Do you believe in Creation or Evolution?

Like I said, the phrase, "all the creeping things of the ground," you adapted from Gen 1:24 can be interpreted to refer to mammalian life because of the mention of cattle,

24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beast of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.

thereby the need for a definition or an authoritative interpretation of the scripture explicitly saying that the creatures referred to here include dinosaurs, bugs etc.

 

It seems as if you're grasping at straws here. Cattle and creeping things. Where else in Genesis would it account for dinosaurs, insects, etc.? It seems pretty cut and dried to me...
Day 1: Light (but not the sun, that was on day 4)
Day 2: Sky (firmament)
Day 3: Dry land with vegetation, separate from water.
Day 4: Sun, moon, stars
Day 5: Water animals and birds
Day 6: Land animals and humans
Day 7: Resting even though he isn't tired.

Where do you propose dinosaurs and insects and the like go if not day 6? Is there a missing day? A half-day that was omitted? Why just mammals? What about reptiles and amphibians? Do those not really exist since they weren't explicitly named?

Your whole argument seems predicated on the fact that the language is vague and open to interpretation. Is that truly how you want things? If these bits are vague and open to interpretation then the rest is as well. How do you know which is correct? If any part of the ancient, oft-translated and edited tome you hold as Truth is so vague that it lets you interpret it whoever you wish to suit whatever notion you wish to uphold at the moment is it really all that holy? I honestly don't get it.

 

Someone please explain "Obey thy slave master"...

 

ok cml750, I've been reading back over this thread a bit and you have me (and perhaps you?) thoroughly confused. First in post #168 you say:

But then on post #185 you say:

So can he see the future or not?

 

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=6014468&postcount=183

Please look over the entirety of the back-and-forth. That it's open to interpretation is my point as the person I was quoting was suggesting that the Biblical lore is irreconcilable with evolution due to "winged fowl" coming before "cattle and creeping things."

I'll be upfront. I'm an atheist. So, I don't feel the burden to keep Bible lore divine. But the fact that there is no authoritative interpretation, definition of Bible lore, that the original language was limited in its vocabulary in describing objects allows the Bible text to subsist as a possible divine revelation we may yet to fully appreciate.

The "vegetation before sun" idea's actually a better argument for Bible lore being irreconcilable with evolution. Dunno. Maybe they were describing primitive life(or something else entirely) but just ran out of words to describe it? Newer theories about the genesis of life from non-biological matter allow for life to be born from non-biological matter without sunlight ex. possible life in Saturn's moon's, Titan's theoretical underground sea. Further, "life," itself, as a concept is still, pardon the pun, evolving.

 

God can see the future and also gives man free will. Every person has the ability to accept the ultimate sacrifice God sent to man in the form of his son. I am not really sure why you don't understand that. Are you a Christian? If not, I suggest that you read the Bible and find a church and the Holy Spirit will take care of the rest.

 

What does accepting "the ultimate sacrifice" have to do with reconciling the apparent contradiction that God can simultaneously see the future and has given man free will? I don't see the connection between those two sentences.

Why is it so important that God can see the future, anyway? I think Christians should just do away with that bit.

 

Some of us have, or rather believe God (I don't believe he's a being like thing, but rather love itself) knows all possible futures based on all possible decisions. Not that there is one certain future.

 

Honestly that just seems like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.

 

I've reached the point where I ignore everything in the Bible that's not the Gospels, the Old Testament is fun to read, it's a collection of exciting stories, but I don't trust it's religious authority. And I don't understand why anyone would read the non-Gospel sections of the New Testament. If I wanted to listen to Roman guys interpret the Bible for me, I'd be Catholic(that's actually probably why they put that in there).

 

No, I'm not a Christian. You should have probably been able to infer that from my line of questioning. I've read the bible (and most other holy tomes) several times. It's certainly interesting. I prefer Jefferson's version to the original, of course. I've also been to churches, everything from methodist to Greek orthodox to pentecostal. After all of that Buddhism seemed the way to go for me and I've been a practicing Buddhist for around 2 decades now.

Now, speaking of not sure why someone doesn't understand something, I don't understand why you can't see the glaring problem with god being able to see the future and free will. If god sees the future, or even all possible futures, and knows what will happen and what choices we will make then how is free will truly free? Do you have different definitions for "seeing the future" and "free will" than I do? Doesn't it bother you that god already knows if you will chose to accept jesus and therefore whether or not you will get into heaven? If he already knows what choices I will make then am I truly making choices or just following his plan? And if his plan is for me not to follow jesus then how can he fault me for it since it was essentially predetermined, or at least pre-known, what I would do? Can I make a choice that god didn't know I would make?

How does this paradox not frustrate and confuse you? I just don't get it.

 

Fair enough. The fact that there is no authoritative interpretation is what has allowed the bible to be so malleable for so many people. The vagueness of the language is brilliant. Anyone can read it to mean what they want it to mean. That's both its power and its weakness as far as I'm concerned.

 

OK. So what God sees in his mind isn't a single timeline stretching inifinitely into the future, but rather a tree of infinite depth and width with each branching point representing a decision of a being with free will.

I've never heard that interpretation before. It makes more sense to me (at least, as much sense as these sort of topics can make).

 

Actually I believe that "see" is a misleading word. I don't think of a God a person like deity, but just the extreme utmost version of love. After all the bible says God is love, and those that know love know God, and about the Kingdom of heaven being inside of man.

So surely love kind of knows all possibilities depending on how much love people exhibit, but it doesn't really know or see anything.

It fits in with what Jesus says, and makes sense out of a lot of things that seem hard to make sense of.

 

I tend to agree. There's one philosophy, I can't remember the name of it, that was around in Eastern Europe, which said the Trinity existed-in different times. God was the Father, created the universe and spoke to prophets(like in the Old Testament) then literally was born as the Son, and thus the Father was gone, and God was the Son, then the Son died on the cross, and was resurrected as the spirit. To me, that makes the most sense, seeing as the depictions of God in the Old Testament are radically different from the ones in the New Testament, and also when you think of how many other faiths talk about a spirit element of God(the Dao, the Brahman, even the Qu'ran mentions the Holy Spirit).

 

I'm pretty sure I'll never get all of it figured out...or even most of it....or even a lot of it. I used to really care about arguments and theological discussions like this. As I get older, I tend to focus on the simple parts that I'm able to apply instead of the lofty, theological/theoretical discussions. I'm much more comfortable with being in awe of the mysteries and the tension between things that seem contradictory but exist at the same time than I was when I was younger.

I really like that Jesus guy, though (understatement). I've kinda pinned my whole life around following him. I don't care too much about the Creation account - I have my own thoughts on what it is (that I've already shared in this very thread). Not real interested in it, frankly. I believe the Creator created. I don't close my mind off to how observation and science might point us as to how that happened. I don't find arguments over that to ever be very fruitful. None of them address how I am to live today when someone rear-ends my car...or when I find out I have cancer...or when I see my son hit the game winning hit...or when I'm frustrated because of this or that.

I believe this Creator loves us...all of us...and is seeking to reconcile the world to Him at his own cost. I believe he did that through the person of Jesus Christ, who said the greatest commandments (upon which everything else turns) are to love God and to love other people as much as you love yourself. He demonstrated humility and self-denial for the benefit of other people. The Early Church spoke of the Third Way -- which meant to respond to persecution and trouble not by letting someone walk all over you and not by responding in harsh anger...but to respond in a way that causes the other person to confront his own shortcomings and give him an opportunity to fix them. I don't believe you can reduce being a follower to merely reciting the right words at the right time....I don't subscribe to "in or out" theology, because I certainly would never pretend to know who is right with God and who isn't. I don't close off God's mercy to ANYONE, because I've been forgiven of too much to ever do that. It's not my job, and I'm very thankful for that.

I am so far from being the things that Jesus said we should be, that I find it ridiculous and hypocritical to call myself a follower. But I'm trying, Ringo.

 

This is my primary problem with religion. Richard Dawkins put it best: “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”

Sure it does.

You survive being rear-ended because crash safety technology in cars is much, much improved. You could still die, but it's unlikely.

You have cancer because of DNA damage/mutation caused by UV radiation, chemical carcinogens, aging (DNA repair isn't always be perfect), etc.

Your son hit a game-winning hit because he practiced and got good at what he does.

I can't explain why you're frustrated. You should relax.

 

when you die you lose your memories, so you will never know what created you, but if you must know reptilians. they had a being that had both parts,and split it up man and woman...in genesis it says "made god in our image"..Who is the "our" Why is it plural? Then,it mentions the serpent "reptilian" mating with eve. This is them mixing dna slicing together to form what we called atlantians. The atlantians started fighting with the reptilians and they both agree to dna mix themselves together to what we call "humans". This is archived on ancient walls with drawings and sumerian text. You will not believe and thats because they have made it that way. They didnt want this information released in schools or taught for generations. Only a few select know the truth. If everyone knew this then religion would be destroyed and governments dont want that to happen because they have been using religion to controll us since the damn of time. Humans are incapable of governing themselves,they need a "government" to watch over them otherwise there would be anarchy.

 

I'm not a religious person, and I disagree with that. Its ok not to understand things. There is so much about the universe that we don't understand, and will probably never understand. People who are afraid of not understanding may be compelled to make up "familiar" answers and put their faith in it. I think we should seek answers and try to make as much sense out of the world as we can, but at the same we shouldn't do so through self-delusion -- asserting "this is so" and not putting anymore thought into it. It is likely that what we are able to truly find out about the world does not really answer the big questions. I'm fine with that. I'd rather know what I don't know, then think I know something that I really don't.