• Stovetop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Which is a bit silly to me, in that any religious person could simply explain evolution away as the mechanism by which a god or gods created humanity (to iterate on form until creating their supposed “perfect image”).

      God being a human who was also his own father is fine, but the suggestion that evolution could be part of god’s plan is where we draw the line?

      • halowpeano@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        They had to reject it because any religion with a creation myth specifically says how the god created people. To accept an alternative story would reject the notion of the book as truth.

        The religious are not looking for answers, they already have all the answers by definition of their holy book or whatever. They’re looking for confirmation bias and reject anything that goes against that.

        • howrar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          If you’re talking specifically about the Abrahamic God, sure. But if it’s about the existence of any higher being, then there’s no contradiction here.

  • Destide@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Translative spoken word by the time a second hand account of the word of god becomes the word of the person speaking. Weird god never came back once we had verbatim recording techniques to address these inaccuracies.