Another Indiana anti-science bill
- Thread starter Beeazlebub
- Start date
Re: How about Political Correctness?
I remember a time when "political correctness" was simply considered being polite. It has no religious connotations. It was simply considered a version of the golden rule and wasn't considered an agenda, like it seems to be by "some" today.
I remember a time when "political correctness" was simply considered being polite. It has no religious connotations. It was simply considered a version of the golden rule and wasn't considered an agenda, like it seems to be by "some" today.
folks "like me"...
Wow!
What a field day the rabid racialists would have if a conservative had written that!
Yes, you write a lot of laughable things. And the point remains, liberals love to b*tch and moan when they see things like what you've posted... the little LOL's and such!
And "folks like you is racist!"... dontcha know! Welcome to the world of PC BS!
Wow!
What a field day the rabid racialists would have if a conservative had written that!
Yes, you write a lot of laughable things. And the point remains, liberals love to b*tch and moan when they see things like what you've posted... the little LOL's and such!
And "folks like you is racist!"... dontcha know! Welcome to the world of PC BS!
Re: ?
Oh, what's the "be a man" B-S.
Are you that much of an internet tough guy?
I believe in a creator. God!
If you can list the many examples of something being created out of nothing, you'll have standing here, especially in your "tough guy" scientific theory nonsense.
Otherwise this is just more tough guy b-s.
Now... be a man.
"LOL"
Oh, what's the "be a man" B-S.
Are you that much of an internet tough guy?
I believe in a creator. God!
If you can list the many examples of something being created out of nothing, you'll have standing here, especially in your "tough guy" scientific theory nonsense.
Otherwise this is just more tough guy b-s.
Now... be a man.
"LOL"
Re: LOL
But I don't get this: "I don't konw where God fits into the big picture of life on Earth, etc."
Really??
I do!
We have too many lukewarm Christians on this earth. And I am one of them. As is "Noodle". Because that's ridiculous.
You know for sure Earth is not a few thousand years old? How, for G-d's sake?! There's so much we cannot explain, but to assume you (or I!) have answers (including the "age" of earth) is preposterous!
Wow. I'm stunned, but in a good way.
But I don't get this: "I don't konw where God fits into the big picture of life on Earth, etc."
Really??
I do!
We have too many lukewarm Christians on this earth. And I am one of them. As is "Noodle". Because that's ridiculous.
You know for sure Earth is not a few thousand years old? How, for G-d's sake?! There's so much we cannot explain, but to assume you (or I!) have answers (including the "age" of earth) is preposterous!
Re: Folks like you
I'ts not that I won't, clown.
I support my family and don't live on the Purdue forums day and night.
I'ts not that I won't, clown.
I support my family and don't live on the Purdue forums day and night.
Re: Folks like you
Oh, good grief.
Pot...kettle.
It's not like you have a history of just answering "yes" or "no".
Oh, good grief.
Pot...kettle.
It's not like you have a history of just answering "yes" or "no".
Re: LOL
Pastor, either you're a "Pastor" or you aren't. Either you believe the bible is the word of God or you don't. If you do, stand by it. If you don't, get your lukewarm @ss out of the pulpit and stop lying to people.
Either way, I don't care. Just make a decision and either live up to the title of "Pastor" or abandon it! Otherwise, you're no different than "Pastors" like Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Swaggart, Al Sharpton and many more.
Pastor, either you're a "Pastor" or you aren't. Either you believe the bible is the word of God or you don't. If you do, stand by it. If you don't, get your lukewarm @ss out of the pulpit and stop lying to people.
Either way, I don't care. Just make a decision and either live up to the title of "Pastor" or abandon it! Otherwise, you're no different than "Pastors" like Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Swaggart, Al Sharpton and many more.
Re: LOL
Assuming that God created in a literal seven days as described in Genesis (we won't even get into the discussion about which creation story should be literally accepted, since there are more than one), God must have created a world with scientific principles that point away from the truth (i.e. carbon dating, dendro-chronology, etc.). That is, the "laws of nature" clearly point to earth being much older. If all of that is true, then God would have to be deceptive and God's ultimate goodness comes into question. How could a good God create a world that points away from God and then punish people for not believing?
You won't believe that, though. You'll come back with yet another insult, because you are part of my favorite group of "Christians" - those who look at anyone who disagrees with them and dismisses them out of hand as heretics or apostates. The fact that I can accept evolution and God's role in creation does not make me any less a "pastor." You want to hear the really crazy part? I've actually preached about this and my church knows that I accept evolutionary science (to a point). I know, I know - they probably need to "make a decision" and either "be a church or not."
The bottom line minimum of Christian faith is the Apostles Creed. So long as I, or anyone, can confess (and live the truth of) the creed, he or she can be called a follower of Christ. The Apostles' Creed does include the statement that God is the "maker of heaven and earth," but does not mandate either view. Which is why I take the position of grace on this issue - I know faithful Christians who are creationists and faithful Christians who accept evolution. Both are welcome in the church, and both are fully capable of following Jesus.
What about my post insinuated that I don't believe the Bible is the Word of God? My belief about creation and God stems from study of the whole story, not merely the first three chapters of Genesis. Let me give you a little shot of logic.
Assuming that God created in a literal seven days as described in Genesis (we won't even get into the discussion about which creation story should be literally accepted, since there are more than one), God must have created a world with scientific principles that point away from the truth (i.e. carbon dating, dendro-chronology, etc.). That is, the "laws of nature" clearly point to earth being much older. If all of that is true, then God would have to be deceptive and God's ultimate goodness comes into question. How could a good God create a world that points away from God and then punish people for not believing?
You won't believe that, though. You'll come back with yet another insult, because you are part of my favorite group of "Christians" - those who look at anyone who disagrees with them and dismisses them out of hand as heretics or apostates. The fact that I can accept evolution and God's role in creation does not make me any less a "pastor." You want to hear the really crazy part? I've actually preached about this and my church knows that I accept evolutionary science (to a point). I know, I know - they probably need to "make a decision" and either "be a church or not."
The bottom line minimum of Christian faith is the Apostles Creed. So long as I, or anyone, can confess (and live the truth of) the creed, he or she can be called a follower of Christ. The Apostles' Creed does include the statement that God is the "maker of heaven and earth," but does not mandate either view. Which is why I take the position of grace on this issue - I know faithful Christians who are creationists and faithful Christians who accept evolution. Both are welcome in the church, and both are fully capable of following Jesus.
Re: How about Political Correctness?
I remember a time when "political correctness" was simply considered being polite.
Then you have a terrible memory. Or you're a kool-aid drinker. PC has never meant that. Now, the left certainly wanted us to think that's what it meant but that was always false.
It was simply considered a version of the golden rule......
The "golden rule"??? Since that comes from our Judeo-Christian heritage its the precise opposite of PC.
....and wasn't considered an agenda
PC is the essence of a political agenda. Its ultimate purpose is political. It was authored by people with political desires trying to achieve political ends.
I remember a time when "political correctness" was simply considered being polite.
Then you have a terrible memory. Or you're a kool-aid drinker. PC has never meant that. Now, the left certainly wanted us to think that's what it meant but that was always false.
It was simply considered a version of the golden rule......
The "golden rule"??? Since that comes from our Judeo-Christian heritage its the precise opposite of PC.
....and wasn't considered an agenda
PC is the essence of a political agenda. Its ultimate purpose is political. It was authored by people with political desires trying to achieve political ends.
Further Thoughts on Creation and Science
It seems to me that many of the issues between evangelical, conservative Christians and science when it comes to the so-called "Creation Debate" come down to an assumption that there is only one kind of "truth" - the kind that can be reliably proven and replicated according to the scientific method. This assumption causes many scientists to dismiss out of hand the possibility that the Biblical accounts of God's involvement in creation contain any truth; and it causes many Christians to labor at providing "scientific" evidence to support those accounts.
But the idea that there is only one kind of "truth" is a false assumption. There is, of course, the kind of truth that science does offer - reliably proven and repeatable. There is also, however, the kind of truth found in literature like Aesop's Fables or Rudyard Kipling's Just-So Stories or, as Christians are well aware, the parables of Jesus. This truth is often referred to as "the moral of the story" - and, though, people sometimes disagree with precisely what it is for a given story, few dismiss that there is truth there. So the important question appears to be not so much whether the creation accounts in Genesis are "true" but what kind of truth they present.
I would strongly suggest that the creation accounts in the Bible are not meant to be read as truth of the scientific sort but as the "moral of the story" kind of truth. In the often cliched manner of preachers, I have heard (and said, on occasion) that science tells us the "how" of creation and the Bible tells us the "why" of creation. This almost certainly oversimplifies, but it is helpful to a point. The two sides are not so much in direct opposition as they are "talking past" each other. Each is trying to claim truth in the other's mode and each fails. The Biblical accounts simply do not hold up to the scientific method of understanding truth - its explanation of how doesn't work. Yet it is also true that the attempt of science to explain the why also falls short, because science isn't equipped to go there. I realize I'm starting to sound like Ewan McGregor's speech at the end of Angels & Demons, but science and faith do not have to be in opposition - they can exist in concert (and I know several excellent scientists who are deeply devout and faithful Christians).
Anyone interested in thinking more deeply about the issue would do well to check out the writings of John Polkinghorne, a theoretical physicist who became and Anglican priest and who writes beautifully and cogently about the intersection of faith and science.
It seems to me that many of the issues between evangelical, conservative Christians and science when it comes to the so-called "Creation Debate" come down to an assumption that there is only one kind of "truth" - the kind that can be reliably proven and replicated according to the scientific method. This assumption causes many scientists to dismiss out of hand the possibility that the Biblical accounts of God's involvement in creation contain any truth; and it causes many Christians to labor at providing "scientific" evidence to support those accounts.
But the idea that there is only one kind of "truth" is a false assumption. There is, of course, the kind of truth that science does offer - reliably proven and repeatable. There is also, however, the kind of truth found in literature like Aesop's Fables or Rudyard Kipling's Just-So Stories or, as Christians are well aware, the parables of Jesus. This truth is often referred to as "the moral of the story" - and, though, people sometimes disagree with precisely what it is for a given story, few dismiss that there is truth there. So the important question appears to be not so much whether the creation accounts in Genesis are "true" but what kind of truth they present.
I would strongly suggest that the creation accounts in the Bible are not meant to be read as truth of the scientific sort but as the "moral of the story" kind of truth. In the often cliched manner of preachers, I have heard (and said, on occasion) that science tells us the "how" of creation and the Bible tells us the "why" of creation. This almost certainly oversimplifies, but it is helpful to a point. The two sides are not so much in direct opposition as they are "talking past" each other. Each is trying to claim truth in the other's mode and each fails. The Biblical accounts simply do not hold up to the scientific method of understanding truth - its explanation of how doesn't work. Yet it is also true that the attempt of science to explain the why also falls short, because science isn't equipped to go there. I realize I'm starting to sound like Ewan McGregor's speech at the end of Angels & Demons, but science and faith do not have to be in opposition - they can exist in concert (and I know several excellent scientists who are deeply devout and faithful Christians).
Anyone interested in thinking more deeply about the issue would do well to check out the writings of John Polkinghorne, a theoretical physicist who became and Anglican priest and who writes beautifully and cogently about the intersection of faith and science.
Re: Further Thoughts on Creation and Science
pastorjoe,
I generally agree with what you posted here. I do have a question about this -
"There is also, however, the kind of truth found in literature like Aesop's Fables or Rudyard Kipling's Just-So Stories or, as Christians are well aware, the parables of Jesus."
Surely you are not intending to place Aesop's Fables or Kipling's Just-So Stories on the same level as the parables of Jesus in providing the "moral of the story" kind of truth, are you? I don't think that's what you are intending to say, but I want to make sure. As far as I am concerned, the words of Jesus aren't fables or stories - they are the words of God incarnate.
pastorjoe,
I generally agree with what you posted here. I do have a question about this -
"There is also, however, the kind of truth found in literature like Aesop's Fables or Rudyard Kipling's Just-So Stories or, as Christians are well aware, the parables of Jesus."
Surely you are not intending to place Aesop's Fables or Kipling's Just-So Stories on the same level as the parables of Jesus in providing the "moral of the story" kind of truth, are you? I don't think that's what you are intending to say, but I want to make sure. As far as I am concerned, the words of Jesus aren't fables or stories - they are the words of God incarnate.
Re: Further Thoughts on Creation and Science
You're right - I wasn't intending to equate them in terms of level of importance, only as similar types of story. Parables, like the others, were stories that Jesus made up precisely to teach a point. The truth of parables is far more important than the truth of the others, though.
Re:
Heh, I'm not the one who squawks to others that they should "pick a side", or "man up" or "not straddle the fence [sic]". Why not practice what you preach in this case?
Seriously, he's asking you to list some alternate theories - you needn't subscribe to any of them.
This post was edited on 1/23 4:58 PM by BoilersRock
Heh, I'm not the one who squawks to others that they should "pick a side", or "man up" or "not straddle the fence [sic]". Why not practice what you preach in this case?
Seriously, he's asking you to list some alternate theories - you needn't subscribe to any of them.
This post was edited on 1/23 4:58 PM by BoilersRock
Re: LOL
How do you square some of the circles that theistic evolution creates?
Is the fall of man/original sin a historic event? What about Adam, specifically Paul's Adam and the advent of death? A metaphor?
I'm assuming that when you insert evolution into your description you are abiding by the findings of biology, geology, cosmology, etc.. I've read and listened to folks like N.T. Wright, McGath, WLC, and others on this point.
How do you square some of the circles that theistic evolution creates?
Is the fall of man/original sin a historic event? What about Adam, specifically Paul's Adam and the advent of death? A metaphor?
I'm assuming that when you insert evolution into your description you are abiding by the findings of biology, geology, cosmology, etc.. I've read and listened to folks like N.T. Wright, McGath, WLC, and others on this point.
Re: LOL
Where science runs into trouble, though, is when people like Dawkins make claims that science has conclusively disproven God's existence. I don't buy that - it's a question beyond science's purview. Science may be able to "prove" that there is no need for God to exist in order for the world to be as it is, but science cannot prove that God does not exist.
When it comes to the fall of humankind/original sin, there is much variety among Christian theologians. Some, as you know, argue for a literal snake, a literal tree, a literal fruit, etc. Believe it or not, there are others that argue that there is no such thing as "original" or "inborn" sin and that the only sin that plagues an individual is the result of his or her choices. (Interesting side note - the name "Adam" in the English Bible is a translation of a Hebrew word that simply means "man," so that the verse in Hebrew reads more like, "And God created man [or mankind].")
For myself, I am very comfortable admitting that I don't fully understand or have a complete answer to the question. I will say that I find both extremes problematic. The first leads to an image of God as one who rather severely punishes eternal generations for the sin of two people, while the latter flies in the face of basic observation of the species and the innate ability of children of very young age - before they are even able to be taught - to act rather selfishly, violently, and against the interests of others. My read of the story - which was written down when the people of Israel were in exile in Babylon - is that it is an attempt to understand and explain why people do bad things, and the answer is that we are all born with the ability/desire to do so. This makes Paul's use of Adam as a comparison with Christ, then, an explanation of how people can stop doing bad things. That's probably a gross oversimplification, but I think it works at least in principle.
These are really good questions. Yes, I abide by the findings of biology, geology, cosmology, etc. to a point. I accept and seek to incorporate what science can and has proven. I find evolution to be a beautiful and inspiring process, so much so that part of me wonders how something so intricately beautiful could be the result of chance.
Where science runs into trouble, though, is when people like Dawkins make claims that science has conclusively disproven God's existence. I don't buy that - it's a question beyond science's purview. Science may be able to "prove" that there is no need for God to exist in order for the world to be as it is, but science cannot prove that God does not exist.
When it comes to the fall of humankind/original sin, there is much variety among Christian theologians. Some, as you know, argue for a literal snake, a literal tree, a literal fruit, etc. Believe it or not, there are others that argue that there is no such thing as "original" or "inborn" sin and that the only sin that plagues an individual is the result of his or her choices. (Interesting side note - the name "Adam" in the English Bible is a translation of a Hebrew word that simply means "man," so that the verse in Hebrew reads more like, "And God created man [or mankind].")
For myself, I am very comfortable admitting that I don't fully understand or have a complete answer to the question. I will say that I find both extremes problematic. The first leads to an image of God as one who rather severely punishes eternal generations for the sin of two people, while the latter flies in the face of basic observation of the species and the innate ability of children of very young age - before they are even able to be taught - to act rather selfishly, violently, and against the interests of others. My read of the story - which was written down when the people of Israel were in exile in Babylon - is that it is an attempt to understand and explain why people do bad things, and the answer is that we are all born with the ability/desire to do so. This makes Paul's use of Adam as a comparison with Christ, then, an explanation of how people can stop doing bad things. That's probably a gross oversimplification, but I think it works at least in principle.
Re: yes like you
Oh, and ... lol.
And you continue to define yourself... by the labels you choose to apply to others!
Oh, and ... lol.
Re: LOL
Let me give you a hint: You don't define the purpose of the bible. Yet, your post attempt to do so. That's not biblical. That's not what a "pastor" does. The bible stands on it's own. Period!
Stop with the thin skin, already. You attempt to pull that crap anytime someone challenges you. It's not an insult to challenge you. If you think so, find another line of work. It's a difficult profession to be a "man of God"! If you think I'm insulting you, your argument is lost from the outset! Nobody dismissed anyone as a "heretic or apostate". That's ridiculously lame.
No, the Apostles Creed is not "the bottom line". Yes, you're a follower of Christ. But the creed starts there, it doesn't end there. No, there is no mandate. And, yes, grace is an important part... but not the only part.
Most of your post is rambling, and irrelevant to the point. The point remains, the Bible IS the word of God. When you stray from it, you stray from the word of God. Period!
Your post doesn't give me "a shot of logic". That's what I was attempting to provide for you. You just don't get it.
Let me give you a hint: You don't define the purpose of the bible. Yet, your post attempt to do so. That's not biblical. That's not what a "pastor" does. The bible stands on it's own. Period!
Stop with the thin skin, already. You attempt to pull that crap anytime someone challenges you. It's not an insult to challenge you. If you think so, find another line of work. It's a difficult profession to be a "man of God"! If you think I'm insulting you, your argument is lost from the outset! Nobody dismissed anyone as a "heretic or apostate". That's ridiculously lame.
No, the Apostles Creed is not "the bottom line". Yes, you're a follower of Christ. But the creed starts there, it doesn't end there. No, there is no mandate. And, yes, grace is an important part... but not the only part.
Most of your post is rambling, and irrelevant to the point. The point remains, the Bible IS the word of God. When you stray from it, you stray from the word of God. Period!
Re:
And you don't pick a side? You change direction with the wind. Straddle the fence.
I've listed alternate theories. It's clear where I stand.
No, you just "squawk".
And you don't pick a side? You change direction with the wind. Straddle the fence.
I've listed alternate theories. It's clear where I stand.
Re:
> I've listed alternate theories. It's clear where I stand.
Sorry, it was easy to miss with all of your dodging
This post was edited on 1/25 7:27 PM by BoilersRock
> I've listed alternate theories. It's clear where I stand.
Sorry, it was easy to miss with all of your dodging
This post was edited on 1/25 7:27 PM by BoilersRock
Re: LOL
I must be a glutton for punishment...but here goes.
1. Stop with the thin-skin nonsense. Seriously. Your attitude and complete lack of ability to interact with other people on an adult level - with respect - is annoying, but not offensive. I don't get offended easily, and certainly not by people who claim superiority of knowledge in an area to which I have devoted 15 years of academic and spiritual study.
2. You refuse to answer my question(s), so let me ask again:
What specifically did I say that insinuated that I don't believe the Bible is the Word of God?
How could a good God create a world that points away from God and then punish people for not believing?
3. The idea that you can't define the purpose of the Bible is the single most asinine thing you've said. Of course you can. We do it all the time. The very statement that the Bible is the Word of God is a statement about the purpose of the Bible!
4. The Apostles' Creed is not the bottom line? That would come as a surprise to the earliest Christians, because within a century of Christ's death, the Apostles' Creed (or an early version of it) formed the basis for catechesis in the Christian Church. It was used to define what it meant to be a Christian, and it was the bottom line belief that was required for baptism. That is neither conjecture nor opinion. That is inarguable historic fact.
5. "The Bible IS the word of God. When you stray from it, you stray from the word of God. Period!" I will just leave these here:
Ephesians 4:29 - "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their need, that it may benefit those who listen."
Romans 12:10 - "Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves."
Proverbs 12:18 - "There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing."
James 3:10 - "From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so."
I dare say verses like that should give both of us food for thought regarding the idea of "straying."
There are also verses that talk about things like interest (hint - charging interest is called a sin); verses that condone polygamy (which Jesus never condemns, either); verses that suggest women shouldn't be allowed to talk; verses that not only condone but encourage slavery; verses that say a whole lot of things.
The Bible does, indeed, stand on its own. But we neither can nor should take every word of it literally. No one does. No. One. To suggest otherwise is to either be naive or deceitful. Christians have been interpreting the Bible since it was first gathered as Scripture in the 4th Century CE. It seems that in every era of the church there is a group that is intent on making a virtue out of ignorance, but I remain thankful for the work of people like Irenaeus, Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury, St. Benedict, St. Francis, Bernard of Clairvaux, John Wesley, N.T. Wright, and so many others who have devoted their lives to prayerfully studying the Bible and seeking to actually apply it to the real circumstances of life.
Because studying God's Word is a lot harder than reading God's word and a world apart from shouting about God's Word on the internet.
I must be a glutton for punishment...but here goes.
1. Stop with the thin-skin nonsense. Seriously. Your attitude and complete lack of ability to interact with other people on an adult level - with respect - is annoying, but not offensive. I don't get offended easily, and certainly not by people who claim superiority of knowledge in an area to which I have devoted 15 years of academic and spiritual study.
2. You refuse to answer my question(s), so let me ask again:
What specifically did I say that insinuated that I don't believe the Bible is the Word of God?
How could a good God create a world that points away from God and then punish people for not believing?
3. The idea that you can't define the purpose of the Bible is the single most asinine thing you've said. Of course you can. We do it all the time. The very statement that the Bible is the Word of God is a statement about the purpose of the Bible!
4. The Apostles' Creed is not the bottom line? That would come as a surprise to the earliest Christians, because within a century of Christ's death, the Apostles' Creed (or an early version of it) formed the basis for catechesis in the Christian Church. It was used to define what it meant to be a Christian, and it was the bottom line belief that was required for baptism. That is neither conjecture nor opinion. That is inarguable historic fact.
5. "The Bible IS the word of God. When you stray from it, you stray from the word of God. Period!" I will just leave these here:
Ephesians 4:29 - "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their need, that it may benefit those who listen."
Romans 12:10 - "Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves."
Proverbs 12:18 - "There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing."
James 3:10 - "From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so."
I dare say verses like that should give both of us food for thought regarding the idea of "straying."
There are also verses that talk about things like interest (hint - charging interest is called a sin); verses that condone polygamy (which Jesus never condemns, either); verses that suggest women shouldn't be allowed to talk; verses that not only condone but encourage slavery; verses that say a whole lot of things.
The Bible does, indeed, stand on its own. But we neither can nor should take every word of it literally. No one does. No. One. To suggest otherwise is to either be naive or deceitful. Christians have been interpreting the Bible since it was first gathered as Scripture in the 4th Century CE. It seems that in every era of the church there is a group that is intent on making a virtue out of ignorance, but I remain thankful for the work of people like Irenaeus, Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury, St. Benedict, St. Francis, Bernard of Clairvaux, John Wesley, N.T. Wright, and so many others who have devoted their lives to prayerfully studying the Bible and seeking to actually apply it to the real circumstances of life.
Because studying God's Word is a lot harder than reading God's word and a world apart from shouting about God's Word on the internet.
Re:
I am not a biblical literalist - at least not an uncritical biblical literalist. My faith does not depend on their being a literal individual man named Adam, a literal individual woman named Eve, etc. I do think the fact that there are accounts of a flood from multiple cultures (both Hebrew and Babylonian, at least) lends some credibility to the idea of some kind of major event - but I do not believe that it was 40 feet of water over everything on earth.
Now, if the question is whether or not I am a biblical literalist on anything, the answer is yes - I believe there was a literal man named Jesus who actually died, was actually resurrected, actually ascended, and is actually going to return (though not necessarily in the "Left Behind" manner).
Also, I will not dismiss the possibility of literal readings of the creation story. I believe in a God who is certainly powerful enough to have done everything precisely as it is written. Perhaps God did. I do not think so, for reasons of faith, theology, and intellect, but I cannot dismiss the possibility.
Does that help?
My apologies, I was not attempting to obfuscate. I thought I was clear.
I am not a biblical literalist - at least not an uncritical biblical literalist. My faith does not depend on their being a literal individual man named Adam, a literal individual woman named Eve, etc. I do think the fact that there are accounts of a flood from multiple cultures (both Hebrew and Babylonian, at least) lends some credibility to the idea of some kind of major event - but I do not believe that it was 40 feet of water over everything on earth.
Now, if the question is whether or not I am a biblical literalist on anything, the answer is yes - I believe there was a literal man named Jesus who actually died, was actually resurrected, actually ascended, and is actually going to return (though not necessarily in the "Left Behind" manner).
Also, I will not dismiss the possibility of literal readings of the creation story. I believe in a God who is certainly powerful enough to have done everything precisely as it is written. Perhaps God did. I do not think so, for reasons of faith, theology, and intellect, but I cannot dismiss the possibility.
Does that help?
