Poll

Are you an Atheist or a Thiest?

Thiest
39 (39%)
Atheist
34 (34%)
Agnostic (undecided)
27 (27%)

Total Members Voted: 100

Author Topic: What are your reasons for believing whatever you may believe about Christianity?  (Read 17534 times)

Just here to make a point about the Theory of Evolution regarding the creation story in Genesis 1-3.

Many people believe the creation story and the theory of evolution to contradict each other, but this entirely depends on the way we read and interpret both the creation story and the world around us. Before addressing the creation story in Genesis 1-3 itself, I'd like to address the 3 main origin beliefs Christians hold. There are Young-Earth Creationists (YEC), Old-Earth Creationists (OEC), and Evolutionary Creationists (EC). YEC believe that Genesis 1-3 is a literal account of the events that took place during the formation of the universe and that the Earth is only ~6000 years old. This belief is very common among Christians. OEC believe the same as YEC, except that the Earth was created to appear old. So despite it's actual age of ~6000 years, it appears to be much older than that and has evidence suggesting as much. For scientific, theological, and other such reasons, this is an unpopular theory among Christians. EC believe that the current scientific understanding of the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang were created by God and are supported by Genesis 1-3, and that the story of Genesis is not a literal interpretation.

As you may have noticed, the real difference comes down the the interpretation of the creation story. While the literal approach is fairly straight forward, if it is non-literal, then the way you arrive at your interpretation matters just as much, if not more, than what the actual text says. Most Christians choose the literal interpretation of the Bible because the New Testament, especially the books concerning Jesus, seem to be literal accounts. Not wanting to get caught on a slippery slope about how certain books and stories should be interpreted, the prefer to interpret the entire collection as literal. However, I believe this is a mistake.

Firstly, the creation story found in Genesis 1-3 is actually two different creation stories written by two different authors hundreds of years apart. Genesis 1:1-2:3 is known as The Elohim and focuses on the creation of the Earth and the greatness of the Creator. Genesis 2:4-3:24 is known as the Yahweh and focuses on the creation and the downfall of humanity. To interpret that literally as one cohesive story creates problems for the narrative as the intended focus of the stories create shifts in the chronological events. Viewed as two separate stories, these issues matter less.

Secondly, the context in which we understand the creation story found in Genesis 1-3, as well as the rest of the Bible, matters greatly in how we interpret it. The contextual lens in which we view and interpret reality is called an ontology. Understanding our current ontology, as well as past ontologies, is crucial to understanding how a text is to be interpreted. The context by which most modern humans interpret our reality is known as a material ontology. When we view something, we tend to interpret it as a list of traits. If I ask you to picture a wheel in your head, most of you would begin to think of physical traits about that wheel. The size, the color, the material it's made from, etc. This material ontology gives us a very literal interpretation of the world around us, which is possibly why so many people choose to view the text of Genesis 1-3 literally. However, this ontology didn't seem to be shared by the authors that wrote the Elohim and Yahweh. The ontology of their era was known as a functional ontology. Instead of viewing something as a list of traits, things were viewed in the functions they served. This sort of thinking appears in many stories from that era. While the change in ontolgies seems minor, when thinking about the abstract, this is a massive change in how we interpret. If the authors intended us to interpret what they wrote based on the functions provided versus the traits they showed, then the way we view those things becomes drastically different.


I was going to write more, but I'm really tired and I think this is at least good enough to effect the debate at least a little bit. I can come back and add more or clarify things as needed.

ITT: people trying to convince each other that the other is wrong even though neither side will ever cave in and admit being wrong


I'm personally a young earth creationist, but at the end of the day it really doesn't matter which version you believe. It just makes for some interesting discussion.

1) Because humans like 3 and multiples of 3 for some odd reason.
The clock has 24 hours because it lets you divide it in many different ways to come to an integer.
You can divide it by two, by three, by four, by six, by eight and by twelve.

Compare that to something like, 10, which you can only divide by 2 and 5.


I never actually read the new testament

From what I've been told and read from the old testament is that God looks for any excuse to harm or possess others and decide not to warn people that what they're doing will have consequences until after bad stuff happens to them.

I also really like to read the Brick Bible; it's the same as the old testament but has pictues lego minifigures to add to the imagery and fun.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2015, 03:57:17 AM by SBG »

I'm personally a young earth creationist, but at the end of the day it really doesn't matter which version you believe. It just makes for some interesting discussion.
It must kind of suck though, right? Holding that kind of belief when literally all the evidence points to the fact that the Earth is billions of years old?

Like, the cognitive dissonance must be pretty much unbearable unless nobody ever challenges you on it.

The Old Testament is one of the funniest reads out there. If you can take it's advice seriously, you should probably be sent to a tribal camp on an island nation where those kinds of ethics are still tolerated.

Here's a fun fact: the bible is a book. Books tell stories. Some are based on fact in order to teach us or to entertain us. Some are based on metaphor/allegory (aka fiction) in order to teach us or to entertain us. The moment you start treating the book as the be all and end all is also the same moment that you lose your ability to comprehend rational thought.

Why does it loving matter what some Jewish guy did hundreds of years ago? What matters is the now and the future. forget the book. Study science. Study psychology. If you really give a stuff, you'll find the things in actual life that justify your beliefs, as opposed to blocking everything out because some dusty old tome said otherwise.

I believe because of stuff I deal with day-to-day. I can't see how anybody in this modern age, with years and years of civilisation and technological advancement behind us can still treat that book as the almighty loving guide.

law is proven, not theory
iirc
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

Edit: Oops, sorry I saw that this definition was already posted. Regardless, I think I'll leave it here just in case anyone didn't read the last page.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2015, 06:39:27 AM by Machaty »

What about creationists that believe God made the earth with natural processes because science thoroughly backs that but do not believe in macroevolution because, however common in the scientific world, there simply isn't enough evidence to back it.

The fact of the matter as far as creation is that the bible frequently uses time metaphorically or on different scales. It's completely reasonable that the earth was made in figurative days, not literal ones.

On the other hand it is quite explicit with regards to the creation of life. Never does it use the explicit creation of something and not mean for it to be taken literally (I think).


All of this being said I want to say that I dont identify as any religion but I think the bible is pretty neat.

What about creationists that believe God made the earth with natural processes because science thoroughly backs that but do not believe in macroevolution because, however common in the scientific world, there simply isn't enough evidence to back it.

The fact of the matter as far as creation is that the bible frequently uses time metaphorically or on different scales. It's completely reasonable that the earth was made in figurative days, not literal ones.

On the other hand it is quite explicit with regards to the creation of life. Never does it use the explicit creation of something and not mean for it to be taken literally (I think).


All of this being said I want to say that I dont identify as any religion but I think the bible is pretty neat.

I pretty much hold that view. I do believe that Pangea once existed as a whole supercontinent, animals can adapt in order to suit their environment, and that humanity could be wiped out by a cataclysmic natural disaster (or multiple disasters) or by our own accord among other things. Woo God. Woo science.

At the end of the day, results from the Scientific Method are true whether or not you believe in it, which is fine by me.

I don't stand by with possibility, conjecture, or ignorance. It's improper, and anyone who disagrees with logical reasoning and experiment is quite frankly a disappointment.
Something is either correct, or it isn't.  I'll choose to follow and practice what is correct, truthful, and honest.


What about creationists that believe God made the earth with natural processes because science thoroughly backs that but do not believe in macroevolution because, however common in the scientific world, there simply isn't enough evidence to back it.

The fact of the matter as far as creation is that the bible frequently uses time metaphorically or on different scales. It's completely reasonable that the earth was made in figurative days, not literal ones.

On the other hand it is quite explicit with regards to the creation of life. Never does it use the explicit creation of something and not mean for it to be taken literally (I think).


All of this being said I want to say that I dont identify as any religion but I think the bible is pretty neat.
Pretty much how I think.  Also how's it going, dude?