Some YECs just don't get it.

[Brownsy]

Yes, unless people are so stupid in the future that they do not see how impossible it would be for a man in the North Pole to give presents to billions of children in a single night. Do you honestly believe people are this stupid?

I couldn't possibly comment on the intelligence of people in the future. But this wasn't my point. The real question was whether or not they would think people TODAY actually bleieved in santa. Quite possibly they would consider us stupid, I don't know, but just because they were unlikely to believe in santa themselves doesn't mean they wouldn't believe that we did. All in the realm of hypothetical and sepcualtion anyway.

It isn't, but it seems to come with the territory. I don't understand why.

I suspect it is because we have realised that it is not necassary to hold a hyper literal interpretation of every part ofthe bible in order for it to stil be Gods infallible word. Thats my 2 cents worth, anyway

 

[jasperbound]

I couldn't possibly comment on the intelligence of people in the future. But this wasn't my point. The real question was whether or not they would think people TODAY actually bleieved in santa. Quite possibly they would consider us stupid, I don't know, but just because they were unlikely to believe in santa themselves doesn't mean they wouldn't believe that we did. All in the realm of hypothetical and sepcualtion anyway.

And if the people of the future were to believe that people were so stupid as to believe in such a character, they would be the ignorant ones, wouldn't they. It's always the "smart" who think that the ancients were stupid superstitious people.

And it's still not comparable to Noah or Jonah or the like. Seriously, is there anything in the Bible or any commentary by the Israelites that even suggests that they were just fun characters to believe in a la Santa Claus? If not, and yet we're still going to pretend that they were, then let's do the same with George Washington. Sure, people believe he is real, but they also say Santa Claus is real!

I suspect it is because we have realised that it is not necassary to hold a hyper literal interpretation of every part ofthe bible in order for it to stil be Gods infallible word. Thats my 2 cents worth, anyway

Funny. I don't have a hyper literal interpretation of the Bible, and yet, if divinely inspired words are wrong, or if Jesus was mistaken, then I wouldn't be a Christian. Some would call it a fragile belief. I call it one based on truth and not wishful thinking.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

And if the people of the future were to believe that people were so stupid as to believe in such a character, they would be the ignorant ones, wouldn't they. It's always the "smart" who think that the ancients were stupid superstitious people.

And it's still not comparable to Noah or Jonah or the like. Seriously, is there anything in the Bible or any commentary by the Israelites that even suggests that they were just fun characters to believe in a la Santa Claus? If not, and yet we're still going to pretend that they were, then let's do the same with George Washington. Sure, people believe he is real, but they also say Santa Claus is real!



Funny. I don't have a hyper literal interpretation of the Bible, and yet, if divinely inspired words are wrong, or if Jesus was mistaken, then I wouldn't be a Christian. Some would call it a fragile belief. I call it one based on truth and not wishful thinking.

Interesting that you mention Washington. The story of Washington chopping down a cherry tree is fiction, but we repeat it because it teaches the importance of telling the truth.

 

[jasperbound]

Interesting that you mention Washington. The story of Washington chopping down a cherry tree is fiction, but we repeat it because it teaches the importance of telling the truth.

And you're still missing the point. Who speaks of that story as real except the ignorant? Anybody with knowledge knows that story is fictional, and nobody treats it as real unless they wrongly believe it's real!

I guess one could also argue that Jesus isn't real and is just a character made up to show God's love.

 

[Brownsy]

And if the people of the future were to believe that people were so stupid as to believe in such a character, they would be the ignorant ones, wouldn't they. It's always the "smart" who think that the ancients were stupid superstitious people.

You mean something like how we today view people who, in the past, believed that the world was flat? We believe that they believed it because they all the evidence points to the fact that they believed, but this doesn't make it any less of an an absurd propostion for someone to make today. It doesn't make us ignorant to believe that a flat-eart was a legitimate belief held by some in the past.

And it's still not comparable to Noah or Jonah or the like. Seriously, is there anything in the Bible or any commentary by the Israelites that even suggests that they were just fun characters to believe in a la Santa Claus? If not, and yet we're still going to pretend that they were, then let's do the same with George Washington. Sure, people believe he is real, but they also say Santa Claus is real!

Ok then, if you are uncomfortable with the santa claus analogy, lets at some ancient mythology - Achilles, Hercules,medusa, the minotaur. These were not fun little stories, but the ancients (many of them, at least) believed them to be true. No suggestion in their history that anyone considered them to be fun little stories, so perhaps they are all true as well.

Funny. I don't have a hyper literal interpretation of the Bible, and yet, if divinely inspired words are wrong, or if Jesus was mistaken, then I wouldn't be a Christian. Some would call it a fragile belief. I call it one based on truth and not wishful thinking.

Here is that same old dichotomy again. Why does it have to be wrong? Just because we believe some accounts in the bible aren't supposed to be factual accounts doesn't mean they are wrong. Passing of something as factul when it is acutally not is a lie (and wrong) but using a story or analogy to illustrate a point with no intention of it being passed off as a factual account is not wrong. Merely not factually accurate

Blessings to you all

 

[Brownsy]

And you're still missing the point. Who speaks of that story as real except the ignorant? Anybody with knowledge knows that story is fictional, and nobody treats it as real unless they wrongly believe it's real!
.

Let me illustrate this point then - I'm from Australia and know very little of American history. I would have had no idea that this story was a myth if I wasn't told. That makes me ignorant as to the true facts of this story, but not generally ignorant

Blessings to you all

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

And you're still missing the point. Who speaks of that story as real except the ignorant? Anybody with knowledge knows that story is fictional, and nobody treats it as real unless they wrongly believe it's real!

One might treat it as real to teach a point. Telling a story about a fictional event can look identical to telling a story about a real event.

I guess one could also argue that Jesus isn't real and is just a character made up to show God's love.

There is no one who could have made up Jesus.

 

[philadiddle]

I believe God created everything as it is. Life begat similar life. If you look around and see all the beautiful, interesting and unique animals...it's so beautiful...all created by God's hand.

and by believing evolution, i can completely agree with you on that.

Evolution comes along and says it just happened. Evolution is indeed an atheistic hypothesis, requiring no Creator.

like i said, you just don't get it. do you think meteorology is atheistic? evolotuion is just science. it's the mechanism by which God created us. it's an amazing engineering feat to create something that changes and evolves to get ppl from bacteria.

TEs now come in and say, "Well, the bible is wrong in the aspect of creation. There's just too much scientific evidence of evolution, but God just provided the beginning spark that got everything going." In essence, He didn't create anything. It's all still natural selection.

like i keep saying, you don't get it. TEs don't say the Bible is wrong. I think the Bible is 100% right. i just don't think it's literal. Jesus spoke in parable all the time to make a point. Jesus is God, God wrote the Bible through divine inspiration. Therefore, Genesis could just as easily be a parable, to explain a monotheistic God to a polytheistic society. i also don't think god just provide the beginning spark. i think He set it up so that from the big bang to now, everything would happen as it has. (i'm not promoting calvanism, just that the laws of nature are set up just right according to His will). BTW natural selection still happens, it's the way God set things up.

All throughout the bible, it speaks loudly of creation...not just in Genesis. In Job, God talked to Job about His creation. A lot of the New Testament says Jesus was indeed the Creator.

yes, it's a false dichotomy to say that Creation is different from evolution. everything was still created.

People in the NT even mention some of the people who are "fables" to many TEs as real (i.e. some of the people in the genealogy of Jesus that goes all the way back to Adam).

compare the 2 geneologies and see if they are identical. tell me what u find out.

And you're still missing the point. Who speaks of that story as real except the ignorant? Anybody with knowledge knows that story is fictional, and nobody treats it as real unless they wrongly believe it's real!

who speaks of the creation story as literal except for the ignorant? anybody with knowledge of literary devices, cultural and social context, as well as science will know that is is fictional, and nobody treats it as real unless they wrongly believe it's real!

 

[artybloke]

People in the NT even mention some of the people who are "fables" to many TEs as real (i.e. some of the people in the genealogy of Jesus that goes all the way back to Adam).

So? They probably did believe in their existence. People in those days believed the Illiad was history; but it doesn't mean it was. Why would I think that the people in the NT were any more knowledgeable about history than anyone else? They didn't have any concept of historical or scientific method; even if they had, they had no means of checking sources or evidence, and the evidence, if it ever existed, would be long-buried or destroyed anyway. How would people with no modern concept of historiography, no bibliographies, no concept of scientific research even begin to sort out what was fable and what wasn't?

And what do you mean, Santa isn't real? He's as real as I'm a six-foot six rabbit.