Posted: Apr 02, 2018 8:09 pm
by aban57
Wortfish wrote:
aban57 wrote:It's quite funny to see Wortfish justifying all those lies and inconsistencies by telling they are "allegories" or metaphores for evolution, when most people concerned by the OP are in fact litteralists who don't want to hear about this shit.


I never claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 is a metaphor for evolution. What I claim is that creation doesn't involve producing things from absolutely nothing, as some believe. Rather, it involves working with existing materials, as evolution does.


Yes you did.

Wortfish wrote:
laklak wrote:So Adam and Eve should be viewed as allegory. OK. How do you know what bits are allegory and what bits are "God's Revealed Truth"? Is there some special font? Looks to me like the entire fucking thing is allegory, just a bunch of desert goat roasters making up shit about things they didn't understand.

Like JRR Tolkien, I have detested allegory since I was old enough to detect its presence.


A talking snake, and a tree of the knowledge of good and evil, are obviously allegorical. Genesis is a work of theology, not of science or history. Unfortunately, in our fact-based society, we relegate the place of allegory. We mustn't conflate truth with fact.


Wortfish wrote:
MS2 wrote:
If you regard it as allegorical, do you not regard it as fully compatible with the reality of evolution? Could God not have created everything as it is now through the agency of evolution? If not, why not?

Most Christians and Jews regard it as allegorical/figurative, but evangelical Protestants believe every single word in Genesis is the inerrant and literal reality. Of course, as I have pointed out, by creating Eve from a rib of Adam, God shows that he can - like evolution - use existing parts to generate new ones.