Aren't you limiting God.?

Question

Most all of the fundamentalists I see on here all say that the bible is a literal factual book. No where in these books does it say this is an actual factual account of how everything occurred--it merely says that the books were divinely inspired and that "god spake it". Well an omnipotent god can spake any d**n thing he wants--he could easily have dictated an allegorical book to his writing staff. It would still be diviniely inspired and still be what god spake. If you insist that the book is literal are you not limiting the omnipotence of your deity--is it not how man wishes to translate it that gives us the fundamentalist position so at odds with science. If the book were allegorical there is no conflict--god would even be more powerful and more elegant if he used evolution to create--and an allegorical bible is not in conflict with this well established theory. So by denying evolution are u not denying gods power fundie?

Answer 1

Looking at some of the answers you received, I'd say you are casting pearls before swine.  That obviously escapes many of the fundamentalists that insist on asking "If we came from monkeys, why are monkeys still here?"

What we have here is a breakdown of the educational system, which the purveyers of the supernatural consider their number one enemy.

Answer 2

Nice, out of the box thoughts!

I do not disagree with your main argument, however.. let me pose an alternative, and more traditionally academic (bit not necessarily better) explanation for these seemingly untenable beliefs:

We are dealing with at least two different concepts of truth.  One of these is truth through divine revelation and the other is empirical or experiential truth. Be careful about ruling one of these out simply because it doesn't fit YOUR definition (after all, truth is just a word we made up in order to convey a variety of different meanings). The question then becomes what people are willing to put their faith into - spiritual/religious ideas or ideas which arise form repeated observation of tangible realities. Note that both are matters of faith!  And both have practical consequences!

Interestingly, even given these two different aspects of 'truth' there really isn't any contradiction - we are simply playing with different rule books or focusing on different aspects of 'truth'.  

Personally, I prefer to spend my time thinking about truths that come from experience, experiment, observation and thoughtful analysis.  But I don't intend to force my preferences (or the faith on which they rely) on anybody else.

Answer 3

hey u read only bible read some hindu books and quaran

Answer 4

That;s the way to turn it back on em!

Nicely done.

I will wait for and read thumper replies, with glee..

Answer 5

As you can see by the first response, our education system is a shambles. Critical thinking just isn't taught anymore.

I've heard the bible explained as "Divinely inspired but written by man." Which is a great cop out. If there's an error it's because man wrote the book. Otherwise it's perfect.

Arthur C. Clarke addressed the issue back in the 1960s. He pointed out that it's only an imperfect workman that has to keep coming back and fixing things. The good craftsman will finish the job and walk away knowing that it won't break down.

The literalists limit the universe to 6,000 some years compared to the 13.7 billion of science. Which then shows a greater god? The one that's always running around fixing things and can be seduced by prayer or the one that did it right the first time?

You should ask the literalists how planes can fly. The earth in the bible is flat, and has crystal spheres covering it. Oh wait, we're back to the Frank Burns school of theology. It's god's will or somebody else's fault.

Then there's the hundred if not thousands of creation narratives found throughout the world. Just why is the literalist one "right?" Try to get an answer that doesn't come down to "The bible said it. I believe it and that settles it."

Answer 6

The problem that many fundamentalists have with science, is that they take the bible to be a work direct from god.  It is therefore perfect, and requires no change, for change implies imperfection.  

What they don't quite grasp, is the volume of changes that have occurred to the 'new testament' since it was written- and that it was compiled 300 years+ after Jesus' life from a host of other works available to the early christians.

Answer 7

I don't think that the real problem has any thing to do with religion.  It is an identity problem.  People don't want to be apes/animals.  Losing one's dignity is hard to do.  Most people that believe in evolution have an education(dignity) and will never understand how it feels to have someone try to take that away.

Answer 8

. . .

WELL, philosopher's study suggests that God isn't being God is, is. Therefor God is limited by the false acceptance that God is divine and of a thing in this world but no as him that made seconds...omg

I'm sorry, look up a philosophy article on God is.

Might be interested?

You've got a really rich vocabulary...

Answer 9

One is not limiting God by any means...One is accepting God at His Word and that it is the truth. God does not lie. God created the world and everything in it perfectly in the beginning...it was Adam's first sin that brought death and corruption into this perfect world and we are all suffering under the weight of it since then.

The Bible clearly states in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11 that He created all things in six days. In very plain, straightforward words...i.e. the evening and the morning were the first day, the second day, the third day, etc... Evening and morning sure sound like a regular day..not millions of years as some try to interpret. Exodus 20:11 also states this...six days (yom)  And the order of creation directly contradicts the theory of evolution and cosmology.

God's Word in Genesis 1 states that....

Earth was a watery planet from the beginning...not a molten mass that gradually cooled over millions of years.

Earth was created before the stars which is contrary to modern cosmology.

Birds were created before reptiles...contrary to evolution.

Man was created in the image of God as a separate, special creation from animals, not from a common pre-ape ancestor...contrary to evolution.

All things reproduce after their kind, not from other life forms....contrary to evolution.

Vegetation was created before the sun so how would they have survived for millions of years if that's how long the creation periods were?

Darwin's attempt to explain nature from a single cell ancestor growing and adapting into all the life forms we see today is based on ignorance of the Law of Biogenesis and a lack of knowledge of the immense complexity and accuracy of DNA as well as the vast complexity of a single cell.

The simple fact is that evolution theory was initiated to deny a Creator and use a purely naturalistic explanation for life on earth. Why drag God's Word into it if you wish to deny His creative power and glory? Unlike humans, God is capable of creating things in perfection from the get go...it is a human concept to evolve.

Answer 10

Well to be honest, I have no clue what you just said. But I going to guess at this answer. Also, I will only say this: Since some people belieive that we came from primates, why are there still monkey's around? Why didn't they turn into humans too? You shouln't judge the bible, or God.

Answer 11

God limits god by not existing.