Genesis Question for Religious Moderates

[LAGC]

I was just curious, I understand how a "liberal" reading of the first part of Genesis in the Bible explains away the 6 days of Creation as if a day to God was like a million (or billion?) years to us, but how do you explain verse 16 which explains what happens on the fourth "day":

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Is there any way that can be interpreted other than meaning that the Earth was created first and the sun and moon and stars came after? Are we really, in the 21st century, that Earth-centric to believe that this little world is where it all started? How can you square this with the Big Bang Theory of the origins of the universe, that the stars came first and the planets much later? I'm just trying to not think too literally here, but I don't see how you can interpret that verse any other way.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

1. It didn't really suck after Peter Gabriel left... as far as bubble-gum pop goes. -nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. 'Trick of the Tail' is not bubblegum pop

and neither is 'Wind and Wuthering'. At the very least, Genesis stayed progressive while Steve Hackett was in it. I'd argue that the true pop phase didn't start until 'Abacab', when Collins' writing influence became too strong.

Anyone for a thread hijack?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

20. I stand corrected. Insert "and Hackett" in previous post. -nt

[Critters2]

2. You're not trying to think too literally?

Really? You're thinking WAY more literally than I do. I accept the Big Bang theory, and don't read the Bible as a science book.

[Trajan]

8. Well .. it's a problem for literalists ...

Not for marginal believers, though ...

[ZombieHorde]

23. What would the non-literal meaning of that passage be? nt

[JerseygirlCT]

65. Yes nt

[opihimoimoi]

3. Sun light by day.......artificial light by night. Stars...also....means just that. not before or af

ter

[darkstar3]

4. IMO, you're asking the wrong question about that verse.

The right question would be "is there any way to read this prose that it fits with the scientifically proven fact that the moon reflects light instead of generating it?"

[Warpy]

9. Or that it doesn't always do so

Apparently the guys who wrote this stuff were unaware there were variations as the moon circled the earth.

You'd think they'd have noticed at least that much.

[metapunditedgy]

5. The whole Bible is earth-centric. (I can't believe I just typed that sentence.)

Most of it is very ethno-centric (Israel in the first part, "The Way" or Christianity in the second part.) It's hard to get more ethno-centric than deity-sanctioned genocide and the promise of eternal damnation for outsiders.

As for the timing of stars vs. planets, I assume they'd treat that the same way that they treat anything dated more than 6000 yrs. ago. Actually, even scientists think Earth formed relatively quickly after the sun, FWIW.

[Ozymanithrax]

6. Genesis is a creation myth...

You mights as well ask how the hell Osiris managed a stiffy after he was cut into little pieces, put inside a hollow log, that grew into a tree, then put back together, brought back to life in order to get Isis pregnant with Horus. And what is with the animal heads.

[pnwmom]

7. The moderate or liberal reading is that we don't take the Bible literally, or try to square it

with science.

Only fundamentalists do that.

[Goblinmonger]

14. But clearly you take some of it literally

like the God stuff. Otherwise, there is no other "record" of this Jesus person. So the OP leads to the next question of how can you say you don't take the bible literally yet use it as the only account of the basis for the religion? Why does the OP passage get the boot but not the Jesus parts (no science to back up OP verse; no historical record to back up Jesus)?

[pnwmom]

18. No, we don't take any particulars literally, other than that there was a man named Jesus

who walked the earth at approximately a certain time. And who brought a certain basic philosophy to his followers. And many of us have read other accounts of early Christianity, besides those that are in the commonly accepted cannon.

[WolverineDG]

25. Since there was no "proof" that Pontius Pilate existed until 1961

(and he was the governor of a Roman province, a civilization that wrote every damn thing down), is it any surprise that there is no "historical record" of a nobody carpenter from a nowhere town?

Oh silly me, there I go, using common sense again. :silly:

dg

[tiny elvis]

40. philo and josephus wrote of pilate without reference to the markan parable

[WolverineDG]

41. and they picked & chose what to write about

still doesn't mean Jesus didn't exist, or that there were no records of him.

Quite frankly, I get the feeling that no "proof" would be good enough for some.

dg

[tiny elvis]

48. you wrote something which was not true via omission or picking and choosing

it gives me a feeling about which i shall not be frank

[WolverineDG]

52. oooh, I see the dog pile orders have gone out! nt

[tiny elvis]

53. this place can resemble a game of dogpile

i come here because i am fascinated by christian etiology
your comment about the pilate stone was not true and it can't be gotten round with any number of distractions

[Goblinmonger]

61. Enough.

Jesus. Just because somebody else commented on this subthread, you think there is some side discussion? Get over yourself. I just didn't care enough about this subthread to reply.

Paranoid much?

[dmallind]

63. A nobody capenter who could feed five thousand from a couple fish

And upon whiose crucifixion the dead rose from their graves and the sky turned black. Who raised the dead and healed the "manseervants" of Roman officers at a distance? Yes I think he might have caused comment....

[left is right]

177. not exaxtly true

the Jewish historian Josephus wrote favorably about Jesus' impact on the culture of the day, while at the same time rejecting Christianity

[darkstar3]

178. Not this shit again...

Google "Josephus discredited" and read about how his writings were modified by the Church...

[struggle4progress]

10. Maybe it is a rhapsody on the illuminating power of Word

Maybe it is a hopeful statement that things, with formless and void and dark abysmal beginnings, may still become good and fruitful

Maybe it expresses a worldview that to seek the Divine, we should begin by regarding humans as images of the Divine

[darkstar3]

11. And maybe it's "sadistic crap legitimized by florid prose."

See how the word "maybe" can turn it into anything you want?

[struggle4progress]

22. You'll have to work hard to discover any sadistic elements in Genesis 1, which

is the topic of the OP and my post above

[darkstar3]

29. Funny, I thought it was about Genesis as a whole.

I like how you were careful to mention Genesis 1. There is no mention here of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, nor is there any mention of any of the horrors God has in store for his creations. But the book gets a hell of a lot more sadistic after those 31 verses. First God tempts his own creation, then casts them out of paradise for falling for it. He lets man commit the first murder even though he had all the power in creation to stop it, then banishes the murderer to the other side of the world. At one point he even gets so sick of his own creations that he decides to hit the reset button, without a care in the universe as to the number of lives lost.

What the first chapter lacks in sadism, the rest of the book makes up for in spades. Of course, that wasn't really my point...or "maybe" it was.

"Maybe" monkeys will fly out of my ass tonight. Who knows? I can't be wrong, because after all, I said "maybe"...

[ThorOfMidland]

91. Such Is the Nature Of Words...

Right? That is why they are too feeble, too imperfect and limited to describe the unthinkable, the unknowable, the infallible.

But, your post gets at something that is important for us all to see, for ourselves, deeply. Isn't it the nature of the mind, whether athiest or believer, to formulate according to its own desires and fears? To be right? To be satisfied? To feel justified? That is what the human mind wants, not to know truth, does it not? Where are human desire, petty satisfaction, the need to be proven right and justified, in the face of truth, regardless of whether we believe or don't believe? Can those things and truth exist together? Can we ever know truth when all we want is satisfaction, gratification and to be put to sleep, to be entertained, to ignore and feel justified, to feel right? Or is truth something wholly different than this?

[ironbark]

93. “Words are too oft but vague shadows of meanings…”

;-)

[ThorOfMidland]

94. Are Only Thus!?

Exactly! To experience something directly, something like truth, or God, or whatever we call it, requires the absence of the word, which is memory, an interpreted record of the past. How can words, which are of the past, of thought, the essence of thought, be formulated in any manner, whether in ancient texts and scrolls or in conversations, to express that which is timeless, un-recordable?

[ironbark]

96. There is a man called Jiddu Krishnamurti.

At 15 I was given one of his books. Didn’t know anything about him…but the tome intrigued me.

One of the things he kept raising was how words/language has the potential to form a veil or barrier between the ‘observer’ and the ‘observed’. He invited the reader to recall infancy or observe pre language infants…the obvious awe and wonder at the unfamiliar. Krishnamurti speculated that with the ‘name/title/descriptor’ comes a familiarity or (false?) sense of knowing/understanding what the thing is- ‘tree’, ‘ant’ or ‘moon’…we come to think we have the thing pegged with language and as a consequence cease to actually see it. So it is with people…we label, identify and peg them with titles that stand as obstructions between each and debar fresh insight/understanding- He’s a nerd/Christian/loudmouth/terrorist/atheist/conservative….whatever.

Krishnamurti didn’t advocate the abandonment of such words/identifiers…just consistently asked the question- What happens if you are aware of their formation as they occur.

The other thing he went on about at length was not being a guru and rejecting any expertise or following.
I never understood it until years later when I heard about ‘The Order of The Star’… fascinating history that shows what happens when someone gets the word/label- ‘messiah’ stuck on them ;-)
It’s worth a Wiki or a Google.

[ThorOfMidland]

97. This is Correct

The word is what we, our human mind, incapable of truth, emphasizes as meaning, clings to as meaning, when engulfed in fear. Therefore, direct experience of something, anything, whether love or hate, a sunset or a tree, or truth, God, is impossible. Why? Because, with the word, whether written in the past, or spoken in the present, or pining for the future, denies, obstructs that which is real in the present. How can I observe something, truly see its depth, its essence, its beauty, when words are in the way? The sadness here, in our lives, as people together, everyday, is that there is no meaning. The meaning underneath the words, however noble and grand we paint them, is lost. Things like faith, belief, fear, God, thought, the mind, we no longer have direct understanding of their meanings. We look to others to define these for us. Humans have lost, given up their ability to see truth. This is tragic.

[darkstar3]

103. Empty twaddle.

If you have such disdain for words and communication, why engage in discussion at all?

Furthermore, what use is this empty, unquantifiable spirituality? Does it let you see God? Does it give you some extra truth? Do you even know the difference between the two? Is there anything more to this empty spirituality aside from a load of pot and an incredible misunderstanding of the human mind?

[ThorOfMidland]

114. Communication Is Crucial

"Load of pot"...that was funny....

Now, where was it said that words and communication were not important? Ironic, if one would have degrees in linguistics and communication, no? So, there is some interest in communication here. It is a question of what importance we give words in relationship to the actual, the thing, the meaning behind, symbolized by the word. If the word, the symbol takes the primary role of meaning and not direct experience, we never see truth for ourselves, we are just repeating words, right? Then all we do is argue the experiences and words expressed by others. All we then do is listen to others, lurking in the shadows, quoting others and knocking the arguments of others down; we never get to see the immense truth ourselves. Isn't it important, then, to see the truth by ourselves, for ourselves, without others explaining it to us, interpreting for us? Otherwise, we have no basis for our own thought, right?

[darkstar3]

120. Your paragraph doesn't support your topic sentence. D+

[ThorOfMidland]

134. Do We Really Want To Discover Truth

I think we have to ask ourselves at this point: do we really want to know, discover the truth? Or, do we just want to argue, to debate, to make ourselves feel right? Intent, the approach to something is very important, otherwise we are just interpreting based on our desired outcome, right?

[darkstar3]

144. False dichotomy. n/t

[ThorOfMidland]

148. False dichotomy?

Perhaps! And thus it is all the more crucial that we see the truth for ourselves, right? Otherwise, we just follow, we cling to the beliefs, the arguments of others, having never seen, understood something directly for ourselves. Seeing the truth for ourselves, we are no longer subject, controlled by the opinions and false will, the selfish directions of another. Only then can we know the existence of God. Only then are we whole!

[JerseygirlCT]

66. I like that. nt

[humblebum]

12. Believe or not Christians do not have all the answers as the Bible clearly states.

Scriptures clearly were many times written to the culture of that day. It was plainly obvious that there was a sun and a moon and that science had yet to explain anything. If an atheist or skeptic takes the position that "if something cannot be explained therefore it is wrong" - that in itself is fallacious reasoning, but common nonetheless.

[darkstar3]

13. There's that straw man again.

If an atheist or skeptic takes the position that "if something cannot be explained therefore it is wrong" - that in itself is fallacious reasoning, but common nonetheless.
No one does that. You are purposely mischaracterizing the position of skepticism. In fact, I'll go one further and say that your sentence in quotes doesn't even make semantic sense. After all, in 5000 B.C. the nature of the sun could not be explained, but that didn't mean that the sun itself was "wrong".

[WolverineDG]

26. Have you ever noticed that any answer that makes an atheist or skeptic uncomfortable

gets the "straw man" label?

So, if as you say that in 5000 BC, the nature of the sun could not be explained, then you've got no leg to stand on arguing that the Genesis story is wrong because it calls the moon a "lesser light."

dg

[darkstar3]

28. Have you ever noticed how often straw men are used in the defense of faith?

The Genesis story is wrong for many reasons, but one of them most certainly is the fact that the moon was described as a light and not a reflector. If the story had always been handled as a myth, legend, or simple allegory, then this wouldn't be an issue, but for many years it was treated as an authoritative and divinely inspired explanation as to how the universe came into existence*. If this divinely inspired and authoritative knowledge was all so incredibly inaccurate, then what are we to make of the rest of the story?

Finally, it seems you totally missed the point I was trying to make with bumblebum. Whether or not goat-herds from thousands of years ago understood the moon has no bearing whatsoever on whether the moon itself was "wrong".

*Many people today still consider it to be so.

[WolverineDG]

34. yadda yadda yadda

you boxed yourself in by stating the ancients didn't understand what the Sun was, yet you still persist in insisting they were wrong by describing the moon as a light instead of a reflector. If you can't see how inconsistent that position is, well, that's not my problem.

dg

[darkstar3]

37. They WERE wrong.

I don't understand how you think you've caught me in some sort of snare here. What possible process could you be using? The ancient peoples WERE wrong when they described the moon as a light. That didn't make the moon itself wrong, as it is an object and can neither be right nor wrong.

[WolverineDG]

43. And so are you

expecting ancient people to have all the knowledge we have today. :eyes:

dg

[darkstar3]

45. That's not what I'm expecting at all, but I do expect that those I debate with be able to read

so goodbye.

[ironbark]

95. By 600AD there was more light on the "lesser light." ;-)

THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE
by
Dr. Maurice Bucaille


Whereas the Bible talks of the sun and the moon as two lights differing only in size, the Qur’an distinguishes between them by the use of different terms: light (noor) for the moon, and lamp (siraaj) for the sun.

"Did you see how Allah created seven heavens, one above the other, and made in them the moon a light and the sun a lamp?" Qur’an, 78:12-13

The moon is an inert body which reflects light, whereas the sun is a celestial body in a state of permanent combustion producing both light and heat.
..........................

“I built the heaven with power and it is I, who am expanding it.” Qur’an,51:47

“Do the unbelievers not realize that the heavens and the earth were joined together,
then I clove them asunder and I made every living thing out of water. Will they still not believe?” Qur’an, 21:30

http://www.sultan.org/articles/QScience.html

[WolverineDG]

15. Genesis = Why, Evolution = How

very simple, actually.

There is nothing in Genesis that excludes evolution. You are forgetting that when Genesis was written down, they didn't know that the Moon merely reflects light from the Sun. That discovery wasn't made until much later.

dg

[humblebum]

16. Don't complicate matters with common sense. nt

[darkstar3]

17. So Adam being created out of dust, and Eve being created later out of his rib,

these are metaphors for billions of years of evolution finally yielding humanity? Those seem sorely lacking, and they're not the only accounts in Genesis that do.

[pnwmom]

21. Yes, they are metaphors, and you're perfectly free to reject them. n/t

[darkstar3]

31. For further illustration of why I reject them, see #30. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

180. Metaphors for what?

And how?

[WolverineDG]

24. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that pre-literate nomadic Middle Eastern tribes

discovered the theory of evolution thousands of years before Darwin.

:eyes:

dg

[Lost-in-FL]

27. Evolution didn't started with Darwin, the theory did but not the process.

Evolution is a process... you know?

[WolverineDG]

33. And how were the ancients in the Middle East supposed to know what Darwin thought?

:eyes:

dg

[Lost-in-FL]

39. They simply didn't...

It was not necessary. It happened regardless.

Genesis is still and will always be a myth stolen maybe from some culture.

[WolverineDG]

44. "Stolen"

:rofl: Can you prove that? Is there a police report on that? Could they not have adopted or adapted that story from another culture they were in contact with?

dg

[Lost-in-FL]

49. The word "maybe" mean anything to you? nt

[WolverineDG]

51. If you didn't mean "stolen," why use it in the first place? nt

[Lost-in-FL]

55. It was not a total negation but that there is a possibility of it happening.

In other words "maybe". If it make you feel better then "inspired".

[darkstar3]

30. And yet that was your argument.

You claimed that evolution was the "how" of creation. The only way to claim this is that the story in Genesis of the creation of man is metaphor.

Correct so far?

The problem you run into is that there is NO way that ignorant goat-herds from thousands of years ago could have written a metaphor for evolution because, as you so correctly pointed out, they wouldn't have had a damn clue about the process at that time.

Genesis, even as metaphor, misses the mark of the ACTUAL story by a very wide margin. In fact, if the center of the bullseye on the dartboard is "evolution", then the story laid out in Genesis is roughly the dart sticking in the wall on the opposite side of the room. The lights are wrong, the order of appearances (including land and water) are usually backward, and man not only appears out of DUST, but the woman actually comes much later after God sees that the man is lonely and needs a playmate. None of that could even remotely be construed as evolution.

Genesis is not metaphor, but myth, pure and simple.

[WolverineDG]

32. No, sorry, that's not my argument

I realize that you believe that there is no God & your religion requires you to cast aspersions on religions that do believe in a Deity, especially if those religions are Christian. But that does not allow you to twist Genesis to suit your purposes & then proceed to tell everyone that only your version is the correct one. The ancients couldn't even begin to comprehend HOW life started on Earth & in the universe, but they still wanted to know WHY, & in the Middle East, they arrived at the Genesis story. Genesis & Evolution are two separate explanations of the same event, one from a pre-literate viewpoint, & the other from a civilization that was built on hundreds of years of education & scientific study & observation.

To stomp your feet, throw a hissy fit, and DEMAND proof that pre-literate, nomadic shepherds had to have known & understood how evolution works before *YOU* can accept Genesis as a metaphor is absolutely ridiculous.

dg

[darkstar3]

35. And where exactly was the foot-stomping hissy-fit?

Oh, right, nowhere...

You know, you started to hit the truth, but veered away. If I may:
Genesis & Evolution are two separate explanations of the same {series of} events
There, I fixed it. You're right, they are two separate explanations of the same series of events, but unlike what you continue to say here, they both explain the how, and neither one explains the why. Genesis doesn't say a thing about WHY God supposedly did all of this work, it just says that he did it and describes how it happened (sparsely).

Now, to finish up, I'd like for you to show me where I've cast aspersions onto you. Have I derided you? Have I compared you to a two year old? Have I basically accused you of fundamentalism? No, wait, that was all you.

Here's an idea. Go and re-read Genesis, and in the process compare it to what current science knows about the rise of the planet, the rise of life, and the evolution of man. You'll find that Genesis simply doesn't serve as metaphor. If it is not literal, and it is not metaphor, then given its content I see only one category it can fall in: myth.

[WolverineDG]

42. There you go again, expecting pre-literate nomadic shepherds

to not only know about but understand scientific concepts that weren't even discovered/developed until THOUSANDS of years after they lived. All because you don't believe in God, and want to force the "facts" to fit your religious beliefs. You automatically reject anything that doesn't fit with your particular dogma, and when you box yourself into a corner, start crying "straw man! straw man!"

I don't have to re-read Genesis in light of "current" science because it wasn't written in modern times. I don't have unrealistic demands or expectations that ancient people understand "current" science because they couldn't. They didn't have the knowledge or the equipment to do so.

It's not enough for you that they somehow understood that Life began somewhere & somehow, or that the Moon was somehow different than the Sun, and came up with what to them were explanations that they & their children could understand. No, you demand that they be capable of knocking out doctoral thesis on evolution or how the Moon is actually a reflector of light, something they couldn't have possibly done.

And yes, your repeated insistence that ancient peoples had to know & understand modern science before you will accept Genesis as a metaphor is stomping your widdle feet & throwing a hissy fit.

dg

[darkstar3]

46. In short, I shouldn't bother you with facts. OK.

I'm not forcing anything on anyone. I'm simply working within the framework given to me. If Genesis was supposedly divinely inspired then that divine knowledge should have at least somehow fit with the facts. It doesn't. There is no difference between Genesis and any other creation myth that preceeded or followed it, except that it has a larger contingent of people who believe it is somehow more accurate, more transcendent, and more free of the rules of normal lit and mythology.

As for foot stomping hissy fits, well, when you start attacking someone by putting the word facts in quotes, telling them they have a particular dogma when atheism/skepticism has none, and invoking an emotional form of special pleading in your argument, you most certainly have your hissy fit. Now go ahead and try shouting me down, because we all know he who gets the last word is always right...

[WolverineDG]

50. You're the one who can't be bothered with the facts

about the people who came up with the Genesis story. You're the one who demands that they have knowledge way beyond their times. You're the one who insists that because they were "wrong" about the Moon that they were somehow "wrong" about everything, instead of comprehending that Genesis was their story of the creation of the universe as they understood it based on the information they had. Because your spin on Genesis conveniently doesn't fit your very narrow views, you reject it as "wrong" & somehow as "proof" that God doesn't exist. You are the one reading way too much into Genesis.

And :rofl: to your religion having no dogma.

dg

[darkstar3]

54. Sure...read #45, if you can. n/t

[EvolveOrConvolve]

56. You argue well, I'll give you that

According to your siggie line, you're an attorney, and I can tell. It's obvious that you're debating, where the goal is to win rather than to separate fact from fiction, deriving some truth from the exercise. If you're not an attorney, you should be - your apologist skills are excellent.

The poster with whom you are debating never said that the ancients should have known or been educated in modern science. Just that a book that alleges divine inspiration contains accurate information. Since an all powerful, all knowing deity would have knowledge of the mechanics of the universe (physics, evolution, etc), wouldn't it have behooved him/her/it to inspire a little of that knowledge into his/her/its most important book?

If you want to take the story as a metaphor, that's okay with me, but at that point it becomes worthless as a legitimate text since there are so many hoops that have to be jumped through to get any meaning out of it. Thus, myth.

[Leontius]

57. Could you explain why you dismiss the use of Genesis

as metaphor. What exactly are the hoops that must be jumped thru to get any meaning from it? Why so seemingly dismissive of myth, do you think that myth has no value, has no historicity?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

59. No, I don't think many myths have much value or historicity

There may be some that include a valuable lesson in humanity or morality, but Genesis is not one of them. Whether the story of creation (scientifically bunk), the creation of Eve from Adam's rib bone (implying an inequity between male and female), the consumption of the forbidden fruit (again, implying that women are too weak to make decisions on their own, while at the same time cursing all of mankind to sorrow and pain), the incest (how else to propagate the human species), murder (Cain killing Abel), etc, etc, etc, I just don't see how there's any way to relate to those stories without inventing some arbitrary meaning.

I just can't see a lot of value in the Genesis stories, even as parables, allegories, metaphor, etc. I definitely don't see any historicity. Genesis has the same historical value as Curious George, and both are equal in their authentic recitation of history (ie, none).

[humblebum]

60. There is as much hard evidence to say that the Genesis story is true (none)

as there is to say that it is not true (none). When an atheist, or for that matter anyone, says that "if a creator god did exist, then he(or she or it)would not have done it this certain way", then an assumption is made that any god would conform to their preconceptions of god. However, if there is a god and such a god is sovereign, then that god could behave in any way without regard to what any mortal man thinks or believes.

Science, in no way, has debunked the story of creation, for the simple reason that the creation story has not been empirically, nor objectively determined. Nowhere in the bible does it say that the earth is 6000 years old. That is merely an interpretation and that interpretation has been debunked by science (although scientific theories are always subject to change upon the addition of new information). Science cannot say that there was no intelligent creation. It can only make biased, educated assumptions - nothing more. And it does not matter whether or not that you "just can't see a lot of value in the Genesis stories, even as parables, allegories, metaphor, etc. definitely don't see any historicity." That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but it is not everyone opinion.

[darkstar3]

62. And yet it is an obvious myth, so those claiming any truth to it would possess the burden of proof.

Do you have any?

Moving on to your second glaring mistake:

When an atheist, or for that matter anyone, says that "if a creator god did exist, then he(or she or it)would not have done it this certain way",

Show me an atheist who has made this argument. You can look, but you won't find one, because that statement would be accepting the premise of a creator God to begin with, and atheists are not in the habit of doing that.

A third glaring mistake:

Science, in no way, has debunked the story of creation,

I suggest that you, too, read up on the rise of this planet and the rise of life. You'll find that there are glaring errors in the creation story contained in Genesis. Now, if you want to hedge your bets and claim that science can't debunk the IDEA of creation, you might get a little bit of wiggle room. Science has yet to find the origination of the big bang or the source of abiogenesis. That lack of data doesn't mean that there was an intelligent creator, it just means that we don't know, and once again we come 'round to the burden of proof being on the believer.

Now, if you think there is value in Genesis, that's fine, but I would challenge you to prove that there is more value there than in other myths, fables, folklore, legend, and flat out fiction found all over the world and all over time.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

78. I won't comment much, as darkstar has done an excellent job of responding to you, but

I would like respond to your comment "{t}hat is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but it is not everyone opinion". We're on a public message board posting our opinions - did you expect me to do otherwise because you happen to disagree with me?

I'd wager, though, that my opinion has more factual merit than yours, especially since there is little merit in the "science can't disprove it, so intelligent design could be true" argument that you are making. Science doesn't spend time debunking unfalsifiable claims since, by definition, they can't be disproved. As a mental exercise, prove to me that a giant purple turtle didn't create the earth. If you can't, then I propose we teach Turtle Creationism in our schools. After all, shouldn't our children have ALL the potential creation stories taught to them so they can choose?

[humblebum]

67. You say that the creation of Eve from Adam's rib bone

implies an inequity between male and female. I would have to say that that is nothing more than an interpretation. And you also say that the creation theory is bunk, but I would say the same about life simply popping into being from nothingness or from a chemical reaction. Who's to say that the creation stories were not written for a people that were not scientifically literate (which I think is the case)? Tell me this? Is it possible to take a cell from a human body and to clone that cell into another human being? Or how about stem cells which can be developed into many different bodily parts? If we can do these things then how can you say that a rib (or cells from a rib) cannot be made to form another human being? I'm just sayin'. The fact is that atheists have no more access to the truth than anyone else and yet so many of them will openly ridicule religious belief when they themselves have NO answers? That is one of the glaring fallacies often used by many - "If I can't understand it then it can't be true!"

[darkstar3]

68. You're just full of fail lately, aren't you?

1. I would say the same about life simply popping into being from nothingness or from a chemical reaction.
No one ever claimed that life simply "popped into being". This is an oversimplification of non-religious answers to the question of abiogenesis. A straw man.

2. Who's to say that the creation stories were not written for a people that were not scientifically literate (which I think is the case)?
They WERE written for a scientifically illiterate people, by a scientifically illiterate people. We don't suffer from such shortcomings as a race anymore, so why should we give extra weight to wildly inaccurate stories written by people who had no scientific literacy?

3. Is it possible to take a cell from a human body and to clone that cell into another human being? Or how about stem cells which can be developed into many different bodily parts? If we can do these things then how can you say that a rib (or cells from a rib) cannot be made to form another human being?
Human cloning is a LONG way off, and even if it were possible today it would have nothing to do with the rib story. The problem with that story, aside from woman being created as an afterthought from spare parts, is the fact that reproduction, which is required in order for man to exist in the first place, requires both male and female. In the question of "chicken or egg", it's ALWAYS the egg, but I wouldn't expect a creationist to understand that.

4. The fact is that atheists have no more access to the truth than anyone else and yet so many of them will openly ridicule religious belief when they themselves have NO answers?
The difference is that atheists never claimed to have more access to the ultimate truth of the universe than anyone else. We do, however, reserve the right to make fun of your ridiculous make believe, especially when you start claiming that those who disagree with you are somehow lesser than you.

5. That is one of the glaring fallacies often used by many - "If I can't understand it then it can't be true!"
You're getting very bad at painting your straw men. This one doesn't even have a face.

The funny thing is that you keep hopping on the fail train and you don't even know you're doing it.

[Leontius]

69. I think we have a misunderstanding of historicity of myth as I was

using it or I may have used the wrong word. I don't mean it to imply an, "authentic recitation of history", just the connection to events in the past that they convey to the hearers of the myth however tenuous. As an example the 'Iliad' is myth but the underlying history is, Troy existed, Mycenae existed, there was a war. Did the events in history happen as in the myth? no, are the characters in the myth historical? probably not but the connection of the past to the present is still there. Concerning the stories in Genesis just a quick comment; the creation story is not a scientific textbook or explanation so whether the details are bunk has no significance at all.The other points you raise are I think just PC talking points or rejected ideas of their meaning by theologians and the majority of believers who have studied them past grade school level Sunday school with some exceptions, ie literalists and creationists.

[darkstar3]

71. This inevitably raises the question of "what, specifically in Genesis, do you think is historical?"

Troy, Mycenae, war, these were all historical. The details were changed to entertain the innocent. What was historical in Genesis, and how do you know?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

77. There's a large difference between the Iliad and the Bible

We read the Iliad as an interesting piece of ancient literature whereas the Bible is seen as the Word of God, whether allegorically, literally, or some hybrid of allegory and literalism. Very few christians would claim that the Bible is a book of myths. It's not an accurate to compare, in modern America, the Iliad and the Bible. If 30% of the populace believed the Iliad to be the inerrant Word of God, then maybe we can go down that road.

Back to the OP: for those who don't read the Bible literally, exactly what metaphor from Genesis is useful for humankind?

[Leontius]

175. In one sense there is not much difference between the Iliad

and the Bible, the Iliad is myth used to relate a part of ancient history on a cultural level and using religion to explain parts of it. The Bible contains myths to explain ancient history and cultural traditions and religion to the Israelites of the era when it was compiled and today. As far as the Iliad or the Bible as 'Holy Books' that was not my point. Most Christians who have studied the Bible do know that the use myth is an integral part of its teachings and literary tradition.

[ironbark]

163. I don’t have to be a theist or a Christian to see great value in the story

And a range of potential meanings beyond and deeper than those (predominantly literalist) proposed so far.

Adam may be the first physical man…or the first ‘conscious/self aware’ man…one who “Became aware of his nakedness”.

The Garden of Eden may have been a physical garden…it may also be a metaphor for that unconscious state that could not be re entered once consciousness was attained.
What did they eat of? ‘The tree of the knowledge of good and evil’.
“cursing all of mankind to sorrow and pain”?.....Yea……consciousness can be a curse and many seek return to the blissful garden with various fruits that will induce degrees of diminished or altered consciousness.

This is not new or radical Christian theology….a number of authors theist and non have written on the Adam as first self aware man banished from the garden blissful animal unconsciousness.
(see M Scott Peck)

The theme is also covered in The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, John M Allegro.
Allegro claimed this was the Tree of Knowledge depicted in the oldest Christian art-



And that may well put consciousness in or out of the Garden of Eden or be the making or the
breaking of the 'first' man.


http://johnallegro.org/main/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=15&MMN_position=16:4

[pnwmom]

36. Your reasoning is circular. Because you reject the idea of God, you reject the idea

that God could have inspired the words of the early Bible writers -- which is the Christian belief.

You also believe that the word "myth" is equivalent to "untruth." And that view isn't shared by everyone who has studied myths and mythology. Myths and metaphors can both be ways of describing truths that aren't quantifiable and measurable by science.

[darkstar3]

38. Absurd.

First, don't put words in my mouth. I chose the word myth very carefully and I haven't called Genesis an untruth, which carries the connotation of lie or deception. Second, your claim of circular logic isn't backed up by your supporting sentences. What you were trying to go for was "false premise", but of course that doesn't apply because the concept of God is generally a non-falsifiable premise.

Now let's get to the meat of your argument, or at least, the meat as I see it: Divine inspiration. Wouldn't you think that if the words of Genesis were divinely inspired that some of the story might actually be correct?

[immoderate]

47. Genesis is a metaphor for self awareness.

I read it as a metaphor of sentience, of the responsibility of awareness. It is myth, but that does not preclude its having some meaning. There are lessons to be learned from bible stories, as there are from other mythologies and fables.

--imm

[ironbark]

164. Ok....I didn't notice your post beat my #163 to the theme....

But mine has a pretty photo of a sentience tree ;-)

[Leontius]

176. Of course they did

they were aware of changes in animals and plants made to adapt to changing environmental conditions they just lacked the ability to express that information in a systematic method that we would recognize as an evolutionary theory.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. The moderate/liberal view is that it's a pre-scientific legend, so we don't

sweat the details. I took a whole course in Genesis in college for part of my religion course requirement. There is yet more weirdness in it.

[JerseygirlCT]

64. Allegory

It's a story, not a text-book.

[trotsky]

70. So how much of the Jesus parts are story/allegory?

And how can you classify with certainty?

Is it just the parts you like that are literal?

[darkstar3]

72. Have you ever gotten a satisfactory answer to that question? n/t

[trotsky]

79. Never.

And as you can see, the only "answers" ever given are dodging and special pleading.

[humblebum]

73. You seem to know all of these answers so tell us. The fact is

that you do not have the capacity to understand any more than anyone else. I really have to question the motives of some atheists trying so hard to debunk those things they have no concept of themselves or who certainly cannot provide more definitive answers than any other group. Blowing smoke is about all you are doing.

[darkstar3]

74. Your problem is that you think your answers are definitive, original, or otherwise worthy. n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

75. Well, since Jesus taught in parables,

lots of it.

As to certainty, there is none if what you're looking for is scientific proof.

Those of us who believe do - that's why it's called faith. I know that bothers you greatly, but there it is.

[darkstar3]

76. Your post, while still a non-answer reply, would have been just fine if not for that last sentence.

You just had to get a dig in, didn't you? What makes you think trotsky is bothered by faith? Why would faith, or simple belief in things not seen, bother anyone at all?

I hope that I don't misrepresent him when I speak for both of us here, but faith itself is not something bothers trotsky or myself. Actions bother us. Evangelism bothers us. Many things DONE in the name of faith bother us. Faith itself? Meh...

Oh, and that long-suffering-and-constantly-put-upon attitude that feeds greatly into the standard Christian persecution complex bothers me too.

[JerseygirlCT]

81. Interesting...

I've run into the sort of demand for proof about my beliefs time and again. And have always noticed a real sense of annoyance and superiority from those who don't share those beliefs. You dislike religion, and it certainly does seems to bother you, given the tone of both of your responses.

That said, your last paragraph certainly makes your claim a little difficult to make, doesn't it? Talk about digs...

[ThorOfMidland]

87. Some Crucial Questions

I appreciate the critical questions you have raised here, truly getting at the heart of things. In your reply are the implicit questions of proving truth and the nature of belief.

Can the truth about God be proven? Is not the truth of God only revealed in the present? How would we prove the present, what is happening now, the immensity, the enormity, the timelessness of it? Not the truth about a past event, that is circumstances, facts based in time, easily demonstrated, but truth rather about God, the timeless? Can this exist, come into being through proof, which requires time? Can this, the presence of God, exist in time, in the sense of the movement of the past, present and future? Or is truth, God, the timeless, or whatever we call it, only witnessed in the present, when the concepts of the past and future fall away for the fiction that they are? We should ask ourselves this question deeply, if we should know anything of that which is timeless, which cannnot be proven, but only seen in this moment.

Also, if you bear with me, another question is that of belief and its relationship to truth. Does the truth require belief or does belief deny truth? Can truth even be believed? What believes? What is the thing that believes? The mind believes, right? The selfish mind courts and coddles belief, hords and clings to it for proof, does it not? What does the self, the mind have to do with God? Is this, belief, with all its underlying fears and doubts, the very denial of God? What shred of fear or doubt, or rather belief, is required for truth?; Can belief even exist in the presence of God?

[trotsky]

99. That's another strawman, by the way.

No one is "demanding" for proof - I, for one, just want some insight into the process by which you determine which parts of the bible are literally true, and which are not. Instead of providing even a hint of that, you instead deflect and start attacking non-believers for being threatened by faith. Talk about a "real sense of annoyance and superiority"!

[JerseygirlCT]

121. So

you're not "demanding", you "just want". I guess a difference of degrees.

I'm not sure where this "attack" is on non-believers. If stating what seems to be obvious (that you dislike religion) is an attack, I guess I need a new definition. I've no beef with non-believers. I'm married to one.

I do have a beef with the belittling tone taken in any conversation about faith. If saying you seem to be bothered by religion rises to "attack", you might want to look back at your own responses.

I don't think you're really looking for insight. I could be wrong, but I've yet to read anything that leads me to think that's what's going on. I think you've quite decided what you think, and any contrary thought is unacceptable - or there for your entertainment.

We're approaching a non-tangible thing and you seem to be looking for tangible evidence. It's not available. God isn't apprehendable via scientific, empirical proof. So the very things you'd require are just not going to be found. That isn't deflection; that's just the way it is. There are some things you simply cannot measure. As I've said, that's where faith comes in.

[trotsky]

124. I give up. I can't keep up with your strawmen.

I've explained several times now that my position is not what you continue to distort and present.

God isn't apprehendable via scientific, empirical proof.

Never, not once, did I ask for or state this. But you keep saying it as if I did. There's really no point - you don't have answers, you only want to try and make me look like a bad guy for simply asking in the first place. Fits with what I've always observed, though - a believer always gets defensive and changes the subject whenever the tough questions come up.

[JerseygirlCT]

127. What strawman would that be?

What is it that you're looking for here?

And what subject has been changed? Honestly, I'm not sure where it is you think the subject has been changed.

[trotsky]

132. All the ones I have specifically pointed out in various posts in this thread.

Using your direct quotes. How sad that a serious intellectual inquiry into WHY a believer rejects some aspects of their theology but accepts others ends always with pablum and disdain for the non-believer in even asking the question to begin with.

[JerseygirlCT]

137. I think the difficulty is that

you're defining, based on your expectations, what my theology is or ought to be. So we start by aiming at a target that's moved. And in fact, is likely to keep moving.

I don't know how in the world I could define for you what is true and not true, or how I define those things. I don't read scripture (for instance) and use that soley to define my beliefs. Honestly, if someone came to me tomorrow with iron-clad proof that Jesus never existed, it wouldn't change my beliefs much at all. The lessons to be gained from his teachings (or the teachings attributed to him in this case) have a value to me of their own, regardless of source. As Meshuga says, all of it is compared to my own experiences, traditions and weighed true or not there. There's really no way for me to encapsulate all of that for you. It would be like attempting to explain all of who I am and what's made me who I am to you. Besides, it would be painfully dull, I'm sure!

[trotsky]

146. No, that's another strawman.

I'm convinced you can't help yourself.

you're defining, based on your expectations, what my theology is or ought to be

No, I asked HOW you define your theology, in particular how you determine which parts of the bible you take literally. The closest you've come to an answer is "I just do" - or in other words, you're confirming what I said, that you pick the parts you like and discard the parts you don't.

Honestly, if someone came to me tomorrow with iron-clad proof that Jesus never existed, it wouldn't change my beliefs much at all. The lessons to be gained from his teachings (or the teachings attributed to him in this case) have a value to me of their own, regardless of source.

Which begs the question - why consider yourself a Christian at all, then? If you are admitting here that YOU are the sole determiner of whether something is good or moral or true, why layer on everything that you are admitting means nothing at all?

[darkstar3]

151. Belated...

"Demands" for proof? This is a discussion board. I can no more make demands of you than I can fly to the moon. I do, however, see people often request proof of theological ideas. Why is this request a bad thing? You should expect that people will ask you why you believe what you do, and that will often include proof of claims about this world in which we live.

You should be careful about perceptions. The "annoyance and superiority" you sensed from people asking you questions about your faith may have been more internal than you realize, and may also have even been caused by a careless choice of words on your part.

You may not make a distinction here, but it is not faith with which I have a problem, but rather the actions and attitudes of the faithful toward me and mine. I happen to think that those actions and attitudes can be mitigated if the faithful would simply know for certain what it is they really believe, and so I tend to ask pointed questions. I'm not the only one in that boat.

[ironbark]

165. The "real sense of annoyance and superiority" is also extended towards non believers

who do not demonstrate a "dislike of religion".

Put simply- You'r either for us or against us in the religiophobia...and if your deemed against us...your fair game.

;-)

[trotsky]

80. First, what darkstar3 said.

I don't give a crap about faith - except when it is being used as an excuse for not being able to provide anything resembling an answer.

Basically, you confirmed what I said - you believe in the parts you like, and dismiss the rest. No different than any other Christian, from MLK to Fred Phelps to Pat Robertson. Of course, that's why there are so many vastly different sects out there - you can't even agree on some of the most basic principles of your precious faith.

[JerseygirlCT]

82. Why should we?

I simply don't understand the idea that there should be some sort of lock-step uniformity in belief. It's quite a personal thing, so why in the world shouldn't each person experience and understand it personally? You're certainly free to dismiss that as picking and choosing - I'd say it's more like discernment. I don't expect you to agree, nor do I have any desire to have you agree.

As to your answer, you might consider the question.

[trotsky]

83. Please put away the strawman.

I'm not asking for "lock-step uniformity." Just some ROUGH agreement on the most BASIC aspects of your theology - but you don't even have that.

why in the world shouldn't each person experience and understand it personally

I'm not sure you grasp the seriousness here. Is Fred Phelps merely "experienc(ing) and understand(ing)" his faith "personally"? Is that OK? Do you have any basis whatsoever to challenge him or his followers? Or do we just let bigots, racists, and homophobes experience their own particular version of Christianity?

[JerseygirlCT]

84. Of course we do

Really, how silly.

It's not that he has an entirely different idea of what Christianity means than I do. Honestly, anyone can hold any belief they wish.

It's about actions.

I don't see any real difference when you say you want rough agreement on basic aspects of theology... it still comes down to a question of why you'd want that - what, exactly, is that going to do for you?

There certainly are rough agreements held by rough majorities of Christians... but I maintain that even within a group with fairly similar beliefs, you're going to have differences - based on different life experiences and different personalities. If we are individuals, and loved individually by God (there's one fairly, though not entirely, universal belief for you) then why in the world wouldn't our comprehensions of the divine reflect that individuality?

I don't know what Fred Phelps is experiencing. I'm not even sure he's sincere in what he claims he's experiencing. I tend to think he's a pretty ill man, actually. That much hate eats at you.

And I'm afraid we do indeed "allow" all sorts of people to experience their own particular version of Christianity. Would you really have it different? Would you welcome that sort of mind-control?

People can belief what they will. They cannot act as they will when it harms someone else.

Do I agree with Phelps? Absolutely not. I think he's got it all wrong. But until he acts on those hateful beliefs, I have no right to constrain him. (Persuade him, yes - if that was even remotely possible. I think he's a pointless exercise.)

[ThorOfMidland]

85. Individual Interpretation

If we are individuals, and loved individually by God (there's one fairly, though not entirely, universal belief for you) then why in the world wouldn't our comprehensions of the divine reflect that individuality?


Exactly! This is why it is so important not to get things from books, whether last year, or thousands of years ago, right? If we want to know God as individuals, to see the truth, not the names and faces and events that were taught to us by other humans, but truly know, witness the immensity of it, we must look at it today, for ourselves, in the present moment, right? When we quote and analyze what others have said, don't we actually deny God in the present? Is this not a simple principle, a basic fact of learning about something, what it is now, not yesterday or tomorrow? Otherwise, we spend all of our time arguing the interpretations, caught in the past, and we never see God today, now. If God is real, not that you know or I know it to be true, but to truly find out, discover, how would we do it? Study a book, the past, and argue? Is God in the past?, in the future? Or is the truth and beauty of God only revealed in the present moment? So, do we look around, observe ourselves and others in relationships today, now, to witness God? We certainly must, unless, of course, our real intent is to be entertained....

[JerseygirlCT]

110. Well, actually, I disagree a bit here

I don't think it's a choice between either studying the past or looking forward. It's all of the above.

When you want to know all you can about something, do you look to one source or as many as you can?

While I certainly don't think the Bible is God's dictation, as it were, I DO think there are rather timeless lessons contained in it. The problem those who read it literally have is that they too are limiting the very source they go to - it's not meant as a rule book or a text book, but as a story of humankind's search for relationship to God - which is found by our relationship to one another.

So yes, God is in the past, and the present and the future - God is timeless.

[ThorOfMidland]

122. This Assumes There Is Truth In Books

Why do we need a lesson book about God? Is it not there, in the moment for us to see, fully experience? Do lessons from others show us how that happens? Can this be shown through a book? Am I not intelligent enough, strong enough, worthy enough to see the truth for myself? Again, just some questions to help us cut away at what does not work in the world, and get at truth.

[darkstar3]

123. You're actually going to claim there is no truth in books? n/t

[ThorOfMidland]

131. That is What Most of Us Do, Right?

Most of us seek knowledge from books, what others have written about truth, because we do not think truth is there for each of us to discover, to witness, every moment, on our own. Also, we seek out books because we don't have the time, the inclination to see things for ourselves. It is easier, we think, for others to see it, tell us about it, and to quote them. Doesn't this, the quoting of another from a book, really become a lie, like me and red aligators?

Books have a place, certainly, but it is the importance that we place on them, the priority we give them that causes them to fall shy of the mark. The mark being: to see the truth, the actual, without description, without formulation of argument or opinion about it. To see who we, in relationship to the external world, really are. Why do I need a book to tell me who I am? What author would know that about me?

[darkstar3]

145. So yes, you're claiming there is no truth in books.

:boring:

[ThorOfMidland]

149. Further Than This...

Is there any truth to be had from another? Can another tell us the truth and we take their word for it, and make it our own? Does this not become a lie? Or, do we have to see truth ourselves? Can the other provide a pointer, guidelines for truth? Perhaps. For instance there are many things - faith, belief, fear, war - that have nothing to do with truth. Another may be able to point this out. But, were it not for seeing it for ourselves, every moment, now, truth or God may as well not exist. Otherwise we are just arguing over words, which is meaningless.

[darkstar3]

150. You're still down on communication, and yet you can't stop yourself from posting.

This is hilarious.

[ThorOfMidland]

158. We Really Just Want To Fight, Dont We?

So long as we see the truth of that, that we just want to fight, that we hate, that is fine. It is when we deceive ourselves about it, and try to deceive others about it that it becomes the nightmare. We don't have to change who we are, as if we could. We just have to see who we are, which is hateful, hurtful, mean. In seeing this truth about ourselves, perhaps we will see something beyond all this. Until then, our work is cut out for us, no one, truly, will do it for us!

[darkstar3]

159. Perhaps you should be reintroduced to the pronoun "I".

[ThorOfMidland]

160. I Will Take It Under Advisement ;)

[JerseygirlCT]

129. Do lessons from other show us how that happens?

I think they do.

Much like a well-educated person is expected to have studied history and literature - to learn from what those who have come before us have experienced and left for us.

Is it the definitive lesson? No, probably not. Is it still valuable? I think it is.

I don't really think we're equipped to find truth in an absolute vacuum. I think we have always learned from others' experiences. The thing is that we need to make that learning a part of what we are - and then come to our own conclusions about what they teach us.

A good teacher doesn't just instill rote facts into a student's brain. A good teacher is the one who inspires students to learn all they can and then reach their own conclusions.

[ThorOfMidland]

136. What Can Someone Else Do For Us?

Another can provide a pointer, give some guidelines, perhaps. But can another impart truth? And, which other do we choose? Do we chose the new version of the other, or the old version, or the new revised old version?

Truth, even the pointer, guidelines to it, through another becomes a fallacy, a lie, because we are choosing, we have to choose which other to read or follow, then we have to ask others about our choice, etc. This is all because why? Why do we do this? We are afraid to stand alone to discover it for ourselves. We would rather read others' versions, and argue it, convert those around us, to show that we are right, that we are important, that we know. Isn't this why we go to another? In short, because we are afraid to see for ourselves?

[JerseygirlCT]

138. I don't think so

I don't think any of us operate in a vacuum. You are formed by others as much - maybe more - than by yourself. Those pointers and guidelines got us to the adults we are, allowing us the intellect by which to ask the questions that might allow us to understand some degree of truth.

I don't think any of us will ever fully grasp truth in this life. But our time here is usefully spent trying all the same.

[ThorOfMidland]

143. Intellect

There was an important statement about intellect, formed by thought, belief, that was made here. Do we want to find out, discover for ourselves what intellect is, and what relationship it has, if any, to God? If we did, truly, seriously wanted to know, not to prove something, to strengthen our own belief and doubt, not to be right, but wanted to understand what human intellect is, how would we approach it?

[Cleobulus]

86. If understanding of the divine is so individual, its rendered meaningless...

Does God hate Fags or does he love them? To put it rather crudely. Both can't be right, for obvious reasons, and yet you would claim they would be right, in that case, what the hell is divine anyways? Just anything that matches your morality that you call God?

[ThorOfMidland]

88. Yes, Rather Crudely

Why do we rely on others to tell us what God is or isn't? Is it because we are afraid to see the real, the truth for ourselves?

So, your question, what is divine? Do we really want to know? Or do we just want to prove our minds right, to be right? And, if we did want to know, could it even be known? That is to say, could it, God, the timeless, be grasped by the mind, formulated in time, then bottled up and sold at Wal-mart or on the shelves of Barnes and Nobel? Isn't that which "knows" in the past? That is, the mind, the thing that knows is made up of mere memory, which is always in the past. God is only in the present, thus cannot be known, believed or proved/disproved, by the mind.

[Cleobulus]

90. That makes absolutely no sense...

First, you make an argument that isn't true, that the human mind is "mere memory" when its so much more. We can conceptualize the future, plan for it, and work towards it, not to mention we can assess our condition in the present as well.

In addition you make a claim about God being timeless, if that's true, then what's the point of even claiming such a being exists? Not only can you not prove it, but such a being is impossible, particularly in the Christian context of a personal, interventionist god.

[ThorOfMidland]

92. When the Mind Plans, Thinks of the Future...

When the mind, made up of thought, brought into being by thought, which is memory, thinks of the future, it does so based on the past, experiences, accumulated memory. Otherwise, there is no mind, there is no thought, right? How do we know there is a mind? Because of thought, which is memory, which records and offers proof, and plans, whether to go to the store, or go to war. If the mind exists without thought there is not record of it, it is not recorded, there is no memory of it, which is the only way to see God, only in the present, right? How can the mind, made up of thought, see into the future? It can't. We can plan, but that is not real, it has not happened, right? We can interpret, but that is based on our own experience and conditioning, our own thought, which is, in fact, the past. Unfortunately the mind cannot record experience of God, because God is in the present, and only in the present. I say unfortunately, but actually this is fortunate, otherwise God would be subject to the corruption of our human minds.

[humblebum]

100. This makes absolutely no sense.

"you make a claim about God being timeless, if that's true, then what's the point of even claiming such a being exists?"

The God that is described in the Bible is said to be timeless. You've read it , I'm sure - "Alpha and Omega", "God of Abraham Issac and Jacob","From age to age", "I AM".

The concept of such a being should be not be foreign to an atheist, especially those who accept principles such as Hawking's timeless concept, etc.

[Cleobulus]

170. Uhm, if you are talking about imaginary time...

two things, first, Hawking isn't the first to come up with it, and second it isn't "timeless" its looking at time in a different way, with another axis added on going in the different direction. Think of x, y, and z as used to plot points in 3 dimensional space. Time, the fourth dimension, was thought to be just one line, a line from past to future, now we think there's another axis, going perpendicular to the "normal" time line, that can be mathematically described and explain some observed phenomenon.

To say that this is even remotely related to the idea of a "timeless" God is idiotic. There are enormous problems with such a god, timelessness indicates two things, that this god is that it will live forever, into infinity, and that this god is unchanging. Both concepts are impossible in this universe, any complex being in the universe is still governed by the the laws of physics, there is no getting around that. If we are talking about a being outside this universe, well, it can't interact with us in this universe, and we can't interact with it, there is no use speculating on the existence of such a being.

[humblebum]

171. Any theory or idea of time that you put forth is nothing more than subjective.

When you say something is impossible and you are trying to define how the existence of God must be, you are setting yourself up as an expert on such matters and quite frankly there are none. There are only those who can make educated guesses. To claim otherwise is "idiotic".

[Cleobulus]

172. Uhm, no, indeed, considering the evidence and math involved, its objective...

now, as to the exact nature of imaginary time, well the theories still have to be tested more vigorously. But saying outright that ANY theory or idea about time is subjective is completely false and shows your own ignorance on how science works.

[humblebum]

173. If it were indeed objective, as you say, then it would no longer be theory.

to be totally objective it would need to be totally empirical.

[JerseygirlCT]

109. If you think of faith as simply a set of rules for governing behavior

that would be true.

But it's not.

[ThorOfMidland]

140. Faith, What Is It?

When we believe, there is doubt, which is inherent in belief, the very nature of belief, which we must examine in ourselves to see. No one else can give us this fact, and it serves no purpose, has no meaning, to merely agree or disagree; then it becomes an argument, another belief, right?

When there is belief, is there not doubt? They court each other tightly, do they not? So, how do we deal with that doubt? What tool, device do we, tethered to belief about something, use to deal with our doubt? Do we not use faith for this? So, faith, founded in belief and doubt, which are two sides of the same coin, is our tool, our weapon, our shield, for fear. It is important to see this, because where there is fear, we inevitably it seems, believe. And, when we believe, not see the actual but merely suspect, hope, dream, pray, believe in something, there is doubt, always. They go hand in hand; one cannot exist without the other, belief and doubt.

[trotsky]

98. But the actions are coming from belief.

He strongly, deeply believes that homosexuality is a terrible affront to your god. You don't. And there we are - neither of you will EVER convince the other that they're wrong, nor does your faith give you any kind of tools to even come to a consensus. I'm not sure what else I can do to get you to grasp the point here. Maybe you do, and you just want to avoid it because of the devastating implications it has for your faith and theology. To be sure, I've never met a believer who really wanted to confront the problems.

[Meshuga]

101. Yes, actions come from beliefs

...but it is impossible to see consensus because both sides see and approach Christianity very differently. From what I see, the approaches are foreign to the other.

I think the biggest difference between a believer like Fred Phelps and a liberal Christian is in the role of the bible when it comes to beliefs. Fred Phelps will look at the bible as an authoritative manual so he can spread his hate for gays, Jews, atheists, etc. The bible (as he sees it) is an infallible set of books written by God himself. Perhaps I am wrong about Phelps but that's my perception from hearing his arguments and seeing his behavior.

On the other hand, you have liberal Christians who understand that the books were written by humans based on their understanding and interpretations of what they perceived as "the divine." From what I observe, I conclude that the set of beliefs claimed by some liberal Christians are acquired from their Christian upbringing. So I don't think a person like JerseygirlCT will say, "I believe in X and Y because the bible says so." She will say that she believes in something because it is part of who she is, drawing her own conclusions based on her own life experiences.

Of course the bible is relevant to liberal Christians and influences their beliefs because the religion is based on its teachings. But even the inclusion of "embarrassing" content (showing the moral standards of its time) is not enough to deny the included message that liberal Christians find worthwhile and use as basis for their own teaching and goals. Of course that there is no general rule for this but I don't think the bible is used by a liberal Christian (like JerseygirlCT) as confirmation of beliefs. That confirmation comes from within, based on the world view of the individual.

Consulting the "autonomous self" rather than the bible to determine personal belief is part of post-enlightenment religion. The bottom line is that problems with the bible are easy to confront when the bible is not the determining factor of one's beliefs.

[darkstar3]

102. You are, of course, correct

when you say that the bible is not the determining factor for the beliefs of many Christians. This is what leads to nebulous definitions of faith, belief, and Christianity, and is also what leads to the further segmentation of the Protestant faith.

Why do I bring that up? Because I think it incredibly important for people who believe in these things to know WHY they believe in them. That knowledge will keep them from being led by the nose, and might also keep them from acting like an ass about their belief.

Furthermore, until the question of "why do you believe this" can be satisfactorily answered, no one of any faith has any right to claim divine knowledge, higher access to truth, or finer clarity.

/nearly off-topic rant off.

[Meshuga]

105. The questions are valid...

...and there is nothing wrong with bringing up the discussion. But it is hard to do so without initial assumptions that the person is unable to question his/her own beliefs or that the believer sees his/her beliefs as ultimate knowledge of "the divine." That probably explains a lot of the misunderstandings and derailed discussions.

I think that many believers are aware their beliefs are part of their own world view and not the answer to an ultimate truth. It is merely part of who they are and how they learned to approach the world.

[darkstar3]

107. An enlightened view,

but you miss the fact that beliefs are tricky things. They root deep within people and cause them to plunge into actions normally pondered carefully. They resist change, and when they are based on inaccuracies and fallacies they resist inspection.

I disagree with you about the nature of "many believers". Far, far too often in my life I have been confronted by believers who do in fact believe they have the answer to an ultimate truth. You do not, and that is fine, but you cannot (and neither can anyone else) deny the existence of vast numbers who do.

[Meshuga]

128. I am not denying that a vast number of believers think they have the "ultimate truth"

I know plenty who already found "the truth."

I just try my best not to make assumptions. That's all. :-)

[JerseygirlCT]

135. I wouldn't deny that either - at all.

I just think their very certainty limits their perception.

So I don't think in that way that Trotsky and I really disagree much - those who simply take their beliefs at face value - because that's what they're told to believe, because that's what they're told the bible says (no one, and I mean no one, absolutely reads it literally. There's always something that's been interpreted), then that's it - I don't think they've really dug into anything authentic. It might be why they tend to scream all the more righteously when confronted with doubt.

[JerseygirlCT]

113. Do you think anyone here was making such a claim? nt

[trotsky]

106. No, that's not quite it, either.

Fred Phelps will look at the bible as an authoritative manual so he can spread his hate for gays, Jews, atheists, etc. The bible (as he sees it) is an infallible set of books written by God himself.

Fundies like him may proclaim the bible to be infallible, and claim to embrace all of it, but they reject wholesale parts of it just as readily as liberal Christians do. Neither side is particularly honest about A) why they do this, and B) that they're even doing it at all. That's what I find most frustrating.

So I don't think a person like JerseygirlCT will say, "I believe in X and Y because the bible says so." She will say that she believes in something because it is part of who she is, drawing her own conclusions based on her own life experiences.

How does she determine that Jesus Christ was crucified on a cross for her sins? Did she conclude this based on her own life experiences?

Consulting the "autonomous self" rather than the bible to determine personal belief is part of post-enlightenment religion.

Oh that's definitely the primary force here - but the fundies like Phelps are doing it too.

[Meshuga]

118. Here is my take

Fundies like him may proclaim the bible to be infallible, and claim to embrace all of it, but they reject wholesale parts of it just as readily as liberal Christians do. Neither side is particularly honest about A) why they do this, and B) that they're even doing it at all. That's what I find most frustrating.

I understand that both embrace and reject parts of the bible. But the main difference is that one uses the bible as the authoritative source. The other takes the essence of the teachings of Jesus to create their own tradition, philosophy, and religion recognizing the bible falls short of its own moral expectations.

I have seen Christians here, including JerseygirlCT, recognizing this fact. The same way I have seen others who, like you said, are not particularly honest about why they do this and that they are doing it at all.


How does she determine that Jesus Christ was crucified on a cross for her sins? Did she conclude this based on her own life experiences?

What I mean by "life experience" is her Christian upbringing and circles. There are common beliefs acquired plainly because that is the truth you are taught and it becomes part of who you are. I'm not a Christian but I have my own world view based on my own background with myths, superstitions, beliefs, etc. All that makes up who I am.

I am assuming here, but I would not be surprised that she believes that "Jesus Christ was crucified on a cross for her sins" because that is an expected belief to have from her Christian background. But believing in that (or not) is a determination she probably made on her own and it is a belief she can't help it but to have it since that is part of who she is. The bottom line is that she is not compelled to believe because the bible says so.


Oh that's definitely the primary force here - but the fundies like Phelps are doing it too.

I agree, but how they do it is completely different. One side claims infallibility of the bible to impose beliefs but ignores what is inconvenient. On the other side, for the most part, they seem to recognize that consulting the "autonomous self" is the method of determining personal belief in their post-enlightenment religious ways. But I have to recognize that there are those who will defend the bible tooth and nail trying to hide its most embarrassing passages.

[JerseygirlCT]

125. Thanks, Meshuga

You put it well.

I'd also just say that I actually *don't* believe Jesus died for my sins. I don't believe in substitutionary atonement. I believe his death was instead a demonstration - that death has no power over us because of God, that we are so loved that God would take on human form and pain and suffering and experience the ultimate just to show us that it need not *be* the ultimate.

Jesus' death and resurrection are a great example, actually, of the shades of belief to be found in Christianity. The act that is really the crux (forgive the pun, unintended) of the faith is one of those mysteries that, in my faith tradition at least, are left for the individual to chew on and come to some understanding of. I also think that process is apt to lead to a much more meaningful understanding than those who are simply instructed, in so many words, to believe because we said so. Or the bible said so. Or the preacher says so.

I can laugh - a product of a Roman Catholic upbringing, including 12 years of parochial schools, and sounding like the Reformation in human form here... but I do think that it's very important that each person examines the "autonomous self" as you put it. I don't see blind faith as particularly useful. As an old rector of mine said: Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; doubt is the leading edge of faith.

[trotsky]

133. I'm afraid you and Jerserygirl still aren't getting it.

Where does the idea that Jesus was crucified come from? From a literal reading of the bible. In other words, a Christian who rejects the creation myth, the story of Noah, the writings of Paul, etc., etc., but who believes Jesus really existed and was hung on a cross to die, is indeed taking a literal interpretation of the text. (Since Jerseygirl claims she doesn't believe in the atonement aspect, but she seems to still believe the crucifiction was a real event.) They are assuming the bible to be inerrant and true in its reporting of the fact. Just like Phelps does, but with different/additional passages.

[JerseygirlCT]

139. I'd say true and inerrant are different things

There's a lot of truth to be found in scripture. That doesn't mean that it's all factual.

As to Jesus' existence and life, I'm completely aware that what we have by way of testimony is not likely factual, in the way we'd like a news report to be, for instance. The four gospels differ too much to make that believable. I do think there is enough common ground between them and the letters from Paul and others to suss out the important stuff - the experience, the lessons... But there are certainly times when it would be fair to say that my belief in Jesus is a willing suspension of disbelief. There are others when I am more sure. Neither position changes the truth I find my in faith - the love of God, the call to work toward loving one another. Those are the gut things, the bedrock. And those are the things that are not provable. For me, they just are.

[trotsky]

147. "And those are the things that are not provable. For me, they just are."

As they are for Phelps, Robertson, Bush, etc.

[JerseygirlCT]

154. Yup

which gets us back to actions, not beliefs.

Do you think anyone's going to change or impede their beliefs? And really, in a free society that so values free speech, would you want to start down that road?

I sort of doubt it.

However, we can and do prohibit their actions when they hurt other people.

[trotsky]

155. "...would you want to start down that road?"

I don't know what planet you've been living on, but here on Earth we've been walking down that road since we could first communicate with each other. And it's not as you are implying, forced by the government. Living in a society is *all about* having to adjust one's beliefs. Religion makes those beliefs "special" and sets them aside from criticism and debate, which are how we change people's minds on other topics.

[Meshuga]

152. Sure, perhaps some liberal Christians "pick and choose" or...

...some might see the entire thing as allegory. But again, the role of the bible for Phelps is completely different from the role in liberal Christianity. For Phelps it is an infallible authoritative set of documents and he will have to pick and choose to support that infallibility.

For liberal Christians, it is a set of documents where they derive their spirituality from. Whether a story is fact or fiction is besides the point. In other words, so what if a liberal Christian accepts certain specific passages as facts and rejects others?

What he/she believes is filtered by him/herself and it is not mandated by a supposedly infallible scripture. The specific beliefs are influenced by an obviously flawed set of documents but that's about it.

[darkstar3]

153. Look carefully at what you just posted.

Your descriptions of Phelps and the hypothetical liberal Christian include the exact same actions with the exact motivations. They both go to the Bible to pick and choose ways to reinforce their own beliefs. On a board where liberal Christians hate being compared to Phelps, you have unintentionally made them the same.

[Meshuga]

156. I think I made distinctions

whether they are clear or not is another story...

What I said is that Phelps picks and chooses from the bible to maintain infallibility of authoritative scripture.

Liberal Christians derive their spirituality from the bible. If a liberal Christian happens to believe in a passage and not in another passage, so what? Whether a specific passage is fact or fiction (in the person's opinion) is besides the point.

I used "pick and choose" in quotes in my last post on purpose because I don't think the hypothetical Liberal Christian is actually picking and choosing. What the person believes is what the person believes. I don't expect the person to believe in a passage that he/she thinks is not factual.

And btw, I was certainly not the one who introduced Phelps in this conversation. I personally don't see the usefulness in connecting liberal Christians to him in any way. They share a label and scripture but that is where the similarities end. At least in my opinion.

[darkstar3]

157. There are 2 reasons what you said is important, even if you didn't bring it up to start with.

1. Factuality isn't the important bit of the usage of scripture, but rather the fact that both sides use scripture in the exact same way: As support for their own beliefs.
2. The connection is important BECAUSE Phelps and the liberal Christians share a label and share scripture, which are two things that have been used throughout history for the same purposes Phelps puts them toward today. You'll find merely one chain of examples here: http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2010/07/were-here-were-queer-its-rude-pundits.html

[Meshuga]

161. ...

1. Factuality isn't the important bit of the usage of scripture, but rather the fact that both sides use scripture in the exact same way: As support for their own beliefs.

I already presented the differences that I see between both sides. I don't want to repeat myself so I won't post them again.


2. The connection is important BECAUSE Phelps and the liberal Christians share a label and share scripture, which are two things that have been used throughout history for the same purposes Phelps puts them toward today. You'll find merely one chain of examples here:

All I have to say is that I am glad that I can make a distinction otherwise I would not be able to create friendships and I would be unable to interact with good friends who use the Christian label, go to church, and study scripture. I'm sure I don't need a link to show you that, historically, people and groups who shared the same Christian label massacred and have been attacking Jews based on scripture and lies created about Jews. I personally have been harassed by the Phelps types, and worse, in the presence of my then 6-year-old child. But I still see no reason or usefulness in connecting the dots so closely.

[darkstar3]

169. The usefulness of connecting the dots is educational.

You see, there is no difference between Freddie Crack and the Christians who...

- have voted en-masse across the country to deny rights to homosexuals.
- have rallied behind anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia causes while ignoring war.
- have assaulted or even killed people because of differing religious beliefs.

All of these behaviors, all of these actions (and many more), stem from the same type of religion/belief/scripture centered thinking. It is a dangerous mindset, and Phelps serves as a cautionary tale, an illustration of what happens when the dangers of that mindset are ignored. Those naive enough to believe that Phelps isn't one of their chosen group, and that they could never possibly become him, are the ones most in danger of falling toward his end of the spectrum and participating in all sorts of bigotry.

For examples of this phenomenon, check out some R/T threads on Mormonism, Scientology, or atheism, and note the names of the people getting in the biggest digs. Then go elsewhere and watch those same people defend their chosen faith to the hilt and swear on a stack of bibles that Phelps isn't a true Christian.

[Meshuga]

179. ...

I agree that scripture can be used to support the dangerous mindset that a Fred Phelps uses to extract his hateful ways. And I agree that liberal Christians need to be aware of that without denial of the fact that Phelps gets his material from the bible.

But I see no usefulness (or the relevance) in connecting the dots so closely between Phelps and those who are aware of the fact above. Like in the case of JerseygirlCT and many others in this forum who consider themselves liberal Christians. There is no real danger that a person like her will fall in line with a Fred Phelps or that she will be anything like him just because they share a label and scripture.

I personally think it is ridiculous when some people in one way or another claim that the theme of their lives is the ethical teachings of Jesus but then go around acting like douche bags "getting in the biggest digs" in different threads. But it happens.

[trotsky]

162. "If a liberal Christian happens to believe in a passage and not in another passage, so what?"

If Fred Phelps happens to believe in a passage and not in another passage, so what?

I'm *really* trying to understand the difference you think exists. Not seeing it. Yes, they come to completely different conclusions, but they employ the exact same methods - pick & choose, ACTUALLY.

[Meshuga]

167. consequential beliefs vs. selecting passages to extract religion

I'm not a liberal Christian to speak for them but I don't think they pick and choose what to believe. They just believe based on what they lived, what they were taught, what they understand, how they were brought up, etc. I don't think Genesis is the authority to tell them creation is true even if a liberal Christian believes in it as factual. The science learned in school (which is part of the person's environment) will have a bigger voice in this regard.

The bible will obviously influence a specific belief (like you mentioned the crucifixion) because the bible is a source of Christian spirituality and it is a book that tells the Christian story. But I don't think the belief is directly taken from the bible just "because the bible says so." I think the belief is a consequence of a more complex set of sources. The specific set of beliefs is a product of the environment with multiple sources. And I think that is an important distinction right there from a Fred Phelps who claims to believe in something because the bible says so.

If a liberal Christian is saying that he/she believes something because the bible says so then I have to agree with you. But I don't think JerseygirlCT and many liberal Christians take that approach.

Now, if you mean that there is "picking and choosing" performed to extract the religion from the bible then I have to agree with you (in my own ignorance of their process). But I have to say that I would only use the expression "picking and choosing" if I wanted to give a negative connotation to what liberal Christians do to follow their religion. I see no harm in extracting the good from the bible to create their Christianity. Obviously there are lots of contradicting teachings in the bible based on the different times, groups, politics, etc. I think the "selection" is a natural process and I think liberal Christians are aware of biblical contradictions and flaws. But I don't think Fred Phelps is aware of that.

I can see bringing up the argument that both sides select from the bible to extract their 'Christianities' when we hear the denial that Fred Phelps is a "true Christian." But I still see a difference in their approaches and usage of the bible if I look beyond the generalities.

[trotsky]

168. ...

They just believe based on what they lived, what they were taught, what they understand, how they were brought up, etc.

And this is different from the Fred Phelpses of the world exactly how?

I think the "selection" is a natural process and I think liberal Christians are aware of biblical contradictions and flaws. But I don't think Fred Phelps is aware of that.

Oh I'm certain Phelps is too - he just uses a different rationalization process to reject them. But the bottom line is, all Christians decide for themselves which parts of the bible they're going to take literally and which they aren't. I.e., they pick and choose. I don't really see you disagreeing with me all that much.

[ironbark]

166. Your reference to “one uses the bible as the authoritative source…

The other takes the essence of the teachings”

Is reminiscent of the work of both James Fowler and M Scott Peck on The Stages of Faith.
Peck identified the stages of individual spiritual/faith development as –
1/ Chaotic Antisocial
2/ Formal Institutional
3/Skeptic Individual
4/ Mystic Communal.

Fowler came up with a similar set of stages-
1. Intuitive-Projective Faith
2. Mythic-Literal Faith
3. Synthetic-Conventional Faith
4. Individuative-Reflective Faith
5. Conjunctive Faith
6. Universalizing Faith

A synopsis of both is found at-
http://ionparadox.homestead.com/stages.html

It just may well be that Phelps is operating from ‘Formal Institutional’ faith…while others are seeking to understand how he can do so from a ‘Mythic-Literal’ cosmology ;-)

Enjoyed your post/s.

[JerseygirlCT]

112. No, I think you've never met a believer who

wishes to see it your way.

His actions are wrong. His search is his own, however. Do all of us go off the tracks? Absolutely. And from my own subjective position, some more than others. And I do think he's quite mistaken in interpretation. Utterly.

But beneath it all, his experience is his own, his relationship with God his own to sort out.

Let me use a tradition example from my own church - the three-legged stool. So one's approach to faith is composed of, in this example, scripture, tradition, and discernment.

The analogy isn't the best, in my view, because the three are not necessary three discrete things. IOW, an approach to scripture, is as we've been talking about, surely colored by one's personal discernment. But all three have value, and together form a more stable underpinning.

We're human beings. 100% consensus is awfully hard to come by.

[trotsky]

126. Strawmen, strawmen.

I'm sorry I asked a question you can't answer.

[ThorOfMidland]

89. Does God Require Faith or Belief?

You wrote of faith and belief with respect to God. What do either of these, faith and belief, have to do with God? Is God static? Of the past? Dead? If God is not static, dead, then it is dynamic, alive in the present, right? Do I have to have faith in the present? Is that not a ridiculous notion, to believe that this moment is real, here? Although my intent is not to ridicule, but on the contrary point to our mistakes in our approach to God!

So too, then, are these notions that God requires belief or faith ridiculous. Is it not fear that requires these things, not God, and we call these things, faith and belief, "God" to alleviate fear? What place does fear have in the presence of God? When we teach others these things we are teaching them fear, and strengthening our own fear, are we not? After all, if something as great as God, the timeless, the un-fathomable, unimaginable, is worth discussing, it is worth asking these questions, right? Especially since, when we dig for the answers to these questions, fearlessly, for ourselves, we see that fear has no place in God's presence whatsoever; and as such, both faith and belief are useless, are only burdens, hinderances in our quest and must be cast aside, if we would know anything of truth, of God.

[darkstar3]

104. This begs the simple question "define God,"

but from what you've posted I'm sure you'll come up with some reason why God is undefinable...

So how do you even know there is such a thing if you can't possibly define it? Why call him/her/it God, and why bother discussing it at all?

[ThorOfMidland]

108. This Begs The Question

Why do I rely on another to show me truth, to define God for me? Am I a child? It is because we really don't want to see the truth, right?

Now, you asked: how do we even know there is God? This is why it is so very important for us to discover, for ourselves, right? If I say there is, and you say there isn't, then we just argue about that and the truth is never seen. This is simple, right? It is a childish mentality in us that wants others to define things, wants others to show us the way. Is there any way for us to discover this for ourselves? Otherwise, going on what someone else says, what another's definition is, all we have is another set of beliefs, right? Isn't it a shallow mind, a hollow mind, empty, dull that wants others to prove things, so we can either hold it up and quote them, or knock them down and laugh. Isn't this a child's game we play here?

[darkstar3]

111. No, you're playing a child's game by coming up with ways to dodge a simple question.

When adults believe something, they generally have reason to do so. Those reasons can then in turn help other adults to understand what it is they believe. It's called discussion, or debate if you prefer, and it is engaged in by adults who want to talk about ideas. I must ask again, given the content of your post, if you are uninterested in what other people have to say, if you must discover EVERYTHING yourself, then what is the point of you posting here?

[ThorOfMidland]

116. What We Do When We Debate

When we debate something, what are we doing? Actually, not what others have told us, but actually doing? Aren't we trying to prove ourselves right? Don't we have an agenda in the debate, a side we have chosen, and we are trying, through various means of argumentation, to prove ourselves right and the other wrong? Is this the way of understanding? Do we understand anything for ourselves by winning, losing or watching, agreeing with a debate? Or do we just strengthen our own minds, our own opinions, so that we appear right? Is our intent to win, to be right? Or, is our intent to know, witness truth?

The point of posting these discussion is to see if we, together, through communication, can stop arguring, clamoring for the next right opinion, the next flavor of the month, to see if we can ever get at the actual, the true. Not what someone told us is true, but the truth.

Again, let's suppose you knew that red aligators exist. I don't know they do, because I have never seen one. You tell me they do exist, and so I go around and tell others, "Hey, you have to check out red aligators, they are really cool." Then you, tragically, die. Others come to me and want more information about red aligators, but I cannot tell them any, my source of information on this is now gone, dead, I have to study books, his notes, in hopes of understanding, the people are waiting for their information.... This is why we must see the truth for ourselves, otherwise, we are just repeating what others have said, which is then a fallacy, regardless if red aligators exist or not. See?

[darkstar3]

117. You are rather gifted at rhetorical questions, but your concept of debate is a wholly false premise.

nt

[ThorOfMidland]

130. How Do We Debate the Present?

So, setting the concept, the definition of debate, which is argumentation to prove a point, aside; even if the present moment was debatable, how would you and I approach it? Would we not have to study, observe this moment very closely, see all its facets, all its immensity, everything in us, outside us, around us, all the perception, all its angles, the lines, the depth? That is if we could debate the existence of this moment, which is impossible, absurd, isn't it?

[JerseygirlCT]

115. Religion is absolutely a human construct

made by and for humans. I do not think God requires our belief.

Faith may (and I say "may") be required for some. Usually an attempt at relationship requires that one believes that there is something/one to have that relationship with.

That said, I do agree with you about fear and God. I think the fear that has so insinuated itself into so many faith traditions is of humans and a reflection of our perception of this world, not of God.

[ThorOfMidland]

119. Again, Faith That The Moment Exists

I want to ask again: do we have to have faith that now, this moment exists? Do I have to believe in the present moment to experience it? If I disbelieve it, does it still exist, this moment? Is it possible to experience this moment, while I believe in it?

If I demanded of you, "Prove to me the existence of 'right now'; show me proof that this moment exists!" you would think me a lunatic, right?

I don't want to know from you the answers to these questions; I want us, you and I, to ask them of ourselves, to see the answer for ourselves. Otherwise we are just reacting, right?

[JerseygirlCT]

141. Hmmm... perhaps it's my theater training

but reacting has its worth.

I couldn't possibly prove to you the existence of right now. But now we seem to be moving into existentialism, which can be like quicksand.

I think it's safe to say that there are some things that we take as a given, in order to place our existence on some sort of support.

[ThorOfMidland]

142. The Fallacy of Proof

If we take things as givens, don't we ignore the actual? That is why proof of truth is a fallacy. If I say, "Allow me to prove 'now' to you, prove this very moment is true, here, present," would you not think I was clearly insane? Why? Because it is an absurdity, right? So, God, if in the present, we don't know, because we haven't looked closely, but let's take it as given. God, in the present, only in the present, not tomorrow, not dead as in yesterday or the previous moment, but now. How can something so immense, so deep, so immediately now, be proven? Don't we have to stop time then, to prove God? And if we did, and others heard our proof, would there not inevitably be argument when time resumed? That's what is taking place today, in our own lives, right? We believe, others want proof, we ourselves want proof, so we try to hold back the sea, to stop time to show others, and when we do, we, ourselves and the other, are just arguing about what we saw, which is now dead, in the past, gone. Is God dead? If so, it would be easy to prove, right?

[LARED]

174. The first day according to Genesis

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.


To summarize.

God made the heavens and earth. Earth was without form and void and darkness and full of waters. Then light. Then light was seperated from thr dsrkness. End of first day.

If tsken literally your question is answered in scripture. Everything was made then illuninated.