Ishmael
I just finished "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. It is fascinating. I am not a tree-hugger (the book was, among other things, a call to change the way we live and stop destroying the world), but the book was really amazing. I don't agree with everything the guy says by any means, but he is a really smart dude. From a hermeneutical (definition) standpoint with respect to Genesis -- evolution, 7 literal days vs. 7 figurative days arguments -- it provides some interesting questions and thoughts. Has anyone else read this (Brandon, I know you have)? What did everyone think?
Couldn't God have used evolution? Does it really make sense that the beginning of Genesis is 100% literal? When can you, if ever, say the Bible is figurative without compromising the integrity and validity of the whole thing? If God really did create the whole universe in 6 literal days as measured by a normal human clock, why the fossil record and other confusing evidence? Could God have created everything in sort of an "already seeming 100 billion years old" sort of way? Does it even make sense to talk about God creating something in some set amount of time, since it seems like time is just a construct of this existence, and not something God would be bound by or subject to? I could keep going, but I won't...
Anyway, read it if you haven't. It is relatively short, and almost all dialogue.
Couldn't God have used evolution? Does it really make sense that the beginning of Genesis is 100% literal? When can you, if ever, say the Bible is figurative without compromising the integrity and validity of the whole thing? If God really did create the whole universe in 6 literal days as measured by a normal human clock, why the fossil record and other confusing evidence? Could God have created everything in sort of an "already seeming 100 billion years old" sort of way? Does it even make sense to talk about God creating something in some set amount of time, since it seems like time is just a construct of this existence, and not something God would be bound by or subject to? I could keep going, but I won't...
Anyway, read it if you haven't. It is relatively short, and almost all dialogue.
posted by Abe at 2:39 PM
8 Comments:
if you want to ask a bunch of theoretical rhetorical questions, proceed. if you want answers or at least an intelligent discussion, go talk to my dad. evolution is dumb. God did not use evolution. he created man and woman. he did not create tadpole-turned-lizard-turned-cheetah- turned-man.
i read the first two chapters of that and threw it across the room.
i often wonder whether God didn't design things to look old just to throw us off. but i definitely don't believe that we are direct descendants of apes. cousins, sure, but Ty is my cousin and he's not my great grandpa. and that is how logic works when you have 2 hours of sleep.
I think Quinn raises many issues we must deal with.
Some of the things he talks about make innate sense to me, although I cannot accept all of them.
It's important to consider, even if for a moment, ideas besides those we are handed daily.
If you enjoyed it, check out The Story of B, My Ishmael, or After Dachau. You can throw them if you like, but please don't burn them, that's a waste of money.
Yeah, jill, I almost threw it, too. Mark Twain would have hated Daniel Quinn.
"Anybody can have ideas — the difficulty is to express them without squandering a quire of paper on an idea that ought to be reduced to one glittering paragraph."
"I never write "metropolis" for seven cents when I can write "city" and get paid the same."
--Mark Twain
"The mark of an educated mind is to entertain an idea without accepting it."
--Aristotle
Hmmm, Abe you seem to find some very interesting books to read. Now you have me wanting to read this book. Sounds interesting. I like different points of views.
yeah, i totally agree with Aristotle in theory, but sometimes, some books are just asking for it. my aforementioned cousin has taped all his Nietzsche shut because he thinks they're stupid and doesn't want anyone else to read them.
yeah, nietzsche was not my favorite dude to read. nor was satre. smart guys, just frustrating and (I believe) very wrong.
yes, I wonder stuff like this all the time, and yes I could go on for hours talking about it.
Post a Comment
<< Home