dsulkin@ wrote:
Tom,
You wrote a pretty good article here. Then you had to take a stab at believers and call them lunatics if they take the Bible at face value. Many churches teach that if you believe any of it, you believe it all. So who decides when the truth starts and the fairy tales end? You? So tell me, is all of Genesis fair tales? Does the truth start with Exodus? Was Moses a real person? Or do the jews have it all wrong? Or do we need to go all the way to the New Testament to get facts?
Many believe the Bible is the writen word of God, given to chosen people to record. Are they all lunatics? You stated that accepting the Word of God literaly is an excersize in lunacy.
If I excersize, push ups, set ups, running, its to get stronger and healthier. So by your thinking, if a believer excerizes their Faith, they are becoming more looney? My point is, that if it works for them and keeps them grouded in Faith, why do you want to call them unreasonable?
You wrote a pretty good article here. Then you had to take a stab at believers and call them lunatics if they take the Bible at face value. Many churches teach that if you believe any of it, you believe it all. So who decides when the truth starts and the fairy tales end? You? So tell me, is all of Genesis fair tales? Does the truth start with Exodus? Was Moses a real person? Or do the jews have it all wrong? Or do we need to go all the way to the New Testament to get facts?
Many believe the Bible is the writen word of God, given to chosen people to record. Are they all lunatics? You stated that accepting the Word of God literaly is an excersize in lunacy.
If I excersize, push ups, set ups, running, its to get stronger and healthier. So by your thinking, if a believer excerizes their Faith, they are becoming more looney? My point is, that if it works for them and keeps them grouded in Faith, why do you want to call them unreasonable?
18 May 2008 03:32:21
heidisgranny@ wrote:
danimal
do you believe that the earth and humans are only 10,00 years old? That Noah, put two of EVERY animal on the ark? (polar bears?) That the Lord needed world war II, and the UN, to create a jewish state? Just curious. BTW I am a Christian, who lives in the reality-based world.
do you believe that the earth and humans are only 10,00 years old? That Noah, put two of EVERY animal on the ark? (polar bears?) That the Lord needed world war II, and the UN, to create a jewish state? Just curious. BTW I am a Christian, who lives in the reality-based world.
18 May 2008 14:11:41
dsulkin@ wrote:
Dan, what I said was SOME CHURCHES teach that the BIBLE is to be taken for truth , from front to back, every word. I did not say that was what I believed. 10,00 years old? More like 4.5 billion. I to am , or try to be, based in reality.
WHat I was saying was that I don't see why Tom needed to elude to Christians that do believe the Bible word for word as loony. And no matter how he trys to spin it, thats exactly what he said. If they believe it and it keeps thier Faith strong, then good for them.
Now, is it possable God used WWII and and the UN to RE-create a Jewish homeland? Of course it is. If you are a Christian, ( a believer in Christ) then you know the Lord can use about any means to justify the end. Agreed?
WHat I was saying was that I don't see why Tom needed to elude to Christians that do believe the Bible word for word as loony. And no matter how he trys to spin it, thats exactly what he said. If they believe it and it keeps thier Faith strong, then good for them.
Now, is it possable God used WWII and and the UN to RE-create a Jewish homeland? Of course it is. If you are a Christian, ( a believer in Christ) then you know the Lord can use about any means to justify the end. Agreed?
18 May 2008 19:01:56
dsulkin@ wrote:
Tom,
This is from "advocates for self government", thats the site you gave us to check our political allignment.
Libertarian
Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and
economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one
that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.
Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose
government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate
diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties
I would have thought that since you said you were 100% at the top of the Libertarian section of the chart, that you would "tolerate diverse lifestyles'. In my thinking, that would include those who choose to worship the Living God and believe in, as well as trust the Bible for what it says. When you use the phrase,' exercise in lunacy ' and also claim they are 'insulting God', it sounds like you are not very tolerant of them. Last time I checked, it was a persons RIGHT to to have the LIBERTY to worship as they choose. By your own standard as a libertarian, should not you be defending them, instead of attacking them?
This is from "advocates for self government", thats the site you gave us to check our political allignment.
Libertarian
Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and
economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one
that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.
Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose
government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate
diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties
I would have thought that since you said you were 100% at the top of the Libertarian section of the chart, that you would "tolerate diverse lifestyles'. In my thinking, that would include those who choose to worship the Living God and believe in, as well as trust the Bible for what it says. When you use the phrase,' exercise in lunacy ' and also claim they are 'insulting God', it sounds like you are not very tolerant of them. Last time I checked, it was a persons RIGHT to to have the LIBERTY to worship as they choose. By your own standard as a libertarian, should not you be defending them, instead of attacking them?
19 May 2008 04:02:07
Lucente wrote:
Danimal,
First, I wrote that it is lunacy to accept the creation myths in the Bible, and elsewhere for that matter, as the literal truth, which it is. It is pure lunacy to accept a fairy tale as the truth. It is no different from accepting Cinderella as the literal truth. Cinderella might impart some higher truths and lessons, but the story itself is not true. Same for the creation myth. It might impart some higher truth and teach a lesson, but it is simply not true. So, yes, I stand by my comment that it is pure lunacy to take an ancient creation and flood story penned by an unknown Middle Eastern Jewish priest some 3,000 years ago and accept that fable as history, science, and the unerring word of God all wrapped into one. Such thinking defies reason and ignores 3,000 years of editing and translating. As an editor, I can tell you that 3,000 years worth of rewrites can seriously alter a story.
The creation myth was written by men who knew it was not the truth. It was merely an attempt to explain the unexplainable. I find it humorous that early Christians and Jews were able to comprehend that but modern-day Americans cannot. Even St. Augustine, perhaps the greatest Christian theologian of all time, warned against believing stories in the Bible as absolutely literal when it is something that science can prove otherwise, like the creation myth: “In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision ... we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.”
It is, while I am on the subject, lunacy to accept the Bible as the unerring word of God when it clearly has errors and contradicts itself.
Finally, criticism of taking the Bible literally is not intolerance. I accept that people can worship and believe as they wish. I also accept that I can criticize or attempt to educate or convince those believers to change their beliefs. There is nothing intolerant in that. I am not proposing laws or otherwise using force to keep people from believing as they wish. I have no trouble with faith. I think it is great that people have faith. However, people need to temper their faith with reason, which can only lead to a greater faith.
~tjl~
First, I wrote that it is lunacy to accept the creation myths in the Bible, and elsewhere for that matter, as the literal truth, which it is. It is pure lunacy to accept a fairy tale as the truth. It is no different from accepting Cinderella as the literal truth. Cinderella might impart some higher truths and lessons, but the story itself is not true. Same for the creation myth. It might impart some higher truth and teach a lesson, but it is simply not true. So, yes, I stand by my comment that it is pure lunacy to take an ancient creation and flood story penned by an unknown Middle Eastern Jewish priest some 3,000 years ago and accept that fable as history, science, and the unerring word of God all wrapped into one. Such thinking defies reason and ignores 3,000 years of editing and translating. As an editor, I can tell you that 3,000 years worth of rewrites can seriously alter a story.
The creation myth was written by men who knew it was not the truth. It was merely an attempt to explain the unexplainable. I find it humorous that early Christians and Jews were able to comprehend that but modern-day Americans cannot. Even St. Augustine, perhaps the greatest Christian theologian of all time, warned against believing stories in the Bible as absolutely literal when it is something that science can prove otherwise, like the creation myth: “In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision ... we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.”
It is, while I am on the subject, lunacy to accept the Bible as the unerring word of God when it clearly has errors and contradicts itself.
Finally, criticism of taking the Bible literally is not intolerance. I accept that people can worship and believe as they wish. I also accept that I can criticize or attempt to educate or convince those believers to change their beliefs. There is nothing intolerant in that. I am not proposing laws or otherwise using force to keep people from believing as they wish. I have no trouble with faith. I think it is great that people have faith. However, people need to temper their faith with reason, which can only lead to a greater faith.
~tjl~
19 May 2008 12:17:32
dsulkin@ wrote:
In my opinion, you cannot call people loony in the same breath that you claim tolorance. You might as well say, " If you believe the Bible you are nuts, you are raving loonatics. Oh, by the way, as a Libertarian, I respect your right to be nuts" Can I get an AMEN? ....Oooo!!
OM Goodness! I just figured it out! Humpty Dumpty was a libertarian. Thats what he gets for straddling the top of the wall!
~djs~
OM Goodness! I just figured it out! Humpty Dumpty was a libertarian. Thats what he gets for straddling the top of the wall!
~djs~
19 May 2008 14:38:15
bgeer001@ wrote:
Are humans mere animals or are we different because we have a soul? If we have a soul, when along our evolutionary journey did God give us that soul?
19 May 2008 18:53:09
Lucente wrote:
Danimal,
I don't see the problem. I support a person's right to worship as they wish. That doesn't mean I can't try to convince them they are wrong. For example, I find your position on gun registration wrong-headed. I support your right to have that position, but I am still going to try to convince you otherwise.
The difference between libertarians and the others is that the others try to use the force of law to push their opinions on the whole.
~tjl~
I don't see the problem. I support a person's right to worship as they wish. That doesn't mean I can't try to convince them they are wrong. For example, I find your position on gun registration wrong-headed. I support your right to have that position, but I am still going to try to convince you otherwise.
The difference between libertarians and the others is that the others try to use the force of law to push their opinions on the whole.
~tjl~
19 May 2008 21:23:07
Lucente wrote:
Blaine Geer,
That's the question for the ages. The question I have, though, is would aliens from other worlds have a soul? We would never know, but I suspect many Christians and other would say no and that would not bode well for relations with the alien race.
~tjl~
That's the question for the ages. The question I have, though, is would aliens from other worlds have a soul? We would never know, but I suspect many Christians and other would say no and that would not bode well for relations with the alien race.
~tjl~
19 May 2008 21:42:05
dsulkin@ wrote:
IMO, (as usual I have one) Aliens would also have a soal. If we believe we were made in Gods image, any other being he may have created, (through evolution or whatever means) must also have been blessed the same way. And I know it's not Biblical, but I have had my dog for 9 years, and i swear there is more behind those eyes than just an animal.
So where do I satnd? I believe in God and Jesus Christ. I believe in heven and hell. So given the chance to have one over the other, I would be a fool to just say what will be will be. By that I mean, I know I fall short of the Glory, bit I try to live a Christian life, the best a sinner can.
So where do I satnd? I believe in God and Jesus Christ. I believe in heven and hell. So given the chance to have one over the other, I would be a fool to just say what will be will be. By that I mean, I know I fall short of the Glory, bit I try to live a Christian life, the best a sinner can.
19 May 2008 22:06:42
Tee Cee wrote:
Hey Mr. L., this time you disappointed me. I never thought you would think of people who believe in God's word in the Bible as loons.
I am a Christian, a Bible believing Christian, I also support the "big bang" theory.
I believe that God spoke and BANG there was life!!
As far as life on other planets, why not, I believe that they would be created in Gods image too.
Since God is a spirit, He can choose any image He chooses.
I have always wondered though, if there is life on other planets "HAS JESUS BEEN THERE TO SAVE THEM TOO" ?
Also, a thousand years, a million years, the Bible says a thousand years is as a day to God.
Mr. L. you are a lucky person though, there are a lot of people like me praying for a lot of people like you.
One thing about all the people that have the negative thought about God , their loss will make more room in heaven for the believers! Have a BLESSED day.
I am a Christian, a Bible believing Christian, I also support the "big bang" theory.
I believe that God spoke and BANG there was life!!
As far as life on other planets, why not, I believe that they would be created in Gods image too.
Since God is a spirit, He can choose any image He chooses.
I have always wondered though, if there is life on other planets "HAS JESUS BEEN THERE TO SAVE THEM TOO" ?
Also, a thousand years, a million years, the Bible says a thousand years is as a day to God.
Mr. L. you are a lucky person though, there are a lot of people like me praying for a lot of people like you.
One thing about all the people that have the negative thought about God , their loss will make more room in heaven for the believers! Have a BLESSED day.
19 May 2008 22:30:03
bgeer001@ wrote:
Scientists are sometimes wrong and will even admit it. After all ,poor old neanderthal man was just booted from the human race. But they would never mislead us to advance a belief or ideology [man-made global warming ?].
20 May 2008 10:28:36
Lucente wrote:
Danimal,
I expect the opposite is true, that we created God in our image.
~tjl~
I expect the opposite is true, that we created God in our image.
~tjl~
21 May 2008 23:27:18
Lucente wrote:
Tee Cee,
I never said people who believe in God were loony. I said it was lunacy to believe that the creation stories are the literal truth when even the authors and early Christians did not believe as such. I myself am a Catholic. But I also know the Earth is older than 6,000 years old and that the Garden of Eden was a fairy tale meant to teach a greater truth. The Bible is not a science book or even a very credible history book.
Still, thanks for the prayers!
~tjl~
I never said people who believe in God were loony. I said it was lunacy to believe that the creation stories are the literal truth when even the authors and early Christians did not believe as such. I myself am a Catholic. But I also know the Earth is older than 6,000 years old and that the Garden of Eden was a fairy tale meant to teach a greater truth. The Bible is not a science book or even a very credible history book.
Still, thanks for the prayers!
~tjl~
21 May 2008 23:33:48
Lucente wrote:
Blaine Geer,
Of course science is fallible. It never claims otherwise. I think this cartoon explains the difference, though:
~tjl~
Of course science is fallible. It never claims otherwise. I think this cartoon explains the difference, though:
~tjl~
21 May 2008 23:42:55
Tee Cee wrote:
Hey, Mr. L., Do you suppose that if we created God in our image that He hates the same people we do ?
I know one thing, I believe in God, I believe the Bible. With that attitude I have nothing to lose, without it I may have a lot to lose !
A friend of mine tells me , we know where we are going in our next life, we've already lived in Lima, no where to go but up. See Ya
I know one thing, I believe in God, I believe the Bible. With that attitude I have nothing to lose, without it I may have a lot to lose !
A friend of mine tells me , we know where we are going in our next life, we've already lived in Lima, no where to go but up. See Ya
22 May 2008 00:57:42
Lucente wrote:
Tee Cee,
Very funny. But as cold as it is around here, I have my doubts this is hell. At this rate, it might snow on the 4th of July.
~tjl~
Very funny. But as cold as it is around here, I have my doubts this is hell. At this rate, it might snow on the 4th of July.
~tjl~
22 May 2008 13:54:22
bgeer001@ wrote:
There is a big difference between fallibility and deliberate misleading.
22 May 2008 16:02:45
kwilson68@ wrote:
Lucente,
Lunacy! The bible was writen by ordinary men, inspired by the spirit of God. Do you belive in miracels. A miracel is something that defies science and the natural. Why is the scriptures regarded as fairy tales to you. Don't understand, maybe I misread your statments. I think your wrong.
Lunacy! The bible was writen by ordinary men, inspired by the spirit of God. Do you belive in miracels. A miracel is something that defies science and the natural. Why is the scriptures regarded as fairy tales to you. Don't understand, maybe I misread your statments. I think your wrong.
23 May 2008 20:51:59
Lucente wrote:
Scant,
I think you misunderstood me. I said it is lunacy to accept the creation stories as the literal scientific and historic truth. We know better. Even the authors knew it to be a story and not the literal truth. There is something valuable to learn from the creation parables. However, the real truth gets lost when we dogmatically defend the creation stories as the literal truth.
~tjl~
I think you misunderstood me. I said it is lunacy to accept the creation stories as the literal scientific and historic truth. We know better. Even the authors knew it to be a story and not the literal truth. There is something valuable to learn from the creation parables. However, the real truth gets lost when we dogmatically defend the creation stories as the literal truth.
~tjl~
24 May 2008 13:51:26
kwilson68@ wrote:
Lucente,
This is such a great topic, I love discussing things like this. You responded back to me and I qout you "Even the authors knew it to be a story and not the literal truth." Where does in the Bible does it say or elude to the authors thinking it was not the truth? I have read the Bible cover to cover and didn't catch that. If the authors thought it was not the truth then is the whole Bible a lie? Are you referring to the seven day account of creation? As someone else posted the bible says one day is as a thousand years to the Lord and a thousand years is as one day to the Lord. Jesus was asked, How many times do I forgive my brother, seven times? Jesus said, not seven times but seven times seventy. Jesus wasn't saying once you have forgiven someone 490 times you are done, but that there is no limit to how many times you forgive someone if they ask you. I know that Iam not making a strong argument for myself. Do I think that the whole universe and the earth and animals and man came into being in seven days, maybe not, I think it could have taken longer. I also think it very may well could have been six literal days and he rested on the seventh. Say the the Big Bang happened and the universe was around for a billion years, okay so what if then God decided to create the earth and all thats in it from a rock in space. Is that unresonable or a fairy tale? God says our ways are not his ways, our thoughts are not his thoughts. This is a debate that can go on and on. Like I said I love these kind of debates, but whats important is, does someone accept the free gift of salvation of Christ on the cross? Lucente you put forth a very well writen view and it has given me much to ponder on.
This is such a great topic, I love discussing things like this. You responded back to me and I qout you "Even the authors knew it to be a story and not the literal truth." Where does in the Bible does it say or elude to the authors thinking it was not the truth? I have read the Bible cover to cover and didn't catch that. If the authors thought it was not the truth then is the whole Bible a lie? Are you referring to the seven day account of creation? As someone else posted the bible says one day is as a thousand years to the Lord and a thousand years is as one day to the Lord. Jesus was asked, How many times do I forgive my brother, seven times? Jesus said, not seven times but seven times seventy. Jesus wasn't saying once you have forgiven someone 490 times you are done, but that there is no limit to how many times you forgive someone if they ask you. I know that Iam not making a strong argument for myself. Do I think that the whole universe and the earth and animals and man came into being in seven days, maybe not, I think it could have taken longer. I also think it very may well could have been six literal days and he rested on the seventh. Say the the Big Bang happened and the universe was around for a billion years, okay so what if then God decided to create the earth and all thats in it from a rock in space. Is that unresonable or a fairy tale? God says our ways are not his ways, our thoughts are not his thoughts. This is a debate that can go on and on. Like I said I love these kind of debates, but whats important is, does someone accept the free gift of salvation of Christ on the cross? Lucente you put forth a very well writen view and it has given me much to ponder on.
24 May 2008 16:32:42
Lucente wrote:
Scant,
I agree. I love topics such as this.
Also, you are right. I should have said the authors "likely" did not intend for their works to be considered an actual, literal account of creation because no one was around so no one knows how it happened. The Jewish creation stories took elements from pagan creation accounts. And, like most of the stories in the polytheistic traditions, people did not believe they were the literal accounts, only stories meant to explain a concept.
That does not mean it is a lie or that the rest of Scripture is wrong. Nor does it mean the creation stories do not have something to tell us or that they were not revealed to man by God. Look at the creation story and compare it to the big bang and evolution. There is not much to learn from the big bang, is there? But there is a moral truth to the creation stories that you cannot get from the big bang or evolution. Is that not the importance of the creation stories, rather than the actual account? Wouldn’t early Jews have benefited more from a moral tale than a scientific accounting they likely wouldn’t have understood, anyway?
I think whenever you look at books of the Bible, we have to take into consideration the period in which they were written and the audience for which they were intended.
~tjl~
I agree. I love topics such as this.
Also, you are right. I should have said the authors "likely" did not intend for their works to be considered an actual, literal account of creation because no one was around so no one knows how it happened. The Jewish creation stories took elements from pagan creation accounts. And, like most of the stories in the polytheistic traditions, people did not believe they were the literal accounts, only stories meant to explain a concept.
That does not mean it is a lie or that the rest of Scripture is wrong. Nor does it mean the creation stories do not have something to tell us or that they were not revealed to man by God. Look at the creation story and compare it to the big bang and evolution. There is not much to learn from the big bang, is there? But there is a moral truth to the creation stories that you cannot get from the big bang or evolution. Is that not the importance of the creation stories, rather than the actual account? Wouldn’t early Jews have benefited more from a moral tale than a scientific accounting they likely wouldn’t have understood, anyway?
I think whenever you look at books of the Bible, we have to take into consideration the period in which they were written and the audience for which they were intended.
~tjl~
26 May 2008 09:42:21
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.lucente.org/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
[COLUMN] Faith and reason not exclusive concepts
I have to admit that when Cardinal Joseph A. Ratzinger was chosen as the Successor of Peter, I was a little skeptical.
Even though he was an academic, his previous position as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which in earlier times was called the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, gave me pause. Additionally, in 1990, Ratzinger defended the 17th century trial and conviction of Galileo Galilei.
So I was naturally skeptical.
However, I have quickly become an admirer of the Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Pontiff). As Pope Benedict XVI, he has demonstrated time and again that reason and faith are not exclusive. In fact, Pope Benedict has made exploring the relationship between faith and reason a key aspect of his papacy.
The latest example appeared last week in the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano. In an article titled, "The extraterrestrial is my brother," the Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, was quoted as saying the vastness of the universe means it is possible there could be other forms of life outside Earth, even intelligent ones.
"How can we rule out that life may have developed elsewhere?" Funes said. "Just as we consider earthly creatures as ‘a brother,' and ‘sister,' why should we not talk about an ‘extraterrestrial brother'? It would still be part of creation."
As reasonable as Funes' observation may be, many refuse to accept the idea that there could be extraterrestrial intelligence because it would violate their misguided visions of God and the universe.
Other Christians believe that humans are the only embodied creatures in creation to be made in God's image and that life on other worlds, regardless of intelligence, would be soulless.
The issue, however, is larger than whether extraterrestrial life exists. It boils down to the relationship between reason and faith. While the mainstream media focused on Funes' remarks concerning extraterrestrial life, the interview touched on many topics related to science, reason and faith.
Let's face it. When it comes to science and reason, the church has a mixed record. Its high points include an early adoption of Platonic reason and several great philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine.
However, the church lost its way during the Renaissance, which led to the Galileo affair, the various inquisitions and the infamous Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books), all, I might add, related to the office that Ratzinger would eventually lead. In fact, through much of its history, when the church was faced with change, it would often, to its detriment, adopt a siege mentality.
So Funes' comments, along with comments Benedict has made since becoming the Bishop of Rome, demonstrate that the church is headed in the right direction when it comes to the areas of reason and science.
While Funes' remarks on extraterrestrial life have received the most attention, his remarks about science and the Bible were more significant.
He said science does not contradict religion.
The Bible "is not a science book," Funes said, adding that he believes the Big Bang theory is the most "reasonable" explanation for the creation of the universe. The theory says the universe began billions of years ago in the explosion of a single, super-dense point that contained all matter, which Funes believes was created by God.
Many who believe the creation myths in the Bible are history or science will disagree with Funes. What they unreasonably refuse to accept is that even the authors of the biblical creation myths did not believe they were writing the literal truth. Nor did early Christians and Jews take them literally. The stories were meant to explain the mysteries of existence in a way people could understand.
The universe, as Plato tried to explain, is a rational place. The biblical creation myths are irrational and contradict reason. Adherence to those stories as the literal truth is not only an exercise in lunacy; it is an insult to the creative powers of the Christian/Jewish/Islamic God.
Only through reason and rationality, not literal interpretations of ancient tales, can we hope to even begin to understand the universe and our place within that creation. After all, God has always spoken to us through nature and science, not fairy tales.
That God gave us the gift of reason is evidence we should use it in all matters, including those of faith.
category | Column
author | Lucente