No, it's more like saying that there was a "big bang", but thanks for sharing ...saying that there was a "big bang" is like saying that a print factory exploded and gave us a dictionary.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No, it's more like saying that there was a "big bang", but thanks for sharing ...saying that there was a "big bang" is like saying that a print factory exploded and gave us a dictionary.
Why is it that religions (most of them at least) are so... weird? If religions are a creation of humans, designed to enable us to better understand the world, then why aren't they more coherent?
Now I imagine people will answer with something like 'They're trying to explain the unexplainable' but the creation/formation of the universe (at least after the 'Big Bang') as science understands it so far, is relatively simple to convey in a bog-standard, easy to comprehend way.
If the writter of Genesis was trying to conceptualise and explain the creation of the universe, from his own limited understanding, then surely it would be a lot less cryptic and be a lot more simple? I suppose the creation of Earth is easily put in Genesis... but the fall of humanity could be more easily explained, surely?
Phasmid said:If the writter of Genesis was trying to conceptualise and explain the creation of the universe, from his own limited understanding, then surely it would be a lot less cryptic and be a lot more simple? I suppose the creation of Earth is easily put in Genesis... but the fall of humanity could be more easily explained, surely?
saying that there was a "big bang" is like saying that a print factory exploded and gave us a dictionary. Truth is often not quite what we want to hear.
Why is it that religions (most of them at least) are so... weird? If religions are a creation of humans, designed to enable us to better understand the world, then why aren't they more coherent?
Religions are, as doppleganger said so well, art. '
Each of them are brilliant art.And many are quite poor art.
Your argument falls apart when you come to realize that virtually all creation myths are as insane as the creation in Genesis. For an example, I believe in the Egyptian creation myth, there is the original god who gives birth to the Universe by masturbating.
I have to say... I didn't understand any of what you said...
We'll find in a work of art what we bring to it.And many are quite poor art.
Why is it that religions (most of them at least) are so... weird? If religions are a creation of humans, designed to enable us to better understand the world, then why aren't they more coherent?
Now I imagine people will answer with something like 'They're trying to explain the unexplainable' but the creation/formation of the universe (at least after the 'Big Bang') as science understands it so far, is relatively simple to convey in a bog-standard, easy to comprehend way.
If the writter of Genesis was trying to conceptualise and explain the creation of the universe, from his own limited understanding, then surely it would be a lot less cryptic and be a lot more simple? I suppose the creation of Earth is easily put in Genesis... but the fall of humanity could be more easily explained, surely?
Why is it that religions (most of them at least) are so... weird? If religions are a creation of humans, designed to enable us to better understand the world, then why aren't they more coherent?
Why is it that religions (most of them at least) are so... weird? If religions are a creation of humans, designed to enable us to better understand the world, then why aren't they more coherent?
doppelgänger;1125975 said:We'll find in a work of art what we bring to it.
Perhaps you do, if all you see is a painting of a person with both eyes on the same side of her face.So, when I look at a Picasso, I have both eyes on the right side of my face?
doppelgänger;1126082 said:Perhaps you do, if all you see is a painting of a person with both eyes on the same side of her face.
Only if you're inferring that I'm implying you're a woman.Wait...Are you implying that I'm a woman?
doppelgänger;1126087 said:Only if you're inferring that I'm implying you're a woman.
Can a mirror help you put on your makeup?Would you say that art can teach us anything new, even though it's a reflection of what we bring to it?