Young Earth Frustration

[_Quasimodo]

I think in some people (such as your hubby) the need to believe in what they were taught as children is much stronger than any desire to know the truth. No evidence will be sufficient to sway them (some members of this board are good examples).

I once was working with a lady (coincidentally a Mormon) who, when I mentioned that I had done work for NASA, immediately stated that she thought that the moon landings were faked.

I have, in my possession, direct duplicates of negatives taken during the first moon landing (given to me by a good friend at NASA). I showed them to her as proof.

Her response was that they were obvious fakes. Even though it's easy to see that they are obviously genuine, she could only reject them in favor of her own bias.

[_Hoops]

I think in some people (such as your hubby) the need to believe ... is much stronger than any desire to know the truth. No evidence will be sufficient to sway them (some members of this board are good examples).

How true.

[_Ceeboo]

I think in some people (such as your hubby) the need to believe ... is much stronger than any desire to know the truth. No evidence will be sufficient to sway them (some members of this board are good examples).

How true.

:)

:)

:)

:)


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Buffalo]

Well, there is no getting around it if you're Mormon

That's an interesting comment. It's my understanding that Mormon thought/doctrine is perfectly setup to take Genesis either way. The assertion that God is subject to natural law, as one example.

since so many Mormon scriptures depend on that hyper literal viewpoint. You can get around it as a Christian or a Jew, though.

My point is that one may try, but unsuccessfully. Which is why Genesis is rarely taught in Christian churches, to our discredit.

Certain parts of the Book of Mormon, D&C and POGP treat Genesis as historical.

I'd disagree about the successfully part. You'll even find a lot of Rabbis who do not take Genesis literally at all.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

That is my preferred method. Makes WAY more sense.

Certainly is easier, but at the end of the day, you are left with a mish-mash of gobbledy-gook.

Oh, the irony!

[_Buffalo]

Just Me, you might ask Tarski for his input. He's the science guru.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Another logical practice would be to take the Bible metaphorically in every instance. This results in interpretation of the myth that retains the spiritual value. See Unity School of Christianity to examples.

No, that is not a reasonable way to address the text. That renders the text as a whole, and any parsing you may do, virtually meaningless.

I don't think so. The text began as myth. It was always myth, made up by man. As myth, it does have intrinsic value.

[_Hoops]

I don't think so. The text began as myth. It was always myth, made up by man. As myth, it does have intrinsic value.

Evidence?

As myth, it may have intrinsic value, but what value is that? Value to do what? To proclaim what?

And how would you reconcile the value/non value of a particular passage with your neighbors opposite view? Do words not have meaning at all?

[_stemelbow]

The text says He spoke it into existence. There is no other way to take that.

Sure there is. as I said, he spoke and the work done to make it happen took place. It was done.

There is a way to consider the whole account of creation in Genesis as figurative, as a drama scene and not literally describing how the earth and things came to be.

[_Hoops]

Sure there is. as I said, he spoke and the work done to make it happen took place. It was done.

There is a way to consider the whole account of creation in Genesis as figurative, as a drama scene and not literally describing how the earth and things came to be.

I see no indication in the text that the actual work was done by another. You've gone beyond taking the text figuratively to impressing upon it that which is not there at all.

edited to correct spelling.