The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[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.

[BarTopDancer]

How do you explain talking burning bushes if drugs weren't involved?

[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.

[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.

[Fab]

Hey, SCAEagles, do you watch The Naked Archaeologist? I love that show.

[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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Nontrovercy du jours - Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.) is getting ripped apart for daring to say that military service and being a P.O.W. does not de facto make you President material.

Umm, what's wrong with that statement? Are we to believe instead that every single member of the military, every single person who's ever been in command in the military is automatically qualified to be President? That's some pretty loose qualifications if so.

I wish Obama weren't playing so safe and trying to distance himself from the statement. It's exactly the kind of point that needs to be made. Perceived experience with no meat behind it should not be taken for granted just because the dude's a hero.

[innerSpaceman]

I'll go one further. Being endlessly tortured in a prisoner of war camp is likely the LAST thing that should qualify you to be President of the U.S.

It should qualify you for lifelong psychological monitoring, but that's about it.