creationism is the truth
-
Actually the question you should ask yourself is, if the author of Genesis can write God until He is so powerful (one word from Him and all the animals appeared? lol), why did he resort to creating Eve from the ribs of Adam?Originally posted by kaister:You do not take the heart cos' it would mean that Eve will feel/think the same as Adam?
It seems tough for me to understand that Adam would love a piece of his rib more than a piece of his heart. It's less romantic and has less significance in terms of symbolism.
Also, to infer that if she was created with Adam's heart, Eve would think and feel like Adam is pure speculation. It is like trying to twist the symbolism in the favour of explaining why God took the non-functional, less-symbolic, less-poetic rib from Adam in his sleep.
All that trouble when God could just, in his almighty powers, create Eve from anything he wants.
In the end, God didn't create Eve out of nothing. Cos' he wanted the symbolism of love and equality of status to be represented by a rib. The discussion would never end cos' it will go round in circles in search of obscure symbolism to make up for any lacking in logic.
In the end, I can even see the conclusion of it all - we can't judge God cos' he's perfect and omnipotent. It would not bring us any closer from seeing the truth ourselves and only to force us to accept that as a fact.
Sorry Icemoon, I really can't figure out how different the bible is from your normal weekly horoscope. Perhaps I would need more convincing.
Anyway Scripture did not say, I repeat, did not say that God wanted the symbolism of love and equality of status to be represented by a rib. This comes from Jewish tradition which did not come together with Scripture.
If you want to talk about symbolism, I think the ribs is more appropriate than the heart because if you look at gender relationship today:
1. Woman think differently from Man, this is obvious. Got people even say Woman from Venus Man from Mars?
2. On the other hand, Woman is the closest emotional companion of Man. This is the main reason why we get married - we need a soul mate, someone who will console us when we are down and out.
Has it occured to you why aliens from two different planet can live together and be soul mates?
You are right, this whole argument never ends. I was just pointing out Genesis need not be so illogical as you think.
-
Yes I've heard about mark of cain and how he was allowed to live for 7 generations.Originally posted by Icemoon:So the story goes, Cain murdered his brother Abel and was banished.
But note what the text also says - Cain expected people to kill him! Who are these people, we ask?
Furthermore if Cain was in exile, are we saying one of his sisters also went into exile?!
This is where Genesis goes weird. No mention of where the rest of the people came from. Did they come from Adam and Eve? Did God make them? Where do they come from? I don't think any of that was mentioned and they are, yet again, left for interpretation.
I still maintain the stand that Genesis is too confusing and symbolic to be treated as an historical evidence.
Edit: Added missing word - people -
Erm .. who is treating Genesis as historical evidence?Originally posted by kaister:Yes I've heard about mark of cain and how he was allowed to live for 7 generations.
This is where Genesis goes weird. No mention of where the rest of the came from. Did they come from Adam and Eve? Did God make them? Where do they come from? I don't think any of that was mentioned and they are, yet again, left for interpretation.
I still maintain the stand that Genesis is too confusing and symbolic to be treated as an historical evidence.
Using the bible to prove history and science is machiam the exclusive domain of Christians.
For the Jews, if you want to know science, they ask you to read Einstein. If you want to know history, they direct you to some credible historical research.
Which is probably why you seldom or never find creationists that are Jewish. -
Yes, that is the question I wanted to ask. Why take a rib when you can create something out of nothing? Genesis never mentioned anything and all are left for interpretations.Originally posted by Icemoon:Actually the question you should ask yourself is, if the author of Genesis can write God until He is so powerful (one word from Him and all the animals appeared? lol), why did he resort to creating Eve from the ribs of Adam?
Anyway Scripture did not say, I repeat, did not say that God wanted the symbolism of love and equality of status to be represented by a rib. This comes from Jewish tradition which did not come together with Scripture.
If you want to talk about symbolism, I think the ribs is more appropriate than the heart because if you look at gender relationship today:
1. Woman think differently from Man, this is obvious. Got people even say Woman from Venus Man from Mars?
2. On the other hand, Woman is the closest emotional companion of Man. This is the main reason why we get married - we need a soul mate, someone who will console us when we are down and out.
Has it occured to you why aliens from two different planet can live together and be soul mates?
You are right, this whole argument never ends. I was just pointing out Genesis need not be so illogical as you think.
As for your observations, they can all be explained by evolution:
1. Women think differently due to different reproductive strategies. As the womb-holder, women are expected to stay at home and look after the kids. They can't go for a more-is-better strategy because they have limited childbearing years. This focusing of resources allows them to have stronger, better raised children to spread their genes futher. They focus on quality, rather than quantity.
Men, however, can get more of their genes represented in the next generation by sleeping with as many women as they can. Their thinking patterns can be easily explained by how their best reproductive strategy works. Quantity is better than quality. Their work is done when the egg is fertilised.
Similar patterns can be seen in the animal kingdom. Darwinism explains sexual behaviour shaped by generations of evolution perfectly.
2. Is it true that humans really need a soul mate? The divorce rate in US is at 46%, an all time high. Women, as I've mentioned earlier, would benefit from keeping their men next to them, so that food and water will not be a problem when she is raising her children. She perhaps need someone, rather than a soulmate to ensure the reproductive success of her offsprings. In time, that need was reinforced by genes and developed into the emotional needs in women we see today.
Men, however, do not need soulmates. They are perfectly fine with their hunting parties, staring blankly into camp fires. A similar phenomenon can be observed at bars or living room.
Note, these are generalisations. There are always exceptions. -
My bad.Originally posted by Icemoon:Erm .. who is treating Genesis as historical evidence?
Using the bible to prove history and science is machiam the exclusive domain of Christians.
For the Jews, if you want to know science, they ask you to read Einstein. If you want to know history, they direct you to some credible historical research.
Which is probably why you seldom or never find creationists that are Jewish.
And that's why you never see me arguing with a Jew over this issue. -
Hmm .. I have a feeling you are saying evolution is mutually exclusive with the Genesis account?
-
Yes. Very exclusive. Cos' evolution would imply we came from monkey like primates and we share teh same ancesters as bacteria. A view not tolerated by Genesis cos':Originally posted by Icemoon:Hmm .. I have a feeling you are saying evolution is mutually exclusive with the Genesis account?
Genesis 1:26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. -
One difference between Jewish and Christian interpreting tradition is that the Jews are constantly shaping their metaphors based on the reality around them.Originally posted by kaister:My bad.
And that's why you never see me arguing with a Jew over this issue.
The Christian understanding of God is still stuck, believe it or not, at the pre-medieval age when the Trinity was formulated. Whereas if you look at the Jews, Kabbalah never took shape until the middle age but the Jews still include the eosteric philosophy under their umbrella. So the Jews have many ways to understand God, for them it is a never ending process of learning about God and pondering about His Ways.
The clearest example to illustrate the difference is to look at how the typical Christian understand Judaism today. To the Christian, Judaism is synonymous with the one in the Old Testament - law, law and law.
Too bad for them, Jewish thinking has evolved and the sages has declared some of the commandments to be void because of changing environment - one notable example being the Temple is no more and some of the commandments cannot be performed without the Temple; it is a sin to perform them now. -
Originally posted by kaister:Yes. Very exclusive. Cos' evolution would imply we came from monkey like primates and we share teh same ancesters as bacteria. A view not tolerated by Genesis cos':
Genesis 1:26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
How do you think Jewish sages reconcile that?
Yes, amazing as it sounds, the Jewish interpretation was formulated before the advent of modern science but it still fares better than explanation conjured by the so called creation scientists. -
I dunno if they will agree.Originally posted by Icemoon:
How do you think Jewish sages reconcile that?
Yes, amazing as it sounds, the Jewish interpretation was formulated before the advent of modern science but it still fares better than explanation conjured by the so called creation scientists.
Btw, are you a Jew or Christian? -
Well .. at least there is no contradiction as far as I can see. The last 'Jewish' book I read recently is about a Jewish rabbi who is trying to understand God using modern scientific metaphors like strings and Calabi-Yau space .. LOLOriginally posted by kaister:I dunno if they will agree.
Btw, are you a Jew or Christian?
To the Christians, the Jews might seem quite liberal in their theology. But to me, underneath this liberty is a sense of unity, an inter-connectiveness that links many branches of human discipline like science and ethics. It is like .. this faith can still be relevant for me as a human living in the 21st century.
When I read a Jewish interpretation of Scripture, the way the Jewish author encourages thinking, the way he challenges you to think and rethink Scripture, the feeling is .. exhilarating. It is like finding wisdom from an ancient text .. and you wonder why the writings of Christian theologians cannot give you the same feeling.
I can't be a Jew or else I will say 'we' when referring to Jews.
I am not even circumcised.
-
LETS GET BACK TO THE TOPIC
-
Originally posted by davidche:LETS GET BACK TO THE TOPIC Okie we shall.
Icemoon mentioned that the Jews might have a different view. They think evolution and creationism is not mutually exclusive? How would Jews then try to explain away the staggering viewpoints of both I've mentioned earlier?Originally posted by kaister:Yes. Very exclusive. Cos' evolution would imply we came from monkey like primates and we share teh same ancesters as bacteria. A view not tolerated by Genesis cos':
Genesis 1:26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. -
It will be how Catholics try to explain it.
Catholics like to psycho society to NOT use condom .. but you see them psycho society for creationism? -
Nope. They don't dare to do it openly and publicly.Originally posted by Icemoon:It will be how Catholics try to explain it.
Catholics like to psycho society to NOT use condom .. but you see them psycho society for creationism? -
well, I don't see them forming some silly creation society and doing it either.Originally posted by kaister:Nope. They don't dare to do it openly and publicly. -
Yo sorry i've been away.
In any case, for kaister, a few points to note.
1 - Jewish scholars regard Genesis as a poem. Thus, the literal meaning of creation should not be taken as a literal form. eg: the garden of eden was not a physical representation of a place, but rather, it was a connotation of an ideal world which god created.
2 - Incest was a-ok with everyone until Moses (I think? or was it abraham) came along. Well, everyone is really referring to the jews here, since everybody else went to hell, and incest wouldn't have had matter to them.
thus, it is not really appropriate to say that incest is a disturbing thought. Even with evolution, i'm sure that at some point in time whilst running its course, incest was rampant.
3 - with regards to soulmates, divorce, adultery etc are all part of "free will". The intent of god was to create them and get them to stay together, and this is still somewhat acceptable if you relate it back to point number 1. It's not unlike eating the forbidden fruit, which again, is a metaphor.
that being said, I have no idea what the jewish stand on evolution is. I suspect, due to the scholastic nature of their religion they would probably be arguing about it internally themselves.
anyway, imo, where religious arguments are concerned, it all boils down to the existance of god. since nobody can disprove it, it leaves a huge gaping ravine for arguments where neither side can really win.
scientists (and i use this term loosely) certainly feel that we are the enlightened ones, having understood what causes certain behaviours by research and evidence.
Religious arguments are plain and simple; they simply insist that you're wrong ("it dosen't prove anything", as demonstrated by vince69), insist their doctrine is right, and, had you lived in a society where inquisitorial society, accuse you of being an agent of the devil.,
sigh. oh yes, i was just watching a tv program regarding the debate on stem cell research. perhaps someone ought to start a new thread regarding that. -
Jewish scholars regard Genesis as a poem. Thus, the literal meaning of creation should not be taken as a literal form. eg: the garden of eden was not a physical representation of a place, but rather, it was a connotation of an ideal world which god created.
Then we have a problem. Whether the world is created by god is unknown, whether men is created by god is unknown, whether adam eat the fruit is unknown, whether eve come from men is unknown, anything about noah is unknown and many issues left unknown if the we simply treat genesis as a peom. Or u gonna say u believe in part of it and reject part of it ? Then which part accept which part reject ? U reject the one u hate and accept the one u like, like buffet ? -
I pretty much reject all of it really, but that's just me. Keep in mind that the bible, for most parts, does not make any literal sense to me.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Then we have a problem. Whether the world is created by god is unknown, whether men is created by god is unknown, whether adam eat the fruit is unknown, whether eve come from men is unknown, anything about noah is unknown and many issues left unknown if the we simply treat genesis as a peom. Or u gonna say u believe in part of it and reject part of it ? Then which part accept which part reject ? U reject the one u hate and accept the one u like, like buffet ?
The point here rather, is that they do not claim to comprehend the writings thoroughly. Instead, they choose to keep an open mind about how the bible is interpreted. eg: the gift of apple is really eve offering adam sex. Thus, the scholastic nature of their religion. They are always STUDYING the book objectively, and not just accept it simplistically, unlike christianity. -
Oh no... that whole debate will take away the rest of my life away...Originally posted by nomood:sigh. oh yes, i was just watching a tv program regarding the debate on stem cell research. perhaps someone ought to start a new thread regarding that.
Btw, Bush took away all government funding for stem cell research in US, practically signing the death note for all those diseased people waiting for stem cell therapies. -
Originally posted by kaister:Oh no... that whole debate will take away the rest of my life away...
Btw, Bush took away all government funding for stem cell research in US, practically signing the death note for all those diseased people waiting for stem cell therapies. no biggie, really. Just go to other places where stem cell research is approved.
Like Singapore!
Anyway you'll find that the nature of the argument is not very different, everybody is really one step short of name calling. What's interesting is that science is actually on the defending side this time. -
It's all about drawing the line where life begins. Trust me, when enough people are dying and in need of stem cell research, the church will change its stance. It's just not time for us as a society to accept stem cell research.Originally posted by nomood: no biggie, really. Just go to other places where stem cell research is approved.
Like Singapore!
Anyway you'll find that the nature of the argument is not very different, everybody is really one step short of name calling. What's interesting is that science is actually on the defending side this time. -
Originally posted by nomood:What's interesting is that science is actually on the defending side this time.
This definitely put a smile on my face. -
I'm sure it willOriginally posted by ben1xy:
This definitely put a smile on my face.
Hahaha... -
Not really. That's only 1 point, albeit very major point. another major point is, where does the cloning stop?Originally posted by kaister:It's all about drawing the line where life begins. Trust me, when enough people are dying and in need of stem cell research, the church will change its stance. It's just not time for us as a society to accept stem cell research.
There are other issues such as treating a women's body as a factory for producing eggs, or the health issues, or simply the research method which is viewed as terribly inefficient.
We could go all day at these, but the general concensus seem to be that the opposing camp are accusing the scientists of peddling false hope as "there isn't enough credible evidence taht stem cells can be used for therepeutic cloning", and the scientists going on and on about, "that's what research is about! that's what we're here for!"
I personally stand on the side of the scientists, though this is one issue which i feel should be treated with plenty of care, simply because it is so easy to go errant in their quest to be the first.