All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Not saying there couldn't be a God of all creation. Yes. Such a god could exist. Is there any solid reason to believe, that such a god does exist? Just that these passages may just be simplified explanations of something no one could truly grasp at the time. Alright. Not bad for that time. That was then. This is now. In the distant future, nobody will be studying the Cosmology and Physics of today. Thus, may not be literal, as some folks do take. No. Not literal. That leaves the legitimate issues of poetry and culture. Is there enough spiritual truth and insight -- in poetic language -- to make these passages relevant to the present? To the future? Maybe. These are cultural issues. Yes. I think that these are important cultural artifacts. They should be studied. At minimum, Genesis as early literature, will always be important.
  3. Yesterday
  4. This may well be true, as "history" was orally passed down for many centuries, or, for some people's beliefs, after many generations before finally being written down. Men have always felt the need to explain the unknown. Thus, stories were made to explain things that were out of reach for them to understand, like the stars, the moon, or even how and where different lifeforms came about. Not saying there couldn't be a God of all creation. Just that these passages may just be simplified explanations of something no one could truly grasp at the time. Thus, may not be literal, as some folks do take.
  5. I just take Genesis 1 to be the myths of bronze age people. It is hard for me to see Genesis 1 as literal as it talks of days, morning, evening etc. All of which need a Sun to create. Interestingly the Sun was not created to the third day. I see this as poetic conjecture. It holds importance because of its historic view point but not as a scientific fact. If a God created all then this proposition of Gen 1 is not plausible as a means of creation. This and there is 13 billion light years across the known universe and many stars we cannot see with our eyes.. That is just the known universe. For all this to be about just the creation of this planet beggars belief for me. If there is a God then Gen 1 is not accurate for me.
  6. No problem, I'll admit that creation could have been done in literal days, thousand year days, or eons. My opinion isn't usually in line with mainstream Christianity. Here's a video that explains it better than I can, if you have time to listen to it. I studied with Pastor Arnold Murray for several years before he passed away, and most of my comments are based on his teachings.
  7. Last week
  8. In fairness, it is the most closed minds, that speak with total certitude. This kind of caution about meaning, suggests -- to me -- a thoughtful examination and open mindedness. I have to respect that.
  9. Happy Memorial Day Weekend everyoneย 

  10. There are some interesting ideas in modern physics and cosmology. I don't think this thread is the place for it. More to the point. It's not enough to say that a god created the Universe. Even if this is so -- I doubt it -- the question remains. Which god? There is the God of the Bible. There is the God of Deism. There is the God of Pantheism. There is the God of Hinduism. Without getting stuck on the details, of competing ideas in physics -- there is natural process. My vote is for natural process.
  11. Religious Christians know well enough, that the Norse gods are mythology -- that the Greek gods are mythology. Their God is different. Their God is real. So they talk to their invisible friend. Worse, they expect the rest of us, to be afraid of their invisible friend. None of this is metaphysics. It's culture. Even Atheists, fall into the trap, of talking about evidence. Who looks for evidence, that Thor is running around with his Hammer? We get stuck talking about evidence for God. It comes down to emotion. God beliefs are about culture and emotion, with invisible assumptions. Not so much about facts.
  12. Hi Dan... One would think that if that book really was inspired by an almighty god it would be more consistent and less prone to interpretation...
  13. This is an obvious error in the bible, as basic physics (measurement of light, carbon dating et cetera) disproves it.... Unlees you jump yet through another loop and declare some mythical creature put all those things in there just to deceive us...
  14. Well, this is a bit outdated (again) as science is moving back to the "steady state" theory. In short: the big bang came from a massive black hole which had swallowed all previous matter from our galaxy and all matter in our current galaxy will be swallowed up back again when all the stars become black holes one by one again. Culminating in one big black hole again which wil eventually burst again in a new big bang... This is also philosophically the only explanation as everything that has a start, must have an ending...
  15. Ah, sorry... definitely "lost in translation"... Smal steps... you can't empty a sceptic tank with one scoop of a shovel. But if we keep shovelling... it just feels sometimes like the ** is pouring in faster than we can shovel it out... But to me, personally, it feels really good that social studies have empirically proven some basic ingredients that "full-fill" people's lives (more than believing in fairy tales and waiting to die): sense of belonging to a community, having a loving family/friends, a day-filling (either voluntary, hobby or paid job) that gives accomplishment/makes the world a better place, et cetera... smal steps, real answers.
  16. As people, I expect we are all stubborn about our passions. What matters is yielding to the evidence. The company is agreeable and the conversation is pleasant. It's enough.
  17. A lot of my objections to the Bible follow the same pattern. As literal history -- as science -- Scripture is at best problematic. If we are looking at poetic expression -- I'm not motivated to argue with artistic expression. Back to the opening lines. Modern translation varies greatly. I don't remember which translation it was. "In the beginning, God began creating the Heavens and the Earth." It changes everything. In the standard version, Creation was long ago and far away. It feels like a fairy tale. In this version, Creation is still happening.
  18. I'm not telling you to stop believing in the six literal days of creation Dan. Twenty years ago I could argue 24 hour days as well as anyone. I suppose I still could. Coolhand was asking for exegesis of Genesis. I'm just trying to give him one that might be less mainstream. Yes I also used to use 2 Peter when I first got away from the 6 24 hour days. I'm not trying to convince anyone that how I see Genesis 1 is the only way that could be right. Just wanted to put a less talked about possibility out there to think about.๐Ÿ˜
  19. Yes, science is generally known for finally admitting when a previous theory is proven to be false ... Usually years and years later, sometimes decades pass before new theories are accepted. But hey, at least they usually, eventually become accepted. I understand that you feel the need for compelling evidence in order to believe in God. That's fine with me. I would enjoy being the person who presents you with that compelling evidence though, I don't think it's likely to happen in this thread.
  20. Thanks for your acknowledgement of the possibility of the days not having to be 24 hour days.๐Ÿ˜Ž I'm not quite to the fourth day yet. Hopefully we will be able to get there though .๐Ÿ˜Œ ๐Ÿ˜
  21. I personally believe that the creation story was 6 literal days, simply because the Hebrew seems to explicitly describe it as so. "And the evening and the morning were the third day" (Genesis 1:13). Such verses seem to indicate a 24 hour period by describing the rotation of the earth for each day. So imo, the day-night cycle equates to a literal day; "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1:5) But many Christians believe that one day equals a thousand year period. "In the day you eat of the fruit of this tree you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:17). Figuratively speaking, Adam, and all his offspring before the flood, died within a day (1000 yr). Other scripture support one day year; "I have appointed thee each day for a year" (Ezekiel 4:6). And a prophetic day as described in Daniel 9:24-27 is equivalent to one year. The Day of the Lord also last a millennium. But most refer to this verse; "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8).
  22. Yes. As you point out, these are interesting times for Cosmology and Physics. Also, as you point out -- an interesting time for secular scientists, who were loath to accept a starting time for the Universe. A Genesis style "Beginning." The difference between a mind set of religion and science; is that when new evidence is presented -- a scientist follows that evidence wherever it takes him -- regardless of personal bias. Regardless of likes and dislikes. Regardless of beliefs. I like to think that this is my orientation, to evidence regarding God. In the absence of evidence, I don't believe that God exists. Presented with compelling evidence -- like it or not -- I am prepared to reconsider, regardless of where the evidence takes me. I think that most Atheists would say something similar.
  23. I cheerfully agree with you, that the Creation "Days" of Genesis, could be a large, indeterminate time. That just means we are using the language of poetry, instead of more precise measurement. A tougher problem is sequence. Having the Sun, Moon and the other stars, all turn up on the fourth day -- that's a much tougher pill to swallow.
  24. For example, the first three words of the Bible state, in the beginning. Up until the early 20th century the best minds in science were adamant that the universe had no beginning nor would it have an end. It was known as the steady state theory. After Einstein's equations on general relativity were discovered George Lemaitre proposed, in 1927, an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts with spiral nebulae and calculated the Hubble law leading us to the big bang theory. After three and a half millennia science finally caught up to the Bible saying that the universe had a definite beginning. While Stephen Hawking said that there was no need for a first cause, that goes contrary to everything else we know about the physical universe.
  25. check your state laws.some states don't recognize celebrants or "marriage officiants". also be careful what you sign up for.
  1. Load more activity