Why Did God Create......

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
681

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I’m back. Let’s get right into it.

Why do whales have pelvic bones? [/quote]

Alien technology.

Next.[/quote]

Not quite. Why did God find it necessary to give whales, an animal with no need for a pelvic bone, a pelvic bone?

More interestingly, the human sacrum and coccyx appear as several vertebrae fused together. If we are the result of creation, why did God create us in such a way that we would look as though we evolved from monkeys? Why not just give us a solid sacrum, for example. [/quote]

I got no problem with evolution.

682

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I’m back. Let’s get right into it.

Why do whales have pelvic bones? [/quote]

Alien technology.

Next.[/quote]

Not quite. Why did God find it necessary to give whales, an animal with no need for a pelvic bone, a pelvic bone?

More interestingly, the human sacrum and coccyx appear as several vertebrae fused together. If we are the result of creation, why did God create us in such a way that we would look as though we evolved from monkeys? Why not just give us a solid sacrum, for example. [/quote]

I got no problem with evolution. [/quote]

Then how do you reconcile the theory of evolution with the story of creation in Genesis?

683

When society at large affirms a new belief (such as a scientific belief in evolution) mirror neuron’s play their role in propagating it. Therefore we have devout Christians who resign the book of genesis to figurative status with ease.

Indeed we have self identified Christians who have no moral objection with homosexuality who have altered or shifted their dogma in order to more comfortably integrate with their environment.

On the other end we have the fundamentalists who insist that various minutiae embody the essence that makes their particular interpretation of one faith “the true faith”.

Radical Islamic groups tend to isolate and disintegrate over the minor details and resultantly weaken their branch. Then are groups descending from christianity such as the Branch Dividians (protestantism get’s inbetween), need I say more?

As communication and memetic cross pollination continues, archaic ideas are no longer well equipped to survive in that sort of environment. The connected culture increasingly scorns soi-disant prophets and ideas.

Belief systems that are founded on epistemologically impossible premises will be rendered unfit in the evolution of non-fictional memes.

Those who hold their religeous memes on the level of axiom I doubt will be able to adopt contradictory memes especially as they age. Not that it is a question of their capacity for rational thought. I doubt it because the phenomenon is not a question of rationality but of social integration and survival. Unless their group changes or they change groups, neither shall they.

As time wears on the dogma of christianity will evolve into new fundamentalist and moderate branches, becoming a fringe phenomenon, until it’s mythology will be treated in the same way as that of ancient Greece. It will be preserved for historical purposes and continue to be the fodder for story writers and would be cult leaders, and most likely, none of it’s predictions will come true.

684

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Well Pope B16 gives a kind of prelude to St. Augustine’s quote.

“In keeping with man?s fallen nature, paganism breaks through in him again and again: this is an experience that runs through all the centuries. The truth of original sin is confirmed. Again and again man falls behind the faith and wants to be just himself again; he becomes a heathen in the most profound sense of the word. But again and again the divine presence in man becomes evident also. This is the struggle that passes through all of history.”

Pope B16, he explains it nicely.
The love of others to the point of sacrifice of ourselves comes from Jesus Christ. [/quote]This is what your pope says? “He becomes a heathen”? “Divine presence in man?”. God help you Chris
[/quote]

Yes, to this question, “Do we nevertheless get the impression sometimes that by some law of nature paganism again and again wins back to some extent areas that were cleared and cultivated by Christianity?”

Can you explain to me why this answer is wrong?

685

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Then how do you reconcile the theory of evolution with the story of creation in Genesis?[/quote]

You mean the two creation stories in Genesis?

686

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
When society at large affirms a new belief (such as a scientific belief in evolution) mirror neuron’s play their role in propagating it. Therefore we have devout Christians who resign the book of genesis to figurative status with ease.

Indeed we have self identified Christians who have no moral objection with homosexuality who have altered or shifted their dogma in order to more comfortably integrate with their environment.

On the other end we have the fundamentalists who insist that various minutiae embody the essence that makes their particular interpretation of one faith “the true faith”.

Radical Islamic groups tend to isolate and disintegrate over the minor details and resultantly weaken their branch. Then are groups descending from christianity such as the Branch Dividians (protestantism get’s inbetween), need I say more?

As communication and memetic cross pollination continues, archaic ideas are no longer well equipped to survive in that sort of environment. The connected culture increasingly scorns soi-disant prophets and ideas.

Belief systems that are founded on epistemologically impossible premises will be rendered unfit in the evolution of non-fictional memes.

Those who hold their religeous memes on the level of axiom I doubt will be able to adopt contradictory memes especially as they age. Not that it is a question of their capacity for rational thought. I doubt it because the phenomenon is not a question of rationality but of social integration and survival. Unless their group changes or they change groups, neither shall they.

As time wears on the dogma of christianity will evolve into new fundamentalist and moderate branches, becoming a fringe phenomenon, until it’s mythology will be treated in the same way as that of ancient Greece. It will be preserved for historical purposes and continue to be the fodder for story writers and would be cult leaders, and most likely, none of it’s predictions will come true.[/quote]

Yes, thanks. Fodder…been said for 2000 years. :slight_smile:

687

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I’m back. Let’s get right into it.

Why do whales have pelvic bones? [/quote]

Alien technology.

Next.[/quote]

Not quite. Why did God find it necessary to give whales, an animal with no need for a pelvic bone, a pelvic bone?

More interestingly, the human sacrum and coccyx appear as several vertebrae fused together. If we are the result of creation, why did God create us in such a way that we would look as though we evolved from monkeys? Why not just give us a solid sacrum, for example. [/quote]

I got no problem with evolution. [/quote]

Then how do you reconcile the theory of evolution with the story of creation in Genesis?[/quote]

Sorry, I’m not seeing the problem here.

What issue do you have with it?

688

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:

As time wears on the dogma of christianity will evolve into new fundamentalist and moderate branches, becoming a fringe phenomenon, until it’s mythology will be treated in the same way as that of ancient Greece. It will be preserved for historical purposes and continue to be the fodder for story writers and would be cult leaders, and most likely, none of it’s predictions will come true.[/quote]

How long is it supposed to take? The core tenets of my church, the Catholic Church, have remained unchanged for 2000 years.

689

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< I don’t expect you to acknowledge my sincerity, nor does it surprise me that you disparage my motivations for believing as I do. >>>[/quote]You still don’t get it my dear Elder Forlife. You are absolutely sincerely deceived and your motivation is absolutely the same as every other unbeliever’s. Paul says so in Romans 1 which I have quoted one thousand times. You are not especially evil. You’re no different than I or any other Christ denier was before meeting the master.
[/quote]

Romans 1 was written by men, just like the Qu’ran, Samhita, Tao-te-ching, Analects, and Bhagavad Gita were written by men. Your circular proof for your beliefs (citing your holy book to prove the words of your holy book) is no more valid than the circular proofs of every other world religion.

You are all blind, insisting that only you and those who agree with you can see.

I’m blind too, but admitting that fact is the beginning of true wisdom and enlightenment.

690

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:

As time wears on the dogma of christianity will evolve into new fundamentalist and moderate branches, becoming a fringe phenomenon, until it’s mythology will be treated in the same way as that of ancient Greece. It will be preserved for historical purposes and continue to be the fodder for story writers and would be cult leaders, and most likely, none of it’s predictions will come true.[/quote]

How long is it supposed to take? The core tenets of my church, the Catholic Church, have remained unchanged for 2000 years. [/quote]

And further it grows, not shrinks.
Atheists are just so silly sometimes. They see all kinds of stuff that isn’t there, or flat make things up that aren’t true to make their views seem reasonable, to prove we’re crazy.

Christianity devolving into mythology? Yeah that is happening nowhere.

691

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I’m back. Let’s get right into it.

Why do whales have pelvic bones? [/quote]

Alien technology.

Next.[/quote]

Not quite. Why did God find it necessary to give whales, an animal with no need for a pelvic bone, a pelvic bone?

More interestingly, the human sacrum and coccyx appear as several vertebrae fused together. If we are the result of creation, why did God create us in such a way that we would look as though we evolved from monkeys? Why not just give us a solid sacrum, for example. [/quote]

I got no problem with evolution. [/quote]

Then how do you reconcile the theory of evolution with the story of creation in Genesis?[/quote]

Sorry, I’m not seeing the problem here.

What issue do you have with it?
[/quote]

If Adam and Eve were created as is, then there was no evolution.

692

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I’m back. Let’s get right into it.

Why do whales have pelvic bones? [/quote]

Alien technology.

Next.[/quote]

Not quite. Why did God find it necessary to give whales, an animal with no need for a pelvic bone, a pelvic bone?

More interestingly, the human sacrum and coccyx appear as several vertebrae fused together. If we are the result of creation, why did God create us in such a way that we would look as though we evolved from monkeys? Why not just give us a solid sacrum, for example. [/quote]

I got no problem with evolution. [/quote]

Then how do you reconcile the theory of evolution with the story of creation in Genesis?[/quote]

Sorry, I’m not seeing the problem here.

What issue do you have with it?
[/quote]

If Adam and Eve were created as is, then there was no evolution. [/quote]

It’s a story, not a scientific model. You think a goat herder 2000 years ago would be receptive to hearing the intricacies of single-nucleotide polymorphisms?

693

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I’m back. Let’s get right into it.

Why do whales have pelvic bones? [/quote]

Alien technology.

Next.[/quote]

Not quite. Why did God find it necessary to give whales, an animal with no need for a pelvic bone, a pelvic bone?

More interestingly, the human sacrum and coccyx appear as several vertebrae fused together. If we are the result of creation, why did God create us in such a way that we would look as though we evolved from monkeys? Why not just give us a solid sacrum, for example. [/quote]

I got no problem with evolution. [/quote]

Then how do you reconcile the theory of evolution with the story of creation in Genesis?[/quote]

Sorry, I’m not seeing the problem here.

What issue do you have with it?
[/quote]

If Adam and Eve were created as is, then there was no evolution. [/quote]

It’s a story, not a scientific model. You think a goat herder 2000 years ago would be receptive to hearing the intricacies of single-nucleotide polymorphisms?

[/quote]

Then God is a rather malevolent being for not correcting his vast array of worshipers who think otherwise. Though, you think God would have the foresight to at least give a passing mention in the bible that when he says “created” he really means “kicked off a process that would result in ‘man’ after several millions of years”… and given that god is all powerful, why would he bother with this process when he knows the result? He could just whip us up and skip all the monkey business… no pun intended.
which brings up another question, why did God never give us any information about the universe that we didn’t already know to be factual? Further still, the answers he offers for these “at the time unknowns” are so convoluted and vague that instead of hinting us in the right direction they actually took us backwards and resulted in violent wars and genocide (many of which God personally commanded to happen).

Ultimately, the answers in the bible given in genesis in no way logically lead to what science has found to be true and it can only be viewed as such while working backwards ex post-facto.

694

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I’m back. Let’s get right into it.

Why do whales have pelvic bones? [/quote]

Alien technology.

Next.[/quote]

Not quite. Why did God find it necessary to give whales, an animal with no need for a pelvic bone, a pelvic bone?

More interestingly, the human sacrum and coccyx appear as several vertebrae fused together. If we are the result of creation, why did God create us in such a way that we would look as though we evolved from monkeys? Why not just give us a solid sacrum, for example. [/quote]

I got no problem with evolution. [/quote]

Then how do you reconcile the theory of evolution with the story of creation in Genesis?[/quote]

Sorry, I’m not seeing the problem here.

What issue do you have with it?
[/quote]

If Adam and Eve were created as is, then there was no evolution. [/quote]

It’s a story, not a scientific model. You think a goat herder 2000 years ago would be receptive to hearing the intricacies of single-nucleotide polymorphisms?

[/quote]

Then God is a rather malevolent being for not correcting his vast array of worshipers who think otherwise. Though, you think God would have the foresight to at least give a passing mention in the bible that when he says “created” he really means “kicked off a process that would result in ‘man’ after several millions of years”… and given that god is all powerful, why would he bother with this process when he knows the result? He could just whip us up and skip all the monkey business… no pun intended.
which brings up another question, why did God never give us any information about the universe that we didn’t already know to be factual? Further still, the answers he offers for these “at the time unknowns” are so convoluted and vague that instead of hinting us in the right direction they actually took us backwards and resulted in violent wars and genocide (many of which God personally commanded to happen).

Ultimately, the answers in the bible given in genesis in no way logically lead to what science has found to be true and it can only be viewed as such while working backwards ex post-facto.

[/quote]

The bible isn’t a science book or a history book. The creation stories have important messages and truths for all people.
God also was kind enough to provide us math, science and history so we can know more about the world we live in with out having to refer to a religious text to do it.

Are you sure you read the bible? It sure doesn’t sound like…

695

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I’m back. Let’s get right into it.

Why do whales have pelvic bones? [/quote]

Alien technology.

Next.[/quote]

Not quite. Why did God find it necessary to give whales, an animal with no need for a pelvic bone, a pelvic bone?

More interestingly, the human sacrum and coccyx appear as several vertebrae fused together. If we are the result of creation, why did God create us in such a way that we would look as though we evolved from monkeys? Why not just give us a solid sacrum, for example. [/quote]

I got no problem with evolution. [/quote]

Then how do you reconcile the theory of evolution with the story of creation in Genesis?[/quote]

Sorry, I’m not seeing the problem here.

What issue do you have with it?
[/quote]

If Adam and Eve were created as is, then there was no evolution. [/quote]

It’s a story, not a scientific model. You think a goat herder 2000 years ago would be receptive to hearing the intricacies of single-nucleotide polymorphisms?

[/quote]

Then God is a rather malevolent being for not correcting his vast array of worshipers who think otherwise. Though, you think God would have the foresight to at least give a passing mention in the bible that when he says “created” he really means “kicked off a process that would result in ‘man’ after several millions of years”… and given that god is all powerful, why would he bother with this process when he knows the result? He could just whip us up and skip all the monkey business… no pun intended.
which brings up another question, why did God never give us any information about the universe that we didn’t already know to be factual? Further still, the answers he offers for these “at the time unknowns” are so convoluted and vague that instead of hinting us in the right direction they actually took us backwards and resulted in violent wars and genocide (many of which God personally commanded to happen).

Ultimately, the answers in the bible given in genesis in no way logically lead to what science has found to be true and it can only be viewed as such while working backwards ex post-facto.

[/quote]

The bible isn’t a science book or a history book. The creation stories have important messages and truths for all people.
God also was kind enough to provide us math, science and history so we can know more about the world we live in with out having to refer to a religious text to do it.

Are you sure you read the bible? It sure doesn’t sound like…
[/quote]

Right, because as we all know it’s impossible to have both read the bible AND disagree with it. rolls eyes

What you’ve said isn’t a counter argument. The argument you’re responding to already addresses the points you’re making. These “important messages” didn’t even hint us in the right direction, they did the opposite. If God is all knowing, then he was aware this would happen before he did it, meaning he did it intentionally which makes sense considering he made no effort to correct his followers when they later denied evolution, despite it being true. Your God is malevolent.

That, or fictional.

696

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Then how do you reconcile the theory of evolution with the story of creation in Genesis?[/quote]

  1. Which creation story?

  2. Did you read Genesis with the assistance of the Talmud? If so, you would be aware there is no conflict.

The Torah is 100% correct, but it is an index, not an encylopedia.

697

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I’m back. Let’s get right into it.

Why do whales have pelvic bones? [/quote]

Alien technology.

Next.[/quote]

Not quite. Why did God find it necessary to give whales, an animal with no need for a pelvic bone, a pelvic bone?

More interestingly, the human sacrum and coccyx appear as several vertebrae fused together. If we are the result of creation, why did God create us in such a way that we would look as though we evolved from monkeys? Why not just give us a solid sacrum, for example. [/quote]

I got no problem with evolution. [/quote]

Then how do you reconcile the theory of evolution with the story of creation in Genesis?[/quote]

Sorry, I’m not seeing the problem here.

What issue do you have with it?
[/quote]

If Adam and Eve were created as is, then there was no evolution. [/quote]

It’s a story, not a scientific model. You think a goat herder 2000 years ago would be receptive to hearing the intricacies of single-nucleotide polymorphisms?

[/quote]

Then God is a rather malevolent being for not correcting his vast array of worshipers who think otherwise. Though, you think God would have the foresight to at least give a passing mention in the bible that when he says “created” he really means “kicked off a process that would result in ‘man’ after several millions of years”… and given that god is all powerful, why would he bother with this process when he knows the result? He could just whip us up and skip all the monkey business… no pun intended.
which brings up another question, why did God never give us any information about the universe that we didn’t already know to be factual? Further still, the answers he offers for these “at the time unknowns” are so convoluted and vague that instead of hinting us in the right direction they actually took us backwards and resulted in violent wars and genocide (many of which God personally commanded to happen).

Ultimately, the answers in the bible given in genesis in no way logically lead to what science has found to be true and it can only be viewed as such while working backwards ex post-facto.

[/quote]

The bible isn’t a science book or a history book. The creation stories have important messages and truths for all people.
God also was kind enough to provide us math, science and history so we can know more about the world we live in with out having to refer to a religious text to do it.

Are you sure you read the bible? It sure doesn’t sound like…
[/quote]

Right, because as we all know it’s impossible to have both read the bible AND disagree with it. rolls eyes
[/quote]
You can disagree with it all you want, that’s not the issue. It just seems you have a weak grasp on the subject matter.

[quote]
What you’ve said isn’t a counter argument. The argument you’re responding to already addresses the points you’re making. These “important messages” didn’t even hint us in the right direction, they did the opposite. If God is all knowing, then he was aware this would happen before he did it, meaning he did it intentionally which makes sense considering he made no effort to correct his followers when they later denied evolution, despite it being true. Your God is malevolent.

That, or fictional. [/quote]

I wasn’t really counter arguing your position. You disagree with the way God did something, ok. I don’t see anything malevolent. Further it’s a complete misunderstanding of the time and place of the occurrences.

You don’t have to agree. It’s not important as a matter of faith to have a quantum mechanical view of how the this universe came to be. God did give us tools to find this stuff out, it’s called math and science. If He did not want people to know these things he would not have given them the tools to discover them. I think your thinking about this in two dimensional silo’s.

You like things to be direct and beyond question, so do I. That’s not the way God chose to do it, so what?
I didn’t realize he was to take orders from you.

If you want to discuss the existence vs. non-existence (fake) of God, please proceed to the ‘Physics of the afterlife’ thread where that is being discussed. Read at least 5 pages back in to the thread you so don’t repeat what’s already been said. I don’t see the point in repeating all of it.

698

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I’m back. Let’s get right into it.

Why do whales have pelvic bones? [/quote]

Alien technology.

Next.[/quote]

Not quite. Why did God find it necessary to give whales, an animal with no need for a pelvic bone, a pelvic bone?

More interestingly, the human sacrum and coccyx appear as several vertebrae fused together. If we are the result of creation, why did God create us in such a way that we would look as though we evolved from monkeys? Why not just give us a solid sacrum, for example. [/quote]

I got no problem with evolution. [/quote]

Then how do you reconcile the theory of evolution with the story of creation in Genesis?[/quote]

Sorry, I’m not seeing the problem here.

What issue do you have with it?
[/quote]

If Adam and Eve were created as is, then there was no evolution. [/quote]

It’s a story, not a scientific model. You think a goat herder 2000 years ago would be receptive to hearing the intricacies of single-nucleotide polymorphisms?

[/quote]

Then God is a rather malevolent being for not correcting his vast array of worshipers who think otherwise. Though, you think God would have the foresight to at least give a passing mention in the bible that when he says “created” he really means “kicked off a process that would result in ‘man’ after several millions of years”… and given that god is all powerful, why would he bother with this process when he knows the result? He could just whip us up and skip all the monkey business… no pun intended.
which brings up another question, why did God never give us any information about the universe that we didn’t already know to be factual? Further still, the answers he offers for these “at the time unknowns” are so convoluted and vague that instead of hinting us in the right direction they actually took us backwards and resulted in violent wars and genocide (many of which God personally commanded to happen).

Ultimately, the answers in the bible given in genesis in no way logically lead to what science has found to be true and it can only be viewed as such while working backwards ex post-facto.

[/quote]

You certainly demand a lot of God.

699

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Then how do you reconcile the theory of evolution with the story of creation in Genesis?[/quote]

  1. Which creation story?

  2. Did you read Genesis with the assistance of the Talmud? If so, you would be aware there is no conflict.

The Torah is 100% correct, but it is an index, not an encylopedia.[/quote]

  1. I’m assuming you’re talking about genesis 1 vs. genesis 2. In which case… does it matter?

  2. No, I have not read the Talmud. How does the Talmud reconcile this?

You can interpret anything to be 100% correct because it’s a matter of how much a mental stretch you allow yourself to make before dropping something. You wouldn’t say that the Torah is 100% correct if viewed literally, correct? Well, others do. Why would God allow his book to be so open to interpretation? Why not just personally tell us what he wants, if anything?

Besides this, if the bible is meant to be taken metaphorically, then how much? To what degree? The correlation between what we know to be true and what the bible says to be true is so weak that the only way to make the connection is to get the correct answer ourselves and work backwards (making the biblical creation account pointless as it doesn’t actually help us to understand the universe) and even then it’s an incredible mental stretch to make things fit. The tower of babel is a very poor metaphor for the out of Africa theory, the order of creation given in genesis one is completely out of order with how things would have to naturally occur and what exactly is Noah’s ark a metaphor for?

There comes a point where you have to realize that you’re trying to make reality fit your world view and not the other way around.

700

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Then how do you reconcile the theory of evolution with the story of creation in Genesis?[/quote]

  1. Which creation story?

  2. Did you read Genesis with the assistance of the Talmud? If so, you would be aware there is no conflict.

The Torah is 100% correct, but it is an index, not an encylopedia.[/quote]

  1. I’m assuming you’re talking about genesis 1 vs. genesis 2. In which case… does it matter?

  2. No, I have not read the Talmud. How does the Talmud reconcile this?

You can interpret anything to be 100% correct because it’s a matter of how much a mental stretch you allow yourself to make before dropping something. You wouldn’t say that the Torah is 100% correct if viewed literally, correct? Well, others do. Why would God allow his book to be so open to interpretation? Why not just personally tell us what he wants, if anything?

Besides this, if the bible is meant to be taken metaphorically, then how much? To what degree? The correlation between what we know to be true and what the bible says to be true is so weak that the only way to make the connection is to get the correct answer ourselves and work backwards (making the biblical creation account pointless as it doesn’t actually help us to understand the universe) and even then it’s an incredible mental stretch to make things fit. The tower of babel is a very poor metaphor for the out of Africa theory, the order of creation given in genesis one is completely out of order with how things would have to naturally occur and what exactly is Noah’s ark a metaphor for?

There comes a point where you have to realize that you’re trying to make reality fit your world view and not the other way around.

[/quote]

Ahh, I see. You think God should have left us a technical manual.