|
|
|
|
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/21/2009 6:05:09 AM | RE Msg: 417 by Funcuz:
The Christians deny the possibility that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old. FrogO_Oeyes dealt with this one, quite nicely.
In doing so they deny all the evidence that says it's billions of years old. In doing that they deny the scientific method. That's fine but don't say that they don't deny science...they deny it all the time but only when it suits them. They're more than happy to believe in science when their central heating comes on or their computers boot up.
Remember , it's not scientists telling people what to believe . Science only tells us what has been observed and what there is evidence for. Ummm...no. That's science telling people things. Science doesn't speak. Science doesn't have a mouth. It's SCIENTISTS who have a mouth. It's SCIENTISTS who speak, and who tell us what THEY have observed and what they have decided there is evidence for. Logical empiricists such as Ayer and Wittgenstein showed the scientific observation requires interpretation, and is only true from the perspective of the observer. So even what scientists observe, is subjective, and even what scientists say there is evidence for, is interpretive, and based on subjectivity. So really, it's very, very difficult to be sure of a lot of what scientists say, and for much of the time, we're dependent on time and practice to see just how reliable the things build on those theories turn out to be.
Science doesn't actually tellanybody anything about what they can or cannot believe. If you want to believe in fairies you can go right ahead ; All science says is that if there are any fairies , there's no evidence for them which begs the question of why anybody would believe in them in the first place. Then if 150 years ago, someone had claimed that we're all made of tiny particles, which sometimes act as waves, and sometimes act as particles, at that time, there was no evidence for that, and that begs the question of why anybody would believe in quantum physics in the first place.
Science doesn't deny religion per se. It simply says that if anything in those tomes is remotely true or correct in some way , there's scant evidence saying so. Science covers the laws of the universe, them pesky great big generalisations, like Boyle's Law. It is well away from 99% of religious issues. So really, science doesn't even answer the question of if anything in those tomes is remotely correct or incorrect, or if there is evidence saying so. However, I won't deny that throughout history, every ideological system had people who wanted to prove utterly wrong the previous ideological system that their parents, and the majority of the people before them, believed in. When secularists make the same types of claims, it's just history repeating itself, and probably for the same reasons that their grandparents were making similar claims about the beliefs of their great-great-grandparents.
If evidence ever surfaces that indicates there was some great flood that encompassed the entire world and virtually all life on it was extinguished well then we'll just have to rethink absolutely everything up to this point. Until that happens , there's no proof it ever happened. Sorry , that's not science's fault , it's just what everything that might serve as evidence says. No. We'll just have to think that what we knew before we true, and science has proved there was a great flood. If we have to do a serious re-assessment of our views, then it means that our views are based on some seriously unreliable assumptions, and that's about as useful in science as believing in leeches to cure pneumonia or ducking stools as tests of witchcraft. Pretty much demolishes any credibility in science, because you can no longer know what to rely on. But, if we even think that's true NOW, just IF the flood was proved by science, that means that we think NOW that all of our science is based on so many seriously unreliable assumptions, that we cannot know what is true and what is false in science altogether. So anyone who even thinks this might be true, needs to start seriously rethinking absolutely everything they believe up to this point.
Why has Science not addressed significant and relevant and powerful economic realities? I'm sorry but that's a pretty tall order.
So better roads on which fast and reliable vehicles transport increased crop yields as well as vaccines aren't your idea of progress for things that are "really important" ? I watched a few programmes about roads. We're not really all that much more advanced than John McAdams' invention of tarmac, almost 200 years ago in 1810. However, what is really amazing, is that despite all our scientific discoveries, that tarmac regularly needs resurfacing, and yet the most smooth and straight roads in the whole of Britain, were the ones built by the Romans, some of which stretch for hundreds of miles. It's amazing to think that some ultra-religious war-hungry people from 2000 years ago made much better roads than we do, even with all of our science to hand.
What do you mean by things that are really important then ? Religion never cured anything. Religion never provided irragation. AFAIK, all religions never set out to do that at all. Kind of like asking a counsellor what good they are, if they cannot fix your car.
Religion didn't facilitate the achievement of world-wide communication (it impeded it if anything) I cannot say that. Back in the last 500 hundred years, before the telegraph, and before the globalisation of society, Jews, because they were all one people, with one religion, and all spoke Yiddish, which is a cross between Hebrew and the country of your birth. So we have German Yiddish, Polish Yiddish, Russian Yiddish, and yet all of them could communicate. As a result, many businesses that dealt in international trade, say an English company that wanted to import Italian silk from an Italian company, would often employee Jews, and would dictate letters to them, to be written in Yiddish, to be then sent by post to Italy, to be translated back by a similarly employed Jew into Italian for the Italian silk trader. Many scientific works were written in Latin, to overcome the barrier of language, because Latin was the one language that every well-educated Xian in Europe knew. It was also the reason why medical terms and species are classified in Latin. Whatever language your country speaks, as long as you learned Latin, you could be guaranteed to be able to understand and communicate with every other doctor, and every other scientist, in the whole of Europe.
Come to think of it , what exactly has religion done that was "in the end really important" ? Priests and other religious figures were teachers when the state did not provide one, and still are used as ad-hoc teachers in situations where the state simply doesn't cover every eventuality. They have traditionally been bereavement counsellors, grief counsellors, counsellors and supporters of the sick and infirm, and their families, supporters of long-term commitment and fidelity within relationships, marriage counsellors, marriage mediators, diplomats, scribes for important documents, scientists, and a whole lot more. Our laws of equity, or fair play, come from the courts of Chancery, which was for set up and handled for many years since its beginnings, by the Church. Basically, any time that there was a need of the community, or even of the state, and there was no existing governement institution to deal with it, it was left to the Clergy to do, and a lot of our social institutions were set up to take over those roles that were up til then, being handled by the Church. Even a lot of our social reforms are owed to religious groups, such as the abolition of slavery, which was mostly fought for by the Quakers. We owe a huge debt to religion for a huge amount of the rights and services that we enjoy today.
Religion has fought science the entire way. It took centuries just to get the church to admit that the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system. Scientists have been arguing over Heliocentrism, since the days of the Pythagoreans, Aristotle, and Ptolemy. It took until Newton to have a definitive proof that the solar system was Heliocentric, and the Church didn't have a problem with Newton. It really only had a problem with those scientists who claimed to have a definitive proof of Heliocentrism, but really didn't. We know this, because no-one talks about Copernicus' Laws of Gravitation, or Galileo's Laws of Planetary Motion.
Can you wonder why some people hate religion. Even if religion didn't contribute anything, that still is no reason to hate it. Hate is born of intolerance to others, and intolerance is independent of religious belief, predicated on prejudice. If there is any reason to hate religion, it is out of one's own prejudice towards others, and the need to feel superior over someone else. Religion might say that prejudice is wrong, but it cannot make you un-prejudiced. Taking the principle that prejudice is wrong, and applying that to your own life, is something that only you can do. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/21/2009 7:45:35 AM | It might be helpful for people to remember that the universe and the scientific model of the Universe are two totally separate things.
The goal is to get them as close as...well...humanly possible, but it could be that doesn't end up very close at all.
Science can't describe "reality", it can only add to our human created model of what we believe the Universe is describing using terms and equations we can understand.
You could argue that each additional theory is added in like the book of Mormon to the Bible. Some dude or collection of dudes experience some evidence, think "hey, I've just made this awesome discovery", and cast it out into the world.
In both cases you'll have an audience of skeptics, and in both cases you'll have some who are intrigued and buy into it.
Yes, yes, this is where some of you complain about how you think Joseph Smith's evidence can't be compared to Isaac Newton's evidence because it doesn't fall in line with your ideas of what "evidence" should be. And that's fine, that's because you're not Joseph Smith nor are you (presumably) mormon. And ultimately that's the trouble you'll always have, that you think you're the judge of what's "good" evidence or "bad" evidence.
Hrm. I wonder why scientists don't come directly to you, if that's the case. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/21/2009 8:02:47 AM | To address the thread title alone -
Faith is the belief in something without proof.
Science is a continued study of... well... everything, and kind of revolves around the collecting of evidence of things. Science doesn't believe in anything, and Scientists only believe in scientific things with solid evidence supporting them. Otherwise, they are nothing more than speculative "THEORIES".
I learned all this in third grade. I iz smrt. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/21/2009 9:04:31 AM |
Yes, yes, this is where some of you complain about how you think Joseph Smith's evidence can't be compared to Isaac Newton's evidence because it doesn't fall in line with your ideas of what "evidence" should be. And that's fine, that's because you're not Joseph Smith nor are you (presumably) mormon. And ultimately that's the trouble you'll always have, that you think you're the judge of what's "good" evidence or "bad" evidence.
"Good" evidence = Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion have been tested, re-tested (in various different ways), and physically observed/documented thousands of times by thousands of physicists, various academics/scientists/mathematicians over the years, around the world. His basic fundamental principles still hold true today.
"Bad" evidence = In the 1820's a man named Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni three times (no eye witnesses) and told where he can dig up gold tablets written in 'reformed egyptian' (a language Smith was not familiar nor educated in). The angel then delivered him two seer stones, Urim and Thummim (no one has ever seen these stones other than Smith himself), to aid him in his translation of the texts (again, no eye witnesses). He then proceeded to translate which he named the Book of Mormon. Then the angel Moroni came down (again, no eye witnesses) and took the gold tablets (thus nobody has ever seen, sniffed, or touched the gold tablets other than Smith himself) and as of this day, are non-existent (at least on earth anyway). Later over the years, as Smith was establishing his church, several angelic messengers visited Smith (no eye witnesses), instructed him, ordained him, etc etc..... Some of these angelic messengers (as per Smith's account only) were : John the Baptist, the biblical Elijah, Moses, Christ himself, the apostles Peter, James, and John.... to name a few. (What a lucky guy !) To which he wrote several books 'restoring' the true story and faith of god.
Hmmm....... decisions decisions...... | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/21/2009 11:25:07 AM | There is apparently much misunderstanding about Christian beliefs in general, so I would like to add this for the sake of clarification. I have known hundreds of Christians, representing almost every denomination, in dozens of states, and I have yet to hear a single Christian say they believe the earth was created 6000 years ago at the time Adam was created. There may well be a few who believe it. I would not be surprised, because you can find a fractional few who would believe almost any crazy idea that has ever come along. It's the devil's business to create confusion by getting a few dopey people to believe a few goofy unscriptural ideas, and then say to the outsider, "oh look at what ALL Christians believe".
I have found the generally accepted belief about creation is that there have been two "creations" on this earth. The first creation was the dominion of, and was destroyed at the time of the fall of, Lucifer. It does not say how long ago that was. If you say that was billions of years ago, no Christian I know would have a problem with that. Then an unknown period of time elapsed with the earth in a state of chaos before Adam and Eve were created in Genesis 1, approximately 6000 years ago. Besides, it is my experience that very few Christians spend much time thinking about where they came from, as they are far more concerned with where they are going. And to get hung up on what apostle Paul called "endless questions about genealogies" can quickly become a diversion from more important matters.
It's painting with too broad of a brush to say that Christians ALWAYS do something, or NEVER do something, as there is really nothing that ALL who call themselves "Christians" ALWAYS do and nothing that ALL who call themselves "Christians" NEVER do. If you replace the word ALL with SOME, I would probably agree with anything you say, as "Christianity" has had more than it's share of morons, and no one regrets it any more than a true Christian who has to be tarnished with their bad example. Like the old spiritual song says, "Not everyone talking about Heaven is going there". | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/21/2009 11:42:50 AM | INDYSARGE, you are correct that Christians are often painted with a broad and unforgiving brush around here. It is just that the group in question are pretty vocal and make for better media fodder than more... hmmm... science-minded Christians, perhaps? Francis Collins is a good example of a Christian and respected scientist, but he is as rare as the "fractional few" you mentioned.
It's the devil's business to create confusion by getting a few dopey people to believe a few goofy unscriptural ideas
To the contrary-- the stereotype in question adheres greatly to a literal reading of Scripture. Here's a well-known example:
http://www.answersingenesis.org
It is worth checking out. They even have a museum of natural history.
PS What is the "true" difference between a "true Christian" and those "who call themselves 'Christians'"? | |
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/21/2009 12:29:34 PM | RE Msg: 421 by dcoffman:
Yes, yes, this is where some of you complain about how you think Joseph Smith's evidence can't be compared to Isaac Newton's evidence because it doesn't fall in line with your ideas of what "evidence" should be. And that's fine, that's because you're not Joseph Smith nor are you (presumably) mormon. And ultimately that's the trouble you'll always have, that you think you're the judge of what's "good" evidence or "bad" evidence. Just bear in mind, what would happen if aliens abducted each one of us, and asked us to prove that Newton's theories was true, and Joseph Smith's testimony was false.
Whether we like it or not, 99.9% of the people in our countries have never read Newton's Principia Mathematica and would not be able to prove it. The same would be true of Jospeph Smith's claims. But what we could expect, is that most who are assured of their opinions, would burst into "of course it's true". If these aliens simply refused to accept it without hard logic, they'd burst into apoplexy.
There are a heck of a lot of people in this world today, who are completely convinced they are right. But seem unable to persuade anyone but themselves. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/21/2009 12:47:52 PM | ^^^^^That's assuming the alien race isn't a lot like the human race, Scorpio.
You know, I just realized how much faith I put in Wikipedia these days. It's really great for a 'simple' explanation of background material that I'm not too familiar with. Although I suppose with Wikipedia, it often points us to the source rather than asking us to believe it is the last word. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/21/2009 1:21:15 PM | I have seen both kinds ... those who hold to man-made unscriptural ideas and those who adhere too greatly to a literal reading of scripture.
Among those with unscriptural ideas are for instance, those who don't believe in medical care while Jesus himself said "they that are sick need a physician", the Jim Jones fanatics, the preacher who said God would kill him if his followers didn't send him 8 million dollars, the child molesting priest who believed he was in Christ's stead and therefore the kids were really making love to Jesus and how could making love to Jesus be bad, the dad who killed his kids so they would go on to Heaven and not be doomed by the evil influence of the world, etc.
The ones who adhere too greatly to a literal reading of scripture, can be just as bad. They support some of their beliefs by using the Old Testament. One can justify all sorts of hateful behavior by a literal reading of the Old Testament. But Jesus and the apostles on many occasions made it clear that the Old Testament was fulfilled in Jesus and now there is a new covenant (testament), where the first commandment is to love God with all your heart, the second commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself, and it goes on to say if there be any other laws or commandments they can be "briefly comprehended in this" ... that you have love one for another. Jesus said His words are Spirit and they are Life. He did not intend for them to be just a list of thou shalts and thou shalt nots. He intended them to be an integral part of our spirits and our lives to help us with our decisions on a day to day basis.
To make a difference between a "true" Christian and those who call themselves "Christians" but are not, I would pretty much have to quote most of the New Testament, since making that distinction was one of the main reasons why it was written. There are various places in the New Testament where several characteristics of a true Christian are mentioned. The sermon on the mount is one, the list of the fruit of the Spirit is another. In other places we are given a list of characteristics of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God on resurrection day, among which are murderers, liars, hypocrites, etc. Then there are dozens of parables which describe righteous behavior. Many of them have become common slogans, such as "the good samaritan", "turning the other cheek", "the prodigal son", "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone", etc.
Ultimately, Jesus will decide on judgment day, who is the "true" Christian and who is not. We should judge between good and bad behavior, but not judge people on an individual basis, because only He knows the heart. Though it be little, what they are doing for God may be all they are capable of. The thief on the cross was powerless to do anything but ask for forgiveness, and although he hanged there as a dying, naked, thieving loser, he got it. And since forgiveness is instantly available to the sinner, even with a silent prayer, we could find ourselves condemning someone of a sin for which they have already been forgiven. Judging truly righteous judgment about individuals always requires more knowledge than we have. For instance, the poor woman in the Bible who only gave two cents (mites) to God's work, could easily be condemned by us because she gave almost nothing. But Jesus honored her higher than anyone else because she had given all that she had. | |
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/22/2009 2:02:57 AM |
Um...no. This statement only applies to a small subset of Christians referred to commonly as literalists or creationists. The most "basic" sect of Christianity is arguably Catholicism. This sect represents hundreds of millions of people worldwide, and the Catholic Church itself denies both literalism and young-earth creationism. Extremely faulty generalization.
Well I'll concede that the generalization was too broad although I wouldn't go so far as to say it was extreme. How many Catholics are willing to believe we are decended from apes and life , as a whole , has been evolving on this planet for billions of years ? As far as I know (and to your credit I engaged in further research) the Catholic church has made no official pronouncement on the matter of evolution. So while I may have chosen a poor example for my last post , it's fair to say that a significant number of Christians deny the evidence provided by science. In the case of the Catholic Church , an official stance is indeed difficult to make because it would necessitate a review of all previous interpretations of the Bible on the matter of Genesis (for starters)
So no , you're right , my statement was too broad and ill-conceived. The point I was trying to make still stands though for the simple reason that one cannot be a "true believer" in the Bible and accept evolution. A person could do it I suppose but only through careful re-interpretation of Biblical text that has otherwise already been "correctly interpreted" by some Christian sect or another. In other words , the Bible itself says things that do deny what science has proven true and this puts the religious individual in an 'either/or' situation. In that respect , all Christians who don't accept the Bible when it conflicts with the Bible aren't being true to their faith.
So in a sense , my statement still stands as a generalization about Christians but it wasn't the moderates I was thinking of when I made said statement. To me , a "true" Christian is one that considers the Bible to be the only source of "truth" in existence. To my understanding , isn't that what the Bible says Christians are supposed to be ? I mean like "When in doubt , the Bible is right". | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/22/2009 4:56:41 AM | The Bible BEGAN as poetic verses. Jews are aware of this, Christians are generally not. At its root, the Bible is thus not intended to be a recounting of facts.
To me , a "true" Christian is one that considers the Bible to be the only source of "truth" in existence. To my understanding , isn't that what the Bible says Christians are supposed to be ?
Not really. That's why there are 30000+ sects of Christianity - they can't agree on the interpretations. Many do not consider the Bible to be completely factual and historical, and MOST probably ignore the whole "6000 years" bit, which isn't spelled out in the Bible. It was calculated by a priest, and is thus an interpretation which begans with the assumption that all the details are accurate. Many would accept that even if stories involve real events, they may not be accurate retellings. It's a few small groups which adhere to strictly literal interpretations. I doubt that any well-educated priest of the older sects would accept a literal interpretation, since they would be well-versed in the history of the Bible and its translations. As a follow up, I looked into another of the major old churches, Eastern Orthodoxy. Although my first source is of uncertain "authority", it is interesting because I had to click only one link to get an orthodox interpetation which agrees with my suspicions. The second link shows mixed views. The third states that orthodoxy is not fundamentalist [literalist] and thus has no real issue with evolution:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Eastern-Orthodox-1456/Orthodoxy-Evolution-1.htm
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Evolution
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/nicozisin_creationism.htm
The point I was trying to make still stands though for the simple reason that one cannot be a "true believer" in the Bible and accept evolution. A person could do it I suppose but only through careful re-interpretation of Biblical text that has otherwise already been "correctly interpreted" by some Christian sect or another.
It's all subject to interpretation, and creation itself is Old Testament, which is Jewish and poetic. There is no requirement that the Bible be interpreted as literal and factual - it's a book which deals largely with what is or is not acceptable or ideal behavior. In essence the point is to establish a social code and a set of rules, from the fairly blatant commandments to a variety of parables and stories which recount examples good and bad. Literalism would be the LEAST appropriate way to interpret, not the best.
it's fair to say that a significant number of Christians deny the evidence provided by science.
In some places perhaps, and perhaps also despite their own church's stance. Look for ignorance, and where you find it, this will happen. I would chalk it up to ignorance of science as well as ignorance of their own religion. In a climate of ignorance, this spreads. I have no reason to believe this is true everywhere, it's just more obvious sometimes because it's so common in the USA. That puts it on the world stage, despite the fact that most Christians are not American, and I doubt that most Americans would be literalist Christian creationists. Unfortunately, I get the distinct impression that the spread of such beliefs is largely a consequence of American "freedom". There's no shortage of people who seem to think that "freedom" means freedom from standards and freedom to teach or preach anything, no matter how absurd.
As far as I know (and to your credit I engaged in further research)
Did you try googling "Vatican evolution"?
the Catholic church has made no official pronouncement on the matter of evolution.
At least twice. I suspect three times or more...
In the case of the Catholic Church , an official stance is indeed difficult to make because it would necessitate a review of all previous interpretations of the Bible on the matter of Genesis (for starters)
Nope. That would depend on the Church accepting the Bible as a literal and historical text. It doesn't. I don't think any major church does. It is, by and large, a guideline to how to live "righteously". I have to wonder how many Christians actually read the Bible thoroughly AND manage to get the points made within it. It's apparently few, given the attitudes portrayed.
Pope Benedict XVI, 2009:
'no opposition between faith's understanding of creation and the evidence of the empirical sciences
Pope John Paul II, 1996:
'In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points ... Today, more than a half- century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis.
'In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly discip- lines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies - which was neither planned nor sought - constitutes in itself a significant argument in favour of the theory.
Cardinal William Levada, 2009:
During the conference, Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said there was a 'wide spectrum of room' for belief in both the scientific basis for evolution and faith in God the creator.
International Theological Commission/Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004:
'While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of the first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago.
'Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2009/apr2009p3_3004.html
Pope Pius XII, 1950 [drafted by Pius XI in 1938]:
http://damienhighschool.org/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humani_generis
I won't quote it. It's a challenging read, and he [they] actually dance around the question a bit, apparently considering various scientific pursuits to be threatening to the church, including history and evolution, but at the same time acknowledging that there is truth to them. The discomfort arises mainly when these fields step on their toes [such as when evolution is used by communism as a tool or excuse to crush religion]. Sections 5-9 are the "meat" in this issue. They sound harsh, but show a "crack". Enough of a crack that both John Paul II and Benedict XVI cite Pius XII as support for their own positions. The first link is the text. The second is the Wiki entry which discusses and explains it well. It's worth reading both, since a casual glance could lead one to literal and dogmatic conclusions. Pius XII used very cautious and diplomatic wording which SOUNDS dogmatic, but actually contains a large undercurrent of openness to science and study. I think most people would have a hard time interpretting it with any degree of accuracy.
Following the publication of Origin of Species, evolution was controversial within the Catholic church. They have since claimed no opposition, but that's deceptive. Some Bishops spoke out against evolution, others supported it, but books supporting it - were quietly banned. The church seemed to be quite opposed to HUMAN evolution. With regard to every other species...it didn't seem to bother them much!
This source does a good job of addressing the early response of the church:
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt93.html
It becomes apparent at the end that the writer himself is something of a literalist/creationist and is none too happy with John Paul II or Benedict XVI's statements. Good evidence of your point regarding what people believe, regardless of their church's stance, something I am well aware of.
No truth here, but untertaining:
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnBooks:The_Origin_Of_Species_(Edited_For_Christians)
| |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/22/2009 5:02:01 AM | RE Msg: 431 by Funcuz:
Well I'll concede that the generalization was too broad although I wouldn't go so far as to say it was extreme. How many Catholics are willing to believe we are decended from apes and life , as a whole , has been evolving on this planet for billions of years ? Considering that the head of the Roman Catholic church in England came out within a few years of Darwin publishing, and said that there was no problem, there are a lot, especially in the UK. But granted, there might be millions of American Catholics who don't believe in evolution, just like there are millions of American Protestants who don't believe in evolution, unlike everywhere else.
As far as I know (and to your credit I engaged in further research) the Catholic church has made no official pronouncement on the matter of evolution. The Vatican said that evolution was compatible with Xianity, back in June.
http://tinyurl.com/bvnn4o
So while I may have chosen a poor example for my last post , it's fair to say that a significant number of Christians deny the evidence provided by science. Yes but that would be tarring all Xians with the brush that is only applicable to a small group. One might as well say that it's fair to say that a significant number of Caucasians hung black men, because the KKK did. Are you Caucasian? Do you think it's appropriate to treat you as if you hung blacks?
In the case of the Catholic Church , an official stance is indeed difficult to make because it would necessitate a review of all previous interpretations of the Bible on the matter of Genesis (for starters) What makes you think that hasn't already been considered? The chapters dealing with the creation of man, for instance, are only a few pages long, and that's tiny. Also, I take it you haven't heard of the doctrine of "myth and metaphor", something that was accepted even 1000 years before Darwin.
So no , you're right , my statement was too broad and ill-conceived.
The point I was trying to make still stands though for the simple reason that one cannot be a "true believer" in the Bible and accept evolution.
It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.
Charles Darwin, 7 May 1879 I'll repeat that for emphasis: It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist. In case you missed that, Charles Darwin wrote that. He was the guy who told you about evolution.
In other words , the Bible itself says things that do deny what science has proven true and this puts the religious individual in an 'either/or' situation. In that respect , all Christians who don't accept the Bible when it conflicts with the Bible aren't being true to their faith. Seriously? This is your argument? That if 2 things seem to not be absolutely in sync, then you must agree with one or another?
Capitalism has clearly caused quite a few wars. Capitalism is also the economic system of your country. By your argument, either you are in favour of the death of millions, or you are against your own country.
Ever heard of "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis"? Just because you think 2 things might be contradictory, doesn't mean they are. It just means that you need to think harder about the situation.
So in a sense , my statement still stands as a generalization about Christians but it wasn't the moderates I was thinking of when I made said statement. To me , a "true" Christian is one that considers the Bible to be the only source of "truth" in existence. To my understanding , isn't that what the Bible says Christians are supposed to be ? I mean like "When in doubt , the Bible is right". That's a "No True Scotsman" argument. It's called a fallacy, and for good reason.
It's true that many believe the Bible and science are in contradiction. But that philosophy can be traced back to the views of Robespierre in the French Revolution. It can be further traced back to the attempts of the bourgeoisie to overthrow the upper classes, by undermining their authority, and to replace it with another authority that was sympathetic to their agenda, in return for them being placed as the top authority, and gaining much funding. However, when we examine what has happened in the last few hundred years, we can see how the old elitist system was replaced with an equally elitist system, only with the bourgeoisie having most of the power and the wealth, instead of the aristocracy. It's an argument that is used as a platform by one group to become the masters of society. When you realise that, you realise that the whole argument is 90% propaganda. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/22/2009 9:08:53 AM | Once more, a science thread degenerates to long posts on religion.
Maybe POF should bring the religion thread back - if for nothing more than to clean up the science and philosophy forum. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/22/2009 9:14:12 PM | | (Yawn) Science supports and proves what can only be proveable. Science is far more interesting than scientists who are like porcupines on attack. One dimensional Christians have no idea how great is the mystery UNLESS they awknowledge the details of Science. And everybody else can go to h*** in a handbasket. Yep. Debate of any kind in a gracious manner is better than shutting down any site. Yep. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/22/2009 9:26:32 PM | Hey frogo
What perectage of people would be able to understand everything you said if you were to lecture on the finest points of DNA? Not many, I am afraid.
Therefore, either they don't believe you or, they take you on faith that what you are saying is true............
So, for those who can't understand what you would be saying, they would need to believe, or have faith in what you say.
Paul K | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/22/2009 11:44:37 PM | As I said , I concede the point that I was too broad with my statement. It was a generalization and an ill-conceived one.
I do not , however , concede the point that one is not put in an either/or situation where the Bible is concerned.
Look , the Bible says that Adam and Eve were the first two people ever created. We know this isn't true. So either a person accepts what science has provided evidence for (the impossibility that the human race today can be traced back to one single couple with no allowance for hybrid vigour) or we ignore the evidence and say "Sure...two people. Sounds good to me."
If the Bible is not speaking literally in this case then there can't be one single word in the Bible that is meant to be taken literally. Same goes for Noah's Ark. How could the story of one giant , planet-wide flood not be expected to be taken literally ? Where is the room for interpretation there ? Supposedly "God" wiped out everything except Noah et al. Until recently it never occured to anybody to consider this anything but the literal truth. What's the point of even allowing room for "interpretation" in this case ? It's pretty clear and basic. It also never happened. So either the story is bunk or it's the literal truth. Even if there was some great flood in some region , it was by no means world-wide , it definitely didn't wipe out everything , and nothing really seems to have changed after it was all said and done anyway.
What I'm saying is that no , actually a Christian cannot have it both ways. It is a matter of one or the other. If we're going to allow for interpretation of such fundamentally straightforward passages of the Bible such as Noah's Ark , then room must be made for re-interpretation of the Ten Commandments. "Thou shalt not kill ... ? Nah...It means you're not allowed to kill. I can do it though." As it happens this is precisely what has occured anyway but the point still stands. It's cherry-picking , it's dishonest , it's hypocritical. A "true" Christian cannot make any statement using the Bible as a morally authoritative text while also acknowledging that every word of the Bible is open to interpretation.
So no , logically it is an either/or situation. If a person can take a straightforward story such as the Flood and twist it up to sound like a fable then there isn't one word of the Bible that can't be "re-interpreted" to mean the opposite of what it usually means. Either the whole thing is open to interpretation (in which case no Christian could ever be any more ethically knowledgeable than an atheist) or it's all supposed to be the very literal truth.
If some of the book is supposed to be taken literally and some of it isn't , then that's different. Unfortunately the authours never bothered to point out which was which and since it's supposed to be "God's" only published tome to date then unless He comes down for some editing , we'll never know. Or do Christians think it's also perfectly reasonable to have mere men tinkering around with the word of their god ? | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/23/2009 12:07:24 PM | | I think believing in science requires faith. Scientific theories are only 'true' until someone finds an exception, and then the current explanation has to be ammended to explain the exception. However, placing your belief in something that can be externally and objectively validated vs. placing your faith in something with no rational basis just because that's what your parents told you to believe, are two totally different things. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/23/2009 1:15:09 PM | Based on the question does it take faith to believe in science?? There are parts of science that do take faith to believe..evolution being one of them.. someone mentioned issac newton..and something about gravity?? Do we know whether if gravity pushes or pulls?? But like others stated, there are things in science that are proven over and over, and those take no faith to believe.
People used to and science used to beleive that oil was from animals decaying long ago, we know now that it is not true. How does oil exsist, and where does it come from, what makes it??? i don't know and I don't know if scientists know either.. People believed that the earth was only 6000 years old, we know that not to be true also. Some Christians boubt that, but I believe that the bible says that " A day is as a thousand years as a thousand years is a day" What that means is that time is of no importance to God, and that whether it took 6 days or 6000 years or 1 billion years is of no matter, a day to God could be millions or billions or even a day..what does it matter and how does science disprove it???
I guess what I am saying is that faith is required to believe in anything, whether it be science or religion and as long as each person is happy in that belief..what does it matter?? | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/23/2009 3:53:48 PM | RE Msg: 437 by Funcuz:
Look , the Bible says that Adam and Eve were the first two people ever created. Read it again. It says that G-d created Adam and Eve. Does it say that "no person was around before Adam and Eve"? Are they the same?
We know this isn't true. From what we know, humans were descended from a few original humans, very possibly the same 2.
So either a person accepts what science has provided evidence for (the impossibility that the human race today can be traced back to one single couple with no allowance for hybrid vigour) or we ignore the evidence and say "Sure...two people. Sounds good to me." If you take the Bible absolutely literally, and you add your own assumptions in, then yes, you'd be right. But almost no-one has been that literal, or that assumptive about the Bible, since its beginning, not until recent Americans, and they are so insular about anything that didn't happen in America, that lots don't even know where Iraq was. Did the events of the Bible happen in America, ANY of them? Not at all. Is it any wonder that some Americans have ideas that are founded on nothing?
If the Bible is not speaking literally in this case then there can't be one single word in the Bible that is meant to be taken literally. Bingo. You're beginning to get it. Mind you, when we say that we are not going to take the Bible literally, we don't take the US Constitution literally, as that is interpreted by the US Supreme Court, and so that's not taken literally. Does THAT mean that the US constitution is something to be ignored, completely? Of course not. That would be idiotic. It just means that no-one would take it on face value. It means that you have to think about how it fits into what else we know about the world as a whole, and understand it in light of that.
Same goes for Noah's Ark. How could the story of one giant , planet-wide flood not be expected to be taken literally ? Where is the room for interpretation there ? I need to teach you how to understand? Do you need me to teach you how to wipe your mouth too?
Until recently it never occured to anybody to consider this anything but the literal truth. Are you kidding? So you're saying that if someone said that almost everything on Earth was wiped out by a meteor, that everyone just took this on face value? Did you know that scientists say that the dinosaurs were wiped out this way? Do you just hear everything that is said, without questioning it?
Very few ever had much of an idea how a global flood would have worked at all. But there wasn't anyone saying that it was impossible. However, in the last 100 years, scientists have been postulating that if the polar ice-caps melted entirely, that global floods that would almost cover the Earth, and numerous other possibilities for global catastrophes. So recently, many have felt far MORE assured that Noah's flood happened, because nowadays science seems to offer explanations of how this might be possible.
What I'm saying is that no , actually a Christian cannot have it both ways. It is a matter of one or the other. If we're going to allow for interpretation of such fundamentally straightforward passages of the Bible such as Noah's Ark , then room must be made for re-interpretation of the Ten Commandments. "Thou shalt not kill ... ? Nah...It means you're not allowed to kill. I can do it though." As it happens this is precisely what has occured anyway but the point still stands. It's cherry-picking , it's dishonest , it's hypocritical. A "true" Christian cannot make any statement using the Bible as a morally authoritative text while also acknowledging that every word of the Bible is open to interpretation. First, the passages of Noah's ark are anything but straightforward. Anyone 100 years ago could have told you that.
Second, if we allow interpretation of laws against murder to exclude you, then we have to make the same interpretation of laws in the US constitution, and in the US legal system. Murder is illegal in America? Not for Funcuz. No official religion? Not for Funcuz. Allowed to bear arms? Only for Funcuz. If your argument held, then you'd be able to shoot people in the street, and the police could never arrest you.
Let's be honest. Where on Earth is this "either/or", perfectionist "black-or-white" extremist thinking is coming from? It's certainly not you. You don't think that way about the laws of your own country. Nope. It's NOT thinking that's producing this. This is an argument that you have heard about the Bible, from someone else, in some form or another, and have not actually analysed it, and have not taken any of the principles that it is based on to be the truth, but simply accepted it as true about the Bible, even though you do not believe it true at all.
Why? Because it appeals to you. It makes you feel good to criticise the Bible. It gives you something and someone else to blame for the problems that you and others face. Selfishness causes much harm, and we're all selfish to some degree or another, so we are all partially enabling the harm that happens to us. But rather than face the personal responsibility for your actions, it's a lot easier just to blame someone else, to escape having to take personal responsibility to make the world as a better place.
But, let's be honest. This is equally selfish. Did blaming someone else ever make the world a better place? Hardly. All it does is make some as scapegoats, and just lets the rest of the world to feel smug and self-complacent about their own hand in the way this world is. Usually when blame is applied, everyone just goes back to the same behaviour as before, with exactly the same results.
So, why on Earth would anyone want to give you the impression that knocking the Bible is a good thing? It might make him feel better. But you cannot come up with an argument if you don't actually think that way in the first place. Ergo, it had to come from people who did, people who think that the law should not apply to them, not religious law, and not secular law. People who actually believed that they had a right to do as they pleased, no matter the harm it caused to others. But why would such people set out to spread such rumours? Because they saw the way people listened to religious leaders. They reasoned that if they could discredit religious leaders, then they could simply make the same claims to these people and be believed in the same way, and since these people were so easily persuaded, they could be exploited, sexually, financially, physically, militarily, as willing slaves. But, if they discredited religions in general, they couldn't start calling themselves religious leaders. So, they made the same type of claims as religious leaders, claiming to know where we come from, claiming to solve all the world's problems eventually, all the same sorts of claims, but just claiming to not be a religion.
That's not what science, or what business, or what government, is supposed to be about. They are there to solve problems, and never to make promises. But the lure of power is very tempting, and it encourages many to be ambitious to use them to try to achieve absolute power over others, and to persuade others to be their slaves.
You offer them everything you have, your mind, your body, and your wife. They offer you the feeling of being smug and always right about everything. But who is the winner and who is the loser in this exchange? Who is really being sold a pack of lies? | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/23/2009 8:26:48 PM | Read it again. It says that G-d created Adam and Eve. Does it say that "no person was around before Adam and Eve"? Are they the same?
Isn't it implied rather straightforwardly ? I mean supposedly God created Adam and since Adam was lonely , rather than going down and getting him company from the teeming masses , God creates Eve. Besides that , actually yes , it does say that they're the only people there at the time. He created man , stuck him in the garden (that's the only place the Bible says that "man" was put) and then gave him company with Eve. It's actually pretty clear on that one. If there's anybody else , God forgot that he made them and apparently didn't remember what he did with them either. Kind of strange thing for a supreme being don't you think ?
From what we know, humans were descended from a few original humans, very possibly the same 2.
Not exactly. Ultimately we would have to all be related to at least one person in common. That's not quite the same thing as saying that we all had the same "mother" and "father" way down line.
If you take the Bible absolutely literally, and you add your own assumptions in, then yes, you'd be right. But almost no-one has been that literal, or that assumptive about the Bible, since its beginning, not until recent Americans, and they are so insular about anything that didn't happen in America, that lots don't even know where Iraq was. Did the events of the Bible happen in America, ANY of them? Not at all. Is it any wonder that some Americans have ideas that are founded on nothing?
That's the point I'm trying to make. What makes their unfounded interpretation any different from anybody else's unfounded interpretation ? They can't both be right. In fact , since nobody bothered to clarify in the Bible , maybe they're both wrong. They can't both be right though...that much is a logical certainty.
Bingo. You're beginning to get it. Mind you, when we say that we are not going to take the Bible literally, we don't take the US Constitution literally, as that is interpreted by the US Supreme Court, and so that's not taken literally. Does THAT mean that the US constitution is something to be ignored, completely? Of course not. That would be idiotic. It just means that no-one would take it on face value. It means that you have to think about how it fits into what else we know about the world as a whole, and understand it in light of that.
Please....
I "got" it from the beginning. You're the one who's not "getting it" here.
Here , imagine you're given a shopping list but for some stupid reason , it's written in riddles. You take some help along with you to the store. You get to the first item and you both come up with different answers to the riddle. You think you're supposed to buy butter and your friend thinks you're supposed to buy cola. Who's right ? Maybe neither of you are right. You definitely can't both be right. What's important though is that neither of you can be the least bit sure of which item you're supposed to purchase. So what do you do ? The smart thing would be to not waste money buying what will probably turn out to be the wrong thing. In fact , neither of you can say "I bought the right item because neither of you knows for sure." That's the smart thing to do anyway.
Same goes for the Bible. If you can't be sure of your interpretation (and you're arguing that it's all open to interpretation no matter how straightforward it seems) then how can anybody take any of the Bible as some sort of morally authoritative text ? Nobody can say "God said not to kill". That could be a misinterpretation. Nobody can even say that there is any God if the Bible is so open to interpretation. Maybe God was never supposed to be assumed to be some sort of deity. Maybe "God" is supposed to be a rock. Just a rock...nothing else.
See but you'll come back with "Well it's not all supposed to be open to interpretation." Why not ? Who said so ? How do you know what's supposed to be taken literally and what's not supposed to be taken literally ? If Noah's Ark ( a pretty straightforward story) is open to interpretation then why can't the Ten Commandments also be open ? Ahhh...well you can tell what's supposed to be taken literally and what's allegorical. I disagree. You have no idea. In fact , nobody has any idea. There aren't any footnotes to reference. Nobody wrote anything in the margins "For real man.....not the next part though." Nobody can have any idea at all what is supposed to be "real" and what's not.
By your own argument , the Bible is open to being interpreted as its own disproof. Why fault me ? Maybe the Bible says that there's no God ?
I need to teach you how to understand? Do you need me to teach you how to wipe your mouth too?
Did you just learn to or something ? It's nothing special actually and you probably should have learned how to do it when you were a toddler.
Are you kidding? So you're saying that if someone said that almost everything on Earth was wiped out by a meteor, that everyone just took this on face value? Did you know that scientists say that the dinosaurs were wiped out this way? Do you just hear everything that is said, without questioning it?
Very few ever had much of an idea how a global flood would have worked at all. But there wasn't anyone saying that it was impossible. However, in the last 100 years, scientists have been postulating that if the polar ice-caps melted entirely, that global floods that would almost cover the Earth, and numerous other possibilities for global catastrophes. So recently, many have felt far MORE assured that Noah's flood happened, because nowadays science seems to offer explanations of how this might be possible.
Huh ? Oh right.... you're back to the old "Well nobody can prove something didn't happen.." argument.
Second, if we allow interpretation of laws against murder to exclude you, then we have to make the same interpretation of laws in the US constitution, and in the US legal system. Murder is illegal in America? Not for Funcuz. No official religion? Not for Funcuz. Allowed to bear arms? Only for Funcuz. If your argument held, then you'd be able to shoot people in the street, and the police could never arrest you.
What are you going on about here ? Who said anything about law ? I was talking about the Bible but sure , feel free to include your halucinations if you want to . I guess it would explain alot about your posts.
Let's be honest. Where on Earth is this "either/or", perfectionist "black-or-white" extremist thinking is coming from? It's certainly not you. You don't think that way about the laws of your own country. Nope. It's NOT thinking that's producing this. This is an argument that you have heard about the Bible, from someone else, in some form or another, and have not actually analysed it, and have not taken any of the principles that it is based on to be the truth, but simply accepted it as true about the Bible, even though you do not believe it true at all.
Where does the either/or situation come from ? Blame people who believe in the Bible. This doesn't suprise you does it ? It shouldn't since it was their idea.
They said "Either you accept our interpretation and therefore accept God or you reject it and we reserve the right to punish you for not believing what we tell you."
Why would you ask me a question with such an obvious answer ? They're the ones who didn't allow for interpretation (unless it was their own) Seems to me that if that's the case I've only got one course of action : Either I follow the Bible to the letter and take it all at face value (literal) or I decide to interpret it all at my own discretion. If I'm allowed to interpret the whole thing as I see fit then I also have to allow for the possibility that I could be wrong about every single interpretation I come up with. Kind of makes it all a rather pointless exercise in that case.
So yeah , it's either all the literal truth or it's not. If it's not then I'm not going to waste time with endless contemplation of the unanswerable anyway. I can't arrive at any conclusions until God comes down to set the record straight. I'd rather not waste my time with the book then ... I'll wait for the revised edition with footnotes.
And actually , nope , I made my mind up about the Bible right around the same time I realized how little sense it made. It contradicts itself. It provides virtually no illumination on anything , especially moral behaviour. It makes claims that can't be verified in any way. In fact , what is it good for ? I mean , people have done a lot of bad things in the name of religion but what really irks me about it is that people who condemn the actions of "those" people come along and defend the thinking that lead "those" people to commit their actions in the first place. Kind of like what you're doing. You're okay with saying "some" of it can be taken literally and "some" of it is supposed to be open to interpretation. How do you know ? You have no idea. How can you ? Where in the Bible does it clearly distinguish ? It doesn't. If you accept that ANY of the Bible can be interpreted then you should accept that ALL of it can be interpreted. You have to....you don't know which is which. You can't condemn terrorists for acting on commands they "wrongly" interpreted....maybe THEY got it right. Sure doesn't seem right but hey...even the seemingly straightforward stuff in the Bible isn't straightforward according to you. Actually , that's not fair. It's not just[/j] according to you. | |
|
| |
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/24/2009 12:33:21 AM | RE Msg: 441 by Funcuz:
Read it again. It says that G-d created Adam and Eve. Does it say that "no person was around before Adam and Eve"? Are they the same? Isn't it implied rather straightforwardly ?
From what we know, humans were descended from a few original humans, very possibly the same 2. Not exactly. Ultimately we would have to all be related to at least one person in common. That's not quite the same thing as saying that we all had the same "mother" and "father" way down line.
Here , imagine you're given a shopping list but for some stupid reason , it's written in riddles. It's written in Hebrew, not riddles. An accurate example would be if you write a shopping list in English, and then hand it to 2 Arabs who cannot read any English, just to p*ss them off. Probably come back with a grenade launcher and 10 AK-47s. Does that mean you didn't write "1 carton of milk and 2 loaves of bread"?
You take some help along with you to the store. You get to the first item and you both come up with different answers to the riddle. You think you're supposed to buy butter and your friend thinks you're supposed to buy cola. Who's right ? Maybe neither of you are right. You definitely can't both be right. What's important though is that neither of you can be the least bit sure of which item you're supposed to purchase. So what do you do ? The smart thing would be to not waste money buying what will probably turn out to be the wrong thing. In fact , neither of you can say "I bought the right item because neither of you knows for sure." That's the smart thing to do anyway. No, it's frigging not. My mother used to send me down to the shops to get Mrs Elswood cucumbers. If I bought the wrong ones, she'd get angry for getting the wrong ones. If I got nothing, she'd get just as angry for not getting anything. The only thing to do, is to ring you, and tell you what they have, and if that's what you want. If you don't have a mobile, then you have to ask what to do in all situations before going. If you forgot, then expect to make 2 trips. Planning ahead is key to avoid problems. If you don't plan ahead to read your instructions before you leave the house, you're screwed in lots of things.
Where does the either/or situation come from ? You:
So no , logically it is an either/or situation.
Blame people who believe in the Bible. This doesn't suprise you does it ? It shouldn't since it was their idea.
They said "Either you accept our interpretation and therefore accept God or you reject it and we reserve the right to punish you for not believing what we tell you." You're right.
People shouldn't condemn you for not knowing what to believe.
I am hoping and trying to make the world a better place.
In that vein, I have found that when people criticise others, they are criticising others based on their own feelings and desires. Criticisms are used to achieve their desires. Sometimes, criticisms are used to put others down. It makes the person making the criticism feel better about himself to know that he feels better than others. Other times, criticisms are used to weaken others' resolve. This makes them more easy to make them do things they would rather not.
Criticisms are used in every field of endeavour. They are used in science, in politics, in business, and even in dating. They are not a good way to conduct oneself, and are counter-productive in the long run. But in the short-term, they can be very useful tools, and so they are very tempting to use, for those who wish a short-term gain, and don't really bother to consider the long-term consequences of their actions. So although criticisms are tempting, they tend to come back on you later.
Why would you ask me a question with such an obvious answer ? They're the ones who didn't allow for interpretation (unless it was their own) No-one who was giving you rational instructions, would ever talk to you the way you described. You put "(unless it was their own)", in brackets, because that wasn't overtly stated. Even if you gave an interpretation that fitted what they'd told you, but it wasn't to their liking, they'd just have a pop at you anyway. That's not demanding you to accept their interpretation. That's demanding you accept what's in their heads, and it's irrational to expect anyone to be able to answer what's in your heads. Even if you could, they could just change their mind. So it's was unreasonable for anyone to make such a demand.
But, since it is unreasonable, and even G-d would find it unreasonable, they weren't following the Bible anyway. They just said they did, to hide that, probably because you were too young and inexperienced to realise the flaws in their arguments.
Seems to me that if that's the case I've only got one course of action : Either I follow the Bible to the letter and take it all at face value (literal) or I decide to interpret it all at my own discretion. If I'm allowed to interpret the whole thing as I see fit then I also have to allow for the possibility that I could be wrong about every single interpretation I come up with. Kind of makes it all a rather pointless exercise in that case. The same can be said about the data in any experiment. You can look at the sky and say that the stars go round the Earth. If you take it at face value, then the sun goes around the Earth, and so do all the stars. If you are allowed to interpret the data differently, then you also have to allow for the possibility that you could be wrong about every single theory you come up with, even theories you heard from others, like Newton's and Einstein's. Kind of makes it all a rather pointless exercise in that case.
It really doesn't matter in your case, because you're trying to please some nameless people who don't really care what you do. They don't care if you believe in G-d. They don't care if you follow the Bible. All they care is that they have a whipping boy, and someone to do their bidding. Whatever you do, they will try to make you into that. All you can do is to accept that humans are not perfect, and the ones you were dealing with, were very very flawed, and who many would point out have some serious problems in dealing with people. All anyone can do with such people is to state your case, stand your ground, and if they aren't going to be reasonable, to just accept that, and find some new people to hang out with.
So yeah , it's either all the literal truth or it's not. If it's not then I'm not going to waste time with endless contemplation of the unanswerable anyway. I can't arrive at any conclusions until God comes down to set the record straight. I'd rather not waste my time with the book then ... I'll wait for the revised edition with footnotes. That's like saying you won't read Hamlet, not until Shakespeare comes back to life, and sets the record straight on what it means, or you'll watch the film. Sure, you can do that. You're not thinking for yourself, but being told what to think. But if you don't think for yourself, then you won't think to use the information effectively either. Might as well give up learning anything.
Learning is only worth doing, once you start thinking for yourself, and start questioning everything you were told, including the stuff you were told in science class. If you do that, then you have the capacity to make new discoveries. You could be a Nield Bohr, an Albert Einstein, a Louis Pasteur. If not, well, you're better off as a plumber.
And actually , nope , I made my mind up about the Bible right around the same time I realized how little sense it made. It contradicts itself. Of course it contradicts itself. It was written in HEBREW. When it got translated into English, on every 2 verses on the same subject using 2 different verbs, where only one such verb exists in English, only one verb is printed in the English. Imagine if you were reading a translation of "I didn't read Julius Caesar. I skimmed it.", and it was translated into "I didn't read Julius Caesar. I read it." Would that make sense?
Now imagine that the entire Bible is like that. All with different words and descriptions for different passages, but translated using the same words into opposing things. No wonder you were confused. That's why I realised a long time ago. Translations give you an idea. But they are no substitute for reading the original text in the original language, and unless you do that, and know the original language very, very well, you're going to see a lot of contradictions where there are none.
It provides virtually no illumination on anything , especially moral behaviour. Again, you're not going to get that from a translation. Here's an example:
The words of the Teacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem: 2 "Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless." Ecclesiastes 1:1-2
Sounds like a pretty depressing and nihilistic POV. Now, let's look at the original Hebrew:
The sayings of Kohelet (the congregant), son of David, king in Jerusalem: 2 "Hot air of hot airs", said Kohelet. "Hot air of hot airs. All is hot air." Ecclesiastes 1:1-2
It's Existentialism 101: 99% of things that look good on the outside, once you get it home, are full of nothing but stuff that you had anyway, or could get anywhere for free. Don't judge things on appearances. It's a profound message, with implications for everyone.
Now he could have said that instead. But as Dale Carnegie points out, a message must be dramatic, for people to internalise it. A direct message is clear. But you don't apply direct messages. An allegory is not obvious. But it's beauty is that all you have to do is ask if something is like "hot air", or not, to realise when you're being led down the garden path. Just imagine the allegory, and if it fits, you have your answer. No need to apply it. The allegory gets your brain to apply it automatically.
That's only one line. One. That's how different the Hebrew is from the English.
Seriously. If you have any sense, you'd never read an English translation again.
It makes claims that can't be verified in any way. In fact , what is it good for ? I've just shown how just one line of the Bible gives you a powerful psychological tool to aid you in your life. Something that would take years in therapy.
I mean , people have done a lot of bad things in the name of religion Yes, but that's all "hot air". It's usually people claiming to speak on behalf of religion, but when you look at what they actually say, and what they actually do, they aren't following what G-d says at all, and are just trying to justify their own selfish behaviour.
but what really irks me about it is that people who condemn the actions of "those" people come along and defend the thinking that lead "those" people to commit their actions in the first place. Kind of like what you're doing. I'm saying that the Bible requires THOUGHT, just like anything.
If others are just giving knee-jerk reactions to follow the Bible too literally, then they're not thinking.
If you are saying to not consider the Bible's messages at all, then you're not thinking.
For all intents and purposes, you both might as well have your brains pickled. You're both not thinking, and so you'll both end up doing a lot of stuff that you later on find out was a really bad idea.
It really doesn't matter if you believe the Bible, or not. What matters, is that come what may, you stop jumping to conclusions because of your personal experiences, and start using your brain. After all, if G-d created humanity, then G-d gave us a brain. What for, if not to use it to help the world? | |
|
|
| Page 16 of 20
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
|
Home
login 
