BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 12 Feb 12 - 09:48 AM

Civil law is not God ordained Pete, really, I'm not joking here, it just isn't..

Just because it says so in your bible doesn't make it true. Cilvil law affects everybody, not just those who smile too much with their self satisfied sanctimony. As it affects me, I state categorically that it cannot be God ordained because for me, (and the universe but that's another matter) he doesn't exist.

Yet I recognise civil law. Ergo, it is, like religion, man made.

zzzzz

By the way, 666 is, according to Stephen Fry, who tends to know things, the wrong number. A cockup of translation. I forget what the number actually is right now, but a delve into google or QI will provide the answer. Me, I can't be arsed. Especially as our two happy clappers haven't risen to any of my baits yet. If they are telling the truth, as they reckon they are, why not confront this ignorant pillock who must, by any religious reckoning, run around dodging lighting bolts? Or is it that I won't reason with hysterical nonsense?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Feb 12 - 10:13 AM

No, pete, I was not mocking. I wanted to understand whether it was a general position amoung creationists if, given the opportunity, they would vote in favour of restoring stoning as the appropriate punishment for adultery. I think Iona is quite clear she would. I am afraid after reading your post I'm still undecided how you would vote. Could you state it more directly?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Feb 12 - 11:03 AM

Ok, now,, that's TWO LOLs, one for the joke that I also wonder how long they've been waiting to crack, and one for that chart! Except the pedantic observation that buddhists don't actually worship any gods...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Feb 12 - 11:47 AM

If it's my joke ('stream of conciousness') you were referring to, it was invented specially for the occasion. Honest, I'd swear it ...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 12 Feb 12 - 12:40 PM

Sorry to be gone so long. I'm glad that stuff gave a few folks the chuckles. I've had a few myself with other folks' humour in the last twenty-or-so posts.

I was reading Ludlum, starting at page 17 again and I got to page 20 for the fifth or sixth time. A eureka moment hit me. That was fortunate because Eureka's also in the thread title and so this is no longer thread drift. I put the book on my desk, and was using it to roll the peels and foliage in the new papers and found that the glue was old and dry. Reaching for my trusty stapler, the thing that holds in the push doodad that helps the staples get sprung out sprung out itself and I stepped on it so it just doesn't work now. So, I got the nail gun. I'll tell ya, that 'cigarette' looks just fine, but it's pinned real good to Robert Ludlum's novel (from the back cover all the way to page 21), three sheets of paper I was writing brilliant thoughts on, my Bic pen and a solid wood-topped desk. I'll keep you in the loop.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 12 Feb 12 - 12:50 PM

Sorry to have left it like that. An example, from memory of just a few of the brilliant thoughts I've been writing down are "Peanut butter sticks to the roof of the mouth" or "It's lucky for birds that eggs ain't cubic."

I gotta go get a two pound hammer and a steel chisel (seen here). Back later.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 12 - 01:43 PM

Actually, bruce, the ooh!ah!! bird does lay square eggs. Hence, it's named after its strange cry.

Trick of evolution. Probably a dead end. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 12 Feb 12 - 02:28 PM

Apparently the correct number should be 616!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 12 Feb 12 - 02:32 PM

7 to go!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Feb 12 - 05:31 PM

dcmg-sorry; i thought i was clear but to clarify-if i had a vote in a referendum i would vote against restoring the death penalty[abolished here in the UK] for any crime.i am not convinced that iona was advocating stoning adulterers at this time but i do agree that under OT direct theocratic rule it was a good thing for the good of the community as a whole but am only assuming that accords with ionas reasoning and she may correct me.
i cant remember how we got here but it is drifting off topic.i dont see how an opinion on the death penalty has anything but a loose relevance to origins.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: frogprince
Date: 12 Feb 12 - 05:41 PM

In the context of this discussion, I would say that it is relevant to the credibility of the Bible as an authoritative source which can be used to disprove evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: frogprince
Date: 12 Feb 12 - 05:43 PM

(and the generally accepted ages of the cosmos and of earth.)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 12 - 08:45 PM

How about Jesus' ruling on the woman take in adultery?

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

I think that pretty well takes care of the matter of stoning--and quite probably the Christian view of capital punishment in general.

It would save a lot of senseless debate if more self-styled "Christians" actually read what Jesus said.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 Feb 12 - 09:33 PM

It is like wrestling the draperies or boxing smoke. And the draperies and smoke are blissfully unaware.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 02:48 AM

Hw can you justify [capital punishment] anyway, let alone using fairy stories twisted to suit your own bigotry?

I believe in capital punishment when it is founded upon Biblical principles. The 'two or three witnesses' is crititcal. And the link I posted when I first stated my position on capital punishment explains why. And if you call capital punishment barbaric you're calling God barbaric, because He was the one that instigated capital punishment. Naturally, an atheist doesn't have a problem with calling God names, but that ought to raise a question to a Christian.

There are lots of Christians who take the Bible literally until they get to the parts that say "love one another" and "do unto others" and "turn the other cheek."
Somehow, they find it far more important to take the creation myths literally.

Joe, I take the WHOLE BIBLE to be the Word of God, and there are no contradictions therein. Capital punishment is good when the crime fits the punishment. And capital punishment is 'loving', which, again, is explained in this link. (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=414111646266). God cannot contradict Himself, but men can. You're accusing me of inconsistency because I believe in capital punishment, and yet if you don't believe in capital punishment, you're the inconsistent one. The Bible says "Love your enemies", but it also says "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10). People seem to think that the Old Testament God is a different being than the New Testament God. But they forget about Ananias and Sapphira........who were killed in the New Testament.
Back in the beginning days of America, there was still capital punishment used regularly. And in the early to mid 1800's there was a 0% crime rate in most towns. Second, capital punishment deters crime. Criminals don't fear imprisonment, just like children don't fear time out. They don't necessarily like it, but it holds no dread for them. But if you instigate capital punishment for the appropriate crimes, then crime will go down, which has been proven over and over. People are much less likely to commit murder if they know that they'll be forfeiting their life in doing so. God himself provides mercy for murderers in that they cannot be executed unless there are two or three witnesses. Even if all the evidence points to a person being the murderer, we can't execute them until we have witnesses. That's what the Bible says.


""If God says something is good, it is good. If God says to stone adulterers, then so be it. .""

But if Allah says the same thing it is wrong?....""I do not believe that the Christian (Biblical) God is the same God as the Muslim god. Islamism is internally self contradicting, just as any other religion besides Christianity is, which I've explained a number of times before.""

Do you actually read what you are writing? You are internally self contradicting and I simply do not believe that God has anything to do with the claptrap you produce.

There are no gods besides the God of the Bible. The Islamic position on stoning, etc, is unbiblical because they are worshiping a god that is not the God of the Bible. I may agree with the sentence, but I don't agree with the worldview they hold behind it.

The Bible is consistent. The whole Bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 03:00 AM

Thanks, pete, for the clarification (and I got 616!)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 03:15 AM

You're accusing me of inconsistency because I believe in capital punishment, and yet if you don't believe in capital punishment, you're the inconsistent one. The Bible says "Love your enemies", but it also says "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

That's not inconsistant unless you also add in the third part: 'and everything the bible says is accurate'. Most posters don't believe that, and so they are not inconsistant.

It is not that you believe in capital punishment that I am concerned with [though as it happens I also am against that]. The inconsistancy arises because there is a huge difference between the translations most believers adopt for the fifth commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' and the version you prefer 'Thou shalt not murder'. Don't bother explaining why you prefer that version, as its not my point. The problem with the 'murder' version is that there is necessarily a distinction between lawful and unlawful killing and the question arises who decides that. Is it the Bible? : no, because you would have said the precise definition of murder is given in verses ... of these books ... But you didn't. You were clear the state decides. And that means that the state determines whether the commandment had been broken, not God. And remember we are talking about God's eternal law, so we mean all states at all times here: The US in the time of slavery, England's dealings with Scotland and Itreland in the 1700's and more recently, Germany in the 30s, Stalin, Pol Pot ... all those killings were lawful. And, if your stance it to believed, these killings are not offences against the commandment. And of course, if you insist that those states are somehow excluded, it merely re-raises the question of who does decide then.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 03:42 AM

Oh, to pick up the 'two or three witnesses are crucial' point. What is your stance on soldiers? Are most of their killings murders?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 04:02 AM

Well, iona, I suppose that if you start with the supposition that the bible was written or dictated by a perfect God who cannot allow contradictions and then work backwards, then possibly you could explain away all the contradictions that the rest of us see so clearly. I mean, If you start with the supposition that an all-powerful God can do anything, then I suppose that God can manipulate things to fit your script.

But the rest of us don't see it that way. Those of us who believe in both God and evolution, see God as the wonderful essence within nature, rather than an outside force holding marionette strings from above.

But it's clear to me that we'll never come to agreement. We just see things so completely differently.

You see the Bible as a script that must be followed exactly. I just don't see it that way. I can accept contradictions within Scripture, since I see the Bible as written by fully human persons inspired by their faith in God.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 05:11 AM

The Bible says "Love your enemies", but it also says "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10).

Do expand on this, please. It seems to be saying that shagging around (not just murder) should get you strung up. Or am I missing something?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 05:14 AM

And I love the idea that capital punishment is "loving." And, taking your deterrent effect to its logical conclusion, and your scorning of prison as a deterrent, why not just hang everybody who commits any crime at all? Hell's teeth, that would be a good deterrent I think! Er, but let's be fair: only for crimes for which there are three witnesses...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 07:37 AM

"I believe in capital punishment when it is founded upon Biblical principles."

Which translation or version of The Bible do you read, Iona? And if it's not private, which Church do you belong to?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 08:38 AM

In what seems to be a serious subject I just had a good laugh. I was looking up some stuff on law and grace (notions addressed by people who have an understanding of The Bible either broad or narrow) when ads started popping up about lawyers. Anyway, I figured I'd share that.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 08:45 AM

She said she preferred the Geneva Bible, but would include the KJV for us to read so we could understand where she is getting her ideas from. that would perhaps indicate a Calvinist origin for her church.

I used to think that Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" was pushing small trends into unbelievable dystopia.

God, that's Jesus' God, help us if ever those loving executioners get into power.

And Iona, I am a Christian, but if God is the god you worship, then he is barbaric. Since He is not, and came here to tell us and show us that, that's between Him and me. I'm not calling Him names. I'm calling the interpretation you and your church are peddling names.

There's a book in our local Oxfam shop (charity, started by Quakers) about the necessity of the Fear of God. Not the way to draw people towards Him, that and Wrath, as preached in your videos. That's why Jesus didn't over-emphasise that sort of thing. What did he say to the tax-collector (a serious sinner) who fell out of the tree before him? Not repent or god will get you, but "I'm coming to your house tonight".

Try this for a change

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 08:52 AM

Thanks, Penny. I either missed or forgot that.

The Geneva Bible was the first one to use the numbering system for verses. That was in 1560. (I didn't know that until yesterday when I was digging around the 'net and tripped over a site about various Bibles.)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 09:06 AM

I have remembered that one of our bishops in London, broadcasting on BBC Radio 4 at about 7.50 in the morning, in a slot called "Thought for The Day" (that reference is for anyone reading here who is not familiar with this side of the pond) addressed the subject of that sort of god who wants to condemn most people to hell. His reaction was that, come the day, he would be prepared to go down to hell shouting against that god if that was what he proved to be.

Jesus showed a better God than that, as the bishop well knew. A God who, so far from condemning, put His own life on the line.

Someone once said that we go to the god we worship. I worry about the people who worship the god of wrath who demands fear, and even more so about those who teach them that that is right. That preaching is more of a millstone than a life-saver, and that carries a burden with it. Except that I trust God to reach out to them as long as there is one soul to be rescued.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 09:40 AM

""Back in the beginning days of America, there was still capital punishment used regularly. And in the early to mid 1800's there was a 0% crime rate in most towns.""

There was no organised legal structure, lynchings were the norm, and the crime rate was astronomical, but since the biggest bully WAS the law it was never acknowledged as crime.

And, by the way, back then you would have lasted about ten seconds after you began telling people what to believe and how to behave.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 09:55 AM

""i am not convinced that iona was advocating stoning adulterers at this time""

Really? In direct response to the following comment and a question from me:

"And you have no basis to take any high moral attitudes, when you believe that the bible is the immutable "Word of God", true in every detail, then decry those Muslims who believe in stoning adulterers to death, which is exactly what YOUR God is demanding of you if your belief is correct.

You cannot have it both ways. Either the bible is, as YOU claim "the immutable Word of God", in which case you'll be needing a good supply of rocks, or it isn't, in which case your slavish belief falls flat on its face.

Now, there's a poser. Which way will you jump?""

She replied:

""If God says something is good, it is good. If God says to stone adulterers, then so be it. . Of course there must be a trial, and two or three witnesses, etc. But the fact that God decreed death as the punishment for adultery tells us just how serious a sin it is. God is a judge--the Perfect Judge.""

Not much leeway for misunderstanding there my friend. If Iona should ever acquire any measure of authority, she would undoubtedly rival Torquemada and Co in the pursuit of her mission to convert the World (and I only used that individual because some silly people think that mentioning a certain other despot means losing the argument).

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 10:02 AM

beg to differ penny
with respect Jesus did speak about hell quite a lot.
he also quoted from genesis quite a lot and i reckon that makes him a creationist!
of course you might want to carve the NT up as you do the OT?
However i can appreciate the appeal of your position .i would probably prefer a "tame aslan"to borrow your analogolizing.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 10:05 AM

""People are much less likely to commit murder if they know that they'll be forfeiting their life in doing so.""

Every analysis of crime rates ever undertaken proves that to be absolutely untrue.

""God himself provides mercy for murderers in that they cannot be executed unless there are two or three witnesses. Even if all the evidence points to a person being the murderer, we can't execute them until we have witnesses. That's what the Bible says.""

You really should try telling that story to Reginald Christy, whose crimes were unwitnessed, but I'm afraid you can't.

You see they hanged him.

They also hanged poor Timothy Evans for the self same crimes, in spite of having no more evidence than an extorted confession.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 10:30 AM

Pete, I didn't say that Jesus did not speak about hell - but that He did not over-emphasise it. It wasn't the essence of his message, now, was it?

And I don't think you share Iona's position, either. I simply cannot imagine you thinking that it is a loving act to execute someone who you would believe is then going to endless torment.

As for Aslan, in the Last Battle, the creatures who go on into his country are those who realise they love him (even if some, not by any means all, also looked frightened), whereas those who do not, but vanish, are those who fear, and their fear leads to hate. But whether God can be compared to a not-tame lion is one man's vision, not Biblcal. He is not in the great wind, or the earthquake, or the fire, but a still small voice.

That which is not consistent with love cannot be of God. Have you read "A Grief Observed"?

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: meself
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 10:49 AM

I believe in Peg-leg Sam, who said (I'm paraphrasing): "Hell is the biggest lie ever told. I don't believe God created me just so He could watch me fry for all eternity."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 11:17 AM

It's rather interesting watching two fundamentalist Christians like pete & Iona debating us agnostics, atheists and heathens, and not 'quite' realizing they can't even agree totally with each other about the details.

It reminds me of my favorite points in philosophical logic: "From false premises, anything follows!"

I'm sure Iona & pete will not get that..or agree with it if they do... but it explains how they... or anyone.. can explain away all contradictions in the bible and dismiss much scientific evidence. It is also how anyone can simply deny points in philosophical logic. It is 'possible' to even deny truths of mathematics, like the legislator who tried to get a bill passed to define pi as = 3...(much easier to work with...right?).

So... if we fallible humans can't interpret God's infallible words correctly, that's our problem.

If *I* were God, I'd part the clouds every Sunday morning (or Saturday for some) and write a few reminders in fire in the sky..... can't expect them to stay on the True Path without a little nudging...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 11:22 AM

Bill, don't forget the other Christians.

Just because they don't regard us as completely such doesn't mean we aren't.

I had noticed the differences between pete and Iona. I would trust pete (whom I have met) with my life. I'm glad Iona is on a different continent.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 11:34 AM

*smile*.. A Christian is one who says they are a Christian and personally accepts Jesus...(whether they do it carefully or shallowly).

I have many Christian friends who follow the basic teachings and principles of Jesus & the Bible without trying to assert it as total historical & metaphysical infallibility. (and Jewish friends, both strict and reformed)I respect them for that, and do not try to convert them FROM their beliefs. In return, they respect me as one who tries to follow rules of good behavior and kindness without relating them TO a specific religion.

I have no doubt pete is a good person to know. Perhaps Iona is also... *shrug*

This is a debate about ideas & concepts... not about good or bad people... at least for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 11:50 AM

I have personally, at various times, attended Methodist church (where I was baptized as a child), Catholic mass, Episcopalian services, Free Will Baptist service (black church in Mississippi), almost agnostic Unitarian church..(was a member at one time) and various weddings & funerals in various churches.

In all cases, I followed the rules, showed respect for their traditions and practices and made NO attempt to tell them they were wasting their time. It is only when specific claims are put in front of me, implying or asserting that I 'ought' to believe them, that I state my objections....as the local Jehovah's Witnesses have discovered.

It is work walking that line.... and I'm never sure exactly where to put my feet sometimes.. but as long as religion exists, I must come to terms with it and suggest ways people can co-exist comfortably. Sometimes this means resisting attempts to insert religion into politics... sometimes it means just shutting up and ignoring things that don't directly affect me.

No simple answers.... but important to keep looking.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 12:15 PM

You really should try telling that story to Reginald Christy, whose crimes were unwitnessed, but I'm afraid you can't.
You see they hanged him.
They also hanged poor Timothy Evans for the self same crimes, in spite of having no more evidence than an extorted confession.
Don T.

<><>

Highly questionable, Don. They only hanged Evans for ONE of the crimes [not 'the selfsame crimeS]; that of Mrs Evans. It is highly probable that Evans was complicit with Christie thus spelt in that one ~ despite Ewan's tendentious song on the topic.. I remember the case well, as I lived near Notting Hill at the time [C was known as 'the Notting Hill murderer'] in a hotel belonging to my family, whose staff and residents [incl me] were closely questioned by police seeking Christie.

~M~

This, it will be appreciated, not a contribution to the thread-topic s a whole, but correction of an incidental point raised, on the basis of my principle that 'accuracy matters'.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 12:18 PM

{Sorry ~~ that post went wrong re underlines &c so not too easily apprehensible. Here it is again}


You really should try telling that story to Reginald Christy, whose crimes were unwitnessed, but I'm afraid you can't.
You see they hanged him.
They also hanged poor Timothy Evans for the self same crimes, in spite of having no more evidence than an extorted confession.
Don T.

,..,

Highly questionable, Don. They only hanged Evans for ONE of the crimes [not 'the selfsame crimeS; that of Mrs Evans. It is highly probable that Evans was complicit with Christie thus spelt in that one ~ despite Ewan's tendentious song on the topic.. I remember the case well, as I lived near Notting Hill at the time [C was known as 'the Notting Hill murderer'] in a hotel belonging to my family, whose staff and residents [incl me] were closely questioned by police seeking Christie.

~M~

This, it will be appreciated, not a contribution to the thread-topic s a whole, but correction of an incidental point raised, on the basis of my principle that 'accuracy matters'.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 12:19 PM

I've been doing a preliminary review of the not a tame lion quote, via google, and it has thrown up two references in the 7 books. Plus one to aslan not being safe. More requires actually getting the books off the shelves and speed reading them.

The first is in LWW, where Tumnus tells Lucy that they can't expect Aslan's visits to be regular or expected, because...

The second is Tirian, in the Last Battle, deciding to give himself up to the false Aslan after killing the men who were mistreating talking horses. He does not want to predict what Aslan will do, because... He then discusses with his unicorn friend that this Aslan is nothing like the one they have believed in and they might as well be put to death because their faith has been in error. Which it hasn't, of course.

From google, it looks very much as though this idea has been coopted into supporting understandings of God which are not consistent with Lewis's views.

It looks from the text as though what he was saying was that we cannot make God fit into our lives in ways which we control. Not that he is ferocious.

Comparing God with wild lions does show a rather romantic view of the beasts. Some Biblical comparisons have been of Satan being like one. It makes one wonder why the kings of Israel and later rulers of Turkey have taken lions as their avatars. They at least knew what the wild ones were like.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 12:56 PM

I take it that the 7 books ref'd to by Penny are C S Lewis's Narnia series ~~ a [somewhat symbolically clumsy & feeble IMO] series of selfrighteous religious allegories aimed at children.

Cannot for the life of me see why they should be cited on a thread like this as if they were in any way morally or theologically authoritative, rather than just one churchy elderly Oxford/Cambridge don's unconvincing attempts at a fantasy world.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 01:09 PM

pete said I obviously preferred a tame lion. And suggested I cherry picked the Bible.

So I went to see if he had used the quote appropriatly.

Lewis, though widely read, had very little, if anything, to say about geology or palaentology, and used astrological ideas rather than cosmological ones when dealing with things outside the orbit of the Moon.

He is not really relevant when discussing things like the way that light from the galaxies visible through telescopes clearly began its journey to our eyes before the Biblical date of the creation as determined by Ussher. Or that the far side of the Moon, out on the celestial side, untouched by the sin which destroyed the perfection of our world, is as pockmarked as the near side, barring the absence of basaltic floods.

To try and get things back on track.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 01:41 PM

A little hard on CS Lewis there, M, I feel. While he is in no way authoritative, and I doubt he would ever have claimed to be, and while the books were aimed at children, I do think he went rather deeper into the theological implications of some beliefs than has been evident in some of the posts from, for example, Iona, or indeed RE studies went during my schooldays. I would, for example recommend the first half of the chapter in "The Last Battle" that's called something like 'Further up and further in' to anyone who believes their religion is inherently superior to anyone elses. Not because it is 'right', but as food for thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 03:27 PM

Rate of continental drift – 1 to 10 centimeters per year.

If one looks at a map of the Atlantic Ocean, it doesn't take much imagination to see that, allowing for some variation in outline over the eons, you could fit the west coast of Europe and Africa together with the east coast of North and South America, like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle. These four continents used to be in contact with each other. Essentially, one continent. And over time, due to the action of plate tectonics driven by the monumental forces at work in the earth's interior, they have drifted apart.

Another example of continental drift are the Hawaiian Islands. The islands formed due to an up-welling of magma, or a "hot spot" in the ocean floor. Lava spews out of the hot spot, builds up, and hardens, and forms an island. But the Pacific Plate gradually moves northwest until the magma upwelling from the hot spot seeks a more direct route and another island forms. Hawaii, the "big island," is now over the hot spot. Lava is upwelling through the volcanoes on the island, flowing to the sea where it cools and hardens, and the island increases in size. Soon (in geological time), the plate will move far enough northwest that the upwelling will burst through somewhere southeast of the big island, and another Hawiian island will begin to emerge from the sea.

The drifting of the Pacific plate formed a subduction zone off the coast of Japan. Tension built up until it released, part of the Pacific plate suddenly slid under Japan, and this is what caused the Fukushima earthquake.

It is this sort of tectonic activity that causes earthquakes. It also raises mountains. The African plate, forcing itself against the European plate is what "wrinkled" the earth's crust and raised the Alps. The Juan de Fuca plate pushing against the North American plate is what raised the Cascade Mountains on the west coast of the United States. This, coupled with a subduction zone, causes some volcanoes. Etna and Vesuvius in southern Europe and Mt. Lassen, Mount St. Helens, and Mount Rainier in the western U. S. The South American plate is pushing against another Pacific plate, hence, the Andes. And the sometimes severe earthquakes alone the west coast of South American.

What it amounts to is the WE are living on top of the crust of slag that's drifting around on the surface of a ball of boiling nickel-iron.

Since continental drift happens at a rate of one to ten centimeters per year, contemplate how long it took for the North and South American continents and the European and African continents to drift the approximately 3,000 miles apart. Or the Hawaiian Archipelago to form.

Now—

Reconcile that with the fundamentalist Christian idea that the Earth is only 6,016 (4,004 + 2012) years old!.

Get it? Got it. Good!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 05:03 PM

3 000 mile = 482 803 200 centimeter

At ten cm a year, that would take 48,280,320 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 05:26 PM

"and another Hawiian island will begin to emerge from the sea"

Woohoo, and yes it already is. Loihi has not broken the surface of the ocean yet, but earthquake swarms suggested it was there, and recent photos from ROVS show nice fresh pillow lavas. I am reserving my timeshare on Loihi now.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 05:29 PM

POI- In the original Old Testament, the word translated as "DAY" in KJV et al in the book of Genesis is NOT the same word as the Hebrew word for a day of 24 hours- it is more like an age, ie "in the day of our ancestors" .

Same problem with the supposed biblical injunction "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" In the original, the word is "poisoner", not witch. The bishops in 264 ( I think it was) decided what parts of the bible they wanted to base their church on, thus deleting a number of texts as well. One book was found in NE Africa ( in a monk's grave) in 1880- so much for the KJV using all texts to determine the word of God.

The KJV is a great piece of literature- but hardly the Word of God.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 06:45 PM

Before Gutenberg and his handy-dandy Tom Swift printing press, books had to be hand-copied. Including the Bible. This was one of the major jobs of young monks in the many monasteries throughout Europe.

As this was being done, it was not at all unusual for a local Bishop—or the Abbot of the monastery—or, for that matter, the monk with the quill in his hand—to interpolate his own particular ideas into the new manuscript. When the MS was finished, other monks might copy from IT, and they, in turn, did a bit of free-lance editing.

By the time the Gutenberg press came along, and King James I called for a new compilation, hoping for a definitive version, there, too, the translators were given to inserting their own interpretations, or doing the equivalent of flipping a coin over matters of what they deemed ambiguity.

Older manuscripts, predating the materials used to compile the KJV, have since been found, in the same manner as the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that show major discrepancies between early scrolls and manuscripts and later versions and translations.

Let's face it, sports fans, The Bible has been seriously folk processed over the past centuries.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: frogprince
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 07:21 PM

I spent some early years as a confirmed fundamentalist. I don't believe, though, that I was endoctrinated as profoundly, or as young, as a lot of youngsters. My parents were very religious, but they didn't really "drill it into me" regularly at home. Over the years it was actually a number of encounters with other devout strict fundamentalists that played a big part in shaking me loose from that stance. I'm thinking at the moment of a conversation with a fellow seminarian. He was a very decent guy and of perfectly normal mental capacity, but remained staunchly "fundy" at a school which was much more moderate. One day I happened to say something to the effect that "you have to realize that it sounds a little outrageous to say that your faith is right, and everyone else is wrong." He just looked at me, with his face blank, and said "What do you mean?".

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: John P
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 10:56 PM

One day I was channel flipping when I happened upon the Dalai Lama. He was saying something along the lines of "It doesn't matter if a person is a Buddhist, a Christian, or has no religion. Our brothers are the people of good heart. Seek out people of good heart." Really the same message as Lewis gave in The Last Battle. If I have a religion, that's it.

I really don't care what the Bible says, or what any religion believes. What is in your heart?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 11:26 PM

thanks for the kind words penny.i was't aiming for an exact application in the aslan ref whereas perhaps yours was ,so i may have been misleading.
not sure i would say you were "cherry picking" as i thought that meant being selective but claiming to embrace the whole text;and i know you dont accept all the text as legitamately christian.
the light from the stars has been addressed by creationist scientists and i have read a book called"starlight,time and the new physics"which presents a model containing a lot of technical stuff which is beyond more than a sketchy understanding to me.
i,ve also read that the big bang model has problems of its own in starlight travel.
good to bring it back to topic.some are making a mountain out of a molehill by citing possible differences in a less relevant sideline.
best wishes   pete.