Ignorant Creationists vs. Knowledgeable Evolutionists

Buz - I see you are swamped - you don't have to reply to my posts. Sorry, I didn't notice yur warning about needing a "breather". I'll read.

quote:

---

Jesus, the prophets and the desciples would all disagree with you, as do many scientists and other people in academia.

---

But buzsaw, I thought that scientists and academics were all to be mistrusted because they were brainwashed?

quote:

---

It's not desperate rationalisation.

---

Its extraordinarily desperate - you have just rendered the bible worthless.What is sin and how do we know it exists? Because the bible tells us.If the bible is meaphor rather than literal, its all gibberish. I can claim sin doesn't really exist anymore than the garden does, now that the garden is the whole of africa. I can claim that god itself is a metaphor for social order, if I want. I can say the "breath of life" is, say, language. I can treat it exactly the way any other aboriginal myth would be treated - with your consent.You've just destroyed the idea that the bible is evidence or reportage of god. You've destroyed the idea that the bible conveys any information, or that there is anything to be learned from it. Certibaly, NOTHING AT ALL that can be comared with modern, procedural science.

Why, Contra, to you attack Christianity? If someone is willing to leave others alone in their beliefs or non-beliefs why can't you do the same?

Friend - it's not my problem if you can't figure out that something doesn't have to be literal to be true.Today I woke up and left a chocolate log in the dumper - for santa to eat.. Erm - no - mitochondrial Eve doesn't mean I believe that I believe the Eve of Genesis was her. It means I believe we came from erectus "Eve" - and the Eve in the bible is the first homosapien de spirit. Besides - people already claim sin doesn't exist and that the biblie is baloney - so why do you think I care? Erm - no, I haven't. I just don't believe Jesus is literally a lamb.

I have attempted to be at least somewhat organized, yet every time I think I have the approach figured out, I am thrown another curveball, if you know what I mean. At first, everything was going fine in my studies-that is, until I ran across the problem of trying to make evolution "fit" with Genesis (my church and family take the entire Bible literally, not allegorically).
As far as what I think, I would have to say that I do not know. I am pretty sure that evolution did/does happen, yet there are still doubts in my mind. I have a lot more studying to do.

Well, as much as I don't see any value in attacking a persons beliefs there is a limit. This is a choice you have to make. You can't have the common "literal" (though of course it isn't when you dig into what people use for interpretation) interpretation and the modern scientific consensus. That's the whole point of this forum.I'm sure your faith is of great importance to you. If you think that it has to be based on a literal reading of Genesis then you need to make a decision right now. If the faith is overwhelmingly important then stop your studies. The literal reading can not stand up.If your faith is deep and sophisticated enough to be able to work with a non-literal reading of the Bible then you will save yourself time and pain by dropping the literal approach before you start. When I asked what you think I mean about the approach not the result of your studies.I think you have two steps to work through as far as evolution is concerned. The first is to determine if you think it happened or not. Only then do you start to work out how it happened. The first is comparatively simple. The second is trickier.

Yes, my faith is very important to me. However, I do not think that the entire Bible must be taken literally. The issue now is what should be taken literally, and what should not. If, what I found last night while searching Bible dictionaries, commentaries, etc. is truly correct, then evolution could have happened. I think that I am pretty close to a decision on that one-as of right now, that is.
Sorry about the misinterpretation. I really like the approach, and am trying to apply it the best I know how.

One thing that might help is a simple rule;If something is mentioned which defies the natural laws God put in place by being in place (as in Leviathan by nature - fire breathes), IF that occurence is not dealing with God's supernatural power/activity - then there's a reasonable doubt that it can be taken literally.. We can deduce this because we know that fire-breathing creatures don't appear in nature - and would defy the law of physics which we ourselves tout as God-made. We have reasonable doubt therefore, to thus not conclude literal fire-breathers.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-10-2004 10:25 AM

There seems to be a lot of room for personal judgement in the amount of literalism.I have one friend who is a minister who "sort of" seems to believe in God but also seems to me to be iffy on the divinity of Christ. However, that doesn't diminish the value of the Bible to her at all.I have another friend who is a regular church goer and on the board of the church. She is a complete atheist. There is still value in the church to her and her family.There is room for a lot of latitude. It seems to me, as an outsider, that a reasonable Christian position is on taking the existance of God and Christ as true. After that the details of the stories don't really count. The message is what counts.

This is interesting. Usually the atheists that I know personally get very uneasy and walk out of the conversation when religion is the center of discussion. I would get sent right to hell if I simply ask one of them to accompnay me to church so its hard for me to imagine an atheist going to church and being an active member(She's on the church board for crying out loud). Do any of the other board members know that she is an atheist? If they do, how do they make it work? Its like a republican being active in the democratic party.

---

Ponlo todo en las manos de Dios y que se joda el mundo. El principio de la sabiduria es el temor a Jehova

I don't have a problem with going to church. If I had time I might drop in now and then.She says the church board seems to have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy as far as belief goes. It is possible that she isn't the only one there. (she speculates that there may be no believers on the board in fact).She had to turn down the chairpersonship of the board cause she is already waaaaay too busy.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-11-2004 02:21 AM

I got home late after a busy day so I'll pick off a couple of posts and get some sleep. Out of town most of tomorrow. What is observed in the material world must be interpreted by someone to do so. One interprets it one way and others another.

Hi, Kc, the very fact that you are considering all sides makes you a better person. Stick with your fairness, it will help you through the rough spots in life. While we can understand why a specific branch of religion may give certitude to one`s life, what happens when you visit another branch of the Christian religion that practices other interpretations? Are you right? Are they wrong? Who will be the judge? All say God guides them. Even when they use different Bibles.
Science doesn`t vary. Wherever you travel in the world, different languages, different societies, different approaches to life, science is governed by the same rules. Some may change because we see the light a little clearer, but we all change to the new.

But Adam was created in God's image outa the ground, not procreated from half baked ancestors, according to the Biblical record. Imo, it would be rather odd of God to evolve stuff. If he has the power to make it evolve he has the power to create intact. It would be senseless of him to take millions of years to do what he's capabable of doing on the spot just like he wants it to be and the way Genesis said he did it. LOL, Mike. Ham and Baugh were likely being born about the time I became a Christian and began reading and studying the Bible at age 10. But the Bible, both old and new, say he was the first man. Dreaming up what's not in there is easy, indeed, Mike, but it's secular humanistic deception to undermine the Biblical record. God is the judge, not me. Messing with and adding to what God has inspired to be written is dangerous, imo, as it's part of the slippery path to eventual total rejection and apostasy as several on this board have declared. Haveing said that, it is my understanding that it is the atoning blood of the "Lamb," Jesus that saves. I John 5:ll says it is he who has Jesus, the saviour who has life. I count you as a brother in Christ based on your testimony. Imo, it's what you believe and do about God and Jesus that really counts, not what you believe about origins, but God is fussy about how we treat his Holy Scriptures. See the last few verses of the last chapter of Revelation. Jesus did say, concerning the judgement that he "never knew" many who cried, "Lord, Lord." They likely called him "Lord," but lived for and like the devil. Each must examing each's heart and soul and seek to keep on keeping on being commited to Jesus as both saviour and lord as Christians.