More Stupid Religion Bollocks!

[Wezil]

The should have put a disclaimer on the front of that section.

[Kidlicious]

The should have put a disclaimer on the front of that section.

It's pretty obvious. What would an actual 'tree of knowledge of good and evil' look like?

[Wezil]

A pot plant.

[Kidlicious]

"That's not the key Man"
-Cheech

The doctor tells Cheech he'll give him "the key", and gives both Cheech and Chong "the key to the universe", actually medicated pills.

Cheech and Chong swallow the pills and fantasize and get high off the pills. As they fantasize and have weird hallucinations about being hung and killed,

[Imran Siddiqui]

Have you actually read Genesis 1 and 2? They are not in contradiction. They are the same story told with two different point of views.

No. They completely contradict each other.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Verse 19 says that animals had been created.

Only in the NIV to rectify the contradiction. This is the NKJV (Gen 2:18-19):

18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.

No "had formed", but "formed" the beats so that man should not be alone.

As the Biblical scholar, Pete Enns, from the Religion & Science website, Biologos, puts it:

http://biologos.org/blog/israels-two-creation-stories-part-1/

The two creation stories are not saying the “same thing,” nor does Genesis 2 follow chronologically from Genesis 1. They are two distinct stories of creation, both in terms of content and order. They cannot be harmonized—they were never intended to be.

[Jon Miller]

The stories they tell are harmonious.

By looking at the harmony, the important parts and message are identified.

JM

[germanos]

The stories they tell are harmonious.

By looking at the harmony, the important parts and message are identified.

JM

The stories they tell are contradictory.
By looking at the important parts, the contradictions and inconsistencies are identified.

[germanos]

The whole creation story is metaphorical.

The whole creation story is fictional. Both of them.

[Jon Miller]

Huh? What do you think is the important parts of Genesis 1 and 2?

And how does your statement make any sense whatsoever?

If there are two stories describing the same thing (man's relationship with God), and they are different, the similarities are the first place to look for the message in the meta-story. This is true with all of the Bible, not just Genesis 1 & 2.

Obviously the people who included both stories in Genesis could read. What was the meaning that was being conveyed by the stories? If you think it was that it was that the stories were nonsensical, contradictory, and inconsistent, I think that you are being irrational.

JM

[Elok]

It should be pretty obvious that the Bible, historically, was never regarded as a document to be read as literal, factual truth. If you went back to an agrarian peasant of basically any era and suggested he spend forty days and forty nights inside a largely enclosed space with several hundred animals, he wouldn't do it for any money. His everyday experience would tell him that he'd suffocate on waste byproducts before a single week was out, even if he managed to keep them all fed. Yet he would have no problem accepting the story of Noah's Ark, though his intelligence was likely no lower than the average modern person's. Why? Because he didn't trouble himself to think of scripture that way. Whether at any point in time eight people and a massive number of animals actually spent over a month inside a boat the size of a football field is irrelevant to the message of the story, or to his duty as a Jew or Christian.

Then came the Enlightenment, and people tried to apply scientific rigor to received religious texts based on a number of ancient, frequently-transcribed manuscripts. Naturally, they were found wanting. The error of many religious people was to act defensive about this instead of pointing out, with equal validity, that Isaac Newton's works make crappy poetry and The Origin of Species is a poor source of moral guidance. I blame sola scriptura, personally, but then I blame sola scriptura for everything. If my dog pees on the floor, it's Luther's fault.

[C0ckney]

on an unrelated tangent, i found a huge book recently containing the writings of early protestant churchmen. R$5 in this amazing bookshop in botafogo. great stuff.

[Provost Harrison]

In my experience, there are better things to look at in Botafogo than religious books

[germanos]

Huh? What do you think is the important parts of Genesis 1 and 2?

And how does your statement make any sense whatsoever?

If there are two stories describing the same thing (man's relationship with God), and they are different, the similarities are the first place to look for the message in the meta-story. This is true with all of the Bible, not just Genesis 1 & 2.

Obviously the people who included both stories in Genesis could read. What was the meaning that was being conveyed by the stories? If you think it was that it was that the stories were nonsensical, contradictory, and inconsistent, I think that you are being irrational.

JM

My rephrasing of your statement makes more sense then your original. It certainly is more rational.

Genesis 1 and 2 describe, each in their own way, the creation of Earth, life and mankind. The two are incompatible. I understand you try to distille some meta-story out of them to make sense of them. But Genesis 1 doesn't mention (let alone describes) the relation between humans and god, Genesis 2 does (partially). That theme is not the binding element between the two.

[germanos]

It should be pretty obvious that the Bible, historically, was never regarded as a document to be read as literal, factual truth.

Then why quote from it?

Then came the Enlightenment, and people tried to apply scientific rigor to received religious texts based on a number of ancient, frequently-transcribed manuscripts. Naturally, they were found wanting.

Off course, since they wanted to stick to dogma and their outdated ways.

The error of many religious people was to act defensive about this instead of pointing out, with equal validity, that Isaac Newton's works make crappy poetry and The Origin of Species is a poor source of moral guidance.

No way! Newton never intended to write poetry nor did Darwin ever intended to write a book on morals! What a piss-poor argument do you present for the dogmatists.