Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Gorp

(716 posts)
3. The irony is that the "seven day" thing can be completely true,...
Mon Feb 25, 2013, 07:08 PM
Feb 2013

... if you consider the word "day" to mean "era". In that context, it fits perfectly. There was nothing, the big bang happened (presumingly with no light before that), the planets formed, creatures on Earth came into being and eventually man arrived. Man initially used clothing for warmth, not modesty. Some cultures STILL don't see clothing as having any purpose other than perhaps protecting the tender bits.

The problem I have with the "creationists" is their strict interpretation of what is clearly meant as an allegory. What's even worse is their assertion that fossils were put here to test our faith and that Noah had dinosaurs on the ark. I can understand believing that when you're three or four, but adults?

No the earth isn't flat. No the Sun doesn't revolve around Earth. No we aren't the center of the universe, not even of our own galaxie for that matter. I'm just stunned that people are so ignorant to support theories that have long-ago been disproven.

Now while I'm on the rant, Leviticus is mostly a list of protocols for maintaining health. The prohibition on shell fish and cloven hoove animal meat was for health matters. And yet so-called "Christians" will quote the passage about a "man to lie with a man" while snarfing down clams and waiting for the whole pig on a spit to finish roasting.

He's right. Teaching such garbage to children actually is a form of child abuse. Religious texts are meant to be interpreted, as is our own constitution. The true test of any set of rules or teachings of any manner is the ability to evolve and adapt to the times and to knew knowledge. Can you imagine living in today's society with the original periodic table of elements? It wouldn't happen because we need those changes in order to even be where we are to begin with.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

"tantamount to abuse of our children." ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2013 #1
Further proof that there are rational, reasonable theists. A HERETIC I AM Feb 2013 #2
The irony is that the "seven day" thing can be completely true,... Gorp Feb 2013 #3
nice points. ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2013 #4
I've been discussing the concept of co-existance of creationism and evolution since the 70's. Gorp Feb 2013 #5
Creationism and evolution really can't coexist. At least not if you mean "special creation" or ID. yellowcanine Feb 2013 #6
You can use the definition you provided or what's currently called "guided evolution". Gorp Feb 2013 #7
Nah, we live in a freckled face kid!s computer nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #9
I don't do cosmology - I'm not into makeup. Gorp Feb 2013 #10
I don't have a problem with a God "imagining a universe." yellowcanine Feb 2013 #12
It's also a good description of the awareness of modesty (with regards to naughty bits). Gorp Feb 2013 #14
There's nothing in creationism that is science Bradical79 Feb 2013 #8
Right - any creator is not science. I misspoke. yellowcanine Feb 2013 #16
a whole new meaning to the big bang? ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2013 #19
"Eras" doesn't quite work either because the earth exists before the sun does. yellowcanine Feb 2013 #11
The day/era 4 thing with the sun has always baffled me. Where did "light" come from on day one? Gorp Feb 2013 #13
"hell is other people" Alternatively, if we are honest, "hell is other people and myself." yellowcanine Feb 2013 #17
I think "No Exit" at least implied that. Gorp Feb 2013 #21
No. It can't... SidDithers Feb 2013 #15
"uninformed ramblings of bronze age mystics". "uniformed" by science, anyways. yellowcanine Feb 2013 #18
I disagree. There were three primary authors of Genesis (as far as we know). Gorp Feb 2013 #20
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A Creationist Picks A Fig...»Reply #3