"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote

"They," in this context, are nameless-faceless entities.

As are many authors of the Bible.

Coincidentally, the authors of the bibleare not the current topic
of conversation.

After all, you're not *Seriously* implying that anyone from a few
centuries ago is still alive & kicking today.

After all, you're not seriously implying that anyone who wrote the
Bible is still alive and kicking today.

If you want to now switch gears and start talking about the authors of
the bible, your case is even weaker.

The tale of Eden did not begin with the authors of the bible, nor
monotheism, and the people who set down the present form most
certainly were aware of the fact that they had not created it.

So your argument isn't centered on anyone here, or anyone who
might stumble into this group any time soon.

So your interpretation of the Bible isn't centered on anyone here, or
anyone who might stumble into this group any time soon.

Have you got your head or your *****?

Because you imagine some people who wrote the bible -- copying
tales much older than themselves -- were too stupid to realize that
they were copying, that must mean that nobody here can recognize
a parable when they see one?

This makes sense to you?

"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote

It is strange that you would seriously put forth an argument
that requires the rejection of all historical documents, all
knowledge of the past.

It's kind of funny that the only past that matters is the one
that supposedly supports your point of view,

On Mon, 31 May 2004 21:53:24 GMT, "DianaC" <dianaiad@verizon.net>
wrote:

<snip to>

Not nearly as much as the creation myths of most other religions, if

think about it a bit...

Irrelevant, if you think about it a bit...

How can it be irrelevent?

None of them are true. None of them have more than an accidental
relationship to reality.

Good evidence for the existence of rocks, oceans and the planet but
not evidence for any creation.

er, you misunderstood me. Or I didn't make myself clear....what is in the
planet is evidence of how the planet works and life came to be. The

in other words. Not the 'why', As in 'this is how it was done', but not

did it'.

You don't have to be an atheist to be interested in the 'how'.

You did use the word "creation".

Personally, I figure that God may have

given us the bible, but men wrote that and misinterpreted it a great

according to their own understanding, which was, and remains, limited.

God

is telling us directly about the laws of creation in the works of it.

figure that if God doesn't lie, then why would He put evidence in the

earth

to make us think it's billions of years old, if it wasn't? Why would

give us evidence of evolution if that wasn't how we came to be the way

are?

What evidence do you have that there is a god or that there was a
creation?

I answered that in the post to which yours is a reply. Since I'm not

to convince you that there is a god, then why I believe there is one

at issue, is it?

Sorry for being blunt.

Without some reason for believing in a god in the first place the
questions you asked above are pointless. You are the one who asked
them, and my questions were therefore relevant.

The point is that your method is clearly unreliable.

Yes. most did. Some didn't....and as long as ANY did not, then you cannot
condemn the entire belief system in a blanket endictment.

Nor did I. I merely pointed out that the story was seen by main-line,
orthodox Christians as the literal truth.

However, that

said, there are many things that have been traditionally believed by
atheists, too, that have just recently been proven incorrect. "Recent'

within the same time frame that the Genesis account has been increasingly
described as 'metaphor'.

That is not a reasonable comparison. There is no such thing as an
atheist system of beliefs, so atheism has not changed its position;
which is simply a lack of belief in any deity.

Christianity has always claimed to have "the truth", but, not only has
there always been a variety of conflicting Christian "truths"; they
have also changed through time. Christianity has often altered its
version of their "truths" in response to scientific discovery, but
science has never altered its position in response to Christian
"truth".

You know, things like what cause infections (germs) and other things that
have since been learned. Are you going to throw medical science in the
garbage because it changed it's stance when something came along to show

something new? Or do you praise the scientists for their expanded
understanding and willingness to change with the new knowledge they gain?

Science has corrected itself (which is what science is supposed to do)
by using the scientific method. Religion has adjusted its position in
response to science but never admitted there was anythingg wrong with
Christianity.

In any event that has nothing to do with atheism. An
atheist is not necessarily a scientist, nor is his atheism necessarily
based on science. Atheism is lack of belief in a deity; it is no more
than that.

In other words, WHY is it so important to you that any Christian accepted
Genesis as literal, and why does it insult you so that some never did and
that more and more of them are now viewing it as metaphor?

What makes you think I am insulted by any of it? Why have Christians
in this discussion insisted that it never happened but now ask me what
difference it makes? What Christians believe does not make much
difference to me, but it is odd that Christians themselves seem to
have the same attitude.