(November 21, 2022 at 9:24 am)Belacqua Wrote: King Lear is bad because it doesn't contain the formula for DNA.
Is it reasonable to expect King Lear to contain the formula for DNA?
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 19, 2024, 6:03 pm
Thread Rating:
|
There are no answers in Genesis
|
 Is it reasonable to expect King Lear to contain the formula for DNA?  RE: There are no answers in Genesis
November 21, 2022 at 11:32 am
(This post was last modified: November 21, 2022 at 11:34 am by Anomalocaris.)
King Lear would be bad, very bad, unspeakably bad if customarily, and continued to be, passed off as the word of god. But even then, it would still far far better than genesis.
 (November 21, 2022 at 9:24 am)Belacqua Wrote: King Lear is bad because it doesn't contain the formula for DNA. No one is trying to pass off King Lear as a scientific treatise. Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
The fool in King Lear used humor and sarcasm as a way to the truth, which is an ability typical forum fools lack.
 (November 20, 2022 at 12:59 pm)Ahriman Wrote: Guess what? Your magic spell (the complicated one) isn't any better than the Genesis spell. The complicated one allows you to participate on this forum.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
Snarky response to the OP: oh, it has answers...just to the questions that do not interest physical reductionists.
Measured response to OP: maybe the purpose of the text is not to provide answers but to prompt the reader to ponder the significance of the story. These stories are very old...what the past wanted us to have. Our ancestor's preserved them for us at great cost because they speak to something vital about the human condition. I would say the same about the ancient texts of other religions as well.
<insert profound quote here>
 (November 21, 2022 at 2:10 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Snarky response to the OP: oh, it has answers...just to the questions that do not interest physical reductionists. Prior to Hutton, believers took Genesis literally; why not just abandon it and see all of it for what it is, bronze-age mythologies? RE: There are no answers in Genesis
November 21, 2022 at 3:15 pm
(This post was last modified: November 21, 2022 at 3:15 pm by BrianSoddingBoru4.)
(November 21, 2022 at 2:10 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Snarky response to the OP: oh, it has answers...just to the questions that do not interest physical reductionists. I may be mistaken, but I rather think the OP was - however obliquely - referring to Answers In Genesis, Ken Ham’s ludicrously pseudoscientific attempt to replace science with Biblical literalism. If one chooses to read Genesis for an analogy regarding ‘something vital about the human condition’, I shan’t quibble. It is not, and was never intended to be, a text on cosmology. Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
(November 21, 2022 at 2:25 pm)Jehanne Wrote:(November 21, 2022 at 2:10 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Snarky response to the OP: oh, it has answers...just to the questions that do not interest physical reductionists. Tell, that to LinuxGal.
<insert profound quote here>
(November 21, 2022 at 4:56 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(November 21, 2022 at 2:25 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Prior to Hutton, believers took Genesis literally; why not just abandon it and see all of it for what it is, bronze-age mythologies? I don't think that she takes any of it seriously, which is the whole point of her post. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
