Reply With Quote
lol
Are you serious? Darwin's theory of natural selection was unfortunate?
True or false:
1) The world is about 6000 years old.
2) The bible is literally true, talking snake, flood, and all.
lol
No, I mistakenly grouped it with other unfortunate things. I do think that social Darwinism opened up a whole crappy can of worms.
Now to your questions. No, I am not a young-earth creationist. Most Christians are not. The 6000 year old earth theory only dates to about the 18th century, and became popular in the 19th partly as a reaction to liberalism. I AM a creationist, but do not lump me in with those kooks.
The second is a big statement. Is the whole Bible literally true? If you include the parts that involve poetry (Psalms), or symbolism ("the wings of the Lord"), then no. I DO believe they are true, but that type of literature is true in a non-literal sort of way. As for narrative (e.g., Kings, Chronicles, Nehemiah, Acts, the Gospels -- actually a separate genre of literature), then the answer is yes. There is no reason to disbelieve them.
I don't claim to be able to prove every last word of the Bible. I will not shoulder that burden. I do say that archaeology, history, languages, and corroborating do ents offer important pieces that establish the truth and historicity of the narrative sections. But we will never be able to prove every last piece. For instance, we've never found David's castle. Why not? Well, archeology can only find so much. And it's not like you can go digging wherever you want in Israel. And they're finding stuff all the time anyway.
As for Genesis ... I don't think the creation sequence is meant to be taken literally like a news story. This happened, then that happened, and it took 6 literal days. It is the fundamentalists and their opponents who impose this modernist reading upon the passage. The ancient interpreters never read it that way, the early church didn't interpret it that way, and there's no reason why I should have to.
Any more questions, PM me. Get the conversation out of the noise. If you're interested.
Last edited by Don Quixote; 04-05-2009 at 12:57 AM. Reason: typo
I sort my morality consciously, with set preferences with, sadly, aren't universal. My set preferences are such that I value empathy over self-centeredness, egalitarianism over hierarchy, and inclusiveness or exclusiveness (tribalism). It's not that I don't possess the capacity for self-centereness (especially), authoritarianism, and tribalism...it's just that I don't value them equally. These are the baselines that my moral system derives from. Other people have different set preferences, different settings on their sliders. Other peoples' moral standards are likewise derived this way. This is even true of deeply religious people who both read the same bible and are members of the same denomination, as their "emphasis" on which "God given" moral standards are more important varies from church to church, person to person.
I know you don't like that answer, because you need to have it carved in stone, ageless and universal. I don't perceive anything about existence to be timeless and unchanging, quite the opposite. I don't share the angst some have about confronting uncertainty, so I don't suffer in some "relativistic " as I continue to grow and learn, accepting I'll never learn everything there is to learn.
ramtha! haha
And that is precisely the problem! At least most of us (I say all, even if not all admit it) are reaching for some ultimate moral standard, that we think should apply equally to all. But relativist systems (which atheism ultimately devolves to) cannot give any reason for preferring one's system over another's.
Now, one can say, obey me or face the consequences. Govts do this all the time. They have to. But might doesn't necessarily make right. Neither does the herd mentality. The majority can be wrong. And our genetic makeups still do not make one thing right and another wrong. So what is it exactly?
I propose that we must have an absolute standard handed down from an absolute source. (Can't possibly be from us, because that would make it relative.) Now, this does not prove God or the Bible. We're not even close to that yet. I AM saying that I have enough here to seriously question a system that cannot answer how our absolutist notions of morality (or hope, or meaning) can exist when we're just atoms and nothing more.
It is way too late and I have drill in the morning. PM me if you have more questions! I am NOT the Bible answer man (I don't think that's possible -- the Bible is silent on space aliens, for instance), but I am competent in philosophy of religion, ethics, and other things that have to do with Christianity. If nothing else, I can perhaps balance out the presumptive atheism around here ("theists are stupid") as well as bad theology coming from some Christians.
I value my liberal set preferences, and wished everyone else shared them, but I recognize that a conservative can point to instances in history and argue that a greater emphasis on tribalism and authority gave this or that group the needed solidarity and discipline to survive or flourish...and then I would offer counter-examples of inclusiveness and egalitarianism leading to the increased prosperity of the so-and-so's...and round and round we'd go.
An absolute law, code, crede, "way" or whatever is something that never changes...and that's precisely the problem; unchanging doesn't survive in a constantly changing universe. Big and strong rules the day, until the environment changes and then small and quick rules...and then the environment changes yet again, and so on...
The best "universal" I can come up with is to stay adaptable, but that's probably cold comfort to someone who wants history to stand still.
Roman Catholic
I'm a Christian but do understand the problems some have with the teachings in the Bible. Hard not to question the validity of it all.
It's not so much the bible. It's the absurd thought of the theologian grounds; that this extreme power cares individually and collectively of us.
I miss angel_luv
"The passion of faith is the only thing which masters the absurd."
avante is back
He's trying soooo hard to write in complete sentences and not give himself up.
except i've seen him post on a different board with the Brutal username
except i've seen him post on a different board with the Brutal username
He gave himself a screen name after his treatment of underage Pinoy pros utes. ing classy.
I always wonder why Christians are so against the gays when Jesus was raised by one. Don't tell me Joseph didn't suck because he sure never ed his wife, that's why she had to go to the virgin birth excuse when she popped out that little bas .
Jesus was the one hanging with 12 other dudes
and the clergy are sworn to celibacy
lol at this thread in 2018. the better question now is are there any re s still have imaginary friends they telepathically whisper to before bed?
Atheist here
More confused than anything else.
"I miss angel_luvGod told my husband to quit college and pursue a career at Jiffy Lube
"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions