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.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #9]

Why would the omnipotent God rely on text and fire-side stories to teach man about God's love? He could instantly embed in the DNA of all humans a perfect, enduring understanding of all things that he wishes us to know, and there would be no need for forums such as this one. Nothing would be unclear, nothing to debate.

Some possible reasons:
1. There is no God out there.

STOP! Right there! We have a Winner!

JoeMamma! Has concisely expressed my own long held ideas in this area.
But first, why would a God create us in the first place? He's already perfect and all powerful. He needs nothing. Adding something to his perfect universe or self would be to admit it or He were imperfect before the addition.

Besides, why take on the headaches? New worlds, let alone new universes are troublesome enough, but add a few billion willful, disagreeable and independent people and you are just asking for trouble.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #9]

Why would the omnipotent God rely on text and fire-side stories to teach man about God's love? He could instantly embed in the DNA of all humans a perfect, enduring understanding of all things that he wishes us to know, and there would be no need for forums such as this one. Nothing would be unclear, nothing to debate.

Some possible reasons:
1. There is no God out there.

STOP! Right there! We have a Winner!

At least one other possibility seems more reasonable.

Besides, why take on the headaches? New worlds, let alone new universes are troublesome enough, but add a few billion willful, disagreeable and independent people and you are just asking for trouble.

Stephen Gould suggested that maybe He wanted someone to share it with.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to JoeMama in post #1039]

Why would the omnipotent God rely on text and fire-side stories to teach man about God's love? He could instantly embed in the DNA of all humans a perfect, enduring understanding of all things that he wishes us to know, and there would be no need for forums such as this one. Nothing would be unclear, nothing to debate.

Do you not have a conscience?

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #9]

Why would the omnipotent God rely on text and fire-side stories to teach man about God's love? He could instantly embed in the DNA of all humans a perfect, enduring understanding of all things that he wishes us to know, and there would be no need for forums such as this one. Nothing would be unclear, nothing to debate.

Some possible reasons:
1. There is no God out there.

STOP! Right there! We have a Winner!

At least one other possibility seems more reasonable.

Besides, why take on the headaches? New worlds, let alone new universes are troublesome enough, but add a few billion willful, disagreeable and independent people and you are just asking for trouble.

Stephen Gould suggested that maybe He wanted someone to share it with.

Gould is not alone with this suggestion. Nevertheless, if true it would contradict a major claim about God- that 'He' is perfect... that 'He' was perfect before he made the universe, Earth or Homo Sapiens. Thus, to do more would prove that BEFORE he made men and women, he was less than perfect... and needy. How could the 'God' be needy? How could he need anything?

There is a lesser, tho perhaps more practical issue. How could a mere primate possibly be an apt companion for the Great and Powerful OZ... or God? None of this macaroni makes the least bit of sense. Any way you slice the baloney this 'God' written about in the Bible is a hopelessly human creation. He's not even a good human. He loses his temper. He destroys 99.99999% of his creation; after calling it good, he calls it corrupt. This perfect "God" made a big mistake... us, according to "Him."

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #9]

Why would the omnipotent God rely on text and fire-side stories to teach man about God's love? He could instantly embed in the DNA of all humans a perfect, enduring understanding of all things that he wishes us to know, and there would be no need for forums such as this one. Nothing would be unclear, nothing to debate.

Some possible reasons:
1. There is no God out there.

STOP! Right there! We have a Winner!

At least one other possibility seems more reasonable.

Besides, why take on the headaches? New worlds, let alone new universes are troublesome enough, but add a few billion willful, disagreeable and independent people and you are just asking for trouble.

Stephen Gould suggested that maybe He wanted someone to share it with.

Gould is not alone with this suggestion. Nevertheless, if true it would contradict a major claim about God- that 'He' is perfect... that 'He' was perfect before he made the universe, Earth or Homo Sapiens. Thus, to do more would prove that BEFORE he made men and women, he was less than perfect... and needy. How could the 'God' be needy? How could he need anything?

Maybe He just delights in creating things. Which sounds perfect to me. I see no reason to think that perfection would not include creation.

There is a lesser, tho perhaps more practical issue. How could a mere primate possibly be an apt companion for the Great and Powerful OZ... or God?

That's the creationist idea. So undignified... Why would that matter at all to God? My beagle/basset mix was my constant companion for many years, and she wasn't remotely my equal in so many ways. But she loved me and I loved her, and we loved to do walks and hunt for squirrels and rabbits. Granted, my case is a matter of degree and a Creator/created being is a matter of kind, but still...

Love doesn't seem to require dignity or equality, and maybe that's the right take-away here.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #9]

Why would the omnipotent God rely on text and fire-side stories to teach man about God's love? He could instantly embed in the DNA of all humans a perfect, enduring understanding of all things that he wishes us to know, and there would be no need for forums such as this one. Nothing would be unclear, nothing to debate.

Some possible reasons:
1. There is no God out there.

STOP! Right there! We have a Winner!

At least one other possibility seems more reasonable.

Besides, why take on the headaches? New worlds, let alone new universes are troublesome enough, but add a few billion willful, disagreeable and independent people and you are just asking for trouble.

Stephen Gould suggested that maybe He wanted someone to share it with.

Gould is not alone with this suggestion. Nevertheless, if true it would contradict a major claim about God- that 'He' is perfect... that 'He' was perfect before he made the universe, Earth or Homo Sapiens. Thus, to do more would prove that BEFORE he made men and women, he was less than perfect... and needy. How could the 'God' be needy? How could he need anything?

Maybe He just delights in creating things. Which sounds perfect to me. I see no reason to think that perfection would not include creation.

There is a lesser, tho perhaps more practical issue. How could a mere primate possibly be an apt companion for the Great and Powerful OZ... or God?

That's the creationist idea. So undignified... Why would that matter at all to God? My beagle/basset mix was my constant companion for many years, and she wasn't remotely my equal in so many ways. But she loved me and I loved her, and we loved to do walks and hunt for squirrels and rabbits. Granted, my case is a matter of degree and a Creator/created being is a matter of kind, but still...

Love doesn't seem to require dignity or equality, and maybe that's the right take-away here.

I agree it may appear apt to compare God to Dog. They are separated only by dyslexia.

Milo, my 1 and 1/2 year old German Shepherd, may not be my intellectual equal, but he is my superior in many ways. But 'God' is a made up character, a fiction... an impossible fiction since 'he' is claimed to be "perfect." No one makes such a claim about either dogs or apes. Since this fictional 'God' is impossibly 'perfect,' it cannot be compared to real organisms.

In any event, I agree with your
"Love doesn't seem to require dignity or equality, and maybe that's the right take-away here."

[The Barbarian]

I agree it may appear apt to compare God to Dog. They are separated only by dyslexia.

Hmm... that's a part of the punchline for "What does a dyslexic, agnostic, insommniac amnesiac do?"

He lays awake all trying to remember if he thinks there's a dog. Did I ever mention that I once tried to make it as a stand-up comic?

Milo, my 1 and 1/2 year old German Shepherd, may not be my intellectual equal, but he is my superior in many ways.

Sense of smell for one. And lack of evil. "If you rescue a starving dog and make it prosperous, it won't bite you. This is the primary difference between a dog and a man." - Mark Twain

But 'God' is a made up character, a fiction... an impossible fiction since 'he' is claimed to be "perfect." No one makes such a claim about either dogs or apes. Since this fictional 'God' is impossibly 'perfect,' it cannot be compared to real organisms.

It's unclear as to why we'd evolve a sense of God out there, then. What possible advantage would that have?

In any event, I agree with your
"Love doesn't seem to require dignity or equality, and maybe that's the right take-away here."

Maybe so. I figure it all works out in the end.

[Diogenes]

It's unclear as to why we'd evolve a sense of God out there, then. What possible advantage would that have?

Out of many, I'll pick this one.

I think we invented God for several compatible reasons:
1. To explain nature and...
2. To give us [the illusion of] power over nature.
. By resurrecting a god to explain nature, we gave ourselves the false belief we could control nature by bribing the gods.
. In this context 'to bribe' covers a lot of territory.
. There is the cloddish simple bribe: 'I sacrifice my lamb, best of the flock, to you Great God. Now give me good weather in exchange.
. This evolved into a much more subtle version of the same thing:
. 'O Lord! Our humble offerings are nothing. We only offer such crumbs as a symbol of our love and devotion. We expect (and deserve) nothing. "Be merciful to us O Lord!"'

3. To enforce our laws. It is much cheaper and exponentially more effective to convince the rabble WE (via God) not only see their hidden deeds, but even know their thoughts before they grow into acts. Inventing this ever vigilant god to monitor not only our secret deeds, but our innermost thoughts, we've unleashed a mental app more effective than the best of law enforcement.

4. To give us meaning. This mechanistic universe just grinds along with no mind, no consciousness, no purpose. Such an idea is anathema to us apes. Our brains got too big and we want to know "Why...? why do we exist?" We have no clue because there is on reason. We just are. We could not accept that truth, so we invented a God to explain, to empower, to regulate, and to satisfy that mind that progressed far beyond its mission: to provide us with food, shelter, and safety.
We got so 'smart' we insisted on knowing "Why?" 'Why are we here?'
It's a silly question.
We are just here.

[Adonai Yahweh]

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.

The way I see it the Big Bang supports what is said in Genesis

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1048]

Those are motives for inventing a god, I think The Barbarian was asking about evolutionary reasons. We evolved a sense of god as a side effect of us getting very good at spotting intention or purpose, which helped our ancestors spot danger.