Creationism & the Bible - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-26-2002, 01:45 PM   #16
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 04:39 AM
Primarily, the argument that evolution is 'limiting' God is really quite ridiculous. If you wish to speak of 'limiting', I think the idea that God MUST have taken seven days instead of an instant of a second is limiting in itself. I think trying to explain God in any of our ways and calling it 'the Gospel Truth' is limiting, as it is insulting. Therefore, the defense argument of 'limiting' God is a contradiction, as if the given seven days was not a 'limiting' example in itself.

Now, there is not a single doubt in my mind that Darwin's theory of evolution is accurate, I always took GENESIS's entirety on a symbolic note, and respected its symbolic power. However, as I don't believe in miracles and I don't believe in all the metaphysics involved with such, you would expect me to think so. However, one can not disprove Darwin's theory purely on 'its limiting God', because it isn't. Why on Earth must people equate science with the death of God? That just isn't so.

Does anybody recall St. Thomas Aquinas, and his wisdom? To the venerable saint, science was merely the PROOF of God's existence, and that should be the best approach. The causation behind 'the big bang', to Aquinas, was ofcourse God, and God was behind such scientific phenomenom. Bear in mind that Aquinas not only was a holy man in life, but his views were evidently supported by the Catholic Church, who, for a change are receptive to common sense. The Aquinas approach is essential to our modern world, as science is constantly proving and disproving our views on everything, including our faith.

That is why I no longer see science and religion in conflict, anybody who does have a problem really shouldn't. The man from the Baptist Church of which you spoke of Melon, is very unaware of his own problem; the problem with 'limiting God' doesn't start in science, it starts in our very own limited minds. His comment shows just how limited his intellect is.

Are people's convictions really so weak that they must have religion and science battle it out to the death? Can they not live next to each other?

Ant.
__________________

__________________
Anthony is offline  
Old 01-26-2002, 04:23 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
WildHoneyAlways's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In a glass case of emotion
Posts: 8,158
Local Time: 10:39 PM
I would just like to point out that the Bible should not be treated as a historically acurate primary source. There was a reason that the first books were created and put into writing, people sought explainations for the natural world. As a history major I studied in detail early cultures. All have creation stories, many are similar, many bear no resemblence to one another. What makes "creationism" right and other ancient cultures wrong. The Judeo-Christian cultures were by far the not most advanced in the ancient world. It just so happens that it has survived this far. However, the Roman Empire arguably thrived longer than 2002 years.
I guess my point is, what makes the Bible right?
__________________

__________________
WildHoneyAlways is offline  
Old 01-26-2002, 04:26 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
WildHoneyAlways's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In a glass case of emotion
Posts: 8,158
Local Time: 10:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony:
Why on Earth must people equate science with the death of God? That just isn't so.
Ant.
I agree 100%.

__________________
WildHoneyAlways is offline  
Old 01-26-2002, 04:30 PM   #19
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 11:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DebbieSG:
Bubba, this is a bit confusing here: But in the original sense, yes, the Isrealites were polytheistic.
Sorry about that.

What I meant was that, the Commandment about "no other gods" seemed to be mandated because the Israelites probably (and wrongly) strayed into polytheism while serving Egypt.

My statement was to demonstrate my belief that God ordered that commandment, not because of any assertion that polytheism was to be believed, but because it was probably being actively practiced at the time.
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 01-26-2002, 04:48 PM   #20
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 11:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon:
I hate to burst a few bubbles, but the Israelites were originally polytheistic, in that they believed that multiple gods existed. That is not to say that they worshipped several gods; only one. Since Yahweh was the God of the Israelites, they were to worship Him only, as commanded in Exodus. He was their creator and their protector. The concept of monotheism, in that all other gods were false and didn't exist, evolved later. It is believed that Judaism arose out of worship of the Sumerian sun god, Elohim, since this name is briefly mentioned once in Genesis in reference to God. Since I believe that tradition states that Abraham is from Ur, which was in Sumer, this would make sense.
To say that the Israelites were orignially polytheistic is reasonable. Moses was problem polytheistic before the burning bush started yelling, "Hey, over here!"

My problem is then suggesting that Judaism itself was ever polytheistic.

Either way, I think there's a huge (probably insurmountable) difference between those who believe and those that don't. Those that don't believe tend to treat God as a concept, and theories about God (how many gods, Satan, etc.) had to necessarily arise from certain cultures at certain times and were not present beforehand.

While that must be true in most cases (as most religions are mutually exclusive, belief-wise), those who subscribe to a particular religion may also consider God Himself as an active player in the development of the theories about Him.

Instead of suggesting that the idea of monotheism arose later, or that the worship of the Hebrew God came from the worship of some sun god, a LOT of Jews and Christians alike believe that God Himself communicated directly to Abraham, Moses, etc. Thus, believers don't have to look for other sources for the development of these concepts.

Quote:
Genesis has four different writers. The first creation story was written by the "Priestly Writer" and the second is the "Yahwist" version. The evidence for this is in analyzing the writing style. Like with modern literature, each author has a different style of writing. It was no different back then either. The book of Genesis itself that we use is likely a compilation of texts put together about 2500-3000 years ago. It would definitely have been curious to see how this book evolved over time, but, like most ancient things, the sources are lost.
That the Pentatuch has four different voices seems pretty clear. How it came to be is not. It's possible that it is the compilation of four different texts (which begs the question, why include two conflicting versions of the creation of man?). But it's also possible that we see the influence of scribes that helped Moses put "pen to paper", if there were such scribes.

OR, we could be reading the voices of Moses, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. If the Trinity is at least as fully developed as a human personality - and it's probably more developed - it's possible that God communicated through different voices.

Again, the belief in the Hebrew God makes all the difference. For me, the different "voices" of Genesis could have more to do with God than man, because I believe the work was inspired by God Himself.

Not a complaint of your argument, melon. Just an observation that the belief in God opens up a LOT more possibilities.
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 01-27-2002, 12:01 AM   #21
Refugee
 
Foxxern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 1,284
Local Time: 10:39 PM
I think it's intersting that we talk about the "limitations" of God. People who believe in God, including myself, will acknowledge that God is all-powerful, yet referto God as "Him", perhaps for convenience, but I think that we try to make God more like us, so that we are able to feel less insecure about our own limitations.

Tying this all back to the topic at hand, when we talk about "creation" versus "evolution", there is always some sort of attempt to separate the two. When God wants to create something He has his own ways of doing this sort of thing (I'm using a pronoun here for simplicity, and to avoid annoying redundancy). Whether it happens over 7 days or over 20 billion years is literally insignificant to God, because all of time is the same. It is irrelevant to us to consider that, though we do because we want to figure out the inconsistencies between scientific research and what is stated in the Bible, that the world was created in 7 days, though "days" might just be a misinterpretation that occured at some point, and certainly is not the only one that may have occured.

I think it's difficult to promote that being made from God's image means that we are created perfectly. Quite to the contrary, we seem to have many imperfections and the only thing allowing us to attempt to improve on those is that we have God within, which is what ties us to Him, and in fact ties all living creatures together.

I personally think the creation example seems to be part of the reason that most people in the world eat meat, especially in the west. Because most non-Christians did not have a "hierarchy of creation", they never felt that it was the purpose of animals to be our sustinence. As a result, most either did not eat meat, or were very methodical when it came to killing the animals properly.

It seems very black and white to believe that God created the species out of nothingness in some way that we will never know. We're striving to learn more, and as we do, maybe there are some who won't like the new ideas and questions that are posed. But I think that physical evolution and God's creation of the soul are compatible, and always will be. That's something we will probably never be able to disprove.

------------------
Change is the only constant
__________________
Foxxern is offline  
Old 01-27-2002, 10:02 AM   #22
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 04:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Foxxern:
I think it's intersting that we talk about the "limitations" of God. People who believe in God, including myself, will acknowledge that God is all-powerful, yet referto God as "Him", perhaps for convenience, but I think that we try to make God more like us, so that we are able to feel less insecure about our own limitations.

Tying this all back to the topic at hand, when we talk about "creation" versus "evolution", there is always some sort of attempt to separate the two. When God wants to create something He has his own ways of doing this sort of thing (I'm using a pronoun here for simplicity, and to avoid annoying redundancy). Whether it happens over 7 days or over 20 billion years is literally insignificant to God, because all of time is the same. It is irrelevant to us to consider that, though we do because we want to figure out the inconsistencies between scientific research and what is stated in the Bible, that the world was created in 7 days, though "days" might just be a misinterpretation that occured at some point, and certainly is not the only one that may have occured.

I think it's difficult to promote that being made from God's image means that we are created perfectly. Quite to the contrary, we seem to have many imperfections and the only thing allowing us to attempt to improve on those is that we have God within, which is what ties us to Him, and in fact ties all living creatures together.

I personally think the creation example seems to be part of the reason that most people in the world eat meat, especially in the west. Because most non-Christians did not have a "hierarchy of creation", they never felt that it was the purpose of animals to be our sustinence. As a result, most either did not eat meat, or were very methodical when it came to killing the animals properly.

It seems very black and white to believe that God created the species out of nothingness in some way that we will never know. We're striving to learn more, and as we do, maybe there are some who won't like the new ideas and questions that are posed. But I think that physical evolution and God's creation of the soul are compatible, and always will be. That's something we will probably never be able to disprove.

I don't refute any of your arguments, except the one surrounding the reasons why other religions are perhaps more 'methodical' in the eating of animals, I know this to be untrue.

What do you call 'methodical'? In most countries in the Middle East they slaughter lambs by the millions and let them bleed to death on the street, with the blood being splashed onto pedestrians like puddle water. I don't think Islam supports your argument. Nor do I think Hinduism, the slaughter of many different animals (except of course the cow), and, had it not been for a few vegetarian mogul emperors, the same diet would have been followed as in the West, or Christianity.

The only exception you may find is with Buddhism, and other minor sects - but you can't cross out the other main religions of the world using your argument. Whether acknowledged or not, there IS a hierarchy of creation.

Ant.
__________________
Anthony is offline  
Old 01-27-2002, 12:04 PM   #23
The Fly
 
the olive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Above the golden arch
Posts: 282
Local Time: 04:39 AM
I think that everyones mind is made up on this subject. This site however has some compelling arguments against creationism, particularily with regards to fossils and Noah's ark:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/
__________________
the olive is offline  
Old 01-27-2002, 02:09 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:39 PM
Once again, I must state that I am enjoying the level of discussion on this topic. Before I reply again, I will wait to see if others have comment. I don't want to end up with the possibility of me dominating this thread and no one commenting.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-27-2002, 08:11 PM   #25
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 12:39 AM
Quote:
Does anybody recall St. Thomas Aquinas, and his wisdom? To the venerable saint, science was merely the PROOF of God's existence, and that should be the best approach. The causation behind 'the big bang', to Aquinas, was ofcourse God, and God was behind such scientific phenomenom. Bear in mind that Aquinas not only was a holy man in life, but his views were evidently supported by the Catholic Church, who, for a change are receptive to common sense. The Aquinas approach is essential to our modern world, as science is constantly proving and disproving our views on everything, including our faith.
Aha! I knew someone else here would know Aquinas on the proof of the existence of God...see my earlier post in this thread.



------------------
If you cannot live together in here, you cannot live together out there, let me tell ya. --Bono

You've got to cry without weeping, talk without speaking, scream without raising your voice... --Bono
__________________
pax is offline  
Old 01-27-2002, 09:52 PM   #26
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Castro Valley, CA
Posts: 997
Local Time: 04:39 AM
ok, melon, I am following your logic, but this statement:

He was their creator and their protector.

is leaving out the idea that made Judaism an entirely new pattern of living. God is not only the tribal protector and creator but the Creator of the Universe. From His contact with Abraham, God of the Heavens is beginning a relationship with human beings. There is an end to the reliance on seasonal cycles and appeasing gods which is replaced by a historical chain of events. (You can read about this in Gift of the Jews by Thomas Cahill).

Heres how a psalmist records God (Psalm 93:1-2):

The Lord reigns; he is robed in majesty;
the Lord is robed, he is girded with strength.
Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved;
thy throne is established from of old;
thou art from everlasting.


[This message has been edited by DebbieSG (edited 01-27-2002).]
__________________
DebbieSG is offline  
Old 01-27-2002, 10:59 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 11:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by the olive:
I think that everyones mind is made up on this subject. This site however has some compelling arguments against creationism, particularily with regards to fossils and Noah's ark:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/
I had a quick look at the website. I have to take issue with the statement that evolution, as a scientific theory, has the same standing as relativity, atomic theory and quantum theory.

I tested the last three in my junior-level physics lab. (If you're really bored, check out http://web.mit.edu/8.13/WWW/ .) To my knowledge, no one has ever tested the natural evolution of species in the lab. One million years from now, when Jane Goodall's chimps have or have not evolved into humans, we'll have some observational evidence.

The only evidence for the natural evolution of species is circumstantial (the fossil record), and to demonstrate the difficulty of relying on circumstantial evidence, I will compare evolution with another (completely ridiculous) theory of the origin of man.

THEORY: (Darwin) Through genetic recombination, random mutations and differential selection (survival of the fittest), old species evolve into new species over long periods of time.

QUESTION: According to your theory, there should be scores of distinct species embedded within the fossil record. But most species in the fossil record exhibit no change during their tenure on earth, and in any local area new species appear fully formed; they don't arise from the gradual transformation of ancestors. It's as if these new species magically appeared out of nowhere.

THEORY: (Gould) Species generally don't evolve, except during specific periods of time when the climate of the earth might have been extreme and have allowed only members of species with certain extreme features to survive.

QUESTION: Species in the fossil record generally remain constant for one million years or so; what are these climate patterns that would cause such accelerated evolution only every one million years? Also, why don't intermediate species show up in the fossil record?

(and so on.)

Compare this with

THEORY: (speedracer) Since species tend to appear in the fossil record rather abruptly, I posit that all the different species on Earth were created in the lab and then exported here by biological engineers from the planet Zog.

QUESTION: One, are you on crack? Two, why didn't these Zogians leave any tracks, or a "Welcome to Earth" travel guide, or something?

THEORY: One, it's LSD. Two, the Zogians flew here on their own without the use of spacecraft, and they were rather antisocial creatures.

QUESTION: How the hell did the Zogians know how to engineer us so that we'd be able to survive on Earth?

(and so on.)

Now I'm not going to demand equal time for Zog theory of species in biology classrooms in high school, since evolution is a theory about physically regular processes and the Zog theory isn't. I merely wish to point out some of the difficulties when a scientific theory relies on circumstantial evidence.

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 01-27-2002).]
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 01-28-2002, 12:37 AM   #28
Refugee
 
Foxxern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 1,284
Local Time: 10:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony:
What do you call 'methodical'? In most countries in the Middle East they slaughter lambs by the millions and let them bleed to death on the street, with the blood being splashed onto pedestrians like puddle water. I don't think Islam supports your argument. Nor do I think Hinduism, the slaughter of many different animals (except of course the cow), and, had it not been for a few vegetarian mogul emperors, the same diet would have been followed as in the West, or Christianity.

The only exception you may find is with Buddhism, and other minor sects - but you can't cross out the other main religions of the world using your argument. Whether acknowledged or not, there IS a hierarchy of creation.

Ant.
I think you're misinformed. Perhaps in some countries they are not as concerned with the process of butchering animals. But most religions, including Islam and Judaism, use a priest who is present and who blesses the animals during a traditional ceremony. The elimination of this process is likely due in part partially to Western influence, and partially to the fact that the butchers simply do not have the time to properly sacrifice the animals as the demand for meat grows due to a lack of understanding one's own religion in many of the poorly educated countries.

As for Hinduism, as a member myself, I can safely say that respect for animals goes far beyond cows, as the stereotype may perpetuate. Yes, there is a tendency to have a preference for cows, but that is only because farmers use the cows in so many different ways and so they see the cows as extremely helpful, almost as close as a member of their own families. But Hinduism does not support violence against any animals.

This hierarchy is so ingrained into our minds that it's hard for many to even consider that animals are not our subordinates. Just remember, without us, they would survive just fine. But we wouldn't last long without them. I'm not some ultra animals' rights activist, but I think it's important to understand that animals are not just here to serve our nutritional purposes. Of course in many parts of the world, other food is difficult to find. But we definitely need to consider the consequences of our actions towards animals.

------------------
Change is the only constant
__________________
Foxxern is offline  
Old 01-28-2002, 09:42 AM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DebbieSG:
[Judaism an entirely new pattern of living. God is not only the tribal protector and creator but the Creator of the Universe. From His contact with Abraham, God of the Heavens is beginning a relationship with human beings.
DebbieSG, I am not arguing against that this is what Judaism became. Your quote is from Psalms, but, like almost all of the Old Testament, it is written around the Exilic period (c. 580 B.C.) to the Maccabee period (c. 180 B.C.). By this time, the concept of total monotheism, as in God was the creator of everyone and everything, was already in place.

My argument all along was that, in Genesis, this was different. Monotheism, as we know it, did not exist in any form in any religion likely back when Genesis was written. In fact, as I am reading parts of the entire Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), it is written in the possessive.

"Do not make false gods for yourselves. You shall not erect an idol or a sacred pillar for yourselves, nor shall you set up a stone figure for worship in your land; for I, the LORD, am your God." -- Leviticus 26:1 "Your God" is not the same as "the God." As I look up the dating on these books, they are suspected to be from around 721 B.C., which would be before the Exile and Persian influence.

The question here is not whether they worshipped more than one God, because they didn't. The Bible is more than enough record to show that they only worshipped one God. The question here is whether the perspective of the earliest books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, is written with the perspective that other gods existed and created their enemies around them, and, thus, if they believed that Yahweh only created them. If that is the case, then the Adam and Eve story was only meant to be record of the creation of the Jewish people. However, we believe that God ("Yahweh") created everyone, yes? Hence, Adam and Eve might not have been the first people. God might have created His "chosen people" many thousands of years after He created other human societies. These societies are built up, God becomes displeased, and then decides to create Adam and Eve, the first of His "chosen people." Cain is kicked out and is forced to settle in Nod, where he marries a woman who is not part of the "chosen people." Hence, that is why she existed in the first place, because the society existed before Eden and before their creation.

The writers might not have been interested in pre-history, once again because writers don't tend to write what is obvious to its intended audience. Since 90% of us here aren't of Jewish decent, that would mean that our ancestors were likely created far before and unrelated to Adam and Eve, that is with the perspective of what is written.

Of course, we believe--and rightfully so--in one God. That doesn't mean that people didn't believe in something else beforehand.

(Heh...I believe in a God-created evolution anyway. )

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-28-2002, 01:53 PM   #30
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 04:39 AM
"I think you're misinformed. Perhaps in some countries they are not as concerned with the process of butchering animals. But most religions, including Islam and Judaism, use a priest who is present and who blesses the animals during a traditional ceremony. The elimination of this process is likely due in part partially to Western influence, and partially to the fact that the butchers simply do not have the time to properly sacrifice the animals as the demand for meat grows due to a lack of understanding one's own religion in many of the poorly educated countries."

Well, thats all very well, except for the fact that I am NOT misinformed. I know what I saw, a bunch of slaughtered animals in a pool of blood can leave such an impression.

You seem to be the type that understands the difference between theory and practice, and the practice is different in a lot of muslim countries. Do you want me to name them? Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Morocco and Jordan. I know I am NOT misinformed because I actually SAW what I descibed to you, thank you kindly. It would appear that you are the one who is misinformed. Its all very well preaching about how religions say this and religions say that, the practice of it is very different, I can assure you.

"As for Hinduism, as a member myself, I can safely say that respect for animals goes far beyond cows, as the stereotype may perpetuate. Yes, there is a tendency to have a preference for cows, but that is only because farmers use the cows in so many different ways and so they see the cows as extremely helpful, almost as close as a member of their own families. But Hinduism does not support violence against any animals."

And where is it stated that Catholicism and other Christian sects support violence towards animals? It doesn't. My only argument with you is the statement that the West have their tendencies because of this 'hierarchy', its not 'just' in the West at all, its in most countries and in most cultures.

Ant.
__________________

__________________
Anthony is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com