6 Literal Days

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why would it be a big deal in your opinion?
Everything would be here as is either way, and you could still would not really know the
difference.

The big deal is that 6-Day creationists discredit anything further they may say about Christianity, because it is so blatantly, utterly absurd.

But the most important problem with it is that when a child that has been taught this, and that it is crucial to their faith, one day inevitably discovers that it is totally BS, then he will abandon Christianity altogether, since it has been so linked.

In other words, YECism discredits Christianity more than any of the other, let's call them "contestable" beliefs.

People like RJH are in any case unteachable, because of their totally and utterly closed minds. But most people will sooner or later discover the ridiculousness of this totally unnecessar belief.

Originally posted by CalJust
The big deal is that 6-Day creationists discredit anything further they may say about Christianity, because it is so blatantly, utterly absurd.

But the most important problem with it is that when a child that has been taught this, and that it is crucial to their faith, one day inevitably discovers that it is totally BS, then he will abandon Christianity a ...[text shortened]... most people will sooner or later discover the ridiculousness of this totally unnecessar belief.

So if God can create the whole universe in 6 days, that would be absurd in your opinion
therefore God cannot? That is your reasoning? I guess God needs to run things by you
before He does anything? Just checking, I guess that part about Jesus going to prepare
a place for us is that is so far above us nothing like it has entered into the heart of man
must be a out and out lie to you?

Originally posted by CalJust
The big deal is that 6-Day creationists discredit anything further they may say about Christianity, because it is so blatantly, utterly absurd.

But the most important problem with it is that when a child that has been taught this, and that it is crucial to their faith, one day inevitably discovers that it is totally BS, then he will abandon Christianity a ...[text shortened]... most people will sooner or later discover the ridiculousness of this totally unnecessar belief.

At 71 years of age, I am not a child and I am obviously more knowledgeable of the absurdities of evolution and billions of year than you. If you had been raised Christian you would have learned to have more respect for those old enough to be your parent. 😏

Originally posted by CalJust
The big deal is that 6-Day creationists discredit anything further they may say about Christianity, because it is so blatantly, utterly absurd.

But the most important problem with it is that when a child that has been taught this, and that it is crucial to their faith, one day inevitably discovers that it is totally BS, then he will abandon Christianity a ...[text shortened]... most people will sooner or later discover the ridiculousness of this totally unnecessar belief.

You must have a little god you believe in I suppose.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So if God can create the whole universe in 6 days, that would be absurd in your opinion
therefore God cannot? That is your reasoning? I guess God needs to run things by you
before He does anything? Just checking, I guess that part about Jesus going to prepare
a place for us is that is so far above us nothing like it has entered into the heart of man
must be a out and out lie to you?

You see, this is exactly what I am talking about - you also link the 6-Day Theory to other significant parts of the Bible. That is the fallacy of which KH in the video is guilty.

Of course, God COULD have made the earth flat - but we know now he didn't.

He COULD have made the stork bring babies, but at least some of us know that the facts are different.

He COULD have made gravity work upwards, but Isaac Newton discovered that he didn't!

He COULD have designed the universe in 6 days, but massive evidence shows that he didn't.

Any further questions?

Originally posted by RJHinds
At 71 years of age, I am not a child and I am obviously more knowledgeable of the absurdities of evolution and billions of year than you. If you had been raised Christian you would have learned to have more respect for those old enough to be your parent. 😏

Ahem, smug face, you at least are living proof that, sadly, in many cases what comes with age is not wisdom, but rigidity.

For the record, I am older than you...

Your claim to be old enough to be my parent is as false as your YEC claims, and based on the same foundation - ignorance of the facts!

Which, incidentally are readily available; all you should have done was ask.

Edit: And another thing: I WAS raised a Christian, and have said so on this very Forum several times. Another example of you making very smug claims that are verifiably totally wrong. Go join your fellow cheat, Hovind.

Originally posted by CalJust
Ahem, smug face, you at least are living proof that, sadly, in many cases what comes with age is not wisdom, but rigidity.

For the record, I am older than you...

Your claim to be old enough to be my parent is as false as your YEC claims, and based on the same foundation - ignorance of the facts!

Which, incidentally are readily available; all you sh ...[text shortened]... ou making very smug claims that are verifiably totally wrong. Go join your fellow cheat, Hovind.

You seem very immature for an old man. Perhaps you are getting senile like sonhouse. I have heard it said you can not teach an old dog new tricks and you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drank.

Do you remember when you became an atheist? 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
What gives you the authority to tell someone what they can or cannot post? What about all the nonsense you post?

Can you tell the difference between a request and an order?

If you can you should be able to see that I didn't in fact tell KJ what he can or cannot post.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you want to give a lesson on secular humanism feel free.
If there is a (should behave) that is binding to all of us all the time, it cannot come from
us, we change our views on a dime as it suits us, what looks good yesterday does not
today, and odds are what is good today will sour on some tomorrow, we are fickle like
that. A (should have) that is b ...[text shortened]... s in our nature, if we all feel there is some notion of
right and wrong we are all subject too.

If you are discussing right and wrong then you are discussing morality.

Whether you use the word morality or not is irrelevant.

This IS a discussion about morality, and you are incorrectly stating that you cannot have
morality without god. This is, and has been, multiply demonstrated not to be true.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Can you tell the difference between a request and an order?

If you can you should be able to see that I didn't in fact tell KJ what he can or cannot post.

Okay, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. However, how do you know he was posting nonsense?

Originally posted by RJHinds
You seem very immature for an old man.

You obviously think that YOU are mature for an old man!

One of the signs of rigidity and unteachableness (talking about old dogs) is never admitting that you were wrong, even though you were caught "red-fingered" with two blatant, and obvious, errors in one post.

Shame on you!

A reasonble man would have responded: "OK, sorry, you caught me with my pants down. I guess I should have checked how old you are before jumping to conclusions and making stupid assumptions!"

I am labouring this point because it is symptomatic of your behaviour: No matter what, never, never, NEVER admit that you were wrong!

Originally posted by CalJust
You see, this is exactly what I am talking about - you also link the 6-Day Theory to other significant parts of the Bible. That is the fallacy of which KH in the video is guilty.

Of course, God COULD have made the earth flat - but we know now he didn't.

He COULD have made the stork bring babies, but at least some of us know that the facts are different ...[text shortened]... ned the universe in 6 days, but massive evidence shows that he didn't.

Any further questions?

It is a matter of faith for me, you are the one looking for proof beyond doubt which you do
not have even now, unless you want to tell me it is impossible for man to be wrong about
all of this! I could buy into what those who claim to know say is true, it would be easier to
agree with those that disbelieve scripture, than just accept God could do it just like it was
written He did.

You want to equate scripture to storks bringing babies, and your others cheap shots, far
be it from me to take your views on scripture seriously again, believe what you will and
put your faith in what you trust the most.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If you are discussing right and wrong then you are discussing morality.

Whether you use the word morality or not is irrelevant.

This IS a discussion about morality, and you are incorrectly stating that you cannot have
morality without god. This is, and has been, multiply demonstrated not to be true.

I'm discussing sin and why it is real.

Originally posted by CalJust
Ahem, smug face, you at least are living proof that, sadly, in many cases what comes with age is not wisdom, but rigidity..

lol Wish i had said that.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you want to give a lesson on secular humanism feel free.
If there is a (should behave) that is binding to all of us all the time, it cannot come from
us, we change our views on a dime as it suits us, what looks good yesterday does not
today, and odds are what is good today will sour on some tomorrow, we are fickle like
that. A (should have) that is b ...[text shortened]... s in our nature, if we all feel there is some notion of
right and wrong we are all subject too.

You are the one who proclaimed that "sin can only be real if there is a standard by which we fall short."

Whatever sin refers to, whatever the relevant standard is or may be, it cannot be morality. I gave the example of Mother Theresa to illustrate the drastic misconception that religious virtue can be confused with morality. It was only an illustration. I also referenced the Book of Job, in which it is made very clear that God's will is arbitrary and not accountable to any objective standard. Actually, I think you are wrong when you appeal to a standard by which we fall short in this religious context. God's will is not a standard we can legislate for, especially when there is significant dispute as to what God's will may happen to be on so many topics. Total uncomplaining compliance is not really a standard either: impractical I would suggest.

Someone who agrees is Bishop Richard Holloway in his book Godless Morality: Keeping Religion Out of Ethics. Whether there ever can be a single moral code binding on all of us at all times is a moot point. There is good reason to seek grounds for agreement among people of any faith and none in the search for a decent society. By definition, religion can only meet this requirement (even in principle) in a theocracy or a society with only one faith group. There are very few such societies remaining on our crowded planet. Neither you nor I do live in one. Fortunately, there is good reason to hope that a morality based on a version of the Golden Rule might meet this need.

Whether such a moral code - in your terms - "would have to come from a source we are both responsible to" depends on your confidence that democracy can work (as I believe) or your preference (which is peeping out here) for authoritarian government if not theocracy. My attitude is that an imposed moral code has poor prospects. Without consent there will always be conflict and that in turn implies we need consultation and consensus across the whole of our complex societies. We can do that - we are clever enough and live in the world's wealthiest societies. All we lack is an atmosphere of calm and respectful debate.

It is an error to insist that secular must equate to atheistic. It simply refers to matters on which we can make progress without falling into sectarian warfare. Most faiths would probably concede that God does not mind if we drive on the left or the right as long as we agree on one or the other and stick to it.