appolose said:
If all of Genesis could be taken metaphorically, then context would be next to useless (or, so I find). Furthermore, an omnipotent God could find thousands of better systems that would not involve killing off every unfit creature until the right one randomly mutates apt genetics (of course, perhaps earlier) to survive (thus, putting such a system on the "very bad" part of the scale of choices, I would think). And while evolution certainly does end up with a life that eventually does prevail, it also has about a trillion times more death and pain along the way. |
The way I look at it is like this: people might have had an understanding of the universe at the time of the writing of the Old Testament that necessitated the idea that it was a historical account of the history of the world. THat doesn't bother me. At the time, people thought that the sky was holding back another ocean - that's why it was blue. The Flood was God poking holes in the roof of the universe, letting water flood in. That's why the Ark was sealed so much in its rafters - it was a freaking submarine.
Anyway.
I don't mind the idea that a creation myth would rise up out of Judaic beliefs, and I don't mind the idea that this would run contrary to our current understanding of the universe. It doesn't matter. I was raised to believe that God's highest demand of all His children was that we use our faculties and our reason and our free will - this last most importantly. We have to question God. Blindly accepting the teachings of the bible is a sin because absolute submission is throwing away the most important aspect which was carve into humanity.
So whzt does that mean?
If our knowledge of the universe runs contrary to religious doctrine - particularly the parts that don't matter, like "historical" accounts or creation myths - then we must change our beliefs to accomodate our knowledge. To do anything else is a mockery of the faculties that have been granted to us.
