
Originally Posted by
CBrosneck
True, but this statement breaks down to circular reasoning. For this to be valid we must first assume that Genesis (and others) were meant to be literal in the first place.
Why would we assume otherwise? Is there a branch of Christianity which believes Jesus was just a metaphor? So why is that the case for the book of Genesis? Where is it written in the Bible that certain parts were intended literally, but not others? That seems like a fairly important omission.

Originally Posted by
CBrosneck
Besides, Theism and Science are two completely different subjects with completely different purposes. Neither of them conform to the standards of the other, this does not render either of them any less valid.
I agree that neither conform to the same standards. That's why I typically don't feel as though they have a reason to interact. Then, someone comes up with Intelligent Design and the scientific community feels immediately obligated to define the boundaries of science. The same could be said for religion when science discovers God isn't hovering somewhere above the clouds or that life doesn't need a divine hand to come into being.

Originally Posted by
exchemist
Well I wouldn't want to push the analogy too far, certainly. The purpose of religion, after all, is to serve as a guide for living one's life, rather than to provide an account of the physical world.
Again, this is your belief as to what the "purpose" of religion might be. It doesn't explain away things like The Creation Museum or ID. They are perverting science with religion, not using their faith as just a set of guidelines.

Originally Posted by
exchemist
For that purpose, it does not necessarily matter whether or not there is a single "correct" interpretation of Genesis
I guess what bothers me is that this is your interpretation of their interpretation. It DOES matter to me that there is a single correct viewpoint for Genesis or any part of a religious text. Either it is the truth or it is a myth. How can a religion be organized in any cohesive manner when everyone has differing opinions on the purpose of their faith.

Originally Posted by
exchemist
any more than it is productive to try to decide definitively whether Shylock in The Merchant of Venice is a "goody" or a "baddy". Not that stops some people, notably creationists, from trying.
I think it is the influence over a global scale that religion commands which boggles my mind. I cannot comprehend how a faith can exist when everyone involved has different ideas about how it is intended to be taken. This is all keeping in mind that our world leaders base their lives on these gibberish teachings.
You know, maybe I'm just upset that in a week I have to go stay with some hyper-religious relatives who always try to force this crap on me. Last time I was trying to enjoy a lovely cruise in Bermuda while someone was telling me that gay marriage will lead to humans having sex with toasters.
Is there a such thing as being pre-agitated?
EDIT: Let me be clear, exchemist, I'm not trying to come off as a jerk to you. I really respect a lot of your contributions to the board. I'm just kind of cranky. My post felt like it might have read a little hostile, so try not to take it that way.