We do all kinds of stupid shit to avoid offending liberal dickheads. Why not give the Christian’s the same consideration?
[quote]DS 007 wrote:
We do all kinds of stupid shit to avoid offending liberal dickheads. Why not give the Christian’s the same consideration?
[/quote]
This is absurd! We might give Christians the false impression that their beliefs are valid–plus you are making an assumption that liberal dickheads cannot be ignorant Christians too.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DS 007 wrote:
We do all kinds of stupid shit to avoid offending liberal dickheads. Why not give the Christian’s the same consideration?
This is absurd! We might give Christians the false impression that their beliefs are valid–plus you are making an assumption that liberal dickheads cannot be ignorant Christians too.
[/quote]
What? Is it absurd to not identify the race of violent, at-large criminals in terms of race (unless they are white, of course) because it’s racist?
I mean I could go on with examples…
And you give Christians the belief that their beliefs are valid? Huh. What would you say if I said that I like humor homosexuals and their belief that they can actually love someone of the same sex?
[quote]DS 007 wrote:
And you give Christians the belief that their beliefs are valid? Huh. What would you say if I said that I like humor homosexuals and their belief that they can actually love someone of the same sex?
[/quote]
I would say “so what?”
My opinion is that this is all very deep!!!
I always have to laugh whenever I watch a criticism of creationism devolve into a perceived attack on Christianity. But why?
Christianity has, over the last two thousand years, managed to have freed itself from most of the cumbersome laws, taboos and customs practiced by Jews in the Old Testament, such as polygamy, slavery, male and female segregation, dietary bans, burnt offerings, and rituals to purify oneself after coming into contact with an “unclean thing” (a menstruating woman, for example, or the skin of a pig).
Isn’t it time to sweep this belief in a 6,000 year-old universe into the same dustbin as the commands to stone adulterers and burn witches at the stake?
In other words, is a staunch belief in a literal interpretation of the Hebrew creation myth absolutely vital to being a Christian? I wouldn’t imagine so, but many seem to believe otherwise.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
In other words, is a staunch belief in a literal interpretation of the Hebrew creation myth absolutely vital to being a Christian? I wouldn’t imagine so, but many seem to believe otherwise. [/quote]
No, it isn’t. And the largest Christian Denomination in the world will tell you that. Young earth creationism is dogma of certain sects of christianity. The US happens to have a rather large representation of those faithful.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I always have to laugh whenever I watch a criticism of creationism devolve into a perceived attack on Christianity. But why?
Christianity has, over the last two thousand years, managed to have freed itself from most of the cumbersome laws, taboos and customs practiced by Jews in the Old Testament, such as polygamy, slavery, male and female segregation, dietary bans, burnt offerings, and rituals to purify oneself after coming into contact with an “unclean thing” (a menstruating woman, for example, or the skin of a pig).
Isn’t it time to sweep this belief in a 6,000 year-old universe into the same dustbin as the commands to stone adulterers and burn witches at the stake?
In other words, is a staunch belief in a literal interpretation of the Hebrew creation myth absolutely vital to being a Christian? I wouldn’t imagine so, but many seem to believe otherwise. [/quote]
It is bizarre. The Catholic Church and many of the mainstream Protestant religions don’t subscribe to literal creationism and the 6000 year old Earth theory. Just a very vocal minority of Christians buy into it.
Unfortunately this vocal minority appears to be growing in size and influence.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I always have to laugh whenever I watch a criticism of creationism devolve into a perceived attack on Christianity. But why?
Christianity has, over the last two thousand years, managed to have freed itself from most of the cumbersome laws, taboos and customs practiced by Jews in the Old Testament, such as polygamy, slavery, male and female segregation, dietary bans, burnt offerings, and rituals to purify oneself after coming into contact with an “unclean thing” (a menstruating woman, for example, or the skin of a pig).
Isn’t it time to sweep this belief in a 6,000 year-old universe into the same dustbin as the commands to stone adulterers and burn witches at the stake?
In other words, is a staunch belief in a literal interpretation of the Hebrew creation myth absolutely vital to being a Christian? I wouldn’t imagine so, but many seem to believe otherwise. [/quote]
Varq, you make a very good point, and I agree with Sloth - many Christians have little trouble reconciling their faith with ordinary scientific evidence of creation.
Some put it this way: it is the height of arrogance to assume that earth’s creation - God’s supreme act of power - could never be understood by humans in such a summary way by way of taking a literalist approach to the creation.
As science reveals the incredible processes at work over the unfathomable time period, we get a better and better picture of God’s work - and we should be humbled by our mortal limitations as science unveils more and more, not prancing around claiming we have all of God’s easy-to-follow blueprints in hand.
But the squeaky wheels get all the grease.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Yes, thank you, Thunder, I know. I saw that article about a decade ago (and yes, I knew it was a joke then, too) and this Grand Canyon thing kind of reminded me of it.
And I agree - this Grand Canyon bit reminds me of it as well. The group with the press release - PEER - is real enough, but something doesn’t smell right.
One question I propose to anyone (not necessarily Varqanir): if the Grand Canyon bookstore offered a book that told of the Indians’ version of the creation of the Grand Canyon - with the Great Spirit crying the Colorado River or the Great Spirit in the Sky digging out the canyon with a Great Stick - and was told beautifully and honestly with respect to Indian cultures’ veneration for that great landmark - would you be bothered by it being offered in a government bookstore?
Would it be sold as a myth or as a version of the truth?
[/quote]
I can tell you that there are more private concessionaire bookstores at the Canyon then government (although they are under government oversight). Which Native idea of the creation of the Canyon would you prefer to be published? What about Natives who are Christian, what are their beliefs? Shouldn’t we be concerned with offending the visitors from abroad who are non-christians? What do Muslims consider the creation story of the Canyon or aboriginal Australians? Its a good joke, especially as I’ve seen first hand the kind of bureacratic/corporate BS that goes on here at the Canyon and other Parks.
not a hoax…,
[quote]Grimnuruk wrote:
not a hoax…,[/quote]
The Grand Canyon is more than a great chasm carved over millennia through the rocks of the Colorado Plateau. It is more than an awe-inspiring view. It is more than a pleasuring ground for those who explore the roads, hike the trails, or float the currents of the turbulent Colorado River.
Archeological Resources
The oldest human artifacts found are nearly 12,000 years old and date to the Paleo-Indian period. There has been continuous use and occupation of the park since that time. Archeological remains from the following culture groups are found in Grand Canyon National Park: Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Basketmaker, Ancestral Puebloan (Kayenta and Virgin branches), Cohonina, Cerbat, Pai, Zuni, Hopi, Navajo, and Euro-American. The park has recorded over 4,800 archeological resources with an intensive survey of nearly 3% of the park area.
Did You Know?
The more recent Kaibab limestone caprock, on the rims of the Grand Canyon, formed 270 million years ago. In contrast, the oldest rocks within the Inner Gorge at the bottom of Grand Canyon date to 1.84 billion years ago. Geologists currently set the age of Earth at 4.5 billion years.
The National Park Service’s website lists info that contradicts the 6000 year old earth theory.
Anyone that claims the park service is not allowed to discuss the age of the canyon is a liar.
EDIT
I just googled news on this issue and this story is being widely reported.
As you can see from this post the NPS is sharing information on the age of rocks in the canyon.
Any article that claims the the NPS is not allowed to discuss the age is lying. All they are doing is allowing a kooky book to be sold.
It seems this guy from PEER is the source of the lie that the NPS is not allowed to discuss the age.
It is unfortunate that our media so readily believes this crap without checking it out. It took me about 5 minutes.
The original story is vague… in the opening paragraphs it says park rangers are being told not to discuss the age of the Grand Canyon, but then the piece never refers to that claim or backs it up. It’s bad journalism, is what it is.
What the NPS website might say is irrelevant. The crux here revolves around visitors to the park, and what the rangers who work at the park are being instructed to say (or not say) to the visitors, when people ask.
I didn’t realize it was the federal government’s job to decide that previously accepted and conventional science wasn’t accurate.
Do conservatives think that is the proper role of the federal government… to actively attempt to refute conventional science?
And as far as the bullshit “Lets tell all sides of a story” attitude… maybe if I write a book saying that UFOs formed the Grand Canyon with laser beams, should the federal government insist that the NPS bookshop carry my book? Maybe the next president will believe in UFOs, and then the park service will be instructed to sell my book too.
We’ve already had a president who believed in psychic power (Ronald Reagan, via Nancy). Maybe the next president will help legitimize my UFO theories. Isn’t that the role of the federal government?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Grimnuruk wrote:
not a hoax…,
The Grand Canyon is more than a great chasm carved over millennia through the rocks of the Colorado Plateau. It is more than an awe-inspiring view. It is more than a pleasuring ground for those who explore the roads, hike the trails, or float the currents of the turbulent Colorado River.
Archeological Resources
The oldest human artifacts found are nearly 12,000 years old and date to the Paleo-Indian period. There has been continuous use and occupation of the park since that time. Archeological remains from the following culture groups are found in Grand Canyon National Park: Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Basketmaker, Ancestral Puebloan (Kayenta and Virgin branches), Cohonina, Cerbat, Pai, Zuni, Hopi, Navajo, and Euro-American. The park has recorded over 4,800 archeological resources with an intensive survey of nearly 3% of the park area.
Did You Know?
The more recent Kaibab limestone caprock, on the rims of the Grand Canyon, formed 270 million years ago. In contrast, the oldest rocks within the Inner Gorge at the bottom of Grand Canyon date to 1.84 billion years ago. Geologists currently set the age of Earth at 4.5 billion years.
The National Park Service’s website lists info that contradicts the 6000 year old earth theory.
Anyone that claims the park service is not allowed to discuss the age of the canyon is a liar.
EDIT
I just googled news on this issue and this story is being widely reported.
As you can see from this post the NPS is sharing information on the age of rocks in the canyon.
Any article that claims the the NPS is not allowed to discuss the age is lying. All they are doing is allowing a kooky book to be sold.
It seems this guy from PEER is the source of the lie that the NPS is not allowed to discuss the age.
It is unfortunate that our media so readily believes this crap without checking it out. It took me about 5 minutes.[/quote]
Yep, bogus story.