The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

[Diogenes]

The proposition for debate is that when one takes the tales of Genesis literally, one becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily. Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).

Much of the debate in the topic of Science and Religion consists of theists who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis rejecting basic science. Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.

[dad1]

There are all sorts of stories of magical births and resurrections in ancient literature.

Evidence that the spiritual was at work. Excellent.

Yours is just another one that has no foundation

The bible is well founded. No doubt about it.

and is simply believed because the story has been propagated through generations of indoctrination of vulnerable minds.

You are in no position to know or say why God is believed. I already outlined several reasons and there are a lot more.

[JoeyKnothead]

There are all sorts of stories of magical births and resurrections in ancient literature.

Evidence that the spiritual was at work. Excellent.

So Jurassic Park is a history book.

[dad1]

So Jurassic Park is a history book.

Not sure why a movie that is based on so called science ideas would be considered history? Most recognize it for what it is meant to be, fantasy. Perhaps there was no Miguel de Cervantes, since you seem to think books are not cool? After all, Paul Bunyan or Miguel maybe never existed if you think only what science can observe is real?

[JoeyKnothead]

So Jurassic Park is a history book.

Not sure why a movie that is based on so called science ideas would be considered history? Most recognize it for what it is meant to be, fantasy. Perhaps there was no Miguel de Cervantes, since you seem to think books are not cool? After all, Paul Bunyan or Miguel maybe never existed if you think only what science can observe is real?

I urge the observer to read the entirety of my referenced post for context. I stand by my comments.

[dad1]

So Jurassic Park is a history book.

Not sure why a movie that is based on so called science ideas would be considered history? Most recognize it for what it is meant to be, fantasy. Perhaps there was no Miguel de Cervantes, since you seem to think books are not cool? After all, Paul Bunyan or Miguel maybe never existed if you think only what science can observe is real?

I urge the observer to read the entirety of my referenced post for context. I stand by my comments.

Me too. The bible is well supported. Fantasy novels are not and not meant to be.

[The Barbarian]

I think it's pretty naive to be assuming that parables are always descriptions of actual events.

It certainly isn't the Christian understanding.

[JoeyKnothead]

So Jurassic Park is a history book.

Not sure why a movie that is based on so called science ideas would be considered history? Most recognize it for what it is meant to be, fantasy. Perhaps there was no Miguel de Cervantes, since you seem to think books are not cool? After all, Paul Bunyan or Miguel maybe never existed if you think only what science can observe is real?

I urge the observer to read the entirety of my referenced post for context. I stand by my comments.

Me too.

I'm proud to know you stand by my comments.

The bible is well supported.

By folks who think there's a magic man in the sky.

Fantasy novels are not and not meant to be.

I refer folks back to my prior comments.

[dad1]

I'm proud to know you stand by my comments.

Pretending that is what I said or meant?

By folks who think there's a magic man in the sky.

Proof there isn't?

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm proud to know you stand by my comments.

Pretending that is what I said or meant?

That was for them that can recognize an obvious joke.

By folks who think there's a magic man in the sky.

Proof there isn't?

Do you deny there are those who support the bible, and believe a man died, then ascended up to heaven three days later?

[dad1]

Do you deny there are those who support the bible, and believe a man died, then ascended up to heaven three days later?

Many believe the gospel. Point?