.

Happy Resurrection Day !

.

Time to have a little talk with Jesus :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxLA1NX9gxY&list=RDWxLA1NX9gxY#t=3

.

Very true, Dan S de Merengue.

>>You barely even know me<<

For all I know, you could be a closet comedian, having some fun at the expense of a bunch of forum-hangers who actually believe that you are what you represent yourself to be here. Each time we take you on, and point out the massive gulf between young-earth creationism and reality, you laugh your fairisle socks off at our gullibility that anyone could possibly believe you are serious.

It is also remotely conceivable that you actually do believe it, prompting my comment, what a very strange life you lead.

>>I can see from this that you're not really concerned about getting onto my Christmas card list.<<

Nope. It is many years since I had a Christmas card list myself, so being left off anyone else's is something of a relief.

>>...are you quoting Peter as a witness for believers or for the non-believer? In other words, whose side do you think he's on?<<

Having read many of Mr Sellick's pieces over many years, I don't believe that he actually has a clue himself, as to which "side" he is on. My assessment is that he has completely lost any faith he ever had, but still needs to earn his daily crust. Or perhaps more charitably, that he is so intellectually drawn to every new religious analysis he comes across, he is now terminally confused.

He is widely read on his topic, that's for sure, which probably means that he is not faking it.

But 'fess up. Are you faking it, or do you genuinely believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old? And is the reason you believe that, is that it was written in the Bible?

Every religion needs its documentation, sure. But why have you selected this particular handbook as being more credible, as a document, than the Qur'an, or the Book of Mormon, or the Bhagavad Gita?

Perhaps because from a young age you received this inculcation through blanket repetition and continual reinforcement before your mind had developed the more critical faculties?

Dear Pericles,
I'd be happy to try and answer some of those questions in good time. But perhaps not today. It's Resurrection Sunday on the Christian calendar and a good time to pause for reflection.

Thanks George, for your last post and your holiday wishes, and happy Easter to all the regulars who are often back here at the Forum.

I appreciate the offer, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Dear Pericles, I'd be happy to try and answer some of those questions in good time.<<

I think the one that puzzles me most about young earth creationists is how they reached the conclusion that they do. Was it the Bible that led them to Christianity, or Christianity that led them to the Bible - and from that point, into the concept of a young earth.

If the former, then why pick on the Bible as the starting point, when there are so many other, equally inspirational, spiritual guide-books available? I mean, it's not as if Christians actually follow the teachings, is it?

An interesting side issue - which Mr Sellick demonstrates each time he puts his quill pen to parchment - is that he firmly believes that atheism is actually about disbelief in Christianity, rather than a lack of belief in a deity of any kind. Here he is, discussing the "suspicious" atheist...

"The second phase of opposition to Christian belief is based on the suspicion that believers are not what they seem, that their belief is self-serving and has little to do with truth".

It is almost as if he categorizes "other religions" as being atheistic too - I know he doesn't, of course, but the phraseology gives away his subconscious tendency to file them in that basket.

Which leads to another puzzle with young earth creationism - how do you regard Christians who do not share your certainty in the literal interpretation of Genesis? It would appear that the Bible is so front-and-centre to your impression of being Christian, that Christians who understand and accept evolution must seem very strange to you.

A different religion entirely, perhaps? Or a sub-species of atheism..

Pericles,
I appreciate your questions. I wish I wasn't so busy at work to try and answer better.

Thanks for your opinion on Peter Selleck's writing. I think it interesting that you view him as confused (or inconsistent).

Without having read all that he's written, I find lacking in his articles the acknowledgement of the supernatural. For to look at the Christian scriptures, which are central to the faith, each of the four gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, each have the resurrection of Jesus at the core of its teaching. I cannot get around how this can be interpreted as anything but the action of God intervening in our normal time/space continuum. To not acknowledge this miraculous intervention is to miss an essential aspect of the historical faith. This is consistently presented throughout the NT, and has been believed upon by Christians for thousands of years.

Or to look at it another way, when Christians lose their faith in the resurrection, they've lost a crucial element of the faith. And it's no surprise that if they have no faith in the Bible's key miracle, there's no faith for other miracles, and a confusion falls over the rest.

And then there are some Christians who will accept some miracles but not others. But which miracle is grander or more difficult to activate, bringing Jesus to life in the tomb (all four gospels), or creating a man (Adam) from dust (in Genesis), or creating Eve from Adam's rib? In scope, they're all much the same.

What I'm looking for is consistency. There's no point believing some of it and not all of it. For those Christians who don't believe in supernatural resurrection, I'd like to ask them how they interpret this verse from Paul's teaching:
"And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world." (1Cor15:19)

Pericles,
You question whether I'm serious. I could ask you the same, for your challenge about my whether I was serious sounds a bit light hearted. For years I've made my stand and flown the flag high. This includes articles that I have written for OLO which touch on the creation/evolution issue. I even remember discussing these issues with you in some detail after this 2010 article of mine,

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9980&page=0

So if you were serious, you would be aware of certain things. If you've truly investigated the issue you would be aware of the growing numbers, consistently over recent decades, of creationists present in churches, scientific circles, and in society in general. You would know that leading defenders of evolution, such as Richard Dawkins and Steve Jones say they're dismayed at these numbers. So I'm not alone. There are real issues being discussed.

You've talked of the gulf between creationist views and reality. But when have you given evidence or argumentation for this? I can understand that compelling arguments are difficult to complete in the 350 words we're allowed here. But if the gulf was truly so immense, then it shouldn't be particularly hard for you to expose. That you're objecting without arguing shows there's obviously a lot more depth to these issues than can be dealt with simply.

I'll try and address some of those other questions when time at work permits.

Michael Viljoen