The Shrine

Ah, I ought to read the entire article, but the first few paragraphs give me hope...

And yet (<a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/06/scien ... epage">NYT article</a>):

"You see any cracks in that?" he asked. "Instead of bending like that, it should have cracked." The material "had to be soft" to bend, Mr. Vail said, imagining its formation in the flood. When somebody suggested that pressure over time could create plasticity in the rocks, Mr. Vail said, "That's just a theory."

"It's all theory, right?" asked Jack Aiken, 63, an Assemblies of God minister in Alaska who has a master's degree in geology. "Except what's in the Good Book."

I get frustrated every time I read or hear someone say "It's just a theory" because it betrays a basic misunderstanding of what science is.

Since it's related, I might as well mention I'm reading a book on evolution, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/061800 ... lance">The Ancestor's Tale</a> by Richard Dawkins. It's main task is to trace our evolution backwards from now. So far, it's an interesting read. I've also read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/039331 ... lance">The Blind Watchmaker</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019286 ... lance">The Selfish Gene</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019288 ... lance">The Extended Phenotype</a>, all by Dawkins.

I've yet to read those books you gave me, because I'm terrible with books. I got a copy of Starship Troopers with the bookmark still 2/3rds into it.

This is the evolution of theology. The church has been losing it's grip on the masses so they're trying to legitamize creationism through science. This is a result of that.

Zeus wrote:This is the evolution of theology. The church has been losing it's grip on the masses so they're trying to legitamize creationism through science. This is a result of that.

Actually, this is nothing new. The Catholic Church has had this stance for quite awhile. It's just that the media feels like making a story out of it like it's new in order to convince people that the church has suddenly turned against the teachings of the Bible. It's just the media doing what it does best: twisting.

The document they reference: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_coun ... um_en.html

explains the Catholic Church's stance on the teachings of the Bible and it was written in the 60's.

Well, obviously not a lot of people know that, because they constantly quote the bible as if the bible itself was written by God in English and was meant to be 100% accurate. I don't think Romans 3:12 means "God Hates Fags!" and I'm pretty sure Romans is Old T (and therefore invalid in the views of a Christian) anyway.

SineSwiper wrote:Well, obviously not a lot of people know that, because they constantly quote the bible as if the bible itself was written by God in English and was meant to be 100% accurate. I don't think Romans 3:12 means "God Hates Fags!" and I'm pretty sure Romans is Old T (and therefore invalid in the views of a Christian) anyway.

From my experience, very few of the "The Earth is 6,000-years-old" variety are Catholic.

Kupek wrote:And yet (<a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/06/scien ... epage">NYT article</a>):

"You see any cracks in that?" he asked. "Instead of bending like that, it should have cracked." The material "had to be soft" to bend, Mr. Vail said, imagining its formation in the flood. When somebody suggested that pressure over time could create plasticity in the rocks, Mr. Vail said, "That's just a theory."

"It's all theory, right?" asked Jack Aiken, 63, an Assemblies of God minister in Alaska who has a master's degree in geology. "Except what's in the Good Book."

I get frustrated every time I read or hear someone say "It's just a theory" because it betrays a basic misunderstanding of what science is.

Since it's related, I might as well mention I'm reading a book on evolution, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/061800 ... lance">The Ancestor's Tale</a> by Richard Dawkins. It's main task is to trace our evolution backwards from now. So far, it's an interesting read. I've also read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/039331 ... lance">The Blind Watchmaker</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019286 ... lance">The Selfish Gene</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019288 ... lance">The Extended Phenotype</a>, all by Dawkins.

Dawkins has the reputation for being both quite brilliant and rabidly, rabidly anti-religious, to the point of getting in arguments with prominent British scientists who profess religious beliefs, right?

SineSwiper wrote:I'm pretty sure Romans is Old T (and therefore invalid in the views of a Christian) anyway.

1) Romans is New Testament. That's a reeeeaaaaal easy thing to look up, Sine. Even you can do it.

2) Just because something is OT doesn't mean that it's "invalid in the views of a Christian." That's too much of a blanket statement to have any real merit to it. Many Christians feel that there are a lot of things that can be learned about God via the OT though the covenants between God and His people are much different between OT & NT.

Jesus had valid reasons for trying to change the bible, and the disciples had their reasons for writing the New Testaments. The OT is mainly for historical purposes only, because modern Christians certainly don't follow what's in Leviticus or Exodus. (Sorry, I thought Romans was OT. I was pulling the bookmark by memory, so I probably don't have the location right either.)

So, maybe invalid isn't the word, but any rules found in OT isn't a part of Jesus' teachings. Jesus may have been a Jew, but he saw that the Jewish faith wasn't what his people should be following any more. At least followers of Mohammed had the common sense to ditch the Bible in favor of a new book, so that nobody would be confused.

You're about to win the first ever Shrine Award for confused theology, Sine.

Lox had it right. And what he said about Christianity applies to Islam's view of both Christianity and Judaism as well. You do know that Islam regards Abraham, Moses, Jacob, and Jesus (the names are transliterated to Arabic, but the people are the same) all as prophets preceding Mohammed, right?

SineSwiper wrote:Jesus had valid reasons for trying to change the bible, and the disciples had their reasons for writing the New Testaments. The OT is mainly for historical purposes only, because modern Christians certainly don't follow what's in Leviticus or Exodus. (Sorry, I thought Romans was OT. I was pulling the bookmark by memory, so I probably don't have the location right either.)

So, maybe invalid isn't the word, but any rules found in OT isn't a part of Jesus' teachings. Jesus may have been a Jew, but he saw that the Jewish faith wasn't what his people should be following any more. At least followers of Mohammed had the common sense to ditch the Bible in favor of a new book, so that nobody would be confused.

Actually a lot of the teachings from the OT are found in Jesus' teachings. He quoted the OT quite often during his ministry. And there's a little more to it than Jesus thinking that the people shouldn't be following the Jewish faith anymore. He saw that the people were following their OT rituals, yet they had no relationship with God. It was like they were going through the motions without feeling behind it. So he institued the new covenant (hence the name New Testament). That's leaving out a lot of details, but that's the gist.

Mental wrote:Dawkins has the reputation for being both quite brilliant and rabidly, rabidly anti-religious, to the point of getting in arguments with prominent British scientists who profess religious beliefs, right?

I think "anti-religious" is a loaded phrase, but he clearly states in his writings that he's an atheist and gives reasons why.

Dawkins can make a helluva good argument, but his writing style (in Ancestor's Tale at least) is a little too arrogant and mentally masturbatory for my tastes. I also didn't see why his political views concerning the "American invasion of Iraq" had any place in the book. I thoroughly enjoyed another book of his (Climbing Mount Impropable), but I had little patience for his writing style Ancestor's tale. Maybe I'll try reading it again in the future.

-Zhuge Liang

Mental wrote:Lox had it right. And what he said about Christianity applies to Islam's view of both Christianity and Judaism as well. You do know that Islam regards Abraham, Moses, Jacob, and Jesus (the names are transliterated to Arabic, but the people are the same) all as prophets preceding Mohammed, right?

Yeah, I know that. Muslims believe that Mohammed was their savior, Christians believe Jesus was their savior, and Jews don't believe their savior has come yet. I'm not saying that the preceeding religions didn't acknowledge the former ones, but ultimately, they believe in a different ideal than their cousins. Otherwise, they wouldn't seperate themselves as a whole 'nother religion.

Lox wrote:Actually a lot of the teachings from the OT are found in Jesus' teachings. He quoted the OT quite often during his ministry. And there's a little more to it than Jesus thinking that the people shouldn't be following the Jewish faith anymore. He saw that the people were following their OT rituals, yet they had no relationship with God. It was like they were going through the motions without feeling behind it. So he institued the new covenant (hence the name New Testament). That's leaving out a lot of details, but that's the gist.

And part of that clean up with getting rid of the harsh do-this-or-I-kill-you relationship with God. Yet, there it is, passages of that behavior still in the Bible, and still misinterpreted by many as what Christian's current God is favoring today. Jesus wanted people to love God, not fear Him. He condemned the teachings in the OT that was almost Hammurabic in nature. The rituals were too hardcoded and defined, as if they were laws of the land, instead of beliefs to be followed. Ironically, Catholism seems to be putting the strict ritual back into the religion by making up their own rules. (You won't find the phrase "Hail Mary" or "Pope" anywhere in the bible. And man, talk about taking 1 Corinthians 10:16 so seriously. If I knew any better, I'd think that they were trying to shape Christianity to appeal to the pagans.)

But, I will give them credit for presenting a spokesperson available to try to mold the religion as a whole somewhat towards present day. I'd just wish they would write a new bible to make it clearer for everybody else. King James was a tyrannt who was trying to make the bible his way, and it's a damn shame that everybody follows the worst translation of the bible, on top of the confusing context of the OT that has been overruled by the context within the NT.

SineSwiper wrote:

Mental wrote:Lox had it right. And what he said about Christianity applies to Islam's view of both Christianity and Judaism as well. You do know that Islam regards Abraham, Moses, Jacob, and Jesus (the names are transliterated to Arabic, but the people are the same) all as prophets preceding Mohammed, right?

Yeah, I know that. Muslims believe that Mohammed was their savior, Christians believe Jesus was their savior, and Jews don't believe their savior has come yet. I'm not saying that the preceeding religions didn't acknowledge the former ones, but ultimately, they believe in a different ideal than their cousins. Otherwise, they wouldn't seperate themselves as a whole 'nother religion.

True enough. I don't really disagree with any of that. I actually don't know anything about the specifics of how Islam regards the prophets of its "forebears".

Some days I wish I could be more tolerant of all of them. I have a hard time seeing why they can't accept my own beliefs - agnosticism, with acceptance of atheism as a possibility - as a rational choice. I really wish that I could be free at least to say that is what I believe. And with most people, I can...but I don't know yet that a congregation of Texas Baptists, or right-wing Muslims, is the place to do it.

*sigh*

SineSwiper wrote:And part of that clean up with getting rid of the harsh do-this-or-I-kill-you relationship with God. Yet, there it is, passages of that behavior still in the Bible, and still misinterpreted by many as what Christian's current God is favoring today. Jesus wanted people to love God, not fear Him.

Yeah, I agree that Jesus wanted people to love God, definitely. I don't totally agree that he did not want them to fear God though. In my opinion, the two aren't mutually distinct. You can fear someone's anger towards you even when it's totally deserved and justified yet still love the person who is angry towards you.

SineSwiper wrote:Ironically, Catholism seems to be putting the strict ritual back into the religion by making up their own rules. (You won't find the phrase "Hail Mary" or "Pope" anywhere in the bible.

I don't disagree there. As one of my co-worker friends who is Catholic put it, "Holy Scripture is one of the two main pillars of the Catholic Church, the other being Tradition (with a capital T)." A lot of those ritualistic types of things are most likely based in the tradition.