• 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!

Eden & Geology

Secret Chief

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
"There was no lightning in the preflood earth. Definitely not in pre-fall Eden. That came in through the catastrophic geological and atmospheric changes that took place."
This was claimed in another thread by @Rise and rather than derail an entirely different topic I thought it best to start a new one, in the appropriate forum.

I'm interested in thoughts around the interface between religion and science. Where there are differences in the two how are they addressed? Can geology, in this case, fall into agreement with Christian ideas as alluded to? Or reinterpreted? Or dismissed?
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The Genesis Creation Hebrew narrative evolved ~800-100 BCE from more ancient Sumarian/Babylonian/Canaanite mythological narratives, and Hebrew evolved traditional beliefs. It was an effort to explain the contradiction between a corrupt evil world with death and suffering, and an existence God Created that was idealic and good. Instead of blaming God the first humans take rap for the Fall and Original Sin bringing death, suffering and natural violence into the God's Creation.The world flood of Noah was supposed to cleanse the world, but alas no change. humans remain fallible humans and the nature of our physical existence never changed. Natural Laws and processes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Regiomontanus

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
Secret Chief said:
"There was no lightning in the preflood earth. Definitely not in pre-fall Eden. That came in through the catastrophic geological and atmospheric changes that took place."
This was claimed in another thread by @Rise and rather than derail an entirely different topic I thought it best to start a new one, in the appropriate forum.

I'm interested in thoughts around the interface between religion and science. Where there are differences in the two how are they addressed? Can geology, in this case, fall into agreement with Christian ideas as alluded to? Or reinterpreted? Or dismissed?
Click to expand...

There should never be a conflict, IMO. God gave us a rational mind and what we can show to be true cannot just be ignored. Rather, it should be our interpretation of scripture and tradition that should be revisited.
 
Brian2

Brian2

Veteran Member
shunyadragon said:
The Genesis Creation Hebrew narrative evolved ~800-100 BCE from more ancient Sumarian/Babylonian/Canaanite mythological narratives, and Hebrew evolved traditional beliefs. It was an effort to explain the contradiction between a corrupt evil world with death and suffering, and an existence God Created that was idealic and good. Instead of blaming God the first humans take rap for the Fall and Original Sin bringing death, suffering and natural violence into the God's Creation.The world flood of Noah was supposed to cleanse the world, but alas no change. humans remain fallible humans and the nature of our physical existence never changed. Natural Laws and processes.
Click to expand...

So much for Adam and Abraham and Moses being Messengers I guess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brian2

Brian2

Veteran Member
Regiomontanus said:
There should never be a conflict, IMO. God gave us a rational mind and what we can show to be true cannot just be ignored. Rather, it should be our interpretation of scripture and tradition that should be revisited.
Click to expand...

As long as we are looking at real science and not the speculations about how the universe came to be and what life it and how dead matter became living matter.
 
Secret Chief

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
shunyadragon said:
The Genesis Creation Hebrew narrative evolved ~800-100 BCE from more ancient Sumarian/Babylonian/Canaanite mythological narratives, and Hebrew evolved traditional beliefs. It was an effort to explain the contradiction between a corrupt evil world with death and suffering, and an existence God Created that was idealic and good. Instead of blaming God the first humans take rap for the Fall and Original Sin bringing death, suffering and natural violence into the God's Creation.The world flood of Noah was supposed to cleanse the world, but alas no change. humans remain fallible humans and the nature of our physical existence never changed. Natural Laws and processes.
Click to expand...
I guess it's just a matter of taking a myth literally or not. But then if one takes it literally, presumably one doesn't think it's a myth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Native

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Secret Chief said:
I'm interested in thoughts around the interface between religion and science. Where there are differences in the two how are they addressed? Can geology, in this case, fall into agreement with Christian ideas as alluded to? Or reinterpreted? Or dismissed?
Click to expand...
IMO the interface understanding between religion and science depends very much of being able to understand how ancient cultures used the symbolic language in order to build up their telling - and on how modern cosmological science can hold it´s focus on natural perceptions compared to highly speculative theories which lead to more confusions than explanations.

One of my prime opposition between ancient and modern world perception is the ancient cyclical perception og everything comparing to the linear thinking in modern astrophysics and cosmology.

Here all logics speaks IMO of a cyclical and eternal world perception and not of a Big Bang.
 
Secret Chief

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
Native said:
IMO the interface understanding between religion and science depends very much of being able to understand how ancient cultures used the symbolic language in order to build up their telling - and on how modern cosmological science can hold it´s focus on natural perceptions compared to highly speculative theories which lead to more confusions than explanations.

One of my prime opposition between ancient and modern world perception is the ancient cyclical perception og everything comparing to the linear thinking in modern astrophysics and cosmology.

Here all logics speaks IMO of a cyclical and eternal world perception and not of a Big Bang.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on the cyclical and eternal nature of the universe; perhaps science is slowly starting entertain that notion.
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Brian2 said:
So much for Adam and Abraham and Moses being Messengers I guess.
Click to expand...

No, that is not the issue here, as to whether Adam, Abraham, and Moses were manifestations of God is a different issue. This is an understanding of the human view and the influence and meaning of human issues that are reflected in ancient scripture, which of course may not reflect the reality of the Revelation from God at the time thousands of years ago. Human involvement in the compilation, redaction, and editing over time of ancient scripture is a well documented reality,

Separate issue not addressed in thread, but reflected in your post is my belief that Ancient scripture is only relevant to age and culture of the time, and the the real revelation is in the evolveing spiritual nature over time reflected in the hearts and minds of humanity. Because of this ancient tribal religions are not relevant to more universal needs of today,
 
Wandering Monk

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Secret Chief said:
I guess it's just a matter of taking a myth literally or not. But then if one takes it literally, presumably one doesn't think it's a myth.
Click to expand...

Myths are explanations for things we don't understand. Once we understand, there is no more place for myth at least in regard to the physical operation of the universe.
 
Wandering Monk

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Secret Chief said:
Quite so, but I wonder if myth has a function different to that of physical operations.
Click to expand...

Joseph Campbell had a lot to say about myth. His notion of monomyth is one where virtually every culture uses similar myth to answer existential questions about human life: birth, maturity, procreation, aging, death.
 
Secret Chief

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
Wandering Monk said:
Joseph Campbell had a lot to say about myth. His notion of monomyth is one where virtually every culture uses similar myth to answer existential questions about human life: birth, maturity, procreation, aging, death.
Click to expand...
A book to recommend?
(How weird, never heard of the word monomyth before yet just been playing this on heavy rotation....derailing my own thread :rolleyes: )

- Monomyth - Single
 
Native

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Secret Chief said:
I agree with you on the cyclical and eternal nature of the universe; perhaps science is slowly starting entertain that notion.
Click to expand...
If so they´ll have to work themselves back through x-levels of universes and a perception of everything cyclical in the universe.

And before that point is reached, they also have to discard lots of "dark this and that" inventions which patches their wrong and not understood ideas.
 
Secret Chief

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
Native said:
If so they´ll have to work themselves back through x-levels of universes and a perception of everything cyclical in the universe.

And before that point is reached, they also have to discard lots of "dark this and that" inventions which patches their wrong and not understood ideas.
Click to expand...
Yes, I imagine it'll take several eternities. :)
 
Native

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Regiomontanus said:
There should never be a conflict, IMO. God gave us a rational mind and what we can show to be true cannot just be ignored. Rather, it should be our interpretation of scripture and tradition that should be revisited.
Click to expand...
Agreed very much in this.

Of course it is my personal claim, but if understanding the ancient myths and religious telling and for instants interpret "deities" as natural forces, elements and objects, there should be no significant differences of understanding ancient and modern cosmological knowledge.

If accepting the ancient knowledge, I even would claim this to be able to correct some of the modern cosmological ideas. For instants, the ancient cultural mythical Stories of Creation have the Solar System to be created in connection with the creation of our Milky Way, whereas modern cosmology just have this to taken place from a random cosmic could of gas and dust which suddenly collapse in itself without being influenced by any external forces.

Also, the ancient knowledge has the universe to be eternal and infinite in where everything is eternally changing between formation/creation, dissolution and re-formation/creation, i.e. as a cyclical and eternal process - thus even confirming the scientific law of energy conservation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top