Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Islam and Creation?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 16 of 32 (734726)
08-01-2014 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Dr Adequate
07-31-2014 5:44 PM


a piece of work
Well, there are Islamic creationists, the most famous of whom is Harun Yahya. ...
A real piece of work, who believes that anal rape of young women is okay because they are still virgins, and who uses blackmail to silence opponents.
He also published a book that purported to show ancient fossils and those same organisms living today -- including one picture using a fishing lure complete with hook as a "living" example. One resource on him is:
http://rationalist.org.uk/...the-secret-lives-of-harun-yahya
His "science" is worse than the ICR and amounts to pure shinola.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2014 5:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Epee
Junior Member (Idle past 3234 days)
Posts: 13
From: Florida
Joined: 07-28-2014


Message 17 of 32 (734731)
08-01-2014 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by NoNukes
07-31-2014 8:24 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
dwise wrote:
What exactly do you think the phrase "written word of god" actually means? That god dictated every word of the Bible? That the Bible contains no allegory or non literal lessons?
Your position is based on some assumptions that are not shared by every person who claims to follow the Bible. Almost certainly your judgments of those people are wrong as well.
Sure, you could argue that parts of the bible are allegorical. You could argue that the ENTIRE bible is allegorical. But there's no consistent way to decide which parts of the bible are allegorical and which are literal. This leads people to just pick and choose what parts they like and then anything they don't like becomes a metaphor.
I have not made judgments of anybody (yet) so you have no idea if my judgments of them are wrong.
I also want to state that I really don't care what kind of assumptions people have when they try and interpret the bible. Just the most consistent way to look at any work of literature is to take it literally. Obviously, in order to appreciate any good literature, it will take personal interpretation, but there's no way of deciding who's interpretation is "better" or "more accurate" except by asking the author what they meant. Therefore, when debating literature, the interpretation that most strictly sticks to the written word should be the preferred interpretation.
Sorry if that's a jumbled mess, I'm tired and typing quickly. I'll try and clarify when I get home.
I haven't followed that creationist lineage, but the National Center for Science Education (NCSE at Home | National Center for Science Education) did and published some articles on Islamic creationism. The name, Harun Yahya, did come up, as I recall, but there's more to it than just him.
I went to their site and did a search on Islam. Here are the results:
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1....
Share and enjoy!
PS
I also went to the talkorigins newsgroup's archive site, talkorigins.org, and did another search on Islam. You'll need to do that search for yourself.
Thanks! I'll look it over when I have more time.
RAZD wrote:
A real piece of work, who believes that anal rape of young women is okay because they are still virgins, and who uses blackmail to silence opponents.
He also published a book that purported to show ancient fossils and those same organisms living today -- including one picture using a fishing lure complete with hook as a "living" example. One resource on him is:
http://rationalist.org.uk/...the-secret-lives-of-harun-yahya
His "science" is worse than the ICR and amounts to pure shinola.
Enjoy
That's exactly the type of stuff I was hoping to learn here. Thanks RAZD!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NoNukes, posted 07-31-2014 8:24 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2014 5:44 PM Epee has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 32 (734733)
08-01-2014 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Epee
08-01-2014 5:18 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Sure, you could argue that parts of the bible are allegorical. You could argue that the ENTIRE bible is allegorical. But there's no consistent way to decide which parts of the bible are allegorical and which are literal. This leads people to just pick and choose what parts they like and then anything they don't like becomes a metaphor.
Yes, there is that trap. But that difficulty does not excuse the error of taking everything literally or assuming that Christians must do so. Being correct may actually turn out to be difficult. And quite frankly, I think the difficulty is exaggerated. There are plenty of cues that some stories were never intended to be taken literally.
What is the Jewish take on whether the origin story in Genesis are to be taken literally? Why is it inconsistent or wrong when Christians take a similar approach?
I have not made judgments of anybody (yet) so you have no idea if my judgments of them are wrong.
Yes, you did make a judgment. You accused people who don't insist on following every element of the Bible as nitpicking what they want to believe. You repeated that judgment in the post I am now responding to.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Epee, posted 08-01-2014 5:18 PM Epee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Epee, posted 08-18-2014 10:57 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Epee
Junior Member (Idle past 3234 days)
Posts: 13
From: Florida
Joined: 07-28-2014


Message 19 of 32 (735582)
08-18-2014 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by NoNukes
08-01-2014 5:44 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Sorry for my super-delayed response, I've been really busy lately.
Yes, there is that trap. But that difficulty does not excuse the error of taking everything literally or assuming that Christians must do so. Being correct may actually turn out to be difficult. And quite frankly, I think the difficulty is exaggerated. There are plenty of cues that some stories were never intended to be taken literally.
What is the Jewish take on whether the origin story in Genesis are to be taken literally? Why is it inconsistent or wrong when Christians take a similar approach?
Every story ever written can be taken allegorically. But when discussing Star Wars with friends, I don't assume that we're discussing it as a metaphor for World War 2, we discuss it literally until someone makes an argument that a specific part is a metaphor. It's impossible to tell if something is supposed to be a metaphor or not without the author specifically telling you so.
Of course, if Christians (or any other religion) wish to take it metaphorically in their personal life, it isn't at all my place to tell them their wrong. But if they're going to debate it, then they need to come with reasons why it is metaphorical or I'm going to assume we're discussing it literally. I'm not an expert on the bible by any means, so do point out biblical verses that prove me wrong.
The orthodox Jews do in fact take the Torah literally, so I don't see where you're coming with the rest of your question. I stated before I consider myself atheist, I just follow the Jewish traditions for cultural reasons.
Yes, you did make a judgment. You accused people who don't insist on following every element of the Bible as nitpicking what they want to believe. You repeated that judgment in the post I am now responding to.
But it IS nitpicking. Deciding that certain passages should be metaphorical and others shouldn't is nitpicking, unless you have clear reasons for doing so. Even then, it might still be nitpicking, just justifiably so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2014 5:44 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-18-2014 11:52 AM Epee has replied
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 08-18-2014 1:01 PM Epee has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 32 (735584)
08-18-2014 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Epee
08-18-2014 10:57 AM


Literal?
But there's no consistent way to decide which parts of the bible are allegorical and which are literal.
Why not? I mean, its not that hard to come up with a few ways that are, at least, consistent.
Like, you could just compare it with reality to determine which parts aren't literal.
For example, we know that snakes don't talk so that suggests that the story never really happened.
Or you could pick some weird random way, but just keep it consistent... like, all the words that begin with a 'W' are allegorical, and all the words that begin with an "M" are literal. That's silly, but that could still be consistent.
Every story ever written can be taken allegorically.
What could "One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish" be an allegory for?
But when discussing Star Wars with friends, I don't assume that we're discussing it as a metaphor for World War 2, we discuss it literally until someone makes an argument that a specific part is a metaphor.
Hrm, I'm not really picking up what you're putting down. What do you mean by literal?
Like, Darth Vader was never a real person, we all know that Star Wars is fiction. But, literally, according to the story, he did use a red lightsaber.
In the same way, in the Garden of Eden story, the snake literally did talk, but recognizing that doesn't mean accepting that the events in the story actually took place in real life.
Deciding that certain passages should be metaphorical and others shouldn't is nitpicking, unless you have clear reasons for doing so. Even then, it might still be nitpicking, just justifiably so.
Are you trying to tell me that when I read that Jesus was the lamb of God, that I should read that as saying that he was literally God's baby sheep?
And if I see that as a metaphor then I am nitpicking?
'Cause that don't make sense...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Epee, posted 08-18-2014 10:57 AM Epee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Epee, posted 08-18-2014 12:12 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-18-2014 1:04 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Epee
Junior Member (Idle past 3234 days)
Posts: 13
From: Florida
Joined: 07-28-2014


Message 21 of 32 (735587)
08-18-2014 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by New Cat's Eye
08-18-2014 11:52 AM


Re: Literal?
Why not? I mean, its not that hard to come up with a few ways that are, at least, consistent.
Like, you could just compare it with reality to determine which parts aren't literal.
For example, we know that snakes don't talk so that suggests that the story never really happened.
We also know that virgin births are impossible and that people don't raise from the dead, but most Christians would be opposed to assuming those aren't literal.
Or you could pick some weird random way, but just keep it consistent... like, all the words that begin with a 'W' are allegorical, and all the words that begin with an "M" are literal. That's silly, but that could still be consistent.
Ok, you got me on that point. Technically if a Christian were to do that, he would be consistent. But if you were to try and debate that point, it wouldn't be pretty.
What could "One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish" be an allegory for?
It's an allegory for how human generations constantly die and are reborn.
At the beginning there are quite a bit of fish (Say! What a lot of fish there are.) and even includes how some people are old and some are young (Some are old and some are new.) plus it also identifies different kinds of people (Some are sad, and some are glad, And some are very, very bad.).
Eventually, the whole generation dies off (And now, Good night. It is time to sleep) only for the next generation to take over (Today is gone. Today was fun. Tomorrow is another one.).
It could also be a metaphor for our political system, and the list goes on. I could make up this crap about any piece of literature. It doesn't mean its true, and it shows the issue with trying to read too much into something.
Hrm, I'm not really picking up what you're putting down. What do you mean by literal?
Like, Darth Vader was never a real person, we all know that Star Wars is fiction. But, literally, according to the story, he did use a red lightsaber.
In the same way, in the Garden of Eden story, the snake literally did talk, but recognizing that doesn't mean accepting that the events in the story actually took place in real life.
By literal I mean that we take the happenings in the story as the actual happenings in the story. If I'm talking about the storm troopers as the Nazi SS I'm not going to have a very fun conversation with someone discussing them as actual storm troopers. In the same vein, if I'm discussing genesis as metaphor for the futility of disobeying god, I'm not going to have any kind of meaningful discussion with someone who takes it as the literal story of creation.
Are you trying to tell me that when I read that Jesus was the lamb of God, that I should read that as saying that he was literally God's baby sheep?
And if I see that as a metaphor then I am nitpicking?
'Cause that don't make sense...
That depends on your definition of lamb.
From merriam-webster:
1lamb noun \ˈlam\
: a young sheep
: the meat of a lamb
: an innocent, weak, or gentle person
Taking the third definition, it's not actually problematic to take lamb literally.
Of course, you could also make the argument that lambs were often used for sacrifices back in that time, and thus calling someone a lamb could mean that they were meant as a sacrifice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-18-2014 11:52 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-18-2014 12:58 PM Epee has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 32 (735592)
08-18-2014 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Epee
08-18-2014 12:12 PM


Re: Literal?
By literal I mean that we take the happenings in the story as the actual happenings in the story.
And when Jesus offers a parable, would that literally be an allegory?
Why can't I be consistent when I see that the parable of the Good Samaritan is an allegory while also accepting that some of the other events that are described actually did happen?
Where is the inconsistency in that?
In the same vein, if I'm discussing genesis as metaphor for the futility of disobeying god, I'm not going to have any kind of meaningful discussion with someone who takes it as the literal story of creation.
See, this is where I'm getting confused.
In the story, the snake literally did talk. But that story never happened in real life.
So is that taking it literally or not?
Usually, when people talk about taking the Bible literally, they mean that they accept that the events did happen in real life.
I don't usually see people talking about taking the Bible literally as being reading something as literally happening within the story even though they realize that the events never took place in real life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Epee, posted 08-18-2014 12:12 PM Epee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Epee, posted 08-18-2014 1:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 23 of 32 (735593)
08-18-2014 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Epee
08-18-2014 10:57 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Epee writes:
Every story ever written can be taken allegorically. But when discussing Star Wars with friends, I don't assume that we're discussing it as a metaphor for World War 2, we discuss it literally until someone makes an argument that a specific part is a metaphor.
But you don't really discuss it literally, do you? You discuss it as fiction, which is not literally true but may not be allegorical or metaphorical either.
Epee writes:
It's impossible to tell if something is supposed to be a metaphor or not without the author specifically telling you so.
A simile is explicit; a metaphor may not be. But metaphors are often clearly metaphorical - e.g. "thundering applause" is not literally thunder but it is a clear comparison to thunder.
Epee writes:
I'm not an expert on the bible by any means, so do point out biblical verses that prove me wrong.
Gladly.
quote:
Psalm 23:1 The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
Nobody believes the psalm was written by a sheep.
Edited by ringo, : Speling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Epee, posted 08-18-2014 10:57 AM Epee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Epee, posted 08-18-2014 1:14 PM ringo has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 24 of 32 (735594)
08-18-2014 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by New Cat's Eye
08-18-2014 11:52 AM


Re: Literal?
What could "One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish" be an allegory for?
It addresses how partisan politics divides American society, and reminds us that whether we are "blue" or "red" we are all still people with hopes and dreams, all alike capable of joy and suffering, and sharing the common burden of mortality.
Some are red, and some are blue.
Some are old and some are new.
Some are sad, and some are glad ...
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-18-2014 11:52 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Epee
Junior Member (Idle past 3234 days)
Posts: 13
From: Florida
Joined: 07-28-2014


Message 25 of 32 (735595)
08-18-2014 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
08-18-2014 12:58 PM


Re: Literal?
And when Jesus offers a parable, would that literally be an allegory?
Why can't I be consistent when I see that the parable of the Good Samaritan is an allegory while also accepting that some of the other events that are described actually did happen?
Where is the inconsistency in that?
It depends on the context of the allegory. I don't see any reason why Jesus did not mean that the story of the Good Samaritan is an allegory and did not literally happen, or any reason as to why that story is not believable. I find all of the arguments as to how that story is allegorical to be as ridiculous as my story about one fish, two fish. If I'm missing something, please point it out.
Of course, if you have some good reason as to why a part of the bible should not be taken literally other than "This can't happen, therefore even though the bible said it did it doesn't really mean that" then it's completely justifiable to believe so.
I've seen quite a bit of your arguments on this forum, so I honestly don't think that you think this way, but that thinking is the kind I have an issue with.
See, this is where I'm getting confused.
In the story, the snake literally did talk. But that story never happened in real life.
So is that taking it literally or not?
Usually, when people talk about taking the Bible literally, they mean that they accept that the events did happen in real life.
I don't usually see people talking about taking the Bible literally as being reading something as literally happening within the story even though they realize that the events never took place in real life.
I see where your confusion is, and it is partially my fault. See, you can either take the bible literally from a belivers stand point (the snake literally did talk) or take it literally as one would take the words in a story literally. For example, in Star Wars Luke Skywalker is literally Darth Vaders son, this is not a metaphor for goodness being born out of evil or any other crap.
One is taking a story as literally true, the other is taking it as literally true in the context of the story.
Sorry if my arguments are unclear, I'm fairly new to written, online debates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-18-2014 12:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-18-2014 1:27 PM Epee has replied

  
Epee
Junior Member (Idle past 3234 days)
Posts: 13
From: Florida
Joined: 07-28-2014


Message 26 of 32 (735596)
08-18-2014 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ringo
08-18-2014 1:01 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
But you don't really discuss it literally, do you? You discuss it as fiction, which is not literally true but may not be allegorical or metaphorical either.
I discuss it as literally true within that realm of fiction. When you talk about discussing Harry Potter literally, you don't mean that you believe in Harry Potter, just that you're taking the text for what it's worth without giving it any outside meaning.
A simile is explicit; a metaphor may not be. But metaphors are often clearly metaphorical - e.g. "thundering applause" is not literally thunder but it is a clear comparison to thunder.
Excellent point, actually. There are certain cases where something is so blatantly obvious that you have no choice but to take it as a metaphor, and I will concede that there are certain passages that are clearly metaphors. But I will still argue that that's different than taking an entire biblical book as a metaphor, even when there's no reason to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 08-18-2014 1:01 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 08-18-2014 1:21 PM Epee has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 27 of 32 (735598)
08-18-2014 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Epee
08-18-2014 1:14 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Epee writes:
I discuss it as literally true within that realm of fiction.
"Literally true but not literally true" is poor terminology. You should make a distinction between "literal truth" - i.e. actually, really, tangibly does happen - and "fictional consitency".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Epee, posted 08-18-2014 1:14 PM Epee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Epee, posted 08-18-2014 1:27 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 32 (735599)
08-18-2014 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Epee
08-18-2014 1:08 PM


Re: Literal?
Sorry if my arguments are unclear, I'm fairly new to written, online debates.
Welcome to the fray! So far, so good.
Even though you're not crystal clear, and least you're nice and genuine.
One is taking a story as literally true, the other is taking it as literally true in the context of the story.
So which one are you claiming that a Christian cannot be consistent with?
I don't see any reason why Jesus did not mean that the story of the Good Samaritan is an allegory and did not literally happen, or any reason as to why that story is not believable.
Huh? Is there an extra "not" in there?
Are you saying that Jesus meant to say that the events in the story of the Good Samaritan actually happened in real life?
I find all of the arguments as to how that story is allegorical to be as ridiculous as my story about one fish, two fish. If I'm missing something, please point it out.
Jesus said that he would use parables to explain things. The events in the parables are not spoken of as if they ever actually happened in real life.
Of course, if you have some good reason as to why a part of the bible should not be taken literally other than "This can't happen, therefore even though the bible said it did it doesn't really mean that" then it's completely justifiable to believe so.
Which "literally"?
Here is a list of the parables that Jesus offered:
http://www.rc.net/wcc/readings/parables.htm
All of them describe events that never actually happened in real life. They are ficticious stories that are designed to explain a message.
Now, I suppose you could say that the events in the stories literally happened within those stories, but I don't see any point in bringing that up?
I've seen quite a bit of your arguments on this forum
That still creeps me out when people say that

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Epee, posted 08-18-2014 1:08 PM Epee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Epee, posted 08-18-2014 1:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Epee
Junior Member (Idle past 3234 days)
Posts: 13
From: Florida
Joined: 07-28-2014


Message 29 of 32 (735600)
08-18-2014 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ringo
08-18-2014 1:21 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
"Literally true but not literally true" is poor terminology. You should make a distinction between "literal truth" - i.e. actually, really, tangibly does happen - and "fictional consitency".
If you're debating with someone who believes in the bible, claiming that it should be taken with "fictional consistency" often comes off wrong, although I do see your point. In the future I'll try and be clearer on that point, but it's too late for this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 08-18-2014 1:21 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-18-2014 1:35 PM Epee has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 32 (735601)
08-18-2014 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Epee
08-18-2014 1:27 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
If you're debating with someone who believes in the bible, claiming that it should be taken with "fictional consistency" often comes off wrong, although I do see your point.
You'd be surprised how often us Bible believers do debate the fictional consistency of many of the stories.
There's been whole threads on The Flood and the Garden of Eden where us Bible believers, who know that The Flood and GoE never actually happened, had long and drawn out debates on the consistencies within that fiction.
Granted, they typically stem from someone who thinks The Flood and the GoE literally happened, but we do go off on tangents with each other and debate the finer points of the fictional consistencies in those stories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Epee, posted 08-18-2014 1:27 PM Epee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Epee, posted 08-18-2014 1:37 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024