Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!ethan
From: ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re. Bishop Ussher and the age of the earth,etc.
Message-ID: <1097@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Mar-85 10:47:09 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.1097
Posted: Wed Mar 13 10:47:09 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Mar-85 03:29:03 EST
References: <1041@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 38

[]
> Ethan Vishniac when he asks if Christians wish to defend a flat earth and a
> geocentric universe because HE says that a literal reading of the bible leads
> to those ideas.  Please.  Spare me, Ethan.  Perhaps, your lack of liberal arts
> training is showing, perhaps you are being flip, perhaps you really believe
> Christians believe those things, perhaps you are silly.  But 'literal' reading
> MEANS reading the document through the eyes of writer and his times!!!!!!

> Ken Arndt

OK, I confess.  I was being flip and I forgot to use that little :-).
What's more, I think your definition of what constitutes a "literal" reading
of the Bible is quite reasonable.  However, buried in that article were two
serious questions.  Why do some (not all) of the creationists in this
newsgroup insist on describing their opposition as atheistic?  Some are and
some aren't and there is nothing logically inconsistent with regarding 
"scientific" creationism as an intellectual shell game and being devoutly
religious.  Second,  how can one maintain that the some statements in the
Bible must be interpreted metaphorically or "for the people of that time"
etc. and yet insist that it gives a scientifically accurate and detailed
description of the origin of life and the universe?  I am aware that *very*
few Christians believe in a flat Earth or a geocentric solar system.  (In
fact, they may be outnumbered by those that believe Michael Jackson is the
Second Coming of Christ, and I wouldn't consider those people "typical"
Christians.)  The only intellectual justification I can see for discarding
the flat Earth and retaining the kind of creationism I see espoused here is
that the absurdity of the former position is immediately apparent to
everyone and the absurdity of the latter is a matter which requires some
thought. 

Ken, I get the impression that we are in substantial agreement on this
subject.  This is probably an example of why :-) is useful (to digress
to discussion in a different newsgroup).

"Don't argue with a fool.      Ethan Vishniac
 Borrow his money."            {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan

*Anyone who wants to claim these opinions is welcome to them.*