The thing is that the bible is very clear on how the world was created and how things were made. To believe that evolution is real, yet guided by God, is to believe that the bible is fallible. If the bible is fallible, what do you believe and what do you not believe? It seems to me that Occam's razor would say that it is just a bunch of stories that primitive people compiled and that none of it can be taken seriously other than for anthropological purposes.

I don't think it's as clear as you think it is. Some people read Genesis literally while some people read it allegorically.

Also some people accept both God and evolution. They don't feel the need to choose between the two of them. They let them co-exist. It's an and not an either/or situation.

Did you know the Catholic Church is pro-evolution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...atholic_Church

That's kind of the point, if the creation account is allegory, then why not the resurrection account as well?

I was born a catholic and fell out of the church after feeling very uneasy about what was going on inside the catholic church at the time. Although I didn't want t be a Catholic anymore I still wanted to know God, so I joined a prodestant born again church that a close friend of mine was a part of. Youth pastor was very fire and brimstone, a lot of us didn't like him. We thought he was phony.

Anyway

In a lot of our bible study sessions the pastor would put a very literal slant on things, and it just didnt jive with what I knew of reality. Aside from that, there were some very vocal anti gay marriage sentiments that I wasn't comforable with.

One day I was listening to a the pastor preach in youth and he made some sort of reference to evolution and I very clearly heard someone scream out "darwin was wrong" followed by cries of "amen"! I had never really looked into evolution that deeply, and had pretty much just taken the "teach both theories" tact. (I have archived message board posts from about 2007 where I do just this, and its more than a little douche chilling to look back at them) But I decided I wanted to see what it was all about, did some research and found that darwin was right. The biggest pieces of evidence for me were how certain diseases, like sickle cell anemia affect certain groups but not others, the existence of chromosome 2, and the debunking of irreducible complexity.

I wouldnt at all say this information caused my athiesm, but it may have flicked a switch for me. All of a sudden I wanted to investigate other things, like miracle claims, biblical prophecy claims etc. At the time I was taking a course on the bible and saw the commonalities between the stories of the OT and those of earlier religions. (btw anyone who is really interested in those sorts of connectins should read "a history of god" by karen armstrong)

Anyway all of this eventually led me to he conclusion that god (at least the one I hought I knew) probably wasn't there. To be clear, even though I was affiliated with a born again sect, I was always a pretty liberal christian. For gay rights, seperation of church and state etc... so i know certain theists wll probably tell me I wasnt doing it right anyway

oh and tldr

Because the bible isn't that way.


Pardes refers to (types of) approaches to biblical exegesis in rabbinic Judaism (or - simpler - interpretation of text in Torah study). The term, sometimes also spelled PaRDeS, is an acronym formed from the name initials of the following four approaches:

Peshat (פְּשָׁט) — "plain" ("simple") or the direct meaning[1].

Remez (רֶמֶז) — "hints" or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense.

Derash (דְּרַשׁ) — from Hebrew darash: "inquire" ("seek") — the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.

Sod (סוֹד) (pronounced with a long O as in 'bone') — "secret" ("mystery") or the mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation.

Each type of Pardes interpretation examines the extended meaning of a text. As a general rule, the extended meaning never contradicts the base meaning. The Peshat means the plain or contextual meaning of the text. Remez is the allegorical meaning. Derash includes the metaphorical meaning, and Sod represents the hidden meaning. There is often considerable overlap, for example when legal understandings of a verse are influenced by mystical interpretations or when a "hint" is determined by comparing a word with other instances of the same word.

Some thinkers, such as the Tolaat Yaakov, divide Pardes into Peshat, Remez, Din (law), and Sod. According to this understanding, Derash is divided into the homiletics, which are classified under Remez, and legal interpretations, which are classified under Din.

The Pardes typology is quite similar to the contemporary Christian fourfold allegorical scheme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis)

You have denominations that push for literal interpretations while other denominations push for spiritualizing the interpretations.

I cannot wait for these archaic ideals to die away. Stuff like this really hits home since I have a "non-outted" bisexual niece who would be disowned by members of my family if they knew.

I'd rather not turn this into a discussion of what is literal and what is not. However, it's obvious there is a lot of contention on a lot of issues...issues which are paramount to certain denominations beliefs (like whether Jesus was the messiah or not). You would think it would of behooved God to give us a concise "cliff-notes" summary right after Revelations.

It was not TL'DR. I enjoyed your story very much. Thanks for posting!

Just reminded me of how dismissive some Christians can be towards science. Occasionally when I visit my parents (they live quite close) they'll be watching Christian programming. It's amusing to see the propaganda these shows pass off to tackle the issue of evolution.

EVOLUTION: "From Goo to You!"

The bible is used to foster spiritual growth. Why shouldn't it have different levels?

It's from a greater intelligence and He's writing for all age groups.

But Eckerty explains how literalism not spiritualizing is the mistake of modern exegesis in his article Faith is the Key:

http://www.savior-of-all.com/faith.html

you don't even need his razor, that's literally what it is! the books of the bible were decided by vote!! by vote!!!

similar to this, there were a few things that crumbled my faith.

one thing i couldn't get over was why so much of the bible was irrelevant to me. some things i disagreed with, some things i ignored, and it didn't bother me one bit. didn't lose a night of sleep. why did i not care about this and still consider myself a christian? the only conclusion was that those parts were inspired by man and not by a god. and if those were, the rest probably were too.

another thing i couldn't get over was why there are so many religions and so many dead religions. when it came up in sunday school when i was a kid, the teacher said that there are lots of religions but they're all worshiping the same god, just in different ways. the greek gods and gods of nature were laughed off as a fun myth. i thought that was a pretty good answer and satisfied me until early in college when i discovered that what she said is not even close to true.

the fact that there are tons of religions should be a bigger problem for theists than it is. the huge number of religions is a mystery if you assume that one of them is true. everyone should assume they are damned by a matter of sheer probability. if you assume that all religions are man made, the fact that there are so many makes perfect sense.

was pretty easy for me to lose my religion, required just a small amount of thinking about it. but i grew up in a methodist church and the church was very inclusive and the sermons were always positive and lovey-dovey. never heard a sermon on fire and brimstone and i don't think i ever heard one anti-gay statement ever uttered.

Why shouldn't it have different levels? Because people at the "wrong levels" have used it commit atrocities, that's why! Stuff like "homosexuals are an abomination" or "Thou shalt not suffer a which to live" should of never been added if God wasn't damn sure it wasn't going to be misinterpreted.

Do you realize how many innocence have died just because God supposedly liked to use flowery language? A one page synopsis could of saved a lot of lives; you think God would of thought of that.

Sorry, but I've been down this road before and it's always "how many people were hurt".

Well how many more people weren't hurt because they had the bible to go by?

So you're saying this was the best God could do? You don't think a one page bulleted synopsis would of helped to clear up a lot of the problems that have arisen from biblical "misinterpretations"?

Just a single page of these right after Revelations would of been nice:

• Don't kill witches
• Homosexuals are not abominations
• The creation story was allegorical
• The ark story was allegorical

I mean, if we're supposed to live our lives by this single book, you would think God would of made it as clear as possible. I doubt people in the dark ages had a refined understanding of the literal nuances people attribute to their biblical interpretations today.

I never really had a strong belief in god. I was always a bit afraid of hell, spent my years up to around 13 afraid to really think otherwise because of it. Anyway, 11-13, something like that, I was subjected to Sunday Sunday Sunday school, and that was when religion died. The thoughts of actually devote Christians were insane, the desires of their depiction of god were ridiculous, the requirements to enter heaven, ludicrous. I even at that age was headstrong enough to tell my parents that I was not going to Sunday school, ever again.

I was the first person of my friends, or in my family to entertain atheism. I eventually started converting people to atheism through late night walks, talks, and people were swayed by me into atheism, and swayed by their parents out of it. They would argue with my saying "Of course, god can't exist, I just don't know how I can talk to my family about it", then a few days later after talking to their family "God is great". The bull**** magic of religion was at work, and pissing me off from that young age.

By now, I only have 1 true convert through my efforts, his end of religion didn't come at my hand, he was drawn back to it pretty quickly. Then, as he got older he went with a churchy friend of his to some bible thing, and the priest was suggesting that if you get married, you must suffer through it, because marriage is about self sacrifice. He went on and on about that, and his mind was finally free of god after that. The idea of having your entire life ruined because of a bad decision, and god/priests saying that suffering through it is the right thing to do just didn't jive with him.

You need to stop looking backwards.

We are not living in ancient times and the needs of those times and God's objectives may be some what different from what they are today.

For one thing when the Hebrews entered into the Promised Land Deuteronomy says the land was at the height of it's evil and it was time for the evil people to be judged.

Also if you go back and read the primary directive that God gave Abraham it was to go out and multiply. Multiplying was of such importance that the ancient Hebrews practiced Levirate marriage in addition to there normal practices.

Very few people go back and study the ancient times to see the differences in the community structure from today. They just look at things from today's perspective which is not right. It's like you going into a stone age village in Africa today and trying to tell them what to do and looking down on them. They have a different day to day reality from you.

Also the Hebrews were to be a holy, set apart people to God. They weren't suppose to be like any of the peoples around them. They were suppose to be a Light to the Nations. God was going to use them. The bible says salvation is of the Jews.

So if their internal laws were different it was to serve God's purpose.

Some times they pass martial law in places today. To serve the needs of the day. Are you going to go into a wartime society and fight martial law when the needs of survival are greater than they are normally?

If you aren't going to go in and meddle with a stone age village or meddle with martial law in the middle of a war then why are you going to go backwards into ancient times and question God's directives?

So you are saying that a few thousand years ago there were lots of witches that needed killing?

Nope, sorry, the injustices that God promoted in Old Testament times cannot simply be swept under the rug due to the societal structure of the time. God telling people to bash babies on rocks was not moral then, and it's not moral now. If you want to argue that bashing babies on rocks can be moral, good luck.

Theists tend to believe in absolute morality but are the first to start talking about relative morality when it comes to justifying the bloodier and crueller sections of the bible.

If you read Genesis there's the incident of Abraham at a well with Abimelech. This passage is where Abraham is given part of the Promised Land at the well of Beersheeba by an exchange of an oath with Abimelech. Abimelech goes back to the Philistines.

Later on after leaving Egypt in the Exodus, Israel trying to go home to Abraham's land faces off against 30 or more nations. They offered peace as per God's directive in Deuteronomy before every war and only 1 nation accepted.

The nations knew God was with the Israelites. They were all in the Middle East neighborhood and they knew God was with the Israelites yet they wouldn't make peace.

Rahab who helped Joshua knew God was with them.

There was the Balaam/Balak incident where they tried to get God to curse the Israelites.

As far as more details goes on the witches. I haven't checked enough into the history of that. But when you dig into the OT there's a lot more going on than you notice on a first reading. When I first read the OT I didn't realize that the Abimelech/Abraham fight over the well and meeting was as significant as it was. Also if you dig into the ancient enemies of the Israelites the Amalekites they say the Amalekites used to come out and prey on the weaker Israelites in the rear of the Israelite groups and also that the Amalekites were so primitive they didn't even bury the dead.

So you have to dig into the OT to know more and more details of the story. There's a lot of extenuating circumstances, communal differences, etc.

All babies go to heaven.

And who are you to say those babies hadn't already picked up corrupt practices from their parents and/or wouldn't grow up to teach those practices to the Israelites or hold a vendetta and turn and kill the Israelites when they grew up.

The peoples surrounding the Israelites were into child sacrifice.

Infanticide was a worldwide practice until Judaism and Christianity stamped it out.

Maybe you'd have liked the Catholic Church to have never been organized so they could start orphanages. The Catholics were the first to do orphanages and their efforts in medicine led to nursing and hospitals.

In that case I hope you bashed your babies on rocks to guarantee them a spot in heaven.

Yes, an infant had picked up corrupt practices. Ahem.

...and the God of the Old Testament promoted baby bashing. No wonder people were into child sacrifice.

Yeah, because they never could of done that without God bashing some babies. To make an omelette you gotta crack some eggs, amirite?

Amem!

Splendour, get out of my thread. This is a thread for people who have lost their faith. Anything you say is meaningless. We are not going to convert. Just leave.

I think in 4th or 5th grade one of the nuns (catholic school) was explaining original sin or something and we needed to be baptized and confirmed. I started a line of questioning about if people who are born on a deserted island and never get baptized go to heaven.

Me and nun started arguing back and forth in the classroom and then I realized it was all just a bunch of crap. One of my best friends (who also doesn't believe in God) had a very similiar experience about Noah's Ark and he commented how "It must have been a big ark" in the class and got in trouble.

So yeah. We've both been raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools and pretty much have laughed at it since we were children. I never really cared to much about it until the sexual abuse scandals in the last 10 years or so. Now I'm leaning much more towards religion being downright bad for human beings, at least the smart ones. The stupid masses, maybe.

My contempt towards religion and those who actually believe in is getting worse over time. If I meet someone who's religious I try to avoid them or openly deride them. Just writing this post is making me angry. Child molesting coverup con-artists who've committed pretty much the worst thing you can possibly do. Disgusting in every single way, and the Church covers it up? lol please.