Posted on 07/25/2003 11:27:57 AM PDT by balrog666
He's wading into a minefield with clown shoes on here, however.
Agree, and agree.
That would not be the case. I think that there is a lot of interesting material in the Veda and the Bhagavad Gita.
As an equally obtuse dimbulb who can't infer just how the bible rectifies the Adam/Eve/one live son conundrum, I was hoping you'd supply the pertinent bible passages. And while you're at it, please help me and js1138 out with the post Flood gene pool miracle as well, thanks!
Okay, lets take the first item. There is no Adam/Eve/one live son conundrum. From Genisis 5:3-4, it says: When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.
Now, one can disbelieve the bible, and reject it completely, but within its own structure there is no conundrum. Adam had Seth as the 3rd born son, followed by other sons and daughters.
There is an open question as to whether there were already a number of people populating the earth at this time. The dialog between Cain and the Lord in Genesis 4:14-15 has been interpreted to imply this, as follows:
Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and WHOEVER finds me will kill me. But the Lord said to him, "Not so; if ANYONE kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that NO ONE who found him would kill him. Note that the whoever...anyone...no one... has been interpreted to indicate there were a bunch of people around already. Also, immediately in Genesis 5:17 it says: Cain lay with his wife and she became pregnant..." so where did she come from?
There are biblical literalists who refuse to recognize that the bible is Gods literary work as well as a historical record, and so want to read everything literally (ignoring symbolism, figures of speech, metaphors, and literary conventions). That approach introduces more problems than it resolves, although a good rule of thumb is to read it literally until unresolvable problems arise. So lets look at the post flood gene pool.
In the first place, while read literally the text implies that the whole earth was flooded and everything killed except the inhabitants of the ark (and presumably the fish), it may be that "earth" should be read as "land" and refer to Noah's personal experience of his "land". Is there any reason we should do this (within the context of the Genesis itself, not using any modern perspective)?
Note that in Gen 41:54, with Joseph in Egypt, it says ...and the seven years of famine began, just as Joseph had said. There was famine in all the other lands, but in the whole land of Egypt there was food. Does this have to mean the whole planet starved? No, just that the area around Egypt (all the other lands) were affected by the same regional famine.
Also see Gen 41:57 And all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the world. So a fundamentalist literalist would have American Indians and Australian Aborigines canoeing over to buy grain. But more realistically the phrase "all the world" is again from the writer's perspective.
It is not reasonable to take the written work of someone who was not writing from a 21st century worldview, written in Hebrew, translated into modern English, and then say "all the world" means "the whole planet".
BTW - is there any evidence of a completely massive, destructive flood in that area of the world in that time frame? Yes. At the end of the Ice age the ocean levels rose a few hundred feet. But at the time what is today the Black Sea was a freshwater lake. There is evidence that the Mediterranean Sea broke through and dumped 10 cubic miles of water through [the Bosporus] each day, two hundred times what flows over the Niagra falls, enough to cover Manhattan Island each day to a depth of over half a mile. The roar of the rushing water would have been audible at 300 miles distance, the speed of the inflow would have been some 50 miles per hour, the rise of the Black Sea would have been 6 inches per day, and all around the world the oceans would have been lowered by a foot in order to supply this huge new addition to their capacity.
And no surprise -- the mountains of Ararat are way up there not that far from the Southeastern shores of the Black Sea -- and quite a trek from the rest of the action that happened in the Bible. Almost all the action in the Old Testament happens in what is today Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Syria, or Iraq. Except for -- TA DA -- Noah's Ark and the flood which is way up north of the rest of the action. Interesting, yes?
The question of how a modern, technological and scientific society, which has put itself on a path to answering the great questions with science and physics, will deal with its concurrent reliance on 2,000+ year-old religious dogmas, is one which will have to be answered.
There IS an example of how it can go horribly WRONG, and it should provide a cautionary tale:
In about 1000 A.D., the Arabic world was about the most advanced society on Earth, along with the Chinese. It led the world in mathematics, navigation, medicine, and architecture. It preserved a great deal of artwork and philosophy which would have been destroyed in the Dark Ages. It was primed to dominate the planet.
Unfortunately (for US, as well as them), their nations and peoples embraced Islamic Fundamentalism, which rejected all their discoveries and sciences as "apostate". The ultimate results are all over the Middle East today...brutality, dictatorships, poverty, and no industry which produces ANYTHING the world wants. Had no dinosaurs conviniently died where their sands now billow, they'd be totally irrelevant on the world stage. As it IS, the most radically religious among them have provoked a world war with a superpower, which is never a good idea.
Could we go this way? There are millions of Christian and Jewish people who, though devout, are of good nature and will, and are open to whatever the future may bring. However, there ARE some who would gladly take us down the path that the Muslims have already stained with their tears.
They would shackle biologists, geologists, and physicists to a dogma which would, effectively, end their disciplines, and thus all innovation and progress. They would burn or destroy ANY thought or works which countered or questioned their religious texts and priests. Finally, given even half a chance, they would enact their dogma and principles into ironclad LAW, with severe punishment for transgressors.
Most devout people recoil from this path. The seducers and smooth talkers, however, must ever be watched for and countered, lest they leave OUR footprints on the path that has seen already to much blood, sweat, and tears.
Just the humble opinion of a lowly Sailor...
js1138, the Old Testament often complains about the Jews being “stiff-necked people,” and “hard of heart.”
Two observations on that point: (1) The description seems to have far wider application than the Jewish people alone. It seems to refer to the human condition universally. (2) The criticism could not possibly have been raised, prior to the epiphany of the Unnamed God in the burning bush, directly experienced only by Moses. Which as we all know resulted in the communication of ten divine commandments to mankind. And the rest, as they say, “was history….”
Rather than thinking that Christianity, say, fosters rules of human “empathy,” I rather think that what Christianity is fundamentally all about (in its moral human/social ramifications) is to say: OK, here’s what God would like you freely to choose to do, when you have absolutely no empathy whatever towards another human person: “Thou shalt not….”.
The fundamental premise here is: Each human person is dear and treasured in the sight of God. And all of them together, combined, as a race, as a species. We ought to treat each other as fellow “sons of God” – for that is how God sees us.
Christians continue to argue about the implications of such statements/observations to this day. Truly, “there is no free lunch,” and “no points for not trying.” “Open questions” need to be left open. So I am so glad to see that you are “working these problems,” js1138 – whether you realize it or not. God bless you!
Interesting discussion here, shortly to be jumped by the very ones who need to read it most!
Something we all should consider is the founding fathers did not escape tyranny to perpetuate another tyranny - MONPOLY ... we were founded upon God AND religious liberty and defending it is our obligation --- EVO liberals have made God and right and wrong - freedom - speech a thought crime and themselves ACLU whacks evolution NAZIS - our overlords - us slaves !
Watch those senate confirmation hearings and if you publicly state your beliefs and sincerity you are vetted - crucified ... there is supposed to be no religious - ideological special interest test or PLEDGE for office and now the supreme court has established a liberal CARTEL - clergy - priesthood ... abortion - pornography - evolution ONLY monopoly ? - gun control - racial - sexual preferences especially
Seems to me that it underlies everything on there.
Major Christian bashing right here on FR...
In the crevo threads, the principle that's central to everything I discuss is reason and its essential role in determining what we think. If that's banished from the Republican party, then freedom and rationality will be gone from America (because the dems are already entirely insane). And if America becomes just another un-free crazy country, like virtually all the others, it's pretty much the end of Western Civilization. So in my own little way, I think I'm promoting something important. And I understand fully why I'm so disliked by some around here -- even if they don't fully understand it. And by the way, I'm not interested in Randi's views on religion.
Well, some of us appreciate it.
Well, some of us appreciate it.
38 posted on 07/25/2003 6:51 PM CDT by balrog666
No agenda there, nah
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.