Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[The New California Republic]

So this basically amounts to a big song and dance way of saying "your interpretation is wrong", without actually giving any reasons to believe why it is wrong. Alright. OK.

I've explained multiple time why your interpretation is wrong tho.
That you wilfully refuse to understand is something out of my responsibility.

Oh I understand completely, you have just given me no credible reasons whatsoever in relation to why I should believe you; without credible reasons and ultimately unsupported by any kind of tangible evidence.

[Ifreann]

I understand evolution, more or less. I get the general idea behind the big bang and the formation of celestial bodies.

Further, I am, essentially, the same kind of creature as those people who were, supposedly, told the story of creation by God. I've probably benefited from better nutrition than was available to them, but there is no special power that my brain has that their brains lacked.

So it follows that God could have given the Jews of yore at least as comprehensive an understanding of how the universe came about as I now possess. They would have understood it, and we know that because I understand it and there's nothing special about me compared to them. And I just had ordinary human teachers, not God.

I think the question now becomes, why did God tell them something so far from the truth? Why did God lie to his chosen people about creation?

The Genesis is neither far from the truth nor innacurate and even less a lie, it is merely images, no different from the other paraboles used by God to teach us.

The story of creation in Genesis is indeed far from how the universe and this planet and life on it actually came about.

That you make the mistake of considering it literally is on you, not on God.

I'm not taking it literally, I know it's not literally true, I'm asking why God told a story so far from the truth.

[Aellex]

The story of creation in Genesis is indeed far from how the universe and this planet and life on it actually came about.

Bravo, you know the definition of a metaphor and it's indeed not supposed to be read literally!

I'm not taking it literally, I know it's not literally true, I'm asking why God told a story so far from the truth.

Ah, my bad you do not actually. : /

[New Legland]

The story of creation in Genesis is indeed far from how the universe and this planet and life on it actually came about.

Bravo, you know the definition of a metaphor and it's indeed not supposed to be read literally!

I'm not taking it literally, I know it's not literally true, I'm asking why God told a story so far from the truth.

Ah, my bad you do not actually. : /

Do you even know what the metaphor is? So far, you've just kept saying "it's a metaphor, it's a metaphor" and leaving it at that, but you have yet to explain what the metaphor is. Even if it is a metaphor, there are certain statements it makes that are still wrong.

[Ifreann]

The story of creation in Genesis is indeed far from how the universe and this planet and life on it actually came about.

Bravo, you know the definition of a metaphor and it's indeed not supposed to be read literally!

I'm not taking it literally, I know it's not literally true, I'm asking why God told a story so far from the truth.

Ah, my bad you do not actually. : /

Saying "metaphor" doesn't answer my question. When God was telling people how the Earth came to be, why didn't he tell them that matter orbiting the Sun accreted until it formed a more or less spherical body? It can't be because they wouldn't have understood that, because I understand it, so of course they would understand it if God would have taken the time to teach them.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Bravo, you know the definition of a metaphor and it's indeed not supposed to be read literally!


Ah, my bad you do not actually. : /

Saying "metaphor" doesn't answer my question. When God was telling people how the Earth came to be, why didn't he tell them that matter orbiting the Sun accreted until it formed a more or less spherical body? It can't be because they wouldn't have understood that, because I understand it, so of course they would understand it if God would have taken the time to teach them.

Perhaps because these were concepts they could not understand at the time. Perhaps. You were educated in a time and place where those are known concepts which also have tech/tools that back all the info. That wasn’t the case at the times the Bible was compiled.

Of course, God could have made them understand (he’s supposed to be a divine creature), but the whole deal was still written by men of their times so eh, who knows.

[Ifreann]

Saying "metaphor" doesn't answer my question. When God was telling people how the Earth came to be, why didn't he tell them that matter orbiting the Sun accreted until it formed a more or less spherical body? It can't be because they wouldn't have understood that, because I understand it, so of course they would understand it if God would have taken the time to teach them.

Perhaps because these were concepts they could not understand at the time. Perhaps. You were educated in a time and place where those are known concepts which also have tech/tools that back all the info. That wasn’t the case at the times the Bible was compiled.

Of course, God could have made them understand (he’s supposed to be a divine creature), but the whole deal was still written by men of their times so eh, who knows.

Exactly, God could have taught the people he told these stories to all the things they would need to know to understand what really happened, as I was taught them. They would have lacked the technology to confirm any of the things God told them...but it's not like they had any way to check whether God created the Earth from nothing just by willing it.

[Aellex]

Bravo, you know the definition of a metaphor and it's indeed not supposed to be read literally!


Ah, my bad you do not actually. : /

Saying "metaphor" doesn't answer my question. When God was telling people how the Earth came to be, why didn't he tell them that matter orbiting the Sun accreted until it formed a more or less spherical body? It can't be because they wouldn't have understood that, because I understand it, so of course they would understand it if God would have taken the time to teach them.

Why your kindergarten teacher didn't teach you about quantum physics?
Well geez, it's almost as if there is neither need nor point to do that because it's irrelevant to what you're doing and outside of your sphere of understanding anyway.

The Bible isn't a scientific treaty, it is a moral and religious code and guide. Your bitching is as stupid as it's unrelated.

[The New California Republic]

Saying "metaphor" doesn't answer my question. When God was telling people how the Earth came to be, why didn't he tell them that matter orbiting the Sun accreted until it formed a more or less spherical body? It can't be because they wouldn't have understood that, because I understand it, so of course they would understand it if God would have taken the time to teach them.

Why your kindergarten teacher didn't teach you about quantum physics?
Well geez, it's almost as if there is neither need nor point to do that because it's irrelevant to what you're doing and outside of your sphere of understanding anyway.

The Bible isn't a scientific treaty, it is a moral and religious code and guide. Your bitching is as stupid as it's unrelated.

Why the fuck throw a hissy fit when people either say something that you don't like or undermine your argument? It doesn't help one's argument.

[New Legland]

Saying "metaphor" doesn't answer my question. When God was telling people how the Earth came to be, why didn't he tell them that matter orbiting the Sun accreted until it formed a more or less spherical body? It can't be because they wouldn't have understood that, because I understand it, so of course they would understand it if God would have taken the time to teach them.

Why your kindergarten teacher didn't teach you about quantum physics?
Well geez, it's almost as if there is neither need nor point to do that because it's irrelevant to what you're doing and outside of your sphere of understanding anyway.

The Bible isn't a scientific treaty, it is a moral and religious code and guide. Your bitching is as stupid as it's unrelated.

If the Bible describes the creation of the world, it should be accurate. If something as simple as that isn't accurate, everything else should be thrown into question. And don't say, "oH, iT'S a MeTaPhOr" (which doesn't explain everything regardless) until you're willing to explain what the metaphor actually is. Of course, that's assuming you even know what the metaphor you're referring to is and aren't just giving some throwaway answer.

[Psukhe]

That Genesis is but a story written a couple of years ago by a people who had a rather rudimentary and primitive view on the world and thus could probably not conclude through the scientific method how the earth and men came to be.

So it isn't accurate nor divinely inspired?

It isn't accurate in the way that it does not accurately (or at all) reflect our world through how we perceive it with the lens of modern being.

As for divinely inspired... I don't know. No one does. It probably wasn't, but we can't really know. I do believe that that creation story is largely irrelevant to our lives and may be freely discarded, however.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Why your kindergarten teacher didn't teach you about quantum physics?
Well geez, it's almost as if there is neither need nor point to do that because it's irrelevant to what you're doing and outside of your sphere of understanding anyway.

The Bible isn't a scientific treaty, it is a moral and religious code and guide. Your bitching is as stupid as it's unrelated.

If the Bible describes the creation of the world, it should be accurate. If something as simple as that isn't accurate, everything else should be thrown into question. And don't say, "oH, iT'S a MeTaPhOr" (which doesn't explain everything regardless) until you're willing to explain what the metaphor actually is. Of course, that's assuming you even know what the metaphor you're referring to is and aren't just giving some throwaway answer.

You are dealing with an entity that earnestly believes that chemical reactions and not supernovas created all the elements, and that anybody who disagrees with this notion is suffering from Dunning-Krugers so...

[Ifreann]

Saying "metaphor" doesn't answer my question. When God was telling people how the Earth came to be, why didn't he tell them that matter orbiting the Sun accreted until it formed a more or less spherical body? It can't be because they wouldn't have understood that, because I understand it, so of course they would understand it if God would have taken the time to teach them.

Why your kindergarten teacher didn't teach you about quantum physics?
Well geez, it's almost as if there is neither need nor point to do that because it's irrelevant to what you're doing and outside of your sphere of understanding anyway.

The Bible isn't a scientific treaty, it is a moral and religious code and guide.

It must have been important for people to know how God created everything, otherwise he wouldn't have told them anything. Quantum physics certainly wasn't relevant to my earliest education, and so I wasn't taught anything about it. My "kindergarten" teachers didn't tell me some metaphorical story about quantum physics , it just didn't come up at all. But God did see fit to tell people how he created the universe, and he didn't tell them the truth, he told them a story. You saying that it's a metaphor doesn't explain why God told people a metaphorical story about creation instead of the truth, or instead of nothing at all, or instead of telling them that it's not immediately relevant how he did it, they'll figure it out themselves eventually.

Your bitching is as stupid as it's unrelated.

I'm not bitching. I don't care that the Bible isn't scientifically accurate. I want believers to explain to me why it isn't scientifically accurate, given that the explanation I have heard most often over the years, "People back then wouldn't have understood", is clearly wrong.

It's fine if you don't have an answer. It's just NSG.

[Hanafuridake]

I think that it's generally historical consensus that the Buddha was a historical person who existed, the exact details about his early life are murky and mythologized, but the early Nikayas support the main biographical themes (his renunciation, realization of the deathless, and the bodhisattva) which would become central to all Buddhist schools.

“I, too, monks, before my Awakening, when I was an unawakened bodhisatta, being subject myself to birth...”

“So, at a later time, while still young, a black-haired young man endowed with the blessings of youth in the first stage of life — and while my parents, unwilling, were crying with tears streaming down their faces — I shaved off my hair & beard, put on the ochre robe and went forth from the home life into homelessness.”

Both Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta, the Buddha's meditation teachers, are believed to be historically real based on philological evidence, and the historical dating of other prominent figures of the time (such as Mahavira) are reliant on these texts. These are strong reasons to believe that the earliest texts of the Pāli Canon are historically valid and came from a homogeneous source (the Buddha).

But this doesn't make Buddhism true, any more than historians agreeing that Jesus was a real person makes Christianity true. I base my trust in him on the basis that someone who claimed to have absolute knowledge must be either truthful, lying, or mad. The moral teachings combined with the truths of impermanence, dependent origination, anatta, and dukkha are enough to convince me he was the first. Whether I choose to accept the existence of Nirvana is ultimately a matter of faith that can't be accepted rationally though.

In regard to the sect that I belong to (the Shingon schools) I can't accept that Theravada has legitimately retained the Buddha's whole teachings and there are serious questions raised from their texts - they don't address things such as the cosmological assertion there is a ruler of the universe (Mahesvara), the Buddha stating that he and the Dharma are one and the same, or the reality of a transcendental law. Shingon does with the doctrine of the Dharmakaya which is identified with Vairocana as the source of the universe.

[Hardholm]

One of C. S. Lewis' more famous quotes is, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." and I think that is a great explanation for how I feel. If you've not experienced it, not received the Holy Spirit, it would be difficult to reconcile with whatever belief system you currently held that it existed at all. Even though I believe all humans are innately imprinted with the ability and desire to believe upon their souls, it is only through God approaching us through the Holy Spirit and us making a choice to receive it that enlightens us, allows us to see the sun for the first time, if you will. And after you see the sun, and see everything it shows, how could you then deny it?

I know that this leaves any discussion or debate at an impasse. If you've seen Him, then how could you say otherwise? If you haven't seen Him, how could you possibly be convinced? Certainly not through words. Anyway, this is why I believe, not only in a "higher power" but in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit expressed as the Trinity.

Feel free to have a conversation with me about it, but I don't tend to enjoy so-called "debate".

[Aellex]

If the Bible describes the creation of the world, it should be accurate.

Why should it be? God gave us the steps, the details are superfluous.

If something as simple as that isn't accurate, everything else should be thrown into question.

Not only are you wrong but it just doesn't follow.

And don't say, "oH, iT'S a MeTaPhOr" (which doesn't explain everything regardless) until you're willing to explain what the metaphor actually is. Of course, that's assuming you even know what the metaphor you're referring to is and aren't just giving some throwaway answer.

I don't really see why you need me when there are plenty of dictionaries around but sure.
A metaphor is an analogical substitution, an image if you prefer. The seven days of creation, by exemples, aren't to be taken as 168 literal hours but as the gradual steps of the process.

[Aellex]

You are dealing with an entity that earnestly believes that chemical reactions and not supernovas created all the elements, and that anybody who disagrees with this notion is suffering from Dunning-Krugers so...

Sad words coming from one not even capable of reading simple sentences despite being corrected numerous times and who prefer to blame his misunderstanding on on others.
Truly sad but then again not very surprising. : /

[New Legland]

If the Bible describes the creation of the world, it should be accurate.

Why should it be? God gave us the steps, the details are superfluous.

What? This has nothing to do with a lack of details, this is a matter of blatant inaccuracies. This is supposed to be a book from our creator. What would the point be of giving us a lie?

If something as simple as that isn't accurate, everything else should be thrown into question.

Not only are you wrong but it just doesn't follow.

How? If the book claims it's accurate and it turns out a part of it isn't, it loses credibility. I don't know how anyone would trust other parts of a book inspired by an omniscient god if it isn't completely accurate.

And don't say, "oH, iT'S a MeTaPhOr" (which doesn't explain everything regardless) until you're willing to explain what the metaphor actually is. Of course, that's assuming you even know what the metaphor you're referring to is and aren't just giving some throwaway answer.

I don't really see why you need me when there are plenty of dictionaries around but sure.
A metaphor is an analogical substitution, an image if you prefer. The seven days of creation, by exemples, aren't to be taken as 168 literal hours but as the gradual steps of the process.

I wasn't asking what a metaphor is, I was asking what the metaphor is. In fact, even with what you've just specified, you have yet to provide us with a metaphorical interpretation that reconciles all of the inaccuracies that appear when taken literally. Nothing about that discrepancy in time describes human evolution? In fact, how does that explain the myriad of other inaccuracies in Genesis?

[Genivaria]

The story of creation in Genesis is indeed far from how the universe and this planet and life on it actually came about.

Bravo, you know the definition of a metaphor and it's indeed not supposed to be read literally!

I'm not taking it literally, I know it's not literally true, I'm asking why God told a story so far from the truth.

Ah, my bad you do not actually. : /

Funny how it was perceived as literal for centuries right up until scientists learned how it actually happened, now suddenly it's 'metaphor'.

[New Legland]

Bravo, you know the definition of a metaphor and it's indeed not supposed to be read literally!


Ah, my bad you do not actually. : /

Funny how it was perceived as literal for centuries right up until scientists learned how it actually happened, now suddenly it's 'metaphor'.

Exactly. Why would God supposedly use a metaphor instead of a literal description when the metaphor is so easily misinterpreted?

[Hanafuridake]

Bravo, you know the definition of a metaphor and it's indeed not supposed to be read literally!


Ah, my bad you do not actually. : /

Funny how it was perceived as literal for centuries right up until scientists learned how it actually happened, now suddenly it's 'metaphor'.

To be fair, Augustine did basically say Genesis was metaphorical and made no sense otherwise.

[Genivaria]

Funny how it was perceived as literal for centuries right up until scientists learned how it actually happened, now suddenly it's 'metaphor'.

Oh certainly the more educated even back then might've had doubts on its literal nature.

[Aellex]

What? This has nothing to do with a lack of details, this is a matter of blatant inaccuracies. This is supposed to be a book from our creator. What would the point be of giving us a lie?

"Lie". You keep using that word, I'm not sure you actually know what it means tho.

How? If the book claims it's accurate and it turns out a part of it isn't, it loses credibility. I don't know how anyone would trust other parts of a book inspired by an omniscient god if it isn't completely accurate.

No, what you're saying is that if we don't have a scientifical description of the creation of the universe in the Genesis, then the Bible is wrong.
Not only is it stupid but it indeed doesn't follow.

I wasn't asking what a metaphor is, I was asking what the metaphor is. In fact, even with what you've just specified, you have yet to provide us with a metaphorical interpretation that reconciles all of the inaccuracies that appear when taken literally. Nothing about that discrepancy in time describes human evolution? In fact, how does that explain the myriad of other inaccuracies in Genesis?

>"You aren't supposed to read it literally, that's the point of a metaphore"
>"BuT yOu HaVe YeT tO gIvE aN eXpLaNaTiOn FoR tHe InNaCcUrAcIeS wHeN yOu ReAd It LiTeRaLlY!!!1!!!1"

I... Hum... What?

[Aellex]

Funny how it was perceived as literal for centuries right up until scientists learned how it actually happened, now suddenly it's 'metaphor'.

It wasn't tho. Interpretations always varied.

Exactly. Why would God supposedly use a metaphor instead of a literal description when the metaphor is so easily misinterpreted?

Because the Bible isn't a scientific treaty. It's the Bible.

[Neanderthaland]

What? This has nothing to do with a lack of details, this is a matter of blatant inaccuracies. This is supposed to be a book from our creator. What would the point be of giving us a lie?

"Lie". You keep using that word, I'm not sure you actually know what it means tho.

How? If the book claims it's accurate and it turns out a part of it isn't, it loses credibility. I don't know how anyone would trust other parts of a book inspired by an omniscient god if it isn't completely accurate.

No, what you're saying is that if we don't have a scientifical description of the creation of the universe in the Genesis, then the Bible is wrong.
Not only is it stupid but it indeed doesn't follow.

I wasn't asking what a metaphor is, I was asking what the metaphor is. In fact, even with what you've just specified, you have yet to provide us with a metaphorical interpretation that reconciles all of the inaccuracies that appear when taken literally. Nothing about that discrepancy in time describes human evolution? In fact, how does that explain the myriad of other inaccuracies in Genesis?

>"You aren't supposed to read it literally, that's the point of a metaphore"
>"BuT yOu HaVe YeT tO gIvE aN eXpLaNaTiOn FoR tHe InNaCcUrAcIeS wHeN yOu ReAd It LiTeRaLlY!!!1!!!1"

I... Hum... What?

This is coming off more and more like a tantrum Aellex. If you say Genesis is a metaphor, it is not unreasonable to ask what the metaphor is, or how it applies.