(August 11, 2012 at 8:46 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Drich, I don't know if this has been asked already, but what do you make of the two creation accounts?

Me personally?

I think no matter what one believes it all comes down to a matter of faith. Because no one truly knows what happened. I know what the bible says and I know what science say as of 1993 plus or minus a few dozen documentries since then, and I can honestly say I do not know what happened, nor am I persumptious enough to claim absolute knoweledge on events that happened a long time before anyone could possiably and absolutly know. for my personal faith does not hang on one account or another. But because my faith claims one, I will teach the one as written in accordance to my faith. Because of this, to combine the two accounts means little in the way of reconsiling anything for me personally. But, I do see it as an obstical for those who fancy themselves as 'free thinkers' who just happen to 'think' just like every other 'free thinker.' that is the reason for my efforts here. to eliminate the barrier between religious thought and 'free' thought. In hopes that it will inspire actual independant thought apart from the 'free thought' most of you have been programed to think.

(August 11, 2012 at 9:10 pm)Drich Wrote:

(August 11, 2012 at 8:46 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Drich, I don't know if this has been asked already, but what do you make of the two creation accounts?

Me personally?

I think no matter what one believes it all comes down to a matter of faith. Because no one truly knows what happened. I know what the bible says and I know what science say as of 1993 plus or minus a few dozen documentries since then, and I can honestly say I do not know what happened, nor am I persumptious enough to claim absolute knoweledge on events that happened a long time before anyone could possiably and absolutly know. for my personal faith does not hang on one account or another. But because my faith claims one, I will teach the one as written in accordance to my faith. Because of this, to combine the two accounts means little in the way of reconsiling anything for me personally. But, I do see it as an obstical for those who fancy themselves as 'free thinkers' who just happen to 'think' just like every other 'free thinker.' that is the reason for my efforts here. to eliminate the barrier between religious thought and 'free' thought. In hopes that it will inspire actual independant thought apart from the 'free thought' most of you have been programed to think.

I find it interesting that you explicitly said that trying to figure out how the two accounts fit together means nothing to you. But here you are fighting for a literal interpretation of Genesis. Well... It doesn't take any sort special free thinker to realise when man and woman are getting created twice and in different orders with respect to other events that something isn't right. I personally cannot then accept this as a possibility of how we were created. My free thinking doesn't want knots.

Why can you live with the contradiction and still teach a literal understanding? That is a contradiction within a contradiction i.e. inception!

(August 11, 2012 at 8:39 pm)Drich Wrote: Asked and answered 3 times

And to clarify, because it wasn't clear to me, your answer was, "yes, the earth was created before the sun was created."

Quote: nor am I persumptious enough to claim absolute knoweledge on events that happened a long time before anyone could possiably and absolutly know.

A state which fully applies to the assholes who wrote your bible, Drippy.

(August 11, 2012 at 9:22 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I find it interesting that you explicitly said that trying to figure out how the two accounts fit together means nothing to you. But here you are fighting for a literal interpretation of Genesis.

As i have said at least 10 dozen times in nearly 100 pages of dialog my account does not change the orginal in any way shape or form.
The orginal speaks of the events inside of the garden and does not speak of an time line outside of the literal creation account.

Quote:Well... It doesn't take any sort special free thinker to realise when man and woman are getting created twice and in different orders with respect to other events that something isn't right.

what is not right is your understanding of traditional Hebrew accounts/story telling.

Quote:Why can you live with the contradiction and still teach a literal understanding? That is a contradiction within a contradiction i.e. inception!

We've had this discussion before. Jews then did not give a straight chronological account of an event. They started with an over view from start to completion and then went back and filled in the details the over view did not include.

(August 12, 2012 at 12:07 am)Drich Wrote:

(August 11, 2012 at 9:22 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I find it interesting that you explicitly said that trying to figure out how the two accounts fit together means nothing to you. But here you are fighting for a literal interpretation of Genesis.

As i have said at least 10 dozen times in nearly 100 pages of dialog my account does not change the orginal in any way shape or form.
The orginal speaks of the events inside of the garden and does not speak of an time line outside of the literal creation account.

Quote:Well... It doesn't take any sort special free thinker to realise when man and woman are getting created twice and in different orders with respect to other events that something isn't right.

what is not right is your understanding of traditional Hebrew accounts/story telling.

Quote:Why can you live with the contradiction and still teach a literal understanding? That is a contradiction within a contradiction i.e. inception!

We've had this discussion before. Jews then did not give a straight chronological account of an event. They started with an over view from start to completion and then went back and filled in the details the over view did not include.

And may I ask who was there to witness all of this?

(August 12, 2012 at 12:41 am)FallentoReason Wrote: And may I ask who was there to witness all of this?

I think you will find this has been established after much academic research,
frankiej's arse.

(August 11, 2012 at 9:10 pm)Drich Wrote: I think no matter what one believes it all comes down to a matter of faith. Because no one truly knows what happened. I know what the bible says and I know what science say as of 1993 plus or minus a few dozen documentries since then, and I can honestly say I do not know what happened, nor am I persumptious enough to claim absolute knoweledge on events that happened a long time before anyone could possiably and absolutly know.

So, one thing says that, with literally no scientific evidence to back it up. One thing says this, with tons of scientific evidence that converge upon this theory, and the two are equal to you? Is that what you're saying?

Science doesn't just assert things, Drich. It follows the best available evidence. The Big Bang theory is currently the best explanation we have (although I've recently heard of an interesting other theory that is apparently well evidenced, also - watch this space). You can't just equate it to a storybook that was literally fucking made up.

(August 12, 2012 at 6:11 am)ElDinero Wrote: You can't just equate it to a storybook that was literally fucking made up.

Well, obviously he can but that doesn't make it reasonable. Lack of 100% certainty is not license for complete nonsense. Consideration of all the evidence is not on par with wild speculation just because neither is certain in any final way.

(August 11, 2012 at 9:10 pm)Drich Wrote:

(August 11, 2012 at 8:46 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Drich, I don't know if this has been asked already, but what do you make of the two creation accounts?

Me personally?

I think no matter what one believes it all comes down to a matter of faith. Because no one truly knows what happened. I know what the bible says and I know what science say as of 1993 plus or minus a few dozen documentries since then, and I can honestly say I do not know what happened, nor am I persumptious enough to claim absolute knoweledge on events that happened a long time before anyone could possiably and absolutly know. for my personal faith does not hang on one account or another. But because my faith claims one, I will teach the one as written in accordance to my faith. Because of this, to combine the two accounts means little in the way of reconsiling anything for me personally. But, I do see it as an obstical for those who fancy themselves as 'free thinkers' who just happen to 'think' just like every other 'free thinker.' that is the reason for my efforts here. to eliminate the barrier between religious thought and 'free' thought. In hopes that it will inspire actual independant thought apart from the 'free thought' most of you have been programed to think.

Ah, I see, it's scorched earth time. After having this gibberish criticized from literally every angle you feel the need to throw your hands in the air and say "meh, it's all the same, it's all faith"

Guess what, nope. Sound your retreat into inanity some other way, some way that doesn't insult our intelligence or your own. If you were going to default to faith as an endgame you could have saved yourself the trouble of waffling around about things like the fossil record and evolution in the first place. Here's the real kicker though, assume for a moment you weren't horrendously wrong, your excuse here is garbage. Why? Because in admitting that you don't know (and, for some hilarious reason insinuating that it could not be known) you reduced what was once rambling gibberish into a rambling appeal to ignorance - and it's still gibberish.

The only interesting thing you posted in this response was that your faith hangs on neither account. Of course it doesn't. Your faith doesn't hang on any account Drich, which is what I've been trying to express to you in just about every thread you've made since joining. Are we going to drop the "biblically based faith" bullshit in light of this? No, of course not.