I grew up catholic and was sent to catholic school and this is what we were taught. That the creation story is metaphor, the catholic church believes God used the big bang and evolution to create the world and people, ect.
Dang, thats sick. Ive always wondered why that wasnt the default view. Nothing in science contradicts God, although it certainly contradicts a fair amount of the bible. Back when i was alternatively religious, i would commonly argue to my traditionally religious family that evolution doesnt have anything to do with whether God created the world, and that the bible states God made the world for us to explore and utilize. He also said that due to our sin, nothing would come freely, including those tools. I believed medicine was a part of Gods tools he created for us to use. Same with science. Hence my natural conclusion was that God retroactively evolved the creatures around us. He didnt spring them into existance, its fully within Gods power to alter the timeline so they naturally evolved on this planet. Its possible he had simply already evolved them to be ready for us, the guy knows the future.
It was a cool fanfic, but now im wholly athiest for moral reasons.
“No, that wasn’t a metaphor! The Bible is literal truth!”
“What about ‘The land shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with Me,’ or ‘But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,’ or ‘Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.’?”
Wanna know a secret… God didn’t even write that part. God’s version has him at a kmart in Toledo, Iowa buying the entire universe on a Saturday in 1997, at which point he installed it, but it did take several days because it was football season, but it was less than a week no matter what anyone else says.
There is “old earth creationism” which works along those lines. But creationists are “literalists,” which actually means they believe a specific interpretation of the text taught to them by their pastor.
Really, you’d think that most anyone reading the texts would realize that Genesis 1 and 2 were mutually contradicting…
This is the thing that gets me. Literally the first book of the old testament immediately contradicts itself yet they claim to take it literally. The reality is that very few read the Bible at all other than the passages cherry picked by the preacher to read during the sermon.
It’s so weird to me. When I was in second grade, I started trying to read the Bible from cover to cover (made it until Numbers, then I had to start skipping around for my own sanity).
We keep hearing about how this is the most important book to this group of people. They demand it be taught in schools, they demand that we follow its precepts, but they can’t be arsed to read it themselves?
So I grew up around creationists. When I presented this idea, the only attempt at a justification I heard was something like “in the original Hebrew the word for a literal day was used, that’s how we know creation happened in literal 6 days”
Which baffled me enough to shut me up, so that guy probably thinks he convinced me.
Which baffled me enough to shut me up, so that guy probably thinks he convinced me.
This seems to happen to me more frequently these days. Sometimes a person will say something so absurd that it just stops me in my tracks and I’m sure they think it means they “won”
I dont know hebrew, but that does seem plasuable enough to me. My understanding is that different languages have different structures, and therefore its definitely plausible that hebrew has a “literal” structure. Similar to how we say literally, except we use it wrong a bunch.
Of course, I generally doubt anyone that says they know hebrew until they demonstrate it, so i doubt what they said was true, but I could understand how it might’ve been believable.
That’s a more popular justification now, but there’s definitely no textual defense of it, they’re just reinterpreting around the scientific consensus. How often do you expect a book to define the term “day” before moving on? It was almost certainly written and intended to be treated literally.
Or just a matter of perspective. If “God” was just a programmer who could explain the difference between how long we spent writing code, running the software, and the simulation actual perspective difference.
Is there even anything in Genesis to suggest that the ‘days’ were 24h long? I could see it being meant metaphorically…
I grew up catholic and was sent to catholic school and this is what we were taught. That the creation story is metaphor, the catholic church believes God used the big bang and evolution to create the world and people, ect.
Dang, thats sick. Ive always wondered why that wasnt the default view. Nothing in science contradicts God, although it certainly contradicts a fair amount of the bible. Back when i was alternatively religious, i would commonly argue to my traditionally religious family that evolution doesnt have anything to do with whether God created the world, and that the bible states God made the world for us to explore and utilize. He also said that due to our sin, nothing would come freely, including those tools. I believed medicine was a part of Gods tools he created for us to use. Same with science. Hence my natural conclusion was that God retroactively evolved the creatures around us. He didnt spring them into existance, its fully within Gods power to alter the timeline so they naturally evolved on this planet. Its possible he had simply already evolved them to be ready for us, the guy knows the future.
It was a cool fanfic, but now im wholly athiest for moral reasons.
“No, that wasn’t a metaphor! The Bible is literal truth!”
“What about ‘The land shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with Me,’ or ‘But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,’ or ‘Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.’?”
“Those parts were metaphorical!”
Wanna know a secret… God didn’t even write that part. God’s version has him at a kmart in Toledo, Iowa buying the entire universe on a Saturday in 1997, at which point he installed it, but it did take several days because it was football season, but it was less than a week no matter what anyone else says.
There is “old earth creationism” which works along those lines. But creationists are “literalists,” which actually means they believe a specific interpretation of the text taught to them by their pastor.
Really, you’d think that most anyone reading the texts would realize that Genesis 1 and 2 were mutually contradicting…
This is the thing that gets me. Literally the first book of the old testament immediately contradicts itself yet they claim to take it literally. The reality is that very few read the Bible at all other than the passages cherry picked by the preacher to read during the sermon.
It’s so weird to me. When I was in second grade, I started trying to read the Bible from cover to cover (made it until Numbers, then I had to start skipping around for my own sanity).
We keep hearing about how this is the most important book to this group of people. They demand it be taught in schools, they demand that we follow its precepts, but they can’t be arsed to read it themselves?
So I grew up around creationists. When I presented this idea, the only attempt at a justification I heard was something like “in the original Hebrew the word for a literal day was used, that’s how we know creation happened in literal 6 days”
Which baffled me enough to shut me up, so that guy probably thinks he convinced me.
Original Hebrew? Anything in Hebrew that is supposedly from the “original” is a translation.
Well duh, if they meant metaphorical day, they should have used the hebrew word for metaphorical days.
/s
This seems to happen to me more frequently these days. Sometimes a person will say something so absurd that it just stops me in my tracks and I’m sure they think it means they “won”
I dont know hebrew, but that does seem plasuable enough to me. My understanding is that different languages have different structures, and therefore its definitely plausible that hebrew has a “literal” structure. Similar to how we say literally, except we use it wrong a bunch.
Of course, I generally doubt anyone that says they know hebrew until they demonstrate it, so i doubt what they said was true, but I could understand how it might’ve been believable.
Genesis is full of absolute nonsense
The bible is just early fantasy fiction
Imma be real with you. If you show me a cool thing you made in a couple days, and your “days” aren’t 24h long… That’s just sad
When I talk to my boss and tell them it took me 5 days to do something – my “days” are only about 1 hour.
Works both ways.
On the other hand, show me a universe you made, and I’ll be impressed!
No mention of an eighth day in that story - we’re still in the “god rested” day!
That’s a more popular justification now, but there’s definitely no textual defense of it, they’re just reinterpreting around the scientific consensus. How often do you expect a book to define the term “day” before moving on? It was almost certainly written and intended to be treated literally.
Or just a matter of perspective. If “God” was just a programmer who could explain the difference between how long we spent writing code, running the software, and the simulation actual perspective difference.
Ask the Dwarf Fortress.
Or Puscifer.