The Two Extremes

[USincognito]

What make atheism extreme? There is no evidence for any god existence so why should we believe? For me atheism is just common sense.

Please stop posting stuff like this in Crevo. It just winds up distracting from the topic of the subforum.

Get your 100 posts and head over to General Apologetics because that's were you seem to be more interested.

 

[Chalnoth]

And, this is a question to the Young Earth Creationists: Why can it not be that Earth was created billions of years ago, and we were given an allegory for its Creation in the Bible? An allegory can contain as much truth as a literal translation - it's just a Truth that's a little more complex, a little more beautiful.

Perhaps. But I've never seen anybody articulate what this "Truth" is supposed to be without being completely incorrect (e.g. claiming that one can see modern scientific theories described in Genesis).

 

[SallyNow]

Perhaps. But I've never seen anybody articulate what this "Truth" is supposed to be without being completely incorrect (e.g. claiming that one can see modern scientific theories described in Genesis).

Come now... you're heard of allegory. Surely there are other moderate and liberal Christians who have wandered in here to C&E and who have explained that they understand and accept science but also believe the Bible is allegorical Truth, without trying to mess with science (or the Bible) to make the two fit. Or am I the only one who has been hopeful enough to wander in the C&E and try to discuss a highly polarized issue without trying to twist the Bible or science to say what the other says and without taking sides?


The account in Genesis is not historically accurate - but one sees how humans developed from primates and began to understand how their actions had an effect on others. It just took a few million years of evolution to get from innocent ignorance to learned knowledge, rather than just a few seconds of eating a fruit. The Bible contains the Truth that humans learned about "sin" - about negative consequences - but it gives a more artful allegory than the scientific account.
</IMG></IMG>

 

[vernee]

You are not the only one. I thought I was. Funny how we're both women.

 

[Chalnoth]

Come now... you're heard of allegory.

Of course I have. I've just never seen a decent explanation as to what the supposed allegory of the first chapter of Genesis actually is.

The account in Genesis is not historically accurate - but one sees how humans developed from primates and began to understand how their actions had an effect on others. It just took a few million years of evolution to get from innocent ignorance to learned knowledge, rather than just a few seconds of eating a fruit. The Bible contains the Truth that humans learned about "sin" - about negative consequences - but it gives a more artful allegory than the scientific account.

The nasty thing, however, is that we see Adam and Eve being punished for obtaining knowledge. That, to me, is one of the ugliest "lessons" that Christianity has to offer: ignorance is to be glorified, while knowledge is to be avoided at all costs. We even see this theme again and again throughout the Bible, from the destruction of the tower of Babel, to the claim in 1 Corinthians 3:19-20, "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, 'He catches the wise in their own craftiness'; and again, 'The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."

 

[SallyNow]

Of course I have. I've just never seen a decent explanation as to what the supposed allegory of the first chapter of Genesis actually is.


The nasty thing, however, is that we see Adam and Eve being punished for obtaining knowledge. That, to me, is one of the ugliest "lessons" that Christianity has to offer: ignorance is to be glorified, while knowledge is to be avoided at all costs. We even see this theme again and again throughout the Bible, from the destruction of the tower of Babel, to the claim in 1 Corinthians 3:19-20, "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, 'He catches the wise in their own craftiness'; and again, 'The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."

...and yet those who did seek knowledge were praised, like Luke, Matthew, Peter, Mary Magdalene, Deborah...

But none of this is about creation or evolution. And I guess maybe that's why there aren't a lot of middle-of-the roaders in C&E!

 

[Chalnoth]

...and yet those who did seek knowledge were praised, like Luke, Matthew, Peter, Mary Magdalene, Deborah...

Perhaps. I'd have to see the stories you're referencing. But it seems, to me, that most of the knowledge praised in the Bible is not actually knowledge, but rather simple belief that is not based upon evidence. In particular, Jesus seems fond of performing miracles because of peoples' faith, as well as waxing poetic as to how faith is a force that moves mountains. And since faith is belief not based upon evidence, a definition reinforced many times in the Bible, it makes no sense to me at all to claim that the Bible is pro-knowledge.

Of course, not that I find this at all surprising, given that the Bible is so obviously incorrect about many of its claims, as it both disagrees with itself and with observable reality, such that if people who believed in the Bible were too encouraged to seek knowledge they would more likely turn away from the text.

But none of this is about creation or evolution. And I guess maybe that's why there aren't a lot of middle-of-the roaders in C&E!

Well, perhaps. It is peripherally related, and I think that the Bible's stance on knowledge is quite central to the fact that the creation vs. evolution debate exists at all. However, yes, these sorts of discussions are typically vastly far off-topic, and so only rarely come up in the C&E forum. Here we usually like to simply discuss the evidence surrounding evolution, and usually there's a mix of theists and atheists arguing against a select few creationists.

 

[vernee]

 

[SallyNow]

Perhaps. I'd have to see the stories you're referencing. But it seems, to me, that most of the knowledge praised in the Bible is not actually knowledge, but rather simple belief that is not based upon evidence. In particular, Jesus seems fond of performing miracles because of peoples' faith, as well as waxing poetic as to how faith is a force that moves mountains. And since faith is belief not based upon evidence, a definition reinforced many times in the Bible, it makes no sense to me at all to claim that the Bible is pro-knowledge.

Of course, not that I find this at all surprising, given that the Bible is so obviously incorrect about many of its claims, as it both disagrees with itself and with observable reality, such that if people who believed in the Bible were too encouraged to seek knowledge they would more likely turn away from the text.


Well, perhaps. It is peripherally related, and I think that the Bible's stance on knowledge is quite central to the fact that the creation vs. evolution debate exists at all. However, yes, these sorts of discussions are typically vastly far off-topic, and so only rarely come up in the C&E forum. Here we usually like to simply discuss the evidence surrounding evolution, and usually there's a mix of theists and atheists arguing against a select few creationists.

I guess this is where the problems lies for middle-of-the-roaders, those who understand and accept science but also have Faith. We agree with the agnostics and atheists about the science, we agree with the YECists that there was a Creator. So there isn't much to talk about that is on-topic unless we're debating with the YECists how incorrect YECism is.

Well, I tried!

 

[AV1611VET]

About that "embedded" theory: Even if someone creates a chair made out of wood and material cut/made in the early 1800's, and styles the chair exactly like it should look for an Empire Style chair, it's still just a modern reproduction. Yes, even though it's made out old wood, old cloth, old padding, it's just a reproduction.

The earth wasn't made out of anything, it was made out of nothing.

The term for that is ex nihilo.

You can make all the tables and chairs you want to, but the fact is, you're building them --- not creating them.

Why would God make a reproduction Earth? An imitation Earth?

Again, Sally, God did not make an imitation earth; as He does not deal with imitations.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ignoring evidence to the contrary of what you believe is just blind at best, ignorant at worse.

The only evidence I ignore is the evidence that contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

Evidence can be interpreted the wrong way.

Your pastor is wrong. The first evidence of written language appears aroind 3000 BCE.

IMO, all writings outside of the Ark prior to the Flood were destroyed. Only the writings that Noah took aboard the Ark would have survived (until entropy did its thing on them).

The intervening years gave plenty of time for human language and writing to develop to the level where a book like the bible could be written.

As I have said before, God, Himself wrote the first message in pictogram, when He arranged the stars in the sky to convey the plan of salvation - (Psalm 19:1-7).

(Ever wonder why the sun went dark for three hours on the day of the Crucifixion?)

There are still plenty of texts around with the same sort of sophistication that predate the writing of the bible.

I guarantee you --- they don't predate Genesis 1-3.

Can you quote for me the specific passages where the internet an other things you claim appear in the bible? NOT interpretations, I mean the actual words of the passage. It's easy, in modern times, to claim prophetic interpretations from ancient works to current events.

No, thanks --- I alread have - many times; and the way you're coming across, I have a feeling it would be a waste of my time.

(No offense, but I'm on a limited schedule right now.)

 

[Phred]

The only evidence I ignore is the evidence that contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

Evidence can be interpreted the wrong way.

But you can't misinterpret Genesis? With evidence one can go back and examine the evidence again. Tell me, what recourse to you have once you've committed yourself to a mistaken interpretation of scripture?

IMO, all writings outside of the Ark prior to the Flood were destroyed. Only the writings that Noah took aboard the Ark would have survived (until entropy did its thing on them).

Luckily, your opinion is pretty much worthless. There was no global flood.

As I have said before, God, Himself wrote the first message in pictogram, when He arranged the stars in the sky to convey the plan of salvation - (Psalm 19:1-7).

Nonsense.

(Ever wonder why the sun went dark for three hours on the day of the Crucifixion?)

Nope.

I guarantee you --- they don't predate Genesis 1-3.

How would you like to pay out on that guarantee?

No, thanks --- I alread have - many times; and the way you're coming across, I have a feeling it would be a waste of my time.

(No offense, but I'm on a limited schedule right now.)

Willful ignorance is offensive, no matter how much you don't wish it to be.

 

[Split Rock]

The only evidence I ignore is the evidence that contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

Hold on to that thought.

Evidence can be interpreted the wrong way.

And now AVET will demonstrate how do do just that with Psalm 19....

As I have said before, God, Himself wrote the first message in pictogram, when He arranged the stars in the sky to convey the plan of salvation - (Psalm 19:1-7).

1The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

2Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

3There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

4Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

5Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.

6His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

7The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

Not a very literal translation...is it? Bit since it is not Gen 1 (which clearly must be taken as literal history, with its rib-woman, talking snake, Tree of Life and flaming sword) I guess it is OK ...

 

[Digit]

The nasty thing, however, is that we see Adam and Eve being punished for obtaining knowledge. That, to me, is one of the ugliest "lessons" that Christianity has to offer: ignorance is to be glorified, while knowledge is to be avoided at all costs.

Hi Chalnoth,

This is incorrect. They were not punished for obtaining knowledge, they were punished for disobeying God, and contaminating His creation with sin. Saying they were punished for obtaining knowledge is completely misrepresenting the Bible's opening chapters.

Digit

 

[Chalnoth]

Hi Chalnoth,

This is incorrect. They were not punished for obtaining knowledge, they were punished for disobeying God, and contaminating His creation with sin. Saying they were punished for obtaining knowledge is completely misrepresenting the Bible's opening chapters.

Digit

Except the command they were disobeying was that they should not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So it amounts to the same thing.

 

[Digit]

Except the command they were disobeying was that they should not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So it amounts to the same thing.

No I don't believe it does, I'm afraid we cannot equate it like that. Think of it like this, if I say to a child do not eat my candy bar, as there is a house full of food, and they do eat it, I will punish them for disobeying me - my directive, not for experiencing the sugary joy of my candy bar - the result.

Adam and Eve were punished for disobeying God. The result of that disobediance was that they became aware of the nature of good and evil in the world.

Genesis 3:17
"To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life."

Note the bolded section. God tells Adam why He is punishing him, because of disobedience. To say it's because Adam gained knowledge is misrepresenting the issue. You should relinquish that line of thought, as I feel it's been adopted only because it supports your position, not because it is true.

Cheers,
Digit

 

[Gracchus]

This is incorrect. They were not punished for obtaining knowledge, they were punished for disobeying God, and contaminating His creation with sin. Saying they were punished for obtaining knowledge is completely misrepresenting the Bible's opening chapters.

It is well to remember that the serpent didn&#8217;t lie.

KJV Genesis 3:4-5 &#8220;And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.&#8221;


KJV Genesis 3:22-23 "And the LORD God said,Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken."

The serpent told the truth.

 

[Digit]

It is well to remember that the serpent didn&#8217;t lie.

KJV Genesis 3:4-5 &#8220;And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.&#8221;


KJV Genesis 3:22-23 "And the LORD God said,Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken."

The serpent told the truth.

Ok. And?

Digit

 

[AV1611VET]

But you can't misinterpret Genesis? With evidence one can go back and examine the evidence again. Tell me, what recourse to you have once you've committed yourself to a mistaken interpretation of scripture?


Luckily, your opinion is pretty much worthless. There was no global flood.


Nonsense.


Nope.


How would you like to pay out on that guarantee?


Willful ignorance is offensive, no matter how much you don't wish it to be.

Phred, I really wasn't talking to you; but, of course, you're more than welcome to chime in if you have something to say other than "nonsense, nope", and other highly-intelligent remarks.

I'm not sure why you even answered my post, if not just to give me a display of one and two-syllable refutations.

You've heard of the old saying, "Point a finger at someone, and there's three pointing back"?

Well, I think it's funny that atheists (and others) hate it when we Christians say, "God did it", but can't themselves say anything beyond "Ain't so", "didn't happen", etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bit since it is not Gen 1 (which clearly must be taken as literal history, with its rib-woman, talking snake, Tree of Life and flaming sword) I guess it is OK ...

Your bible might say "snake", mine doesn't.

Snakes today are not the "kind" of snakes that existed in Genesis 1. The snakes (called "serpents") of Genesis 1 were "beasts of the field", and evidentally could communicate with Adam and Eve.

Due to the Fall, they eventually became the snakes of today.