God-guided evolution......
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-02-2017, 12:50 AM
RE: God-guided evolution......
My opinion on things:

Accepting evolution means realizing "Adam and Eve" were not real people. Humans did not start by being made by magic. So you can call it metaphorical all you like, but the events did not happen. There was no "betrayal". It can only be symbolic of God's continued dissatisfaction with his own creation, to the point where he gets so angry he has to kill everyone, in an event that also didn't happen.

The problem as I see it is when people start with the assumption that the bible must somehow "make sense". They then work backwards, interpreting it so that it fits with modern science. You could do this with literally any story, about anything. You can just interpret it and say "this bit means the Big Bang, this bit means quantum mechanics, blah blah..."

There's no reason to assume the book has to make sense. To anyone reading it objectively, it doesn't. It can't even get the creation account right; it starts again and does things in a different order. The excuses for the terrible accuracy and editing of the bible start before we even finish Genesis.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Robvalue's post
28-02-2017, 04:11 AM
RE: God-guided evolution......
(28-02-2017 12:50 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  My opinion on things:

Accepting evolution means realizing "Adam and Eve" were not real people. Humans did not start by being made by magic. So you can call it metaphorical all you like, but the events did not happen. There was no "betrayal". It can only be symbolic of God's continued dissatisfaction with his own creation, to the point where he gets so angry he has to kill everyone, in an event that also didn't happen.

The problem as I see it is when people start with the assumption that the bible must somehow "make sense". They then work backwards, interpreting it so that it fits with modern science. You could do this with literally any story, about anything. You can just interpret it and say "this bit means the Big Bang, this bit means quantum mechanics, blah blah..."

There's no reason to assume the book has to make sense. To anyone reading it objectively, it doesn't. It can't even get the creation account right; it starts again and does things in a different order. The excuses for the terrible accuracy and editing of the bible start before we even finish Genesis.

Ask a Rabbi what the story is about, and they'll tell you straight up that you're insane if you take it literally. Taking the Garden story as literal is to wholly misunderstand the point of mythological tales. They're meant to impart a lesson, not a "text recording" transcript of What Really Happened™. To those who recognize how many elements of the story are an amalgamation of earlier stories from the various cultures that influenced and/or comprised the early Hebrew people prior to the Exile (when Genesis was cobbled together), it is difficult to take anyone seriously who proposes it's literal.

It becomes quite obvious, when you realize that adam is not a name, Adam, but literally the Hebrew word for "man", and is used just the way we use it in English: to refer to either one person or all mankind. Likewise, Eve (or Chavah) is the word for "Life" (alternately, it's a homonym/pun on the word for "rib"--thus that element of the story--and can refer to the spirit of thinking beings, aka the mind). When you go back and read Genesis without the proper names that have been falsely inserted into the story, but simply read the words "man" and "mind" in place, it's much more obvious what the intent of the writers was, originally.

Many people who are totally familiar with the details of evolution still accept Genesis as the mythological tale of the rise of Thoughtful Man (or as we say, Homo sapiens, as distinct from our animal ancestors who were not yet capable of higher thinking... and as Alla pointed out, the first humans who could "recognize their Creator".

We atheists just happen to think that such a concept is not "recognized", but only imagined, just as early man also imagined that the sun was a god, that the storms were gods, et cetera... and frankly, I find it amazing that anyone thinks it's anything other than that.

Literalists, I simply hold in contempt.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
28-02-2017, 04:22 AM
RE: God-guided evolution......
That's interesting. Indeed, you would have to be insane or heavily indoctrinated to think the story is literal. But without the literal story, the rest of the story makes no sense. With no original sin, there is no need for Jesus. (Although I've heard that the original point of Jesus was to remove the need for animal sacrifices, and this meaning got fudged over time.)

I guess Christians try and repackage original sin as being a gradual decline in human behavior, or something. More a story of a poor craftsman getting angry at his faulty product.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
28-02-2017, 04:28 AM
RE: God-guided evolution......
I don't know that Jesus and Original Sin are necessarily tied, except in the view of the (usually fundamentalist) denominations' theology. As you pointed out, it's usually connected to the concept of atonement for individual actions, which at one point was done through blood magic to appease The Angry God™, and which was "concluded" by the final blood sacrifice of the half-God, Jesus... or as we like to joke:

[Image: e3833ed37765fcb5b0809b853a557bd4.jpg]

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
28-02-2017, 05:05 AM
RE: God-guided evolution......
Ah I see. I didn't realise that was a more hard-line belief.

Yeah... preaching Christianity sounds like this:

Christian: There's this maniac going around torturing people! You have to act really nice to him, and tell him how great he is, and maybe he'll let you live with him instead.

Me: Jesus Christ!

Christian: That's him.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
28-02-2017, 06:01 AM
RE: God-guided evolution......
(28-02-2017 04:11 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(28-02-2017 12:50 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  My opinion on things:

Accepting evolution means realizing "Adam and Eve" were not real people. Humans did not start by being made by magic. So you can call it metaphorical all you like, but the events did not happen. There was no "betrayal". It can only be symbolic of God's continued dissatisfaction with his own creation, to the point where he gets so angry he has to kill everyone, in an event that also didn't happen.

The problem as I see it is when people start with the assumption that the bible must somehow "make sense". They then work backwards, interpreting it so that it fits with modern science. You could do this with literally any story, about anything. You can just interpret it and say "this bit means the Big Bang, this bit means quantum mechanics, blah blah..."

There's no reason to assume the book has to make sense. To anyone reading it objectively, it doesn't. It can't even get the creation account right; it starts again and does things in a different order. The excuses for the terrible accuracy and editing of the bible start before we even finish Genesis.

Ask a Rabbi what the story is about, and they'll tell you straight up that you're insane if you take it literally. Taking the Garden story as literal is to wholly misunderstand the point of mythological tales. They're meant to impart a lesson, not a "text recording" transcript of What Really Happened™. To those who recognize how many elements of the story are an amalgamation of earlier stories from the various cultures that influenced and/or comprised the early Hebrew people prior to the Exile (when Genesis was cobbled together), it is difficult to take anyone seriously who proposes it's literal.

It becomes quite obvious, when you realize that adam is not a name, Adam, but literally the Hebrew word for "man", and is used just the way we use it in English: to refer to either one person or all mankind. Likewise, Eve (or Chavah) is the word for "Life" (alternately, it's a homonym/pun on the word for "rib"--thus that element of the story--and can refer to the spirit of thinking beings, aka the mind). When you go back and read Genesis without the proper names that have been falsely inserted into the story, but simply read the words "man" and "mind" in place, it's much more obvious what the intent of the writers was, originally.

Many people who are totally familiar with the details of evolution still accept Genesis as the mythological tale of the rise of Thoughtful Man (or as we say, Homo sapiens, as distinct from our animal ancestors who were not yet capable of higher thinking... and as Alla pointed out, the first humans who could "recognize their Creator".

We atheists just happen to think that such a concept is not "recognized", but only imagined, just as early man also imagined that the sun was a god, that the storms were gods, et cetera... and frankly, I find it amazing that anyone thinks it's anything other than that.

Literalists, I simply hold in contempt.

Dismissing the story as metaphorical is the only thing a rational person can do, but this is a defensive measure to preserve something of a religious belief. It falls short of answering where metaphor ends and literal interpretations begin.

Should we dismiss the entire book of Genesis? Sure.
Should we dismiss those silly stories of Moses, Samson, Elijah and David? If you dismissed Genesis, then consistency demands that.

Should we dismiss the story of Jesus? Whoa! Whao! You hold it right there mister atheist! There's as much evidence for a real Jesus as there is for Caesar!

Ok, Jesus existed but he was just a no name rabble-rouser that got himself killed and the gospels are mythic allegories with no real truth and only convey metaphorical meaning. Whoa! Whoa! You hold it right there! Facepalm

Are there ways to interpret the gospels that don't even acknowledge it as real and as mere metaphor? To wit:

The Jesus myth as presented in the gospels are metaphor for how we as humans strive towards perfection and how some of us sacrifice ourselves to achieve this perfection, other humans will resurrect (exalt) those of us that do make that sacrifice so that; even in death, we will rise again and ascend in human's thoughts to a place where we are remembered even after our death.

There is no real Jesus, there is no god, no hell, no post-mortem life. It's all a metaphor. Bada-bing, bada-boom!

[Image: 200_s.gif]

I anxiously await Christians to come to this revelation. Big Grin

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
28-02-2017, 07:34 AM
RE: God-guided evolution......
I want to say to GirlyMan, RS76, port_of_call this:
You didn't defend Alla, you defended what you believe is right.

PS. Choose The Right (CTR)

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2017, 07:37 AM
RE: God-guided evolution......
Robvalue Wrote:With no original sin, there is no need for Jesus.
true. but what is original sin?

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2017, 07:41 AM
RE: God-guided evolution......
GOOD NEWS for atheists and for all:

you don't have to understand and accept creation story to be saved from hell.
you don't have to do anything to be saved from hell
and you can NOT do anything to be saved from hell.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2017, 07:59 AM
RE: God-guided evolution......
(28-02-2017 07:41 AM)Alla Wrote:  GOOD NEWS for atheists and for all:

you don't have to understand and accept creation story to be saved from hell.
you don't have to do anything to be saved from hell
and you can NOT do anything to be saved from hell.

I see, you're actually a Calvinist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: