1. 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!

Featured Existence

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Jimmy, Sep 19, 2021.

  1. Evangelicalhumanist

    Evangelicalhumanist "Truth" isn't a thing...
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    10,898
    Ratings:
    +12,213
    Religion:
    None.
    And for that reason alone, it would be an utter waste of time responding to you intelligibly at all.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    17,924
    Ratings:
    +12,794
    Religion:
    Christian
    Are you saying I should reconsider my position on self-immolation?
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  3. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    17,924
    Ratings:
    +12,794
    Religion:
    Christian
    I accept the possibility that we could all be wrong. I have doubts about the possibility that no one is wrong. Some answers are logically incompatible with others. Young earth creationists reject alternatives to timelines determined based on sources other than the Bible and without due consideration of the evidence.
     
  4. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,725
    Ratings:
    +7,879
    Religion:
    None
    I agree. For me, the seven day story was replaced by the scientific account.

    We are all free to reject whatever aspects of the Bible seem wrong and substitute whatever seems more correct. I've probably gone a little further with it than you. For example, the concept of a divinity is best replaced with the potential of man. Man is clearly what this god concept refers to, both being of the same image. The resurrection is probably best understood as a symbol of the rebirth of reason, which has flourished in classical antiquity, then essentially died through a period of unsupported belief ("The Age Of Faith") only to be born again (that's what renaissance means in French), rising from the flames like a Phoenix because of an Enlightenment ("The Age Of Reason"). Heaven stands for the best world man can create on earth and the cosmos.

    Incidentally, I have a hypothesis for why that strange story appears in the Bible. I say strange, because, as you note, why should a god labor for six days to do what ought to be the blink of an eye, and moreover, why say that this god needed a day of rest?

    Once upon a time, there was no concept of a week because the idea would have been meaningless absent something in the cycle like a weekend to demark where the cycle ends and begins again. Natural cycles like days, months and years all have physical demarcations (the sunset, the new moon, and the return of spring). At that time, presumably every able-bodied person worked every day, and one day was no different from another.

    So why weeks? And why was the creation framed as six days of work and one of rest?

    Enter the advent of the priesthood, and a centralized temple administering an organized religion. This requires visits from the shepherds, masons, and farmers to receive indoctrination and to bring donations to support the priesthood. And that may require a long walk of wagon ride of several hours duration each way, that is a day away from work. Where previously it was likely considered a sin to not work, to support this new conceptual framework, it became a sin not to cease working periodically, which was rendered as a Commandment to honor the Sabbath.

    The week was the newly created cycle for this purpose, since days were too short and months and years too long. This makes sense to me. There is no other reason to portray this god needing six days to complete its work and then one more to rest. As you noted, that's an idea to reject - not to mention all of the science.

    Agree again. I've never understood why people call these Bible stories timeless truths. What are the great lessons we can learn there that are better than the boy who cried wolf, the fox and the grapes, or Chicken Little? I guess that those embody timeless truths about wrong behavior as well, but do we need a book for this?

    What's the timeless truth in the Flood story? I see a god who is dissatisfied with its creation and rather than loving man anyway, or correcting whatever software errors accounted for sinning, decided to start again by drowning most terrestrial life and then restocking the earth using the same flawed, human stock. Where's the inspiration there? What's the life lesson there? Don't be created by an intolerant god with a heavy hand?

    I'm in agreement with you that the Genesis account is not symbolic, but not because I think it's historical - because I think it is a wrong guess like all creation stories (apart from the scientific account).

    A wrong answer is not a symbol. Nor is it an allegory or metaphor. All of those imply substitution of a symbol for something literal. The five Olympic rings are symbols representing continents. An apple is a symbol for something appealing and desired in, "She was the apple of his eye." Gulliver's Travels is an allegory in which fantastical fictional characters substitute for prominent figures in British politics of Swift's era.

    But these creation stories don't stand for anything but wrong answers, like misadding a sum of numbers, and then later, when somebody comes along and adds them properly, we are told that the old sum was a symbol, that is instead a timeless truth and life lesson not to be taken literally, and that scripture is not meant to be understood a math book (or science, or history).

    I think mistake is a better description, unless one wants to believe that scripture doesn't contain errors, in which case he must find other words like symbol.

    Maybe your question should be how one knows the Genesis account is incorrect. That's a longer answer, but in a nutshell, science has shown us that the story is incorrect. If you want those answers - what scientists have determined to be the case and the evidence supporting those tentative conclusions, you'll need two things: skill in critical thinking and a basic understanding of science, meaning you'll need to develop those things to have access to those answers.

    But the good news is that millions before you have done so. One has to value such knowledge to make the effort to obtain it. My experience with creationism apologists is that they aren't interested in the science even when they ask about it. They don't do even a cursory survey of the Internet for information, and if one provides them with links, there's no evidence that they've even opened them much less made the effort to try to understand them.

    That's how I know that the Genesis account is incorrect: I've learned the science.

    That is incorrect. If you don't have the data base and the critical thinking skills to recognize and accept sound conclusions, everything looks like unsupported belief (faith) to you.

    There are other ways of thinking, other methods for deciding what is true than the simple willingness to believe, methods involving belief by reason applied to evidence. If you're unsure whether these are both faith, note that there are over 40,000 denominations of Christianity alone, a faith-based activity, and just one periodic table of the elements, derived from the proper application of reason to physical evidence.

    Of course, recognizing evidence is also a problem for the faith-based believer, as when we are told things like what you just wrote, that belief in evolution is faith-based, or that trust in science is not different than trust in God. The difference is the evidence for the scientific method - it stunning successes. To claim that it's all just faith that got man to the moon and back is to ignore the evidence that the success of the missions provides in support of the assumptions underlying the design of the mission.

    So, no not the same, even if there are some who are unaware that it is possible to think without faith. One can train oneself never to swallow an idea unexamined as surely as one can train himself not to swallow unexamined food. One can learn to apply the smell test to ideas as well and recognize and reject unproven ideas for their failure to meet the criteria for justified belief.
     
    #104 It Aint Necessarily So, Sep 20, 2021
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2021
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    17,924
    Ratings:
    +12,794
    Religion:
    Christian
    Scientific conclusions are based on basal assumptions, reasoning and evidence. New evidence in light of the former are the basis for modifying or replacing theories.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    17,924
    Ratings:
    +12,794
    Religion:
    Christian
    I have beaten a dead horse, but it still follows me around.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. RestlessSoul

    RestlessSoul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2021
    Messages:
    2,704
    Ratings:
    +2,232
    Religion:
    Agnostic Lapsed Catholic

    Depends what your position is
     
  8. F1fan

    F1fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2021
    Messages:
    3,220
    Ratings:
    +2,353
    Religion:
    Buddhist
    No kidding, even with moderators. I made a comment that Jimmy's belief about evolution is incorrect and they deleted it for preaching.
     
  9. Left Coast

    Left Coast Peanut Butter Enthusiast
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    7,303
    Ratings:
    +11,298
    Religion:
    RFism
    This may shock you, but some non- psychics also predict future events with amazing accuracy. None of that tells us how any of these people are able to make accurate predictions.

    But that's not really relevant to this thread, either.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    17,924
    Ratings:
    +12,794
    Religion:
    Christian
    I am not a fan.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  11. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    17,924
    Ratings:
    +12,794
    Religion:
    Christian
    I predict future events all the time. My predictions about going to work are incredibly reliable.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. F1fan

    F1fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2021
    Messages:
    3,220
    Ratings:
    +2,353
    Religion:
    Buddhist
    What I keep thinking about as I read this thread is what is the motive of the OP? It's an incorrect position on the matter of what we know about how living organisms evolved over time. It's not defendable, the poster didn't even attempt to defend the position. Was the intention to get attention or ruffle feather of those who accept science? A lot work went into how the OP is incorrect while the OP was not even defended beyond "it's what I believe".
     
  13. Windwalker

    Windwalker Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    11,996
    Ratings:
    +7,945
    Religion:
    Love, Light, and Life
    Do you apply that same reasoning when you see a stop sign on the road while driving your car? I do not believe you actually believe what you just said, as the fact you are still alive today shows otherwise.

    That's not self-explanatory. Do you believe everything that exists as it is today, abruptly came into being as it is without evolution? Were you born at the same age you are today? Were you never an infant, then a toddler, then a young child, then an adolescent, then a young adult, and so forth? Were you born mature?

    Of course I know you don't believe that, as the evidence shows you otherwise. So you are not being consistent in imaging a mature creation coming into being as is today. No one can believe that.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. Windwalker

    Windwalker Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    11,996
    Ratings:
    +7,945
    Religion:
    Love, Light, and Life
    Teaching timeless truths is introducing people to a spiritual understanding of creation. Why do humans struggle between wishing to connect with the Divine, while also being pulled towards destruction? That is the spiritual struggle between the urges of the flesh and the egoic mind, and the heart of the Divine within all of us, being "made in the image of God", which the story tells.

    What do you consider spirituality to mean?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Jimmy

    Jimmy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2019
    Messages:
    3,107
    Ratings:
    +1,040
    You dont have to.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Jimmy

    Jimmy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2019
    Messages:
    3,107
    Ratings:
    +1,040
    Rightly so.
     
  17. Windwalker

    Windwalker Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    11,996
    Ratings:
    +7,945
    Religion:
    Love, Light, and Life
    I did not state that as a 'fact". You ommitted this sentence: "I do not read Genesis as a scientific account. It is symbolic and its intent is timeless truths about our human nature, not a teaching to compete with modern scientific and historical information."

    I was stating how I read it. Not making a sweeping statement of fact. I also read it many other ways as well. It has many truths within its lines that can be gleaned from it. How many counteless sermons have been preached about what it contains have been made throughout the millinena? How is that possible, if it only means one thing only?

    It is symbolic because people reference it all the time as telling different truths. That is what the nature of symbolism is all about. Symbols are, "a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract."

    If it means only one thing, and should not be interpreted symbolically, then tell that to the millions of preachers who look at its characters and relates them to ourselves on Sunday mornings. Tell that to your pastor, "No, they are not symbolic about me. They are just actual persons who don't represent me at all!" Methinks he may send you back to early Sunday School classes. That or just flunk you from church. :)
     
  18. Jimmy

    Jimmy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2019
    Messages:
    3,107
    Ratings:
    +1,040
    It’s a pretty simple thread that doesn’t need much defending. You should reread the initial post and then maybe my motive will become apparent.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Jimmy

    Jimmy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2019
    Messages:
    3,107
    Ratings:
    +1,040
    Thanks for elaborating on the vagueness of timeless truths. Spirituality to me is life really.
     
  20. Windwalker

    Windwalker Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    11,996
    Ratings:
    +7,945
    Religion:
    Love, Light, and Life
    Of course I agree that life is a spiritual matter. I very much embrace that. But in order to try to speak to that, we talk about timeless truths, such as love is stronger than hate, peace is better than war. Those are timeless truths, that apply to all of us, as a couple quick examples.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...