quote:

Originally posted by EricG75:

quote:

Originally posted by Shadrach:
Also, could someone please explain what is being called "the two creation stories in Genesis"? Thanks.

The first account is 1:1-2:3, the second is 2:4-2:25. You'll note that in the first account, animals are created before man(and woman), and in the second, God creates man, animals, then woman.

The first account gives a chronological layout of the creation week. The second part is more of a close-up view of the sixth day of creation, presenting details as they relate to man. It describes Adam's creation before laying out the location of the garden of Eden. It doesn't mention the creation of animals until verse 19 because that's when they enter the scene of the garden where Adam was. The second half of the verse implies that they weren't with him until God brought them to him to give them names. This is also to show him that he is alone and needs a companion. God wanted man to experience that need before he provided a woman, so he would appreciate her more. The story continues in Ch. 3 with the details about the fall of man into sin. This is the second part of the same story begun in v. 4 of Ch. 2 and concluding with the end of Ch. 4. The purpose of this section is not to lay out the chronology of events already covered in Ch. 1, but to tell the story of man's beginnings in the garden. I know this may not satisfy the skeptics, but it makes sense to me.

It makes sense to me too, so don't worry about it.

I have talked to some Bible scholars and even others who have read the book through different translations and versions and most would say that people's nit-picking of the "two creation stories" is pretty inane. For people that have to find a way to justify their reasoning, it's easy to dissect a book word for word and point out all of its "flaws."

One thing about Christians or any religious person is that a lot of it is based on faith and possessing trust and confidence in what you believe. This is something that many scoff and ridicule but that's also because they simply do not comprehend. As you can see, when most non-believers discuss religion they can't even do it in a courteous or polite manner. They purposely mock it and speak about beliefs in an almost entirely sardonic approach.

quote:

Originally posted by Liberalkid:
Okay I'll admit Dawkins can be kind of a douche sometimes, try this.

Dawkins didn't write the link I provided.

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
it's easy to dissect a book word for word and point out all of its "flaws."

That's especially true when we are speaking about the bible due to the incredible amount of translations over time. Take for instance, the virgin birth. Additionally, the concept of a virgin conception was hardly original for the time, Horus was born from a virgin womb far prior to your Jesus.

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
It makes sense to me too, so don't worry about it.

I have talked to some Bible scholars and even others who have read the book through different translations and versions and most would say that people's nit-picking of the "two creation stories" is pretty inane. For people that have to find a way to justify their reasoning, it's easy to dissect a book word for word and point out all of its "flaws."

One thing about Christians or any religious person is that a lot of it is based on faith and possessing trust and confidence in what you believe. This is something that many scoff and ridicule but that's also because they simply do not comprehend. As you can see, when most non-believers discuss religion they can't even do it in a courteous or polite manner. They purposely mock it and speak about beliefs in an almost entirely sardonic approach.

For what it's worth, I don't think Mike and LK are criticizing Christians in general. They are criticizing those who insist that every word in the Bible (usually the KJV, for whatever reason - probably because no one wants to be told that they need to learn Hebrew and Greek to "really" understand their faith) must be literally true - as in, the Earth's just ~6000 years old, there really was an ark with two of every living creature, God planted fossils to fool us all, etc. These Christians make up just a tiny minority of America's Christians, and America's Christians make up just a fairly small fraction of the whole world's. But it is a very loud and belligerent minority.

I was interested in early Christianity for a while, so while I'm not an expert I'm well aware that the books of the Bible were chosen rather arbitrarily, and many of the most dearly held ideas today didn't pop up for quite a while after Jesus's death. For example, it isn't clear at all from the Scriptures that Peter was meant to be the first leader of the Church - I'm not sure if Protestants make a big deal about this but Catholics sure do. Pointing out things like this isn't the same thing as saying it's somehow wrong to be a Christian, though.

Loud and belligerent, that's a courteous and polite way to put it.

I don't have a problem with people believing what they want, even if they feel justified for doing so. But it's one of those battles that non-believers love to have because there just isn't enough "proof" we could ever pull out. It's like "I know that I won't lose so I will go until that person feel exasperated or I feel satisfied. Whichever comes first."

Also, why is it so hard for people to capitalize Bible and God. Is it your way of throwing it in our face that you don't believe in either? I am sure many will attack me with their "What's the big deal?" but if it isn't that big of a deal, then why do you make the honest effort to not do it? This is especially noticed with the Bible, it is a real book you know.

My dad has a masters in divinity Frag and is a Christian. Whenever we talk about creationism he mentions the two creation stories and how stupid it is to take the bible literally, when there's two creation stories.

You say that we can't talk about religion in a polite manner, but I have to wonder Frag have you ever told someone that you were Christian and gotten one of the following comments (all of which I've received).

"Did you have a close family member die or something"

"Really? Well you should try and do something about that."

"You know jesus loves you right?"

There are a few more, although I have learned that in general its best to avoid religious topics.

Anyway O&O if by "The books of the bible were chosen rather arbitrarily", you mean that Constantine gathered together the leading figures in Christianity at the Council of Nicea and they voted on what scriptures would be come canonical, sure I agree. Also the Peter difference is a little trivial given some of the diverse sects of Christians that existed at the time. Marconites and Ebonites to name two, its definitely been awhile since I've studied any of it.

Also the KJV is absolute garbage.

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
I don't have a problem with people believing what they want, even if they feel justified for doing so. But it's one of those battles that non-believers love to have because there just isn't enough "proof" we could ever pull out. It's like "I know that I won't lose so I will go until that person feel exasperated or I feel satisfied. Whichever comes first."

I like having the debate because I find the subject interesting. I don't really look at it as a case of who's right and who's wrong. It's more interesting to me to see people's differing philosophies. I really think this thread and the Religion thread are two of the more interesting threads here. More interesting than weekly lists of downloaded albums, anyway.

Wait, you mean you didn't appreciate me listing the fact that I downloaded the new ones by Deerhunter, OR (as the cool kids call them,) Of Montreal, Wilco (stolen straight off of Tweedy's desktop,) The Decemberists (Meloy gave a CD to a fan at a show and it leaked all over the blogs!) and oh yeah, the new one by the Blues Clues dude?! By the way, that one sucks, being deleted now and that way I won't buy it.

All joking aside, I find this interesting and pretty informative as well. I just wonder why some people need to be so disparaging (i.e. see the "KJV is absolute garbage" quote.)

quote:

Originally posted by Liberalkid:
My dad has a masters in divinity Frag and is a Christian. Whenever we talk about creationism he mentions the two creation stories and how stupid it is to take the bible literally, when there's two creation stories.

You say that we can't talk about religion in a polite manner, but I have to wonder Frag have you ever told someone that you were Christian and gotten one of the following comments (all of which I've received).

"Did you have a close family member die or something"

"Really? Well you should try and do something about that."

"You know jesus loves you right?"

There are a few more, although I have learned that in general its best to avoid religious topics.

So it bothers you so much when someone tells you that there is someone out there who loves you? The "Did you have a close family member die or something" is actually pretty understandable and I say this from personal experience. I didn't lose someone to death but I did lose someone very dear and close to me and I questioned everything I believed. Suffering a loss causes a lot of doubt and brings up a lot of questions that don't seem to have answers.

I am getting way off topic but my point is that I don't feel the need to mock or put down atheists and yet they often do this to Christians. Either way, we can continue this in the religion thread.

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
So it bothers you so much when someone tells you that there is someone out there who loves you? The "Did you have a close family member die or something" is actually pretty understandable and I say this from personal experience. I didn't lose someone to death but I did lose someone very dear and close to me and I questioned everything I believed. Suffering a loss causes a lot of doubt and brings up a lot of questions that don't seem to have answers.

I am getting way off topic but my point is that I don't feel the need to mock or put down atheists and yet they often do this to Christians. Either way, we can continue this in the religion thread.

Atheists and agnostics are the 'least trusted' and one of the 'most despised' people in America.

quote:

When asked which groups did not share their vision of American society, 39.5 percent of those interviewed mentioned atheists. Asked the same question about Muslims and homosexuals, the figures dropped to a slightly less depressing 26.3 percent and 22.6 percent, respectively. For Hispanics, Jews, Asian-Americans and African-Americans, they fell further to 7.6 percent, 7.4 percent, 7.0 percent and 4.6 percent, respectively.

It's rather ludicrous when you consider that most of our brightest minds of the past two decades haven't been devoutly religious. I actually think it kind of funny how much Christians feel that they are being 'persecuted' for their beliefs (See: Justice Sunday-Stop the Filibuster against People of Faith).

Those questions LK mentioned are simply patronizing. They assume that no rational individual would come to a nontheistic viewpoint and that they are simply 'mad at God.'



(This is pretty much a religion thread)

quote:

Originally posted by St. Mike:
(This is pretty much a religion thread)

Well, it's certainly become one, hasn't it? Is it at all possible to question HUMAN evolution without bringing up the "G-word"? I attempted it with this thread, but several others felt God had to be brung to the discussion. This then led me to ask (pretty much) the same questions good ol' Frag has. History repeats itself!

quote:

Originally posted by Liberalkid:
Anyway O&O if by "The books of the bible were chosen rather arbitrarily", you mean that Constantine gathered together the leading figures in Christianity at the Council of Nicea and they voted on what scriptures would be come canonical, sure I agree. Also the Peter difference is a little trivial given some of the diverse sects of Christians that existed at the time. Marconites and Ebonites to name two, its definitely been awhile since I've studied any of it.

Well, that was kind of a weak example, but what I'm trying to get at is that it's a mistake to place such emphasis on minute facts that really have nothing to do with the point of Christianity at all. What the heck difference does it make to Jesus's message whether the creation story in Genesis is literally true or not? How does evolution in any way diminish Christianity (or Judaism, though there are far fewer Jewish deniers of evolution than Christians)?

This is what I'm not understanding with these people. It's just damaging to faith...I have friends who grew up as conservative Christians who were taught things that just aren't true as being the centerpieces of their faith. Look at people like Kent Hovind, who has made a career out of this, as if it's the absolute most important thing about being a Christian. And then when you find out that the Earth *probably* isn't just 6000 years old...that Noah's Ark is *probably* just an allegory...it makes you wonder what other lies you've been told, too. Why is it so important to people that the Bible be just as good a scientific text as it is a religious text? Jesus never says a damned thing about creation, as far as I remember. It makes no sense to me.

I of course have no clue if this is true, but I'd bet that religions like Buddhism or Baha'i have a lower rate of apostasy compared to fundamentalist Christianity, due to never claiming to have a bulleted list of absolute answers to every single question in the universe. Unlike, say, these people. All of that feels like missing the point to me.

Have any of you guys (on both sides) heard of Father George Coyne? He's a Catholic Priest and the former director of the Vatican Observatory, but he's also a staunch opponent of teaching Creationism and ID in science classes.

Here's an article:

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18504