OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[lvbuckeye]

there are a bunch of US troops stationed there now.

Babylon has never been destroyed. it will be.

 

[Muck]

there are a bunch of US troops stationed there now.

Not for a couple of years there hasn't. It was handed over to the Iraqis a while ago.

Babylon has never been destroyed. it will be.

Having stood in the ruins of the Processional Way and walked through what's left of the actual Ishtar Gate (Saddam built a reconstruction nearby) I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point. It's about as "un" destroyed as[SIZE=-1] McGahee's knee in the national championship game.

[/SIZE]The Nebuchadnezzar brick on my computer desk is a constant reminder of that fact.

 

[GoBucks89]

And of course, the decision as to which parts are figurative/allegorical and which are historical (and which are illustrative, I suppose) is left up to - whom, exactly? It seems evident to me that there can be no bright line defining which parts of the Bible need to be read as "FACT" and which are left open to interpretation as "FIGURATIVE."

The method for doing so is outlined in my post above, and anyone who wishes to do so can do so with only a small bit of effort. To be sure, there are some difficult passages, but Genesis is not one of them. If you can figure out what I am saying in the Pittman TD example, then you can figure out the vast majority of biblical passages.

And if that is the case, the position of the Creationists is placed on very unstable footing indeed. What real theological basis can there be for believing the Genesis story to be literal fact, when:

1. The text is obviously at odds with scientific observation, and

It is not at odds with any scientific observation that I know of. Your belief in such is based on the ad populum argument that you employ in your last paragraph below.

2. Even Creationists agree that not all Biblical passages can, or should, be read as literal fact.

True enough, but even scientists use figures of speach. Stephen Hawking has been known to remark that "the universe is the ultimate free lunch". Can we now assume that nothing he says is reliably true?

You have pretty much made my point, GB89;

Which is?

the fact that evolution is essentially proved scientifically (like it or not, it has been, to the overwhelming satisfaction of scientists),

It is not a fact, only an opinion, ad populum arguments notwithstanding.

and the fact that the "young earth" has been disproved by a number of lines of evidence,

Another opinion stated as if it was a fact. I have no doubt that the belief in a 6 billion (or whatever the current estimate is) year old earth to support evolution is politically correct among many scientists. But that does not make it a fact.

does not invalidate the fundamental Truth of the Bible. Conversely, there is no need to believe the Creationist dogma in order to believe fully in the fundamental truth of the Bible.

Let me share with you something that scientists have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt: a man cannot be dead for three days and then suddenly come back to life. So now, how much of your faith are you willing to sacrifice on the alter of political correctness?

 

[Muck]

Another opinion stated as if it was a fact. I have no doubt that the belief in a 6 billion (or whatever the current estimate is) year old earth to support evolution is politically correct among many scientists. But that does not make it a fact.

This statement speaks volumes about a total lack of understanding regarding how scientists operate.

"Political correctness" has absolutely nothing to do with it. Scientists try their damnedest to break the pet theories of other scientists.

Theories only become accepted after they have weathered the test of observable evidence.

...and that's the reason the creatonists/IDers/young earthers don't publish in respected journals. It's because their claims don't stand up under scrutiny not because of "political correctness".

Let me share with you something that scientists have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt: a man cannot be dead for three days and then suddenly come back to life. So now, how much of your faith are you willing to sacrifice on the alter of political correctness?

You'll have to ask Grigori/George Rodonaia about that one.

Seriously though you might want to get up to speed on the current state of understanding regarding death and the possibilities of resuscitation in low oxygen/low temperature environments.

 

[MaxBuck]

Let me share with you something that scientists have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt: a man cannot be dead for three days and then suddenly come back to life. So now, how much of your faith are you willing to sacrifice on the alter of political correctness?

This is the crux of my serious problem with Creationists -- they imply that acceptance of the literal Genesis story is as critical to the Christian faith as the acceptance of the resurrection and Ascension of Christ. And it isn't; to imply that it is is blasphemous.

No part of my Christian faith, nor any part of my acceptance of the provenness of macroevolution, has anything whatever to do with "political correctness." To say that it does belittles both my faith and the intellectual rigor of evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, archeologists and anthropologists.

 

[MaxBuck]

The method for doing so is outlined in my post above, and anyone who wishes to do so can do so with only a small bit of effort.

Well, actually you provided no clue as to how one is to differentiate between allegory and factual representation. You simply used reasoning to justify your own belief that YOU can tell the difference. You haven't convinced me, though, and you're at odds with most of the great theologians, who by and large do not subscribe to the Creationist agenda.

 

[GoBucks89]

This statement speaks volumes about a total lack of understanding regarding how scientists operate.

"Political correctness" has absolutely nothing to do with it. Scientists try their damnedest to break the pet theories of other scientists.

We're not talking about a "pet theory" here, we're talking about one that is sacred to the scientific academy. No one who wishes to remain a scientist in good standing will challenge it directly, because he would then be labeled as a "non-scientist", not because of any flaw in his method but because of his conclusion.

Theories only become accepted after they have weathered the test of observable evidence.

Except in the case of evolution, which is assumed because supernatural causes are ruled out a priori.

...and that's the reason the creatonists/IDers/young earthers don't publish in respected journals. It's because their claims don't stand up under scrutiny not because of "political correctness".

This is a well-worn myth. The Discovery Institute has a page that lists several instances of research by their people being published in peer-reviewed journals. It is of course true that many more evolutionists are published in "respected journals", but that's an editorial decision that is made in no small part due to the preferences (or predjudices) of the editors.

Seriously though you might want to get up to speed on the current state of understanding regarding death and the possibilities of resuscitation in low oxygen/low temperature environments.

Cut to the chase, Muck. Are you saying that a man can be dead for three days and then come back to life? And we're talking about 2000 years ago, when there was no resuscitation and the temperature would not have been low.

 

[GoBucks89]

This is the crux of my serious problem with Creationists -- they imply that acceptance of the literal Genesis story is as critical to the Christian faith as the acceptance of the resurrection and Ascension of Christ. And it isn't; to imply that it is is blasphemous.

I implied nothing of the sort. In order to avoid this straw man in the future, let me just say for the record that nothing in the scriptures is as important as the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now back to the point at hand. I asked you a question, and I'll ask it again, more directly this time. If the majority of scientists believe that a man cannot be dead in the grave for three days and then come back to life, do you reject that claim from the scriptures and say that it didn't really happen? Do you say that this story must have been figurative or metaphorical in nature and not literally true?

 

[GoBucks89]

Well, actually you provided no clue as to how one is to differentiate between allegory and factual representation.

Allegory has nothing to do with it. I gave you an example of figurative language and literal language used in the same paragraph. I also described how someone in another culture would go about understanding it. This is exactly how Bible translators and commentators approach the scriptures.

 

[Muck]

We're not talking about a "pet theory" here, we're talking about one that is sacred to the scientific academy. No one who wishes to remain a scientist in good standing will challenge it directly, because he would then be labeled as a "non-scientist", not because of any flaw in his method but because of his conclusion.

Bullshit.

Evolutionary theory is no more sacred than any other scientifically tested theory. Yes we are talking about a "pet theory" as that its how it first entered the scientific community...just as any any other theory. It has become the standard because it has withstood the tests of critics and in the face of evidence.

The conspiracy theory is utter nonsense. Again it display a gross misunderstanding of how the scientific community functions.

Scientists love to argue. They bicker & fuss like old gossipy women. That's also a large part of how knowledge gets advanced. It's through the disagreements that breakthroughs are made...and evolutionary theory has had more than it's share of fights.

A scientist who could conclusively disprove evolutionary theory would have his name permanently etched in the history books. There's not a scientist out there who wouldn't leap at the chance for that immortality.

There's no overriding fascist groupthink that keeps the dissenters silenced.

Luckily that is one more trait science does not share with most religions, you don't get excommunicated for not towing the company line.

Except in the case of evolution, which is assumed because supernatural causes are ruled out a priori.

Yeah because evolution is quite alone in the world of science in not turning to the supernatural for an explanation.

Assumptions have nothing to do with it. Supporting evidence on the other hand does.

This is a well-worn myth. The Discovery Institute has a page that lists several instances of research by their people being published in peer-reviewed journals.

Unfortunately I fell into the trap of hyperbole. I should have said the ID crowd "rarely" submits to peer reviewed publications and that is the truth regardless of what your propaganda site states.

It is a shame (but quite understandable) that they fail to show the peer statements for the various articles mentioned. Having read some of the critiques of Behe & Dembski's "work" I can say they are amusing.

The bottom line is that the ID folks haven't regularly submitted research.

And why should they?

Their goal isn't to advance scientific knowledge. Their goal is to convince the scientific illiterate. They certainly don't need peer review for that.

It is of course true that many more evolutionists are published in "respected journals", but that's an editorial decision that is made in no small part due to the preferences (or predjudices) of the editors.

When all else fails cry discrimination.

Cut to the chase, Muck.

Maybe we should just ignore first hand observation and consistently repeatable phenomena. Perhaps we should ascribe everything to magic instead. Sure would be a lot easier.

Perhaps we are nothing more than brains in a jar reacting to electrical impulses being provided by Fungi from Yoggoth. Perhaps reality as we know it is nothing more than Socrates' cave.

Are you saying that a man can be dead for three days and then come back to life? And we're talking about 2000 years ago, when there was no resuscitation and the temperature would not have been low.

I'm not saying anything at all. First I don't have a definite answer regarding the feasibility of it and second as far as I'm concerned it doesn't really matter.

Jeshua ben Joseph's message isn't any more or less meaningful to me regardless of whether or not he was in fact resurrected. It was how he lived his life and the template that he provided that was important to me.

I don't personally need the security blanket of a promised post death reward (nor the threat of punishment) to get me to live a life in accordance with what I believe his moral message to be. His example was enough.



Unfortunately the biological sciences biggest failing is that they've never found their Carl Sagan. In that I mean an individual with the inclination and the skill to take the vast store of data and parse it in a manner that is easy to understand by Joe Nascar.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Muck, you have forgotten that we're talking about someone who CLAIMED TO BE THE SON OF GOD. He was either who He said He was, or He wasn't. the implications inherent in the possibility that He wasn't who He said He was are rather profound. i'll defer to C.S. Lewis on this subject: "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."

--from Mere Christianity

 

[GoBucks89]

Bullshit.

Muck, as much as I would like to engage you in a debate on this subject, it's rather difficult for me to get past the rudeness and condescension of your post. It seems obvious to me that you've got an axe to grind here, otherwise I would expect to see your normal detached tone. If you want to continue along these lines, I suggest you resurrect one of the evolution threads. This is the "Biblical/Theology" thread. If you have nothing to say about the Bible or Theology then your comments are OT. Not only that, but ridiculing our faith is rather bad form.

 

[sandgk]

Unfortunately the biological sciences biggest failing is that they've never found their Carl Sagan. In that I mean an individual with the inclination and the skill to take the vast store of data and parse it in a manner that is easy to understand by Joe Nascar.

You mean that the Desmond Morris, David Attenborough or Richard Dawkins (poking the bear a trifle there) are ineffective communicators of complex ideas in simple language?

Certainly in the case of Morris the main complaint from the scientific community has been that he is overly simplistic, though they choose not to disagree with his arguments (why would they, they largely agree with those positions). He has also (unsurprisingly) been assailed by creationists - though they point to the sniping from the weeds by those in the scientific community, that has little to do with their disagreement. And, I think this is an indicative example of why no communicator, no matter their effectiveness will sway the creationists.
The unwillingness of creationists to accept the examples and arguments presented by Morris, or Attenborough, or Dawkins is precisely because their beliefs are based on articles of faith. For that little supporting evidence is needed, nor is it a requirement that a creationist accept very well studied and eloquently argued scientific argument. In fact, were they to do so it would directly undercut their articles of faith.

Creationism is not science, it is an elaboration of religion.

 

[Muck]

Muck, as much as I would like to engage you in a debate on this subject, it's rather difficult for me to get past the rudeness and condescension of your post. It seems obvious to me that you've got an axe to grind here, otherwise I would expect to see your normal detached tone. If you want to continue along these lines, I suggest you resurrect one of the evolution threads. This is the "Biblical/Theology" thread. If you have nothing to say about the Bible or Theology then your comments are OT. Not only that, but ridiculing our faith is rather bad form.

Condensention?

You've made baseless accusations against the scientific community, insinuationg that they are merely following a "politically correct" dictated course of thought and that they suppress dissension and then you make claims of condensention? You don't have the moral high ground here.

I have no more of an axe to grind than I do against anyone who resorts to attacking an entire group in the absence of a substantive argument. Again you should look to your own blade being held to the stone.

Pointing out that you've made insulting and groundless claims is in no way ridiculing your faith.


...and I'll happily shuffle out of the thread.

 

[MaxBuck]

I implied nothing of the sort. In order to avoid this straw man in the future, let me just say for the record that nothing in the scriptures is as important as the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now back to the point at hand. I asked you a question, and I'll ask it again, more directly this time. If the majority of scientists believe that a man cannot be dead in the grave for three days and then come back to life, do you reject that claim from the scriptures and say that it didn't really happen? Do you say that this story must have been figurative or metaphorical in nature and not literally true?

GB89, when I stated that one need not accept Creationist dogma in order to believe in the fundamental truth of the Bible, you came back with this:

Let me share with you something that scientists have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt: a man cannot be dead for three days and then suddenly come back to life.

I see a clear implication of parallelism here, and if you deny it I suggest you read your statement again with fresh eyes.

As regards your own straw man regarding "the views of the majority of scientists," we have a fundamental apples-and-oranges situation. My belief in the redemption by Christ of sinful humans requires my belief in the deity of Jesus, and it requires my acceptance of the position that Jesus died on the cross in order to secure my salvation. But there is no comparable requirement of my faith that I believe in the creation fable; God has told us this fable in order that we understand some basic things about human nature and our relationship with the natural world. Salvation does not require a belief that this fable is literally true.