Phanerothyme   12 #73 Posted March 21, 2012 If we're going to have religious schools teaching creationism, they should be fee paying schools and receive no government money.  If they want our money, my money, they will teach the best of verifiable scientific knowledge. They will not teach lies and myths to my children. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Bridgeblox   10 #74 Posted March 21, 2012 I don't think that this is a Christian/Science argument. More a Creationist/Science argument. I know, and have worked with, plenty of excellent scientists who are also very Christian. The two are far from mutually exclusive.  But even excellent scientist Christians believe God created the world. Doesn't that make them creationists? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
sheffgrow   10 #75 Posted March 21, 2012 If we're going to have religious schools teaching creationism, they should be fee paying schools and receive no government money. If they want our money, my money, they will teach the best of verifiable scientific knowledge. They will not teach lies and myths to my children.  I dont think theres any chance of you having children is there? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Phanerothyme   12 #76 Posted March 21, 2012 Hi Phanerothyme. Thanks for dropping by. I was kind of hoping you would.  Electronics sets worked out well, more fun for me than the boy - so far! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
sheffgrow   10 #77 Posted March 21, 2012 But even excellent scientist Christians believe God created the world. Doesn't that make them creationists?  Dont tell them that, they will only hear what they want to hear, see what they want to see, they are blinkered by their own failings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Phanerothyme   12 #78 Posted March 21, 2012 But even excellent scientist Christians believe God created the world. Doesn't that make them creationists?  Technically yes. You can take the position of God as Prime Mover in the Aristotelian sense and call yourself a creationist.  However, I think what is being discussed here is Creationism that takes the Bible to be the revealed word of God, unchanging and infallible. That collection of manuscripts lays out enough of a timetable for people to build their own upon it, basing their assumptions on the length of a generation (count the "begats" essentially) and other vague notions.  It intersects with the historical record, but it isn't one and the same thing.  Creationism is teaching Bible Science and Bible History. It's not just science that is "under attack", but notions of history and historical record too, by extension.  I think of the bible as literature, and actually it makes more sense to use the tools of literary criticism than science or history upon it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Paddy   10 #79 Posted March 22, 2012 Exactly how do these threads end up in slanging matches? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tony_montana   10 #80 Posted March 22, 2012 Exactly how do these threads end up in slanging matches?  Its the Atheists who start it, They seem very angry individuals!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Phanerothyme   12 #81 Posted March 22, 2012 I don't know about you two, but I'm back on topic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Bridgeblox   10 #82 Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) I'd agree with that one - it is indeed literature, although as a foolish Christian I'd argue that it is the unerring word of God, but note, not all to be taken in a completely literal sense. At this point (the beginning of Genesis) doesn't even flow as historical narrative although it changes in style a few chapters later and becomes this. Given that this assorted collection of books is known as the 'Old Covenant' rather than 'a chronological history of creation', then I'd hazard a guess that it should be read primarily to help understand what that covenant is. Edited March 22, 2012 by Bridgeblox Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Phanerothyme   12 #83 Posted March 22, 2012 I think it's a remarkable book, and most of the Christians I know own several varieties and are pretty knowledgeable on translations and versions.  They have a slightly elastic view on how 'infallible' it is, and there is a certain allowance made for historical context. I think, to be honest, that the Old Testament is mainly seen as a mise-en-scene for the final, all important, act. There's great poetry and literature in there, themes as old and universal as any found in the greatest literature even if they've lost something in translation.  But I challenge anyone to make sense of some of the books, allegorically or otherwise - especially Ezekiel, which is a personal favourite of mine (along with Timothy, Revelations, Psalms, and Deuteronomy [the commandments that didn't make it into the final cut!]). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
MC Spyda   10 #84 Posted March 22, 2012 Excellent thread. Would read again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...