Is Genesis to be taken literally Part II

Impressive.I usually have to warm up before gymnastics.

That your post was an amazing example of the sort of back-breaking mental gymnastics that literalists often have to engage in to warp the Bible into saying what they want it to say.

The problem is that those who do believe don't do so from a basis that can be discussed, so what is left?

The evidence of the world we observe, and the reason of conclusions drawn from that evidence.But a position of "I'll believe no matter what the evidence says" is not a position that can be discussed.

Then I have no reason to believe that it exists, short of your opinion that it does. How can that be a basis for discussion? It's like baking a cake without a fish, two quarters, and a cup of axle grease. The "ingredients" you refer aren't a part of the debate because they cannot be substantiated, cannot be known to exist, and therefore, no consensus can be come to on their existence beyond "we don't know." They're simply not a part of the debate; they can't be, by definition.

That's hardly a unique condition for a book. There's nothing about the Bible that necessitates, for reasonable people, that special rules or lower standards be employed. This book, and other books. Personally my life changed for the better when I stopped reading it, and that's true for millions of other people, too. I can, and am. People change their own lives, for a myriad of reasons; books don't change people's lives for them.

Well, great. You've gone from one verifiable claim to a claim that is beyond verification or inquiry. How is the discussion supposed to continue?You're making my point for me. How are we supposed to have discussions with believers when, at the slightest hint of rebuttal, they retreat into assertions that are inherently beyond discussion? Apparently, judging from the lack of any sort of consensus among believers, there's no understanding of God through the Bible with belief. On the other hand, there's a surprising amount of consensus among people who draw conclusions not from faith but from evidence.How can you claim to have understanding through faith when nobody with faith can come to consensus on what it is, exactly, that they understand? It's like those blind men in the Bible, the ones with the elephant. None of them have the same story about what they're talking about, which is how we know that they don't understand the elephant in front of them.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-07-2005 07:25 PM