time END the speculation surrounding evolution vs. creationism in any way that is meaningful to every single person on earth. BUT the story of creation IS open for a greater understanding of origins as our depth of understanding of those origins increases. I think the hard evolutionist believer will get to heaven, only to be shocked when he finds out how wrong he is. Same goes for the hard young-earth creationist! Better solution: avoid the silliness of both hardliners and accept that some things we just aren't going to know this side of eternity.

In short: Ignorance is Bliss. Believe and don't worry about the facts.

If I ever get to Heaven I will be shocked since I do not believe there is an afterlife.

ruveyn

Well, for example, apply what I said to the idea of the afterlife. Science cannot ascertain whether there is an afterlife since science is in no way equipped to go there. Regarding past events, people of ancient times were not equipped to study natural phenomena like we are now. It's not that the facts aren't important. But the account of the exodus shows that people can have all the evidence right in front of them and still not believe. Same goes for the miraculous works of Jesus. If St. Peter greets me at the pearly gates and pulls me aside and says, "Oh, by the way, that thing about evolution? It totally happened, so don't go embarrassing yourself once you get in here," then I'll politely thank him for the heads-up. But for my time on earth, it seems ironic to me that both sides claim to have all the answers when all are guilty on some level of "blissful ignorance"!

Like wine, the Bible gains flavor by its age but some people have invested in these old bottles very deeply and when they are opened and revealed as vinegar the investment is too great to admit they have gone bad.

Indeed. And what about your own views? Could you be investing in your own kind of vinegar?

Logic and perception, which are the basis of rationality and science, has a backyard full of discarded bottles. Religion makes shrines out of old bottles full of vinegar.

Logic and perception are bottles that have been around longer than the Bible, and they have their own shrines. You're quite certain they aren't full of vinegar themselves?

You are communicating with me through a device designed through logic and perception. That is a wine with an excellent flavor. Purveyors of religious vinegar have been trying to sell their spoiled product for ages and the sour taste is finally being perceived by people with discriminating palates. Unfortunately, some people have been so thoroughly schooled from childhood in perverse taste that they discard wine for vinegar.

Well, as long as you're absolutely sure about that...

About not being sure? That's a state of mind, not a factual observation. You evidently don't distinguish between the two.

So I'm NOT communicating with you through a device designed through logic and perception? OK, NOW, I'm confused.

Well, that's a good beginning and a nice admission. I knew you were confused a longtime ago and perhaps you can remedy your confusion with a bit of clearer thinking. It's a hope.

Clearer thinking is aided by coherent communication. At once you say that I'm communicating through a device designed through logic and perception. In your next statement, you hint of a distinction between a "state of mind" (certainty) and "factual observation." You need to be more clear: Are factual observations absolutes, or are factual observations "state(s) of mind"? I have no doubt that "factual observations" may shift from observation to observation. I also have no doubt that factual observations can possibly be states of mind, circles within circles or overlapping circles (for a visual analogy). Unclear communication is a source of confusion, and if my thinking is in error, perhaps you might re-examine the way in which you express your ideas.

Well, frankly, I'm tired of noodling with your nonsensical concepts of referring to the Bible for confirmation of outlandish possibilities of holy magic and other weird fantasies. I live in a different world and there is obviously no way to reach you.
Thanks for your patience. Hopefully, someday, you might wake up.