I'm a doofus. The Scripture I posted says other living things (other than man) were created on the sixth day as well.

Please bear with me: Harmonizing the theory of evolution with Scripture is untenable because Scripture says life was created much more recently than the theory of evolution proposes life arose.

Sorry, I might have been out of my depth to write that, not knowing exactly how long ago Scripture says life was created (it's my suspicion Scripture does not definitively state how long ago life was created). I'm assuming you can gather from Scripture that life was created much sooner than the theory of evolution proposes life arose. Maybe if lagtight wants he could comment on this?

I agree with you completely. (Except the part about you being a doofus. )

Lagtight is basically right about my position. My belief is that the Bible is primarily a book to help us understand God ("theology"). So when you read the Bible, you should primarily be reading it with that end in mind.

From there, I do not see any particular reason to assume that the creation story is a literal accounting of the events of creation, as that goes beyond understanding God and is more about understanding the universe. Since I do not believe that the Bible's primary purpose (more precisely, the book of Genesis' purpose) is to teach me about the universe, I do not believe that it is necessary to attempt to "harmonize" scientific insights with the Bible. To be clear, it *does* teach us about God, and it teaches us about God's relationship to the universe, and there are insights to be gained from contemplating the narrative. But the primary purpose is not to teach us about the universe itself. Such a reading turns out to be inconsistent with most Jewish readings of Genesis as well, and it's their writings so we should pay attention to how they understand it.

If there's harmony between the two, that's great. But to shoehorn them together seems unwarranted and convolutes both the study of Scripture and the study of the universe.

Are you not calling God's honesty or character into question if you were to oppose creation happening as described in Genesis?

Nope.

Are you being dishonest or a person of poor character if you share an Aesop fable that has a useful moral lesson but the story involved talking animals (because talking animals don't actually exist)?

fyp

Maybe not the best example, since they're called Aesop's FABLES.

I believe that many fundamental Christian doctrines are compromised when Genesis is not interpreted as an historical narrative.

But we have another thread for that.

I suppose it depends on the fable and the morals that can be drawn from it, whether or not they are in fact useful. If the morals are not useful and you genuinely believe they are then you are deluded, but not dishonest (unless I'm mistaken somehow - fables are stories that can have talking animals in them, right? Would it somehow be dishonest to tell a story with a talking animal in it, within your scenario?).

How does this relate to whether or not God's honesty or character is called into question if you were to oppose creation as happening as described in Genesis? Are you suggesting that if someone opposed this claim without enough knowledge that they would not be calling God's honesty or character into question?

I'm not sure if claim was the correct word to use here, given God's word is authoritative.

I might be taking the wrong approach to this. If you like, go ahead and make a point if that's what you're trying to do (sorry if that language is offensive), and I'll try to respond to it if I can.

In context, it should be clear what the emphasis of the example is. But to be clear, let's accept that the moral is "useful."

Your claim is that understanding a narrative as non-factual undermines the character of the speaker. I'm showing you how that's false. You can go at least as far as having true messages embedded within entirely fictional contexts without having a compromised character. It seems reasonable to me that you can go quite far. (If you tell your children a bedtime story that you make up just to spend time with them, have you compromised your character? I would think not.)

Your evidence is demonstrably and empirically disproven by the Silmarillion, in which it states Eru Illuvatar gathered the other gods together and sang the universe into being.

While I can't be bothered to read through most of this abject drivel, Aaron, I will laud you for challenging the more delusional of your people.

Can we get this thread back on point? It's turned into a debate about whose fairies at the bottom of the garden are better, again.

Ok, lagtight, you want to engage? I will engage. I made an OP. Make a response.

Probably not. It would require you to actually be capable of a conversation and not just scream at people.

So far, the conversation goes like this:

1) d2_e4 makes an overly broad accusation.
2) Aaron W. observes that it's overly broad.
3) d2_e4 rants about something or another that didn't really address the observation.

You're welcome to engage in conversation. You're also welcome to continue your drunken rants. But only one of these will actually get you to the result you want.

I would say this is a very accurate analysis of the situation. Which do you think it is?

Ok, I promise to debate with you in good faith as long as you

1). Don't reference the bible as a source or a citation (which, in fairness, you have never done - other people have)
2). Explain what it is you actually believe when you say you are "religious".

Second one might be a bit of a ****er, but I've been asking you this for what, 2 years, and never got an answer? So now, I just assume you are a right wing troll. Prove me wrong.

With regards to 2, I'll first point out that there's a full year gap in your posting in this forum between 7/26/2018 and 7/18/2019 and another 5 month gap between 11/19/2017 and 4/27/2018. It's really hard to take your statement that you've been asking me "for 2 years" given that there are 17 months where you weren't posting, and it seems you asked only 22 months ago. (I did not see you ask me about this question in the few times that you did post between then and now.)

With regards to your question (which isn't the same as the questions you asked in the past):

I've made my decision. You still need to make yours. So far in this thread, you have continued to post in an identical manner as you have done in the past.

So until you do what I've asked, you're not going to get what you want.

I don't think you understand how little I care what you think of me.

With respect to the issue of macroevolution, I believe that my interpretation of Genesis is correct, and that the consensus position of contemporary scientists is incorrect.

If the bolded condition applies to me as well, then I will extend you the courtesy of not engaging your posts.

Sorry, but I was never trained in the art and science of responding to drunken rants. So, I'll pass.

Seems like you weren't trained in the art and science of critical thinking, either.

ETA: Don't use the word "science". You don't know what it means.

I stipulate to the facts you have adduced in the part of your post I elided.

I am not going to engage with you in anything resembling good faith, until you answer my question:

What do you mean when you say you are religious? Do you believe in a pixie in the sky?

Answers on a postcard.

We shall see whether you hold to your end of the bargain. The leash is short and your credibility is low.

I mean that I hold to system of beliefs with regards to questions such as the nature of God and the universe. I also adhere to a system of patterned behaviors, such as attending/participating in weekly religious services.

No.

Your turn: Do you believe that there is clear evidence that Christianity in general has been facing a large split of both political and theological perspectives over the last two years?

In the Christian way, I treat all men equally. So, it certainly does.