Religion

tama

(9,137 posts)

52. Hmm

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:25 PM

Jan 2012

In the spirit of benevolent interpretation (aka "cherry picking" ) this difference could refer to dual (or more...) aspect of man, first as carnal being among others that evolved after other beings, second as eternal soul, a star, light within, and the masc-fem duality as supersymmetry or sumfink light that.

In short, first story could refer to evolution, second to being before time and space, the Source, the Divine spark within.

But let's also remember that a myth is a myth because it cannot be literally interpreted but is open to many interpretations. It's often said that a myth can be only understood by living it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

98 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Religion and evolution [View all] Thats my opinion Jan 2012 OP

#6 is very bigoted Angry Dragon Jan 2012 #1

And it contradicts all the others. Except #2 -- the "anthropic fallacy." immoderate Jan 2012 #2

Anthropic principle tama Jan 2012 #6

Anthropic fallacy: "Isn't it amazing that we are here, to be amazed that we are here?" immoderate Jan 2012 #42

Yes, it is amazing and wonderful to be tama Jan 2012 #46

The anthropic principle Thats my opinion Jan 2012 #9

""It would be very difficult to explain why..." mr blur Jan 2012 #28

And perhaps tama Jan 2012 #47

This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Mar 2012 #97

#3 and 5 are sorta OK. #4 is a trap. immoderate Jan 2012 #3

So these things link religious "faith" and science...how, exactly? skepticscott Jan 2012 #4

I find it easier. No RW Cristian has been able to refute me, yet. There is always a yet. Festivito Jan 2012 #5

A "mystical" interpretation tama Jan 2012 #10

And the holy lobsters of beingness love the joy of qi. dmallind Jan 2012 #14

Isn't qi just melted butter? OriginalGeek Jan 2012 #68

Does that have anything to do with what I said? Festivito Jan 2012 #15

Does anything you said have to do with the OP? Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #22

I think so. Are you just jumping in to create a little mess? Festivito Jan 2012 #33

It has nothing to do with what *anybody* has ever said dmallind Jan 2012 #79

Ugh... jeepnstein Jan 2012 #29

I feel for you. Festivito Jan 2012 #31

All I know is.... PassingFair Jan 2012 #41

How does your church explain the two different stories of creation in Genesis? spin Jan 2012 #49

Got nothing for you. jeepnstein Jan 2012 #50

I don't attend church... spin Jan 2012 #51

Churches that don't struggle with this... jeepnstein Jan 2012 #57

Hmm tama Jan 2012 #52

I'll get back to you when I have all the answers. jeepnstein Jan 2012 #56

Yup tama Jan 2012 #58

Right! nt Thats my opinion Jan 2012 #60

This might interest you: tama Jan 2012 #61

These are two very different traditional stories Thats my opinion Jan 2012 #59

I agree... spin Jan 2012 #62

These questions are raised thousands of times every week all across the globe. Thats my opinion Jan 2012 #77

I quess that fundamentalist churches never mention... spin Jan 2012 #82

NIV?! Pish! Liberal rag! OriginalGeek Jan 2012 #70

But you do make a good point... spin Jan 2012 #75

I don't agree with 6 either tama Jan 2012 #7

I posted this not to argue for it Thats my opinion Jan 2012 #11

It's a dear hobby of mine tama Jan 2012 #13

And none of that makes them any more "right" about it. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #30

#2 is wrong. laconicsax Jan 2012 #8

Coincidence and consequence tama Jan 2012 #12

99% of solar system's mass supports life Bad Thoughts Jan 2012 #87

Hmmmm... rrneck Jan 2012 #16

God lit the fuse, crouched down in a hole, butt facing the bomb, arms over his head... hunter Jan 2012 #17

heh... rrneck Jan 2012 #18

Do you mean this? hunter Jan 2012 #20

Yeah! I couldnt get to post right for shit. rrneck Jan 2012 #21

An interesting list of premises. ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #19

Interesting meaning given to #2 tama Jan 2012 #24

Your sauna friend is probably a Kenneth Burke fan. ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #40

Kenneth Burke is a great unknown to me tama Jan 2012 #43

Checked Burke tama Jan 2012 #45

A question on premises #3 and #4. Jim__ Jan 2012 #23

From what I know of Collins Thats my opinion Jan 2012 #32

Thanks. - n/t Jim__ Jan 2012 #38

Some unwarranted assumptions in his list... Humanist_Activist Jan 2012 #25

I do not speak for Collins. He speaks for himself, Thats my opinion Jan 2012 #34

As a null hypothesis, atheism is the only legitimate position unless... Humanist_Activist Jan 2012 #54

Stated very well: "unscientific bias that cannot be reconciled with his profession" MarkCharles Jan 2012 #55

Like tama Jan 2012 #67

I must admit: half of your posts I fail to MarkCharles Jan 2012 #71

Why not both? nt tama Jan 2012 #72

Very simply, whatever they are meant as, MarkCharles Jan 2012 #73

Thanks tama Jan 2012 #76

I used to teach preaching in a seminary. Thats my opinion Jan 2012 #78

"used to teach preaching in a seminary" That explains MarkCharles Jan 2012 #81

So speaks tama Jan 2012 #83

Do you know anything about Newt Gingrich? or is HE superior to you? MarkCharles Jan 2012 #84

No tama Jan 2012 #89

I have made a commitment Thats my opinion Jan 2012 #88

Beauty tama Jan 2012 #26

The question of beauty raises an interesting arena for discussion. Thats my opinion Jan 2012 #35

Beauty, divinity, science bananas Jan 2012 #48

On Collins' very WEAK 6th argument: MarkCharles Jan 2012 #27

Humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation, AlbertCat Jan 2012 #36

Collins suggests that the moral law is unique among humans. Thats my opinion Jan 2012 #37

Evidently you are unfamiliar with the research. MarkCharles Jan 2012 #39

Good post tama Jan 2012 #44

So, basically what this thread comes down to is:... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #53

The God I believe in is beyond human understanding... spin Jan 2012 #63

I wouldn't call it a god tama Jan 2012 #66

It's the Knob-Twiddling God o' the Gaps again! onager Jan 2012 #64

Nothing to bite tama Jan 2012 #65

You truly don't see the fallacy, do you? skepticscott Jan 2012 #69

Where have I claimed tama Jan 2012 #74

right on Tama! nt Thats my opinion Jan 2012 #80

You're the one who offered up the fine-tuning argument skepticscott Jan 2012 #86

"Premise as a discussion point tama Jan 2012 #91

In other words, relevant skepticscott Jan 2012 #93

Yes tama Jan 2012 #94

You tried to discredit the notion skepticscott Jan 2012 #85

In that case tama Jan 2012 #90

Yes, the misunderstanding was yours skepticscott Jan 2012 #92

Hawking does not seem to believe Thats my opinion Jan 2012 #95

Creation and Evolution Rel100stu Mar 2012 #96

True, but mr blur Mar 2012 #98