Mechanism for 'pre-flood longevity of life'?

[dworkin]

I'm sure some other sort of accidental death would have claimed the lives of most Methusalans if they ever existed (being thrown from a horse, choking on food).

Becoming dinner for a T. Rex must of kept the average ages down. After all, in fundie lala land the methusalahs and big reptiles were rubbing shoulders with one another, just like in the Flintstones.

That's another idea, they were cartoon characters. I saw The Flintstones yesterday and Fred doesn't look any older than when I was five.

Fred Flinstone, the other methusalah!

But that might point to it all being y'know, just a story and all.

[John of the Dead]

So out of curiosity what do you teach them about the Bible condoning slavery and infantcide?

That it was written by nomadic shepards over 3,500 years ago, and that many of the leaders at the time used barbaric means to keep the populace under control and wage war against their enemies, tactics that we today find abhorrent. I also make certain to impress upon them that society is fundamentally different today from when the Bible was written, and for the better. I suspect it's the same approach an American history teacher in Georgia, Arkansas, Mississippi (etc) would use when discussing the southern states' use of slavery.

[Aaron]

That it was written by nomadic shepards over 3,500 years ago, and that many of the leaders at the time used barbaric means to keep the populace under control and wage war against their enemies, tactics that we today find abhorrent. I also make certain to impress upon them that society is fundamentally different today from when the Bible was written, and for the better. I suspect it's the same approach an American history teacher in Georgia, Arkansas, Mississippi (etc) would use when discussing the southern states' use of slavery.

Thats good to hear, for a second there I thought we had a religious nutjob on our hands.

Welcome to the board!

[John of the Dead]

Thats good to hear, for a second there I thought we had a religious nutjob on our hands.

Welcome to the board!

Well, I'm religious, and I'm a nutjob (I volunteer to teach junior high kids), but I'm no religious nutjob. And thanks for the welcome. I mostly lurk, but I hope I can contribute something worthwhile.

[Magnetic]

Out of curiosity, unless you would rather not divulge the information, John, what denomination is your church?

I know for a fact that my church teaches the literal, infallible interpretation of the Bible, exclusively.

[John of the Dead]

Out of curiosity, unless you would rather not divulge the information, John, what denomination is your church?

I know for a fact that my church teaches the literal, infallible interpretation of the Bible, exclusively.

United Methodist. It's a very progressive denomination for the most part. We're a little more orthodox than the Unitarian Universalists, and maybe tied with the Episcopalians in terms of liberalism (which makes sense, given that the UMC is an offshoot of the Church of England, as is the Episcopalian Church). We have our pockets of fundamentalist backlash, but for the most part, we're progressive.

For more information about the United Methodist Church, here's a handy FAQ. Or just PM me or send me an email.

[Darth Wong]

I teach junior high Sunday School (7th and 8th grade), and we focus on the stories in the Old Testament. I make a concerted effort to point out that everything before Abraham AT THE EARLIEST is simply Jewish creation myth. No literal 7-day creation, no Garden of Eden, no flood, no Tower of Babel. We focus more on the meaning behind the stories. Additionally, I point out that many of the details are exagerations as well, such as the age of people.

The thing to keep in mind about the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, is that it was written by nomadic shepards over 3,500 years ago. They had a very tenuous understanding of nature, geology, astrophysics, and biology. Treat it as Jewish mythology, take from it what works, and discard what doesn't. You'll come away from it much happier and less conflicted.

What kind of junior high school focuses on the stories of the Old Testament? At best, they should be relegated to an ancient literature class, or perhaps a "history of religion" class.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I teach junior high Sunday School (7th and 8th grade) <snip>

What kind of junior high school focuses on the stories of the Old Testament? At best, they should be relegated to an ancient literature class, or perhaps a "history of religion" class.

He provided the answer in his own statement.

[Aaron]

What kind of junior high school focuses on the stories of the Old Testament? At best, they should be relegated to an ancient literature class, or perhaps a "history of religion" class.

I believe he said it was a Sunday School for Junior High School students

[John of the Dead]

What kind of junior high school focuses on the stories of the Old Testament? At best, they should be relegated to an ancient literature class, or perhaps a "history of religion" class.

I teach junior high Sunday School

Sunday School. You know, an hour before church services, a little background on the faith? Little kids sing songs and cut out pictures of lambs, adults go into some deeper theological Bible study, and junior high and high school kids get the basic tenants of the faith. We feel it's very important for kids to start learning exactly what's in the Bible around that age. There are a lot of folks who quote the Bible out of context or just plain mis-quote it. If you know what the Bible says, you won't fall for that.

For example, our students know that yes, the Bible condemns homosexuality, but that it condemns eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics as well. Therefore, they do a pretty good job of dismissing that line of attack beacuse they know they background behind it and why it doesn't apply to today's society.

[Aaron]

So United Methodists don't condemn gays then?

[John of the Dead]

So United Methodists don't condemn gays then?

Short answer:
No.

Long answer:
It's funny you should bring that up. It's not well know outside the UMC (and little known within), but I'm afraid we're in danger of loosing the "United" bit of the United Methodist name. There's a very loud, but very small, faction that's pushing hard against gays. The official church policy is that folks shouldn't practice homosexuality, but even if they do, it's no one else's business, so let's all just get along. The Book of Discipline states:

Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God's grace is available to all, and we will seek to live together in Christian community. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.

So, it's not a ringing endorsement, but it is better than it was. The group calling itself the "Good News Movement" (how's that for deceptive naming?) is pushing at the national level for a hardline condemnation of gays, and threatening a schism if they don't get it. My wife is active in church politics at the state and national level, and she helped lobby to keep things as they are. Personally, we're both in favor of 100% equitable treatment of gays - be openly gay, get married, whatever. However, in today's charged climate, I'm afraid this is the best we can hope for. But, as I said, we're working for change.

As an aside, you may be familiar with the big dust-up in the Espicopalian church over the gay bishop. That's where the UMC may be headed, since we're theologically very close to the Episcopal church. Both are offshoots of the Church of England and share a common lineage and many common beliefs and practices.

[Darth Wong]

What kind of junior high school focuses on the stories of the Old Testament? At best, they should be relegated to an ancient literature class, or perhaps a "history of religion" class.

I teach junior high Sunday School

Sunday School. You know, an hour before church services, a little background on the faith? Little kids sing songs and cut out pictures of lambs, adults go into some deeper theological Bible study, and junior high and high school kids get the basic tenants of the faith. We feel it's very important for kids to start learning exactly what's in the Bible around that age. There are a lot of folks who quote the Bible out of context or just plain mis-quote it. If you know what the Bible says, you won't fall for that.

For example, our students know that yes, the Bible condemns homosexuality, but that it condemns eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics as well. Therefore, they do a pretty good job of dismissing that line of attack beacuse they know they background behind it and why it doesn't apply to today's society.

Sorry, I didn't notice that part. My fault.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Its just something I read in an old book about finding Noah's ark. I'm not sure if I even got it right, I read the book in 9th grade while I was supposed to be paying attention in english class. This book postulated the flood was triggered by a massive asteroid passing too close to the earth... somehow.

See, that's the kind of thing people say when they know for a fact you aren't going to check to see if they're right or not.

And I've heard people tell me that their souls were once abducted from their bodies by demons.

I didn't say it was true, I was saying it was a theory I heard put forth as a possible explanation. I thought this thread was about possible explanations.

[Aaron]

So, it's not a ringing endorsement, but it is better than it was. The group calling itself the "Good News Movement" (how's that for deceptive naming?) is pushing at the national level for a hardline condemnation of gays, and threatening a schism if they don't get it. My wife is active in church politics at the state and national level, and she helped lobby to keep things as they are. Personally, we're both in favor of 100% equitable treatment of gays - be openly gay, get married, whatever. However, in today's charged climate, I'm afraid this is the best we can hope for. But, as I said, we're working for change.

Well it's better than what is coming out of most religious organisations these days. Will the UMC be performing gay marriages in the future than or will they decline that service? And note that I'm not saying that they should be forced too either, why gays would choose to be married in a church is beyond me but people are wierd.

A schism? So does that mean they'll form their own church? If thats the case than by all means let them go, why have a bunch of dinosaurs dragging a progressive organisation down?

As an aside, you may be familiar with the big dust-up in the Espicopalian church over the gay bishop. That's where the UMC may be headed, since we're theologically very close to the Episcopal church. Both are offshoots of the Church of England and share a common lineage and many common beliefs and practices.

Actually I think this is the first I have heard about it. But there's no good reason why a gay priest or bishop shouldn't be allowed to serve their faith if thats their choice.

[John of the Dead]

Well it's better than what is coming out of most religious organisations these days. Will the UMC be performing gay marriages in the future than or will they decline that service? And note that I'm not saying that they should be forced too either, why gays would choose to be married in a church is beyond me but people are wierd.

I don't expect we'll see any gay marriages in the UMC anytime soon. Methodists are progressive, but that's probably too far too fast for most. I, personally, am all for it, but it's an uphill fight.

A schism? So does that mean they'll form their own church? If thats the case than by all means let them go, why have a bunch of dinosaurs dragging a progressive organisation down?

My attitude has been that they would be much happier worshipping with our brothers down the road, the Southern Batpists. The real downside to a schism is that both sides will try to lay claim to the "Methodist" name, at which point you're either left with the choice of changing your name or wasting time and resources trying to keep it. There's more than a little bit of brand recognition behind "Methodist," and I'd hate to loose it, but it may come to that.

The other downside is that there's strength in numbers. A large church can do more good, feed more people, clothe more people, build more houses, than two medium-sized churches. And in the long run, that's what we're all about: doing God's work RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.

Actually I think this is the first I have heard about it. But there's no good reason why a gay priest or bishop shouldn't be allowed to serve their faith if thats their choice.

Well, among folks who follow religious politics, it was a big deal. Several churches have stopped paying dues (and mortgage payments, which has even greater implications) to the national organization, and many are threatening a complete pull-out. Yes, I agree it's retarded, and counter-productive to boot. But you get some folks who want to go back in time, and they start screwing up things for everybody. Again, I wonder: Why don't they go to a church that ALREADY preaches what they believe, rather than trying to change an entire church that doesn't?

[Aaron]

I don't expect we'll see any gay marriages in the UMC anytime soon. Methodists are progressive, but that's probably too far too fast for most. I, personally, am all for it, but it's an uphill fight.

Any battle worth winning will be hard. Churches can't afford to stick their heads in the sand forever in the hopes that gays and lesbians will go away. Personally I would think that gays wouldn't want to get married in a church, what with all the hate and disrepect that generally comes their way from Christians in general. But if for some reason they want to get married in a church than they should have that option open to them.

My attitude has been that they would be much happier worshipping with our brothers down the road, the Southern Batpists. The real downside to a schism is that both sides will try to lay claim to the "Methodist" name, at which point you're either left with the choice of changing your name or wasting time and resources trying to keep it. There's more than a little bit of brand recognition behind "Methodist," and I'd hate to loose it, but it may come to that.

Baptists *shudder*, now there's a group thats the poster child for intollerance. Personally I think that if there's a breakaway than the group leaving should forfiet the right to the name. They can just make up someting else like: The First Fundementalist Church Of God. Or some such nonsense.

The other downside is that there's strength in numbers. A large church can do more good, feed more people, clothe more people, build more houses, than two medium-sized churches. And in the long run, that's what we're all about: doing God's work RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.

Thats assuming that everyone at the large church contributes in some form, being at bake sales, donateing clothes, running the soup kitchen, etc. If there's a schism than that new choice might actually out bid you in the charity department as they were sufficently radical to break from you, they might be motivated enough to out do you at the aforementioned activitties.

Well, among folks who follow religious politics, it was a big deal. Several churches have stopped paying dues (and mortgage payments, which has even greater implications) to the national organization, and many are threatening a complete pull-out. Yes, I agree it's retarded, and counter-productive to boot. But you get some folks who want to go back in time, and they start screwing up things for everybody. Again, I wonder: Why don't they go to a church that ALREADY preaches what they believe, rather than trying to change an entire church that doesn't?

Thats a good question and one I can't answer because I can't understand their logic in the first place. It seems like some of these people are forgetting some of what going to church teaches IE: love thy neighbor.

[drachefly]

The idea that the ages are listed in months runs into trouble when you get Cainan, Mahalaleel, and Enoch fathering sons at the ripe young age of 65-70 MONTHS -> 5-6 years.

[Magnetic]

The idea that the ages are listed in months runs into trouble when you get Cainan, Mahalaleel, and Enoch fathering sons at the ripe young age of 65-70 MONTHS -> 5-6 years.

How about seasons. Could we do the math with seasons?

[drachefly]

900 / 4 = 225.

That's.. kind of long.

[drachefly]

Ghetto edit:

If we just push the early birth ages up to an early puberty age of 10, we get 6 'bible years' to 1 'regular year'. That still leaves Methuselah biting the dust at 150 years.

Kind of plausible on a restricted-calorie diet, etc. etc.

But why would there be 6 'bible years' to 1 'regular year'?

Note that the holy land is in a temperate zone.