False Interpretations (ritual, Darwin, Earth, tradition, soul) - Page 2

Victor · #11 11-24-2005, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunstone

I've gradually come to the conclusion that the Biblical account of our origins really is not compatible with science. I think the Biblical account should be read as stating the relationship between God and man. Something science doesn't deal with.

If they contradict then let it be so. I'm not one to make it look pretty to make my case. I just can't see them as incompatible. If you take the account literally then they will deffinately be incompatible. But I thought I made this clear already.

~Victor

michel · #12 11-24-2005, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunstone

I've gradually come to the conclusion that the Biblical account of our origins really is not compatible with science. I think the Biblical account should be read as stating the relationship between God and man. Something science doesn't deal with.

Quite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victor

If they contradict then let it be so. I'm not one to make it look pretty to make my case. I just can't see them as incompatible. If you take the account literally then they will deffinately be incompatible. But I thought I made this clear already.

That's the point Victor,

Quote:

If you take the account literally then they will deffinately be incompatible.

I find it very difficult knowing what one is supposed to take literally from the Bible; somehow it feels 'wrong' to pick and choose.

Sunstone · #13 11-24-2005, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victor

If they contradict then let it be so. I'm not one to make it look pretty to make my case. I just can't see them as incompatible. If you take the account literally then they will deffinately be incompatible. But I thought I made this clear already.

~Victor

You're right! "Contradict" is closer to what I was trying to get at than is "incompatible".

Victor · #14 11-24-2005, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunstone

You're right! "Contradict" is closer to what I was trying to get at than is "incompatible".

Besides, I'm sure you'll agree that being shown that they are compatible is not gonna answer all the questions of the cosmos or make you a theist tommorow..

~Victor

Jayhawker Soule · #15 11-24-2005, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victor

Besides, I'm sure you'll agree that being shown that they are compatible is not gonna answer all the questions of the cosmos or make you a theist tommorow.

The Cosmos does not have questions - you do, along with the arrogance to believe that your [why] questions are meaningful.

Victor · #16 11-24-2005, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deut. 10:19

The Cosmos does not have questions - you do, along with the arrogance to believe that your [why] questions are meaningful.

Of course I do and it's rather normal to do so. I have tons of questions. Don't you? Oh wait, you already know everything dont you?

*sits and ponders whether Deut. attaches meaning to ANYTHING.

~Victor

Jayhawker Soule · #17 11-24-2005, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victor

Of course I do and it's rather normal to do so. I have tons of questions. Don't you? Oh wait, you already know everything dont you?

Grow up, Victor. Of course it's normal, but that in no way means that all "why" questions are cognitively meaningful, and it certainly doesn't mean that all are answerable. You see, Victor, you are the arrogant one, believing that your existential angst is "meaningful". Your insistence on a personal God is, at heart, an insistence that you're somehow special. Enjoy your projections ...