What's Best Reconciliation of Gen 1 and 2 You've Heard?

I disagree, on several levels. Science is not an ideal. Simply put, it is observation and explanation. Without science there would be no Bible for you to read. Science does not require "faith," in the sense you use it. Quite the opposite. Your faith is a belief in that which is not observable. Science only deals with observable facts. If you think science is non-personal, then I suppose you never visit a doctor. True? Science does not attempt to hold people accountable. That's left to the field of law. I have to wholeheartedly disagree with the entire statement on its premise, questioning which is easier. One of the easiest things a person can do is say, "I believe in God." Science on the other hand requires thought, smarts and study. Not easy by any definition. I doubt your use of a period in place of a question mark was intentional. No matter. It appears you are making a statement. You cannot speak for everyone, yet you feel you are on to something. Making blanket statements that describe the world in black and white terms is an error in judgement. The first sentence in your post, "It is easier...as opposed to..." is a good example of this. You incorrectly assume science and religion are opposed to each other. The human race does not operate within good and evil, easily discernable boundaries. I can prove this quite easily with your next generalized statement: When I was a teen (and every moment of my life up until then), I wanted more than ever to be free of my abusive, violent, alcoholic father. His "rules" were without a doubt designed to limit my enjoyment of life and free exercise thereof. I suppose the day my father lined my mother, brother and sister, and me up against the wall, pointing a loaded shotgun and threatening to blow us away, I suppose I can safely assume 1) He was not concerned with my safety 2) He didn't love me.My father derived his authority from the very Bible you speak of. He was a staunch proponent of black and white thinking. So, in response to your idea that a Personal Creator is necessary in order to hold one accountable for one's actions, I say, "That is a very dangerous idea, indeed!"This message has been edited by chicowboy, 07-19-2004 02:40 PMThis message has been edited by chicowboy, 07-19-2004 02:41 PM

jrtjr1,Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I have not chosen to reject the teachings of the Bible as a whole. Jesus made profound statements. I wish more people followed in his footsteps rather than glorify the Book itself. Personally, I don't need a book to know the difference between right and wrong. There is much wisdom to be gained from the Bible, however, as well as the works of other faiths and philosophers. To directly answer one of your questions, no I haven't read the Bible completely. I've read a good deal of it, and I find the OT quite strange and irrelevant to modern life. In fact, the fusion of Jewish scripture with the NT to form the Christian Bible seems quite unusual to me.Regarding my childhood, and your analogy with law officials: It is wrong for anyone to mistreat anyone else, especially children. That is quite understood. There are no valid excuses. Your analogy is a good one, those who assign power to themselves based on some other authority. No, I shouldn't hate the law, but I generally 'hate' cops. Not because of the law, but because of how it is administered. The same holds true with the Bible. I don't hate the Bible, but it is being used today in the USA to foster hate and violence. This is what I find to be dangerous.To answer your question regarding science and the Bible: Writing is an invention, hence it can be seen as science. From the manufacture of papyrus to modern day mass publishing, all scientific endeavors.To close, I'll give you a little insight into my mind. Suffering is portrayed in nearly all religions. It's depicted differently among them, most notably between Eastern and Western philosophies. I need not read into any of them because the value of suffering is clear to me through my experience. That being, regardless of the cause, suffering makes one stronger. If it is caused by the hand of another, it instills a sense of empathy, encouraging one to act with kindness in their life. All this can get pretty deep philosophically. For instance, the idea that good requires evil to exist. I won't get into it here, but I prefer the Tao view of universal balance.