The site that came from is a hoax. Like Landover Baptist, only playing it slightly more straight. Just look at their kids section or their cafe press shop.
I wish that we had Science Fairs in Australia. Especially Creation Science Fairs.
The winning topics at the Fellowship Baptist Creation Science Fair 2001 (Yeah- it's a bit old):
"My Uncle Is A Man Named Steve (Not A Monkey)"
"Pine Cones Are Complicated"
"God Made Kitty"
"The Bible Says Creation"
"Pokemon Prove Evolutionism Is False"
"Life Doesn't Come From Non-Life"
"Women Were Designed For Homemaking" (My personal favourite- 'Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker'.) I hope his Mum had some input into this toopic.
"Mousetrap Reduced To Pile Of Functionless Parts"
"Dinosaur & Man Walked Together"
"Rocks Can't Evolve, Where Did They Come From Mr. Darwin?"
"Using Prayer To Microevolve Latent Antibiotic Resistance In Bacteria"
"Maximal Packing Of Rodentia Kinds: A Feasibility Study"
"Geocentrism: Politically Incorrect"
"Young Earth, Old Lies"
"Thermodynamics Of Hell Fire"
Awwww, don't tell me that. I was getting impressed by their methodology. :wink:
And I'll blame my daughter for distracting me long enough to make me forget about adding a link.
There are actually some decent creation scientists out there. Their work is just largely ignored because of the views that prevail today. Also, you'd be surprised how many scientists would call themselves Christians despite doing work that is clearly not compatible with the Bible. I guess they just omit those parts when they reading the Good Book :).
I wouldn't be surprised at all. There is no science that is incompatible with the Bible unless you regard it as an Inerrant Factual Document and Historical Chronicle.Also, you'd be surprised how many scientists would call themselves Christians despite doing work that is clearly not compatible with the Bible. I guess they just omit those parts when they reading the Good Book .
But there are many Christians whose faith doesn't rely on doing this sort of violence to what is easily the greatest literary work of Western Civilization. Some people, believe it or not, understand that Jonah being swallowed by a whale was a metaphor.
What?!?!?! Next you will tell me that Moses did not order a sea to split in two and then march his fellow Dead heads across searching for the Promise Land where all the weed is free and legal.Originally Posted by TomChick
I wish I still lived next to the mormons - they were entertaining.
Which would be terrific except that the book itself and most people who believe in it present it as exactly that. Maybe this is one of those triple-bluff metaphors the Bible is so well known for, though.Originally Posted by TomChick
Does it? And do they? The answers are 'no' and 'no'.Which would be terrific except that the book itself and most people who believe in it present it as exactly that.
Biblical inerrancy means many different things to many different people. The sort of theological doctrine that says that if a man can't be swallowed by a whale then Christ can't be risen from the dead is an element of certain Fundamentalism sects of Protestantism. Most Christian faith will not crumble under the threat of metaphors, particularly when some of the most important messages in the Gospels are delived as such: Jesus' parables.
And it's certainly not anything interally supported in the Chrisitan Bible or the Jewish Tanakh.
The only people more fanatical and mindless than those who argue the literalness of every word in the Bible are the hardcore secular nuts who preach it's tinest flaws or translation ambiguities as proof of it's errancy. They're both wrong.
The Bible is the literal word of God. Did God really halt the Sun in the air for Joshua so he could proceed in the interim? Since we are talking about God, is it really necessary to argue ridiculous gibberish like the gravitational rotation of the Earth and how all the matter would violently torque around destroying all the continents, doesn't it suffice to say that for Joshua, the Sun stopped in it's path?
I think people who contend over things like this will be thrown into hell along with the secular, they are all fools given to idolatry of one form or another. None of them really understand what the important questions are or care to ask them.
Come on, Tom...this is just wrong, or perhaps just a bit too extreme. Do you really believe that the Bible will just accomodate any belief someone has about the world? That's the kind of dangerous thinking that leads to relativist Protestantism. People think they can believe whatever they want about God because the Bible means different things to different people.Originally Posted by TomChick
I agree with you to an extent...the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, in the sense of history. However, it CLEARLY makes claims about certain things and there is science out there that disputes some of these claims. In the Bible, there's spontaneous creation, there's fire coming out of heaven, there are people being brought back from the dead. Certainly, all of this can be taken as pure metaphor, but the question is really whether or not it SHOULD be. Do you think the people who wrote the Bible didn't believe any of it was true, except in a metaphorical sense? Do you think they would say...oh, you believe in evolution..well, that fits with what we are saying...just translate each of the seven days of creation into millenia or whatever you need to do to make our book fit with your theories.
Of course, the advantage of science is that it isn't trying to explain why things happen (in a metaphysical sense). So it doesn't directly overlap with what the Bible is trying to do. The Bible certainly is not trying to make scientific claims, nor does it care about the claims science DOES make (or had made). But science still suggests that people can't walk on water or produce bread and wine from thin air, etc. So unless you think the Bible is in NO way meant to represent actual events, I am not sure I can accept your claim.
Perhaps your point is just that science doesn't need the Bible any more than the Bible needs science? So, there is no conflict?
Just to illustrate what I mean about the basic difference between science and religion (since we might be talking about different issues), I want to point out the key difference. Science only accepts things based on empirical evidence...that's a key part of science. Faith in God is not based on empirical evidence...if it were, it wouldn't be faith. Now, we could go through all the crap about how we have to have faith in our senses in order to believe empirical evidence, but that isn't the point. The point is that we cannot sense God. We can't do experiments to prove He exists. We can't use reason to prove this either. Scientists CLAIM not to believe in things that can't be proven scientifically, but they let that go when it comes to God. Why? Probably because the two fields have nothing to do with one another. Faith in God is an independent issue. That MAY be what you mean, Tom, when you say you don't see a conflict between the two. However, I find it odd that a person who dedicates his life to experiential data would drop that requirement in the case of religion. It may not be a logical problem, per se, but it certainly seems to be an idealogical problem (an inconsistency). These same scientists would likely laugh at me if I try to talk to them about morality....because it can't be "proven" scientifically.
Obviously, I am not talking about all scientists here, but you have probably met the type of scientist I AM talking about.
"The" bible is a misnomer. There is no such thing as the one all powerfull document. Every religious sect has carefully chosen, translated and omitted various texts from their bibles because they don't correspond to their religious dogma.
You're shitting me!Originally Posted by bmulligan
Gosh, I just thought the article was funny.
I forgot that Tom has a theological background and would go into Torquemada mode when it appears that faith is derided.
As for scientists being Christians, the game-theorist from the same site explains why they have made that choice. http://objective.jesussave.us/gametheory.html down the bottom.
It's not odd to me, and I certainly don't see it as an inconsistency. I'm assuming you're not religious? Because I think anyone with religious conviction understands that it comes from a very different place than the things you learn from empirical data.However, I find it odd that a person who dedicates his life to experiential data would drop that requirement in the case of religion. It may not be a logical problem, per se, but it certainly seems to be an idealogical problem (an inconsistency).
For instance, the creation myth in Genesis -- and I don't use myth in any sense to mean 'false' or 'untrue' -- isn't necessarily incompatible with evolution. They're both different ways of talking. And even when they overlap in terms of subject matter, they don't have to be contradictory. Is William Blake's description of a sunset any less 'true' than a meteorologist's description? Absolutely not.
BTW, a central tenet of nearly any religion, and in particular Western traditions beginning with Judaism, is that God has intervened; he has broken into the normal rules of history and science and whatnot to deliver a message. It doesn't necessarily follow that these interventions have to follow the rules as we know them.
Yeah, I'm trying to get a rise out of Blakemore since he seems to think theres some sort of golden holy seal on the king james. Jeesh, thanks for ruining the moment.Originally Posted by Tyjenks
It's all in perspective at the Judgement throne. Every civilization in decline has always evolved a theory of secular atomism in which an individual is accountable to nothing but himself, God either does not exist or else is so harmless he cannot threaten the individual who is idealized as a kind of mini-God in his own right. It was true in the last days of Rome when religion devolved to nothing but secular observance and it is true now of postmodern 2oth century culture, which like Seinfeld is basically a culture about nothing - nihilism.Originally Posted by bmulligan
Understanding the passing, transient nature of these superficial viewpoints, don't you fear some ultimate reality that might transcend all of this rubbish? It's the beginning of wisdom if you do.
No, Cleve, I don't believe in the ultimate reality. I live in it. A perfect interdimentional existence has no appeal to me, except in fantasy fiction. The wonder and miracle of creation is all around me, not in a floating platonic sphere of ether, apart from what is real.Originally Posted by Cleve
It still boggles my mind that you of all people, with your enormous intellect have been halved by the dichotomy of religion. Most of the genius minds I've met who do believe in a creator, have very different thoughts of god than a personal one who forced mens' hands to preserve his words, and enact vengence upon those who do not keep them.
You know, if the Holy Writ was delivered to earth etched in a meteor, I think there'd be a point to arguing that it should be taken literally.
But after 2000 years of church politics, selective book choice, translation, and whatnot? It's like being a little pregnant.
Wait until Jeff Lackey gets here. He's a God fearing scientist and he is just gonna kick your butt when he hears this stuff you're saying, Robert. :)Originally Posted by Robert Sharp
Don't hurt him Jeff!
So, what about etched in stone tablets by the actual hand of god? Would you believe it then?
You're technically correct in that the book doesn't say "And by the way, none of this is a metaphor," but I think anyone--particularly you--would understand that the people who wrote it, and the people who read it as it was written, and the people who assembled it into the Bible, all took the position that it was literally true. In fact, IIRC, some bishop caused quite a temptest in like 1850 when he said he thought the Great Flood might not be literally true. The Church's position--certainly the Catholic Church's position--has been that the Bible is literally true, or at least it was when I was growing up. And when I grew up in places like Illinois, Kansas, and Texas, I can tell you that lots of folks there thought it was, or at least was supposed to be, literally true. All the stuff that couldn't possibly happen is just explained as having happened through the power of God--that's the whole point of a miracle, after all. So yeah, someone really gets swallowed by a great fish, Jesus walks on the Sea of Galilee, the sun stops, etc etc etc. Science contradicts Genesis? That's not because Genesis is a metaphor; it's because God made it that way, maybe to test your faith, or maybe just because the Lord does things we don't understand a lot of the time.Originally Posted by TomChick
I'm sure there are lots of folks, particularly on the coasts, who are religious and have faith but think the Bible is really supposed to be more metaphorical, so they can "believe" in the Bible, in a way, while still believing in science and taking rational positions about history. I'm certainly not going to judge something like that, although it's not the way I feel about things. But to take the position that that's the way the Bible was intended is, I think, mistaken (although I guess nobody knows for sure).
God created numerous versions of himself and assigned the other versions to certain groups of people - tailored and based on their needs.
That's why we have people in this world fighting for invisible all-power deities in the sky - because God didn't include error-checking and thus, upon a fatal error, the nearly-identical versions kept going as opposed to having a supernatural Dr. Watson shut their ass down.
What is really funny to contemplate is that I was an avowed atheist for about 16 years and others always seemed to be shocked at me proffering the same viewpoints that are fashionable today. (Of course, my arguments were far better)Originally Posted by bmulligan
Recognize that your trendy secular viewpoint is about 80% media echo, 18% marginal clique gone mainstream and 2% your own intellectual processing, albeit feeble in the extreme. I have little doubt that 16 years ago you would have been the one feigning shock and revulsion when I offered many of your same arguments in a social setting. Truth is, you're a largely plantlike organism that receives ideas from popular culture in much the same way that plants get sunlight and CO2 from their surroundings.
It is my genius that enables me to see that the universe may in fact not be run by Gloria Steinem and Abbie Hoffman as a Bolshevist democratik venture based on a God with cornrows and a crackpipe ... that in fact the supreme being may be a thousand times more complex than you could possibly comprehend.
Humans are animals biologically. They need limits. (like the Ten Commandments) They also need consequences. (Judgement) I don't know about "life lessons" or any of that New Age crap. The cosmos may not be a soft padded dojo where you can slap the mat when it is over and cry for a second chance. God in his generosity extends you infinite forgiveness through Christ ... if you're not even smart enough to seek it out, he may just trash you like discarded rubbish when it is over and unworthy of renewal. That might lead you to seek redress against this perceived "injustice" with the ACLU or another bunch of lawyers, of which there will be no shortage in hell. It just may not do you any good.
The universe might not be the secular indulgent consumer playpen you imagine it to be at all. It might be a very harsh place, a kind of obstacle course where you don't just fall off the monkeybars, you fall off the monkeybars onto spikes and get impaled for all eternity. Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, fear leads you to seek an escape from his obligations under the commandments, you escape these through Christ's death and resurrection.
You probably don't see how the era and culture in which you live color everything you think about yourself and the world around you. Shirley MacClaine won't be able to help you in the lake of fire. Nothing will.
This guy, for example, actually has reserved seating in hell. They've got a nametag for him sitting on a chair with 3 inch nails sticking out of it.Originally Posted by Met_K
I hope this doesn't sound like I'm splitting hairs, because I think this is really important. But 'literally true' means different things to different people in different contexts. The creation myth in Genesis -- which had been assembled from various myths predating it -- was an effort to explain the origin of the universe from a very specific cultural context. It is not a scientific explanation and was never intended as such, because when it was fashioned, there was no such thing as a scientific explanation. Is it therefore untrue? By a scientiest's standards, sure. But that's a pretty poor gauge for religion.You're technically correct in that the book doesn't say "And by the way, none of this is a metaphor," but I think anyone--particularly you--would understand that the people who wrote it, and the people who read it as it was written, and the people who assembled it into the Bible, all took the position that it was literally true.
I come back to my sunset analogy. A poet and a meteorologist would have a very different explanation of a sunset. But neither of them is wrong.
Take the Book of Revelations, for instance, which is one big huge dream sequence. Is it 'literally true'? Are angels going to literally empty bowls of blood over the earth? If not, is the Book of Revelations then 'false'? Of course not. It's a prophesy (which is not, mind you, a prediction -- it is instead a warning of something that can be averted). It's a dream. It was clearly written as a metaphor and anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't understand it.
Same with the Song of Solomon, which is an erotic psalm, and some of the prophets, which are sort of legendary tales or morality stories. The Book of Job is a complex, messy, sometimes contradictory short story. Ecclesiastes is weird existential meditation that defies a lot of Christian theology. They're poetry, literature, spiritual struggles that don't hinge in the least on whether a whale can ingest a man.
I think that many religious people are comfortable with these kind of nuances in a way that non-religious people like us don't understand. The Bible is a phenonemal work and if you try to evaluate it like you would a scientific journal, you're missing the point. That goes for Fundamentalists and atheists.
By saying "non-religious people like us" are you saying that your work in theology was just a dilletante effort or have you jumped ship?
I'm speaking from the atheist camp here (and Cleve, right beside my seat in Hell is one marked 'Cleve'. My punishment for not believing will be to sit next to you for eternity whilst you work on Grimoire, play with your Hermy puppet and flex your biceps.) so I must admit that still I don't get how scientists can be Christians.
By acknowledging that there is a supreme power aren't you totally wrecking the frame of reference by which the universe and scientific method runs?
Saying that the bible is a metaphorical romp seems disingenuous. That line of reasoning works for the poet but not for the meteorologist in your example. The poet can adapt and distort what the meteorologist says to make a comfortable fit with what he believes is proper. The same can't be said for the meteorologist.
Likewise it is easy enough for people to mould the bible to accomodate scientific discoveries but it isn't easy for science to distort itself to accept religion. Or so I think. I'm still waiting for a Christian scientist to set me straight on this. I know I'm wading into deep water by voicing an opinion here so I think I better shut up now.
I like the position that the Swedish Arch-Bishop has on Christianity: the important part is faith in the message of Jesus. The resurrection, Genesis, Revelations and all that other stuff might be real, might not be, it's not really that important.
Also, I read Genesis as meaning that while Adam and Eve were created as the first of what would become the Jewish line with Abram, they were not the first, only humans.
And if you count the creation of the world as the first time humans became aware of actually being in the world, then that date for creation isn't quite as far off.
Oh, and I find religion deplorable, stop believing, you feeble-minded sheep.