RELIGION POLL #3: Is Genesis Compatible With Science?

Author: MisterChris
Religion
Science
Genesis

Posts

Total: 50
#31
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
This I agree with entirely. It's just not what religious people, specifically Christians, will tell you.

This seems to be your biggest mistake in approaching the Bible and spirituality. It doesn't matter what they tell you, you have your own common sense, you also have your own ability to apply that which is actually applicable, as well as the choice not to. 
#32
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
So basically the entire bible is only as good as the person's interpretation, and there is no correct interpretation. If I want to intperet the bit about dragging gay men into the streets and stoning them symbolically, meaning I'm totally right to "stone" them with my words and expose their private lives to all around me because that's what I think the bible says to do, who are you to tell me I'm wrong in the way I read the holy text, right? I mean it's just common sense not to murder them, which means it can't be a literal stoning but more a symbolic rebuke, like public exposure. 
#33
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm not here to tell you that your common sense is right or wrong that's not the point, it's irrelevant to the point I've been making. 
Then quit using it as some sort of reason to believe anything. Common sense is 50 / 50 and in fact, far worse, whenever you start trying to figure out how nature really works. My common sense tells me there's no reason to believe any one god is more likely to be real than the other, and mankind is not special in any way, and there doesn't seem to be any other dimension in which people's spirits live. HAS YOUR COMMON SENSE EVER BEEN WRONG? Why do you keep ignoring this question?
#34
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
Not everything in the Bible is symbolic, I said it is both. Not everything in the Bible is right either, it reflects the culture it was written in. In other words, they may have stoned gay men to protect their ways of living, but you don't have to. What you want to pay attention to, is things that are useful for you personally. 
#35
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
 My common sense tells me there's no reason to believe any one god is more likely to be real than the other

Then what is wrong with that exactly? I'm not pushing religion, I'm just trying to make sense of spiritual literature for you. 
#36
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
Fine, but you understand that's not 'religion,' correct? 
#37
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
and there doesn't seem to be any other dimension in which people's spirits live. 

Well there is plenty of evidence that there is. If you wish to ignore the significance in the fact that there's more testimonial evidence and first hand witnesses for such a proposition that's up to you. 
#38
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
Fine, but you understand that's not 'religion,' correct? 

Elaborate please. 
#39
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,568
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
it absolutely is
#40
wlws9
wlws9's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 12
0
0
0
wlws9's avatar
wlws9
0
0
0
-->
@MisterChris
I'm just sharing some conjecture. No need to get condescending. 
My comment was designed to be sarcastic rather than condescending, and, for good reason.

Your "conjecture" stated:
So it makes sense that God would present a simplified account that had some symbolic meanings. 
It makes no sense at all, given the examples that I gave.

For goodness sake, 7 days instead of 13.5 billion years is more than simplification or even gilding the lily...it is an outright lie.

And to pass off the explanation of creation in such a way is so far removed from being simplified or symbolic that it would insult the intelligence of a highly retarded institutionalised patient, let alone common folk.

#41
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Just so everyone knows, all the wlw alts are fake accounts by the moron Willows who has again broken into the site to tell us how terrible Jesus is - as a public service, (not because he is bitter and has OCD).
#42
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,257
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@MisterChris
In a literal sense, Genesis was Science.....Though somewhat naive by today's standards.
#43
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@MisterChris
RELIGION POLL #3: Is Genesis Compatible With Science?

The part about removing a rib intrigues me. It sounds like genetic cloning/engineering.


Anaesthetized - opened up - removed a rib and stitched back up.

21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 



22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 

Cloning?  With a few tweaks of the DNA?


23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”
Cloning?  With a few tweaks of the DNA?

And one has to wonder why there was no woman compatible or "comparable" to begin with? Is this because as the Sumerian creation epic explains, that the first creation of male and female humans couldn't reproduce?

Why couldn't this almighty, all singing and dancing,  know-it-all, god simply create a fully functioning compatible female at the same time that he created the Adam? Why the all the intricacies of hours of a surgical operation and removing body parts? 

Why didn't this god simply create the woman using the same procedure as he did when creating the man? Thus : 

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" . <<That sounds pretty straight forward doesn't it? _ for a god 



#44
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
What's the message then? How's it different than what I described? Is it that you can actually live forever and beat death? If it is, why has no one done it?
I'm asking you what the allegorical message is. I don't know because to myself it's not allegorical, symbolic, or metaphorical, etc. When I read that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, I read that as an event that took place. If you tell me that most likely the writing pertaining to the resurrection is allegorical rather than an actual historical event, then you should be able to tell me what the message is.


Instant coffee? how? Isn't the bible supposed to be instant salvation for all who hear and accept its message? The problem is that every believer, you included, all think you're the one who's right and the others are wrong, but you can't explain why, otherwise you'd convince someone else, or be convinced by them. There isn't a scientist in any educational arena claiming they know for sure all of science or even all of their own branch. There are tons of Christians doing that, even if you aren't one. 
I can't really help what other Christians might do, but I think most of us understand that we don't know everything, and might be wrong in some of our doctrinal beliefs. All of the men of faith listed in the Bible had to corrected at times.

And the Bible is not instant salvation. Or in other words, salvation is an on going process leading down a narrow path. What salvation is not is easy believism. For one thing, believing is not that easy, or you'd be a believer yourself, right?


For the record, is the entire bible historical / literal? You seem to say no, but again you don't explain how you distinguish. 

The Bible is historical, and literal. The Bible includes poetry, analogies, and metaphors.

Another way to look at it. Did Jesus literally tell parables? Yes! Were the parables themselves literal? By definition, possibly no.

How to distinguish fact from metaphorical?

Before I answer that, I have to ask you first, Is this text literal or metaphorical?

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.


Topic's author
#45
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@PressF4Respect
I am speaking as a whole
#46
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@MisterChris
No. The creation events of Genesis 1 and 2 are different. For example, Genesis 1 states that Adam and Eve were created at the same time, while Genesis 2 states that Adam was created first, and then Eve was created from his rib.

#47
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@MisterChris
RELIGION POLL #3: Is Genesis Compatible With Science?

A couple of points I'd like to share. From a non-literalist perspective, many of the "days" in Genesis happened without the presence of a sun. That suggests to me that perhaps the time schemes are longer. Even If you were to come from a Biblical literalist perspective, in context, Genesis does not necessary make for full-fledged historical accuracy. At the time of Genesis' writings, no Jew would have a scientific background to understand concepts like evolution and the old earth. So it makes sense that God would present a simplified account that had some symbolic meanings.
Considering that it appears to be an account of what happened I don't see it as unrealistic. 
1. God is a supernatural Being. That means He can and does work outside of nature in creating. Thus, He is able to sustain things before the sun existed.
2. The Ten Commandments treat the days of creation as literal. If the days are not literal what do they mean to humanity? How long would the Sabbath be if they are not literal and God is speaking in language we can understand? The reference to days is not for God's benefit, but ours.
3. Jesus, who is said to be the Creator, lists the time of Adam and Eve as the beginning. 
4. His genealogy is trace through Joseph back to Adam. 
5. Death reigns from the time of Adam onwards. Adam is the first human being God created. He is a typology of Jesus Christ, the Second Adam. There is a lot of spiritual significance in his physical existence.

So, the question is what is more reasonable to believe from a biblical perspective? Is it reasonable to believe the earth, the universe is relatively young? Could God not give it the appearance of age since He created Adam as a man. Could He not put things into existence in the period of six days - mature trees, mature mountains, mature fish, mature human beings? As I point out constantly, you and I live in the present and look back to the past. Therefore, the past is a matter of intepretation. Since you come at the problem from a strictly materialistis and naturalistic position what you want to find is confirmed by your starting point. To you, the present is the key to the past, for that is the reference point you use. You also use the musings of subjective human beings as your highest appeal. Which ones? There is a diversity of opinion. It appears the universe had a beginning. We can probably both agree about that. How the universe came about is where there is a great divide. 

But that is just my limited knowledge on the subject. Feel free to share your take. 

Topic's author
#48
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@PGA2.0
I like the take. Although, the clear counter is why would God make the Earth appear old in the first place? There is nothing to gain and a lot to lose. 
#49
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@MisterChris
I like the take. Although, the clear counter is why would God make the Earth appear old in the first place? There is nothing to gain and a lot to lose. 
What is there to lose - salvation and a wrong view of existence? The lesson - God is to be trusted!

What is there to gain? Salvation and what is necessary for surety - an omniscinet, omnipotent, benevolent, unchanging, eternal Being and Creator!
#50
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@PressF4Respect
No. The creation events of Genesis 1 and 2 are different.
But not contradictory.

For example, Genesis 1 states that Adam and Eve were created at the same time,...
No Sir. Genesis 1 does not state that Adam and Eve were created at the same time, that is just something you assume.

while Genesis 2 states that Adam was created first, and then Eve was created from his rib.
Genesis 1 is a prologue, and does not go into detail. Your assumptions should not be placed on the texts.