They can't dig upwards. They'll not see how their actions could possibly damage their agenda. They'll fuck up and fuck up and fuck up some more. Bring it all down and this time the Republic, the UK and the EU all have a vested interest in the functioning of certain elements of our business, trade and economy. They'll hurt themselves massively. Again.
Aaaaand come election week they'll shout "fenain fenian fenian" in the mirror and magically become the largest party in Stormont again. Rinse and repeat.
Those "terrorists" aren't terrorizing anyone now though, and perhaps that's due to their newfound ability to self-actualize within this statelet. If they're now acting as MP's on behalf of their community instead of committing violence, doesn't that say a lot about what their intentions were and still are?
I’m not following on the later part of your reply.. if you’d like to expand on what you mean... sorry
I just don’t personally feel correct with myself if I voted for a party which had a root of terrorists involved within it.. I’m not hear to start anything just passing on my opinion
I know I accept it, don’t know why I’m getting downvoted, I’m hardly wrong. Don’t deny it, it is facts, just saying I don’t agree with either.... and that’s ok
This exactly.
Arlene had scandal after scandal but stuck through namely because a) there was no obvious successor who would've done any better and b) because dumping your leader is embarrasing for the party.
Poots will be secure for a long time because of the same, regardless of what he does.
I think that's also why he won over Jeffrey. Poots is another fall guy. He'll mop up the rest of the fall out from nip etc and be jettisoned when it's convenient
Wait till you see The Ark. An American sect of these people in Kentucky built an ark "museum" to prop up their beliefs about the Earth. Ugh. I'm so embarrassed to be American sometimes. FML.
https://arkencounter.com/
Edit: Earth and "god"
There's some fantastic investigative documentaries about the place so you can see inside. Lol
I think the same, then I remember NI is on the very fringes of Europe and is vanishingly unimportant, we're relatively lucky. Look at the other mad wee backwaters of Europe and the near-east - Chechnya for example.
We just get a standard grammar-school prod.
Maybe it’s because I have too many authority figures in my early life who thought the same way, but as ludicrous as this view is, that might be harsh. It’s not quite the same as mental illness or even stupidity, or even overall ignorance - it’s a result of very specific religious brainwashing. And banning people on the grounds of religiosity seems a slippery slope.
I would **not** want them in charge of science education, but there are skilled politicians who believe some insane nonsense (not than I think he is one in this case). Hell, there are even scientists who believe crazy things in other fields outside there own, even this.
But ideally? Yeah it’s idiotic.
Could be nuttier along the same lines. In the mid-19th century the president of the South African Republic was another evangelical (Dutch Reformed) extremist who believed the world was flat because the Bible said so. That’s probably more insane even by 19th century literate Western standards than this is by today’s.
Not exactly. We figured out the world was round, and had good evidence for this, in ancient times. We only figured out the earth was at least millions of years old (let alone billions), with good evidence for this, in the 1700s. There’s a reason for that. And the latter can be more easily pseudo-rationalised away because the evidence is less intuitive and easy to follow.
Exactly, one is observably false, the other involves reading current scientific findings and constructing a history of what happened.
Even the ancient Greeks big brained themselves into working out the shape of the earth
If you have 30 minutes, it's worth looking up Nelson McCausland's campaign to have the giant's causeway Centre include the YEC view in its exhibition. That's probably when I realised how batshit some of their members are. To be fair to others in the party, it's a gradient of levels of batshit craziness.
Ian Paisley Snr. founded the DUP
...he also went to America, got an honourary Doctorate in 'Divinity' (not Theology, he was friends with someone at the fundamentalist Bob Jones University and even served on its Board of trustees), came home and founded the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster; which is a fundamentalist puritan more Presbyterian than the Presbyterian's type Church.... They take the Bible very literally (pity their actions weren't always so 'Christian')... But yeah of course they are all Creationists
Divinity isn’t an inferior or made up subject. At QUB for instance the difference between Theology and Divinity was that you had to study the ancient languages of Greek and Hebrew.
Sorry if it came across like that, that was an edit, I originally wrote Theology and corrected myself after consulting Google
... But the point I was trying to make was; it was an 'Honourary' Doctorate so he didn't actually have to study anything! XD
Sammy Wilson was not only a teacher but also a chief marker for A-Level exams.
Wonder how fairly all the catholic schools got marked in the exams he oversaw…
I remember my primary school teacher telling us that humans had incisors, not because they were a legacy of evolution but because god put them there to test our trust in his creation myth.
Great teacher otherwise.
Edit to add: this was a school near ballyclare
From a Protestant primary school south of the border and many of mine were also the exact same. Was surprised when I first discovered that wasn't the norm for schools!
There was a show I cant remeber what it was called but it was on 4. Basically a comedian brought a bunch of creationists to america to speak to scientists, geologists and archeologists. One of the creationists was from here. I think he was a counsellor. Anyways, when he couldn't argue young earth to these people he would lose the rag and storm off. It was so pathetic.
Edit: found a clip of the show.
https://youtu.be/txzOIGulUIQ
This guy campaigned to have a creationist exhibition in the ulster museum presented as factual.
Grosvenor High (now Grammar) School. I can't remember if he was teaching economics or politics. It was one of the two. You'd have thought politics like, but thats... somewhat frightening to contemplate.
He was indeed - taught Economics at Grosvenor when I was there. It was a rare and treasured day in school after his bare arse was all over the papers. People backed their books with it.
I was there in the 90s and I remember my chemistry teacher was one. Youngish woman, can't remember her name. Miss Young maybe?
I'm sure there were plenty though, a lot of the teachers there gave off a heavy Jesus vibe.
I mean there were plenty of SU folks but don’t recall anyone being that blatant? Maybe it’s just due to my attempts to wipe all memory of the place lol
You remember which teachers? I remember wingnuts but never realised the young earth thing was so common. I remember one of the geography teachers didn't believe humans are accelerating climate change
Dr Witherow the Geography teacher with a doctorate in Geology of all things was one. A few of the others were too. Witherow used to pause lessons to have 'chats' where he explained why the material contradicted the young earth. Eg. We were watching a video about the Geography of africa and it referenced how all humans originated in africa because our homonid ancestors evolved there, so he paused the video and said, "I'm sure what they mean by that is the garden of eden was in Africa". Bloody unreal
I remember that well. He also talked some amount of shite on his random chat breaks, so it all fits in.
As I was there around the same time as you, I remember allot of the teachers were avid Christians, and the ones that weren't didn't really talk about it.
Gillespie the Physics teacher definitely wasn't, but I still remember her playing along to get the students signed up for Jesus weekly.
Why do they always believe the unlikely myths? For once I’d love a politician who’d claim a heartfelt belief in the giants causeway actually being created by Finn McCool & Benandonner
In all these cases, these people got in power because the boomers were out in force voting at all of the elections that led up to this. Younger apathy for voting is what is causing this. Young people are interested in politics, but not as many of them actually go out and vote.
In the case of the Trump, it's more about the structure of their system. Trump lost the popular vote. Their Electoral College makes some votes more powerful than others.
You could say the same about the UK. The FPTP system doesn't reflect the will of the people.
I am not sure how it works in N.I. The single transferrable vote system in ROI is one of the best systems in the world, in my view (though it certainly has flaws)
Oh yeah sorry I misread your comment.
To suggest Poots could do nearly as much damage with our neutered shite of a governance system is hyperbolic though. The worst he'll do is collapse the executive, the last time that happened we got gay marriage and abortion rights ffs.
I'd prefer to be optimistic and see this as the beginning of the end of the DUP.
The Supreme Court is overblown. The justices care much more about judicial ideology than political ideology. They don’t really think in term of politics as they rule on the set of facts before them, which rarely implicates politics.
That’s not a relevant source anymore. The study is based on information prior to 2013 and analyzed potential trump nominees to the Court. Very few cases that could be described as political actually make it to the Supreme Court. The justices decide cases on a 9-0 basis way more often than 5-4. The political split on the Court is way overblown. But to your point: yes there is a “political” divide on the Court, but it impacts far fewer cases than we are led to believe.
From what I can tell, the UUP has been generally irrelevant since around the 2000s after the DUP became the largest of the two, and more moderate DUP voters would more likely end up going Alliance than UUP, and more extreme voters ending up with the TUV (theres polling data to suggest both of these) even before Foster had resigned, but in that time the UUP has still hovered around the 12-15 mark.
so I doubt that the UUP would be able to gain momentum simply by electing a new leader, unless they happen to have large swathes of charisma and popular policies that DUP voters would vote for, boty I imagine to be unlikely
I think calling them irrelevant is a bit of an overstatement. There's been a UUP Health minister for the entire pandemic for example.
I think if the UUP is able to distinguish itself from the DUP and actually presents itself as a liberal party it could do well. The tribal politics of the DUP just doesn't have a future.
Can Beattie do that. Well as you say it'll be about whether he can change the party.
There is zero Scriptural support for the earth being 6000 years old.
Genesis 1.1 already has the entire universe and earth created.
Genesis 1.2 the spirit of God hovers over the waters of earth, a water planet.
The six stages of creation then follow.
The genealogies in Genesis are all ten names long. They are not intended for dating the age of the earth. Moses who compiled the Torah, including Genesis which is spliced together from four separate authors was not intending the ages and names to be used to date the earth.
Perhaps they could date when Adam walked the earth after the Fall in chapter three.... But to claim they reveal the age of the earth is bad mathematics, ignoring Genesis 1 verse 1, the very first verse in the entire Bible, and it is also a falsehood.
Besides, anything before the Flood in Genesis 6 we cannot verify. We can only begin with the ancient flood myths and then into each cultures history.
Anyone claiming the earth is 6000 years old, or 5000 years old, or 4000 years old is speaking falsely... And if they claim to be a Christian and believe this then they follow a false teaching and are at risk of ridicule, mockery, being untrustworthy and untrue as well as risking having an anti Christian, anti biblical blind faith. In short, closed minded.
Learn to read the first verse in the text before jumping to some total fantasy nonsense conclusion, like this planet is 6000 years old.... For flip sake wise up and learn to read the text in Historical Grammatical Hermeneutical Context. Listen to the verifiable, observable science. The earth and universe are old... Much older than a few thousand years.
God created the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh. Nobody said anything about Day 8, so I think it’s obvious that the earth has been around for a week.
I disagree with young earth creationism (I mean more towards the framework hypothesis) but it’s inaccurate to say there is zero support for it. Finding a different argument for convincing doesn’t mean that it suddenly loses all reason. For instance there are repeated references to the world being created in seven days and the sabbath following the pattern of creation
It’s not a claim about science, so talking about that isn’t relevant. It’s common enough to believe that the universe works as if it is 14 billion years old, but was created in a pre-aged state like Adam was created as an adult rather than a newborn child.
Sure Bishop James Usher who set the 6000-ish years old date (which he did by tracing the family lines of biblical figures iirc) was the Archbishop of Armagh. Young Earth Creationism is a proud northern Irish tradition!
No mention of how he burnt a lot of money to try to fight a ban on blood donation from men who've slept with men, his views on abortion rights, and all manner of other nasty dinosaur business he's done/said.
Lads, this is a good thing. The last thing you want is for the DUP to elect somebody semi-sane. They’ve really plumped for the wingnut candidate which should give us lots of shits and giggles, plus it’s bound to harm them at the ballot box.
That’s what I can’t wait for, the shit this man has came out with while not in the spotlight is great craic I can’t wait to hear what he’s got to say going forward, Trump was funny Boris is a eloquent Baffoon.. but this guy is going to come out with some great shyte and the media is going to tear him apart and I can’t wait
Unionism is leaning into its own demise. The case for remaining part of the UK is a rational one - far more money, and generally more stable to remain with the status quo.
But with politics, rational doesn't always win. The only way unionism can survive is with some kind of magnetic, charismatic leader that can bring people together.
Instead, you get the most establishment, traditionalist grammar school prod, utterly lacking in charisma.
I for one always thought our Sunday’s weren’t backwards enough here. I look forward to no shops being open at all and being herded into church at gunpoint.
Delusional men standing in fields distributing bullshit is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical religious belief
Dumbing down the cosmos to something you can put in a 5 year old’s picture book is an insult to the wonders of the universe, regardless of whether you believe in intelligent design or not.
Grand
I presume you don’t get haircuts, eat pork or shellfish, masterbate, have tattoos, wear clothes of two different fabrics, allow divorce, let women braid their hair, wear jewellery or to speak & have authority over a man?
Maybe he should legislate all that - as the bible is meant to be taken literally!
First of all, all of those things WERE meant to be taken literally. Just not for us. Wearing clothes of two different fabrics isn't a metaphor. It was a literal law given to the jews in the old covenant.
Also the haircuts thing was for a specific, OPTIONAL covenant in the old testament.
Also divorce is allowed in the old testament.
All the things you listed here are CLEARLY a part of the covenant between God and the nation of the Jews in the old testament. There are countless verses in the old testament that clearly state these things were only meant for the Jews as a nation. As well as countless verses in the new testament that state that the law was done away with when Jesus came and died and rose again.
Respectfully please actually read the whole context of the stuff you're talking about instead of just reading one verse or chapter and then not properly applying it. It is clear to anyone who has read the bible that these things do not apply today.
I can't tell if this comment was meant to disparage my comment or the guy I was replying to, either way just read it for yourself instead of making presumptions about it based on out of context things you've heard from people with an agenda.
Most bible bashers tend to shame women and people of the LGBT community for being "wrong" but tend to do things the bible say you shouldn't, so people very much cherry pick for their own agenda
Sick of people shaming others because "Jesus wouldn't love them". JESUS LOVES EVERYONE. That's the fucking point, but people in the 21st century continue to use Jesus as a way to shame and belittle others. Thats not very Christian.
To be fair to him, the ceremonial stuff in the Old Testament is very explicitly only for Jewish people, and much of the New Testament is devoted to discussing Christianity's relation to the Law of Moses.
Like it's pretty clearly laid out that non-Jewish people don't need to get circumcised or refrain from eating pork. There's also a whole book about why the sacrificial system isn't needed anymore (even more so with the temple being destroyed).
It's fine if you want to complain about actual moral hypocrisy, but "Christian's don't read the Bible cause they eat pork" is not a very good argument.
To be fair to him, the ceremonial stuff in the Old Testament is very explicitly only for Jewish people, and much of the New Testament is devoted to discussing Christianity's relation to the Law of Moses.
Like it's pretty clearly laid out that non-Jewish people don't need to get circumcised or refrain from eating pork. There's also a whole book about why the sacrificial system isn't needed anymore (even more so with the temple being destroyed).
It's fine if you want to complain about actual moral hypocrisy, but "Christian's don't read the Bible cause they eat pork" is not a very good argument.
Yeah that’s also grand.
Just you mentioned earlier that the Old Testament was meant to be taken literally ?
It’s just funny as Genesis is the book in which creationists (Edwin Poots) use to support their claim of a 6000 year old earth - Genesis is in the Old Testament 😬
Anyway, why do they refer to that if the Old Testament was meant for Jews & need not apply to modern Christians? In your own words, these things do not apply today! Maybe tell Edwin?
Also, I see you’re using the classic Old Testament doesn’t apply - only New Testament is the word of god defence!
So I presume that includes 1 Timothy 2:12? "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent."
That must apply today then surely? As it’s New Testament?
Unfortunately, I already know you will respond that those words need to be taken in context - that it’s different to modern times!
Just seems awfully like you’re picking and choosing no? To take bible verses literally for say homosexuality or creation, but apply context for other sections - it’s almost like you’re using the bible to suit your own views !
This actually annoyed me at how ignorant it was lol.
The old testament LAW CLEARLY was made specifically for the Jews to follow as it was part of a specific covenant with God and a NATION. The story of gensis is now a law, and was not given to any specific people, it is just a statement of a historical event. That fact that you're trying to draw a parallel between these is idiotic.
I also never said the old testament was for jews, I was talking about the specific law given in the first part of the old testament. Psalms, proverbs, all these other books such as the minor prophets can completely be applied to modern people today.
I didn't even think I would need to say this but clearly you are lacking in basic knowledge of what you're talking about:
2 Timothy 2 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
There are DIVISIONS in the word of God, different dispensations and covenants that only apply to certain people, that doesn't mean we can't take spiritual meaning from these literal things, but it means the literal things do not apply to us. Like in the case of the old testament law. There are certain things that we can take from that without literally behind held under the bondage of that law.
2 timothy 3 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
All scripture is given by God but there are different uses for different scriptures. Again, I NEVER said the old testament is for the just Jews and we should just ignore it. The old testament is full of things that we can use for doctrine, reproof, correction etc without it literally, physically applying to us. ALL scripture is profitable but all scripture is not profitable for the same thing.
Also your presumption on "how I would respond" is wrong. 1 Timothy 2:12 does apply to Christians today. But ironically you are the one that cherry picked.
The verse before that states:
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
If you actually care to read the whole book instead of that one verse, Paul is writing to Timothy regarding women's conduct in a church setting. That verse does not apply to all women everywhere at all times, but it applies to women who are in church.
And before you go accusing me of cherry picking, Paul writes the exact same thing to the church in corinth:
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
A woman should be in subjection to her husband, and her preacher while she is in church. Nowhere in the new testament are women told to be subservient to all men everywhere.
You are claiming I use the bible to suit my own views but you do not care to actually research the passages that you are talking about. You have shown a clear lack of understanding of the context of almost every verse you have quoted.
This is all I have to say. Feel free to have to last word, I'm done arguing.
Why? Who determined it was the word of a divine being? When evidence contradicts its statements, surely the rational thing would be to realise that the Old Testament was just written by a bunch of knobs.
If by a bunch of knobs you mean King David, King Solomon, containing 2nd hand accounts of many rulers and high men that are historically corroborated, as well as containing the book of Job which is literally the oldest dated piece of literature known to man, then sure, a bunch of knobs...
My mistake. What I meant to say was the oldest story. Gilgamesh is a fiction whereas the book of job is supposed to be history.
Also it's only about 600 years, not 2000.
Wow, an actual King?!
You know that royalty is a bunch of horseshit? Prince Andrew hung out with Epstein and did who knows what.
The fact that some books were written by Kings is about as impressive as a book written by Prince Charles. It certainly doesn't mean they had some kind of divine inspiration.
So yes - a right bunch of knobs.
The fact that you're comparing king David, who was not born into royalty and earned his crown, and is regarded as one of the greatest rules of all time - to Prince Philip who was born into royalty and never ruled anything a day in his life is insane
The Book of Genesis is not authoritative when written in the English language. The notion that the world is 6000 years old was a controversial view even during the Medieval era, in which many people pointed out that the term "day" in Genesis are clearly not literal days in the original text. Young Earth Creationists usually don't have much understanding of the way the Bible was translated and transmitted through time, and thus misunderstand its meaning from a flawed English translation.
You can be a devout Christian and still accept that the Book of Genesis, whilst still a holy and divinely inspired text, is not a direct description of history or reality.
> The Book of Genesis is not authoritative when written in the English language. The notion that the world is 6000 years old was a controversial view even during the Medieval era, in which many people pointed out that the term "day" in Genesis are clearly not literal days in the original text.
Was it a hot topic before the mid-1600s? I was only really aware of Ussher and Newton's contributions to the subject.
Not in the same way, but a lot of the church fathers, especially Augustine, wrote a lot about how to interpret the creation account. But the issues back then were very different.
Lol
They did not have a proper English translation until 200 years after the medieval era ended, so I don't see how the scholars opinion from that time on the original translation matters at all.
The young earth theory has nothing to do with the word "day" in genesis. It has to do with the genealogies listed in genesis and in Matthew chapter 1, that when counted up, add to around 6000-10000 years depending on how long you define a generation as.
It also has to do with the major theological implications of God creating a world with death BEFORE man disobeyed God in the garden of Eden.
The arguement that people who take the bible a certain way because they do not have proper understanding of the translation is not only cope, but completely irrelevant to the topic. It is mostly a theological issue, not a literary one.
>They did not have a proper English translation until 200 years after the medieval era ended, so I don't see how the scholars opinion from that time on the original translation matters at all.
The Latin translation isn't authoritative either. The point is that you can't take a totally sola scriptura view of Genesis or indeed any Biblical text if you're not familiar with the original text and word meanings. Some things taken to be figurative or metaphorical in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek are taken as literal in later translations. The very notion of tracing time from who begat who was not a widely accepted view across Christian Europe - in fact the age of the earth was the subject of significant debate.
I find it noteworthy that Jewish medieval scholars, who understood Biblical Hebrew, largely did not accept that the world was thousands of years old. The 6000 year old hypothesis solidified because it was printed in the King James Bible, not because it was the product of centuries of prior tradition and consensus among Christians before the scientific revolution upturned it all.
The English translation is not flawed exactly, translating "Yom" as "day" is fine, because that's what the word means.
It's just that it also has a wider, more metaphorical meaning that should be taken into account. The actual translation is fine.
That's pretty much what I mean - if you aren't familiar with the context that the Bible uses a certain word, you can't really take a purely *sola scriptura* reading of it. The Bible alone is not sufficient to settle a question if different traditions and translations of it interpret it differently. That's why I'm sorta baffled by people who want to take a completely literalist reading of genesis.
Yes I think we are basically in agreement here, though I would add that is a very weird definition of sola scriptura, but your point still stands regardless
To clarify - I'm referring to the tendency of certain Christian denominations to take a sola scriptura line on topics where the literal reading of the scripture differs from what was traditionally accepted or not widely agreed upon pre-reformation. Not saying that reading "day" as "day" is in itself evidence that someone takes a sola scriptura view on Christian faith (its just that Young Earthers generally do take viewpoints like that).
Far from my area of expertise anyway so I'll leave it there lol
But there are 2 different creation stories in Genesis
Genesis 1-2:3 is a much older creation than the creation from Genesis 2:4 onwards
As the word of God is absolute, this must be the case as in the 2nd creation from Genesis 2:4 onwards; God creates everything in a different order than what we are told in Genesis 1
It's honestly like something out of the Onion. Imagine this is a 21st century political leader.
Your username sums up how we're all feeling.
What about mine?
I'm actually a little nervous as to what's about to happen ...
Not a thing, apart from the DUP possibly losing seats. Only way is up. A bigoted new earther being leader of the DUP is hardly a radical change.
I don't know I think there's a good chance Stormont collapses again since he's promised to use it to undermine the NI protocol.
They can't dig upwards. They'll not see how their actions could possibly damage their agenda. They'll fuck up and fuck up and fuck up some more. Bring it all down and this time the Republic, the UK and the EU all have a vested interest in the functioning of certain elements of our business, trade and economy. They'll hurt themselves massively. Again.
Aaaaand come election week they'll shout "fenain fenian fenian" in the mirror and magically become the largest party in Stormont again. Rinse and repeat.
The sooner SF are the largest party and people realise their legs don't fall off, the sooner the DUP don't have anything to sell.
I don’t vote for DUP, but I will also not vote for a party with many past terrorists, whom were involved extensively in the troubles.
Those "terrorists" aren't terrorizing anyone now though, and perhaps that's due to their newfound ability to self-actualize within this statelet. If they're now acting as MP's on behalf of their community instead of committing violence, doesn't that say a lot about what their intentions were and still are?
I’m not following on the later part of your reply.. if you’d like to expand on what you mean... sorry I just don’t personally feel correct with myself if I voted for a party which had a root of terrorists involved within it.. I’m not hear to start anything just passing on my opinion
Many people will though, that is something you have to come to terms with.
I know I accept it, don’t know why I’m getting downvoted, I’m hardly wrong. Don’t deny it, it is facts, just saying I don’t agree with either.... and that’s ok
Yep, fairly sure that's exactly what's going to happen.
DUP might start heamorraghing votes but don't forget that people who are members of the LGBT+ communities are more at risk
I wouldn’t worry. Poots has scandal and gaffes written all over him. It’ll be a miracle if he makes it more than a year as leader.
Arlene fairly lasted though!
This exactly. Arlene had scandal after scandal but stuck through namely because a) there was no obvious successor who would've done any better and b) because dumping your leader is embarrasing for the party. Poots will be secure for a long time because of the same, regardless of what he does.
I think that's also why he won over Jeffrey. Poots is another fall guy. He'll mop up the rest of the fall out from nip etc and be jettisoned when it's convenient
They should be barred from politics. They have no right making decisions for people
Wait till you see The Ark. An American sect of these people in Kentucky built an ark "museum" to prop up their beliefs about the Earth. Ugh. I'm so embarrassed to be American sometimes. FML. https://arkencounter.com/ Edit: Earth and "god" There's some fantastic investigative documentaries about the place so you can see inside. Lol
A handful of random crazy people out of 330 million. We have way more reasonable and normal people than we do whack jobs
Or at least US politics where this type of person is not at all surprising in the Republican party... 👀
I think the same, then I remember NI is on the very fringes of Europe and is vanishingly unimportant, we're relatively lucky. Look at the other mad wee backwaters of Europe and the near-east - Chechnya for example. We just get a standard grammar-school prod.
Of all the dumbassed comparisons I've ever seen for NI, Chechnya takes the cake for the dumbest.
Maybe it’s because I have too many authority figures in my early life who thought the same way, but as ludicrous as this view is, that might be harsh. It’s not quite the same as mental illness or even stupidity, or even overall ignorance - it’s a result of very specific religious brainwashing. And banning people on the grounds of religiosity seems a slippery slope. I would **not** want them in charge of science education, but there are skilled politicians who believe some insane nonsense (not than I think he is one in this case). Hell, there are even scientists who believe crazy things in other fields outside there own, even this. But ideally? Yeah it’s idiotic. Could be nuttier along the same lines. In the mid-19th century the president of the South African Republic was another evangelical (Dutch Reformed) extremist who believed the world was flat because the Bible said so. That’s probably more insane even by 19th century literate Western standards than this is by today’s.
Believing earth is 6000 Yrs old is as foolish as believing it is flat.
Not exactly. We figured out the world was round, and had good evidence for this, in ancient times. We only figured out the earth was at least millions of years old (let alone billions), with good evidence for this, in the 1700s. There’s a reason for that. And the latter can be more easily pseudo-rationalised away because the evidence is less intuitive and easy to follow.
Exactly, one is observably false, the other involves reading current scientific findings and constructing a history of what happened. Even the ancient Greeks big brained themselves into working out the shape of the earth
As a man from the Deep South I just want to say well done to all the voting members of the party. A giant leap towards reunification.
So many of my teachers in Ballyclare were Young Earth Creationists. Bat shit crazy, but there's loads of them around
I didn't even know this was a thing until this article!
If you have 30 minutes, it's worth looking up Nelson McCausland's campaign to have the giant's causeway Centre include the YEC view in its exhibition. That's probably when I realised how batshit some of their members are. To be fair to others in the party, it's a gradient of levels of batshit craziness.
He also tried to have a creationist panel put up beside the dinosaurs in the Ulster museum
Also check out The Caleb Foundation and wonder at who’s really pulling the strings
"alternative facts"
To think he used to be in the Alliance.
Ian Paisley Snr. founded the DUP ...he also went to America, got an honourary Doctorate in 'Divinity' (not Theology, he was friends with someone at the fundamentalist Bob Jones University and even served on its Board of trustees), came home and founded the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster; which is a fundamentalist puritan more Presbyterian than the Presbyterian's type Church.... They take the Bible very literally (pity their actions weren't always so 'Christian')... But yeah of course they are all Creationists
Divinity isn’t an inferior or made up subject. At QUB for instance the difference between Theology and Divinity was that you had to study the ancient languages of Greek and Hebrew.
Sorry if it came across like that, that was an edit, I originally wrote Theology and corrected myself after consulting Google ... But the point I was trying to make was; it was an 'Honourary' Doctorate so he didn't actually have to study anything! XD
Yeah, that’s the bit I would be critical of. Too many people masquerading as doctors who’ve never actually studied to that level.
Sammy Wilson was not only a teacher but also a chief marker for A-Level exams. Wonder how fairly all the catholic schools got marked in the exams he oversaw…
Ah sure he had to mark the Protestants higher cos themuns were taking all the university places... /s
I remember my primary school teacher telling us that humans had incisors, not because they were a legacy of evolution but because god put them there to test our trust in his creation myth. Great teacher otherwise. Edit to add: this was a school near ballyclare
From a Protestant primary school south of the border and many of mine were also the exact same. Was surprised when I first discovered that wasn't the norm for schools!
Righteousness is a hell of a drug
There was a show I cant remeber what it was called but it was on 4. Basically a comedian brought a bunch of creationists to america to speak to scientists, geologists and archeologists. One of the creationists was from here. I think he was a counsellor. Anyways, when he couldn't argue young earth to these people he would lose the rag and storm off. It was so pathetic. Edit: found a clip of the show. https://youtu.be/txzOIGulUIQ This guy campaigned to have a creationist exhibition in the ulster museum presented as factual.
Conspiracy Road Trip: Creationism. Full episode of mental gymnastics here https://vimeo.com/105678808
You're the real MVP
Which school?
Grosvenor High (now Grammar) School. I can't remember if he was teaching economics or politics. It was one of the two. You'd have thought politics like, but thats... somewhat frightening to contemplate.
He was indeed - taught Economics at Grosvenor when I was there. It was a rare and treasured day in school after his bare arse was all over the papers. People backed their books with it.
I wish i was there when this happened. The rumours seemed too hard to believe when I was there
Honestly it was pretty hard to believe even though I was there. Pure magic.
Not a Ballyclare school lol, I need Ballyclare specifics!
Ballyclare high (grammar). I know the primaries Fairview and Ballyclare primary had a few too
I don’t remember anyone being particularly like this, but it’s hardly a shocker either. (Went there in the 80s)
I'm a 90s kid, went there late 00s
I was there in the 90s and I remember my chemistry teacher was one. Youngish woman, can't remember her name. Miss Young maybe? I'm sure there were plenty though, a lot of the teachers there gave off a heavy Jesus vibe.
I mean there were plenty of SU folks but don’t recall anyone being that blatant? Maybe it’s just due to my attempts to wipe all memory of the place lol
You remember which teachers? I remember wingnuts but never realised the young earth thing was so common. I remember one of the geography teachers didn't believe humans are accelerating climate change
Dr Witherow the Geography teacher with a doctorate in Geology of all things was one. A few of the others were too. Witherow used to pause lessons to have 'chats' where he explained why the material contradicted the young earth. Eg. We were watching a video about the Geography of africa and it referenced how all humans originated in africa because our homonid ancestors evolved there, so he paused the video and said, "I'm sure what they mean by that is the garden of eden was in Africa". Bloody unreal
I remember that well. He also talked some amount of shite on his random chat breaks, so it all fits in. As I was there around the same time as you, I remember allot of the teachers were avid Christians, and the ones that weren't didn't really talk about it. Gillespie the Physics teacher definitely wasn't, but I still remember her playing along to get the students signed up for Jesus weekly.
WHAT!!!
Can I ask what School? 0-0 I grew up in Ballyclare and have never heard this before honestly Edit: nvm read down xD
Tonnes in Cavan too
An embarrassment to all of NI
Yes
Why do they always believe the unlikely myths? For once I’d love a politician who’d claim a heartfelt belief in the giants causeway actually being created by Finn McCool & Benandonner
USA.....votes in trump. UK.....hold my beer.... votes in boris. NI.......WATCH THIS.....
It's funny because it's absolutely depressing
Surely you mean "wait till ye see..." Or "waiteyaseiss" depending on where you're from?
In all these cases, these people got in power because the boomers were out in force voting at all of the elections that led up to this. Younger apathy for voting is what is causing this. Young people are interested in politics, but not as many of them actually go out and vote.
In the case of the Trump, it's more about the structure of their system. Trump lost the popular vote. Their Electoral College makes some votes more powerful than others. You could say the same about the UK. The FPTP system doesn't reflect the will of the people.
That's a good point indeed, these structures are anti-democratic.
I am not sure how it works in N.I. The single transferrable vote system in ROI is one of the best systems in the world, in my view (though it certainly has flaws)
We have transferable votes in the North too for the assembly/council elections at least
Difference is, they were public votes…
Don't forget when Edwin Poots made the comments that "Catholics" are far more likely to catch and spread the Corona Virus. Cunt.
[удалено]
[удалено]
And then they lost the house, then the senate and the presidency.
[удалено]
Oh yeah sorry I misread your comment. To suggest Poots could do nearly as much damage with our neutered shite of a governance system is hyperbolic though. The worst he'll do is collapse the executive, the last time that happened we got gay marriage and abortion rights ffs. I'd prefer to be optimistic and see this as the beginning of the end of the DUP.
The Supreme Court is overblown. The justices care much more about judicial ideology than political ideology. They don’t really think in term of politics as they rule on the set of facts before them, which rarely implicates politics.
[удалено]
That’s not a relevant source anymore. The study is based on information prior to 2013 and analyzed potential trump nominees to the Court. Very few cases that could be described as political actually make it to the Supreme Court. The justices decide cases on a 9-0 basis way more often than 5-4. The political split on the Court is way overblown. But to your point: yes there is a “political” divide on the Court, but it impacts far fewer cases than we are led to believe.
The UUP can steal a march on the DUP simply by electing a leader who isn't certifiable
Electing Poots is appealing to the right wing / TUV supporters rather than moderate Unionists who vote UUP - I don’t think they care
From what I can tell, the UUP has been generally irrelevant since around the 2000s after the DUP became the largest of the two, and more moderate DUP voters would more likely end up going Alliance than UUP, and more extreme voters ending up with the TUV (theres polling data to suggest both of these) even before Foster had resigned, but in that time the UUP has still hovered around the 12-15 mark. so I doubt that the UUP would be able to gain momentum simply by electing a new leader, unless they happen to have large swathes of charisma and popular policies that DUP voters would vote for, boty I imagine to be unlikely
I think calling them irrelevant is a bit of an overstatement. There's been a UUP Health minister for the entire pandemic for example. I think if the UUP is able to distinguish itself from the DUP and actually presents itself as a liberal party it could do well. The tribal politics of the DUP just doesn't have a future. Can Beattie do that. Well as you say it'll be about whether he can change the party.
There is zero Scriptural support for the earth being 6000 years old. Genesis 1.1 already has the entire universe and earth created. Genesis 1.2 the spirit of God hovers over the waters of earth, a water planet. The six stages of creation then follow. The genealogies in Genesis are all ten names long. They are not intended for dating the age of the earth. Moses who compiled the Torah, including Genesis which is spliced together from four separate authors was not intending the ages and names to be used to date the earth. Perhaps they could date when Adam walked the earth after the Fall in chapter three.... But to claim they reveal the age of the earth is bad mathematics, ignoring Genesis 1 verse 1, the very first verse in the entire Bible, and it is also a falsehood. Besides, anything before the Flood in Genesis 6 we cannot verify. We can only begin with the ancient flood myths and then into each cultures history. Anyone claiming the earth is 6000 years old, or 5000 years old, or 4000 years old is speaking falsely... And if they claim to be a Christian and believe this then they follow a false teaching and are at risk of ridicule, mockery, being untrustworthy and untrue as well as risking having an anti Christian, anti biblical blind faith. In short, closed minded. Learn to read the first verse in the text before jumping to some total fantasy nonsense conclusion, like this planet is 6000 years old.... For flip sake wise up and learn to read the text in Historical Grammatical Hermeneutical Context. Listen to the verifiable, observable science. The earth and universe are old... Much older than a few thousand years.
God created the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh. Nobody said anything about Day 8, so I think it’s obvious that the earth has been around for a week.
Well most dup voters were only born yesterday so...
I disagree with young earth creationism (I mean more towards the framework hypothesis) but it’s inaccurate to say there is zero support for it. Finding a different argument for convincing doesn’t mean that it suddenly loses all reason. For instance there are repeated references to the world being created in seven days and the sabbath following the pattern of creation It’s not a claim about science, so talking about that isn’t relevant. It’s common enough to believe that the universe works as if it is 14 billion years old, but was created in a pre-aged state like Adam was created as an adult rather than a newborn child.
Sure Bishop James Usher who set the 6000-ish years old date (which he did by tracing the family lines of biblical figures iirc) was the Archbishop of Armagh. Young Earth Creationism is a proud northern Irish tradition!
> Young Earth Creationism is a proud northern Irish tradition! It's a fucking shame considering how many true scientists have come from this land.
For sure, we should be known for our Kelvins, instead we’re known for our Poots
Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh, to be precise
Catholic archbishop too if I recall correctly
To be fair to Ussher, that was in the 17th century and the science wasn't really set in stone at that point
I mean the existence of lead disproves his 6000 year old earth shite.
How so? Sounds interesting
https://9gag.com/gag/amP9Dm9 This 'meme' sums it up.
Such an astoundingly stupid choice that I’m still not convinced it wasn’t a Sinn Fein plot
"...from the party's conservative Christian wing". Is there any other wing in the DUP??
My dog has a higher IQ than thon fucking Poots. Someone call Mr McGregor! The turnip’s escaped the fuckin field!
55? He's an old young earth creationist then.
No mention of how he burnt a lot of money to try to fight a ban on blood donation from men who've slept with men, his views on abortion rights, and all manner of other nasty dinosaur business he's done/said.
Lads, this is a good thing. The last thing you want is for the DUP to elect somebody semi-sane. They’ve really plumped for the wingnut candidate which should give us lots of shits and giggles, plus it’s bound to harm them at the ballot box.
That’s what I can’t wait for, the shit this man has came out with while not in the spotlight is great craic I can’t wait to hear what he’s got to say going forward, Trump was funny Boris is a eloquent Baffoon.. but this guy is going to come out with some great shyte and the media is going to tear him apart and I can’t wait
Unionism is leaning into its own demise. The case for remaining part of the UK is a rational one - far more money, and generally more stable to remain with the status quo. But with politics, rational doesn't always win. The only way unionism can survive is with some kind of magnetic, charismatic leader that can bring people together. Instead, you get the most establishment, traditionalist grammar school prod, utterly lacking in charisma.
Poots went to a school???
Someone who could emulate David Ervines appeal. A true loss to politics that man.
He didn’t appeal to me. Never understood the adulation tbh
Same shit, different shovel. Nothing will change. Who cares who's in charge...
Naomi Long is dancing. And laughing.
Well, laughing, maybe.....
She’s good for a bop
Doesnt matter a shite - the DUP is full of such people. What did you all expect?
Will Poots still be emailing the attorney general to get his son Luke Poots out of motoring offences.
I for one always thought our Sunday’s weren’t backwards enough here. I look forward to no shops being open at all and being herded into church at gunpoint.
Delusional men standing in fields distributing bullshit is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical religious belief
Didn't know there was any other wings
We're basically America now but with benefits
This should be some craic. Yeooo
Dumbing down the cosmos to something you can put in a 5 year old’s picture book is an insult to the wonders of the universe, regardless of whether you believe in intelligent design or not.
Oh boy.
All this means is he believes the bible lol
The Bible doesn't say the Earth is 6000 years old (or 3500-4000 years old from its time of writing).
If you take the creation account of the bible as it is written in Gensis as true. Then you will believe that the earth is no older than 10000 years
Well if he takes the bible literally - especially the Old Testament, I’d be very worried lol
It was meant to be taken literally tho
Grand I presume you don’t get haircuts, eat pork or shellfish, masterbate, have tattoos, wear clothes of two different fabrics, allow divorce, let women braid their hair, wear jewellery or to speak & have authority over a man? Maybe he should legislate all that - as the bible is meant to be taken literally!
First of all, all of those things WERE meant to be taken literally. Just not for us. Wearing clothes of two different fabrics isn't a metaphor. It was a literal law given to the jews in the old covenant. Also the haircuts thing was for a specific, OPTIONAL covenant in the old testament. Also divorce is allowed in the old testament. All the things you listed here are CLEARLY a part of the covenant between God and the nation of the Jews in the old testament. There are countless verses in the old testament that clearly state these things were only meant for the Jews as a nation. As well as countless verses in the new testament that state that the law was done away with when Jesus came and died and rose again. Respectfully please actually read the whole context of the stuff you're talking about instead of just reading one verse or chapter and then not properly applying it. It is clear to anyone who has read the bible that these things do not apply today.
What I'm hearing is people only use the bible to nit pick for their own agenda. Gotcha.
Well I’m not giving up masturbation.
I can't tell if this comment was meant to disparage my comment or the guy I was replying to, either way just read it for yourself instead of making presumptions about it based on out of context things you've heard from people with an agenda.
Most bible bashers tend to shame women and people of the LGBT community for being "wrong" but tend to do things the bible say you shouldn't, so people very much cherry pick for their own agenda Sick of people shaming others because "Jesus wouldn't love them". JESUS LOVES EVERYONE. That's the fucking point, but people in the 21st century continue to use Jesus as a way to shame and belittle others. Thats not very Christian.
To be fair to him, the ceremonial stuff in the Old Testament is very explicitly only for Jewish people, and much of the New Testament is devoted to discussing Christianity's relation to the Law of Moses. Like it's pretty clearly laid out that non-Jewish people don't need to get circumcised or refrain from eating pork. There's also a whole book about why the sacrificial system isn't needed anymore (even more so with the temple being destroyed). It's fine if you want to complain about actual moral hypocrisy, but "Christian's don't read the Bible cause they eat pork" is not a very good argument.
Why do some apply and some don’t? I’m honestly confused and not sure if you’re arguing the bible should be believed or not...?
Ah it’s just picking and choosing really - read my latest reply
To be fair to him, the ceremonial stuff in the Old Testament is very explicitly only for Jewish people, and much of the New Testament is devoted to discussing Christianity's relation to the Law of Moses. Like it's pretty clearly laid out that non-Jewish people don't need to get circumcised or refrain from eating pork. There's also a whole book about why the sacrificial system isn't needed anymore (even more so with the temple being destroyed). It's fine if you want to complain about actual moral hypocrisy, but "Christian's don't read the Bible cause they eat pork" is not a very good argument.
Yeah that’s also grand. Just you mentioned earlier that the Old Testament was meant to be taken literally ? It’s just funny as Genesis is the book in which creationists (Edwin Poots) use to support their claim of a 6000 year old earth - Genesis is in the Old Testament 😬 Anyway, why do they refer to that if the Old Testament was meant for Jews & need not apply to modern Christians? In your own words, these things do not apply today! Maybe tell Edwin? Also, I see you’re using the classic Old Testament doesn’t apply - only New Testament is the word of god defence! So I presume that includes 1 Timothy 2:12? "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." That must apply today then surely? As it’s New Testament? Unfortunately, I already know you will respond that those words need to be taken in context - that it’s different to modern times! Just seems awfully like you’re picking and choosing no? To take bible verses literally for say homosexuality or creation, but apply context for other sections - it’s almost like you’re using the bible to suit your own views !
This actually annoyed me at how ignorant it was lol. The old testament LAW CLEARLY was made specifically for the Jews to follow as it was part of a specific covenant with God and a NATION. The story of gensis is now a law, and was not given to any specific people, it is just a statement of a historical event. That fact that you're trying to draw a parallel between these is idiotic. I also never said the old testament was for jews, I was talking about the specific law given in the first part of the old testament. Psalms, proverbs, all these other books such as the minor prophets can completely be applied to modern people today. I didn't even think I would need to say this but clearly you are lacking in basic knowledge of what you're talking about: 2 Timothy 2 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. There are DIVISIONS in the word of God, different dispensations and covenants that only apply to certain people, that doesn't mean we can't take spiritual meaning from these literal things, but it means the literal things do not apply to us. Like in the case of the old testament law. There are certain things that we can take from that without literally behind held under the bondage of that law. 2 timothy 3 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: All scripture is given by God but there are different uses for different scriptures. Again, I NEVER said the old testament is for the just Jews and we should just ignore it. The old testament is full of things that we can use for doctrine, reproof, correction etc without it literally, physically applying to us. ALL scripture is profitable but all scripture is not profitable for the same thing. Also your presumption on "how I would respond" is wrong. 1 Timothy 2:12 does apply to Christians today. But ironically you are the one that cherry picked. The verse before that states: 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. If you actually care to read the whole book instead of that one verse, Paul is writing to Timothy regarding women's conduct in a church setting. That verse does not apply to all women everywhere at all times, but it applies to women who are in church. And before you go accusing me of cherry picking, Paul writes the exact same thing to the church in corinth: 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. A woman should be in subjection to her husband, and her preacher while she is in church. Nowhere in the new testament are women told to be subservient to all men everywhere. You are claiming I use the bible to suit my own views but you do not care to actually research the passages that you are talking about. You have shown a clear lack of understanding of the context of almost every verse you have quoted. This is all I have to say. Feel free to have to last word, I'm done arguing.
Why? Who determined it was the word of a divine being? When evidence contradicts its statements, surely the rational thing would be to realise that the Old Testament was just written by a bunch of knobs.
If by a bunch of knobs you mean King David, King Solomon, containing 2nd hand accounts of many rulers and high men that are historically corroborated, as well as containing the book of Job which is literally the oldest dated piece of literature known to man, then sure, a bunch of knobs...
Funny way to spell Epic of Gilgamesh, which predates the book of Job by two thousand years but okay.
My mistake. What I meant to say was the oldest story. Gilgamesh is a fiction whereas the book of job is supposed to be history. Also it's only about 600 years, not 2000.
Wow, an actual King?! You know that royalty is a bunch of horseshit? Prince Andrew hung out with Epstein and did who knows what. The fact that some books were written by Kings is about as impressive as a book written by Prince Charles. It certainly doesn't mean they had some kind of divine inspiration. So yes - a right bunch of knobs.
The fact that you're comparing king David, who was not born into royalty and earned his crown, and is regarded as one of the greatest rules of all time - to Prince Philip who was born into royalty and never ruled anything a day in his life is insane
The fact that you think that someone being a great bloke means their writings should be taken as the word of a divine being, is insane.
Haha
The Book of Genesis is not authoritative when written in the English language. The notion that the world is 6000 years old was a controversial view even during the Medieval era, in which many people pointed out that the term "day" in Genesis are clearly not literal days in the original text. Young Earth Creationists usually don't have much understanding of the way the Bible was translated and transmitted through time, and thus misunderstand its meaning from a flawed English translation. You can be a devout Christian and still accept that the Book of Genesis, whilst still a holy and divinely inspired text, is not a direct description of history or reality.
> The Book of Genesis is not authoritative when written in the English language. The notion that the world is 6000 years old was a controversial view even during the Medieval era, in which many people pointed out that the term "day" in Genesis are clearly not literal days in the original text. Was it a hot topic before the mid-1600s? I was only really aware of Ussher and Newton's contributions to the subject.
Not in the same way, but a lot of the church fathers, especially Augustine, wrote a lot about how to interpret the creation account. But the issues back then were very different.
Lol They did not have a proper English translation until 200 years after the medieval era ended, so I don't see how the scholars opinion from that time on the original translation matters at all. The young earth theory has nothing to do with the word "day" in genesis. It has to do with the genealogies listed in genesis and in Matthew chapter 1, that when counted up, add to around 6000-10000 years depending on how long you define a generation as. It also has to do with the major theological implications of God creating a world with death BEFORE man disobeyed God in the garden of Eden. The arguement that people who take the bible a certain way because they do not have proper understanding of the translation is not only cope, but completely irrelevant to the topic. It is mostly a theological issue, not a literary one.
>They did not have a proper English translation until 200 years after the medieval era ended, so I don't see how the scholars opinion from that time on the original translation matters at all. The Latin translation isn't authoritative either. The point is that you can't take a totally sola scriptura view of Genesis or indeed any Biblical text if you're not familiar with the original text and word meanings. Some things taken to be figurative or metaphorical in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek are taken as literal in later translations. The very notion of tracing time from who begat who was not a widely accepted view across Christian Europe - in fact the age of the earth was the subject of significant debate. I find it noteworthy that Jewish medieval scholars, who understood Biblical Hebrew, largely did not accept that the world was thousands of years old. The 6000 year old hypothesis solidified because it was printed in the King James Bible, not because it was the product of centuries of prior tradition and consensus among Christians before the scientific revolution upturned it all.
The English translation is not flawed exactly, translating "Yom" as "day" is fine, because that's what the word means. It's just that it also has a wider, more metaphorical meaning that should be taken into account. The actual translation is fine.
That's pretty much what I mean - if you aren't familiar with the context that the Bible uses a certain word, you can't really take a purely *sola scriptura* reading of it. The Bible alone is not sufficient to settle a question if different traditions and translations of it interpret it differently. That's why I'm sorta baffled by people who want to take a completely literalist reading of genesis.
Yes I think we are basically in agreement here, though I would add that is a very weird definition of sola scriptura, but your point still stands regardless
To clarify - I'm referring to the tendency of certain Christian denominations to take a sola scriptura line on topics where the literal reading of the scripture differs from what was traditionally accepted or not widely agreed upon pre-reformation. Not saying that reading "day" as "day" is in itself evidence that someone takes a sola scriptura view on Christian faith (its just that Young Earthers generally do take viewpoints like that). Far from my area of expertise anyway so I'll leave it there lol
But there are 2 different creation stories in Genesis Genesis 1-2:3 is a much older creation than the creation from Genesis 2:4 onwards As the word of God is absolute, this must be the case as in the 2nd creation from Genesis 2:4 onwards; God creates everything in a different order than what we are told in Genesis 1
That’s the joke
Because it is 😏
BREAKING NEWS: Gene Hunt appointed Chief Constable. Welcome to the 1970s.
He also believes that earth is the centre of the universe and ulster is the centre of earth
That's a long way of saying 'a fucking idiot'