It’s not in my text that Abraham ever pee’d, either. Does it need to be?
Or are some things a reasonable deduction?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How can you accept evolution and still have a spiritual reality, and/or a God faith
- Thread starter osgart
- Start date
It’s not in my text that Abraham ever pee’d, either. Does it need to be?
Or are some things a reasonable deduction?
It's not a reasonable deduction that an author from maybe somewhere between 1000 BCE and 500 BCE had science from 2018 CE in mind (however incorrectly), is it?
Why would you expect anything from such a writer other than the science of his or her own era?
Or ─ since we agree the writer didn't actually say it anyway ─ why would we want to wish it (however incorrect) on him or her?
Are you jerking my chain or are you really that slow on the pick-up?
Read it again....."And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day".....The word is "made" (asah) not "create" (bara) God did not "create" the sun and moon on the 4th day....he "made" them appear in the sky, probably by lifting the clouds spoken about in Job. All the heavenly bodies were created along with the earth in one act of creation, as per Genesis 1:1.
Do you even read what is written?
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
Lets say there is a god.
It is hardly showing any respect or even real interest in
said god, if a person ignorantly / negligently denies the
works of that god.
There is no faith in behaving so, not that is worthy of the
name. It is nothing but faith in ones self, or, just
subsuming your mind and relationship with that god
to the group-think of others in some misbegotten
cult.
So what? Every translation I can find says 'made'. The sense here is identical to 'create'.
God made the two great lights on Day 4. [He] didn't 'make them appear' ─ neither those words nor that notion are present in the text.
Steve Job? Of course! The text is probably saying [he] made the two great lights with a great-light-making app for [his] Mac. Well spotted!
Lots of things. That light can be bent by passing through a lens, and also be gravity. That the effect of gravity decreases as the square of the distance between masses. That Donald Trump is (grievously POTUS. That God cannot be both omniscient and unaware of how Adam & Eve would react to the temptation He put in the garden, or that if He was so aware, then He IS THE CAUSE of the evil that ensued.
That evolution is how life on earth has come to its present state of diversity is also extremely well-known, and that those who refuse to actually familiarize themselves with the sciences that make that evidently clear will deny it, and continue to refuse to learn the required sciences, which I do not intend to recite here, as it would take too many libraries and I'd be banned before I got one ten-thousandth of the way through.
gnostic
The Lost One
Ask the pope.
gnostic
The Lost One
Do you understand what the Cambrian Explosion (CE) is?
What types of organisms or animals exist BEFORE and what exist DURING and AFTER Cambrian Explosion?
When did mammals, reptiles, birds, fishes, dinosaurs followed CE?
gnostic
The Lost One
Evolution is biology, so there is really nothing to say about god or spiritual reality.
If you want to know about god, then do a theology subject.
Evolution isn’t theology.
Does Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Particle Physics, the periodic tables, etc, say anything about god?
Evolution isn’t the only scientific field to leave out god.
They do not have the same sense at all. They are two different words with two different meanings.
Since the universe was created in one almighty explosion of energy, the sun and moon were already there.
A sun in full view now served as “luminary” to brighten the day, bringing both warmth and light.....giving us breathtaking sunrises and sunsets. Did those daily events have to be beautiful?
But what about the moon? Well, I have read that it has one of the darkest surfaces in the solar system, reflecting only 7 percent of the light it receives. Yet the moon’s size and distance from the earth (which control the tides) are just right to result in the soft, pleasant moonlight we all enjoy. This “lesser luminary” is a perfect night light. How is this all an accident do you think?
What's the important difference here between "God created the two great lights" and "God made the two great lights"?
The authors of the bible had not the slightest concept of the Big Bang. They thought the earth was flat; and fixed in place at the center of the universe; and that the sun, moon and stars went round it; and that the sky was a solid dome to which those celestial bodies were affixed; and that if they came loose they'd fall to earth (here's >that link to the relevant quotes in the bible< again). So I don't see what your statement has to do with anything they wrote.
Not 'now served': the sun wasn't made till Day 4, as the text plainly says.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Yes........
The impersonal Deity........ yep.
I think that I might have an answer for @metis, who has pointed out that although he and I both see variations of 'God in all' that he is a Theist. (I am a Deist.)
Many agnostics and even atheists are Deists who reject an 'Interested God', just as I do. But since I do believe in a Deity then I don't think that I can be agnostic or atheist.
Maybe those who choose the title 'Theist' feel more close to a connected, interested, involved God?
exchemist
Veteran Member
I had not thought of this distinction before but, on looking it up, I think that must be right.
How many times must it be repeated?
"Bara" is "create" but "asah" is "made"...the difference being that one of the ways "asah" is be translated is "to act, act with effect". That means the sun and moon were there from the beginning of creation, but gradually as the creative periods advanced, the cloud layers were cleared and revealed the sun and moon and also the stars. Surely this is not rocket science.
Please don't confuse what the Bible writers wrote compared with how the church interpreted their words.
Your link is a complete misinterpretation based on what the church taught, not what the Bible says. Galileo was persecuted by the church...not God.
That is apparently your story and you are sticking to it...all the best with that. There is no point in repeating it again...believe whatever you like. I obviously have nothing to tell you.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
This is an extremely creative misinterpretation of the Bible. It's honestly still surprising to me the lengths to which people will go to try and make their holy texts fit with reality. I'm always reminded of a great Bill Hicks line (paraphrased):Are you jerking my chain or are you really that slow on the pick-up?
Read it again....."And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day".....The word is "made" (asah) not "create" (bara) God did not "create" the sun and moon on the 4th day....he "made" them appear in the sky, probably by lifting the clouds spoken about in Job. All the heavenly bodies were created along with the earth in one act of creation, as per Genesis 1:1.
Do you even read what is written?
"Fundamentalist Christians say the Bible is the exact word of God, then they changed the Bible. Pretty presumptuous, huh? 'I think what God meant to say...' I've never been that confident."
exchemist
Veteran Member
This a quite funny. These sects make a huge deal of the need to take the bible literally, as written, and yet they themselves have to resort to highly creative interpretations to enable it to make sense - exactly the practice of interpretation that they affect to despise so much, in other denominations!
No, it's not rocket science, and I'm not the one trying to wish rocket science on it.How many times must it be repeated?
"Bara" is "create" but "asah" is "made"...the difference being that one of the ways "asah" is be translated is "to act, act with effect". That means the sun and moon were there from the beginning of creation, but gradually as the creative periods advanced, the cloud layers were cleared and revealed the sun and moon and also the stars. Surely this is not rocket science.
The text expressly states that ─
Light was made on Day 2.
Plants were made on Day 3
The two great lights, the greater one to rule the day, were made on Day 4.
The authors weren't scientists in any modern sense. They thought the earth was flat, and rigidly and immovably fixed, and the center of the universe, and that the sun moon and stars went round it, attached to the solid dome of the sky. Plants were made on Day 3
The two great lights, the greater one to rule the day, were made on Day 4.
So modern 'common sense' and their 'common sense' are two completely different things, as we can tell by reading the text without trying to wish meanings on it that aren't there.
I go to great pains to keep the words of the text paramount.
No, once again the link simply sets out thirty examples of the cosmology of the ancients at the times and places the books of the bible were written. I'm not the one trying to wish 21st century meanings on the text 2500 years too late. I'm happy that the text says what the authors believed and intended about that cosmology. Why aren't you?
Audie
Veteran Member
If a person wants 21st century meanings, they
could be a little more consistent.
But I guess flat-earth, dome-sky is just too wildly
obviously wrong for anyone but the deranged,
while the proof that the 6 day poof-n-flood is equally
absurd takes a little bit of work to understand.
By 'consistent' you mean, choose a theme before making it up?
But perhaps the point is that, particularly when the earliest books of the bible were being written down, if there was a line at all between history and fable, it was a thin and misty one.