 sj |
||
|
||
Bible question
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 02 May 13 - 12:30 PM bill- i say things as i understand them and i am sorry if that is imprecise or muddled.that may be why you did not adress my challenges- maybe?!. i am aware that beneficial mutations help an organism adapt and cope.what i do not believe is that the mutations lead to any increase in information.reshuffling and loss but not gain,even while benefial to an organism.no new,novel information == no evolutionary pathway. the observations of natural selection is not evidence of microbes to man evolution. if you say it is you will need to demonstrate this without appeal to complex processes that are not demonstable. i too am away over the weekend. pete. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Bill D Date: 02 May 13 - 11:15 AM ".. i am not claiming you believe that one creature turns into another overnight." *sigh* Who said ANYTHING about overnight? We do NOT believe that, and have NOT asserted that YOU claimed we did. "...and that the ones that are have not been shown to confer the new information required to advance beyond the confines of the animal in question." What a convoluted way to say something that simply is not accurate. "conferring new information" is not exactly a technical way of describing the process. Mutations that ARE beneficial have been proven to be the major mechanism by which organisms are able to adapt and cope. Those which did not adapt are known only as fossils.... and we don't even have most of them. Pete.... you are still using phrasing that is not even answerable directly. "what is interesting is the more or less exactness of fossils alledgedly MYO with modern creatures,and "lazarus taxa" ,those thoght to have gone extinct in deep time appearing looking much like the fossil specimens." If MYO means "many years old", that statement is flatly incorrect in its implications. Old fossils are NOT 'exact'... they are less, not more. Over a few hundred thousand years, a bird or a monkey might not 'seem' to have changed much, but the experts can see the changes. And over several million years, even non-experts can see the differences. You cannot wipe away that data by suggesting that they are just 'different' animals or species, and that not having all intermediate steps invalidates the logical connections! We can't GET all the intermediate steps! Basing your entire defense on a literal reading of Genesis requires, it seems, constructing arguments and phrasing that mis-states what science claims, then criticizing your own mis-statements. This, in logic, is similar to the "straw man" fallacy. If you wish to debate science, it is only fair to use the actual claims & language. Now... tomorrow I will be away for several days, so I will not have time to look at this thread till maybe Tuesday. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 02 May 13 - 06:10 AM bill [and joe likes] -i should have thought that my mentioning of deep time demonstates that i am not claiming you believe that one creature turns into another overnight.my contention is that their is their are limits to adaption and that new information would need to be somehow taken into the creature[s.s.s.s ad nauseum]and so far as i know that has not been demonstrated "some"is it not true that MOST mutations are not beneficial,and that the ones that are have not been shown to confer the new information required to advance beyond the confines of the animal in question. what is interesting is the more or less exactness of fossils alledgedly MYO with modern creatures,and "lazarus taxa" ,those thoght to have gone extinct in deep time appearing looking much like the fossil specimens. " 99%" a- does that mean that nearly all scientists are involved in origins research.i thought we had already agreed that useful,operational science is done whatever the beliefs of the scientist. b- if evolution does have imput into useful science,i invite you again to demonstrate such.i have already demonstrated how it has hindered it.or maybe how the great creationist scientists of yesteryear [or today] have hindered useful science ?. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Joe Offer Date: 02 May 13 - 12:56 AM |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Bill D Date: 01 May 13 - 08:17 PM "adaption in animal types is no evidence for their developing into other types of animal." Pete... that is a total misunderstanding and mis-statement of what evolutionary theory is about. You persist in using that argument (clams don't turn into tigers..or whatever) to debunk evolution. No...they don't. Nothing exactly "turns into" something entirely different. However--- certain types of adaptation DO demonstrate the basic process of evolution. Finches have genes for different beak configuration from WAY back, and changing conditions favor certain ones. That process over thousands or millions of years allows organisms to gradually (VERY gradually) adapt to new conditions.. (even 'adapt' is not the proper term, because most serious adaptation requires some sort of mutation... and some mutations are NOT favorable... which many fossils have no modern link. The ones which survived have many, many...many... stages. As I have said before, IF we had all the missing links, no museum could house them all.) "i was thinking of the many scientists that believed the bible and found there the inspiration for research." Which proves nothing at all... a scientist could be 'inspired' by the Harry Potter books and 'discover' stuff about magic... and no doubt convince others. Of course, we have direct evidence of the source of Harry Potter..... but no clear evidence of the original source of biblical manuscripts. Pete, I can only repeat that you keep returning to arguments that do NOT represent what the various ideas in evolutionary theory assert. You try to simplify a concept of great complexity and you regularly use circular reasoning to defend your own premises. You nod and admit that some of 'us' have more education and have read more, yet you don't seem to have much respect for education that doesn't support YOUR beliefs. I honor your basic belief that Creation must have had a Creator... but I cannot deal with your denial of the evidence about reality that 99% of scientists use every day. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 01 May 13 - 03:35 PM seems musket that you are misunderstanding my meaning again.certainly many of the mosaic laws were of health benefit but i was thinking of the many scientists that believed the bible and found there the inspiration for research.they viewed science as a creation mandate and sought to recover what they believed was the encyclopaedic knowledge of adam. your "finch evolution" is not evolution as in microbes to man pathway.there were variations in the finches beaks that were advantageous for different food sources,as i understand it.adaption in animal types is no evidence for their developing into other types of animal,however much deep time is posited. i am happy to suppose that adam did have nipples,but as the bible does not specify i can not be certain.but as eve was fashioned from adams side i suppose the similar design detail could have been transferred from him to her. while adam was in dreamland anasthenic rest God removed a rib from him he never could have guessed that from this was being formed a perfect suited mate to live with him in eden in a joyous state. God introduced the woman to the only male and it would come as no surprise if his first word was "wow" it was as God intended for God invented sex and as a result of that we know what happens next. just thought i,d throw that in for fun! |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Mr Happy Date: 01 May 13 - 07:25 AM Q3. Given that there's somewhat controversy over the 'belly button' question, it follows to ask; did the created man have nipples? |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,Musket sans reality check Date: 30 Apr 13 - 06:14 PM The Bible and the many similar handbooks on life that existed over the years were the science of their day. The difference now is the acceptance that a hypothesis is best challenged than accepted blindly. As nobody who had anything to do with the Bible etc had visited The Galipagos Islands, finch evolution didn't enter into it. However, eating of foods that go off in hot countries such as pork and shellfish, or circumcision were good sound public health measures. Nowadays we have more sophisticated public health measures including monitoring flu in China in the summer of this year to concoct the flu jab given 18 months from now here in The UK. The Bible couldn't comprehend such logistics. In fact, compared with the wonders of reality, the Bible must be so limiting, so parochial. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 30 Apr 13 - 04:57 PM yes jack evolutionism posited vestigual organs as useless leftovers of evolution.just about all of them are now known to serve a purpose. so called junk dna - same story. dawkins and probably other darwin devotees waxed lyrical about the eye being backward wired turned out wrong.it is the best design for the purpose. bill- i,m sure we could discuss again whether carbon dating methods are anywhere near accurate or not.often it is just the presence of c14 when it should be all but gone that demonstrates the weaknesses. however my original point was evolution does nothing for useful science[bear in mind that the more fundier atheists claim creationism is anti science,whish is in flat contradiction of the science that flourished under a biblical worldview] |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Doug Chadwick Date: 29 Apr 13 - 04:30 AM 1. Christianity 25,210,195 2. Islam 22,588,676 3. Hinduism 12,533,734 4. Chinese folk-religions 3,715,548 5. Buddhism 3,687,527 Those are extremely specific numbers. Nobody asked me, so the number for Chinese folk-religions could be 3,715,549 – or is someone just making them up? DC |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Bill D Date: 28 Apr 13 - 09:44 PM Pete... the difference is subtle. There is no blanket, absolute statement that covers all scientific inquiry. **IF** one accepts evolution, a lot of other science... especially in certain disciplines... follows logically and naturally. *IF* one does NOT accept evolution, there are certain bits of evidence that cannot be taken at face value, and MUST be explained and rationalized to 'conform' with the Bible. I'm not sure how they explain carbon dating, but it must require a lot of wriggling. Carbon atoms follow very clear and regular rules... and they tell us important things. SOME science does not require any particular belief system, as it is possible, as you note, to design an MRI without worrying about religion. Same goes with many aspects of physics (though not all). Botany however , and endocrinology get into areas where DNA and fossils must be considered as having evolved, or some stuff just makes no sense. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Apr 13 - 05:33 PM i said before evolutionary thought has hindered science. DO YOU HAVE AN EXAMPLE? |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 28 Apr 13 - 05:16 PM maybe i misconstrued your previous post bill,,,but it appeared to be implying that good science was done because the work was done well by thinking evolutionary.presumably that was not your intent as it is obvious that you dont have to be an evolutionist to do good.infact as i said before evolutionary thought has hindered science. BTW i have just finished watching the latest BBC 2 evolution propaganda.this time thogh it was alfred wallce[bill bailys jungle hero]it was interesting despite the usual equivocation of natural selection with evolutionism.lovely filming and shots of wierd and wonderful creatures. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Musket Date: 28 Apr 13 - 12:32 PM "It does reflect what I have noticed about the higher visibility of many fundamentalist churches as they promote their ideas more 'forcefully'." I've noticed it too. The more you make a point of convincing, the less convincing your argument. But there again, rational people are aware of that, and don't need me saying it or God botherers decrying it. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Bill D Date: 28 Apr 13 - 10:24 AM I had somewhere a link to an article about a decline in those who identify themselves as church members. I can't find that one, but these make similar points. http://www.christianchronicle.org/article2158685~Church_in_America_marked_by_decline http://beta.effinghamherald.net/section/2/article/19783/ Then, this one says that 'mainstream' Protestant churches are declining, while evangelical churches are growing. (Catholicism had about a 1% gain)Even the Southern Baptists are declining. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/15/report-us-churches-contin_n_823701.html Because the total membership of the evangelicals is much smaller, I'd guess that its % gain is not enough to offset the % decline in the larger denominations. It would take some careful analysis to be sure exactly. It does reflect what I have noticed about the higher visibility of many fundamentalist churches as they promote their ideas more 'forcefully'. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman Date: 28 Apr 13 - 02:52 AM Which says a lot regarding tools to control people. Easier to control in emerging markets than where your false promises are seen for what they are. Ever noticed a link between knowledge, intelligence and questioning bollocks? Nice of Sailor boy to provide the facts that deny the thrust of most of his arguments. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Apr 13 - 05:51 PM I think Bill that worldwide, Pete is correct. The number of religious people may be dwindling in the affluent west, but it is growing in the rest of the world, most notably Russia and China. http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/numbers.html 1. Christianity 25,210,195 2. Islam 22,588,676 3. Hinduism 12,533,734 4. Chinese folk-religions 3,715,548 5. Buddhism 3,687,527 More than 1/5 of the population of the USA every year. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Bill D Date: 27 Apr 13 - 05:36 PM Pete...no one said that those who believe in creationism and a young earth cannot do good science. But, as I have said several times, it was not their religious beliefs that made their science useful. While the fellow was working on the MRI, he was thinking as a scientist, not as a creationist. I am a pretty good woodworker, but it is not my lack of religious beliefs that made me so. I am sure 'some' woodworkers who are also fundamentalist Christians also believe God gave them their talent... besides providing the wood... but doing good woodwork does not require that belief. So it is with science.... "dwindling minority? i thought it was far from that in your country,.." No... there are actually recent studies showing that fewer Americans identify themselves as fundamentalist Christians. What IS true currently is that there are still many around, and in a larger % than in the UK and Europe generally. There is no shortage of churches of all types here... and certain groups have been.... well... to put it clearly, been making a lot of noise & headlines as they attempt to insert various religious principles directly into social and political areas. (Abortion is a prime example.) We have this thing in our Constitution that says that endorsing and/or favoring specific religions is not allowed.... although practicing religion IS permitted and defended. As should be evident, this has led to a lot of disputes in recent years. It's not easy....... |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Penny S. Date: 27 Apr 13 - 05:11 PM Skin colour - the name Adam is related, I understand, to words implying red-coloured. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 27 Apr 13 - 03:14 PM thanks bill. "most scientists" have often been wrong before. "most theologians"-i note that you infer that they just followed the concensus of the "most scientists".i think it sad that theologians feel the need to impose secular theories on scripture but they obviously felt the need to accomodate. i did not follow the idea that useful science is done because scientists follow the "evidence".by useful science i meant things like the MRI scanner co-invented by damidian,a creationist. dwindling minority? i thought it was far from that in your country,though here it probably is as far as church membership is concerned.in many places churches are growing and those are largely ones that believe the bible.in any case as i am sure you know, the good shepherd goes after the one lost sheep,and there "is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents" one thing i am sure we will agree on is that if we met it would not only be heads shaking, but hands also. blessings pete. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Bill D Date: 27 Apr 13 - 01:34 PM "i have yet to hear how evolutionism has been useful to operational science "maybe you can provide instances of creationist belief being detrimental to USEFUL science?." Wow, Pete.... I'm not sure I can type fast enough with my two-fingered technique to do those justice. Let me just say that because **creationist belief** requires one to interpret all data as a part of a previously defined set of immutable ideas. This can lead to faulty conclusions. You would probably say that science seems to be progressing just fine and doing 'useful' things every day.... and I would reply that this is mostly because most scientists do NOT subscribe to creationist beliefs and are free to take the evidence where it leads them and revise the details when necessary. Then, I suppose, we would both shake our heads and start over and just agree to disagree. That attitude (most scientists) has led to understanding that the earth is VERY old and led most theologians to interpret biblical writings in a non-literal way. They still believe the 'concepts' of the bible were inspired, but no longer bother to calculate age by a long list of names in Genesis... most of whom we have nothing of except a name, with no idea who might have kept such a list. Your beliefs are what they are, and you can be a good man and sing songs and be kind to others, even knowing that you are part of a dwindling minority in the world. I realize we have been down this road before, and I and others have presented all the points we can think of to show what we feel are problems with your basic assumptions. In the last analysis, it is not 'important' that we convince you.... it is just important to make sure that all the arguments are clear. take care Bill D |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,Musket sans sin Date: 27 Apr 13 - 10:59 AM Pallo. Thought it seemed wrong and I have been thinking about it and returned to the theme. Jackie Pallo, not Pallow. That's better. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 27 Apr 13 - 04:47 AM bill-we have been down this road many times before .just because evolutionists assert that their interpretation of the data is fact,dont make it so.i am almost sure that even your greater learning does not encapsulate every discipline involved in origins theory. neither do i accept that creationism is dangerous- other than to darwin dogma! in fact science flourished under a christian and creationist worldview.i have yet to hear how evolutionism has been useful to operational science and i,m sure i can provide quotes to that end and instances of darwinian theory hindering science.maybe you can provide instances of creationist belief being detrimental to USEFUL science?. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Les from Hull Date: 26 Apr 13 - 05:30 PM Brian Glover playing God, eh? Somehow it just seemed right that God had a Yorkshire accent! |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Bill D Date: 26 Apr 13 - 03:29 PM i dont think that my taking the account of their creation as historical makes me dangerous either. Pete... the 'danger' involved is not about a person. It is about holding out a 'concept' for others that confuses two types of thinking. The problem is that accepting a literal view of Genesis as historical fact also requires you to adjust other facts to fit....(age of the Earth, specific things about geology, physics, paleontology, etc.)... that are pretty clear and scientifically corroborated when not discussing biblical interpretation. As I have tried to stress before, there are ways to retain a belief in a Supreme Being that do not require ignoring and redefining tested scientific theories (and "theories" does NOT mean unproven... ) |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,Musket sans reality check Date: 26 Apr 13 - 01:45 PM Brian Glover eh? Now that takes me back. Saw him knock seven bells of shit out of Jackie Pallow. Only it wasn't real of course. But that didn't stop the crowd shouting encouragement. I'm looking for a metaphor for enjoying made up things literally but can't quite find one to use with my wrestling memory. ... |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Edthefolkie Date: 26 Apr 13 - 12:20 PM When I last saw Adam and Eve, they were definitely white, had belly buttons, also Rice Krispies in strategic areas. But that was at the National Theatre, and they were created by Brian Glover. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 26 Apr 13 - 09:20 AM Yes because having made a living human being from clay, an omnipotent creator presumably would not have the skills to get the color right. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Les from Hull Date: 26 Apr 13 - 09:05 AM The biblical Adam was presumably dust coloured. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Apr 13 - 06:25 AM a historico/grammatical view What the hell is this when it's at 'ome? And since when has the Bible been a "historical narrative?" Can we have the credentials of the "historians" who penned it, please? |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 25 Apr 13 - 09:02 PM jack - i was saying no such thing.certain atheists somehow seem to think that those like myself who hold to a historico/grammatical view of the bible are dangerous.they dont however seem to react much better to those like yourself who dont accept historical narrative at face value |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Apr 13 - 07:46 PM the conplexion of adam and eve is not described in the bible.i,m sure they were not hollywood white though! If you don't know you can't be sure, can you. Or have you got faith in the assumption they were not Hollywood white? and BTW i dont think that my taking the account of their creation as historical makes me dangerous either. No. It says plenty about the state of your intellectual prowess, though. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 25 Apr 13 - 11:54 AM >> i dont think that my taking the account of their creation as historical makes me dangerous either. << Nor I hope, does my interpretation of them as no specific stereotypical metaphors. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 25 Apr 13 - 11:52 AM no mention of skin color |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 25 Apr 13 - 11:47 AM just if happily that was a serious question,maybe? - the conplexion of adam and eve is not described in the bible.i,m sure they were not hollywood white though! and BTW i dont think that my taking the account of their creation as historical makes me dangerous either. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Mr Happy Date: 25 Apr 13 - 11:20 AM Joe, Thanks for your explanation. Q2. Does your bible mention a description about the shade of complexion of the man & woman that the god is alleged to have created? |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 25 Apr 13 - 09:30 AM I am sure that Campbell would have studied them. this excerpt from Wiki indicates that civilization a order were among their religious ideals. Large parts of the Aztec pantheon were inherited from previous Mesoamerican civilizations and others, such as Tlaloc, Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca, were venerated by different names in most cultures throughout the history of Mesoamerica. For the Aztecs especially important deities were Tlaloc the god of rain, Huitzilopochtli the patron god of the Mexica tribe, Quetzalcoatl the culture hero and god of civilization and order, and Tezcatlipoca the god of destiny and fortune, connected with war and sorcery. Each of these gods had their own temples within the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan—Tlaloc and Huitzilopochtli were both worshipped at the Templo Mayor. A common Aztec religious practice was the recreation of the divine: Mythological events would be ritually recreated and living persons would impersonate specific deities and be revered as a god—and often ritually sacrificed. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Lighter Date: 25 Apr 13 - 08:40 AM > "there is wisdom in all religions." A more defensible statement, though I have my doubt about the Aztecs. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 25 Apr 13 - 08:24 AM "Or men like Zeus can be deceitful" Should be men can be deceitful as Zeus was. If you like, you can interpret Campbell as having said "there is wisdom in all religions." |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 25 Apr 13 - 08:21 AM "> "It is true when understood metaphorically." -Joseph Campbell So he's saying it's true when it really means something else. " met·a·phor (mt-fôr, -fr) n. 1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in "a sea of troubles" or "All the world's a stage" (Shakespeare). 2. One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol: "Hollywood has always been an irresistible, prefabricated metaphor for the crass, the materialistic, the shallow, and the craven" (Neal Gabler). In the most simple terms I can think of the eating of the fruit of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" is not referring to an actual bite taken from an actual fruit but is a metaphor for taking responsibility for our own actions as adults. True as a metaphor but not an actual recorded event. Or thunder is the work of an angry God so beware of the thunder. Or men like Zeus can be deceitful and can leave a baby in your belly. but don't count on the baby growing up to be Hercules. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Lighter Date: 25 Apr 13 - 08:01 AM > "It is true when understood metaphorically." -Joseph Campbell So he's saying it's true when it really means something else. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 25 Apr 13 - 06:42 AM " I think the Bible is a very valuable and sacred and inspiring document, but it's dangerous if it's taken literally and without reference to scholarly research." I don't think research makes it less dangerous. The people who abuse it are often the ones who spend the most effort on research. It is what is in the reader's heart that makes it good or bad. "I'm curious as to the origins of religion " Mr Happy. I find Joseph Campbell to be a good source on that. Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. Joseph Campbell |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 25 Apr 13 - 06:32 AM To convert good roots into high quality blooms, hard pruning at the right time is essential. Works for me. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Joe Offer Date: 24 Apr 13 - 05:59 AM Well, for a more serious answer to your question, Mr. Happy, the Bible is a product of religion. I suppose you could define religion as "the organized practice of a relationship with the divine." The Bible depicts Adam, Eve, and their descendants as interacting with God, so I'd suppose that's religion. I think the Bible is a very valuable and sacred and inspiring document, but it's dangerous if it's taken literally and without reference to scholarly research. Karen Armstrong (1944 - ), has written a number of very readable books on the origins of religion. My favorite is The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions (2006). Armstrong says most of the great religions began during the Axial Age, a period from 800 to 200 BC. Armstrong notes the similarities that exist among the various religions, particularly the fact that all are based on some sort of Golden Rule concept (do unto others as you would have them do unto you). Armstrong takes a very positive view of the origins of almost all major religions, and sees them as altruistic in their origins - as do I. And while I think most religions have good roots, most are in dire need of reform. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: GUEST,Mark Date: 23 Apr 13 - 05:46 PM Let's bring back some humor to this thread. Adam was the world's first accountant - he turned a leaf and made an entry. Pharaoh's daughter was the world's first woman financier - she took a prophet from a rush on the bank. (the first financier was Noah - he floated stock, while the rest of the world was in liquidation). Noah said: "Go forth and multiply!". The snakes said: "We can't - we're adders!" |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Mr Happy Date: 14 Apr 13 - 07:33 AM Joe, 'Gee, Mr. Happy, are you one of those literalists who won't do anything not specified in the Bible? Certainly not - I don't believe fantasies, but I'm curious as to the origins of religion |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Apr 13 - 09:03 PM I think Adam is symbolic of the appearance/development of an entire new race of humans rather than being a literal tale about a single man. And Eve is probably symbolic of a new emotional/mental component... Hmm.I see that sexism started early. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Apr 13 - 08:37 PM I doubt that the passage "in his own image" was referring to the shape and characteristics of a physical body at all. More likely it was referrring allegorically to the particular form of consciousness that animates us and makes us human. Likewise, I think Adam is symbolic of the appearance/development of an entire new race of humans rather than being a literal tale about a single man. And Eve is probably symbolic of a new emotional/mental component developing in the consciousness OF that race, not of a single woman. Not saying I am sure about it. Just saying it seems far more probable than any literal interpretation of the story. I think the story is a parable about the evolution of the human race, and not intended to be taken literally. It's very ancient. People repeated it and repeated it, and eventually most of them started just taking it literally, because that is the easiest conclusion for most people to come to. It demands no extra thought. It also delights the skeptics and opponents of religion, being enormously unlikely if taken literally, so they'd rather it wasn't a parable...then they can easily reject it without a moment's hesitation. The shortest route to anything is the route of least thought about it. The route of instant reaction...either for or against...and no further analysis whatsoever. This is equally true for the literal-minded fundamentalist and the literal-minded skeptic. They have no patience to give consideration to symbols, parables or allegory in ancient religious writings. They don't want to think about it. They just want to declare it "truth" or "falsehood"...and make it their absolute dogma, one way or the other. |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: frogprince Date: 13 Apr 13 - 08:32 PM I've heard fundamentalists say a lot of...interesting?...things over the years. A few months ago I heard one that was new to me: "I've always wondered if, when God created Adam out of mud, He created him lying down, or standing up". |
|
Subject: RE: Bible question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 13 Apr 13 - 08:12 PM Yes to belly button, Bell invented both 1st & 2nd phone because he was an intelligent designer |
| Share Thread: |
