We are generally in agreement, I think, actually. On 04/28/2010 02:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > And it doesn't matter. Fundamentalists, generally, corrupt their > religion, that's my position. (And I will distinguish these from those > who simply seek to discover and practice the "fundamentals" of their > religion, which is something entirely different. Fundamentalism in > Christianity is a kind of sect, not the true seeking of the > fundamentals.)
Absolutely! I really had just one point. Let me quote briefly, then restate it: On 04/28/2010 02:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: [sal said:] >> The point is, if it's not literally true *as* *written* then, as I >> said, there's no reason to expect to find the Ark on Ararat, or >> anywhere else -- and it's obviously not literally true. End of >> lecture. > > Good. The mention of a place name is interesting. See > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountains_of_Ararat. This is not one > specific mountain, apparently. The connection between the modern > Mount Ararat and the resting-place of the Ark is quite a stretch, > indeed. You are assuming, apparantely, that the text refers to a > specific mountain. Ararat, actually, refered to a region, not a > specific mountain, and thus could refer to just about anything > including, yes, hills, or the foothills of mountains. My point was this: The thing which makes any "find" of bits of wood or boat-like things on the slopes of Mount Ararat interesting to a lot of people is the *BELIEF* that the Ark came to rest on Mount Ararat. The only basis for that belief is the (assumed) inerrancy of Genesis. In fact, once we admit Genesis is not inerrant, and once we recognize that that section of Genesis seems to be based on the (older) story found in Gilgamesh, which doesn't mention Ararat at all in any form, we see that there is no rational reason to associate the ark in any way with Ararat. And so some ancient pieces of wood found on Ararat are just that -- some pieces of wood found on Ararat. And the news of their discovery should be of no particular interest. ** ** ** In fact, I find news stories like the one cited intensely annoying, because they are taken by many people as more "evidence" that Genesis is all true, and the Flood happened just as it says, and so the Earth must really be just 6000 years old and so on and so forth... and this feeds into global warming denial and a lot of other pernicious beliefs, through somewhat contorted paths. Hold to one incorrect assumption in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, and you can wind up in all kinds of incorrect places. ** ** ** As to the "hours would be as days" reasoning which allows "7 days" to be a synonym for "billions of years", that exact sort of reasoning is used to dodge all questions of errors in the Bible. It's what makes creationism untestable, and therefore invalid as a theory.
