Take back the rainbow!! or Moxie hurt herself rolling her eyes

[MommyLiberty5013]

I do believe it's problematic. Many people have debated OEC vs YEC and will continue to do so. I have no desire to join that debate. What bothers me is that the debate itself has become a fundamental part of Christianity, and sometimes homeschooling in many circles , with the labeling of YEC folks as being ignorant and the OEC folks being unbelievers.

Perfectly summed up here. This is how I feel on OEC and YEC. We do a disservice to our brothers and sisters to view either one in either light. I fundamentally believe that we can make cases for things in many ways...Creation, Communion, Baptism, etc.. I'm not going into any of these.

 

The fact is, the Lord gave us all we need for belief and faith, to know how best to live here, and the Way to heaven. If believing one way or another were a salvational issue and believing wrongly prevented eternal life with Christ, God would NOT leave that up to debates with Ken Ham or any other YE or OE man or woman.

 

We need to stop complicating and muddying the salvation story. There is one Way and whether you're YE, OE, or not sure (like me) has no baring.

Edited July 22, 2017 by MommyLiberty5013

[Ananda]

False equivocation here. We are not talking about all beliefs, but a specific one. And a reaction to a specific one.

 

I'm not circling this drain, been there and done that for a decade plus on the internet and it's never worth the time. Ever.

 

Just curious, why?  Clearly this is important to you.  Why wouldn't you want learn about the topic?  Science is such a fascinating area, and useful too.  Why would learning about it ever be a waste of time?  I don't honestly don't understand.

 

And as far as religion is concerned, I am sure there are many Christian posters who could explain to you how they reconcile their faith and science.  Personally, I would be interested in your perspective.  The dismissive reaction you keep having toward both the science & the faith sides of the discussion perplexes me.  

 

As a lurker I always hesitate to post because I feel my contributions aren't valuable. I want to encourage you that your contributions to the discussion are valuable.  Obviously, you take a minority position, but I would think that would make your words more valuable, not less.  I am sorry you are feeling discouraged and silenced.   :grouphug:

[Tanaqui]

False equivocation here. We are not talking about all beliefs, but a specific one. And a reaction to a specific one.

 

I'm not circling this drain, been there and done that for a decade plus on the internet and it's never worth the time. Ever.

 

Wait, wait, wait. Who put you in charge of saying which specific beliefs it's okay to judge? Either we can't judge religious beliefs or we can - and if we can, we certainly can use criteria like "does this comport with an honest examination of the evidence?" and "would a just, loving, and/or merciful deity really condemn people to an eternity of suffering over this?"

[Tanaqui]

(And if anybody is about to reply that a literal interpretation of Genesis including both a six-day creation and a worldwide flood IS an honest examination of the evidence, I have one question: Have you tested out this hypothesis on a wave pool? Seriously, put down a few different layers of dirt and rocks, and a whole bunch of bones of different species and some piles of poop (for the coproliths) and leave a few footprints. Then turn on the water and flood the thing. You tell me - do you honestly expect the bones to be neatly sorted? The dirt and gravel and sand to form distinct layers? The poop and footprints to survive? Because I certainly don't expect those results!)

Edited July 22, 2017 by Tanaqui

[Lawana]

You may circle the drain however you like. Ultimately, it comes down to a religious belief is a religious belief. A perfectly parsed theology is still a theology. Which by definition is not scrutible.

 

Believe what you will. But do not expect others to respect your belief because it is a belief. Respect for a human being for being a human being is one thing. Demanding respect for a belief that is unsupported is an entirely different thing.

[Guest]

Wait, wait, wait. Who put you in charge of saying which specific beliefs it's okay to judge? Either we can't judge religious beliefs or we can - and if we can, we certainly can use criteria like "does this comport with an honest examination of the evidence?" and "would a just, loving, and/or merciful deity really condemn people to an eternity of suffering over this?"

That's not what I was saying. I'm not going to be drawn into defending all of something or none of something else when the discussion, and my comment, referred to something specific. Nopers.

 

Have fun y'all! (And I mean that with no snark, I'm just really behind on packing now thanks to this and my other thread and I depart in just a few days!)

Edited July 22, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[Chelli]

The most compelling evidence I've heard in the entire OEC and YEC debate actually came from my middle child about two years ago. We were talking about the Flood and dinosaur bones because at that time I was solidly YEC. She looked at me and said, "Where are the fossils of all the other animals killed in the flood? Like horses, chickens, lions, or even humans?" I had nothing. I'd honestly never thought about it.

 

The YEC community focuses so much on the dinosaurs that I'd never thought to ask about everything else that would have been killed that day (the flood). At this point I'm not YEC anymore because I never could find a good answer to my daughter's question from any YEC source. I'm not sure I'm OEC either. I'm in the camp of, no idea but I believe in God and that he created it all somehow and in some way.

[Lady Florida.]

Damn, hurt myself again!!

 

I think anyone who has tried to buy a Christian science homeschool curriculum will agree with me that you aren't too oppressed.

 

Moxie will you please get your eyes out of the back of your head. If you keep that up they might stay there and never come back. Plus it must be really painful.  :lol:

[Lady Florida.]

Ken's actual Facebook post about it says "The rainbow is a reminder God will never again judge the wickedness of man with a global Flood—next time the world will be judged by fire." He's taking back the rainbow to remind us we're going to burn. It's so touching.

 

And so loving.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I agree, that was my mistake. I was completely unaware of the history being referenced and thought it was a more general opinion of him than a specific incident I hadn't heard of.

 

I meant respectful of beliefs, by the way. It's safe to say you are in no way respectful, religiously or intellectually, of Christians beliefs that align with a six day, as written creation. You have said as much many times. Megan and others should be forewarned that's not going to change short of miraculous intervention from on high ;)

 

I am respectful of religious beliefs.

 

I admittedly do look down upon religious beliefs masquerading as science.

[Lady Florida.]

How can it be a Christian symbol when there weren't any Christians when it first appeared?

 

Shame on you for asking a rational question.

 

On a personally note, when our child came to us and told us he was a boy, we were completely shocked. There were no clues. He told us that was because he was trying so hard to be a girl and didn’t want to acknowledge that he was a boy. Since, transitioning he is happier, less anxious, and much more self confident. There is no question is our minds that this not something we (or he) has the power to change. We believe that God lovely created him this way, and we should, therefore, love and accept him.

 

So, when you post about Christians taking back the rainbow…I hear you taking it away from my son.

 

:grouphug:

 

 

 

But understand that the combination of reason, rationality and empiricism has led to the ultimate achievements of human endeavor.

Or, as Tim Minchin put it, "Throughout history every mystery ever solved has turned out to be...not magic".

 

 

 

And just because they are religious beliefs does not grant them some automatic respect card.

 

 

 

Believe what you will. But do not expect others to respect your belief because it is a belief. Respect for a human being for being a human being is one thing. Demanding respect for a belief that is unsupported is an entirely different thing.

Yes, religious beliefs should not get a pass. All other types of belief are held up to the light, questioned, and scrutinized yet somehow we're not supposed to do that when it comes to religious beliefs. Religious ideas and beliefs don't automatically deserve respect. or protection from criticism. Also, by "respect" many people really mean "silence". Be silent. Don't question my belief. 

[MommyLiberty5013]

The most compelling evidence I've heard in the entire OEC and YEC debate actually came from my middle child about two years ago. We were talking about the Flood and dinosaur bones because at that time I was solidly YEC. She looked at me and said, "Where are the fossils of all the other animals killed in the flood? Like horses, chickens, lions, or even humans?" I had nothing. I'd honestly never thought about it.

 

The YEC community focuses so much on the dinosaurs that I'd never thought to ask about everything else that would have been killed that day (the flood). At this point I'm not YEC anymore because I never could find a good answer to my daughter's question from any YEC source. I'm not sure I'm OEC either. I'm in the camp of, no idea but I believe in God and that he created it all somehow and in some way.

I think she asked a brilliant question.

 

I am firmly in the I do not know camp. I do trust the word of God as it is written. But, based on all the science we currently have, it seems tough to be a YE. Maybe the answer is just "yes." The Bible also says, "Lean not on your own understanding."

 

Anyway, it is not something to get hung up on, lose sleep over, or fight about, IMHO. If it were essential we had an answer to this for our salvation, God would tell us.

 

I further theorize, that God is the great scientist and enjoys our discovery of His creation. I do consider that little by little He reveals more of the natural world to us - and it blows our minds and inspires awe. That is all good. Perhaps the YE or OE will become clearer in the future, or maybe not.

 

As an aside, I do not think anybody is stupid or unintelligent for believing in YEC and I do not think anybody is not a Christian for believing in OEC.

 

I have read about how many people mathematicians theorize were alive at the time of the Flood, given the number of generations from Adam to Noah, as well as life span and somehow figuring out reasonable death and birth rates. I have read numbers like 5-17 billion people. I have no idea of this article's validity, but it is interesting reading even so with other texts cited at the bottom. http://ldolphin.org/pickett.html In addition, it makes me ponder...IF 5-17 billion people (more likely around 10 billion according to this article) lived at the time of the Flood and we know that the next time the world is destroyed is by fire, and we are approaching 8 billion now, with many birth pains, wars and rumors of wars, should we be focusing our attention elsewhere - like, not on the past so much but on what is to come?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

I have read about how many people mathematicians theorize were alive at the time of the Flood, given the number of generations from Adam to Noah, as well as life span and somehow figuring out reasonable death and birth rates. I have read numbers like 5-17 billion people. I have no idea of this article's validity, but it is interesting reading even so with other texts cited at the bottom. http://ldolphin.org/pickett.html In addition, it makes me ponder...IF 5-17 billion people (more likely around 10 billion according to this article) lived at the time of the Flood and we know that the next time the world is destroyed is by fire, and we are approaching 8 billion now, with many birth pains, wars and rumors of wars, should we be focusing our attention elsewhere - like, not on the past so much but on what is to come?

 

Your link didn't work but I have never seen any credible estimates of a populations of 5-17 billion at that time.  There is some serious shoddy work at play in those numbers.

[Tanaqui]

I have read about how many people mathematicians theorize were alive at the time of the Flood, given the number of generations from Adam to Noah, as well as life span and somehow figuring out reasonable death and birth rates. I have read numbers like 5-17 billion people. I have no idea of this article's validity, but it is interesting reading even so with other texts cited at the bottom. http://ldolphin.org/pickett.html In addition, it makes me ponder...IF 5-17 billion people (more likely around 10 billion according to this article) lived at the time of the Flood and we know that the next time the world is destroyed is by fire, and we are approaching 8 billion now, with many birth pains, wars and rumors of wars, should we be focusing our attention elsewhere - like, not on the past so much but on what is to come?

 

1. Your link didn't work. Try this one.

 

2. There have been wars and rumors of wars for the past 4,000 + years. Also earthquakes, celestial phenomenon, etc.

 

3. We know the worldwide population 1656 years ago (around 375 CE) was about 300m. I assume that your link places the population in Year Dot at 2 - Adam and Eve. (I admit, I didn't have the wherewithal to read the whole darn thing.) If it took 1656 years to go from 300 million to 7ish billion, I hardly see how it can take the same amount of time to go from 2 to 15 billion. This just doesn't make sense, especially not before modern medicine. Sure, sure, their belief is that everybody lived a really long time back then - but not if they died in childbirth! Which they definitely did! That is a thing that humans do without modern medicine, we die in childbirth and we die of horrific accidents and we die of preventable illness. (And then if we live long enough, we sooner or later will die of cancer.)

 

3a. This is probably just as well. The flood genocide is awful enough to contemplate if you use realistic numbers.

 

4. However, I agree, we should certainly focus our attention on present-day problems. We don't need vengeful deities to wipe us out, not when we've got climate change biting us in the butt.

Edited July 22, 2017 by Tanaqui

[ChocolateReignRemix]

1. Your link didn't work. Try this one.

 

2. There have been wars and rumors of wars for the past 4,000 + years. Also earthquakes, celestial phenomenon, etc.

 

3. We know the worldwide population 1656 years ago (around 375 CE) was about 300m. I assume that your link places the population in Year Dot at 2 - Adam and Eve. (I admit, I didn't have the wherewithal to read the whole darn thing.) If it took 1656 years to go from 300 million to 7ish billion, I hardly see how it can take the same amount of time to go from 2 to 15 billion. This just doesn't make sense, especially not before modern medicine. Sure, sure, everybody lived a really long time back then - but not if they died in childbirth! Which they definitely did! That is a thing that humans do without modern medicine, we die in childbirth and we die of horrific accidents and we die of preventable illness. (And then if we live long enough, we sooner or later will die of cancer.)

 

3a. This is probably just as well. The flood genocide is awful enough to contemplate if you use realistic numbers.

 

4. However, I agree, we should certainly focus our attention on present-day problems. We don't need vengeful deities to wipe us out, not when we've got climate change biting us in the butt.

 

+1

 

The lack of modern medicine along with the inability to sustain that size of a population with the agricultural practices of the time.

 

It would also seem that if 2-15 billion people were wiped put at one time we would find more evidence (cities and bones) of this cataclysmic event/

 

[Tanaqui]

Yes, definitely. 2,000,000,000 don't die without leaving a trace. Humanity hit the 2 billion mark in 1927. Think of all the infrastructure we had - miles and miles of farmland, cities, roads connecting the farms to cities and the cities to one another.... I mean, really, even if they were super duper rural and only had dirt roads and NO cities, they would've left enough remains to accurately estimate their population from archaeology - not theology.

[Twolittleboys]

Honestly? 5 billion? I have never heard anything like that (but then I have never heard a person in real life believing YE or anything like that). Where would they have lived? And where are all their buildings, streets, etc?

[Twolittleboys]

And as far as respecting religious beliefs is concerned: I do not think we need to agree with/accept all of them but as long as they are just beliefs we can not really disprove them. We may violently disagree with something but this doesn't mean it is necessarily untrue. If someone believes victims have to marry their rapist or that all medical intervention is evil or that you can only go to heaven if you eat pink skittles every day, then I may think this wrong/dangerous/whatever but I can't say with 100% that it is not true. There are no empirical facts to prove one way or the other. And yes, there is a possibility people believing this are right, no matter how horrible the thought.

 

But if your belief states that there are no cats but only dogs dressed up as cats by nefarious owners or that London is in France, I absolutely know that you are wrong because I have petted a cat and I have been to London.

[Guest]

As someone who was, at one time, a YEC and serious evangelical, I want to explain why believing in an old earth (and universe) does become an issue that challenges the faith itself. If one reads Genesis for oneself, one might have questions (i.e., when did the dinosaurs live?), but it is also logical that one would believe the creation account refers to actual days and that this is how everything came to be. Then, one will read about Adam and his decendants - still might have questions, such as "Where did Cain and Seth get their wives?" - but the geneologies described in the Bible make it logical to believe (assuming that you already believe in the Bible) that millions of years are not passing by. Also, if one was raised to believe these accounts are literally accurate (as I was), then it is easier to believe it.

 

The reason this starts to affect belief in the faith system itself is just this: either the Bible is accurate and literally true from front to back, or it is an interesting and unique compilation of literature. If it is an interesting and unique compilation of literature, then there is no longer a reason to believe any of the important tenants of the Christian faith. This crumbling of the cards is precisely how I deconverted from a serious evangelical Christian, to whatever odd assemblage of beliefs I am now. Because if one recognizes that Genesis is a collection of oral stories, quite ancient, but obviously disprovable in the scientific realm, then why should one be certain of the "Plan of Salvation" as outlined in the Bible?

 

I think people like Ken Ham see this as a terrible threat, though actually, such people are probably precipitating a large exodus from the faith because refuting information is so readily available now. I know I had questions even from early childhood, questions about how these things could be. I readily believed in YEC, but I did also wonder, and ocassionally, did actually ask. I remember asking when the dinosaurs lived. (As a child, I was quite fascinated by dinosaurs, as many children are.) I asked how it would be possible to have at least a pair of ALL the animals on earth on the ark, and wouldn't that have been a good opportunity to eliminate mosquitoes? How about viruses or deadly bacteria? Why didn't the Cheetas eat the last two gazelles alive? How about once they disembarked from the ark? Also, why did Musk Oxen make their way from Ararat to exactly the correct climate required, while the camels decided to just stay put? Anyway, even as a child, even very intelligent adults (like my dad) didn't seem to have a very good answer for that. My dad believed (probably still believes) the Gap Theory. But then, later I heard YEC apologists giving scriptural "reasons" why The Gap Theory does not hold. (If you aren't familiar, the Gap Theory suggests that all the inexplicable stuff happened between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.) It left me confused and throwing out Genesis as a literal account does easily lead to the question, "Well, then what makes me belive the Book of Matthew is accurate? Or even the whole premise of the faith?"

 

I think prominent YECs are (rightly) concerned that the Baby is going to go out with the bathwater if they budge an inch on beliefs in Genesis. Ironically, it makes (at least it did in my case) people more likely to leave the faith altogether because, try though they may, the "answers" they claim to have only bring up more questions and that can make the whole belief system collapse.

[Twolittleboys]

As someone who was, at one time, a YEC and serious evangelical, I want to explain why believing in an old earth (and universe) does become an issue that challenges the faith itself. If one reads Genesis for oneself, one might have questions (i.e., when did the dinosaurs live?), but it is also logical that one would believe the creation account refers to actual days and that this is how everything came to be. Then, one will read about Adam and his decendants - still might have questions, such as "Where did Cain and Seth get their wives?" - but the geneologies described in the Bible make it logical to believe (assuming that you already believe in the Bible) that millions of years are not passing by. Also, if one was raised to believe these accounts are literally accurate (as I was), then it is easier to believe it.

 

The reason this starts to affect belief in the faith system itself is just this: either the Bible is accurate and literally true from front to back, or it is an interesting and unique compilation of literature. If it is an interesting and unique compilation of literature, then there is no longer a reason to believe any of the important tenants of the Christian faith. This crumbling of the cards is precisely how I deconverted from a serious evangelical Christian, to whatever odd assemblage of beliefs I am now. Because if one recognizes that Genesis is a collection of oral stories, quite ancient, but obviously disprovable in the scientific realm, then why should one be certain of the "Plan of Salvation" as outlined in the Bible?

This is a very interesting account. Where I grew up basically noone believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible (and if someone did it would be considered a fairly extreme sect, I think).

 

However, a point could be made that the Old Testament and the New Testament are two different things. So the Old Testament would be considered a compilation of creation myths, legends, history (though possibly distorted due to time etc.), parables, laws, and religious truths. The New Testament on the other hand would be seen as a largely factual account (with some leeway due to time passing, perception, cultural slant, translation etc.).

 

Obviously, faith is faith and not knowledge so there is no way to prove anything. But I do feel that while the Old Testament is not consistent in itself (so lots of inconsistencies/questions even without modern scientific evidence) the New Testament is fairly consistent within itself (or at least that is how it seems to me).

[Guest]

This is a very interesting account. Where I grew up basically noone believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible (and if someone did it would be considered a fairly extreme sect, I think).

 

However, a point could be made that the Old Testament and the New Testament are two different things. So the Old Testament would be considered a compilation of creation myths, legends, history (though possibly distorted due to time etc.), parables, laws, and religious truths. The New Testament on the other hand would be seen as a largely factual account (with some leeway due to time passing, perception, cultural slant, translation etc.).

 

Obviously, faith is faith and not knowledge so there is no way to prove anything. But I do feel that while the Old Testament is not consistent in itself (so lots of inconsistencies/questions even without modern scientific evidence) the New Testament is fairly consistent within itself (or at least that is how it seems to me).

Sure, but the whole Bible was cannonized and priciples of the faith evident in the NT require the purpose set forth in the OT in order to make sense. (The way I was taught.) There is no purpose in The Atonement, for example, if it were not for The Fall. There is no precedent for the coming Judgement if there was not already an object lesson in The Flood. Even the incident where Abraham was told to sacrifice his only son is supposedly a foreshadowing of God of God's sacrificing of His Only Son.

 

Understand, I'm not making a case for these beliefs, just describing why I was taught that Biblical inerrancy from front to back was considered essential to the entire faith system. I do still wonder why people believe the basic premise of Christianity if they also ackowledge the OT is a collection of myths.

[MommyLiberty5013]

Regarding the "where did all the people go in the flood" convo...

 

I did put that link (which didn't work anyway) as what I called "interesting reading" and not as fact. I didn't suggest it was true, and even used the hypothetical "if." Anyway, it's good for discussion.

 

But as I said at the end of that post, the future is what matters.

[Twolittleboys]

Sure, but the whole Bible was cannonized and priciples of the faith evident in the NT require the purpose set forth in the OT in order to make sense. (The way I was taught.) There is no purpose in The Atonement, for example, if it were not for The Fall. There is no precedent for the coming Judgement if there was not already an object lesson in The Flood. Even the incident where Abraham was told to sacrifice his only son is supposedly a foreshadowing of God of God's sacrificing of His Only Son.

 

Understand, I'm not making a case for these beliefs, just describing why I was taught that Biblical inerrancy from front to back was considered essential to the entire faith system. I do still wonder why people believe the basic premise of Christianity if they also ackowledge the OT is a collection of myths.

Not arguing or even trying to convince you but just to explain my view (which I think may more or less be shared by a fair number of people) but:

 

Yes, it might be difficult to believe in the premise of Christianity without the OT. But then the OT is still here, we still use it. Just not in a literal sense. So the meaning of Creation would be that God created the world/is in charge of it (no matter how, whether through evolution or not), the meaning of The Fall would be that people sin etc. (this may be not theologically precise - just to give you an idea). So the basic meaning is still there but without adherence to details.

 

And then I guess for me it means that at least the OT is not infallible. I mean there are some pretty unpleasant parts there.

[happi duck]

I <3 rainbows!

 

(I keep typing and deleting. I guess the above is going to be my only contribution to this thread!)

[Crimson Wife]

Are you respectful of all religious beliefs? Do you respect religious beliefs that women who are raped should be forced to marry the rapist? That gays should be stoned to death? That no medical intervention should ever be used so that a baby born at home with breathing problems should be left to die? These are all religious beliefs of some religious people. Not all beliefs should be respected. And just because they are religious beliefs does not grant them some automatic respect card.

 

I'm only talking about the beliefs, not the believers.

 

There is a HUGE difference between a religious belief that can result in physical harm to another human and a religious belief that cannot.

 

I am not a YEC but it's not like believing the universe  was created in the equivalent of 144 modern hours approximately 10,000 years ago actually poses a threat to anyone.

 

[Guest]

Not arguing or even trying to convince you but just to explain my view (which I think may more or less be shared by a fair number of people) but:

 

Yes, it might be difficult to believe in the premise of Christianity without the OT. But then the OT is still here, we still use it. Just not in a literal sense. So the meaning of Creation would be that God created the world/is in charge of it (no matter how, whether through evolution or not), the meaning of The Fall would be that people sin etc. (this may be not theologically precise - just to give you an idea). So the basic meaning is still there but without adherence to details.

 

And then I guess for me it means that at least the OT is not infallible. I mean there are some pretty unpleasant parts there.

Okay and, also not trying to argue back, just saying this is why it matters to many (all?) YECs. If the OT is not literally a true account and is more for an allegorical point, then why view Jesus as Saviour? Why would Jesus even matter if sin nature is just a vague idea that people are crappy sometimes? Why would a person look to the Bible for guidance if any parts of it can just be eye-rolly (and I agree, lots of eyeroll-worthy bits, especially in the OT)? I mean, in that case, you're (general you) just saying, "Yeah, there's some good stuff in that ancient book, there." Then one can just cherry-pick what "the Bible says" in order to support what squares with them anyway. That's how people were able to say that the NT Bible does not reject human slavery, only tells masters to be nice ones and slaves to be good workers.

[PrincessMommy]

I'm a Christian. It's embarrassing sometimes. :glare: This isn't the type of thing I want people to think of when they think of Christianity.

 

 

This... 1000 times.

[Guest]

As someone who was, at one time, a YEC and serious evangelical, I want to explain why believing in an old earth (and universe) does become an issue that challenges the faith itself. If one reads Genesis for oneself, one might have questions (i.e., when did the dinosaurs live?), but it is also logical that one would believe the creation account refers to actual days and that this is how everything came to be. Then, one will read about Adam and his decendants - still might have questions, such as "Where did Cain and Seth get their wives?" - but the geneologies described in the Bible make it logical to believe (assuming that you already believe in the Bible) that millions of years are not passing by. Also, if one was raised to believe these accounts are literally accurate (as I was), then it is easier to believe it.

 

The reason this starts to affect belief in the faith system itself is just this: either the Bible is accurate and literally true from front to back, or it is an interesting and unique compilation of literature. If it is an interesting and unique compilation of literature, then there is no longer a reason to believe any of the important tenants of the Christian faith. This crumbling of the cards is precisely how I deconverted from a serious evangelical Christian, to whatever odd assemblage of beliefs I am now. Because if one recognizes that Genesis is a collection of oral stories, quite ancient, but obviously disprovable in the scientific realm, then why should one be certain of the "Plan of Salvation" as outlined in the Bible?

 

I think people like Ken Ham see this as a terrible threat, though actually, such people are probably precipitating a large exodus from the faith because refuting information is so readily available now. I know I had questions even from early childhood, questions about how these things could be. I readily believed in YEC, but I did also wonder, and ocassionally, did actually ask. I remember asking when the dinosaurs lived. (As a child, I was quite fascinated by dinosaurs, as many children are.) I asked how it would be possible to have at least a pair of ALL the animals on earth on the ark, and wouldn't that have been a good opportunity to eliminate mosquitoes? How about viruses or deadly bacteria? Why didn't the Cheetas eat the last two gazelles alive? How about once they disembarked from the ark? Also, why did Musk Oxen make their way from Ararat to exactly the correct climate required, while the camels decided to just stay put? Anyway, even as a child, even very intelligent adults (like my dad) didn't seem to have a very good answer for that. My dad believed (probably still believes) the Gap Theory. But then, later I heard YEC apologists giving scriptural "reasons" why The Gap Theory does not hold. (If you aren't familiar, the Gap Theory suggests that all the inexplicable stuff happened between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.) It left me confused and throwing out Genesis as a literal account does easily lead to the question, "Well, then what makes me belive the Book of Matthew is accurate? Or even the whole premise of the faith?"

 

I think prominent YECs are (rightly) concerned that the Baby is going to go out with the bathwater if they budge an inch on beliefs in Genesis. Ironically, it makes (at least it did in my case) people more likely to leave the faith altogether because, try though they may, the "answers" they claim to have only bring up more questions and that can make the whole belief system collapse.

This is why everyone should be Catholic 😉!! We do not view the Bible as a History, Biology, Geology, etc. textbook.

[Guest]

Reading Ken Ham's Facebook page, there are a lot of YEC who need to learn how to argue. Quoting the Bible is usually not an answer.

[foxbridgeacademy]

Ken's actual Facebook post about it says "The rainbow is a reminder God will never again judge the wickedness of man with a global Flood—next time the world will be judged by fire." He's taking back the rainbow to remind us we're going to burn. It's so touching.

OMG, LOL  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  Now I have to bookmark this page so I can show DH when he gets up for work.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Reading Ken Ham's Facebook page, there are a lot of YEC who need to learn how to argue. Quoting the Bible is usually not an answer.

 

That is what they learn from Ken.

[Twolittleboys]

Okay and, also not trying to argue back, just saying this is why it matters to many (all?) YECs. If the OT is not literally a true account and is more for an allegorical point, then why view Jesus as Saviour? Why would Jesus even matter if sin nature is just a vague idea that people are crappy sometimes? Why would a person look to the Bible for guidance if any parts of it can just be eye-rolly (and I agree, lots of eyeroll-worthy bits, especially in the OT)? I mean, in that case, you're (general you) just saying, "Yeah, there's some good stuff in that ancient book, there." Then one can just cherry-pick what "the Bible says" in order to support what squares with them anyway. That's how people were able to say that the NT Bible does not reject human slavery, only tells masters to be nice ones and slaves to be good workers.

I guess that is where the division between OT and NT comes in. Yes, you can cherry-pick somewhat in the OT in my opinion (and honestly, I think everyone does as I think most people don't stick to all the old rules, do they?)but not so much in the NT. I mean the NT is open to interpretation and there may be some stuff that can be ignored but mostly it is definitive.

 

Also, full disclosure: I am Catholic so the cherry-picking isn't all up to me but is pretty much informed by the church (though I do stray from church teachings a bit as I think one's own conscience has to be the deciding factor).

[Guest]

I guess that is where the division between OT and NT comes in. Yes, you can cherry-pick somewhat in the OT in my opinion (and honestly, I think everyone does as I think most people don't stick to all the old rules, do they?)but not so much in the NT. I mean the NT is open to interpretation and there may be some stuff that can be ignored but mostly it is definitive.

 

Also, full disclosure: I am Catholic so the cherry-picking isn't all up to me but is pretty much informed by the church (though I do stray from church teachings a bit as I think one's own conscience has to be the deciding factor).

Well, I did consider converting to Catholicism at one point; my only objection was that Catholics have a few kooky ideas of their own. 😉 Well, that plus I didn't want to change mid-stream with my kids.

[Frances]

There is a HUGE difference between a religious belief that can result in physical harm to another human and a religious belief that cannot.

 

I am not a YEC but it's not like believing the universe was created in the equivalent of 144 modern hours approximately 10,000 years ago actually poses a threat to anyone.

 

I purposely chose extreme beliefs to make a point. Others have stated how they think some of the beliefs being discussed here can harm others (e.g. college students questioning and leaving faith, reputation of homeschoolers, etc. ) although not physically. And there are other threads going on right now where people, to some extent, are disagreeing about whether or not a religious belief can harm others.

[TechWife]

And for that matter, I will leave with a quote from Augustine.

 

...

Quite right, Augustine. If you believe in the Bible (or the Koran, or whatever), and your interpretation of the Bible (etc.) doesn't fit a rational and dispassionate observation of the facts - and I assure you, whatever Ken Ham says, a six day creation and a literal worldwide flood simply does not - then you need to re-evaluate how you're reading that book.

Do you have a source for this? I am asking because the sentiment fits with something my dh will be teaching next week. It doesn't really sound like Augustine, though. I'd like to track it down. Thanks.

[Corraleno]

Do you have a source for this? I am asking because the sentiment fits with something my dh will be teaching next week. It doesn't really sound like Augustine, though. I'd like to track it down. Thanks.

 

This page on the Tufts.edu website cites the same text, and gives the source, including page numbers:

 

He devoted some attention to this issue in his massive commentary The Literal Meaning of Genesis (translated and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, S.J.; two volumes; Newman Press, New York, 1982). The long section 39 in chapter 19 of Book 1 was quoted, in part, by Galileo, and is worth reproducing in full (from pages 42 and 43 in volume 1). 

 

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian,  presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking  nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.  The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.  If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason?

 

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.  For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions". 

[The last 14 words here are quoted from Paul's First Letter to Timothy, chapter 1, verse 7.]

ETA: The bolding in the quote, including the note in brackets at the bottom, is part of the text on the Tufts website.

Edited July 22, 2017 by Corraleno

[Saddlemomma]

As a Christian, I am happy to read this article. I think it's wonderful. I've often asked myself why the rainbow was the LGBT flag. And I agree with vonfirmath - we don't have to solve the world's problems before tackling smaller issues.

 

And why would anyone be embarrassed to be a Christian because of Ken ham? He's a very smart guy who supports and promotes a literal, 6-day creation and a young Earth. I like him a lot. We read lots of his books and articles.

 

I'm not going to get mired up in the whole rainbow conversation, and I'm not embarrassed to be a Christian because of Ken Ham, if anything, I'm embarrassed FOR him.  As a Christian, I have serious issues with Ken Ham and his ministry.  IMHO Ken Ham has done the most to damage inter-Christian relations through his rhetoric and he unabashedly continues to do this. His ridiculous stance that only those who believe in a literal, 6-day creation and young Earth are real Christians is divisive and arrogant (as if Ken Ham knew what the ancient Israelite's thinking was, or how God utilized the best language to explain such a complicated concept for the limited knowledge of the ancient Israelite to be able to comprehend or the circumstances in which it was written). Was Ken Ham actually there with God? If Ken Ham wants to be strictly literal with the interpretation of the Bible, then he better realize that the seat of his emotions is his entrails and not his heart; the sky is a hard dome that has windows in it that God opens to let rain through.  What does Ken Hamm do with these literal descriptions?

 

He has driven a HUGE wedge between Christians by dividing them into camps; fracturing the Christian community. His actions are totally against the teachings of Christ as illustrated by Paul.  Christians are to be united as one body; not fighting among themselves over a NON-SALVATION issue.  Contrary to what Ken Ham espouses, the message of the Cross does not disintegrate without a young-Earth paradigm.

 

I honestly don't care how long it took to create the Earth.  That's not the point.  The point is that God did it.  If someone wants to believe it was six days....great, that's their opinion from reading the text.  I just don't happen to agree with that interpretation. However, I would never presume to tell someone they are not a real Christian for not believing in a literal 6-day, young Earth interpretation.  It all goes back to how you interpret the whole of the text--not just Genesis, whether or not you know the ancient Hebrew, Greek, Ugarit (from which many ancient Hebrew words are derived); whether or not you understand the entire cultural & historical context of the time and place in which the Bible was written.  It's not just about blithely translating a Hebrew word, one-for-one, into 21st Century English.

 

Okay....sorry for the rant. I'm not picking on you meganrussell, really.  I'm just a little shocked you were unsure of why some Christians may be embarrassed.  Please carry on with the original discussion...don't mind me.

[Tanaqui]

I have seen that quote many times, attributed to Augustine, most recently from the same link as Corraleno. Before I posted it, I also did try searching for the same quote at Quote Investigator and just google to see if it had multiple attributions - as a rule, I find that if a quote has more than one attribution, it turns out that it was actually first said by some nobody that you've never heard of! I didn't find multiple attributions, however, since I am not an expert on Augustine I cannot myself definitively say that yes, this was him. I don't have an in-print source, only online ones.

[Audrey]

Yup. This is what I was going to say. Don't you cause trouble with our SWB, man.

 

Yes, but it's not really just about disagreeing with Susan.  She's intellectually tough enough to handle disagreement and certainly confident enough that she doesn't need a chorus of sycophants. 

 

What Ham attempted to do, though, was commandeer the homeschooling conference circuit industry by shutting it down to any options that weren't him through bullying, intimidation and out-right lying.  He's a manipulator, a cheat and an egregious example of intellectual vapidity in all regards.  If anyone wants to hang their hat with that ilk, then yes, I do think they are equally as bereft of intelligence and sanity as Ham himself. 

[Audrey]

I also think that when mainstream homeschoolers pander to the not true, to save peoples feelings, it harms the reputation of home education.

 

 

^^  This.  1000-fold.  This.

[elegantlion]

I think Ken Ham represents Christianity as much as the ancient alien dude on the history channel represents historians. 

[MercyA]

Yes, you can cherry-pick somewhat in the OT in my opinion (and honestly, I think everyone does as I think most people don't stick to all the old rules, do they?)but not so much in the NT. I mean the NT is open to interpretation and there may be some stuff that can be ignored but mostly it is definitive.

 

Christians aren't under the law given to Israel. 

 

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Romans 10:4

 

"...Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law..." Galatians 2:16

 

It's not cherry-picking or hypocrisy if I wear mixed-fiber clothing and eat shellfish. I'm not Jewish.  :)

 

(Sorry if I sound like a broken record on this topic.)

[MercyA]

This is why everyone should be Catholic 😉!! We do not view the Bible as a History, Biology, Geology, etc. textbook.

 

Don't think I haven't been tempted.  ;) Alas, there are a couple issues that hold me back, along with my family relationships.

[Guest]

He is petty and vindictive.  His kind has had a great deal to do with creating an environment where "fake news" is a response to reason and evidence.

 

As far as the YEC folks, I can't respect a belief that is treats religion as if it is science, and believes that science operates as an opinion.  I see them being fundamentally the same as flat earthers and the conspiracy theorists.

Wait!! You are saying people ACTUALLY still believe that?!? So the pictures from space are faked???

 

As for the rest. Meh! YEC or OEC--I don't care. it does not affect my faith in Jesus Christ or God. It is sad so many people put so much effort in finding ways for us all to be different than banding together.

[HS Mom in NC]

I think the idea of "taking it back" is odd.  How can you take back what you don't own?  Rainbows are a natural phenomenon and no one owns them categorically as an image-creationists or LGBTQ people and supporters. You can interpret the symbolism according to your own subtext, but you don't get to decide how others interpret it. People will always interpret images within their context of experiences and associations.  In present day America, a rainbow is strongly associated with support of the LGBTQ community, regardless of their views on LGBTQ issues, including the image of the White House with the rainbow on it for that reason during the Obama administration. Others will associate it with the Bible story of the the Great Flood as God's judgement against humanity's sins. Others will respond to it as a colorful display. 

For the sake of disclosure, I'm an Old Earth, Conservative, Evangelical Christian myself who agrees with MercyA that the OT is addressed to literal, physical Israel (Jewish people), and not to Christians.

[Tanaqui]

It's not cherry-picking or hypocrisy if I wear mixed-fiber clothing and eat shellfish. I'm not Jewish.  :)

 

It is if you insist that some rules of Leviticus are supposed to be applicable to everybody, and have some sort of complicatedly opaque method of determining which is which (a method which boils down to "do I want to follow this rule or not", when we get right down to it).

 

This goes double when you care more about the scary gays than you do about things like feeding the poor. I'm sure Jesus said something about that somewhere :P

[FaithManor]

Wait!! You are saying people ACTUALLY still believe that?!? So the pictures from space are faked???

 

As for the rest. Meh! YEC or OEC--I don't care. it does not affect my faith in Jesus Christ or God. It is sad so many people put so much effort in finding ways for us all to be different than banding together.

Oh yes, flat earthers are real.

 

There are five flat earther families in the town 13 miles from here, and they house church due to not wanting the influence of the local evil churches who think that science is real, the earth is a sphere, NASA went to space, Neil Armstrong was on the moon, and the earth orbits the sun.

 

I would imagine whomever dreamed up starting the society of flat earth has laughed all the way to the bank. From what we've been able ascertain, some flat earthers give A LOT of money to the organization.

 

Sigh.......

[HomeAgain]

My husband works with satellite equipment.  One of his coworkers is a flat-earther.

 

I can't even wrap my head around that one. 

[QueenCat]

 

 

What Ham attempted to do, though, was commandeer the homeschooling conference circuit industry by shutting it down to any options that weren't him through bullying, intimidation and out-right lying.  He's a manipulator, a cheat and an egregious example of intellectual vapidity in all regards.  If anyone wants to hang their hat with that ilk, then yes, I do think they are equally as bereft of intelligence and sanity as Ham himself. 

 

Spot On!

[Crimson Wife]

It is if you insist that some rules of Leviticus are supposed to be applicable to everybody, and have some sort of complicatedly opaque method of determining which is which (a method which boils down to "do I want to follow this rule or not", when we get right down to it).

 

If something is condemned in both the OT and the NT, then that prohibition is applicable to Christians. There are some OT prohibitions specifically overturned by the NT but the prohibition on homosexual behavior wasn't one of them.