The Lorax Posted February 25, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 183 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 1,892 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/07/1985 Share Posted February 25, 2007 (edited) Well sir, I believe that the literal God of the literal Universe did exactly what Holy Writ records in Genesis 1:1– “In the beginning God created…” I think that anyone who agrees with that verse is a creationist. So why do you feel the need to interpret Genesis literally? Why not a science-friendly interpretation? Edited February 25, 2007 by Angry Dragons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lorax Posted February 26, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 183 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 1,892 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/07/1985 Share Posted February 26, 2007 You don’t interpret Genesis 1:1 literally? Let me play it for your listening pleasure – “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (KJV) What pray tell is not literal in that verse? Yes, I think that verse is an oversimplification for a more accurate statement like, "In the beginning God created the precursors to heaven and the earth we know today." Earth was not created in the beginning, but much, much later in the picture. I also consider just about every denomination of time in the Bible (eg: six days) to be symbolic of a much longer period. Now if you can get to my question: why do you feel the need to interpret Genesis literally? Do you interpret all of the Bible literally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarMonkeyMan Posted February 26, 2007 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 93 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/19/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 26, 2007 Angry Dragons, I like your mind. Let's get into this topic, shall we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatingaxe Posted February 26, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 9,613 Content Per Day: 1.45 Reputation: 656 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1952 Share Posted February 26, 2007 You don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted February 26, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted February 26, 2007 If I can throw in my two cents on the debate as a whole... If you went to an American High School, you probably had to take some form of shop class. That is, you had to take a class where someone taught you about various tools and how they are intended to be used. You learned that you wouldn't get very far trying to use a phillips head screwdriver on a screw that required a flathead screwdriver, that trying to cut a piece of wood with a drill press would just be silly, etc. Every tool had a purpose, and to use something outside of that purpose usually didn't give you very good results. The scientific method is a tool. It is not the key to some Universal Truth , the Meaning of Life , or anything else, but rather a tool to understand the physical environment. It can't tell you the nature of the soul, but it can tell you why it rains. It can't tell you why there's suffering in the world, but it can help cure diseases. Imagine that you, as a mathematician, asked a historian to describe the life of Otto von Bismarck in terms of a mathematical equation. The historian would think you were crazy. If he could fufill your request, his answer would be so convoluted and bizarre as to be useless. The same goes for someone trying to talk about the supernatural in terms of science. It just won't work, because the scientific method isn't designed to be used that way. It operates on the assumption that there is a natural explaination for everything, and works off of that. Furthermore, if something isn't "testable," it cannot be examined scientifically. But if something isn't "testable," that doesn't mean that it isn't true, or that it doesn't exist. Remember that we as human beings are always going to be limited by our ability to percieve our environment. Without the telescope, we couldn't reach our understanding of the cosmos; without the microscope, we couldn't reach our understanding of atomic theory. To take the scientific method and apply it as an all-encompassing worldview (as many people do) requires the assumptions that: (1) every force at work in the universe is somehow "testable" by mankind to examine and reach a full understanding of it's properties, and (2) mankind has the capacity to extend its perceptions (through new technology) to the point that we will be able to test all of the forces at work in the universe. Frankly, from my perspective, that's a huge stretch, and a somewhat arrogant one at that. So should science and religion be seperated? Yes, but insofar as they are two different pieces of one cohesive whole. I might disagree on some smaller points...or some parts that I simply misread/misinterpreted....but overall, excellent post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted February 26, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted February 26, 2007 No. IE. But I guess I don't believe in that either. I just believe God planned for evolution to occur. He is smarter than creationists will have us believe. Mate, if you want I can help you understand Intelligent Design/Intelligent Evolution a bit more...what you just described IS Intelligent Design. Anytime you add a theistic element to the evolutionary process, whether this occur in the metaphysics, or the development of the cosmological or teleological realms, it falls under the category of Intelligent Design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarMonkeyMan Posted February 26, 2007 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 93 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/19/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 26, 2007 You don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lorax Posted February 26, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 183 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 1,892 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/07/1985 Share Posted February 26, 2007 (edited) Angry Dragons, I like your mind. Let's get into this topic, shall we? It is literal that we had a beginning. Yes. It is literal that God started it all for us. What, may I ask, is symbolic in that concept? It is figurative that he created the Earth in the beginning. Like most people in the world, I believe the universe came about long before the Earth formed. And humans, well, we came about pretty close to the end of things. (The end being the present.) I don't expect you to agree with me, but do you understand what I am saying? Edited February 26, 2007 by Angry Dragons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatingaxe Posted February 26, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 9,613 Content Per Day: 1.45 Reputation: 656 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1952 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Angry Dragons, I like your mind. Let's get into this topic, shall we? It is literal that we had a beginning. Yes. It is literal that God started it all for us. What, may I ask, is symbolic in that concept? It is symbolic that he created the Earth in the beginning. The universe is much older than the Earth. And humans, well, we have come about pretty close to the end of things. (The end being the present.) I don't expect you to agree with me, but do you understand what I am saying? Yes, I think! I know that Earth was already there at the beginning...pre-formed, but void. So there is a suggestion of a pre-creation time that God in His wisdom hasn't given us much knowledge about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 The question is, "does God exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts