328
God keeps his finger on the c constant slider (lemmy.world)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
96 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 37 points 6 months ago* (22 children)

Is there even anything in Genesis to suggest that the 'days' were 24h long? I could see it being meant metaphorically...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] 38 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I grew up catholic and was sent to catholic school and this is what we were taught. That the creation story is metaphor, the catholic church believes God used the big bang and evolution to create the world and people, ect.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Dang, thats sick. Ive always wondered why that wasnt the default view. Nothing in science contradicts God, although it certainly contradicts a fair amount of the bible. Back when i was alternatively religious, i would commonly argue to my traditionally religious family that evolution doesnt have anything to do with whether God created the world, and that the bible states God made the world for us to explore and utilize. He also said that due to our sin, nothing would come freely, including those tools. I believed medicine was a part of Gods tools he created for us to use. Same with science. Hence my natural conclusion was that God retroactively evolved the creatures around us. He didnt spring them into existance, its fully within Gods power to alter the timeline so they naturally evolved on this planet. Its possible he had simply already evolved them to be ready for us, the guy knows the future.

    It was a cool fanfic, but now im wholly athiest for moral reasons.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 6 months ago

    Wanna know a secret... God didn't even write that part. God's version has him at a kmart in Toledo, Iowa buying the entire universe on a Saturday in 1997, at which point he installed it, but it did take several days because it was football season, but it was less than a week no matter what anyone else says.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 13 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    There is “old earth creationism” which works along those lines. But creationists are “literalists,” which actually means they believe a specific interpretation of the text taught to them by their pastor.

    Really, you’d think that most anyone reading the texts would realize that Genesis 1 and 2 were mutually contradicting…

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    This is the thing that gets me. Literally the first book of the old testament immediately contradicts itself yet they claim to take it literally. The reality is that very few read the Bible at all other than the passages cherry picked by the preacher to read during the sermon.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 6 months ago

    It’s so weird to me. When I was in second grade, I started trying to read the Bible from cover to cover (made it until Numbers, then I had to start skipping around for my own sanity).

    We keep hearing about how this is the most important book to this group of people. They demand it be taught in schools, they demand that we follow its precepts, but they can’t be arsed to read it themselves?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    So I grew up around creationists. When I presented this idea, the only attempt at a justification I heard was something like "in the original Hebrew the word for a literal day was used, that's how we know creation happened in literal 6 days"

    Which baffled me enough to shut me up, so that guy probably thinks he convinced me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    Which baffled me enough to shut me up, so that guy probably thinks he convinced me.

    This seems to happen to me more frequently these days. Sometimes a person will say something so absurd that it just stops me in my tracks and I'm sure they think it means they "won"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    I dont know hebrew, but that does seem plasuable enough to me. My understanding is that different languages have different structures, and therefore its definitely plausible that hebrew has a "literal" structure. Similar to how we say literally, except we use it wrong a bunch.

    Of course, I generally doubt anyone that says they know hebrew until they demonstrate it, so i doubt what they said was true, but I could understand how it might've been believable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Yeah, I could imagine there being some kind distinction in a language, such that it is always clear when one is making a metaphor as opposed to being literal. I also don't know if that actually applies to Hebrew.

    But what baffled me was more that even if this were true, holding a belief that goes against pretty much all evidence, based purely on a grammatical quirk of an ancient culture. It's quite a stretch 😅

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    "No, that wasn't a metaphor! The Bible is literal truth!"

    "What about 'The land shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with Me,' or 'But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,' or 'Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.'?"

    "Those parts were metaphorical!"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    That's a more popular justification now, but there's definitely no textual defense of it, they're just reinterpreting around the scientific consensus. How often do you expect a book to define the term "day" before moving on? It was almost certainly written and intended to be treated literally.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Imma be real with you. If you show me a cool thing you made in a couple days, and your "days" aren't 24h long... That's just sad

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago*

    Or just a matter of perspective. If "God" was just a programmer who could explain the difference between how long we spent writing code, running the software, and the simulation actual perspective difference.

    Ask the Dwarf Fortress.

    Or Puscifer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent