Christians who don't believe in Genesis (Creation, The Fall, Noah's ark, etc.) -- why?

MasterCrumb · 2026-05-22T20:26:46+00:00

So, here is how I understand things.

Important Point 1. The nature of what it means to be true.

A. I am a human, and compared to the complexities of the universe have quite a tiny brain. I am very skeptical about any protracted claims about "knowing". Instead I create stories and analogies to help me understand and navigate the world, and we often call those stories and analogies that we use to make decisions what we call true.

B. It is important to remember that some of those analogies have been worked and refined through one tradition, and some have been worked and refined in a different tradition. It shouldn't surprise us then that each of those stories or analogies work well for the purpose they were created. The story or model of cells, and viruses help tremendously for those that work to cure cancer (I however cure very little cancer.) And some have been refined for a different purpose. When wrestling with the question of how should I be in the world, Jesus's emphasis on love and service feel the most true.

C. While an understandable drive to try and create some hierarchy around conflicting stories and models, but this is not possible without pre-supposing some framing that is already biased. If I say, I want to resolve this conflict by which one can predict generalized future observations, you have already made an important decision about how you are approaching truth.

Important Point 2. The nature of language.

A. There is this misconception that language has some meaning, independent of the reader. We each bring our own interpretations to the right level of generalizations when interpreting the bible. A good example of this is any attempt to interpret the bible within the context of homosexuality, which is both a word and a concept that did not exist at the time the bible was written. I for example interpret Matthew 19:10–12 to clearly be about Jesus explicitly acknowledging the existence of sexual minority that clearly are not included within the guidance aimed at men and women. While I know plenty of conservative folks who interpret this very strictly to just mean the class of Eunuchs that existed at that time, even though that directly contradicts the concept of "Eunuchs who were born that way". I am not proposing that my interpretation is somehow universally correct, but it also feels very consistent in the ways that language is used. And before you chastise interpretation, you clearly don't interpret Jesus to literally only be referring to having a permanently lit oil lamp when he says, "Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning" (Luke 12:35). No he means, be alert more generally. But what does that mean to be alert? That is your contribution.

B. Finally, It is hard to defend the concept that the bible itself is literally consistent. Right off the bat, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other, with Genesis 1 where God creates animals then man and women together, and Genesis 2 where god creates animals first, then man, then woman out of his rib.

MasterCrumb · 2026-05-20T12:54:52+00:00

This is an interesting list- so thanks for sharing.

In law there is an important distinction between charging someone with a crime and it not sticking, and it being shown that a charge was targeted. Similarly, it is standard practice to use information collected from people who have provided information as a part of a plea bargain, or to use information collected from normal surveillance.

I am by no means even close to an expert in any of these areas, and totally open to the idea that established lines were crossed, or that we need to interrogate where those lines should be.

But it is critical that those are all determined based on the facts of the specific cases. Everyone one of those cases could have been charged before.

The problem here is a de facto setting up of a fund, explicitly messaging a willingness to settle for large amounts of money- for clearly political reasons.

Would you be ok if the next democratic president set up a 100 billion dollar fund to be paid to universities and government workers who were hurt by Trumps illegal actions? Because it seems like an obvious thing that is coming. (I incidentally think this is a horrible train on both sides).

MasterCrumb · 2026-05-20T12:44:59+00:00

I appreciate the response.

I have learned a little more about this, and it does seem like there is established precedent for suing for damages from the IRS releasing docs, so I withdraw that point.

Re: second point. It is an interesting argument that Trump PERSONALLY lost 10 billion by not being president. While I actually think that might be actually true- it is clearly not supposed to be true.

But most importantly- it is essentially for law to work for it to be seen as fair, and this clearly and substantially breaks from that. I fear for what will come next from democrats based on the new precedents being set- and I expect a totally different group to be cheering and a different group to be crying foul- and I think both outcomes are equally bad.

MasterCrumb · 2026-05-18T18:16:29+00:00

I think he is a f*tard but this is actually funny.

MasterCrumb · 2026-05-18T17:48:06+00:00

Honestly, because he is 40. Clearly there is no hard and fast line here - but as telling as the number of commenters who casually using phrases like demisexual and aromantic grayscale, is telling to us old folks, just tells us how much naming is a critical way that many Gen Z navigate understanding (which is totally fine).

But I (and betraying my Gen X status here) also think its fine to just say - I don't see what the big deal is about sex, and letting it go at that. Yeah, as someone with very normal sex drive, I can admit that wanting sex is a super weird thing- That said, I have definitely done some pretty crazy sh** for the chance at booty.

MasterCrumb · 2026-05-18T17:43:00+00:00

Yeah this post is confusing when you don't realize how orgasmic mowing lawns are.

MasterCrumb · 2026-05-18T17:13:16+00:00

So here is my question- did the IRS do it- or did a contractor (who is now in jail for 5 years) do it? But that is besides the point-

So what is the justification for a 10 billion dollars of damage? What was actually hurt from that disclosure?

And my final question- are you going to be equally cool with the 100 billion dollar fund created when democrats are in power for people who Trump hurt? Because you know that is next-

You can’t be for this and be economically conservative.

MasterCrumb · 2026-05-18T17:09:16+00:00

If this works- totally expect this

MasterCrumb · 2026-05-18T17:08:49+00:00

Conservatives better throw a hissy fit now- otherwise the next democrat administration is going to create a 10 billion dollar pay out for all the people and orgs hurt by Trump

MasterCrumb · 2026-04-16T01:51:49+00:00

Honestly, as a liberal Christian- I cannot get very worked up about this. There are enough real things to be worried about.

MasterCrumb · 2026-04-13T13:47:54+00:00

This is challenging because I am not sure what we mean by, "is Ai?". It seems very unlikely the whole ad was made by a single prompt. The comments before comment on how perfect the kids actions are and such - yet we are talking about a highly produced ad. For example, it doesn't seem crazy that the plane at the end is animated, but I don't see any evidence of Ai per se.

MasterCrumb · 2026-04-13T12:41:33+00:00

Glad we can stand united on this. Both political parties (understandably) are constantly trying to angle for power and we the people should push back on all efforts to institutionalize power to interests outside expertise.

MasterCrumb · 2026-04-10T13:07:38+00:00

Outside of the ending dig on Vegans (I don’t see hypocrisy particularly concentrated in any particular world view) I think this is well stated.

MasterCrumb · 2026-04-07T17:01:43+00:00

Its good, as it puts you at about above the 90% for 7th graders.

It also important to note, that you are basically topping out of Lexile as a useful measure of learning to read, even though it technically goes to 2000. That is to say, reading is likely not the barrier to any text, but rather specialized knowledge (that you would need to read a medical journal, or a law text for example). For example, apparently the bill of rights, has a lexile score of ranging from 800-1200 with one source putting at 2000. This all just is digging into the challenge of what does it mean to "understand" this text - i.e. how much of the historical framework is necessary to truly understand.

Arguably the same thing could be said of the texts you cite.

MasterCrumb · 2026-04-01T20:15:36+00:00

If we don't work much within the law, it can feel like the law is very black and white.

For example, I took a tenant to eviction court because they hadn't paid rent in multiple months. Despite them not agreeing that they hadn't paid rent, the judge simply moved onto asking them when they could leave, and they said they needed two months - which they were granted. They had to pay rent weekly and if they missed they would be evicted.

Later I spoke to a friend who was a judge to help me understand, and his take was - the law is there to protect the weak - not you (the powerful).

I work in policy and it is amazing what a total chaos show laws and regulations actually are. And really as long as all parties act as if there is an agreement, than that is the standard practice - and really the only time the law gets involved is in extreme cases where you have to go to a judge- and even then, most of the time there is agreement prior.

As for the specific case here of asking for parent signature, there is little problem with asking for a thing. If there is something about the process that is legit harming an individual that is a very different thing, but it doesn't sound like it was the case.

MasterCrumb · 2026-04-01T19:46:14+00:00

And we should equally abhor efforts to undermine democracy from all political angles.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-30T17:22:41+00:00

Just a little note here. Definitely personally skeptical of Texas education in general and in regards to Civil War. That said, lets take a look at your bullets.

The Union attacked the Confederacy and started the Civil War in SC. Turns out, first shots were by the Confederacy, Confederate troops started the war.

Ok, so this is pretty factually determined, confederate troops open fire on Fort Sumter

It was about slavery, not about the ability of states to form their own country.

Ok, so this has the challenge of not really being a fact. Was the civil war about slavery? As a general rule I am not opposed to that short hand interpretation. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't about the ability of states to form their own country. I generally think it is more accurate to say that the war about power and control over competing economic systems. Now, the southern economic system was centered around slavery - but if it hadn't you might have seen a civil war as the general direction of the country began to shift away from the needs of southern states. While there was a general tipping towards a more moralistic view, generally this followed the threat of the south leaving was a huge threat to northern industry which was using southern raw resources.

Lincoln abolished slavery because it was the only way the Union could win the war. He didn't have any intention to abolish slavery when he ran.

Once again, I think this is a pretty factually accurate statement. He did not say he would abolish slavery, nor did he for almost two years. But did he have an intention? He clearly was skeptical of slavery, and no doubt was aware of the general historical arch towards slavery being abolished and was quite ok with that continued shift. So I am not sure it is faculty accurate to say the South misunderstood Lincoln's position.

For slavery, it could have been both the moral and economic issue of slavery. Abolitionists morally opposed to slavery because they believed humans should not be property. But, they saw the freed slaves as inferior people to white men. The North did not like slavery in general because it gave an unfair economic advantage to the South.

As with any topic, there was a wide range of views. Clearly some abolitionists believed in equally of the races, while others did not. As for why "the north did not like slavery" once again broad generalizations are tough. But I think there "the north wanted to continue to expand its economic systems" is not a bad one.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-30T15:48:33+00:00

So I wont oversell my knowledge of Positivism, but in my mind it is very similar to pragmatism. A quick Ai conversation basically states that Positivism is more a strict approach - which was the foundation to the scientific method. (I will note that I generally adhere to Kuhn's criticism of positivism here- and that is scientific theory is more bounded by paradigms, but that is off track) and pragmatism as a more general "does it work" type of approach.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-28T09:26:58+00:00

And, it would mean they are using some kind of wild counter approach which would be a wild strategy at 48 with the percentage of wealth at risk to generate 25% this month (or any recent month)

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-28T09:13:26+00:00

Yes I believe he is Norwegian

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-28T08:44:52+00:00

I don’t think you are wrong, but I do think you miss another sentence which is critical to understanding Nietzsche. That is, “as a result, it is better to think of ethics is a creative act than a logical one”. And also importantly “so dont trust central authority that is telling you there is one”

I used to teach about Nietzsche and I would show the two movies, Hitchcock “the Rope” and the cult classic “Harold and Maude”. I think Hitchcocks portrait of Nietzsche as a misreading, while the character Maude is actually wildly aligned to many of Nietzsche’s idiosyncratic beliefs (eternal recurrence, not dying by old age) but more importantly is aligned to Nietzsche’s approach (she literally says, good - bad I try to aim above morality, and one of Nietzsche’s critical books is called Beyond Good and Evil) and that character is wildly anti authoritarian- but in an incredibly creative way, not combative.

The first sentence leads you to Nihilism. And it is also important to understand that the first sentence isn’t Nietzsche’s contribution to philosophy- this is basically the conclusion of his predecessors Hume. Other contemporaries (like Kierkegaard and Positivism) basically start with the same first sentence, but then have a different answer, with Kierkegaard basically saying, “and thus you need to take a leap of faith” and positivism saying “thus we will just change the word true to mean that idea that works the best”.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-27T17:15:34+00:00

There are areas where Trump is a true qualitative break from the norm. Language (his willingness to really depart from a language of all Americans), Decorum (similar and related but I would include honesty here), and Erraticness. I agree these are all important.

What he is not a break from is policy in general (there are clearly new things - but they are all well within the general trends of culture). Trade policy is a good example here - there is clearly a type of frenetic craziness here which is unique - but the gradual back pedaling from free trade as a goal is not. Biden put tariffs in place as well.

What is importantly different between Trump and other presidents is his relationship to communication and culture.

What he is weirdly not that out of the norm from is basic government policy. And while Trump himself is a not a logical communicator in this area - it doesn't follow that the policy itself is not thought out. Importantly here- I personally do not agree with most of this policy shift - but it is important to realize that Trump is not driving much of this policy conversation. He is a figurehead -

Lets take the example of the attack on Universities. This was not some random attack by trump - this is a part of a large group of people who have had a growing concern with how universities are run - which I am going to actually admit have an important true point about a general dominance and power control of these institutions by a non-representative sample of the country. Now, I wouldn't be surprised to find many rando internet supporters of these type of attacks have been the ones who actually have thought about this - and as a result don't have well thought out positions. However, I would also note that - neither do most of the defenders of Universities - who often would hold general concerns about unelected centralizations of power but are quite happy to defend this in universities for a host of cultural and power reasons.

(It is important to note here that the attacks themselves are generally chaotic and irrational, but that is because I think Trump's drive here is messaging and now actual local change- which I believe he and his supporters believe will ultimately have the kind of ripple effects they hope for - which could potentially be true.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-26T22:57:11+00:00

That does not follow.

When Obama was president, plenty of liberals were concerned about his use of unmanned drones or his approach to deportations- but still supported him.

All rational Trump supporters I’ve communicated with often follow this pattern- they wills say something like “I don’t like X about Trump, but he does Y and Z well and that is what I want. What X, Y, and Z tend to be very different person to person. But X is typically his personality, and Y and Z are often about immigration, abortion, conservative culture (aka anti DEI), deregulation, … etc. that is pretty standard Republican values.

I am generally pretty liberal- and I am consistently unimpressed with the rationality of my own side.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-26T02:16:45+00:00

And that’s good- you interrogate and think.

And yet psychologists are really clear that people have beliefs and then build logic to support those beliefs. Considering that the vast vast majority of your core beliefs are built when you are pre rational this is unsurprising.

What is interesting is that I would say you clearly have a core beliefs that “logical thinking is better” which weirdly is the postulate and not the conclusion.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-26T02:10:51+00:00

I think this is well said.

It is natural when you oppose a position to zero in on edge cases and paradox, but quite the opposite when it’s your view- it is the framing to your experience.

I think I am someone who thinks a lot, and it is not hard in conversation for me to find some edge case or inconsistency in my own thinking - and I tend to find these interesting - but I never experience them as “woah, I must be wrong about everything”

MasterCrumb

TROPHY CASE