Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Five-hole
I don't disagree...but then, I don't support a literal interpretation of Genesis. In my honest opinion, anyone who supports a literal interpretation of scripture is an idiot anyway. I don't think it was ever meant to be read like a storybook.
|
I think I understand the point you are trying to make, but you have overstated your case. Without question, the original authors of the sacred traditions which became scripture believed in their "literal" (or "plain" as so many so-called "creationists" like to say) application. The creation myth in Genesis is an adaptation of several similar myths from the Mesopotamian region, all which date far back into the 3rd millenium B.C.E. The emphasis of the story is primarily twofold: 1) That ONE "Super" God (as opposed to several or hundreds of "demi-gods" created everything, and did so within six solar days. 2) That the order and function of the cosmos is a direct and patterned reflection of the Jewish calendar, which emphasizes sabbath observance. There is little doubt that the authors intended this story to be read and understood otherwise. That, however, does not mean that a Chirstian or Jewish interpretation of Scripture must read the myth the same way. Both Christianity and Judaism have proven to be remarkably adaptable, and they will continue to survive and flourish as a result. Faith always finds a way, and those believers who are not afraid of facing the tough questions which challenge their faith ultimately come to comprehend their beliefs in a manner which does not depend on a theological straw man or uncredible pseudo-science.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Five-hole
Furthermore, there are many theories of "creationism" that don't involve dinosaurs and man living together 6000 years ago and all that nonsense. There are versions of "God created the Universe" that don't conflict with modern scientific theories whatsoever.
|
I believe a definition of creationism is needed at this point. Creationism is properly ANY attempt to make sense of the Genesis myth through the application of science. I, for one, believe in a creator God, but I reject ANY and all attempts to apply science to the interpretation of ancient scriptures. It's ridiculous. Everything contained in the Bible is pre-scientific, and it is naive to think that those who wrote any of the documents of Scripture were as sophisticated in their thinking and worldviews as is modern man. Science and the rapid advances in technology in the last 350 years has radically changed the way that all of humanity interprets the world. Something as simple as language, writing and literacy has had a dramatic effect on our understanding of history, legend, and myth.
I am NOT a creationist, however, that is not to say that I do not believe in creation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Five-hole
It's easy to criticize flagrantly ignorant theories, but as far as I know, none of us here are touting them, either.
|
True enough. But the scientific practices of so-called creationists is seriously flawed, and no matter how much they choose to deny it, ANY science whose starting point is the absolute inerrency and absolute, radical infallibility of any piece of religious literature is simply bad science which is doomed to fail. Creationism is more theology than scientific theory (and it is BAD THEOLOGY at that!).