 |
Off The Map Discussion Board for Christians, Atheists and People In-between
(closed to new posts - to participate in ongoing discussion visit our sites otmatheist.com and conversationattheedge.com)
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Siamang
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 1144
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:04 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| tlindholtz wrote: | I find it ironic in the extreme that atheists are making common cause, even if negatively, with the fundamentalists. It seems that politics isn't the only thing that can produce strange bedfellows.  |
It's just that I understand that point of view. I understand the person who says that the world was made in 6 days.
I also understand the person who says that it was made in 4.5 billion years.
I also understand the person who says that the Genesis story is a story of God's intention for man, and not a scientific account, and so the old number "6 days" is irrelevant to the real issues addressed in Genesis.
The person I do not understand is the person who says that the 4.5 billion number may be coldly, technically, accurate, but "6 days" is nevertheless still a perfectly valid and true answer. If you asked them how long it was before man walked on the earth, they'd say that both 6 days, and 4.5 billion years were correct, and there's no contradiction.
IR did it above. I think you're perhaps saying the same thing, tlindholtz.
And I'm here scratching my head and wondering what I'm missing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Eliza
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 800
Location: Seattle WA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
tlindholtz wrote: | Quote: | | The Bible needs to be understood in terms of its literary, historical, cultural, and linguistic contexts. When you do that, a lot of your issues will vanish like fog on a warm summer morning. |
Understanding it as a compilation of ancient literature, written by men based on their culture's mythology to create an epic history for their people and to press their agendas, did indeed make alot of my issues with it vanish like fog.
Which is not what you meant, but it works for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Eliza writes
| Quote: | | The Christians believe core truths in the Bible, which may or may not include believing every statement in the Bible literally... |
Ahhh... this is the crux of the matter, and tlindholtz nails it just above. I'll go further. The Bible may NOT POSSIBLY be read "believing every statement literally". It simply can NOT be read that way. Otherwise God is a chicken. (Look it up...)
I actually don't engage in the "creation" debate anymore, because most of the people who argue for scientific answers in Genesis, in my view, are beating an old dead horse even worse than we are right now!
I'm a little short of using the word myth, though, because of the implication that a myth is made up. This is a little different, what Tolkien called a "true myth" if you will... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter in PA
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| That was me, by the way... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David S
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 1029
Location: Where the crowd isn't
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:25 am Post subject: Re: dead horse (and it won't rise in 3 days) |
|
|
| Eliza wrote: | | The Christians believe core truths in the Bible, which may or may not include believing every statement in the Bible literally; |
I think we're discovering here that it is not possible to literally believe every statement in the bible because some statements appear to conflict with others. I haven't seen anyone say you can literally believe two conflicting statements. I've seen some Christians explain that some statements are either trivia (which I guess they then don't have to take literally) or "figures of speech" or whatnot that don't have to be taken literally. The explanation itself seems to be an acceptance that there is a conflict such that they can't be taken literally and they need an explanation. Atheists say the discrepancies are apparent errors in a likely man-made document.
So I'd say we all generally perceive there are discrepancies but disagree on the explanations for them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David S
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 1029
Location: Where the crowd isn't
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tlindholtz wrote: | | I am sorry to have offended. It was not my intent. Please forgive me. I feared that I might be treading on sensitive ground, which is why I apologized in the initial writing. I have known a lot of LDS folks, including several who have kicked it over. And as a result of our conversations have understood that the "orthodox" LDS view of divine inspiration is a different sort of critter than the "orthodox", umm, Creedal Christian view .... |
Tom,
I'm not LDS. I'm well aware of LDS views as well as more traditional Christian views and their differences (I suspect in greater detail than you), however I'm an atheist. If you want to call one a cult and get into intra-faith bashing or whatever (which I stated before I was trying to avoid but here we are anyway...) you should find someone LDS to do that with. To an atheist you're both more similar than different. My arguments will usually apply to Christianity in general (and often to all revealed religions) and at any rate should be taken on their own terms.
And thanks for the apology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephan
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 648
Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
David, I understand your point, but I also understand Tom's. The faith tradition where you recieved your training will have an effect on how you view religion now that you are an Atheist.
Your view of scripture seems to be a little stricter than Tom's and Mine. That may be a result of your training when you were a Theist. I believe the Bible was inspired by God, and should held to a higher standard, but not, apparently, as high of a standard as you set. It was still written down by men, and men are fallible. They might have some details wrong, but that does not change the overall message.
You, as well as some other Atheists posting here, seem to take an all or nothing approach to the Bible. Either it's all true, or it's all false. This is where Tom pointed out that you may have something in common with strict fundamentalists. They hold that same opinion, but have decided that it is all true, where you have decided it is all false.
I am comfortable closer to the middle, that it is reliable, but there are some disrepencies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter in PA
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Eliza writes
| Quote: | | The explanation itself seems to be an acceptance that there is a conflict such that they can't be taken literally and they need an explanation. Atheists say the discrepancies are apparent errors in a likely man-made document. |
Ahhh yes, however, I think the normal Christian understanding of the Bible is that it is indeed a man-made document, but one that is, despite that, a communication from God. It's a paradox, I know, but only one of many in the Xian faith.
As far as figures of speech go, here's an example of why we have to read the Bible in the light of the times.
Imagine a headline (I think I might have read this example here, maybe not) in the newspaper that reads "Presidential Statement sends Shock Waves Through Congress." Will somebody read that in 1000 years and assume that we believed in the 21st century that a president could say something that would actually cause seismic activity? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David S
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 1029
Location: Where the crowd isn't
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephan wrote: | David, I understand your point, but I also understand Tom's. The faith tradition where you recieved your training will have an effect on how you view religion now that you are an Atheist.
Your view of scripture seems to be a little stricter than Tom's and Mine. That may be a result of your training when you were a Theist. [...]
|
Stephan,
I don't deny my past experience will color who I am. However I'm no longer LDS. Assumptions people make about me because of my past will usually be wrong. I end up spending a lot of time correcting incorrect assumptions rather than discussing what I'm actually saying. And then there's fun bashing things like one Christian group calling another "cult" as an added bonus as we've already seen. Let's just not go down that road. I don't want to get into irrelevant discussions about issues I don't believe anymore nor have to spend time explaining a bunch of wrong assumptions to boot.
Your post is a good example of bad assumptions. LDS actually have a very loose view of scripture. They think scripture is living and changing--they think there is a living prophet that can add to scripture or change it at any time. But I don't believe that so why go there.
If you've read what I've written on this board you'll see I've actually explained why I think what I think. I doubt that god would speak to someone else and have them give me a message from god. I'm not sure I can be convinced that's true at all but if I was going to be convinced there would have to be some very compelling evidence. I've been making the point here that an error-ridden book is hardly that compelling evidence. This is what you're seeing as my "strict" view of scripture, not my LDS background. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephan
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 648
Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| David, thanks for the explanation. I honestly have not spent time looking into LDS, so I'm not entirely sure what they believe. I won't go down that road since that's not why we're here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom in Sacramento
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Siamang wrote: | I understand the person who says that the world was made in 6 days.
I also understand the person who says that it was made in 4.5 billion years.
I also understand the person who says that the Genesis story is a story of God's intention for man, and not a scientific account, and so the old number "6 days" is irrelevant to the real issues addressed in Genesis.
The person I do not understand is the person who says that the 4.5 billion number may be coldly, technically, accurate, but "6 days" is nevertheless still a perfectly valid and true answer. If you asked them how long it was before man walked on the earth, they'd say that both 6 days, and 4.5 billion years were correct, and there's no contradiction.
IR did it above. I think you're perhaps saying the same thing, tlindholtz.
And I'm here scratching my head and wondering what I'm missing. |
Aha! The light bulb goes on! I get it now. You are talking about a person who, in my 50+ years as a Christian I have never encountered. I've encountered fundies who insist on 6 days. (I disagree with them.) And of course I've met "liberal" Christians and agnostics who think it is just a story. (I disagree with them, too.) And I've encountered, umm, what shall I call them, thinking Christians (?) who accept the scientific evidence as science, and understand the text as poetic imagery; absolutely true in the sense that it reveals truth about Who? and Why? that are beyond the purview of mere science. I've just never met your straw man. So, go ahead, set him on fire. He doesn't represent anyone I know. I'll grab some graham crackers, marshmallows, and chocolate and we can make smores and sing kumbayah. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom in Sacramento
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BTW, I don't know if it is confusing to anyone. Just in case, let me clarify. "Tom in Sacramento" and "tlindholtz" are one and the same. At the time this started I was logged on as Tom from work and so the board wouldn't let me use that when I wanted to log on from home. (It never occured to me to just log on with my work name. Duh!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom in Sacramento
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
David, re:
| Quote: | | If you want to call one a cult and get into intra-faith bashing ... |
I'm sorry if the word "cult" is a hot button for you. I was using it in a technical sense, defined by Webster as | Quote: | | a religion regarded as unorthodox |
, something that definitely applies. I'm sorry the word has negative cultural baggage -- I readily acknowledge that -- but I don't know a better word. But it was not my objective to "bash", it was my objective to be precise and clear. Sorry it led to confusion and hurt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Siamang
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 1144
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tom in Sacramento wrote: | | Aha! The light bulb goes on! I get it now. You are talking about a person who, in my 50+ years as a Christian I have never encountered. I've encountered fundies who insist on 6 days. (I disagree with them.) And of course I've met "liberal" Christians and agnostics who think it is just a story. (I disagree with them, too.) And I've encountered, umm, what shall I call them, thinking Christians (?) who accept the scientific evidence as science, and understand the text as poetic imagery; absolutely true in the sense that it reveals truth about Who? and Why? that are beyond the purview of mere science. I've just never met your straw man |
If I've erected a straw man, I apologize. But if I google 'Genesis+"periods of time"' I get 381,000 hits of people attempting to either advance or discredit the notion that the "6 days" are days measured in millions upon millions of years. In other words, people are attempting to find a scriptural explaination for how 6 days is scripturally accurate, while still accepting an old earth.
It is called the "Day-Age Theory" by creationists. It's a belief called "progressive creationism." You can read about it here:
http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Progressive_creationism
I seem to recall that someone on this board referenced the idea, but I cannot find the cite. I may have been mistaking that view as one held by a larger number of "old earth" Christians than is actually so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ir (Helen)
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 609
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Siamang wrote: | The person I do not understand is the person who says that the 4.5 billion number may be coldly, technically, accurate, but "6 days" is nevertheless still a perfectly valid and true answer. If you asked them how long it was before man walked on the earth, they'd say that both 6 days, and 4.5 billion years were correct, and there's no contradiction.
IR did it above. I think you're perhaps saying the same thing, tlindholtz.
And I'm here scratching my head and wondering what I'm missing. |
I don't think they say 4.5 billion years is correct and 6 days is correct. I think they say 4.5 billion years is correct and 6 'time periods' is correct.
I'm not sure what your point is, Siamang. It seems that you're trying to prove that some Christians knowingly claim to believe two contradictory things. I don't think so - rather, they find a resolution to the contradiction and then they say they believe both things. In this case the resolution is that 'day' is a Hebrew word that can also mean long time periods. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
