| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Iain" |
| Date: |
29 May 2004 07:36:01 AM |
| Object: |
-Re: Creation Design |
Bardi wrote:
Not meaning to interrupt the tirade going on, but if I might mention the
simple fact that being Christian does NOT mean one has to deny the theory of
evolution. In fact a good case can be made that Christians should believe in
the theory of evolution rather than creationism.
Not without compromising Genesis etcetera.
~Iain
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
29 May 2004 10:24:18 PM |
|
|
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote
Bardi wrote:
Not meaning to interrupt the tirade going on, but if I might
mention the simple fact that being Christian does NOT
mean one has to deny the theory of evolution. In fact a
good case can be made that Christians should believe in
the theory of evolution rather than creationism.
Not without compromising Genesis etcetera.
He's right. All of Christianity outside of fundamentalist have no
problems with evolution, including the Catholic church.
"Compromising" Genesis, as a concept, is a latter-day invention.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
30 May 2004 01:53:12 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:24:18 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote
Bardi wrote:
Not meaning to interrupt the tirade going on, but if I might
mention the simple fact that being Christian does NOT
mean one has to deny the theory of evolution. In fact a
good case can be made that Christians should believe in
the theory of evolution rather than creationism.
Not without compromising Genesis etcetera.
He's right. All of Christianity outside of fundamentalist have no
problems with evolution, including the Catholic church.
"Compromising" Genesis, as a concept, is a latter-day invention.
No, seeing Genesis as a parable is a latter-day invention. It was
taught as the literal truth for thousands of years. Now many
Christians, in the face of reality, have decided to call it a parable
or an allegory instead of just admitting it was wrong.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
30 May 2004 02:24:03 AM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote
No, seeing Genesis as a parable is a latter-day invention.
Not according to Jews. Jews that interpret Genesis literally
are about as rare as "Compassionate Conservates."
Considering that it is a Jewish book, the facts appear to be
exactly the opposite of what you state....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
01 Jun 2004 08:48:43 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote
No, seeing Genesis as a parable is a latter-day invention.
Not according to Jews. Jews that interpret Genesis literally
are about as rare as "Compassionate Conservates."
Considering that it is a Jewish book, the facts appear to be
exactly the opposite of what you state....
Too bad for Giordano Bruno that he didn't live in a
Jewish state, then.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
01 Jun 2004 09:22:18 PM |
|
|
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote
Too bad for Giordano Bruno that he didn't live in a
Jewish state, then.
You're confusing the "Official" position of church "Authority"
with the common or "Majority" opinion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
02 Jun 2004 10:19:51 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote
Too bad for Giordano Bruno that he didn't live in a
Jewish state, then.
You're confusing the "Official" position of church "Authority"
with the common or "Majority" opinion.
And what evidence do you have that there was
a difference?
Colin Day
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
02 Jun 2004 10:45:17 PM |
|
|
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote
You're confusing the "Official" position of church "Authority"
with the common or "Majority" opinion.
And what evidence do you have that there was
a difference?
The two blaringly obvious examples I had previously given were
"Divorce" and "Abortion."
As you managed to stealthfully avoid those two, allow me to offer
a third:
"Pre-marital sex."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
02 Jun 2004 11:16:11 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote
You're confusing the "Official" position of church "Authority"
with the common or "Majority" opinion.
And what evidence do you have that there was
a difference?
The two blaringly obvious examples I had previously given were
"Divorce" and "Abortion."
As you managed to stealthfully avoid those two, allow me to offer
a third:
"Pre-marital sex."
But is this merely recent or did the faithful always differ from the Church?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
02 Jun 2004 11:29:21 PM |
|
|
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote
But is this merely recent or did the faithful always differ
from the Church?
The alternative is that the people of the past were aliens, not
flesh & bone but rock & wood.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
03 Jun 2004 11:45:50 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote
But is this merely recent or did the faithful always differ
from the Church?
The alternative is that the people of the past were aliens, not
flesh & bone but rock & wood.
No. One alternative was that they were more church fearing.
Churches did have more power in the past.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
03 Jun 2004 10:45:38 PM |
|
|
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote
The alternative is that the people of the past were aliens, not
flesh & bone but rock & wood.
No.
You base this on... what?
Certainly not the only model you have to go by, which is the
human nature you can observe around you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
02 Jun 2004 11:06:19 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 22:22:18 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote
Too bad for Giordano Bruno that he didn't live in a
Jewish state, then.
You're confusing the "Official" position of church "Authority"
with the common or "Majority" opinion.
According to a Gallup poll taken in the US in the year 2000, nearly
half of Americans (47%) believe Genesis is literally true. Are you
going to claim that the number is larger today than it was in say 1850
when knowledge of biology was much less than it is today? The
official position of a number of the larger sects in America today is
that Genesis is not to be taken literally. You have it backwards. It
is not the laity that rejects literalism. At the time of Bruno both
laity and clergy believed Genesis as the literal truth. No one
questioned it including the Protestant reformers.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
02 Jun 2004 10:53:28 PM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote
According to a Gallup poll taken in the US in the year 2000, nearly
half of Americans (47%) believe Genesis is literally true.
So the "Majority" view (53%) is that it is not.
Are you going to claim that the number is larger today than
it was in say 1850 when knowledge of biology was much
less than it is today?
I am going to claim that when the literacy rate was low, they're either
dirt farmers or piled thick inside of an industrial-revolution mill,
they had no fucking idea what the church position was.
The well-to-do, the rich, they were taught the classical Greek view.
It may have jived nicely with church doctrine -- which I already
admitted -- but it was not the church.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
30 May 2004 01:46:09 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 May 2004 03:24:03 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote
No, seeing Genesis as a parable is a latter-day invention.
Not according to Jews. Jews that interpret Genesis literally
are about as rare as "Compassionate Conservates."
Not according to most Jews and most Christians today. That is
correct, nor did I claim otherwise.
Considering that it is a Jewish book, the facts appear to be
exactly the opposite of what you state....
Considering that both Jews and Christians until relatively recently
(historically speaking) accepted Genesis as literal truth, the facts
are exactly as I stated. Repeating that most of them don't believe it
now does not change that.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
30 May 2004 11:59:24 PM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote
Not according to most Jews and most Christians today.
No Christian sect -- outside of fundamentalists (who put the
"Fun" into "Mental" -- require a literal interpretation of
Genesis. This includes the single largest Christian sect, the
Catholics.
Another way of putting it: You're lying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
31 May 2004 08:09:54 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:59:24 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote
Not according to most Jews and most Christians today.
No Christian sect -- outside of fundamentalists (who put the
"Fun" into "Mental" -- require a literal interpretation of
Genesis. This includes the single largest Christian sect, the
Catholics.
Another way of putting it: You're lying.
Let us try again. You are misreading what I said. I agree that most
do not believe it today. I said that I agreed. Are we okay so far?
What I also said was that this position is an historically recent one,
that, in the past, most Christians accepted the literal truth of
Genesis as did most Jews.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
31 May 2004 10:40:46 PM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote
What I also said was that this position is an historically
recent one, that, in the past, most Christians accepted
the literal truth of Genesis as did most Jews.
I sincerely doubt it.
It may not be a stretch that most religions pushed it as literal
truth -- right up until a few hundred years ago -- but there's
nothing to suggest that it was the "Common" or "Majority"
view.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
01 Jun 2004 12:43:44 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZsmdnXK1gJcEZCbdRVn-jA@comcast.com...
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote
What I also said was that this position is an historically
recent one, that, in the past, most Christians accepted
the literal truth of Genesis as did most Jews.
I sincerely doubt it.
It may not be a stretch that most religions pushed it as literal
truth -- right up until a few hundred years ago -- but there's
nothing to suggest that it was the "Common" or "Majority"
view.
It may have been. Few people had the ability to read much less ever see a
copy of the bible and they probably accepted what the parish priest told
them.
The contradictions between Gen 1 and 2 have been noted for at least 1300
years and I would guess that in the early days any lack of comment would
have been because most knew that these two separate stories were there
probably for political reasons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
01 Jun 2004 04:32:40 AM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote
It may have been. Few people had the ability to read much
less ever see a copy of the bible and they probably
accepted what the parish priest told them.
800 years ago, Joe & Jane average didn't put on there Sunday
best and stroll down to church.
Don't make the mistake of projecting the present day "Traditions"
backwards.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
02 Jun 2004 02:26:12 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 05:32:40 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote
It may have been. Few people had the ability to read much
less ever see a copy of the bible and they probably
accepted what the parish priest told them.
800 years ago, Joe & Jane average didn't put on there Sunday
best and stroll down to church.
Don't make the mistake of projecting the present day "Traditions"
backwards.
I have no idea what clothes they wore, but I would be very much
surprised to discover that the average person in Western Europe in the
year 1204 did not attend Church regularly especially in rural
villages. These people and their priest believed Genesis told a real
story as did the better educated clergy. This position was as good as
universal among Christians, Jews and Moslems.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
02 Jun 2004 03:47:58 AM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote
I have no idea what clothes they wore, but I would be very much
surprised to discover that the average person in Western Europe
in the year 1204 did not attend Church regularly especially in
rural villages.
You base this on... what?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
01 Jun 2004 12:27:14 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 May 2004 23:40:46 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote
What I also said was that this position is an historically
recent one, that, in the past, most Christians accepted
the literal truth of Genesis as did most Jews.
I sincerely doubt it.
It may not be a stretch that most religions pushed it as literal
truth -- right up until a few hundred years ago -- but there's
nothing to suggest that it was the "Common" or "Majority"
view.
I do not know what to say to the above. You have so obviously
contradicted yourself.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
01 Jun 2004 04:27:15 AM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote
It may not be a stretch that most religions pushed it as literal
truth -- right up until a few hundred years ago -- but there's
nothing to suggest that it was the "Common" or "Majority"
view.
I do not know what to say to the above. You have so obviously
contradicted yourself.
I'll make your day and post a few more items you can misrepresent
as contradictions:
Most "Christian" churches preach against divorce, though the
"Majority" view is that it is acceptable.
Most "Christian" churches have a big problem with abortion, though
polling demonstrates that the "Majority" describes itself as "Pro
Choice" to one extent or another.
There's a difference between a position held by a religion -- that is to
say, religious authority -- and one held by the common man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
02 Jun 2004 02:26:11 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 05:27:15 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote
It may not be a stretch that most religions pushed it as literal
truth -- right up until a few hundred years ago -- but there's
nothing to suggest that it was the "Common" or "Majority"
view.
I do not know what to say to the above. You have so obviously
contradicted yourself.
I'll make your day and post a few more items you can misrepresent
as contradictions:
The fact that most Christian sects pushed the idea is evidence that it
was the common view. It is not absolute evidence, but we know that,
not only did the ordinary Christian accept Gensis as literal truth, it
was also accepted by most educated people. There was a great deal of
resistence in the universities against any discovery that suggested
that Genesis was not literally true.
Most "Christian" churches preach against divorce, though the
"Majority" view is that it is acceptable.
Most "Christian" churches have a big problem with abortion, though
polling demonstrates that the "Majority" describes itself as "Pro
Choice" to one extent or another.
There's a difference between a position held by a religion -- that is to
say, religious authority -- and one held by the common man.
And then there is the knowledge that we have that belief in the
literal truth of Genesis was the common position of both laymen and
clergy and by the illiterate as well as the well-educated.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
02 Jun 2004 03:47:02 AM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote
The fact that most Christian sects pushed the idea is
evidence that it was the common view.
You have yet to establish that it ever was the common view,
even in the geographically limited region of Europe.
It is not absolute evidence, but we know that, not only did
the ordinary Christian accept Gensis as literal truth,
When? As you are so tied to this particular point in the past, can
you at least know what it is?
After that, we can then move on to questioning its relevance.
it was also accepted by most educated people.
Most "Educated" people looked to ancient Greece, and subscribed
to Aristotle's views. They may have been in sync with the church,
but they were not the church.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
30 May 2004 09:28:34 AM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:5v0jb01p15s6j6ve04fi2jv195p21i41p9@4ax.com...
<snip to>
No, seeing Genesis as a parable is a latter-day invention. It was
taught as the literal truth for thousands of years. Now many
Christians, in the face of reality, have decided to call it a parable
or an allegory instead of just admitting it was wrong.
Define 'latter-day'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
30 May 2004 01:46:09 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 May 2004 14:28:34 GMT, "DianaC" <dianaiad@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:5v0jb01p15s6j6ve04fi2jv195p21i41p9@4ax.com...
<snip to>
No, seeing Genesis as a parable is a latter-day invention. It was
taught as the literal truth for thousands of years. Now many
Christians, in the face of reality, have decided to call it a parable
or an allegory instead of just admitting it was wrong.
Define 'latter-day'.
I believe my statement above ("It was
taught as the literal truth for thousands of years.") takes care of
that. You must know that it was accepted literally by the great
majority of Christians (the educated included) up until the last
couple of centuries. The discovery was then made that it was not
intended to be literal. This discovery was made at the same time that
scientific discoveries made a literal interpretation untenable. Was
that just a coincidence?
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
31 May 2004 08:12:05 AM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:jnakb0hu0caq23p72vfkf5cr5c073d8oto@4ax.com...
On Sun, 30 May 2004 14:28:34 GMT, "DianaC" <dianaiad@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:5v0jb01p15s6j6ve04fi2jv195p21i41p9@4ax.com...
<snip to>
No, seeing Genesis as a parable is a latter-day invention. It was
taught as the literal truth for thousands of years. Now many
Christians, in the face of reality, have decided to call it a parable
or an allegory instead of just admitting it was wrong.
Define 'latter-day'.
I believe my statement above ("It was
taught as the literal truth for thousands of years.") takes care of
that.
A great many things were taught as the literal truth for thousands of years.
So were a great many contradictory things taught for the same thousands of
years. I think that picking one of those things and denying that the others
also existed is illogical.
You must know that it was accepted literally by the great
majority of Christians (the educated included) up until the last
couple of centuries.
"great majority" isn't everybody. (shrug) and it's not me.
The discovery was then made that it was not
intended to be literal. This discovery was made at the same time that
scientific discoveries made a literal interpretation untenable. Was
that just a coincidence?
Actually, the belief system I belong to was refering to it as a parable
before Darwin published...but far be it from me to screw things up for you.
(grin) Besides, I do have to admit that there are rabid creationist Mormons,
too. I don't understand 'em, but hey....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
31 May 2004 11:27:41 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 May 2004 13:12:05 GMT, "DianaC" <dianaiad@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:jnakb0hu0caq23p72vfkf5cr5c073d8oto@4ax.com...
On Sun, 30 May 2004 14:28:34 GMT, "DianaC" <dianaiad@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:5v0jb01p15s6j6ve04fi2jv195p21i41p9@4ax.com...
<snip to>
No, seeing Genesis as a parable is a latter-day invention. It was
taught as the literal truth for thousands of years. Now many
Christians, in the face of reality, have decided to call it a parable
or an allegory instead of just admitting it was wrong.
Define 'latter-day'.
I believe my statement above ("It was
taught as the literal truth for thousands of years.") takes care of
that.
A great many things were taught as the literal truth for thousands of years.
So were a great many contradictory things taught for the same thousands of
years. I think that picking one of those things and denying that the others
also existed is illogical.
My point was limited to the fact that Christians, up until recently,
accepted Genesis as literal truth, and that the change in attitude was
caused by the influence of scientific discovery. That is all I have
said, and I have been told that I am wrong.
You must know that it was accepted literally by the great
majority of Christians (the educated included) up until the last
couple of centuries.
"great majority" isn't everybody. (shrug) and it's not me.
Once again, I am not talking about now. I am, however, talking about
the main-line, orthodox Christian position, a position that was not
changed by any religious revelation but by scientific discovery.
The discovery was then made that it was not
intended to be literal. This discovery was made at the same time that
scientific discoveries made a literal interpretation untenable. Was
that just a coincidence?
Actually, the belief system I belong to was refering to it as a parable
before Darwin published...but far be it from me to screw things up for you.
(grin) Besides, I do have to admit that there are rabid creationist Mormons,
too. I don't understand 'em, but hey....
I never once mentioned Darwin. The fact remains that orthodox,
main-line Christianity accepted Genesis as literal truth. Christian
interpretation of what the Bible means has changed a number of times
in response to greater knowledge gained in the secular world. In
other words the Bible has been proven wrong repeatedly, and a common
Christian response has been to say, in effect, "What it really means
is...."; when the reasonable response would have been to admit that it
was wrong.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "D. Stephen Heersink" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Design |
30 May 2004 03:40:37 AM |
|
|
The Genesis stories on creation are myths, not literal truths. If
literally true, where did Cain and Abel get their wives from? Incest?
Or other creatures that evolved over time?
Kind regards,
_____________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
