Adam And Eve, Noah And The Origion Of Man

[Redzeppelin]

You believe, which finally is all that can or need be said. Your CS Lewis quote says more - and different - I think than how you take it. We ALL see by the light of the sun. But to see by the 'light' of Christianity is to see only in a particular way and to exclude everything that is beyond the scope of that illumination.

In actuality, I believe that Lewis is correct on two levels:

1. Christianity allows us to "see" the world in a way that takes the random, arbitrary and meaningless aspects of it away and instead replaces these things with a cohesive explanation as to why we're here, how we got here, why the world and human nature is like it is and what the eventual solution to the world's problems shall be.

2. The only rational way to view reality is through the "lens" of God. The illumination of Christianity does not "exclude" anything except that which is false and contrary to the character of God. Non-believers see Christianity as restrictive - but it is only restrictive of that which is harmful, selfish, evil.

And, as far as your comment about how Christianity "sees...only in a particular way...[excluding] that [which is] beyond the scope of its illumination" - tell me: what way of seeing the world doesn't do this? What perspective doesn't exclude and "see" in a paticular fashion?

[spa girl]

I know this is off-topic, but I wonder, did the writers of the bible know that the earth was round, or did they think it was flat?

If god created the earth, wouldn't he know it was round? And since the writers of the bible claim to know what god did, wouldn't they also know it was round?

[spa girl]

Also, I see this is a religious thread started by kiobe & contains posts by kiobe AND it's lasted for THREE PAGES without being locked! Is this a record for you, kiobe? Should we be celebrating?

[PrinceMyshkin]

2. The only rational way to view reality is through the "lens" of God. The illumination of Christianity does not "exclude" anything except that which is false and contrary to the character of God. Non-believers see Christianity as restrictive - but it is only restrictive of that which is harmful, selfish, evil.

And, as far as your comment about how Christianity "sees...only in a particular way...[excluding] that [which is] beyond the scope of its illumination" - tell me: what way of seeing the world doesn't do this? What perspective doesn't exclude and "see" in a paticular fashion?

Re 2: I recall you saying elsewhere that Catholics do not speak for Christians or Christianity. So there is a Catholic "lens"...and Mormon, Jewish, Muslim &c. lenses.

[Redzeppelin]

Re 2: I recall you saying elsewhere that Catholics do not speak for Christians or Christianity. So there is a Catholic "lens"...and Mormon, Jewish, Muslim &c. lenses.

Certainly; but you appear to have missed the point I was trying to make: non-believers possess their own "lenses" (Naturalism being one of the most popular) that are equally prone to exclude and quantify.

Your initial criticism is another variation of the same old song-and-dance atheists often do where they try to make it seem like people who accept Christianity are viewing the world "narrowly" while they - the skeptically "enlightened" - are unencumbered likewise. That is false.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Your initial criticism is another variation of the same old song-and-dance atheists often do where they try to make it seem like people who accept Christianity are viewing the world "narrowly" while they - the skeptically "enlightened" - are unencumbered likewise. That is false.

No. "Atheists" cannot be treated as a uniform, monolithic group. They have no rituals, no process of initiation, no fixed, static text of dubious origin, no heirarchy to pass on or dictate what to believe. They are open to diverse, expanding and testable findings, e.g. astro-physics, molecular and evolutionary biology, neurophysics, chemistry, bio-chemistry &c., as well as to secular and even theological philosophy.

[Derringer]

what way of seeing the world doesn't do this?

Communism. In theory, atleast.

[MaryLupin]

Anthropolgists have shown that after the initial increase in the population of the world that at one point in time there was a devistating decrease in the population and estimates are at about 2,000 people. Is there a correlation between the real decrease in population and the flood story in the bible?

Since you appear to be using this data to support a literalist reading of the text could you please cite your source? The reason I ask is that as an anthropologist I must admit I have never run into any data even close to this in any of the refereed journals I have read over the years.

[Dark Star]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

I'm just going to post that in regards to the issue of 'did a world flood occur'. That should pretty much end the debate and render the story of the world flood as a moral parable.

[MaryLupin]

Oh, and back to and about the thread OP; on the other thread about evolution, one person says that the genesis story doesn't specificy that it is one god; in response to this, isn't that very clear, when it says God created the heavens and Earth? One God, montheistic?

This is a really good question Nikolai. There is a wonderful book called The History of God by Karen Armstrong. In it she details the changes the idea of God has gone through since early Judaism. It clearly shows the development of the idea of God from "the only god that mattered" (i.e. one of many but the most powerful and the only one to which the Jewish people should attend) to "the only God."

Think of it this way: there is a commandment "you shall have no other gods before me" (Deuteronomy 5:6-21). This piece of text implies there is more than one god. Would you say "don't pay attention to any other sky?" Probably not, because there is only one sky. What Deuteronomy 5:6-21 implies is that "there are many gods but you should never put any of them over Me." It doesn't even say that one of the faithful should not talk to or pray to these other gods it just says that the faithful shouldn't put those other gods ahead of the one contracted with under the Judeo-Christian faith.

As my mom taught me, this was an important step for monotheism, as it said that Yahweh was superior to all the polytheistic gods, that ruled this and that or caused this or that, it was greater than them, what they represented, it was in fact greater than the heavens and the earth, since it created them. My mom told me that this was one important function of the creation story, to establish monotheism, one God who created everything, as opposed to a lot of little gods running around.

Your mother is right to say that one of the functions of the new story of god that develops as Judaism meets its pagan countrymen and women is to establish their god as the most powerful, and eventually as the only "real" god. Armstrong discusses this in her book as well.

Wikipedia has a good article about Karen Armstrong.In it is mentions that she is a Christian, so this is not a case of an atheist trying to beat up on Christianity. Rather, it seems to me, it is a case of a thinking Christian coming to terms with the difference between history and faith and realizing that one can accept the essentially metaphorical nature of the biblical texts and still be a person of faith. Even more importantly, she recognizes that religions change and that they are in fact a function of culture.

[MaryLupin]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

I'm just going to post that in regards to the issue of 'did a world flood occur'. That should pretty much end the debate and render the story of the world flood as a moral parable.

Yes. It is a good site isn't it? I think it is very likely that there were enormous floods in human history. There are several well known geologic records of horrendous flooding. In the pacific north west there was an enormous flood when Glacial Lake Missoula broke and created the Channeled Scablands. For the people (the ones who survived) it would have seemed a world devastation, of course, but that doesn't mean it was a world devastation. The fact that there are periodic horrendous flood events that are remembered and quoted in human stories does not mean it was the same event.

For example, Glacial Lake Missoula last flooded the lands out to the Pacific along the Columbia River 12,000 years ago. There are records of repetitive flooding in central Europe from the prehistoric era through the middle ages. There is evidence that there was a massive flood in the arctic circle that may have been responsible for destroying the North American populations of mammoth and other cold-climate creatures. If this is true the date for this event would be about 4,000 years ago. So even though the stories of these events may appear to be of one single event, in fact the evidence suggests that they are of different events.

One thing it does say is that the old theory of gradual geologic change must be amended to include regular catastrophic events that along with gradualism, shape the earth we know.

[MaryLupin]

In actuality, I believe that Lewis is correct on two levels:

1. Christianity allows us to "see" the world in a way that takes the random, arbitrary and meaningless aspects of it away and instead replaces these things with a cohesive explanation as to why we're here, how we got here, why the world and human nature is like it is and what the eventual solution to the world's problems shall be.

Yes. That is the purpose of a belief system...to systematize a complex and essentially inhuman world and make it more comfortable for those who don't like complex and essentially inhuman things. All belief systems do the same thing, regardless of whether they are religiously based or not.

The question of whether it allows eventual solutions is another point. All belief systems deal with "solutions." That is they reveal the "end of the story." What this does not say is whether it is accurate. So for example, if there was a belief system that suggested that time will end at the year 1000, then we know that they were inaccurate. That doesn't mean that the belief system itself didn't meet the needs of its people to know the "ending." It did. All that happened when the year 1001 came along was they redid the numbers and came up with a new "end date." They never questioned the fact that maybe the whole theory was wrong. That's the power of a belief system.

2. The only rational way to view reality is through the "lens" of God. The illumination of Christianity does not "exclude" anything except that which is false and contrary to the character of God. Non-believers see Christianity as restrictive - but it is only restrictive of that which is harmful, selfish, evil.

Actually there are a number of rational ways to view the world, but it depends on what is taken as evidence. For example, in your quote above it says that Christianity restricts that which is harmful, selfish and evil. If I cite the brutality of the Crusades, would not the murder, theft, and other abominations done by Christians to other Christians and to non-Christians be evidence that in fact Christianity does not restrict those traits? Or is it OK to kill, remove property and other such things if the "enemy" is "not-a-real-Christian?" What evidence will you allow that can be cited to rebuke the statement that Christianity is "only restrictive of that which is harmful, selfish, evil?"

And, as far as your comment about how Christianity "sees...only in a particular way...[excluding] that [which is] beyond the scope of its illumination" - tell me: what way of seeing the world doesn't do this? What perspective doesn't exclude and "see" in a paticular fashion?

Yes. All belief systems do this. And every human being must see the world through some belief system or another. Our biology makes this a fundamental truth of being human. The difference between belief systems is in how well they enable human societies to function in the world of eating, sleeping, working, having and raising children, etc. (For ease, the "real world".) So if a belief system says (as many Utopian societies did in the 18th and 19th centuries- e.g. Shakers, etc) that the group must remain celibate then eventually the system is going to cave in unless it acts as a viable economic force as do many Buddhist Sanghas. If a belief system says that gravity is a myth and requires its new initiates to jump from a cliff then it will probably have a short life span. All belief systems are not created equal.

The only method we all share to judge the viability of a belief system is how it functions to support the real world where we must all eat, sleep and be comforted. This is the only rational way to judge the viability of a belief system and by that criteria there are many rational belief systems currently in operation on the earth. I say it is the only rational way because with this system all humans, regardless of beliefs about a non-corporeal world, share the corporeal world. We all have real world needs, but not all of us share the non-corporeal world. So since only the real world is fully shared then it is the only reasonable basis for human comparison.


But back to the text at hand...by this criteria, does a literalist reading of the Christian form of the Bible lead to a rational belief system?

[MaryLupin]

Also, I see this is a religious thread started by kiobe & contains posts by kiobe AND it's lasted for THREE PAGES without being locked! Is this a record for you, kiobe? Should we be celebrating?

You are one funny girl! I like you. I'll finish my glass of wine in honor of this achievement? You?

[MaryLupin]

Certainly; but you appear to have missed the point I was trying to make: non-believers possess their own "lenses" (Naturalism being one of the most popular) that are equally prone to exclude and quantify.

Your initial criticism is another variation of the same old song-and-dance atheists often do where they try to make it seem like people who accept Christianity are viewing the world "narrowly" while they - the skeptically "enlightened" - are unencumbered likewise. That is false.

Re: belief systems...see post 42 above. Not all belief systems are created equal.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Yes. That is the purpose of a belief system...to systematize a complex and essentially inhuman world and make it more comfortable for those who don't like complex and essentially inhuman things. All belief systems do the same thing, regardless of whether they are religiously based or not.

By contrast with the sometimes shrill tone and the personal venom in some of my own posts and those of a couple of the believers, what I derive from the whole of this post and others by you, is instruction in the civility of reason. Goethe wrote of love that it is "The politeness of the heart."

What you appear to me demonstrate is a mind that loves and a heart that reasons.