Gen 1

[JoeyKnothead]

Another poster has stated...

And this is God's plan. God is the one who says to us in Gen 1 to fill the earth and subdue it. That is our overarching mandate and goal, and what we should evaluate all action against. (Anything contrary to this, I would argue, is evil.)

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the referenced statement is true and factual.

[nobspeople]

Another poster has stated...

And this is God's plan. God is the one who says to us in Gen 1 to fill the earth and subdue it. That is our overarching mandate and goal, and what we should evaluate all action against. (Anything contrary to this, I would argue, is evil.)

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the referenced statement is true and factual.

Has any of these posts ever received anything to show the referenced statement is true and factual, outside of 'this is what's written in the bible' and or arguing over what 'true' and what 'factual' means?
If so, I've missed them.
Everything 'god' (outside the prementioned ideas) is opinion based, not factual or true as people seem to understand those terms: XYZ may be 'true' and 'factual' to one, but not another.
I used to think this is 'all about arguing'. And while 99% of the time, the argument nets nothing about the subject, I've come to see it says more about the person arguing and, in a round about way, about what they're arguing for.
Faith is oft times seen in the attitudes of the person and how they treat others than in what they claim.

[Tcg]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

We are certainly filling the earth. I'm not sure it is with good stuff, however.



Perhaps God should have been a bit more specific.


Tcg

[theophile]

Another poster has stated...

And this is God's plan. God is the one who says to us in Gen 1 to fill the earth and subdue it. That is our overarching mandate and goal, and what we should evaluate all action against. (Anything contrary to this, I would argue, is evil.)

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the referenced statement is true and factual.

Has any of these posts ever received anything to show the referenced statement is true and factual, outside of 'this is what's written in the bible' and or arguing over what 'true' and what 'factual' means?
If so, I've missed them.
Everything 'god' (outside the prementioned ideas) is opinion based, not factual or true as people seem to understand those terms: XYZ may be 'true' and 'factual' to one, but not another.
I used to think this is 'all about arguing'. And while 99% of the time, the argument nets nothing about the subject, I've come to see it says more about the person arguing and, in a round about way, about what they're arguing for.
Faith is oft times seen in the attitudes of the person and how they treat others than in what they claim.

As the original poster, I'll be the first to admit that it isn't true and factual in the sense some god-being actually said this at the dawn of humankind.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't understand and evaluate what it means, and whether we should adopt it as our prime directive.

I would say that Gen 1 (more than anything else) is a solicitation to a way of life and reason for being. It does not convey an objective truth but a possibility that each of us has to personally commit ourselves to.

It is, at bottom, a calling to affirm life above all else.

[theophile]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

We are certainly filling the earth. I'm not sure it is with good stuff, however.



Perhaps God should have been a bit more specific.


Tcg

God was more specific. Or at least, God strongly implies what we should fill the earth with in Gen 1, i.e., with life of every kind. With diversity of life. Not one lifeform over another but all kinds of life living in harmony. That is what God calls 'good' and this mandate is designed to maintain and expand.

But yah, we are definitely cocking it up.

[JoeyKnothead]

As the original poster, I'll be the first to admit that it isn't true and factual in the sense some god-being actually said this at the dawn of humankind.

I gathered as much from your post history. That's why I didn't mention your name or link to the original comment, which I normally do. I highly respect your teachings and wouldn't ever wanna mischaracterize your (or others') comments.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't understand and evaluate what it means, and whether we should adopt it as our prime directive.

Fair nuff. While I reject the Bible as a whole, I do fess a gem can be found scattered about.

I tend to focus on a more factual, or true / false level in my OPs. I do so at least partly cause my experience indicates one can find a countermanding view through honest interpretation of real or perceived conflicting passages.

It's important to me cause most often Gen 1 will be reported as the actual word of God here in my neck of the woods. This OP hopes such folks speak up.

There's also the issue of any observer who might pass through being able to learn from responses.

I would say that Gen 1 (more than anything else) is a solicitation to a way of life and reason for being. It does not convey an objective truth but a possibility that each of us has to personally commit ourselves to.

It is, at bottom, a calling to affirm life above all else.

Agreed.

[theophile]

As the original poster, I'll be the first to admit that it isn't true and factual in the sense some god-being actually said this at the dawn of humankind.

I gathered as much from your post history. That's why I didn't mention your name or link to the original comment, which I normally do. I highly respect your teachings and wouldn't ever wanna mischaracterize your (or others') comments.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't understand and evaluate what it means, and whether we should adopt it as our prime directive.

Fair nuff. While I reject the Bible as a whole, I do fess a gem can be found scattered about.

I tend to focus on a more factual, or true / false level in my OPs. I do so at least partly cause my experience indicates one can find a countermanding view through honest interpretation of real or perceived conflicting passages.

It's important to me cause most often Gen 1 will be reported as the actual word of God here in my neck of the woods. This OP hopes such folks speak up.

There's also the issue of any observer who might pass through being able to learn from responses.

I would say that Gen 1 (more than anything else) is a solicitation to a way of life and reason for being. It does not convey an objective truth but a possibility that each of us has to personally commit ourselves to.

It is, at bottom, a calling to affirm life above all else.

Agreed.

I live in hope that one day we can get over these literal readings that I believe distract us from what really matters. So I fully support atheist missions to that end, so long as they don't throw the baby out with the bathwater for no good reason. (Which is what I always find myself railing against!)

[JoeyKnothead]

I live in hope that one day we can get over these literal readings that I believe distract us from what really matters. So I fully support atheist missions to that end, so long as they don't throw the baby out with the bathwater for no good reason. (Which is what I always find myself railing against!)

I hear ya. I don't fret those theists with caring, loving gods. I tremble in fear at them with hateful, vengeful gods.

[nobspeople]

I live in hope that one day we can get over these literal readings that I believe distract us from what really matters. So I fully support atheist missions to that end, so long as they don't throw the baby out with the bathwater for no good reason. (Which is what I always find myself railing against!)

I hear ya. I don't fret those theists with caring, loving gods. I tremble in fear at them with hateful, vengeful gods.

Trembling is fine. Just don't give them any money. That's when the REAL problems start!