or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › literal interpretation of bible + no evolution + noah's ark = ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

literal interpretation of bible + no evolution + noah's ark = ? - Page 15

post #281 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thao View Post
I_olive, I was a fundamentalist Christian for over half my life so I understand the mindset.

It's not that they feel threatened (or at least I didn't) but rather a conviction that there is only One Truth which naturally enough happens to be their particular belief. If there is only one truth, and they have it, then obviously anything different is wrong. Add to that a belief in Satan who is trying to deceive people so they'll go to Hell. So evolution is a plot by Satan to lead people away from God. All other religions and religous experiences are nothing more than counterfeits created by Satan.

I don't quite know how to explain this, but to maintain this pretty simplistic worldview in such a complicated world, one has to impose it on EVERYTHING. If something comes up that doesn't fit with the worldview, one has to disbelieve it. So for example when a fundamentalist meets someone like me who is no longer a Christian and very happy with my situation (when I should be miserable and convicted), they'll think to themselves (or sometimes tell me outright) that really truly deep inside I know the truth, and I am just resisting it because I don't want to abide by God's laws/am selfish/being deceived by Satan etc. I could tell them until I am blue in the face that this is not the case and they won't hear it.

Oh, I suppose for those that believe the Bible is inerrant and literally true there could be an element of feeling threatened. Because if any jot or tittle turns out to not be true, it will shake their entire faith. I remember as a high-schooler frantically trying to make the various geneologies in the Bible match up with each other, because if those were wrong then I would lose my faith.

I have to say, after participating in this thread I am so glad I am no longer a part of that. It's great for some people, but not for me.
Thank you, Thao, for your thoughtful reply to my question. I have to admit, though, that the whole mindset is so foreign to me that I'm not sure I'll ever quite understand it.

This thread makes me glad, too -- glad that I've never felt it necessary to denegrate anyone else's beliefs in order to preserve my own. Because it would, indeed, be hard for me to reconcile my moral and religious convictions with a kind of Christianity which required its members to be arrogant and narrow-minded.
post #282 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
No one? I did.

Haven't read the books?! I spent four years of college reading those books! Are you kidding me? :

I am not the only former evolutionist who abandoned this false theory. Are you purposely ignoring the George Gaylord Simpson quotes I posted?
You've misunderstood once again.

I was referring to the books you've talked about on the Flood. Your opinion seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that anyone who reads those books will either believe in the Flood or they are being obstinate. It doesn't allow for the option that someone might read the books on the Flood and decide the evidence presented therein is not persuasive.
post #283 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
I don't see why you are so coy about your beliefs. It's not supposed to be a 'secret.' I am quite open with mine, and you have judged and mocked me and personally it has no impact.
It has never been intention to judge you or mock you Stacy. I think you'd have a hard time fnding a post of mine that did that. Nonetheless, I apologize if I did.

As for being "coy" about my beliefs, why would I share something that is so personal to me with someone who will not respect what I have to say? You'll just tell me I'm being "obstinate" .
post #284 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thao View Post
It doesn't allow for the option that someone might read the books on the Flood and decide the evidence presented therein is not persuasive.
To be honest, this is the thing about most fundamentalist sorts which really drives me bonkers. There's this idea that if I'd actually read the books, I'd believe them. I remember that it came up over and over again in the Left Behind books, too-- the idea that the only possible outcome of thorough study was theirs. Which is sad... because in my experience, the exact opposite is true.

I've said it more than once. I've read the books. I still disagree. In fact, reading the books only gives me more to disagree *with*. Must be the sin cement...
post #285 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by eilonwy View Post
To be honest, this is the thing about most fundamentalist sorts which really drives me bonkers. There's this idea that if I'd actually read the books, I'd believe them. I remember that it came up over and over again in the Left Behind books, too-- the idea that the only possible outcome of thorough study was theirs. Which is sad... because in my experience, the exact opposite is true.

I've said it more than once. I've read the books. I still disagree. In fact, reading the books only gives me more to disagree *with*. Must be the sin cement...
Yeah, I was always too much of a free thinker to be a real fundamentalist/evangelical of any sort. I can't just read a book and fall for the bait, hook, line, and sinker.

And I don't understand what's so wrong about a story being an allegory? Why does the Bible, with all of its inconsistencies, have to be taken as literal truth in order to be God's Word? Religions have had myths since time began to teach spiritual truths, and cultures have had folklore to inspire their peoples. The Dalai Lama, whom I deeply admire, makes an effort to learn about the universe. An ancient Buddhist teaching said that the moon and the sun are equidistant from the earth. But the Dalai Lama was shown by astronomers with their telescope that this is simply not true in the literal sense. So he was convinced, and he said that maybe that teaching ought to be changed so people will know the scientific truth.
post #286 of 294
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
Have you read a single of the half-dozen or so books on the topic I've listed in this thread?
I've heard of the books and I am familiar with the arguments they present. I used to try to convince myself of those arguments, but I no longer believe that they are possible. Again, I ask you, who wrote these books? Scientists, biologists? What are their credentials? Why are their opinions more important than other materials I have read? What is the magical point in the books that will change my mind now? Why don't you just share that here right now on this thread and save us all some time. Telling us to go read books instead of answering simple questions about a theory you believe in is just showing me that you don't have enough of a grasp on the topic to present your side. The evolutionists have no problem answering simple questions about their theory. They don't keep pointing me to books, and saying that I wont understand their side unless I read these certain books. If you can't explain something to someone then you don't really understand it.
post #287 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
I am not the only former evolutionist who abandoned this false theory. Are you purposely ignoring the George Gaylord Simpson quotes I posted?
I was just re-reading this thread and caught this, I guess I missed it the first time around.

The quote is: "The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium (Eohippus) into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook wirters, never happened in nature."

Except that he was not saying that because he had abandoned evolutionary theory. He was saying it because he disagreed with the idea that evolution happens uniformly, in a straight line, and instead proposed a model with a lot of branches and dead-ends branching out from a "trunk".

Quote:
Simpson made the evolution of the horse one of his specialties; his detailed, quantitative studies, published in his classic book Horses (1951), exploded Marsh's "single-line" evolution of the horse from a fox-sized hoofless ancestor. Instead, Simpson showed the complex and diverse branching of the horse's ancient relatives, not only through time, but over geographica area, as early populations pushed into various habitats, adapting first to forests, then to open grasslands. Horses represented a complex, branching bush of diverging species—nothing like a line leading straight from Eohippus to old Dobbin.
He went to his grave still believing in that "false theory", Stacy. If it was one of your books that gave you your quote and told you he rejected evolutionary theory, you should question the scholarship of the book to have made such an error.

I am also curious how, given your 4 years of study of biology and evolution and your commitment to doing research, you could not have known that that quote was so badly taken out of context? Did you not research that quote before posting it?
post #288 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by merpk View Post
Okay, so no one is reading my link, but will give it over in very brief ... it's not a poetic thing, each day. Remembering that the universe started in one small point, the Big Bang, whammo, it's expanding outward, right? so as it expands, time is perceived differently ... and the time as perceived in the first large chunk is perceived differently in the second, and continuing in the third ... etc., etc., etc.


I never took physics in school, so don't take my word for it. Read my links.



just meandering though but i HAD to respond to this...

I thought I was the only one who thought this... back in college I realized how much faster time seemed to go than when I was a child. I was also taking a class on statistics and somehow cam eto the conclusion that days were going faster, because of my perspective. As you get older each moment that passes is a smaller percentage of your total life... a day is less time from the perspective of someone who has lived through two decades than someone who has lived one, etc.

anyway, OT, but it was cool to read those link. i cannot wait to show them to DH. he LOVES this kind of stuff. Thanks for posting!
post #289 of 294
Hi all - I am sorry to say I have had a very unfortunate family emergency happen today and am having to put me and kids on a plane first thing Saturday morning. I will try to check in as I am able.
post #290 of 294
I just stumbled across this very interesting quote and thought it was good timing:

"The guiding spirit of modern science, according to the Faust myth, is a satanic demon.... How seriously do we need to take the idea that our whole society and civilization is under the possession of such a spirit, worshiped through money and power? How much are fallen angels actually guiding and perverting the progress of science and technology? Is a great war between the good and evil angels being acted out on Earth? We hardly know how to think or talk about such possibilities since they are so alien to the official, standard models of Western history."

- Rupert Sheldrake, in Chaos, Creativity, and Cosmic Consciousness
post #291 of 294
I hope everyone in your family is okay, Stacy!
post #292 of 294
I've been reading along though not responding because I really don't have much to say - the topic isn't my thing, so to speak.

But, I hope that everything is OK with your family, Stacey - you are in my thoughts and prayers
post #293 of 294
Yeah, my Dad has Alzheimer's and I have to make an emergency trip to AZ (I'm in MD) - it just stinks.
post #294 of 294
I'm sorry about your father, StacyL...chronic illness, particularly the Alzheimer's and related diseases are not easy to handle.

But I did want to comment on your quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
I just stumbled across this very interesting quote and thought it was good timing:

"The guiding spirit of modern science, according to the Faust myth, is a satanic demon.... How seriously do we need to take the idea that our whole society and civilization is under the possession of such a spirit, worshiped through money and power? How much are fallen angels actually guiding and perverting the progress of science and technology? Is a great war between the good and evil angels being acted out on Earth? We hardly know how to think or talk about such possibilities since they are so alien to the official, standard models of Western history."

- Rupert Sheldrake, in Chaos, Creativity, and Cosmic Consciousness
Rupert Sheldrake is currently studying animal telepathy and other paranormal phenomena. I'm not saying I doubt this stuff. But I wouldn't imagine this to be really in-line with orthodox Christianity or Creationism. He also criticizes Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism, but in that he believes that acquired characteristics can be passed down. He also believes in the laws of nature being more like habits, that they too evolve as the universe changes.

This is not to say I'm not intrigued by his ideas as they are unorthodox in the modern sense (he would seem to prefer a return to Platonic and Aristotlean ideas tested in the scientific methods of today, and that we need to accept the presence of metanatural forces). But again, I don't see how this truly supports your viewpoint.

More can be found at www.sheldrake.org
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › literal interpretation of bible + no evolution + noah's ark = ?