1000 years from now, "Brady Bukkake Volcano" will be as important as cave drawings.

By a "historical interpretation of genesis" I mean an assertion that Genesis more or less represents history, perhaps imperfectly, as opposed to the idea that Genesis is a creation myth with little or no historical accuracy.

The sources cited by your wikipedia link are:
1.) An unsourced (dead link) vague generalization by an archbishop, which doesn't amount to an assertion that a non-historical interpretation of Genesis was ever common or tolerated before the 1700s.

2.) Several other articles with cherry picked quotes of early church figures supporting various historical interpretations of Genesis. Many of them just quarreled with the meanings of "day" and "light", e.g., "A day of the lord is 1000 years".

That's unconvincing. If the author of Genesis meant a thousand years instead of "the evening and the morning of the x-th day", he should have written a thousand years. And he'd still be very wrong. Christians who believed that Genesis was non-historic were a very small minority until the 1700s

Here's a list of people who've been burned at the stake (or threatened) for contradicting a historical interpretation of Genesis:

"In 1749, the distinguished French scholar Comte de Buffon proposed that the 6 days of creation may have been 6 long epochs of time and that the Earth's surface had been shaped and reshaped by processes still going on. The Church took great exception to this and threatened Buffon to recant and publicly accept the Old Testament age of 6000 years. No doubt remembering the fate of Galileo (who lived most of his life under house arrest for proposing the Earth went around the Sun,) and Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake for proposing the same theory and adding that he believed there was life elsewhere in the universe, Buffon complied." - http://starryskies.com/Artshtml/dln/6-97/earth.age.html

"In Les époques de la nature (1778) Buffon discussed the origins of the solar system, speculating that the planets had been created by comets colliding with the sun (see Passing star hypothesis). He also suggested that the age of the earth was much greater than the 4,004 years b.c. proclaimed by Archbishop James Ussher of the church. Based on the cooling rate of iron, he calculated that the age of the earth was 75,000 years. For this he was condemned by the Catholic Church in France and his books were burned. Buffon also denied that Noah's flood ever occurred and observed that some animals retain parts that are vestigial and no longer useful, suggesting that they have evolved rather than having been spontaneously generated. [3]" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Louis_Leclerc,_Comte_de_Buffon

"A French scholar, Bernard Palissy who lived from 1510-1589 believed the Earth was much older based on his observations that rain, wind, and tides were the cause for much of the present-day appearance of the Earth. He wrote that, these forces could not work over such a short period of time to produce the changes. He was burned at the stake in 1589. A bad time for scientific inquiry. " - http://www.astronomical.org/astbook/age.htm

"Another was Thomas Burnet, a member of the English clergy, who lived from 1635-1715. He had written a book around 1681 supporting the idea of a worldwide flood, but in 1692, he wrote another book in which he questioned the existence of Adam and Eve, and that ended his career."

Giordano Bruno: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Before the 1500s, almost no one, perhaps no one, understood enough to have any good reason to say that the earth was older than 6,000 to 12,000 years, and most Christians accepted Genesis as a historical account by default. Christians back then believed in Adam and Eve because their alternative was that Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic "original sin" by a non-existent individual. Modern genetic evidence proves that we are not the inbred descendants of only two homo sapiens.

I ought to fix that wikipedia article.

Westy, based on your comments on other posts I have no idea whether I should take you seriously (or seruysly, or however the hell you think it is supposed to be spelled), but in case I should, or anyone else is wondering why they're doing this, I think it's actually a brilliant way to lift the surrounding community *out* of poverty. They're billing this as an "8th Wonder of the World," which almost certainly means tourists will be visiting. If this is supposed to hold up for 1000 years and costs, lets say, $200M (I'm guessing it'll go overbudget, probably by more than that), they only need it to earn $200,000 every year to break even. Plus interest presumably, but if it's really as incredible as they're billing it to be a sum well over $500k per year should be easy. Potentially they could rent out some office space and make that much, which would also be good for the community, as at the very least there would be some secretarial / temp work; restaurants too.

Hell, they put a good arcade, imax theater, and/or waterpark into it and I'm thinking 2nd honeymoon destination. Oh, and please a "Planet Bollywood" restaurant. This must happen.

Did I just get called a communist?

First of all, the question of God, and his acceptance or not is subjective to each individual and as such each is allowed to make up their minds. I do not question or argue against that, I will wholeheartedly admit that I am not entirely clear on it either.

However I question religious presence when it comes to issues of national policy and the liberty of its citizens. As for what Dag said...

All the examples you put forward so far have one significant common thread the existence of a higher political order imposed on a population through the systematic elimination of any opposition. The higher political order does what is most beneficial to it's further existence, it eliminates all possible opposition through violent force flying whatever idealogical concept best suits their needs. In Nazi Germany there was the Night of Long Knives, the burning of the Reichstag, and of course the genocide of jews included political dissenters, communists and homosexuals.

In Stalinist Russia it was called the NKVD during World War 2, where the paranoid Stalin would regularly conduct purges to eliminate any possible dissent from the military and the populace. Stalin did not trust his own intelligence thinking it was all lies, thus Russia's response to Germany's invasion was so slow. Then the KGB came that watched over the entire population, again purging any possible dissent.

Exactly where atheism and theism reside in these two engines of war and control I don't really see. Neither Hitler or Stalin cared about religion, they cared about power and control, it's not like they were astronomers mapping space for the benefit of man's evolution, their research focused on war exclusively, there was no correlation between atheism and belief in science and their power over the people. It was fear, control and propaganda. Hitler himself is quoted as saying that he is not here to elevate man but to make use of his weaknesses, he exploited the weakness of a battered nation placing their blame on a political ideology (communism), a race (jews) and anyone else (homosexuals, anarchists and so on) he thought unfit for his vision of a 1000 year Reich.

Never have I proposed that we use science in any such manner, what I see is theism being used time and time again throughout history as a way to placate the population in various endeavors of conflict. I believe religion is beneficial to human development, and I have been brought up as such, however I do not see it's place in the offices of goverment in the conduct of policy. Either as a tool to placate the populace into supporting an unjust war through fear or to sell a political candidate as something he really is not. What God fearing man sends his men to die when he clearly didn't get the facts right but somehow the intelligence is cherry picked but we don't talk about it? And Bishops? Are they so high and mighty? What of the sexual scandals?

Even if the religious texts are from God, clearly his main mantra about you know loving everybody even if they are different is not followed by those who pretend to be devout Christians. There is no God in Iraq marching for the US. What the administration did is use religion and it's supporters to win the Whitehouse twice. This administration doesn't care about family values, or abortion, or stem cells or healthcare. It's machine was engineered to capture the gut feelings of all voters, to activate them, this is how an election during a war on two fronts and questionable economic status was voted on family values, topics like abortion and homosexuality.

Was it really as important as the conduct of military foreign policy under the banner of freedom? The escalation of military forces in Iraq (150,000 currently) with additional 20,000 coming in. Which is dismal to say the least and huge military gamble, there is no additional reserve after that number, and after there is the draft. US forces are engaging fleeing forces from Somalia, in similar operations carried out in Afghanistan. All this to assure a viable source of Oil for the US in the short future as oil reserves reach peak oil levels after which less and less barrels of oil will be produced. Blah blah blah This is all covered in the excellent History of Oil sift

My issue isn't with religion as with it's application as a political tool. That is the proper definition of Secularism, being the ideology that holds that religious issues should not be the basis of politics, it's only extremists who hold that religion has no place in public life for that is an issue for each person to decide for themselves on their own.

Well am sorry both pallen and jlee22 feel this way.

But the fact remains that VideoSift is a website on the Internet, and the majority of it's visitors and users compromise of people who hold atheist or agnostic beliefs. Especially since alot of traffic is from Europe.

Some may express a stronger view then others, but maybe that's simply because for the last 1000 years or so religious belief has been dominant, and only recently with the emergence of people like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Gould has the issue become so prominent.

Such a discussion wouldn't even have emerged just a few decades ago. Especially now when Religious divides are fueling conflicts. Evangelical Christianity is scary in it's core beliefs that Apocalypse is something that is preordained by God.

I don't think the resistance is so much with the philosophical discussion of whether God exists or not since that is entirely subjective.

But rather the view that religious thought should pervade our politics and discourse in society. At least that is my rational, I have no problems with people possessing their own faith and beliefs.

But it troubles me when people in power are judged on whether or not they posses religious beliefs. Running for any high ranking public office position with no religious background is suicidal. Appeasing to a Christian base by using religious wording and so on...

I am officially dumber for having watched this video. If written language wasn't invented until about 1000 years ago, then how did the renaissance scholars destroy ancient documents? It goes back and forth from "History as we know it is crap" to "History is a giant cover-up." There are just too many internal contradictions there for me to even try to point out. I guess this is just more evidence that once some people get an idea in their head, they decide without any evidence that it must be true - and no one persuade them otherwise.

You'd think so, with his appetite, but it was Lrr, ruler of the planet Omicron Persi 8, who has been receiving our television signals for years. You might recall he was going to destroy Earth because they cancelled ?Single Female Lawyer? 1000 years ago.

"Mecca must be destroyed." Great.

qm, you only missed the original Crusades by 10 or so centuries.
Pity that.

In the intervening 1000 years, God died and we're alone.
http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=6721

Do your seriously believe that QM - or am I feeding the troll? Do you really think simulating the destruction of the most holy place in the world for Muslims will make them think
"Hmm, oh well - I guess it's time to give up this whole Islam business, where can I buy me some rosary beads?"

>>>> What I think the islamofascists will think is, "The West is stronger than us. If we persist in attacking the infidel, they will wipe us off the planet. We cannot win." The islamofascist mind only understands brute force. They are not like Westerners or even--God forbid--the milksops of Europe who have just about rolled over.

>>>> Islamofascists cannot be reasoned with, bribed, brokered with. They do not share our Western values, and in case you're not sure what that means, THEY are the inferior non-civilization.

>>>> We are dealing with a suidical threat to the world's stability and here we are in the West, asleep.


Have you no sense of human nature and psychology?

>>>> I wonder the same thing about liberals anywhere, over the age of 25...

>>>> Well gang, I know what I propose (in simulation for now) sounds harsh, but here's the alternative: pick your most favorite large city, if you have one. Now imagine it consumed by fire under a mushroom cloud, followed by enough radiation to make the land uninhabitable for 1000 years.

>>>> The islamofascists would do it in a heartbeat, if they could get the suitcase nuke in. So far they haven't. Why do we have to wait for them to nuke us before wiping them off the planet? Why wait? Are you still not sure these savages want us dead?