Because it is an accessible means by which to test one's ideas. When I arrived at TOL I had numerous views that were not founded in reality or reason. The people here helped immensely in shaving those off.
Hello, Fundies! :)
- Thread starter Vulcan Logician
- Start date
Because it is an accessible means by which to test one's ideas. When I arrived at TOL I had numerous views that were not founded in reality or reason. The people here helped immensely in shaving those off.
Vulcan Logician
Member
Yeah, I guess you have a point. I can see how some people might actually do that. Maybe I should have just pointed out that it isn't commonplace, nor is it realistic to expect it from anyone.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
:rotfl:
genuineoriginal
New member
Pick a topic you want to discuss and start a thread in the Religion forum.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
That says: Ready, finish.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Don't confuse me with facts!!
:chuckle:
I used to be a six-day fundamentalist. Then I read the Bible and realized that it specifically contradicts that position.
Have you noticed that there are two creation stories with different orders, methods, and time periods of creation? They also have different conclusions.
The first is Genesis 1.1-2.4a, which has:
Order — plants, animals, man and woman
Method - God told the earth to bring forth plants and animals
Time period — six days
Conclusion — man is to rule over and be the steward of nature
The second begins in Genesis 2.4b, which has:
Order — man, plants, animals, and woman
Method - God formed with His hands
Time period — one day
Conclusion — man is be dedicated to his wife, as she is the perfect partner designed by God
The fact that there are two radically different creation stories in the first two chapters of Genesis is proof from the Bible that we are not to take these stories as literal history.
Fundamentalists rarely read the second creation story, and if they do, they ignore what it actually says.
genuineoriginal
New member
You are mistaken, there is only one creation story and you don't know how to read very well if you think there are two.
You are denying what the text says, but that is a common problem with fundamentalists.
I am a Christian. You simply deny what the text says.
Which one was the ancestor of Cain, Abel, and Seth?
And who were the descendants of the other guy GOD created?
They are not meant to be taken as literal history.
So you are just saying that GOD created two imaginary men that never existed.
You're loony and you need to stop telling folks that you know anything about the bible, because you don't.
No. Why would you make up such falsehoods?
The first creation story is there for a purpose. Its moral is that man is the guardian and steward of nature:
God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” 29 God said, “See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
The second creation story is there for a purpose. Its moral is that man is to be faithful and dedicated to his wife:
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.
The first is about man’s relationship to the earth. The second is about man’s relationship to his wife.
There was not a literal good Samaritan who travelled the road to Jericho and rescued the beaten man. Jesus did not say “this is a story.” He said:
“A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
If you declare the first creation story is literal history, then you contradict the second creation story. The two stories have different orders and methods of creation.
If you fall into the error of “if it doesn’t say it’s a story, then it’s literal history,” then you have forced an erroneous interpretation method onto a text that is incompatible with your interpretation method.
Feel free to deny what the text says, if you can justify that in your mind, but an honest reading of the early chapters of Genesis rebukes your position.
Simple.
Because you said it wasn't history.
You made up a falsehood about me, misstating my position, because I made a truthful statement?
You should reconsider such actions.