|
You said;
If I understand you correctly, God is something of an ad hoc reflection of the human mind if He is what our hopes and desires require Him to be (I wouldn't disagree with you there since I think that the biblical God was created by man to fulfill human needs).
No, we are a reflection of His mind. The original condition has been corrupted but many similarities still exist.
You said;
I see the scriptures, like the oracle's prophecies, as having enough interpretive ambiguity to make such slipperiness possible -- but if you can make such provisional interpretations of God's word, then why bother sticking to such a rigid interpretation of Genesis?
I did not use ambiguity and my interpretations were literal but there is not room for specific references here. If you wish to discuss specific passages give me one small topic and we can discuss it.
You said"
I'm not defending "Christian science", but as the "meme" of theism has evolved (under the selective pressures of a prevailingly scientific "environment"), at least some theistically-minded scientists have retreated to the more defensible position that Genesis is less literal truth as it is allegory and metaphor.
Yes it is a very safe position, unless of course you think God may really be real as I do.
You said;
Even better, if you accept the scientific theory of evolution (including cosmological evolution) and push the hand of God back to before the Big Bang -- in other words, if you argue that God exists as First Cause and abandon the (indefensible) notion of young-earth creationism -- then at least you have a bona-fide ontological argument that (as far as I know) can stand up to any philosophical scrutiny.
I do not believe in evolution of life because it does not fit the Bible account or scientific research.
Actually the Bible account predicts degeneration or de-eveloution which does agree with scientific research.
Duane |
