the age of the earth for the enlightenment of YEC's

[Jorge]

Hi firstfloor I see you're new to Theologyweb - Welcome , (your name reminds me of my first pastors website - Ground Level Faith )

I spend quite a lot time listening to lectures at Faraday Institute of Science and Religion and from what I can make out:

A. I know what YEC believe, I used to be one. It's a mixture of many things and each person is different. We put these name tags on people but people often hold beliefs that vary from person to person. Anyhow from what I'm learning there is no reference to the exact age of the earth in the Bible. We have to depend up Geologists. I used to believe in a young earth but thanks to very smart friends who were wise not to bounce my head against the curb, I eventually got beyond that and began opening up to idea that it was a lot older than the Creationist literature was teaching me. I used to read Kent Hovind books and watch his videos but eventually due to my studies in Theology and Textual Criticism (oddly it would come from that place) I opened up and now love to read Biology and Science book and am even learning Physics from my youngest son's college text book.) LOL!
B. Don't kid yourself, it's still alive and kicking in the US of A. It's not a popular belief but the die hards will always cling to stuff until they too are ready to move on. Some never do. It's not a bother to me, as long as they don't try to de-convert me. LOL
C. Some do, some don't. I was a literalist but did not worship the Bible, I just had a very high view of the Christian sacred texts. When I attended Hebrew school they taught us the deep respect that Jews have for the Torah which is close to worship but not worship. I can understand people feeling strongly about the Bible but idolatry is forbidden and therefore I don't think you'll find that except maybe in cult groups or crackpots.
D. I think you need to study theology and the Bible more, it seems you don't know the first thing about it. Pity I thought you were an informed person. Here's a point in question, who is the main character in the Bible?

Peace,
Eric

****************************************************************

"I know what YEC believe, I used to be one."

It is my belief that most (not all - most) ex-YECs never actually understood YECism.
[I prefer the term Biblical Creationist (BC) over YEC].

This belief in not without lots of foundation. Every ex-YEC that I have ever known either
in person or through their writings has amply demonstrated not knowing / understanding
the fundamental and critical aspects of YECism. I suspect headheart to be no exception.

Jorge

[rogue06]

.
.
.

Move on folks, move on .... nothing here to see.

Jorge

Oh how true. How very true

[headheart]

No, I think firstfloor is a step ahead of you. The question is, who invented the main character in the bible, and for what purpose?

You're welcome to your assumptions but your second stanza establishes my point. Now here's a few questions for you.

a. Who is the main character?
b. Who invented this character?
c. For what purpose did the inventor invent the character?

I look forward to your immediate answer.

Peace,
Eric

[headheart]

Oh how true. How very true

Gotta keep on movin!


Bob Marley and The Wailers - Keep On Moving

[phank]

You're welcome to your assumptions but your second stanza establishes my point. Now here's a few questions for you.

a. Who is the main character?

This opens up a can of worms, I think. A character called God features in most of the text, but that character suffers from such severe multiple personality disorder that I'm reminded of some Arabian towns where EVERY male is named Mohammed.

b. Who invented this character?

I would suppose that each version of the character was invented by the culture writing that particular bit. After all, we're looking at a book compiled over a thousand years, and no culture remains static for anywhere near that period of time. So the needs of the culture continued to change given the number of members, the nature of the neighbors, relative military power, etc. And so a quite distinct character was invented to fit within the context of each cultural change.

c. For what purpose did the inventor invent the character?

I look forward to your immediate answer.

This is something I suspect I will never be able to understand. From a distance, and vaguely, I see lots of purposes. To make tribal governance easier. To ease the difficulties of a life that really was cruel, brutish and short. To rationalize opportunistic policies. To facilitate the necessary xenophobia, encouraging tribal cohesion. Again, the purposes changed with cultural needs over the centuries.

But nonetheless, in my reading I see the main character underpinning all this as the culture itself, the people trying to make sense of their lives.

[firstfloor]

No, I think firstfloor is a step ahead of you. The question is, who invented the main character in the bible, and for what purpose?

Correct. I did not explain myself fully. God in the Bible is essentially about distributing justice. Just like Superman in the comic books except that Superman deals with your enemies here and now. God is stealthy and mysterious – “Don’t worry; I’ll reward you in heaven”. Not a direct quote BTW.

[headheart]

This opens up a can of worms, I think. A character called God features in most of the text, but that character suffers from such severe multiple personality disorder that I'm reminded of some Arabian towns where EVERY male is named Mohammed.

I think? And exactly how many years of careful and prayerful study of the Christian sacred text do you base this opinion upon?

I would suppose that each version of the character was invented by the culture writing that particular bit. After all, we're looking at a book compiled over a thousand years, and no culture remains static for anywhere near that period of time. So the needs of the culture continued to change given the number of members, the nature of the neighbors, relative military power, etc. And so a quite distinct character was invented to fit within the context of each cultural change.

I suppose? (same as above)

This is something I suspect I will never be able to understand. From a distance, and vaguely, I see lots of purposes. To make tribal governance easier. To ease the difficulties of a life that really was cruel, brutish and short. To rationalize opportunistic policies. To facilitate the necessary xenophobia, encouraging tribal cohesion. Again, the purposes changed with cultural needs over the centuries.

This is something I suppose? (same as above)

But nonetheless, in my reading I see the main character underpinning all this as the culture itself, the people trying to make sense of their lives.

Really? (same as above)

Peace,
Eric.

[headheart]

Correct. I did not explain myself fully. God in the Bible is essentially about distributing justice. Just like Superman in the comic books except that Superman deals with your enemies here and now. God is stealthy and mysterious – “Don’t worry; I’ll reward you in heaven”. Not a direct quote BTW.

Here's a thing. Posting to conclusions about books that you may or may not have studied does not allow you a second chance to make a judgment call. I am going to ask you the same question I asked 'phank' namely :

And exactly how many years of careful and prayerful study of the Christian sacred text do you base this opinion upon?

Peace,
Eric

[firstfloor]

Here's a thing. Posting to conclusions about books that you may or may not have studied does not allow you a second chance to make a judgment call. I am going to ask you the same question I asked 'phank' namely :

And exactly how many years of careful and prayerful study of the Christian sacred text do you base this opinion upon?

Peace,
Eric

Most of us are too far removed from those times when it was written to make much sense of The Bible directly. Is that not why it tends to be interpreted for us by preachers? Are they reliable, are they trying to push a particular message? I have witnessed at first hand the religious brain washing provided by Jehovah's Witnesses. I have tended to rely on scholars rather than preachers. Dale Martin of Yale University is an example. I remember being impressed by William Barclay’s NT commentaries many years ago. I remain interested.

[magellan004]

Further to last entry. Two things are clearly incompatible. Earth geological history as determined scientifically and earth creationist history as determined from Bible analysis. First, one has to be interested in resolving the issue – it is a matter of honesty. The question that arises is: What is the simplest assumption made that puts these two things in contradiction? This is an application of Occams’razor. The answer: Creation stories in the Bible are myths. The contradiction disappears.

That's great!
So is - What assumption that acknowledges miracles puts these two things in contradiction? This is an application of logic, not an ad-hoc rule. The answer: Scientists usually ignore the reality of miracles. The contradiction disappears.

Magellan

[magellan004]

No, I think firstfloor is a step ahead of you. The question is, who invented the main character in the bible, and for what purpose?

Where or when did that become the question? Please give the Post number. If it was Post 13 I salute your ego.
To tell the truth I like your ego. At least you have a go and are not as Lily-livered as some other evolutionists here.


Magellan

[magellan004]

Good in the sense that, for broadcast television, it covers the subject well, in general way that is understandable to a large fraction of the general public. Do you know of a better example on this subject?

You might see this as quibbling - but if you answer 'Why is X good' with 'It did it well' you are not really shedding much light. Maybe you are allowing for 'It was understandable but bad'? 'It was concise yet misleading'? Then again you may have thought - 'The program was understandable and promotes peace '? Perhaps 'The program was misleading yet make people feel happy'?

Do you equate Good with things that most people can understand?

I'm not wanting to irritate you. It's just that the use of the word 'Good' in discussing a controversial subject adds another dimension.

Magellan

[firstfloor]

*********************************************************************

Agreed, it is "good in the general way that it is understandable to a large fraction of the general public".
But that doesn't mean squat. An evil dictator can make his policies understandable to a large fraction
of the general public but that does not make these policies either "good" or scientifically accurate.

Plain and simple : that documentary was expressing the ideology / the metaphysic / the religious view
known as Naturalism and its main tenet: Evolution. I saw much more 'religion' than I did 'science'.
It may be the consensus ... it may be what you have chosen to believe ... just don't call it "science".

Move on folks, move on .... nothing here to see.

Jorge

Jorge, my dear boy, even with you I think it’s only a matter of time. I remember being stunned to hear for the first time about two radical ideas. One was plate tectonics and the other was quantum mechanics. And my immediate reaction was - that can’t possibly be true. With hard ideas especially those in conflict with fundamentals it is very difficult to adjust your thinking. I’ll give you ten years, fifteen at most.
I’d better pray to God to help me be less patronising.

[firstfloor]

You might see this as quibbling - but if you answer 'Why is X good' with 'It did it well' you are not really shedding much light. Maybe you are allowing for 'It was understandable but bad'? 'It was concise yet misleading'? Then again you may have thought - 'The program was understandable and promotes peace '? Perhaps 'The program was misleading yet make people feel happy'?

Do you equate Good with things that most people can understand?

I'm not wanting to irritate you. It's just that the use of the word 'Good' in discussing a controversial subject adds another dimension.

Magellan

The subject is not controversial outside a narrow religious setting. So by good, I mean accurate, broad, introductory, current, reliable and non-controversial to those unhindered by obsolete religious beliefs. This is as seen from my point of view which is different to yours. Mine is the better view I think. But we will disagree on that too.

[magellan004]

The subject is not controversial outside a narrow religious setting. So by good, I mean accurate, broad, introductory, current, reliable and non-controversial to those unhindered by obsolete religious beliefs. This is as seen from my point of view which is different to yours. Mine is the better view I think. But we will disagree on that too.

Oh? What is my view of what constitutes good?

Magellan