Clear and concise, best post so far in my opinion. If you want to discuss "contradictions" i'll be happy to, in an other thread.
Oh yay. More insults and personal attacks. Which is a shame, because it has everything to do with my response. No, I do not agree that my statement is false. Based on the premise that if you do believe in the old testament, then you are a young earth creationist. If you pick and choose, or say, you believe in the old testament and you do not believe in genesis, for example, then no, you cannot believe in the old testament. I did not say "if you believe in some of the old testament, then you are a young earth creationist". Had I said "some" in my response to someone who clearly indicated they are a young earth creationist and literally believed in the old testament, then you might have had a point. However, I did not. I clearly said that if you believe in the old testament - as in all of the old testament - then you are a young earth creationist. Because if you believe in the old testament - all of the old testament - it would mean you also believe in the story of genesis, which yes, would make you a young earth creationist, because genesis is what young earth creationists like the OP, rely on. Hence why the OP believes that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Do you also ignore context when you launch personal attacks against people on other forums? Or is this site just special in that you only save that for us here? Which means they do not believe in all of the old testament as it is written - in other words, they do not believe in it literally.
Nor did I claim they did. I claimed they believed in it. As an example, you likely believe in the importance of the US constitution; I bet you even think it is a good basis for law. I assume you do not believe the section that requires states to return escaped slaves.
Yes you did, when you said that they were not young earth creationists. That to me is a clear indication that they do not believe in all of the old testament. Why would you believe that I think your constitution is a good basis for law?
If Genesis isn't factually correct, Christianity is 'out the window' so to speak. If you dismiss Genesis, you dismiss any reason for seeking salvation in Christ.
You might have an argument, if it were not for a few facts: 1) The Fugitive Slave Clause you are referring to is worded thusly: No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due. As you can see, the word "slave" is not used. Additionally, the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution abolishes slavery... which kind of renders the entire thing moot; after all, you can't return a slave is slavery is illegal Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"Held to labor" means slavery. Well, if you interpret the Constitution absolutely literally, you could claim that, since there is no express language in the Thirteenth that nullifies that part of the Constitution. Fortunately most people are more flexible than that.
On the contrary, I think it is a very good thing to have a plurality of views in religion, as in politics. Nobody has a monopoly on the truth and everybody is to some degree wrong, so it is likely there may be things to be learnt from a lot of different perspectives.
Cannot believe that every verse in the OT is literal historical truth, perhaps. But that's an awfully extreme hermeneutic. Is it really necessary that Christians (or Jews) interpret the OT that way? Many don't. I think that what you find instead is that most educated Christians interpret the first chapters of Genesis as ancient Hebrew creation myth. It's isn't a literal historical account, but rather a story, a teaching story. It sets out the dependence of everything on God. The order of creation might say something about how things are related as well. The Garden of Eden story gives an account of how real-life humanity seemingly became estranged from God. Not interpreting something literally isn't the same thing as not believing in it. It's possible to read the ancient myths as imaginative stories meant to convey what the ancients thought were important truths.
Agree, as your personal opinions on the OT are entirely beside the point in this discussion. It would be more to the point if you were to confirm you (now at least) have understood that most Christians do not take the Old Testament literally. Because, suspicious git that I am, I have the feeling that you would prefer it if all Christians did take it literally, as that would offer a simple way to ridicule Christianity in general. However, this particular straw man is not available.
Agreed. Most Christians do indeed believe in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. The vast majority of them take the fundamental beliefs (the words of Jesus, the words of the prophets) and leave the sillier parts (you'll go to hell if you wear a cotton/polyester blend.)
because one christian says one thing and the other another very often. The jews and muslims at least stick to their beliefs more consistently.
Only in your uniformed opinion. Those religions also have different sects that vehemently believe each other are wrong.
Hmm. Compare a Hasidic Jew who lives in Manhattan to a Jewish actor living in Hollywood and you will see two almost-entirely different set of beliefs.
