> My Christian beliefs are centered around a literal interpretation of the Bible. This includes a belief in a 6-day creation that took place roughly six-thousand years ago, a belief that God will cause the end of this world rather than any man-induced climate change, a firm belief that a free people should be an armed people, and more.
Ouch.
Why did the deity put the fossils there? In order to confuse us? In order to challenge the faithful? It defies reason. You can only put it as a mystery of faith. But it needn't be.
If you are going to create a planet (or universe) from scratch to be the home of an intelligent species, including a realistic history is critical to give that species sufficient historical context to learn about how things work.
Understanding evolution and biology is a lot harder if you have no fossil record. Understanding plate tectonics is a lot harder if you don't have a consitent geologix record. Understanding physics is a lot harder if you don't have a light coming in from events that predates the creation of the universe.
Thus if you grant that the universe was created 7000 years ago with a huge, detailed and consistent history, the clear implication to me is that we are intended to study that history to understand the universe in which we exist.
Went into a creationist museum once (real thing). And the literal answer to your question was ”Yes, Satan put the fossils there to temp us away”.
I can’t attribute that to all creationist, but it was the case for the few I interacted with.
He changed the subject and never brought it back up to me again.
In Heinleins “Book of Job,” this is suggested as the answer in one scene. A grand book
Furthermore, when can we tax religion in the USA and weaken its power over the population?
I am all for anyone who wants to live a Christian life in accordance with the Bible. Good luck to them. 99% of modern American protestant Christians are frankly full of shit. I sadly was one for many years until I started reading the book I was espousing.
It seems silly to take those words and interpret them in a way that means you should not defend yourself.
The real answer is that the Bible was written by people who like it or not had agendas themselves. What was King Jame’s word, and why was it so important he had his own version of the Bible?
Christianity like most other religions has plenty of examples of righteous self-defense.
> But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
So, assuming Jesus was speaking literally, the only possible interpretation I can think of is that Jesus wanted you to buy a sword, but not use it against others. Why he wanted you to buy a sword, I don't know. Maybe he had a friend blacksmith.
From Arm 2:9-21,
> And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the Lord did grin. And the people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats, and large chulapas. And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.'
Now I understand.
The consensus on this may seem confusing because other English speaking countries have not necessarily adopted this clear separation, within trans communities or areas willing to be inclusive.
So on the internet, a lot of discussion on these topics gets mixed up with exclusionary as well as simply Commonwealth residents versions of how to be inclusive.
The general recognition is that people are able to be productive members of society by simply saying their desired pronouns. Even when “they” adds an additional context as a singular form which didnt exist prior, or when “xie” didnt previously exist as an English word. It is such a simple ask with massive productivity leverage that people are willing to do it. It would not be a lie, when separating sex from gender.
Not that anyone but your doctor should care.
There is no consensus either, outside of a small minority. Prior to 2012, custom pronouns would have had you laughed out of the room. You don’t get to redefine language and force your linguistic preferences on others. That’s not how language works.
In fact I think it actually does. In the last century this kind of thing has happened many times. One phenomenon is the way we refer to people who have intellectual disabilities. Sometimes it's called the Euphemism treadmill - as clinical names are created to describe a problem, they get used as a pejorative and the clinical name is now associated with the pejorative use. New clinical names are created without this association and on it goes - idiot, moron, retarded, slow, special needs, etc.
Also, minorities have sought to redefine how they're described. Negro, black, African American. Oriental, Asian.
Natural languages reflect their usage. So it's normal for popular usage of language to change how we speak. Some of those changes are incidental and some are deliberate - the result of a social campaign.
you literally do and that’s literally how language works. You are free to disagree with these new definitions, and in turn people are free to show you the door, just like what occurred in the post above.
(What’s the alternative? Words are given a fixed definition at their conception? Who gives these definitions?)
this is all unfortunately very far from the original argument, which is that it takes no effort to just use whatever pronoun is asked for. It’s no different than when someone named Thomas says “please call me Tom.” Do you jump up on the table and start citing Bible verses about the perils of falsehoods, or do you just fucking call the guy Tom?
I don't particularly care about rehashing the ethics of preferred pronouns right now, but what you've described is exactly how language works. You might look into why standard practice moved away from capitalizing nouns in the 19th century.
I can't find any reason on google. Got a link?
English is like easy mode for inclusion.
> On another team I worked with, I was asked to call a man by female pronouns. This one brings me more grief, as I enjoyed working with the individual in question. He wanted to declare himself to be a woman. He changed his name, his clothing, his looks, his dress, you name it. While I might disagree with his decisions, who made me a judge? However, for me to call a man a “she” would make me a liar. This I refused to do.