The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

Originally Posted by BDBopper

I know I am going to really turn some heads at me by saying this but why does Creationism have to be a myth and why does Evolution have to be bull Crap?

Creationism is mythology because, even in the unlikely event it were to turn out to be literally true, it fits the definition of mythology.

If Zeus were to walk down off of Mt. Olympus tomorrow and start tricking comely young ladies into having sex with him, that would not move the Greek pantheon out of the realm of mythology.

And there are plenty of people who believe that god created the universe with evolution as the means to the creation of humanity. Of course, that can't be proven and there is no evidence for it. It may certainly be true, but it isn't science. Which is why it shouldn't be taught as a scientific theory (as ID would do) in science classes.

And do I believe that God created the Universe in six days? Yes. But how long in our system of measurement did those days take? I believe that each of those six days actually lasted thousands of years.

First, those six days would have to have actually about a billion years each (though I'll grant that this is simply a whole lot of thousands). And second, that is a statement without any meaning. Titanic is a movie that is 6.8 millennia long, but each minute is only a decisecond long (don't check the math Kevy or GD, I just made up the numbers).

Well if the Bible was exact on every point it would be larger than the entire Encyclopedia Britanica. Who would want to study and read that that on a daily basis?

But if people are going to use the Bible as the explicit blueprint for how the world was created, works, and how we should behave, then "who wants to read all that" isn't a good excuse for its shortcomings. And while you may not be a proponent of biblical literalism there are millions of people in this country who are.

While I certainly would prefer children not be exposed to religion as reality until they are adults and can bear full responsibility for their decisions, I know that isn't going to happen. So I am going to continue strongly advocating that religion not be presented as scientifically valid.

[BDBopper]

Ugh. My friend was going to give Governor Huckabee a letter for me but it did not happen. they were having their pictures taken and my friend had the letter in his hand but my friend's wife was having problems with the camera and he had to help her. The letter was placed on a side table and forgotten until it was too late. As far as we know the letter is still sitting there or in the trash or something. No I am not upset with my friend. It is not his fault. However that won't change the fact that I am totally bummed now.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by BDBopper

Ugh. ... my friend's wife was having problems with the camera and he had to help her.that won't change the fact that I am totally bummed now.

Have I mentioned how fond I am of your friend's wife?

[BDBopper]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Have I mentioned how fond I am of your friend's wife?

I want tio throttle her right now, trust me.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

But if people are going to use the Bible as the explicit blueprint for how the world was created, works, and how we should behave, then "who wants to read all that" isn't a good excuse for its shortcomings.

There are hundreds of scholars who have taken the time to research the archealogical evidence and other historical references to happenings in the Bible. A large portion of the Bible is simply historical....not much of a purpose for the Book of Numbers in my life today. At least not that I've been able to figure out. You see, what I like about the whole new covenant aspect of the New Testament (everyone here gets the old covenent vs. the new covenent?) is that it is very NON restrictive. A lot of people think I'm stupid for saying that, btu that's the way I see it. There's a reference in the Book of Romans to people eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols. Some thought it sinful, others did not. Paul said something to the effect of "if you've got a problem with it, don't do it. If you don't have a problem with it, don't flaunt it in others faces and make them mad.". The way I see it, there are some absolute rights, some absolute wrongs, and a whole bunch of things that really don't matter much.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

A large portion of the Bible is simply historical....not much of a purpose for the Book of Numbers in my life today.

Not necessarily very reliable history but sure. But in the context of what I'm talking about, so what? Herodotus is in the same boat of being unreliable history and a lot of moralizing, but nobody is telling us that modern zoology must be a hoax or a cover-up because since Herodotus reports the existence of unicorns they must exist.

If you don't feel that there is scientific controversy over evolution. That it would not be appropriate to teach ID or creationism as valid alternative theory in science classes, then your view of the Bible isn't necessarily what I'm talking about. But if you think those things then there are still millions of fundamentalist literalists in this country who do. And they're the ones I'm worried about and the ones pushing the bill in Louisiana I was responding to.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

Not necessarily very reliable history but sure.

I'm not sure what kind of research you've done into the historical accuracy of the Bible, but it's pretty solid. Of course, I'm speaking of events that took place at certain times, not the context. Whether or not the Israelites were in exile at a certain time of conquered at a certain time is pretty much in line with other non Biblical texts. It's a certainty that the Israelites were in Babylon during the time of the book of Daniel, but I guess I can see why it might not be taken on its face that Sadrach, Meshach, and Abednigo were tossed into the fiery furnace and lived.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I'm not sure what kind of research you've done into the historical accuracy of the Bible, but it's pretty solid.

I suppose it depends on your definition of solid. Yes, there are events in the bible that are known to have happened. And there are many more with no evidence outside of the bible that they happened, or happened in the way described.

But of course that is not particularly to the question of how the Earth was created. I'm guessing you'll find no scholarly research confirming the Bible's account of that.

I am not questioning whether there is reason to bring up the Bible in school settings. I've studied the Bible in school settings many times without issue. I am questioning the appropriateness of it being presented as scientifically valid competitor to what science has actually demonstrated about the world. However, if a history class were to say "we're tossing out the textbook since the history presented in the Bible is so rock solid" I suppose I'd have a problem with it.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Paul said something to the effect of "if you've got a problem with it, don't do it. If you don't have a problem with it, don't flaunt it in others faces and make them mad.". The way I see it, there are some absolute rights, some absolute wrongs, and a whole bunch of things that really don't matter much.

Of course, Paul said this in the context of the imminent end of the world.

Nonetheless, I certainly live my life in a new covenant way, and I consider Jesus to have been a very hip Jew.

By the way, one always hears Biblical literalist/creationist types quibble about the science of the fossil record. What do they say about the speed of light, distant astronomical objects, etc.