A metaphorical understanding.






I don't know. Why are there many different stories on the same theme as "crying wolf"? There just are. I'm not really a bible expert. I just know there are two different stories there.

Mr. Sun, I don't feel you are being reasonable. I am not quoting the bible to prove anything, not giving a quote to stand alone and make my point. I stated to someone that the story of evolution contradicts traditional creation stories. It does. I am not being elusive or confusing about what creation stories I mean. By traditional creation stories, I mean a story involving a god(s) who created everything as it is now, with us as rulers of it all. Or guardians of it all. I'm not being contrary or difficult, or even being negative about religion. Someone said it does not contradict traditional creation stories. I disagree with that, and as the bible is an account of one of these creation stories, I referred to that. I didn't quote the bible, or pull a 'see - you hadn't thought of that'. I think it's fairly widely accepted that the presentation of evolution caused a bit of a stir for precisely this reason. And continues to do so.



I would like to ask in what way you consider the creation story in the bible to be a teaching story.

Genesis 1: beginning of the first story:






Genesis 2: beginning of the second story:






http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=2&version=31

Yes, after you pointed out there being 2 separate stories, I went and read them both. And again, I was quite taken by the tree of knowledge bit.

By becoming a mystic. Sorry Seven, I haven't got any other answer for you.








It's just a misunderstanding. I'm not being unreasonable. You said "I don't think I'm the first or only wacko to notice that evolution and traditional religion do not fit perfectly together." Catholicism is a traditional religion and evolution fits perfectly together with the teachings in Catholicism. But, you're right, the teaching of evolution caused a stir. The Church examined the evidence and came to a conclusion. That's where we are now.



The BigBang theory also caused a stir even though it was formulated by a Catholic priest.



Church teachings change and some don't like to admit that -- others say it doesn't change fast enough.










You're reading too much into my posts [edit: or am I reading too much into yours?]. I was crabby earlier but I'm not now. Just explain where you see the differences (whenever they come up) and I'll try to explain myself.



As far as the teaching lessons in the creation accounts: there are many. One example: who created everything? The story teaches us that God did. Now that may lead to questions but that's fine. Just like the story of crying wolf can lead to questions.



Another lesson, a lesson of gentleness and right relationship with animals: we are given a vegan diet. That leads to questions and that's good.

Well, it's good you didn't give that answer at the start because it would have made our discussion about evil a bit short

I tried to specify what I meant by saying traditional creation stories. Yes?



As for the evolution fitting perfectly with the current teachings of the catholic church - is it that the concept about evolution and other things science has told us have caused them to re-evaluate traditional wisdom? I think evolution does take us down off of our pedestal, removes our divine status. Does the catholic church not still fairly strongly hold this opinion?



I don't argue that religions change - I only fail to understand. People frequently cite their reasons for belief as being because of the word of god, or the teachings of god, or the apostles - in short, the history of the development of this religion. If things within a religion can change to suit the times, or the current knowledge (which again, contradicts traditional knowledge), does that not change it from a religion to a man-made philosophy?








This is possible. I have a tendency to read too much into things. I do, however feel that you are attributing actions and motives to me which I don't really have. Perhaps, however, it is me doing that to you.






So - the situation now is that we believe that god created us all, but the rest is just metaphorical? The times and orders and whatnot are all unimportant? Oh - except for the vegan diet bit? /smartassness - that is a real question though. We go along along believing 100% what's written until we have something to prove it otherwise, and then we change the belief package? (which, now that I write it out, is not all that unlike scientific practice.)

Just for the record - I am reading now about the catholic church and its stance on evolution, and I do have to say I am surprised. i didn't realize this. Mr. Sun, you have taught me something.









I will, however, be sure to point out any inconsistencies.

I am not a mystic, but the subject fascinates me. But then so does Goth subculture and the dark side of life. But lest I be misunderstood, I believe in the power of darkness mainly to highlight the beauty of goodness and redemption (contrast). I also think having a dark side allows one to stay true to the world, and to others. It provides a kick to the face when one begins to feel too empowered.

Ok, Seven, here are some questions about evil for you. I'm not sure if I've asked you these before. And some of them overlap but I just want to make sure I cover all my questions:



1. Is you basic definition of evil this: suffering by sentient creatures.



2. If humans disappeared from earth (assuming there is no life on other planets) would evil disappear?



3. If all sentient life disappeared from earth would evil disappear?



4. If a tree fell on a deer in the forest and the deer slowly died over the next week, would that be evil?

Quite possibly. I tried to answer the question you asked as I understood the question to be.








Yes. I don't agree with a lot of what the church teaches. This doesn't bother me. I find my comfort in the teaching and tradition of the mystics.






I think God remains the same and that our understanding of God changes and hopefully becomes more clear (sometimes it goes the other way). I see the bible as a collection of writings by people who were trying to understand God. Some of the writers, imo, had a clearer understanding than others. Some were out to lunch (again, imo).












I'm not sure what you mean by this. I think you were suggesting that I was trying to be unreasonable and that I was evading you question(s). But I wasn't doing that on purpose. We're bound to have misunderstandings. That often happens with Sevenseas and I and we just keep at it, trying to clarify our position(s).










I'm reading a book that is edited thoughts of Gandhi. It's all Gandhi but the thoughts are organized (edited) into subjects. He seems to use that same kind of thinking: the pursuit of God/Truth/Ahimsa is like a scientific experiment(s).

Small print: I would expect nothing less.

This makes sense. I struggle with the understanding of why people believe in god. I genuinely feel that it is a taught concept, and with the information about why/how/when we're here that we now have, people wouldn't collectively come to this conclusion without all of the influence of history, culture, friends, media and family.






No, I didn't feel that you were evading my questions. It seemed that you were persisting in placing me in the camp of those who don't really have their own beliefs outside of 'calendar quotes'. (I'm not typing this again ever ) That I was using a bible quote as my point; I was actually referring to the bible as an example of a traditional creation story. Which is reasonable....? Misunderstandings are part of debate, particularly on line, where it takes some time to clear them up.






Yes, I noticed you quoted Gandhi in your signature line - I thought they were from your calendar.

Unending mockery....







Is small print a forum faux pas? A sign of a weak intellect? An example of girly silliness? I clearly don't know the rules.

I really am having a hard time understanding you. Are you being serious with this post. I keep thinking you are having fun with me so I'm having fun with you. I liked the small print and the content in the small print. I thought it was a clever way of saying you're reading the church teachings on evolution yet pointing out that you won't just buy into what they are saying.



I could switch into permanent serious mode when I'm posting in response to you if you like but it's a struggle for me to not write tonge-in-cheek. I will make the switch in an effort for a clearer understanding though (if you want) -- it'd be worth it.

No - clearly I don't do a very good job with the level of sarcasm I portray. Sorry. Carry on as you were. Guaranteed if there are smileys in my post, fun is being had.

I think that a lot of people who claim to believe in God have an immature faith and just for the reason(s) you pointed out. In fact a lot of serious Christians believe this. There are so many who merely punch the clock for one hour on Sunday, others who come only at Christmas and Easter. And I don't even think attendance at mass is somehow mandatory for Christians but a serious undertaking of the journey is. That's just my observation though.



Serious Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc. really is dynamic and takes into account "the information about why/how/when we're here that we now have".










My prayers have been answered.






Yes. Reasonable.








See, I like this burn. I wan't to burn you back.

Ok. Let the burns continue. Much more fun that way.

Unfortunately, my time for this evening (it's midnight way over here) is done. The other adult member of this household just arrived home, and now it's time to go eat popcorn and continue watching my documentary about evolution...



Seriously though, it's good - I would recommend it. It's a 7 part series about evolutionary theory by Nova. It's called - get this - Evolution.

"I would recommend it."





No thanks. I'll be rereading the creation account in Genesis. To each his/her own.

Har har.

I am not talking about Christianity or any religion, I'm simply referring to a higher power.



The Big Bang doesn't prove how the universe exists/why etc.



And I'm aware it is non-falsifiable, but our current science tells us that something more must exist. Matter can not be created. ""

Well, suffering and death, and suffering understood in a very wide sense that covers anything from physical pain to fear, loss and the horrible feeling of hate.




No, because I mean it in a wider sense than immorality.




That's a good question. I would probably say yes.




Yes.

if you want proof read genesis 1:1. that will prove and disprove it all.

Yes!!! Let's start a honey thread!!!!!!!!!



(For me, it's no god no master. Even if god did exist, which I certainly do not believe, I would not give him any authority over me.)

I don't consider religious texts proof of anything

Yeah well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that

Honey threads are rare lately! Or maybe they are not noticed because of all the veggiebashing going on

More on-topic: I wouldn't reject the sillyness aspect any longer, but that is because I have reconsidered the meaning of "silly", but not my faith in general.



But I think we all should have separate subforums for different beliefs and lifestyles and diets - like atheist apians, Lutheran lactos, orthodox ovos, and vigilant vegans.

Hey now! No fair if there's one named after me that I can't join.

To be fair, it's you who says she "can't join".

And I'm pretty sure we'd see you there anyway.