Why Christianity breeds terrorism

[DNCAttackDog]

As much as I dislike to see people linking a particular religion, such as Islam, to terrorism, there is a lot of validity to the conclusion if you examine the nature of the faith. But Christianity is as much a breeding gound for hate and terrorism as Islam, for many of the same reasons:

=============================================
It Matters What We Believe
-- by Sophia Lyon Fahs

Some beliefs are like walled gardens. They encourage exclusiveness, and the feeling of being especially privileged.

Other beliefs are expansive and lead the way into wider and deeper sympathies.

Some beliefs are like shadows, clouding children’s days with fears of unknown calamities.

Other beliefs are like sunshine, blessing children with the warmth of happiness.

Some beliefs are divisive, separating the saved from the unsaved, friends from enemies.

Other beliefs are bonds in a world community, where sincere differences beautify the pattern.

Some beliefs are like blinders, shutting off the power to choose one’s own direction.

Other beliefs are like gateways opening wide vistas for exploration.

Some beliefs weaken a person’s selfhood. They blight the growth of resourcefulness.

Other beliefs nurture self-confidence and enrich the feeling of personal worth.

Some beliefs are rigid, like the body of death, impotent in a changing world.

Other beliefs are pliable, like the young sapling, ever growing with the upward thrust of life.
================================================== ===

[cpwill]

.......

wha?


dnc, i'm sorry, but this post makes zero sense whatsoever.

[Duo_Maxwell]

every religion that is taken to the extreme produces terrorism, even Buddhism.

[Thermopylae]

The problem with Islam is that, however controversial this might sound, at this time, Islam is not allowing for their followers to modernize. The same was true for just about every religion I can think of, including Christianity, but the stranglehold on their followers ended a fairly long time ago.

[DNCAttackDog]

What the quote is saying is actually very simple:

Exclusivity breeds fear. Fear breeds division. Divison breeds hate.

All fundamentalism is exclusive, which is why I'm so against it.

[Larani]

What the quote is saying is actually very simple:

Exclusivity breeds fear. Fear breeds division. Divison breeds hate.

All fundamentalism is exclusive, which is why I'm so against it.


Competition breeds fear. Fear breeds division. Divison breeds hate.

To lose is a attack against self preservation and thus why competition breeds fear even in religions. No religions wants to lose. No religion wants to die and become a historical landmark and its followers if face with such possibility become as fanatic as a cornered cat, because Fear is a basic animal emotion tied directly to the instinct of self preservation and Leaders have used this instinct in all forms of human groupings not just religions.

[Albert]

The problem with Islam is that, however controversial this might sound, at this time, Islam is not allowing for their followers to modernize. The same was true for just about every religion I can think of, including Christianity, but the stranglehold on their followers ended a fairly long time ago.
I agree with your perception of a phenomenon but I don’t see the resistance to modernization as being limited to Islam. Witness the Roman Catholic Church and the difficulty it is having keeping pace with science and social changes.

The irony for me is that some early Christians as well as Moslems where completely devoted to science.

[Ronnieraygun]

I agree with your perception of a phenomenon but I don’t see the resistance to modernization as being limited to Islam. Witness the Roman Catholic Church and the difficulty it is having keeping pace with science and social changes.

The irony for me is that some early Christians as well as Moslems where completely devoted to science.

The Roman Catholics have become almost cultish in some of their policies and beliefs, so I'd have to agree with you there, Albert.

Christianity has had a bloody history, that is yet still going on. But I'll have to agree in basic principal with DNC in that fundamentalism is the curse of all religions.

[crawfish]

What the quote is saying is actually very simple:

Exclusivity breeds fear. Fear breeds division. Divison breeds hate.

All fundamentalism is exclusive, which is why I'm so against it.

I assume you'd include other "exclusive" institutions in that list, such as nationality, community and family. In fact, it could also be applied to much non-religous ideological belief as well.

Personally, the thing that frightens me is extremism. Extremism prevents understanding of those with differing beliefs, which leads to fear and hatred. Understanding is always the key to tolerance.

My big problem with the term "fundamentalism" is that it is rigidly defined and then widely applied. It has become more of an anti-religion tool than a behavior descriptor. Not that I disagree that "true" fundamentalists present a danger, because they do. Along with all other extremists who feel their cause is greater than the lives of others.

[Jard]

The problem with Islam is that, however controversial this might sound, at this time, Islam is not allowing for their followers to modernize. The same was true for just about every religion I can think of, including Christianity, but the stranglehold on their followers ended a fairly long time ago.

As much as what you say is true in certain regions it is not in all, if you look at morocco with their relatively modern new age king they are developing and so is turkey.

[Texsand]

The Roman Catholics have become almost cultish in some of their policies and beliefs, so I'd have to agree with you there, Albert.

Christianity has had a bloody history, that is yet still going on. But I'll have to agree in basic principal with DNC in that fundamentalism is the curse of all religions.
I agree and it is something that I think Jesus tried to warn against by using the analogy of removing the log from one's own eye before attempting to remove the splinter from the neighbor's eye. While we focus on Islam the fanatics of Christianity are continuing to take over the political party of the GOP. Barry Goldwater would certainly not recognize today's GOP that much is certain. I encourage people to google the term religious right quotes and then see what the truth of that bunch is about.

In fact it was something I was reflecting on in the wee hours of this morning during my usual bout of insomnia how truly dangerous to the earth's survival are these fanatics be they muslim christian jew hindu or buddhist as they all have a view toward a utopian society ruled over by let's now which god will it be? And therein lies the danger to all those whose god lies outside the bounds of the beliefs fostered by each religion.

Perhaps it is time to relegate religion to the closet.

[cpwill]

:(and this then is how christianity will cease to be socially acceptable; society forced to abandon it in favor of some kind of universalism that "accepts each belief system as equal".

this doesn't mean that they'll try to force muslims or buddhists or daoists to do the same, mind you; that would be "intolerant" of other cultures...:rolleyes:

[MikeD4o7]

I hope that one day all superstitions regarding the supernatural will be seen as silly by the majority of society. There's really no reason for us to accept one fairy tale over another. The fact that some people take it to such an extreme that there are actually entire portions of various societies that are willing to kill and die for their myth just shows the danger of telling people that reason is not what should guide their decisions. When you put reason down a few notches and place things like "faith", "heart", "soul", "inner-spirit", "aura", or any other equally ambiguous, nonsensical "virtue" above it... then you're creating masses of gullible people who will only follow reason to the point where it suits their handed-down beliefs. Once they reach the point where reason no longer supports them, they turn to their "soul" or "faith" or whatever it is that sounds so enlightened to them even though "nobody can ever explain it".

[ranger]

I hope that one day all superstitions regarding the supernatural will be seen as silly by the majority of society. There's really no reason for us to accept one fairy tale over another. The fact that some people take it to such an extreme that there are actually entire portions of various societies that are willing to kill and die for their myth just shows the danger of telling people that reason is not what should guide their decisions. When you put reason down a few notches and place things like "faith", "heart", "soul", "inner-spirit", "aura", or any other equally ambiguous, nonsensical "virtue" above it... then you're creating masses of gullible people who will only follow reason to the point where it suits their handed-down beliefs. Once they reach the point where reason no longer supports them, they turn to their "soul" or "faith" or whatever it is that sounds so enlightened to them even though "nobody can ever explain it".When reason leads them to God what do you call it? Many Christians I know got there through the use of reason. Will you support that or will you claim your ability to reason is superior to theirs? I agree with you that there is no reason for me to accept your "fairy tale" over mine.

[crawfish]

I hope that one day all superstitions regarding the supernatural will be seen as silly by the majority of society. There's really no reason for us to accept one fairy tale over another. The fact that some people take it to such an extreme that there are actually entire portions of various societies that are willing to kill and die for their myth just shows the danger of telling people that reason is not what should guide their decisions. When you put reason down a few notches and place things like "faith", "heart", "soul", "inner-spirit", "aura", or any other equally ambiguous, nonsensical "virtue" above it... then you're creating masses of gullible people who will only follow reason to the point where it suits their handed-down beliefs. Once they reach the point where reason no longer supports them, they turn to their "soul" or "faith" or whatever it is that sounds so enlightened to them even though "nobody can ever explain it".

From a purely secular point of view: that ain't gonna happen. Rationalism is always limited to the known, while the questions of life that drive people will likely remain in the realm of the unknown. God isn't any closer today to being "disproven", or less needed by humanity, than it was 1, 2 or 10,000 years ago. There is a near-limitless amount of knowledge yet to be gained, so vast that what little we've learned is still relatively unchanged since the dawn of man if looked at in comparison to all there is to know. Rationalism is not, and never will be, a substitute for spirituality.

From an unsecular viewpoint - for the exact reason given above, rational thought CAN lead to spirituality and/or Christianity. Rationalism will always leave a huge glut of unknown knowledge so there is not, and will not in the near or even distant future, a point at which we must betray rationalism to cling to spirituality. There are plenty of rational modes of thought that can lead one down the path to believing scripture as more than "myth"...perhaps not legalist ones, but plenty nonetheless.

The realm of the unexplained is powerful, and real. When one delves deeply into spiritual matters they'll many times come to the realization that there is quite the rational basis for faith.

[MikeD4o7]

When reason leads them to God what do you call it? Many Christians I know got there through the use of reason. Will you support that or will you claim your ability to reason is superior to theirs? I agree with you that there is no reason for me to accept your "fairy tale" over mine.


If reason led them to God, great... then we can discuss it through and through.

I have no fairy tale to tell. I don't know how the universe began and I don't know how life began.

[MikeD4o7]

From a purely secular point of view: that ain't gonna happen. Rationalism is always limited to the known, while the questions of life that drive people will likely remain in the realm of the unknown. God isn't any closer today to being "disproven", or less needed by humanity, than it was 1, 2 or 10,000 years ago. There is a near-limitless amount of knowledge yet to be gained, so vast that what little we've learned is still relatively unchanged since the dawn of man if looked at in comparison to all there is to know. Rationalism is not, and never will be, a substitute for spirituality.

From an unsecular viewpoint - for the exact reason given above, rational thought CAN lead to spirituality and/or Christianity. Rationalism will always leave a huge glut of unknown knowledge so there is not, and will not in the near or even distant future, a point at which we must betray rationalism to cling to spirituality. There are plenty of rational modes of thought that can lead one down the path to believing scripture as more than "myth"...perhaps not legalist ones, but plenty nonetheless.

The realm of the unexplained is powerful, and real. When one delves deeply into spiritual matters they'll many times come to the realization that there is quite the rational basis for faith.


I think that the realm of the unknown should be left to speculation, not spirituality. Humanity will never know everything... but I think we should never lock in stone those things we don't know with a supernatural answer. Also I think I should have specified what I meant by faith... I meant believing something that reason does not support.

If it's reason that leading people to their spirituality, then I would say it's not spirituality... it's reasonable speculation... but I don't think that's usually the case. When it is, I like to discuss it.

[Larani]

I think that the realm of the unknown should be left to speculation, not spirituality. Humanity will never know everything... but I think we should never lock in stone those things we don't know with a supernatural answer. Also I think I should have specified what I meant by faith... I meant believing something that reason does not support.

If it's reason that leading people to their spirituality, then I would say it's not spirituality... it's reasonable speculation... but I don't think that's usually the case. When it is, I like to discuss it.


MikeD405 I think spirituality has a place their are just some things that cannot be explained well without them. Take forgiveness for example. Tell me is it rational to forgive or hold a grudge? There are many things beyond just the material that cannot be explained sure we can break it down into Psychology arguments but lets face it much of Psychology is about a mythical as is the spiritual

[MikeD4o7]

MikeD405 I think spirituality has a place their are just some things that cannot be explained well without them. Take forgiveness for example. Tell me is it rational to forgive or hold a grudge? There are many things beyond just the material that cannot be explained sure we can break it down into Psychology arguments but lets face it much of Psychology is about a mythical as is the spiritual


I think that falls into the realm of empathy. I'm not arguing from an emotionless materialistic point of view, just from one that is rejecting the supernatural aspects of religious belief.

[Larani]

I think that falls into the realm of empathy. I'm not arguing from an emotionless materialistic point of view, just from one that is rejecting the supernatural aspects of religious belief.

And I do understand that. Look some say that religions are the opium of the masses and its true, but when your trying to educate an entire mass of people you need some tools don't you. As a parent (if you are one) do you not use many stories and analogies to prove to your children your wisdom and to help them find their way towards a cooperative and beneficial lifestyle?

Yes its true that their are those that will hijack it for nefarious means such as their own Capitalistic / Materialistic agendas, but its is a great work in progress if your stand back and look at it with Gods eyes.

Try to take a moments and look at the world as if all humans old and young are but children learning as they go. This is the wisdom Jesus tried to teach when he said we needed to become like these little ones. We needed to see ourselves as they are don't you see. We think that we are so old and so wise that we let are pride and our vanity blind us and in so doing that is when using the words of Yodda," we fall to the dark side."

MikeD4o7 I don't know where you are in life, but if you understand what I say then you know if you find other members of your family ie the Human Race fallen on to the dark side the best you can do is help them find their way. You cannot force them but you can teach them but in the end it is up to them to learn and we all do that don't we for we are all children in our own way.

I guess what I am trying to say is use whatever tool you find will work if spirituality works use it and if rationality works use it, no tool is useless just don't fall prey to the dark side.

[crawfish]

I think that the realm of the unknown should be left to speculation, not spirituality. Humanity will never know everything... but I think we should never lock in stone those things we don't know with a supernatural answer. Also I think I should have specified what I meant by faith... I meant believing something that reason does not support.

If it's reason that leading people to their spirituality, then I would say it's not spirituality... it's reasonable speculation... but I don't think that's usually the case. When it is, I like to discuss it.

There is belief that is in defiance of reason...and faith that has the support of reason.

Regardless, faith comes from experience, not reason. Once faith is established, I've found that reason strenthens it. Once you have that basis of faith then it moves from speculation to spirituality.

[MikeD4o7]

There is belief that is in defiance of reason...and faith that has the support of reason.


I suppose it's just semantics, but if there's a conclusion which reason leads to... I say simply call it a reasonable conclusion. Faith as I've usually seen it used describes more of a "feeling" or something that doesn't need reason at all.

Regardless, faith comes from experience, not reason. Once faith is established, I've found that reason strenthens it. Once you have that basis of faith then it moves from speculation to spirituality.


Not from experience so far... I think maybe I should ask this question before going any further.. What exactly is the definition of faith that you're using.

[cpwill]

If reason led them to God, great... then we can discuss it through and through.


cool, where do you want to start?

[MikeD4o7]

cool, where do you want to start?

:)

Anywhere you'd like to start that will lead a line of reason that ends up leaving us at the existence of God as being the most likely fact of the matter. Preferably something that doesn't involve personal experiences... since I'm not you and I really don't even know you personally... personal experiences don't really give us anything to debate or critically look at.

Really, as somebody who doesn't see any reason to believe in God... I wouldn't know the first thing about where to start.

[cpwill]

eef, well, sorry, but alot of it is, in fact, based in personal experience. most of the general-world-based logic is merely supporting arguments for the central case provided by my personal experience.

lol, i suppose that's why it's called a "testimony" :lol:

[MikeD4o7]

eef, well, sorry, but alot of it is, in fact, based in personal experience. most of the general-world-based logic is merely supporting arguments for the central case provided by my personal experience.

lol, i suppose that's why it's called a "testimony"


Then what are those of us to do without the personal experiences?

[cpwill]

talk to those of us who have.

it's also very possible you've had personal experiences and have either 1.ignored them or 2.explained them away in your mind.

or, it's possible calvin was correct:shrug: ultimately, i don't know.

[MikeD4o7]

talk to those of us who have.

it's also very possible you've had personal experiences and have either 1.ignored them or 2.explained them away in your mind.

or, it's possible calvin was correct ultimately, i don't know.


The problem here is that it's going to come down to #2, only I don't see it as explaining away, but as figuring out what really happened. Either way, this is why need to move away from basing the discussion on personal experience and anecdotal evidence and move it towards other things we can rationally look at objectively.

[crawfish]

I suppose it's just semantics, but if there's a conclusion which reason leads to... I say simply call it a reasonable conclusion. Faith as I've usually seen it used describes more of a "feeling" or something that doesn't need reason at all.



Not from experience so far... I think maybe I should ask this question before going any further.. What exactly is the definition of faith that you're using.

Faith is a belief in something you can't prove. If you believe utterly that the universe was created in a big bang, or that man evolved from lower forms, you are expressing faith...faith backed by evidence. My faith is also backed by evidence.

However, faith is not born from evidence, it's usually born from experience. This can be a feeling, or a kind act from a stranger during a tough time, or a major event. I could detail my own path if necessary, or the path of my wife, or of a friend who used to be atheist. It's never reason that leads one to God...but reason can make one's faith in God stronger.

[DNCAttackDog]

Faith is a belief in something you can't prove. If you believe utterly that the universe was created in a big bang, or that man evolved from lower forms, you are expressing faith...faith backed by evidence. My faith is also backed by evidence.

However, faith is not born from evidence, it's usually born from experience. This can be a feeling, or a kind act from a stranger during a tough time, or a major event. I could detail my own path if necessary, or the path of my wife, or of a friend who used to be atheist. It's never reason that leads one to God...but reason can make one's faith in God stronger.
Unfortunately, when faith becomes so strong that it causes someone to dismiss reason, that's when the person is on the road to becoming a terrorist.

I hope no one here would argue that the people who go around murdering abortion doctors, or the Mormon kids who tortured Matthew Shepard, are not terrorists. :eek:

[MikeD4o7]

Faith is a belief in something you can't prove. If you believe utterly that the universe was created in a big bang, or that man evolved from lower forms, you are expressing faith...faith backed by evidence. My faith is also backed by evidence.

However, faith is not born from evidence, it's usually born from experience. This can be a feeling, or a kind act from a stranger during a tough time, or a major event. I could detail my own path if necessary, or the path of my wife, or of a friend who used to be atheist. It's never reason that leads one to God...but reason can make one's faith in God stronger.


I think the difference is that I would have no trouble ushering out the big bang theory as soon as a better one is presented. I hesitate to call educated speculation based on science "faith" simply because it doesn't, or shouldn't, hold the same kind of conviction that religious faith does. I find more often that when science advances to the point where it questions somebody's faith... they bend their faith, or bend the facts... whichever makes it fit more easily... but they never abandon it in exchange for a better theory.

[crawfish]

Unfortunately, when faith becomes so strong that it causes someone to dismiss reason, that's when the person is on the road to becoming a terrorist.

I hope no one here would argue that the people who go around murdering abortion doctors, or the Mormon kids who tortured Matthew Shepard, are not terrorists. :eek:

That's not limited to faith, and not limited to religion. Distorting facts and misusing reason for one's own personal benefit is human nature. Far more common than those of us who actually adhere to reason.

I don't let the actions of others determine my opinions.

[crawfish]

I think the difference is that I would have no trouble ushering out the big bang theory as soon as a better one is presented. I hesitate to call educated speculation based on science "faith" simply because it doesn't, or shouldn't, hold the same kind of conviction that religious faith does. I find more often that when science advances to the point where it questions somebody's faith... they bend their faith, or bend the facts... whichever makes it fit more easily... but they never abandon it in exchange for a better theory.
I believe that the Bible was inspired by God, and written so that as human knowledge grew we'd be able to see things in scripture that we couldn't then (while holding to the basic prinicples it puts forward).

I have no idea if competing ideas would affect my faith, since no competing ideas have ever presented a reasonable challenge to the core of my beliefs. In other words, faith affects the way you view and interpret evidence.

[MikeD4o7]

I believe that the Bible was inspired by God, and written so that as human knowledge grew we'd be able to see things in scripture that we couldn't then (while holding to the basic prinicples it puts forward).

I have no idea if competing ideas would affect my faith, since no competing ideas have ever presented a reasonable challenge to the core of my beliefs. In other words, faith affects the way you view and interpret evidence.


Exactly. Especially that last line. Instead of taking the evidence then solely using that to work towards a conclusion... you take a conclusion, and fit the evidence into it.

[DNCAttackDog]

That's not limited to faith, and not limited to religion. Distorting facts and misusing reason for one's own personal benefit is human nature. Far more common than those of us who actually adhere to reason.
Quite true. However, when a person is planning to do something that the vast majority of people consider wrong -- for example, murdering a person they have never met and who poses no physical threat to them -- the easiest way to make their actions seem less evil is to pretend that they are sanctioned by God.

[cpwill]

personally i remain unconvinced that the two don't actually compliment rather than contradict each other.

[MikeD4o7]

personally i remain unconvinced that the two don't actually compliment rather than contradict each other.


Well for the sake of comprehension of this and future arguments. How exactly would you define faith? It will be difficult to debate whether or not faith and reason are complimentary or contradictory if we're using different definitions of faith.

[cpwill]

how do i define faith?
any definition will fall short.

bluntly put; the Christian Faith is a growing and developing personal relationship with Jesus Christ (God). within that context, "faith" is used to signify trust.

[cpwill]

btw, nice pic

[MikeD4o7]

how do i define faith?
any definition will fall short.

bluntly put; the Christian Faith is a growing and developing personal relationship with Jesus Christ (God). within that context, "faith" is used to signify trust.


Well by that definition, you're right, there's not a contradiction that could be shown without us somehow resolving the very basis of all these debates... the existence of that God.

"Faith" is just used in so many different contexts... I have problems with some definitions of it and not with others when it comes to it's relation to reason and logic.

btw, nice pic


Thanks, yeah I figured it was time for me to get an avatar.

[cpwill]

alright, i'll take it even further, i'm not sure that even the bible and science can necessarily be held in contradiction.

[MikeD4o7]

alright, i'll take it even further, i'm not sure that even the bible and science can necessarily be held in contradiction.


It depends on how liberal you want to be with interpreting the Bible. Obviously a literalist would be dead in the water without getting out of the first page of genesis... Even with a liberal interpretation though, there are some things that I don't think can be explained really. For example, because of what's lost during the process of dna replication during cell reproduction... there is a maximum lifespan that a human being can have, after which the cells will just stop reproducing. It's under 200 years, which is well under what many of the people in the OT were said to have lived to.

[cpwill]

guess it depends actually on what you think the bible is.;)

personally, i find that the creation account in genises is suprisingly accurate.

[MikeD4o7]

personally, i find that the creation account in genises is suprisingly accurate.


1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

The context shows that the Sun (the light), was created after the earth. That would be incorrect. Isn't that a contradiction without even going more than 3 verses in?

[crawfish]

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

The context shows that the Sun (the light), was created after the earth. That would be incorrect. Isn't that a contradiction without even going more than 3 verses in?
Actually, the earth was likely a formless blob of matter shooting through the universe before it entered the sun's gravity, stabilized its orbit, began rotation and eventually formed into a sphere.

[crawfish]

Oh, and to answer your question - the above passage could be interpreted to mean that God didn't create light at that moment, but that light wasn't present until that moment.

Heh. Did God just grab a hunk of matter and fling it at the sun to create the earth?

[cpwill]

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

The context shows that the Sun (the light), was created after the earth. That would be incorrect. Isn't that a contradiction without even going more than 3 verses in?

ah, but remember, the term waters to these people would mean outerspace to us; they thought space was made up of water. what you have here is the Big Boom followed by the creation of both time and/or a solar system. remember, the story is allegorical. you can't explain biogenetics and astrophysics that we don't even fully understand to an illiterate sheep-herder in the desert in the year 1500 BC. so you give him a story, which tells him the important points, what he needs to know, and allows him to process it.

[DNCAttackDog]

you can't explain biogenetics and astrophysics that we don't even fully understand to an illiterate sheep-herder in the desert in the year 1500 BC. so you give him a story, which tells him the important points, what he needs to know, and allows him to process it.
Sorta like how Al-Qaeda told the non-pilot hijackers everything they "needed" to know.....

:thinking: :thinking: :thinking:

[cpwill]

eh, not really; their lack of intel was malicious, this was due to the inability of the recipient to comprehend.

[MikeD4o7]

ah, but remember, the term waters to these people would mean outerspace to us; they thought space was made up of water. what you have here is the Big Boom followed by the creation of both time and/or a solar system. remember, the story is allegorical. you can't explain biogenetics and astrophysics that we don't even fully understand to an illiterate sheep-herder in the desert in the year 1500 BC. so you give him a story, which tells him the important points, what he needs to know, and allows him to process it.


I don't see the justification for believing that they would equate waters with outerspace instead of just taking it as meaning water itself. Even without that though... it still very clearly has the earth being created before the sun (the light).

[cpwill]

in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth.

sounds to me like the author is actually pushing for a roughly comparable time frame for creation.

irregardless, the story still remains quite accurate within the analogy; especially when you compare it to contemporary creation stories, many of whom had the earth being created from the body of a slain god, etc.

[MikeD4o7]

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep ; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light . 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night."

The bold indicates pretty clearly that the earth was there very specifically before the sun itself. It's obvious that God saying "let there be light" occurred after he already created the Earth, and because the following verse talks about that creating the distinction between day and night, it must be that the light was referring to the sun.

irregardless, the story still remains quite accurate within the analogy; especially when you compare it to contemporary creation stories, many of whom had the earth being created from the body of a slain god, etc.


Then you'll be glad to know that I don't believe in any of the other mystical creation stories either ;)

[crawfish]

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep ; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light . 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night."

The bold indicates pretty clearly that the earth was there very specifically before the sun itself. It's obvious that God saying "let there be light" occurred after he already created the Earth, and because the following verse talks about that creating the distinction between day and night, it must be that the light was referring to the sun.


That would be a valid argument, would I see the creation story as less poetic and more literal. At this point (as I have explained above), it is very possible to see the account as an explanation that could be understood by the people of the time yet have more meaning as mankind grew more knowledgable.

It may not explain everything we know, but it definitely doesn't contradict anything we know. That in itself is remarkable.

[MikeD4o7]

That would be a valid argument, would I see the creation story as less poetic and more literal. At this point (as I have explained above), it is very possible to see the account as an explanation that could be understood by the people of the time yet have more meaning as mankind grew more knowledgable.

It may not explain everything we know, but it definitely doesn't contradict anything we know. That in itself is remarkable.


I understand that most people don't take the creation story literally. But I think I showed that it DOES contradict what we know. We know that the sun is older than the earth, yet genesis clearly does have the earth being around before the sun. This is just one example, of course. There are plenty of things in the Bible that are contradictory to science... we can just find this without even having to turn to pg. 2.

[crawfish]

I understand that most people don't take the creation story literally. But I think I showed that it DOES contradict what we know. We know that the sun is older than the earth, yet genesis clearly does have the earth being around before the sun. This is just one example, of course. There are plenty of things in the Bible that are contradictory to science... we can just find this without even having to turn to pg. 2.
"Clearly"?

"Let there be light" means that light was first on the earth. What if by that God had taken the formless blob hurtling through darkest space and had it caught in the sun's gravity? That satisfies the text as well as science.

You're making the same mistake as the literalists, by reading things into the text based on your understanding and not looking for alternate meaning.

[2ruballa]

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep ; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light . 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night."

The bold indicates pretty clearly that the earth was there very specifically before the sun itself. It's obvious that God saying "let there be light" occurred after he already created the Earth, and because the following verse talks about that creating the distinction between day and night, it must be that the light was referring to the sun.

It says the earth was without form and void. In other words there was no earth. Earth was void....NON-EXISTENT. So there was no earth when God created light. The creation of the living earth and its atmosphere are explained in later verses.

[MikeD4o7]

It says the earth was without form and void. In other words there was no earth. Earth was void....NON-EXISTENT. So there was no earth when God created light. The creation of the living earth and its atmosphere are explained in later verses.


The same idea of the earth being before the sun is reiterated a few verses later.

"12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good."

[2ruballa]

Interesting. How old is the sun and how old is the earth?

[cpwill]

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep ; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light . 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night."

The bold indicates pretty clearly that the earth was there very specifically before the sun itself.

actually the sun would be part of the heavens.;)

[MikeD4o7]

Interesting. How old is the sun and how old is the earth?

The sun I think is around 5 billion years old while the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

actually the sun would be part of the heavens.

If so, then what is this verse describing, "16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also."? Because that verse is indicated to have happened not only after Earth was created, but even after there was vegetation on Earth... which is waaaay off.

[Triple_R]

A few points...

1)The vast majority of terrorist organizations today are Islamic in nature. Very few, if any, are Christian in nature. Thus, to equate these two religions on how they can lead to terrorism is a very faulty arguement. There's a great difference between ideological conflict, and physical conflict - Christianity is almost entirely in the realm of the former; Islam, at least in its current form, is largely in the realm of the latter.

2)I believe that the Creation Story of Genesis is told from the perspective of a man who would be standing upon the Earth (or where the Earth would eventually be) during the universes' creation. It's interesting to note that for a short period after the formation of the Earth (or during that formation), a man standing upon the Earth would not be able to see the sun, or moon (i.e. the "lesser light"). Much of the problems that people have with the Creation Story comes from reading it from the perspective of how creation would appear to God, as oppossed to how it would appear to a man witnessing creation.

3)I agree with the basic argument that extremism is almost always bad.

[DNCAttackDog]

A few points...

1)The vast majority of terrorist organizations today are Islamic in nature. Very few, if any, are Christian in nature. Thus, to equate these two religions on how they can lead to terrorism is a very faulty arguement. There's a great difference between ideological conflict, and physical conflict - Christianity is almost entirely in the realm of the former; Islam, at least in its current form, is largely in the realm of the latter.
What do you base these assertions on? Where is your proof? I have already cited several examples of Christian terrorists. And it's common knowledge that the vast majority of the world's Muslims are peaceful. 80% of them aren't even Middle Eastern.

While we're at it, what would you consider a "terrorist" organization in the first place?

[cpwill]

you're flipping his argument; the fact remains that the majority of world-wide terrorism is islam-related.

[DNCAttackDog]

you're flipping his argument; the fact remains that the majority of world-wide terrorism is islam-related.
No flipping here. All I asked for was some evidence to back that claim up. Given that there's plenty of terrorism in Central and South America, Africa, and parts of Asia, I think it's completely reasonable to ask if anyone has a worldwide database on this.

[willieboy31]

As much as I dislike to see people linking a particular religion, such as Islam, to terrorism, there is a lot of validity to the conclusion if you examine the nature of the faith. But Christianity is as much a breeding gound for hate and terrorism as Islam, for many of the same reasons:


Muslims are the ones blowing up civilians all over the world, not Christians. I have to judge a religion by their works.

[stormtrooper]

mans nature is corrupt and at odds continualy with the Creator. Whereof; we have Inalienable enumerated Rights established that this Republic is supposed to be adhearing to. Everything outside of correspondence with reality in the first premise; is insane. Letting the global Mob gang Agent Range Masters create the "reality" for anyone who seriously values freedom, or thinks theu are a free spirited free thinking person; needs to get off their Medicated sanitized pablum; gird their loins; and think outside the box. So, without God or a Creator, what does anyone beleive we can actually build anything solid on that is always--relative- ever changing--No absolutes? With No food, your absolutley starve to death. Fire will abslutley burn you. It doens't matter how hard you ruminate in relatavisitum; youl'l be dead, or near so. This sort of insane rationality some might call it; is impossible even by its proponents and scholars to refute; when disputed. They just claim they need more time to work on it. Again, if I need more time to think in relative terms that the train is on top of me in a second--gh.

[MikeD4o7]

mans nature is corrupt and at odds continualy with the Creator. Whereof; we have Inalienable enumerated Rights established that this Republic is supposed to be adhearing to. Everything outside of correspondence with reality in the first premise; is insane. Letting the global Mob gang Agent Range Masters create the "reality" for anyone who seriously values freedom, or thinks theu are a free spirited free thinking person; needs to get off their Medicated sanitized pablum; gird their loins; and think outside the box. So, without God or a Creator, what does anyone beleive we can actually build anything solid on that is always--relative- ever changing--No absolutes? With No food, your absolutley starve to death. Fire will abslutley burn you. It doens't matter how hard you ruminate in relatavisitum; youl'l be dead, or near so. This sort of insane rationality some might call it; is impossible even by its proponents and scholars to refute; when disputed. They just claim they need more time to work on it. Again, if I need more time to think in relative terms that the train is on top of me in a second--gh.


I'm having trouble following... what's the general point you're trying to make?