- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rush Limbaugh thinks evolution is a hoax because gorilla never became human
Posted on 6/2/16 at 3:04 pm to sicboy
Posted on 6/2/16 at 3:04 pm to sicboy
quote:
Yeah, that's the same.
Sure, and the idea of Mary getting knocked up by an angel is entirely plausible.
immaculate conception is legit so long as it doesn't involve a golden wiener. Golden cocks are right out.
This post was edited on 6/2/16 at 3:05 pm
0
Posted on 6/2/16 at 3:06 pm to Barf
quote:
you would have to operate under the assumption that the earth is older than the bible says.
Bible doesn't say how old the earth is. That's a man-made assumption.
LINK
Linked this page in another thread, but they pool together all kinds of resources to address cultural and theological issues.
quote:
What is peripheral to this belief is the issue of 24-hour days and the consequent age of the earth. The Hebrew yom which is translated as “day” in most English versions of the Bible often refers to a distinct 24-hour day, but also frequently applies to any certain period of time. What is therefore critical is not that we teach that God created the earth in 6 (the 7th being a day of rest) distinct 24 hour periods, but rather that He created the earth in 6 yoms.
Posted on 6/2/16 at 3:12 pm to Barf
quote:
Maybe, but to believe that you would have to operate under the assumption that the earth is older than the bible says.
You're assuming that the bible gives a definitive age of the earth. The opening line of genesis does start out as "4,000 years ago God created the heavens and the earth." It's been interpreted by so-called young earth creationists that have attempted to extrapolate when the beginning was based on a loose biblical timeline that doesn't use a modern Gregorian Calendar or specify any benchmark for the passing of time.
Posted on 6/2/16 at 3:18 pm to Bmath
quote:
You're assuming that the bible gives a definitive age of the earth. The opening line of genesis does start out as "4,000 years ago God created the heavens and the earth." It's been interpreted by so-called young earth creationists that have attempted to extrapolate when the beginning was based on a loose biblical timeline that doesn't use a modern Gregorian Calendar or specify any benchmark for the passing of time.
Ok, so we are just going ignore the timeline and assume a day does not actually mean a 24 hour day. Fair enough. Do we also ignore the age of Noah? So if a day is not necessarily a day, is a year also not necessarily a year?
Where is the line drawn between fact and fiction? How does one decide which is an embellishment and which is a fact.
This post was edited on 6/2/16 at 3:19 pm
Posted on 6/2/16 at 3:18 pm to Enadious
quote:
You'd think in the Book of Acts the Apostles would have preached that. And Paul, all of his books and not one word....maybe the scriptures aren't quite as accurate as you hope.
Does the book of Acts contain all of the words of all the apostles? Does anyone claim it does, besides you apparently?
Posted on 6/2/16 at 3:35 pm to Barf
quote:
Ok, so we are just going ignore the timeline and assume a day does not actually mean a 24 hour day. Fair enough. Do we also ignore the age of Noah? So if a day is not necessarily a day, is a year also not necessarily a year?
Essentially the problem is that the bible has been translated and retranslated numerous times throughout history. Older translations have been shown to be word for word literal translations. The problem is that this takes all linguistic and cultural context out of what is being said.
So if it's common at the time to embellish a story by saying someone gone for a long period was absent for a fortnight, you can see how literally translating that into "14 days" creates an issue when trying to extrapolate passage of time.
So no, I can't really comment on the age of Noah without understanding the context in which that was claimed.
quote:
Where is the line drawn between fact and fiction? How does one decide which is an embellishment and which is a fact.
For many Christians that dividing line is the New Testament. They accept the Old Testament as a collection of Jewish stories and parables and believe in what they read about the new covenant created by Jesus.
Obviously, I can't make a statement about that without accepting that there are arguments against the authenticity of the New Testament. However, as a Christian I would use that as a dividing line. Specifically, when this pertains to various beliefs based and rules in Old Testament that early Christians were not obligated to follow (Kosher rules and so on).
Posted on 6/2/16 at 3:43 pm to Bmath
quote:
For many Christians that dividing line is the New Testament. They accept the Old Testament as a collection of Jewish stories and parables and believe in what they read about the new covenant created by Jesus.
This can go on in circles forever. It just doesn't seem to fair to cast out the old testament as nothing more than a collection of stories but at the same time keep things like creation as fact. Sounds like cherry picking to me.
Posted on 6/2/16 at 3:47 pm to Barf
quote:
This can go on in circles forever. It just doesn't seem to fair to cast out the old testament as nothing more than a collection of stories but at the same time keep things like creation as fact. Sounds like cherry picking to me.
Perhaps, but let's examine things like kosher law. Much of it surrounds misunderstandings about things like food safety and hygiene. You also aren't permitted to wear clothes with mixed fabrics.
There is no current reason to follow these practices without blind faith that everything in the bible is literal.
Posted on 6/2/16 at 3:56 pm to Bmath
quote:
Perhaps, but let's examine things like kosher law. Much of it surrounds misunderstandings about things like food safety and hygiene. You also aren't permitted to wear clothes with mixed fabrics.
I know it's crazy, but I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
quote:
There is no current reason to follow these practices without blind faith that everything in the bible is literal.
The only way to believe in something like a god in heaven is to have blind faith. There is no other way. There are dozens of books, each with it's own version of god. To grab the bible out of that stack and say "this is the one I'm going with" required a certain amount of blind faith.
Posted on 6/2/16 at 4:12 pm to Barf
quote:
The only way to believe in something like a god in heaven is to have blind faith. There is no other way. There are dozens of books, each with it's own version of god. To grab the bible out of that stack and say "this is the one I'm going with" required a certain amount of blind faith.
And this goes back to my point about accepting one's religion as a part of their culture. Faith and spirituality are an incredibly personal journey. People often use their church as a medium for this exploration.
So while I'm not going to mock a Jew for practicing orthodoxy as part of their culture, I see no reason that as a Christian I should partake.
It's also why I believe that Bible thumping is very wrong in a society that has declared separation of church and state. Yet many evangelicals hypocritically find it OK to push Judeo-Christian philosophy on public policy and education, and cry in fear that Muslim Americans are trying to rule us with Sharia law.
It's why I think creationism has no place in the classroom, but its persistence has created a web of lies for students to sort through.
Page 31 of 31
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News