Not to answer for the OP or anything BUUUUUT…
Would you please explain this? Is it a whoosh? It’s possible to have faith and disagree with your pastor’s interpretation.
This strikes me forcefully as a comment by someone who broadly considers all sorts of religion to be equal with Heaven’s Gate cultists. “Well, they have faith for absolutely no reason anyway, and are mindless sheep with the reasoning power of lettuce, so it must be that they have for some reason slavishly sworn allegience to whatever comes out of the local wackjob pastor’s mouth. Therefore, to argue with the pastor is hypocritical.”
As much as I like this board, and I’ll point out that I’m a '99er, sometimes the “I am so much better/smarter/cooler than you” attitude does wear thin.
No, he would agree with his pastor’s sermons if he was unable to think critically.
Cardinal
Could you explain “99er”? I’ve never heard that term.
Thanks
Testy
I can’t find the way right now to show it, but I registered at this board almost as soon as humanly possible. You’ll just have to believe me, but I bought my first SD book in line for textbooks at Ventura (CA) College in 1987. Of course, that would be the first (black) book. I re-read that about 4 times.
Oh. I see. Just click on my name in this thread and you’ll see my join date.
Actually, your join date is listed on every post you make, right above your post count.
So, you have no problem with the virgin birth thing, people rising from the dead, humans who are related to god, and the whole heaven and hell scenario, but when someone is stating that the earth is only 6000 years this old troubles you?
I don’t think we need worry about critical thinking skills here. No sirree, not an issue.
Greenback, I’d like to see you hang on in there and debate this pastor of yours, specifically on the subject of the age of the Earth. Tell him all the evolution stuff can wait until later, and that this 6000 year business is what you really have to sort out with him first. It really isn’t too difficult to get Young Earthers to adopt pretty absurd positions quite quickly, and if you must leave, then you can truthfully say that it was because you honestly don’t believe that the ancient Egyptians hunted dinosaurs (or whatever other nonsense you get the pastor to put his name to.)
Astronomy tells us that the universe is billions of years old. The speed of light is constant, and some galaxies are so far away that their light takes billions of years to reach your telescope. If the universe is only thousands of years old, God is deliberately misleading us by creating light shows of star explosions in these distant galaxies which never happened. If God lies to us with light, how can we trust what he supposedly says in the bible?
Geology tells us that the Earth is billions of years old. Look at how slowly stalagmites form, or how slowly trees turn to stone, or how slowly South America drifts away from Africa (whose coast it clearly fits exactly), or how each layer of sedimentary rock forms from a different flood once every few decades or even millennia. And large meteors lay down ‘timekeeping layers’ - thin lines of iridium in sedimentary rocks all around the world. Even a cataclysmic flood which mixed up the Earth’s rocks could neither cause these nor leave them intact.
And, no matter what else you question, the fact of the fossil record is that it has a clear order. Simple organisms like trilobites lie near the bottom but nowhere else. Dinosaurs lie in the middle but nowhere else. Modern mammals, birds, and almost everything around today are found only in the very top layers but nowhere else. Again, even a rock-churning flood wouldn’t leave every single trilobite below every single dinosaur, themselves below every single modern mammal, even in fossil layers at the top of mountains like the Burgess Shale in Canada.
And this is just the very simplest subject matter - one could go into all kinds of radiometric or anthropological data. But if you can convince him that the world is old, and therefore that new species appeared continually over those millions of years, you can agree to disagree over whether it was God or natural variation and selection which caused those new species to appear. That would be a very laudable success on your part, and with patience and diplomacy, it’s feasible.
While the other beliefs you mentioned are improbable, implausible, unlikely, and certainly incredible to those who do not share those beliefs, they are not contradicted by evidence.
It does not appear that it is Greenback’s critical thinking skills that are suspect.
Actually, I can think of evidence that points to more than a few dead persons coming back to life. Both with and without modern medicine.
There are lots of things that are improbable, implausible and unlikely that are not contradictated by evidence. Does that mean that you should believe in them, too?
Without modern medicine, if a person came back from the dead, were they actually dead? Or, was the technology of the time not advanced enough to determine what state the person actually was in? And if it is such a common occurance then what makes Jesus special?
Well, if you were buried, after a funeral, most people would assume you were dead.
There were enough horror stories about people being found to have been buried alive, however, that there was a technological solution to the problem: A whistle or alarm that could be triggered from inside the casket.
Hell’s bells, there are still mortuary types who talk about one of the benefits of embalming as being a way to ensure that no one is buried alive.
I make no assertion as to what people should believe. I only note that to believe the improbable for which evidence is silent while failing to believe in that which is contradicted by evidence does not reflect a failure of critical thinking skills.
Just don’t anyone up on that old hill. You know, the old indian burial grounds.
Nope. Don’t do it.
You did it anyways, didn’t you? Well, don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Since it was asked, I suspect a great deal of the reason people want to believe in Creationism is because, at heart, it makes considerably more sense than the alternative.
I am not saying it’s correct. I do not believe it is correct. So don’t think I am.
However, the modern world has become so complicated it’s beyond the comprehension of any one man. Up until, say, the 17th entury or so, you could quite easily know how to do everything. You might not be very good at it, but it’s not hard to fuigure out the basics of blacksmithing, tanning, farming, fighting, and politics.
Nowadays? Forget it. I fancy myself to be pretty smart. I understand a little bit about electronics and a lot about computers, but I couldn’t tell you step for step how even one component of my computer works. I have no idea how global commerce works, despite my efforts to study it, because it’s too big and too complicated. At best, I can give you an extremely basic prehistory of the planet, which stretches over billions of years. The world is simply too large for people today.
damn silly joke is absolutely WORTHLESS without that one word.
::sigh::
You so?
Greenback, might you drive a black car?
That seems backward to me in this case. Granted, many churches preach personal introspection and critical thinking of the sermons, but this one sounds like pulpit dogma.
The pastor is supposed to be the learned authority for the interpretation being preached, right? So, if one had questions of interpretation, and the pastor’s response is dogmatic, then being presented by the authority that dogma is therefore correct.
If you disagree with or refuse to follow the interpretations of the church’s authority, then is that not effectively a denial or failure of faith?
This is like saying “Well, all that preaching about kindness and forgiveness is fine, but I’m a-goin’ on a bank robbing and murdering spree! Woohoo! I can still get into heaven if I keep coming to sermons, right?”