The religious continuation from the P&M board

[sesfw]

Apart for the earth being created in seven days,

No one has ever said God's day is the same 24 hours as mans.


The part where the earth is only 6000 years old,

Where in the Bible does it say this?


The part where water covered the whole surface of the earth

I have read scientific studies that has found evidence of flood waters in that part of the world, which is the only world the people of the time knew about.


The part where the Red Sea parted in half,

A land bridge has been found at the location of the Red Sea crossing, although right now it's about 100 ft under the water. 5K years ago, who knows?


The part where pair of every single animal were loaded onto a big boat and floated around a really long time but managed not to eat each other.

Actually there are a few things I wish Noah had left to drown. This one of the legends of the OT that I find so fascinating. Before written language so all they had was passed down stories and each generation added or subtracted.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

I'm glad you brought that portion of the other discussion here - I was going suggest that those questions being posed there would be more suited to this board.

As for your particular questions/musings (above), I have some thoughts/theories - but want to study each point you made and address them (as I see it) as clearly as I can. My response may be a while coming, but I'll peruse them again some time this evening.

[sesfw]

Thanks SL ....... I always like biblical discussions ....... I like getting other viewpoints on the logistics of the wonderful people

[jkapp]

Aug 1, 2014 0:38:11 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Not to dispute, but rather to clarify:

This is the same confusion from a thread months ago with (I believe) Jim Morrison.  I specifically said liberal and conservative thinkers.  That is not the same as liberal and conservative politically.  There is certainly some overlap, and likely a more than substantial degree, but they are not the same.

I am certainly a liberal thinker.  I am a political moderate.  Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.  I believe it is undeniably true that mankind is affecting some degree of change on our environment and ecosystem, but whether that change is greater than, less than, or even of consequence in relation to any naturally occurring change is more open to debate and likely difficult to demonstrate.  Regardless, should we not attempt to minimize any deleterious effects we may be causing?  I would think so.  

So, am I now a zealot?  Or am I not so afflicted?  Or..., am I not a liberal? 

And that ends up being the religious argument:  If we don't really know if God exists, isn't it better to believe He does?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2014/04/30/the_myth_of_a_non-violent_jesus.html

Jesus taught, "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also" (Matthew 5:39). However, the word used here is the Greek ῥαπíζω (hrapizo), which refers here to an open hand strike. Jesus is saying, "If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to him the other." This is not about self-defense at all; a slap in the face is an assault on your honor. Jesus was prohibiting escalation, not a response to a violent assault.

Jesus also taught us to love our enemies. People sometimes conclude that this prohibits injuring or killing them. However, this logic leads us to some rather peculiar conclusions. This sweet sentimental notion of love would surely denounce locking people in cells for decades. We could never imprison murderers. Should we all simply forgive them when they do awful things? This clearly cannot be what Jesus intended.

In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis explained, "Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment -- even to death. If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged." Capital punishment may or may not be good public policy, but we ought not oppose it because we are supposed to "love" everybody. Failing to punish a dangerous criminal is not behaving with love toward the rest of our neighbors.

Another argument is that Jesus modeled non-violent resistance in his interactions with Rome. He refused to support the Zealots, those advocating violence to overthrow Rome. Moreover, when facing arrest, he explicitly rejected violence, commanding Peter, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). Instead, "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet did not open his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter...so he did not open his mouth" (Isaiah 53:7).

The fact that Jesus went to his death without a fight does not prove that he was a pacifist. Opposition to violence in one context does not demand condemnation of all violence. Rather, we recognize that violence should be avoided whenever possible.