Genesis....Fact or fiction?

[Barrd]

Of course. Liberals tend towards nuanced thinking, as opposed to the black-white thinking of fundamentalists. They've also found that conservatives are more loyal and value sanctity, whereas liberals place a higher value on accuracy and objectivity. It's not that one is better than the other either. They're just different ways of going about things.

What the heck is "nuanced thinking"?

I wonder what label these researchers would paste on me?

River, do you really think that people fit into these little boxes? I don't.

Various researchers who are looking for tendencies to help explain differences and behaviors.

I wonder what such a study would reveal about people who need to categorize other people.
Perhaps these folks are suffering from obsessive compulsive disorders?

That's good, since these sorts of studies are never couched in "one size fits all" terms. Instead, they are specifically described as tendencies.

Interesting.

Well, it's not so black-white ( ) where either they exactly know everything, or they know nothing. There is plenty of room between those two extremes.

Cute. Nothing is really black and white, is it?

You seemed to think that earlier.

Stan's not such a bad guy. He just has a couple of blind spots, and I happened to wander up into one of them.
But then, we all have our blind spots, don't we?

Nope, there sure isn't.

Love is the key, Sis.
I would have thought my Lady Liberal would have been the one to tell me that....not the other way 'round. :wub:

 

[River Jordan]

What the heck is "nuanced thinking"?

Thinking in shades of grey rather than all-or-none extremes. So like in this thread where Stan couches the issue as "it's either the Word of God or the works of man", that's a great illustration of black-white thinking. Nuanced thinking OTOH, recognizes that there is gray area between those two extremes, such as what I've described here previously where you can both believe God's word and recognize the reality around us that science has uncovered.

I wonder what label these researchers would paste on me?

River, do you really think that people fit into these little boxes? I don't.

Again, these are tendencies, not absolutes.

I wonder what such a study would reveal about people who need to categorize other people.
Perhaps these folks are suffering from obsessive compulsive disorders?

You mean labels like Christian, non-Christian, gay, straight, etc.?

 

[Barrd]

Thinking in shades of grey rather than all-or-none extremes. So like in this thread where Stan couches the issue as "it's either the Word of God or the works of man", that's a great illustration of black-white thinking. Nuanced thinking OTOH, recognizes that there is gray area between those two extremes, such as what I've described here previously where you can both believe God's word and recognize the reality around us that science has uncovered.

Sounds like intellectual posing, to me. Sorry, no offense intended.

Again, these are tendencies, not absolutes.

And again, nobody follows the same tendencies all the time. Even liberals think in black and white at times. Either you accept gays, or you are hateful, comes immediately to mind.

You mean labels like Christian, non-Christian, gay, straight, etc.?

LOL....you're cute.
No, I don't. Any more than I mean labels like male, female, young, old, Canadian, Irish, Caucasian, or any other such designation. Some things you either are, or you ain't.
There are some things that actually are black or white, my sweet sister. My son is white. His friend Anthony is black. That's just the way it is.
Some people are Christians, some people are Atheists, some people are Wiccans, some people are Muslims...a few people fall through the cracks and call themselves "Agnostic"...

No, dear one, I mean labels like "Fundie" or "Liberal" or "Free Thinker" or other such meaningless tags. That is "nuanced thinking".... <_<

 

[River Jordan]

Sounds like intellectual posing, to me. Sorry, no offense intended.

I don't even know what that means or how you think it applies to this subject.

And again, nobody follows the same tendencies all the time. Even liberals think in black and white at times.

Yep, and that's exactly what these sorts of studies make clear. I wonder, do you understand the concept of statistical tendencies of groups?

No, dear one, I mean labels like "Fundie" or "Liberal" or "Free Thinker" or other such meaningless tags. That is "nuanced thinking"....

Ok then. Thanks for your input.

 

[Barrd]

I don't even know what that means or how you think it applies to this subject.

Let me quote an earlier post of yours:

Of course. Liberals tend towards nuanced thinking, as opposed to the black-white thinking of fundamentalists. They've also found that conservatives are more loyal and value sanctity, whereas liberals place a higher value on accuracy and objectivity. It's not that one is better than the other either. They're just different ways of going about things.

You, of course, are the Liberal, with "nuanced thinking" (I'm growing rather fond of that phrase), while I am the Conservative, who is loyal and places a high value on sanctity (I like that description, too), while those foolish fundies can only think in black and white...

I don't know...it seems to me that there is a tiny element of "aren't we the intelligent ones" there. Perhaps it is just me.
My own kids have accused me of being an "intellectual snob"....a charge that I do plead innocent to, by the way.

Yep, and that's exactly what these sorts of studies make clear. I wonder, do you understand the concept of statistical tendencies of groups?

I wonder If I do, as well.
Perhaps I need to be enlightened on this subject?

Ok then. Thanks for your input.

Any time, Sis :wub:

 

[River Jordan]

You, of course, are the Liberal, with "nuanced thinking"

Actually, you've displayed a bit of nuanced thinking in this thread as well (by not buying into the "It's either God or man" argument).

I don't know...it seems to me that there is a tiny element of "aren't we the intelligent ones" there. Perhaps it is just me.

Like I said earlier, this isn't about one way of thinking being better or worse.

I wonder If I do, as well.
Perhaps I need to be enlightened on this subject?

So in these types of studies, the labels "conservative", "liberal", "fundamentalist" and such are not imposed by the researchers, but are how the study subjects describe themselves. Then the subjects are given a series of exercises and tests designed to see what sort of thinking processes they employ and what things they value. Once the results are in, the researchers look for statistical tendencies within the groups...sometimes they find them, sometimes they don't.

Within the group of fundamentalists, studies have found that they have a tendency towards black-white thinking. But that doesn't mean every fundamentalist is a black-white thinker, or that every black-white thinker is a fundamentalist. It just means that within any group of fundamentalists, statistically they are more likely to exhibit black-white thinking than a similar sized group from the general population. And of course within the group of fundamentalists there is variability in terms of just how black-white they think. Some think in very black-white terms, others less so.

I hope that makes sense. When I pointed out the black-white thinking Stan was exhibiting so perfectly in this thread, I wasn't like "He's a fundamentalist and all fundamentalists are black-white thinkers", it was more like "Look at the black-white thinking being expressed in this thread. It's just like what I've read about being typical among fundamentalists. Fascinating."

 

[Barrd]

Actually, you've displayed a bit of nuanced thinking in this thread as well (by not buying into the "It's either God or man" argument).

So, does that make me a Liberal Conservative Liberal, or a Liberal Conservative?
LOL

Like I said earlier, this isn't about one way of thinking being better or worse.

But even I think that fundie thinking is impossibly short-sighted.
Don't get me wrong, I like Stan. i think he's a great guy.
But on this issue, his thinking is short-sighted, or, as you would say, "black and white".

So in these types of studies, the labels "conservative", "liberal", "fundamentalist" and such are not imposed by the researchers, but are how the study subjects describe themselves. Then the subjects are given a series of exercises and tests designed to see what sort of thinking processes they employ and what things they value. Once the results are in, the researchers look for statistical tendencies within the groups...sometimes they find them, sometimes they don't.

Within the group of fundamentalists, studies have found that they have a tendency towards black-white thinking. But that doesn't mean every fundamentalist is a black-white thinker, or that every black-white thinker is a fundamentalist. It just means that within any group of fundamentalists, statistically they are more likely to exhibit black-white thinking than a similar sized group from the general population. And of course within the group of fundamentalists there is variability in terms of just how black-white they think. Some think in very black-white terms, others less so.

Funny.
I would have described myself as simply "Christian". I have never thought of myself as a conservative, or a liberal, or a fundie. Just a Christian.

I hope that makes sense. When I pointed out the black-white thinking Stan was exhibiting so perfectly in this thread, I wasn't like "He's a fundamentalist and all fundamentalists are black-white thinkers", it was more like "Look at the black-white thinking being expressed in this thread. It's just like what I've read about being typical among fundamentalists. Fascinating."

I think I understand that.
You read about it, and here it is, in living color....
But I think it is a narrow definition, especially if it's based on this one example.
After all, even Liberals are occasionally guilty of black-white thinking.

 

[River Jordan]

Glad I could help.

 

[StanJ]

No, my precious brother, that is just my point....time is not constant on this planet. How long is a day at the North Pole? A day can last as long as six months! (Hey, maybe that's how old Santa gets it all done in one night! )
And a day may be longer or shorter depending on the time of year. Isn't that why we have "daylight savings time"?

It indeed is, so please show how it is not? As far as I can tell there are still 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in a hour, and 12 24 hours in a day basically. The North & South poles didn't exist until way after the flood. Until then, the entire world was a very temperate place, covered, covered by a canopy of water, where men lived for hundreds of years.
The fact is daylight does not depict a day, the lunar cycle or hours do.
That is time Barrd, not days. That is why it's called DS TIME.

Now please, can we stop ALL this obfuscation and get down to brass tacks, so to speak?

 

[StanJ]

That is a good point, of course, Stan, but I have to wonder....if you had been there, would you have accepted Galileo's theory? Or would you have sided with the Church?
Of course, science is not always right, nor does science being right prove that God's Word is wrong. However, in this particular case, I think some folks are taking literally what was never meant to be taken literally.
There is no time in the realm of God, nor did time exist at all before He created it. That is a fact. Therefore, holding the Creator of the Universe to an earth day, when a day isn't even the same length of time all over the earth or all during the year is just foolishness.
At least, that's the way I see it.

Not the point Barrd, and you know it. I wasn't there, and I know better. You do as well.
You keep say thing, but have been shown that Gen 1 is a literal/historical account, so why can't you or why won't you accept that?
We're not talking about the realm of God Barrd, despite your efforts to deflect, we are talking about the created world of man and time.
Why on earth would God inspire Moses to write our history and then use His own environment to relate it to us? That is a ludicrous assumption, and exactly that, an assumption, not born of any reason or fact. Pure speculation to sadly suite your fancy.

 

[River Jordan]

The fact is daylight does not depict a day, the lunar cycle or hours do.

Yet the sun and moon weren't created until the 4th day, which means at least the first three couldn't have been 24 hour days.

 

[StanJ]

Of course, God invented science. Gravity existed long before that apple fell on Newton's head, didn't it? And the physics that govern the revolution of the planets...that's been in place since the beginning of time, hasn't it? Sure, it took man a long time to figure these things out, but man did not invent them. God did.
And if science is right about the age of the earth, that doesn't change the fact that God created it. It just means that we misunderstood His time.
Of course, I'm not sure science is all correct. But I'm pretty sure that the universe is a good bit older than six or seven thousand years, or so. It is closer to 14 billion years old.

No, invention means using existing materials to construct an apparatus that was not in existence prior to that.

God, CREATED everything in this universe, Things seen and unseen, which includes all LAWS of what man calls nature and what Christians should call CREATION.
The POINT, is that science disagrees with how old the Bible says the earth is, ergo it does NOT agree with God.
I have no idea what "pretty sure" means in light of what God's word DOES say? Faith is our evidence, not science.

 

[StanJ]

I think this is one time, my precious brother, when your "credentialed scholars" have let you down.
Of course, we both know my opinion of such "scholarship". I will always trust God before I will trust some "scholar".


Are you talking about "Coordinated Universal Time"? Now, that would be a joke to someone living in Alaska....
To most of us, night is night and day is day, no matter what time NASA or whoever says it is...


What God DID do was create the universe, and everything in it....and if, as some scientists think (but I do not necessarily agree) there are any other universes, then God created those too.
What God DID NOT do was give us technical details about how He did it, or how long it took?


Yes, Stan, I am. And so are you, and so are your credentialed Hebrew scholars, etc.
For that matter, so are all scientists.
All we are doing is trying to find the ball that our Master has thrown....


I like and respect you, too, Stan my man....but in this particular instance, I do think that you are mistaken.

Why would you say that? You don't trust God because you don't believe what His written word clearly states, and you have no reason other than your FEELING to support that POV. BTW, I'm not talking about Christians scholars here, I'm talking about Hebrew scholars. There is a big difference between the two.

Yes, which I'm sure you know, and why would Alaskans think it's a joke? Are you dissing a scientific standard now just to support your own POV, in spite of your insistence that the science of geology is inerrant? What does NASA have to do with time?

Just because someone THINKS something doesn't make it so, and the Bible clearly tells us He created MAN and all life on THIS world, not any other world. That's right, God inspired Moses to write DAY as a period of time then as it is now. Apparently you think God didn't know any other word in Hebrew that would truly indicate the ACTUAL time frame of creation, so he picked an ambivalent one? In fact He didn't, but THAT is what you expect us to believe.

Sorry don't accept your analogy, because God gave us a book called genesis, and it is NOT a ball to chase, but a book to read in the proper context.

Of course your right to think differently is just that, your right, but that doesn't make you right. GOD is right and true and faithful.

 

[River Jordan]

Ya gotta love it when Christians like Stan set it up to where they're on the side of God, which means if you dare disagree with them, well.....you're disagreeing with God!

Rather convenient, isn't it?

 

[Born_Again]

This thread has taken an interesting turn. If I may, I would like to rephrase the question. Do you, or do you not think God created the Earth in 6 days? If so, why? If not, why not?

 

[Born_Again]

The only part of this that I am going to address is the remark "Well, you have faith in God and acknowledge He is the creator, yet you cannot consider that the God of all creation could pull it off in 6 days.... "Oh what a wonderful God He is and Oh how I love Him... but there is no way He could have pulled it off in 6 days", which is pure bovine excrement.
Again, I will say that God could have done it all in a moment of time, or that He could have lingered lovingly over His creation for millions of years. The point is that God, unlike mere mortals, is not limited by time, or by space. Time, as we know it, did not exist before He created it. I know that is hard to wrap our tiny minds around, but it is a fact, never the less.

As to the rest of your comment....pbht

Thanks for deflecting!

 

[StanJ]

This thread has taken an interesting turn. If I may, I would like to rephrase the question. Do you, or do you not think God created the Earth in 6 days? If so, why? If not, why not?

It would be nice if ALL posters/participants, actually voted.

 

[StanJ]

Thanks for deflecting!

It's not the first time either.

 

[Barrd]

It's not the first time either.

I'm not sure at all what you mean by "deflecting".

You are saying that God must have created the universe and everything in it in six 24 hour earth time days, and I am saying that time doesn't matter.

We know that the universe has been in existence for around 14 billion years. That is simply a fact....the same as the fact that the sun is the center of this solar system, and the earth and all the rest of the planets in this system revolve around the sun. This solar system is only one of literally zillions and zillions of such systems....it is not at the center of the universe, nor is it at the edge of it; No one knows for sure how large the universe actually is, or if it has an end at all, and no one knows how many stars it contains, or whether there is other life "out there" or not.
And God does not give us this information in the Bible.

We know that time did not exist until God created it....so how long did it take Him to create time?
Of course, there is no answer to that question, nor do I expect anyone to answer it.

So, when God inspired Genesis, the writer (Moses? or was this oral tradition that Moses put into words, which would mean that God had conveyed this information to someone else, who passed it on to his children, who passed it on to their children, who passed it down to....well, you get the idea. When it came down to Moses, he wrote it down? That's kinda what I think, but of course, I don't know. Any more than anyone else does, even if they do pretend to.

And I will point out again....it wasn't so long ago that the church....yes, the RCC, which was the church at the time....fought bitterly against young Galileo's theory that the earth was not the center of the universe, but that it was merely one of several planets that revolved around the sun. Of course, the church "knew better" because the Bible never spoke about any other planet. He created the earth first, and then He created everything else to complement His grand achievement, and finally finished the great work with Adam....and the Greatest Story Ever Told begins.

But, as it turned out, those great theologians were wrong. Not only is the earth not the center of the universe, it actually is only one of several planets that do, indeed, revolve around the sun, which is at the center of this solar system, but also is not the center of the universe. Science....specifically, Galileo, was right.

Now you'd think that we Christians would have learned something from this experience. No, I'm not saying that science is automatically always right...but logic ought to tell us that the Creation story in Genesis is not an accurate blow by blow description of God's activities before, during, or after He Created the universe. Obviously, there is a lot of figurative language in the Genesis account that is not intended to be taken literally. And again, If God had given us exact technical details of just how He created the Universe, we would not have understood it, anyway.

Now, science is telling us that the universe is nearly 14 billion years old. This bit of rock we call "home" has only been around for around four and a half billion years. And we modern humans have only been around for some 150000 years or so. Now, I'm not willing to argue these numbers...Not being an expert, or having access to their techniques or their knowledge, I can't do so with any authority. But it seems pretty obvious that we've been around a good bit longer than the 6000 years or so "young earthers" insist on.

Does that mean that the Creation story in Genesis is not true? No. It only means that God gave us the information we needed....that He created the universe....in terms our tiny, finite brains could cope with. That's all it means. We don't have to abandon our faith...only adjust it a little. God created the universe....not just this one planet, but untold zillions of planets. And He did it in His Own time. Was it six days? Probably not. God is not bound by time or space, as we are. We can't begin to understand this, so our tiny, finite minds insist on placing time limits on God so that we can better grasp the reality of Creation, but it isn't necessary at all.

All we really need to know is that God is our Creator, and that He loves us. Trust Him enough for that, and leave the rest to Him.

 

[mjrhealth]

I have a friend whom teh Lord has being teaching Genisis for 30 years still in chapter 2. It takes as long as it takes with Jesus.