• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creationism is an insult to God.

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
In any case, the OT wasn't a "Biology 101" text book.
That's what the point of the thread is.


Saying that to take the story of Genesis [for example, other religions as well] as a literal event is pretty insulting to God.


The thread has nothing against one following the Jewish or Christian religions. :)
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
You should change your thread's title to "I Don't Believe Anything In The OT" then. If you (and a lot of the other posters here from what I've witnessed) approach The Bible with a non-aggressive view born out of an open mind instead of the intention to find everything possible to lessen it's veracity, you might be able to discern between allegorical and literal texts. Try not to let your bitterness over the actions of the people of my faith cloud your judgment. A lot to ask, no doubt. Like when God "tears open the sky" in the story of Noah, I don't think a titanic Zeus-like figure tore open the Earth's stratosphere and then poured water over all the lands. I absolutely believe in the big bang, dinosaurs and evolution. I believe God is a masterful architect and the supreme scientist, having created all the laws of nature and physics. You would probably scream "pre-determination" in retaliation to this, but here me out. Say you construct a system that operates with "randomness" and then let it do as it will within certain parameters (like for the purpose of creating homo sapiens), voila, in a simple leap of logic that seems to acutely escape millions of people, you have a Christian who believes in the laws of physics. In any case, good luck finding 3,000 year old foot prints in the desert or evidence of slavery in a nation that might very well have decided not to mention that particular nuance of their culture in their own hieroglyphs. [EDIT] In any case, the OT wasn't a "Biology 101" text book. It was a moral guideline to life and the recounting of the affairs of God's chosen people, the Hebrews, amongst other things. As far as I know, the only science in it is the part where it states "you shouldn't eat pigs or shellfish" and, rightly so, because those two animals often times are very unhealthy to eat.
There is a difference between believing in the OT as a matter of faith and as a spiritual guide and believing it is a literal account of the history of the world.

This thread isn't about bashing the OT but about discussing how a literalistic interpretation of the OT is actually more harmful to faith rather than not.

wa:do
 

JustWondering2

Just the facts Ma'am
Eating Pork and shellfish is un-healthy? Somebody needs to tell the Cajun's then, since both are a big part of their diet! Also most Cajun's I've met (and that's a lot of them) are devout RC, you'd think they would know about this rule? I'm not Cajun, but I've eaten both (pork and shellfish) all my life and I'm in pretty good health at 59 yo. Sounds more like a superstision to me!
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
You should change your thread's title to "I Don't Believe Anything In The OT" then. If you (and a lot of the other posters here from what I've witnessed) approach The Bible with a non-aggressive view born out of an open mind instead of the intention to find everything possible to lessen it's veracity, you might be able to discern between allegorical and literal texts. Try not to let your bitterness over the actions of the people of my faith cloud your judgment. A lot to ask, no doubt. Like when God "tears open the sky" in the story of Noah, I don't think a titanic Zeus-like figure tore open the Earth's stratosphere and then poured water over all the lands. I absolutely believe in the big bang, dinosaurs and evolution. I believe God is a masterful architect and the supreme scientist, having created all the laws of nature and physics. You would probably scream "pre-determination" in retaliation to this, but here me out. Say you construct a system that operates with "randomness" and then let it do as it will within certain parameters (like for the purpose of creating homo sapiens), voila, in a simple leap of logic that seems to acutely escape millions of people, you have a Christian who believes in the laws of physics. In any case, good luck finding 3,000 year old foot prints in the desert or evidence of slavery in a nation that might very well have decided not to mention that particular nuance of their culture in their own hieroglyphs. [EDIT] In any case, the OT wasn't a "Biology 101" text book. It was a moral guideline to life and the recounting of the affairs of God's chosen people, the Hebrews, amongst other things. As far as I know, the only science in it is the part where it states "you shouldn't eat pigs or shellfish" and, rightly so, because those two animals often times are very unhealthy to eat.

The OP is not about bashing the Bible. It is about those who take everything in the OT as being a literal Historical and Scientific fact.
And how those beliefs, particularly those that fly in the face of known scientific facts, are an insult to the God who put those natural laws in place.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Creationism and literal interpretations of the Torah as 'facts' seem to belittle God's creative abilities.
As if God were unable to proscribe physical laws and natural processes, and instead had to constantly interfere with and fix His own creation with Law breaking 'miracles' to get the results He wanted.
The need to interfere with His own creation shows a gross incompetence on the Designers part.
The Creationists appeal to ignorance is an even bigger slap in the face to God.
Questioning and denying the very natural Laws that God put into place in order to justify their acceptance of the creation myths written by men a little over 2300 years ago.
Putting their faith in mans written word rather than God's own creative masterpiece all around them.
The word of God is written in every decaying atom, every light particle, every fossilized remain, our very own genetic code.
God's true priests are the physicists, geologists, biologists, astrophysicists, cosmologists and other research scientists who constantly strive to find out the how and why of the universe.
They do not have to believe in God. They just have to believe in the empirical evidence they find.

So God is not allowed to manipulate His own handiwork?
God is to sit upon His thrown...never to touch or speak to His creation?

Day Six is indeed the rise of Man...as a species...in terms of evolution.
God did it.

Chapter Two of Genesis is a report of manipulation...not creation.
There's a difference.
And God did it.

I see no cause for lack of harmony...evolution...creation.
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
So God is not allowed to manipulate His own handiwork?
God is to sit upon His thrown...never to touch or speak to His creation?

I do not put restrictions on God. Young Earth Creationists do.

Day Six is indeed the rise of Man...as a species...in terms of evolution.
God did it.

Chapter Two of Genesis is a report of manipulation...not creation.
There's a difference.
And God did it.

I see no cause for lack of harmony...evolution...creation.
Since you are obviously not a cut and dry Biblical literalist, nor a YEC or believer in the formation of man from the dust of the ground in a literal day as is, the OP is not directed at your beliefs.
 
So God is not allowed to manipulate His own handiwork?
God is to sit upon His thrown...never to touch or speak to His creation?

Day Six is indeed the rise of Man...as a species...in terms of evolution.
God did it.

Chapter Two of Genesis is a report of manipulation...not creation.
There's a difference.
And God did it.

I see no cause for lack of harmony...evolution...creation.

correct me if im wrong, but i get the idea, that your reasoning always starts with the premesis that god exists after which you continue to make everything else "fit" with the idea that god exists.

why does your god get in for free without any questions asked?

i found a litle cartoon that does a better job at explaining what im trying to say.
http://rudd-o.com/en/uploads/2007/06/ca230_1trever.gif
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
correct me if im wrong, but i get the idea, that your reasoning always starts with the premesis that god exists after which you continue to make everything else "fit" with the idea that god exists.

why does your god get in for free without any questions asked?

i found a litle cartoon that does a better job at explaining what im trying to say.
http://rudd-o.com/en/uploads/2007/06/ca230_1trever.gif


No...
God first.
All else follows Him.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I do not put restrictions on God. Young Earth Creationists do.


Since you are obviously not a cut and dry Biblical literalist, nor a YEC or believer in the formation of man from the dust of the ground in a literal day as is, the OP is not directed at your beliefs.

Well just for clarity...
Man is formed of the dust.

I say, the expression is poorly placed in Genesis.
It should have been stated as free standing idea.

In the context of King James, It would lead the casual reader to assume Adam to be the first man....ever.

Not so.

Man was created on Day Six...male and female...no names ...no law....
no restrictions...freewill...dominate all things....eat anything at all...
evolution is working.

Day Seven...God rests from His creating.

THEN Chapter Two.
Apparently Man was not developing as he should.
Too much animal.....not enough spirit.

The beginning of Chapter Two has all the earmarks of a science experiment.
It is a report of manipulation.....not creation.
Adam is a chosen son of God.

That Adam was brought up from the dust does not make him unique...
or first.

You are made of dust....brought up from the earth.
Someday...you will go back.
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Well just for clarity...
Man is formed of the dust.
........

You are made of dust....brought up from the earth.
Someday...you will go back.

Just for further clarity, saying man is made from dust is a biological inaccuracy.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Just for further clarity, saying man is made from dust is a biological inaccuracy.

Nay...

It is common to say that a mother eats for two....true.

All that is devoured comes up from the ground.

You continue the flow of chemistry after you are born....
and will do so until you die.

Back to the ground you will go.
Dust you are...dust you shall be.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Nay...

It is common to say that a mother eats for two....true.

All that is devoured comes up from the ground.

You continue the flow of chemistry after you are born....
and will do so until you die.

Back to the ground you will go.
Dust you are...dust you shall be.

I did not come from dust, no being ever has come from just dust.

that is a 3000 year old jewish fable, nothing more.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I ask my question again

why does your god get in for free without any questions asked?

Ask Him.
Go ahead....pray.

And of course...He is free to go His way...without response.
He doesn't owe you any answer.

Finding your own answer is part of the scheme of things.
You thought otherwise?

You are here to learn all that you can before you die.
Then back to God you go.

Unless of course...you happen to believe you are the sum of your chemistry.
Then back to the ground you go.
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Nay...

It is common to say that a mother eats for two....true.

All that is devoured comes up from the ground.

You continue the flow of chemistry after you are born....
and will do so until you die.

Back to the ground you will go.
Dust you are...dust you shall be.

A plant draws nutrition from the soil.
That does not make it dust.
The beast of the field eats the plant.
That does not make it dust.
Man eats the flesh of the beast of the field.
That does not make him dust.
Man eventually dies, and the nutrients of his body return to the earth.
He is still not dust.
Man is not "made" from dust, dirt, or soil.
Dust to dust is a metaphor, not a biological accuracy.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
A plant draws nutrition from the soil.
That does not make it dust.
The beast of the field eats the plant.
That does not make it dust.
Man eats the flesh of the beast of the field.
That does not make him dust.
Man eventually dies, and the nutrients of his body return to the earth.
He is still not dust.
Man is not "made" from dust, dirt, or soil.
Dust to dust is a metaphor, not a biological accuracy.

Rearranging the chemistry so that life can take form.....

The presence of your spirit in a body made of dust ...
doesn't mean the body is not made of dust.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
actually we are all made of stardust
the basic compounds of our existence is found in the cosmos...

I'm aware of that.

Still, all that you are, came up from the ground...beneath your feet.
Your substance and sustainment are of this earth.

You are dust.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
I'm aware of that.

Still, all that you are, came up from the ground...beneath your feet.
Your substance and sustainment are of this earth.

You are dust.

you will find elements of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen in our bodies and in the cosmos
so really, what is found beneath our feet ultimately came from the cosmos.
 
Top