My favorite cogdis of the Mormons.

[_Sethbag]

This is just not true. A figurative reading of Genesis has been around much longer than Darwin's original groundbreaking theory. So, "they" didn't come up with it just for apologetic purposes. It is quite easy to tell the difference between something figurative and literal, do you really think even the ancients believed in a talking a snake? And, as I originally stated the texts themselves don't present themselves as literal because they differ. I just don't accept theists really engaging in such arbitrary way as you present above.

Let's see. Do you believe in:

A talking donkey?

Moses literally parted the Red Sea?

Fiery serpents came down and infected people, and those who gazed upon the symbol Moses raised up were cured?

God was disappointed with Saul because after slaughtering every man, woman, and child of some people who were "trespassing" on Israel's land, he kept back some of the cattle to sacrifice?

God ordered Abraham to slaughter ritually his son, and burn his carcass on an altar?

God killed all homo sapiens on Earth in a great flood, saving only Noah and his family?

Everyone spoke the same language until they tried to build a tower to God, and so God invented all these various languages and changed the wiring in peoples' brains so they suddenly thought and spoke differently from each other, leading to the dissolution of the building effort, and a scattering of the people*?

Lot was considered righteous for offering his own daughters to be raped by a crowd of people, in order to save two angels from God from the same fate?

God actually killed the firstborn male of every Egyptian household, or indeed every household in Egypt that didn't paint the door of their house with lamb's blood?

Jesus turned water into wine?

Jesus spit in some dirt, made mud with it, put it on some blind guy's eyes, and suddenly his blindness was cured?

God actually stopped the Earth rotating on its axis (or slowed it down considerably) in order to give the Israelites more daylight to complete the slaughter of their enemies in a battle?

Do you believe these things happened? Or are they merely figurative? I'm really curious where you draw the line between "what really happened" and "what didn't really happen but which is supposed to infer some important and true principles to our minds".

*and of course the companion belief that one family of these people had their language spared so God could have them build some wooden submarines (tight like unto a dish) lit by glowing rocks, filled with eating/pooping animals, driven by nothing more than winds and currents, yet keeping together in a little formation, to get to the American continent?

[_mikwut]

Hello Sethbag,

Let me respond to your inquiry in few ways. First, with all due respect do I at least have a granted point that a non-literal reading of the creation narratives pre-dates fundamentalist constructions? My response to you regarded the fact that a non-literal reading of the creation narratives in Genesis has been found within Christianity and Judaism for thousands of years (See Augustine for just one good example). In fact the narrow version that you are so rightly attacking is largely a creation of the last one hundred years or so and largely a reaction to Darwinian Evolution.

Second, there are clearly parts of scripture that are written as eyewitness accounts of historical events, much of the New Testament for example. Other parts of scripture such as the creation narratives, the book of Job, the Song of Solomon, the Psalms, the paslm of Nehpi, have an obvious more allegorical flavor to their narratives. In fact, prior to Darwin placing many believers in a defensive stance - the first chapters of Genesis were known as a morality play.

Next, as I have said the texts themselves lend the most support to this, they don't agree in a scientific sense with each other. This can't just be ignored because at one moment your expecting to put everyone into a literal every work of scripture as the only reasonable position, but not acknowledging that the scripture itself doesn't reasonably allow that.

Doesn't it strike you just as odd that God would give a narrative to primitive people with the intention of it being a lecture on radioactive decay, geologic stata, DNA, big bang cosmology etc... in the terms Genesis offers? It does many historians, theologians, students and believers. Quite frankly, many more sophisticated critics even concede it.

Mormonism is a young religion and a zealous missionary church. It grows and develops its propositional beliefs in various ways. One of the ways its beliefs develop is other ideas coming into it. Historically it developed right along with a literal creation movement and reaction against Darwinism that it endured primarily outside the culture at large.

In direct response to your latest post, I offer you following response. I don't believe in talking donkeys, I do believe in miracles and believe that the Son of God did in fact perform many of them. I of course believe in the symbolic ritual God commanded Abraham to attempt and its deep meaning. I believe the Old Testament to have more allegory than the more historical New Testament but the N.T. to not be devoid of it. In short, yes I believe in God and miracles too; they come along with that, I am not ashamed of it, it would deny a part of myself if I was. I believe in "magic" and due to my theism I am open to attack thereof, such as your post. I incorporate those self same beliefs within reason and modern science. For example, I believe the placebo effect to be a very powerful fact and looking on Moses' staff would have evinced this powerful effect. I reserve the right to always to be respected as a truth seeker and simply say I don't know when I, well don't.

Just so we can understand each other, don't you believe in "magic" too? Or do you have personal explanation the goes beyond mere description for wires being put together into busses and the numbers 1, and 0 making movies, blogs, pictures and information of unimaginable magnitude appear on computer screens? Or you can offer more than the descriptive physics of automobiles, airplanes and boats. Don't you believe consciousness comes from blunt matter? Don't you believe taking a simple pill can cure sickness and disease? Don't you also believe a deaf, dumb, blind girl can learn to read, write and even receive a masters degree? At least we believe in some of the same "magic" and miracles, I assume anyway.

my regards, mikwut

[_StructureCop]

Just so we can understand each other, don't you believe in "magic" too? Or do you have personal explanation the goes beyond mere description for wires being put together into busses and the numbers 1, and 0 making movies, blogs, pictures and information of unimaginable magnitude appear on computer screens? Or you can offer more than the descriptive physics of automobiles, airplanes and boats. Don't you believe consciousness comes from blunt matter? Don't you believe taking a simple pill can cure sickness and disease? Don't you also believe a deaf, dumb, blind girl can learn to read, write and even receive a masters degree? At least we believe in some of the same "magic" and miracles, I assume anyway.

This definition of magic you're using is unworkable because it seems to be "the mode of operation for any device or process that the observer is not completely informed about." This would be a definition of magic used by Westerners or "enlightened" types to assert superiority over less advanced cultures. There is a big difference between human inventions that perform a specified task the same way, every time and religious beliefs whose results are spotty, at best.

[_mikwut]

Hello StructureCop,

I am surprised you missed the forced literal construction that I repeatedly was responding to without the least bit of agreement for some pretty basic and rudimentary observations. My use of the word "magic" was playing the same game. I am surprised you missed that greater point and reduced it to a mere definitional ruse. Anyway, my greater point I hope isn't missed on others. Thanks for the reply.

my regards, mikwut

[_StructureCop]

Hello StructureCop,

I am surprised you missed the forced literal construction that I repeatedly was responding to without the least bit of agreement for some pretty basic and rudimentary observations. My use of the word "magic" was playing the same game. I am surprised you missed that greater point and reduced it to a mere definitional ruse. Anyway, my greater point I hope isn't missed on others. Thanks for the reply.

my regards, mikwut

I think I get the point you're getting at, but it doesn't work. The working of a human invention, understood and manipulated by engineers, eletricians, etc. can't be honestly compared to miraculous events. I know that you believe that they have some kind of logic and order that only God understands, and therefore is no different from modern technology in its operation. But it would be better compared to research on the Big Bang or some other concept that has eluded concrete description to date. (And just to clarify, while I think that we will some day have solid answered on the origins of the universe, the activities of God will likely be isolated to their origin -- our brains.)

[_mikwut]

StructureCop,

The intention was broader than the attempt your trying to make. You'll notice from my post that some of the miraculous events we can attach a modern scientific understanding to, i.e. the placebo effect. Other things are "miraculous" to any honest modern observer today but weren't present in ancient times, i.e. computers. Other examples like Helen Keller show the broad diversity and capability for human growth and development when love is bestowed. The main point structurecop is that not unlike the narrowing of the limits of literal/non-literal scripture interpretation (like I was responding to Seth about) is an immature way to look at the theistic worldview, brroadening the modern word and definition of "magic" or "miracle" to an all encompassing definition does the same thing to disbelief.

while I think that we will some day have solid answered on the origins of the universe, the activities of God will likely be isolated to their origin -- our brains.

I respect your faith, I have my own. I don't know what lies ahead theologically or scientifically but my sense of wonder looks forward to it.

my regards, mikwt

[_StructureCop]

StructureCop,

The intention was broader than the attempt your trying to make. You'll notice from my post that some of the miraculous events we can attach a modern scientific understanding to, i.e. the placebo effect. Other things are "miraculous" to any honest modern observer today but weren't present in ancient times, i.e. computers. Other examples like Helen Keller show the broad diversity and capability for human growth and development when love is bestowed. The main point structurecop is that not unlike the narrowing of the limits of literal/non-literal scripture interpretation (like I was responding to Seth about) is an immature way to look at the theistic worldview, brroadening the modern word and definition of "magic" or "miracle" to an all encompassing definition does the same thing to disbelief.

I can appreciate that, I guess I wasn't quite getting the intent of your post.

I respect your faith, I have my own. I don't know what lies ahead theologically or scientifically but my sense of wonder looks forward to it.

Ditto.

[_Buffalo]

This, of course, is the entire premise of the argument. The rest stands or falls depending on whether or not this statement is true.

I, for one, am not convinced.

I had no idea that Schryver was a member of the Discovery Institute anti-intellectualism squad. Now his nonsensical defense of the Book of Abraham makes more sense. He lives in an alternative universe.