Creationists' Stance on Alien Life

[ray245]

One thing I can't understand about christian is...why can't they take the bible as a metorphorical bible instead of a more literal one?

At the least the story of god taking 6 'days' (could be eons to us) creating the entire universe sounds so much more epic as compared to earth alone.

That way...the chrisitan could be a little bit more open towards science.

[Magus]

One thing I can't understand about christian is...why can't they take the bible as a metorphorical bible instead of a more literal one?

At the least the story of god taking 6 'days' (could be eons to us) creating the entire universe sounds so much more epic as compared to earth alone.

That way...the chrisitan could be a little bit more open towards science.

The roots of the movement (and indeed, Christian fundamentalism in general) began around the time of the Scopes Monkey Trial. As I recall, the period was one of increased "enlightenment-style" thinking, in which a scientific viewpoint was considered superior to spiritual, romantic-style thinking. Essentially, during this period, the Christian religion became more scientifically oriented, and attempted to postulate mechanics for everything in religion (creation, biblical miracles, etc).

The Scopes Trial was perhaps the most blatant representation of the struggle between Christians saying "We can be scientific too!" and secular scientists saying "No, you really can't." Though the official ruling of the trial was in the creationists' favor, their points were so poorly argued and the trial so widely publicized that their public image as credible scientists was pretty much shattered.

Rather than simply dropping the issue, however, the soon-to-be fundamentalists decided to withdraw from mainstream society - this is where creationist colleges and similar communities first start forming. They've been that way ever since - unable to actually break into the scientific community, but continually trying to do so and/or pretend they already have.

The short answer to your question is that, because our society is so science-oriented, religion needs to appear scientific to be valued.

[Darth Wong]

One thing I can't understand about christian is...why can't they take the bible as a metorphorical bible instead of a more literal one?

At the least the story of god taking 6 'days' (could be eons to us) creating the entire universe sounds so much more epic as compared to earth alone.

That's what the majority of creationists already say. It's the first position of moderates and the fallback position of YECs. Unfortunately for them, the Bible's account of creation is just as fucking stupid if you assume that days = eons. No matter how long a Biblical "day" is, the order of events is all wrong.

At the end of the day, this approach still presumes the Bible to be a source of factual data about the origins of the planet, even if it's using non-literal language. That particular conceit underlies all of creationist thought, so it is in truth only marginally less destructive than Biblical literalism.

[Surlethe]

At the end of the day, this approach still presumes the Bible to be a source of factual data about the origins of the planet, even if it's using non-literal language. That particular conceit underlies all of creationist thought, ...

This can be generalized to Christianity in general: the entire religion is based on the assumption that the Bible is a source of factual data in general, even if it's using non-literal language.

[Metatwaddle]

One thing I can't understand about christian is...why can't they take the bible as a metorphorical bible instead of a more literal one?

At the least the story of god taking 6 'days' (could be eons to us) creating the entire universe sounds so much more epic as compared to earth alone.

That's what the majority of creationists already say. It's the first position of moderates and the fallback position of YECs. Unfortunately for them, the Bible's account of creation is just as fucking stupid if you assume that days = eons. No matter how long a Biblical "day" is, the order of events is all wrong.

Not to mention that outside of Genesis 1, the word "metaphor" when referring to the Bible is used as a virtual synonym for "don't ask why it's silly or repugnant". None of the religious moderates apologetically calling Bible stories "metaphors" bother to say what it's a metaphor for. Many of the stories are so morally offensive that to take them as parables or metaphors or object lessons would actually make them worse.