Re: Re: Re: Re: Summoning Ethelred. . . About Genesis
I'm not wrong. I misunderstood you. There is a difference. Can you not admit that the passage I quoted seems to suggest you agree with the statement: "Evolution disproves Genesis."
It depends how we are using the term "wrong". Do you mean that Genesis does not provide an accurate, scientific explanation of the mechanism for the creation of the world and in that respect, it is wrong? If that is your point, we are agreed. However, if you mean that the fossil record (or evolution, or science in general) proves Genesis is wrong in attributing the creation of the world to God, then we disagree. Genesis 1-11 contains a great deal of factual (and even some historical) information but such information is only discernable when one appreciates the genre of literature you are reading; that is, when you stop reading it as science or history and instead read its various sections according to their genres (i.e. Hebrew Myth, Hebrew Genealogy, Hebrew Poetry, Hebrew Aetiology, etc.). Even then, it still requires diligent study and reflection as one is trying to come to terms with literature nearly 3000 years removed from our present era, culture, and language.
With respect to Fundamentalism, again I will reiterate that I can share many of your views against Fundamentalist and "Creationism" theorists. Christian Fundamentalism, as you know it, however, is a relatively small U.S.A. Bible Belt phenomenon. Most of their views would not be shared by Christians in other parts of the U.S.A. and Canada, and especially not by European Christians.
I appreciate that you have now declared that evolution has proven their concept of Genesis wrong. Because that is precisely it: Science, and more specifically evolution and the fossil record, can be appropriately employed to argue against "Creationism" as espoused by Fundamentalists. I caution you, however, to consider that science cannot necessarily be used to disprove Genesis, Creation, the Supernatural, or the Christian God. Can we agree on that?
Originally posted by Ethelred
This a short one so I will deal with it now. The big ones come later.
Your wrong.
This a short one so I will deal with it now. The big ones come later.
Your wrong.
Originally posted by Ethelred
Its not the fact of evolution nor the theory of evolution that shows Genesis ONE wrong although Genesis TWO does have a problem with evolution in general. Its the details in the fossil record that show that Genesis one is wrong. Since you have agreed that Genesis one is not factual in any case you yourself don't think its right so whats the problem?
Just to cover the new base I touched on, Genesis TWO says that kind follows kind which happens to the main reason that Creationists often don't accept evolution to any degree at all. Evolution the theory shows HOW kind does not always follow kind and evolution the fact shows that species do indeed change.
So I suppose you could say that evolution in general does actualy show at least one part of Genesis to be wrong. If that upsets you remember that you don't think Genesis is historical either so you in fact are in agreement with the point I was making. I was talking to a Fundamentalist. He has an entirely different idea of what makes Genesis significant than you do. Evolution does indeed prove HIS concept of Genesis wrong. You concept is sufficiently nebulous to be unasaiable but it is hardly the only concept out there. 25% of Americans think that the Bible is a factual book and not literture. They would consider you a heretic. Fundamentalists do like theologians that are Fundamentalist. Many would say your are doing the devils work. Indeed I have seen them call any English language version of the Bible than the KJV to be Satanic and you think the KJV is full of mistakes.
So wellcome to the land of Satanism. You and I both are members to many believers. Does this sort of thing give you an idea of what my style of discussion regarding the Bible is directed towards. People that say I am immoral not merely for being an Agnostic but even for not being a born again christian.
Its not the fact of evolution nor the theory of evolution that shows Genesis ONE wrong although Genesis TWO does have a problem with evolution in general. Its the details in the fossil record that show that Genesis one is wrong. Since you have agreed that Genesis one is not factual in any case you yourself don't think its right so whats the problem?
Just to cover the new base I touched on, Genesis TWO says that kind follows kind which happens to the main reason that Creationists often don't accept evolution to any degree at all. Evolution the theory shows HOW kind does not always follow kind and evolution the fact shows that species do indeed change.
So I suppose you could say that evolution in general does actualy show at least one part of Genesis to be wrong. If that upsets you remember that you don't think Genesis is historical either so you in fact are in agreement with the point I was making. I was talking to a Fundamentalist. He has an entirely different idea of what makes Genesis significant than you do. Evolution does indeed prove HIS concept of Genesis wrong. You concept is sufficiently nebulous to be unasaiable but it is hardly the only concept out there. 25% of Americans think that the Bible is a factual book and not literture. They would consider you a heretic. Fundamentalists do like theologians that are Fundamentalist. Many would say your are doing the devils work. Indeed I have seen them call any English language version of the Bible than the KJV to be Satanic and you think the KJV is full of mistakes.
So wellcome to the land of Satanism. You and I both are members to many believers. Does this sort of thing give you an idea of what my style of discussion regarding the Bible is directed towards. People that say I am immoral not merely for being an Agnostic but even for not being a born again christian.
With respect to Fundamentalism, again I will reiterate that I can share many of your views against Fundamentalist and "Creationism" theorists. Christian Fundamentalism, as you know it, however, is a relatively small U.S.A. Bible Belt phenomenon. Most of their views would not be shared by Christians in other parts of the U.S.A. and Canada, and especially not by European Christians.
I appreciate that you have now declared that evolution has proven their concept of Genesis wrong. Because that is precisely it: Science, and more specifically evolution and the fossil record, can be appropriately employed to argue against "Creationism" as espoused by Fundamentalists. I caution you, however, to consider that science cannot necessarily be used to disprove Genesis, Creation, the Supernatural, or the Christian God. Can we agree on that?
Comment