Yo sorry i've been away.
In any case, for kaister, a few points to note.
1 - Jewish scholars regard Genesis as a poem. Thus, the literal
meaning of creation should not be taken as a literal form. eg: the
garden of eden was not a physical representation of a place, but
rather, it was a connotation of an ideal world which god
created.
2 - Incest was a-ok with everyone until Moses (I think? or was it
abraham) came along. Well, everyone is really referring to the jews
here, since everybody else went to hell, and incest wouldn't have
had matter to them.
thus, it is not really appropriate to say that incest is a
disturbing thought. Even with evolution, i'm sure that at some
point in time whilst running its course, incest was rampant.
3 - with regards to soulmates, divorce, adultery etc are all part
of "free will". The intent of god was to create them and get them
to stay together, and this is still somewhat acceptable if you
relate it back to point number 1. It's not unlike eating the
forbidden fruit, which again, is a metaphor.
that being said, I have no idea what the jewish stand on evolution
is. I suspect, due to the scholastic nature of their religion they
would probably be arguing about it internally themselves.
anyway, imo, where religious arguments are concerned, it all boils
down to the existance of god. since nobody can disprove it, it
leaves a huge gaping ravine for arguments where neither side can
really win.
scientists (and i use this term loosely) certainly feel that we are
the enlightened ones, having understood what causes certain
behaviours by research and evidence.
Religious arguments are plain and simple; they simply insist that
you're wrong ("it dosen't prove anything", as demonstrated by
vince69), insist their doctrine is right, and, had you lived in a
society where inquisitorial society, accuse you of being an agent
of the devil.,
sigh. oh yes, i was just watching a tv program regarding the debate
on stem cell research. perhaps someone ought to start a new thread
regarding that.
