Theological Opinions , PART II

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

They're a highly professional group of Christian Biblical scholars and you have presented no evidence that contradicts what they said. So there is no reason to disbelieve them, unless you simply want to disbelieve them.

If being infamous for bad translation and tending towards modernism doesn't qualify as a reason to disbelieve them, then I guess not.

But see below:

http://www.padfield.com/acrobat/gree...IV%20errors%22
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivmusli.htm
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/bacon-niv1.html
http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/ar...=13%7C18%7C219
http://www.agetwoage.org/NIV.htm

I also cited the ancient view that the soul is the principle of life in the organism; it is quite likely that it is from this that they say that "soul" means the same as "life".

These come from a very brief search. There's a lot more where that came from. I was serious when I said that the NIV was known for being a bad translation.

I see no reason why I should believe them, if they say "soul" does not mean "soul". The trend of expert-worship in modernism, and very much in modernist theology is the only reason, that view that only experts and people who devote their lives to studying biblical languages, cultures, etc. are qualified to say what means what. I reject that view.

You can think that. But there's no reason to .

Well if you insist on interpreting it literally, I guess that means that the head of every sinner will be covered in his own blood, so it seems that the only biblically justifiable form of death penalty is crushing the skull. Clearly, this is not the case, but it is metaphorical. And in the context of soul (I will continue to believe the Scripture means what it says unless presented with real evidence to the contrary. Note: Jedi mink tricks (*wave hand* "This DOESN'T mean soul") do not qualify as real evidence. )

He was speaking of the people of Israel. This was predicted again in the next two chapters, if I recall correctly. And historically, many of them did indeed die.

This is a fallacy common among modern English speakers. "People" is not properly the plural of person, but a singular noun, refering to a tribe, a race, or a nation. The people of Israel of did not die, but was subjugated for a time.

One cannot say, "This speaks of the death of Israel. Over here, we see Israelites A, B, and C died. Therefore, Israel died".

So if I say that physical death is what is described in this context, I'm a contortionist, but if you say it's spiritual death that's described, you're a scholar .

One doesn't have to be a scholar, and I am not. It is simply the plain meaning of the text. Soul means soul; if it doesn't, it shouldn't be written as such.

Down with the justice system! Up with the "flag" of anarchy! And everyone repeat after me: No justice, no justice, no justice, no justice!

This is merely propaganda and delibrate attempt to caricature and mock; like the clip of Al Gore's evil penguin army, only without the humour. Surely, ad hominem arguments aren't necessary?

Is Christianity just? By no means; St. Paul calls it the foolishness of God. Is it anarchical? No, clearly not.

One way in which it helps is that it prevents this particular person from doing the same again. Many times people are able to get out of their prison terms early because of appeals or shortage of space in prison, or for other reasons. Often, these convicts will go on to do the same crimes again.

In all reality, life imprisonment is virtually as effective as . Despite what "Silence of the Lambs" may tell us, murderers very, very rarely escape from high-security penitentiaries.

Also, it is written in the Epistles that sometimes when people are judged in the body, this saves them in spirit.

Are you thinking 1 Peter 4:6?

(NIV) "6For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit."

Furthermore, it is just naturally right that everyone should get what they deserve, be it good or bad. But I believe in mercy too, which is why I don't believe in drawing and quartering, even though that might be deserved as a punishment for some crimes.

Then you don't believe in people getting what they deserve.

Syllogism:

Just desserts would be brutal and cruel, something like drawing and quartering.

You believe it is good that we use relatively humane means of execution (such as melting a person), instead of above.

Therefore, you believe it is good that people do not get their just desserts. This follows logically in the absolutely strictest, most perfect sense.

How do you reconcile this with your statement that it is "naturally right" that everyone should get their just desserts?

Further, it may be naturally right, I won't argue that. But I believe that the only way that any civilisation or state can be good is if it is authentically endowed with the Gospel of Christ, so that the only good state must be in some way supernatural.

It's God's Word. I consider God's Word to be holy.

Har, har, har. It is holy in that respect, but I mean that the practice of, say, not mixing fibers for clothing is not especially holy.

Are you saying that you don't believe the Israelites ever made any mistakes in their courts?

No. All I said was that they used a different court system, which had the force of being divinely mandated. Ours does not.

The next comment doesn't seem relevant to the debate, therefore my snippety scissors come out.

Yet when Christ enters people's hearts, he transforms them and makes them righteous, crucifying our iniquity in the process of the Holy Spirit's sanctification. He makes us holy.

Jeez, haven't you heard of imputed righteousness? What kinda Calvinist are you, anyway?

But seriously, while I agree with that (although I don't think it's as instantaneous as you seem to indicate), you wrote of people being "completely good", which I wouldn't imagine you really think is theologically sound.

But anyway, that is a different topic...

Yep! Which doesn't mean all authorities are to have mercy on everyone all the time .

No, it doesn't. But it does indicate that this is the Christian thing to do, and I continue to maintain that a good government must be Christian. God knows, we don't have a good government in the U. S.

This is all extrapolation, and there is nothing in the scripture that implies it. Christians are not under the law but under grace, so long as they abide in that grace.

Of course we are under grace. But grace is by nature the negation of justice. Justice is "the rendering to each of his due", and grace is "a gift freely given, without any merit". The two are mutually exclusive.

Paul says in the Epistles that the Lord will always discipline those he loves. The Father gives us spankings, just as any (or most, I should say) loving fathers will do for their children.

Most loving fathers, however, do not give their children lethal injections. The punishment a father gives his children is corrective.

Justice still exists, but only as a last resort after mercy is offered at every prior opportunity.

The death penalty, when it is invoked, is rarely preceded by an offer of mercy.

I call your attention to a parable; the servant forgiven the ten thousand talents. He, like us, had committed grievous offenses against his Lord and Master. Like Christ, the Master had mercy on him, and forgave him his debt, cancelling any justice. But the servant then went out to find a man who owed him a hundred denarii (if I recall), and proceeded to throttle him and threaten him, and throw him into debtor's prison, until he should pay back what he owed. Was he just in doing so? Of course. But you know how it ends.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

If being infamous for bad translation and tending towards modernism doesn't qualify as a reason to disbelieve them, then I guess not.

That does not qualify as a good reason to disbelieve them. That's a generalization about the entire text and not an argument about the translation of the specific word we're talking about. I do believe that there are occasional valid problems that can be found with the NIV translation. I use the NIV all the time, and I've bumped into one instance where they added a word to the scripture to alter the meaning, in order to impose a more mainstream evangelical interpretation on the text. In that instance, of course, they knew exactly what they were doing when they did it, so they added in a footnote that said they had done it and why. Which was jolly decent of them, though one who is just reading the text without reading the footnotes would never notice (unless they had a prior knowledge), so that stinks.

But I do think it's stupid to say that because there are different faults with the NIV translation, different problems that can be pointed to here and there, this particular word choice is unreliable. I think that's absurd. The NIV is overall very reliable. You'll find an occasional error here and there, but never big swaths of faulty text. I challenge you to provide evidence that the translation of this particular verse is faulty.

http://www.padfield.com/acrobat/gre...NIV%20errors%22

This article doesn't look reliable. It asserts that 2% of the NIV translation may be faulty, but this is a blind assertion without evidence, made out of anger over disagreement about there being a sinful nature, and disagreement with supposed imposition of Calvinism into the text. The author loves the King James Version, but frankly I've had a worse experience with finding faults in the King James Version than I have in the NIV.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivmusli.htm

This guy is being silly. He's not bringing up any specific complaints about the NIV, but rather is complaining about the text because his Muslim friend knew more about arguing than he did.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/bacon-niv1.html

This seems more valid than the other two articles. They actually cite specific examples and provide evidence. I don't know what counter-arguments can be made in any of these cases, so I won't just assume that the arguments are all valid. But this complaint isn't claiming anywhere near the 2% level of error that the first article randomly picks out of the air, and they seem to know what they're talking about. This link looks more interesting to me by far than the previous ones.

I don't have time to examine the other two links you cited as well. Yet it's clear that the NIV translation isn't so bad that you can just pick a verse you theologically disagree with and say with more than a remote chance of being correct, "you know how bad the NIV translation is, so this is probably wrong." That's gross generalization.

I also cited the ancient view that the soul is the principle of life in the organism; it is quite likely that it is from this that they say that "soul" means the same as "life".

Well, it's a possibility. But there is no reason to say it is "quite likely" that that's true.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Well if you insist on interpreting it literally, I guess that means that the head of every sinner will be covered in his own blood, so it seems that the only biblically justifiable form of death penalty is crushing the skull. Clearly, this is not the case, but it is metaphorical.

I agree that it's metaphorical. It's just a metaphor I've never heard applied to anyone who has passed away.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

And in the context of soul (I will continue to believe the Scripture means what it says unless presented with real evidence to the contrary. Note: Jedi mink tricks (*wave hand* "This DOESN'T mean soul") do not qualify as real evidence. )

Here, I feel quite willing to close my case. I believe I have presented very strong real evidence. A group of highly reliable, professional Biblical scholars assembled and worked their way through this text. There were some faults that they made, but you have produced no evidence that this particular verse is translated incorrectly. You have only provided evidence that the NIV has made mistakes in its translation, and I have never believed differently. Though I think it is absurd to suppose that there might be so many errors that you can just pick any verse where you theologically disagree and then validly say, "they probably got it wrong." I'm afraid that to me, that's nothing but bias talking, and the job of providing evidence relating to this verse is entirely yours.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

This is a fallacy common among modern English speakers. "People" is not properly the plural of person, but a singular noun, refering to a tribe, a race, or a nation. The people of Israel of did not die, but was subjugated for a time.

One cannot say, "This speaks of the death of Israel. Over here, we see Israelites A, B, and C died. Therefore, Israel died".

All right, I will concede that this one can be interpreted in different ways.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

One doesn't have to be a scholar, and I am not. It is simply the plain meaning of the text. Soul means soul; if it doesn't, it shouldn't be written as such.

English translations of words from other languages can't always capture fully what the original word meant.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

This is merely propaganda and delibrate attempt to caricature and mock; like the clip of Al Gore's evil penguin army, only without the humour. Surely, ad hominem arguments aren't necessary?

I apologize for being rude.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Is Christianity just? By no means; St. Paul calls it the foolishness of God. Is it anarchical? No, clearly not.

Of course Christianity is just. Yet it is also merciful. The two are entwined, as was demonstrated in Jesus' death on the cross. He died because justice demanded it, but through his fulfillment of justice, he brought mercy.

Originally Posted by Matthew 12:20-21

A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, till he leads justice to victory. In his name the nations will put their hope.

He led justice to victory. It doesn't say anywhere in there that he led justice to its end. We, the nations of this Earth, are putting our hope in a God of justice. Justice is a quality God loves his people to have.

Originally Posted by Psalm 37:27-28

Turn from evil and do good; then you will dwell in the land forever. For the Lord loves the just and will not forsake his faithful ones.

Originally Posted by Isaiah 55:1

This is what the Lord says:

"Maintain justice and do what is right, for my salvation is close at hand and my righteousness will soon be revealed."

Originally Posted by Isaiah 61:8

"For I, the Lord, love justice; I hate robbery and iniquity. In my faithfulness I will reward them and make an everlasting covenant with them."

Originally Posted by Jeremiah 21:12

O house of David, this is what the Lord says: "Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done- burn with no one to quench it."

Originally Posted by Matthew 23:2

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices-mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law- justice, mercy and faithfulness."

Originally Posted by Luke 11:42

"Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone."

Originally Posted by 2 Corinthians 7:11

See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done. At every point you have proved yourselves to be innocent in this matter.

Even so, it is apparent that throughout both the Old and New Testaments, justice is lauded not only for God but for all men. It is one of the qualities that God loves in his followers, and modern nations too are required to follow truly the God who leads justice and is the victory of justice. We must establish and uphold justice in our own nations, in order to do God's will.

We are to follow the example of Jesus. When he criticized the authorities for not showing justice, that proves that the authorities should show justice. When he demanded that they show mercy, it becomes apparent that they should also show mercy. Hence we can conclude that our nations should show both justice and mercy.

But the passages applauding justice are all over the scripture. Justice is clearly a major element of God's character, and one that throughout the Bible he has also demanded his followers to display in themselves.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

In all reality, life imprisonment is virtually as effective as . Despite what "Silence of the Lambs" may tell us, murderers very, very rarely escape from high-security penitentiaries.

Personally, I would prefer the death sentence to life imprisonment.

But murderers do get out of prison early. Often appeals or lack of space in prisons cause high level prisoners to have to spend far less prison time than was originally determined.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Are you thinking 1 Peter 4:6?

(NIV) "6For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit."

I was.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Then you don't believe in people getting what they deserve.

I believe that our leaders should show justice and mercy. I don't believe in only justice and exact justice, but in the two together.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Syllogism:

Just desserts would be brutal and cruel, something like drawing and quartering.

You believe it is good that we use relatively humane means of execution (such as melting a person), instead of above.

Therefore, you believe it is good that people do not get their just desserts. This follows logically in the absolutely strictest, most perfect sense.

People getting their just desserts would be getting exact justice. I believe that that is right, but I believe mercy is also right. So yes, I am not calling for exact justice. But that does not mean exact justice is not right. Justice and mercy are both right, and having a blend of the two is the best.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

How do you reconcile this with your statement that it is "naturally right" that everyone should get their just desserts?

It is right. Mercy is sometimes even better. Both are right. For one instance, it might be best to show justice, and for another instance, it might be best to show mercy. For example, with a trained Al'Qaeda murderer who has murdered and plans to do more murdering, justice would probably be best. For mercy isn't likely to make any improvement in the chap. For a first offense burglary though, perhaps mercy is better. It can differ from situation to situation.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Further, it may be naturally right, I won't argue that. But I believe that the only way that any civilisation or state can be good is if it is authentically endowed with the Gospel of Christ, so that the only good state must be in some way supernatural.

I don't understand how this is an argument against the death penalty.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Har, har, har. It is holy in that respect, but I mean that the practice of, say, not mixing fibers for clothing is not especially holy.

Unless God commanded it . How can obeying a command of God not be holy?

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No. All I said was that they used a different court system, which had the force of being divinely mandated. Ours does not.

God is in favor of justice, and he mandates us to "maintain justice and do what is right," no matter where we are or in what circumstances (according to all the scriptures I recently submitted quotations for. In the United States, Britain, New Zealand or anywhere else, nations are always supposed to to do what is just and right. Their laws won't always be just, and in those circumstances, as Martin Luther King Jr. said, we are morally obligated to seek to change them. And the death penalty can certainly be just, and justice is demanded of nations. Mercy sometimes is a higher path than justice, too. But justice and mercy are both good, and the death penalty (as one aspect of God's justice) is also good.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No, it doesn't. But it does indicate that this is the Christian thing to do, and I continue to maintain that a good government must be Christian. God knows, we don't have a good government in the U. S.

Let's call it like it was. It was "the Christian thing to do in those circumstances." That doesn't mean it was "the Christian thing to do in any circumstances." That is an assumption you're making.

But I say the Law of Moses is Christian. The Lord made it. The Lord did not abolish it. He set out what his justice is in the Law, and the nations would do best to follow his will. He set out what his mercy is in the New Testament as well, and the nations would do best to follow it too. Both justice and mercy are parts of God's nature, and God's nature should also be our nature, as he lives in us. Hence we should be concerned about the fulfillment of both justice and mercy.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Of course we are under grace. But grace is by nature the negation of justice. Justice is "the rendering to each of his due", and grace is "a gift freely given, without any merit". The two are mutually exclusive.

As Solomon wrote in the Lord's Book of Ecclesiasties, "there is a time and place for everything under the sun" . There is a time for mercy and a time for justice. Yes, they are mutually exclusive. You can't have both simultaneously. Yet you can exhibit one in some circumstances and the other in different circumstances. What the circumstances are matters a great deal. Jesus shows clearly that sometimes he demands justice and other times he shows mercy.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Most loving fathers, however, do not give their children lethal injections. The punishment a father gives his children is corrective.

Most children do not try murder, and even when they do, they usually don't know fully what they're doing. These circumstances should make a big difference in whatever response action is taken.

But as a general rule, when one seeks to take an innocent life, one forfeits one's life. "An eye for an eye" is just and right.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

The death penalty, when it is invoked, is rarely preceded by an offer of mercy.

I'm not going to say our justice system has a perfect balance between justice and mercy all the time. Yet I say it is always partly merciful anyway, in that it doesn't use cruel methods to put people to death.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I call your attention to a parable; the servant forgiven the ten thousand talents. He, like us, had committed grievous offenses against his Lord and Master. Like Christ, the Master had mercy on him, and forgave him his debt, cancelling any justice. But the servant then went out to find a man who owed him a hundred denarii (if I recall), and proceeded to throttle him and threaten him, and throw him into debtor's prison, until he should pay back what he owed. Was he just in doing so? Of course. But you know how it ends.

As a society, we should bring justice to all citizens. In a land without justice, evil will have its way. All you have then is anarchy. Yet society also should show mercy at times. There are good and right times and places for both. Sometimes Jesus shows mercy and sometimes he exacts judgement, in the scripture (I'm thinking of the Book of Revelation). Sometimes he is gentle with people and other times he lashes out at them fiercely (even with a whip, once!). It depends on the circumstances.

As individuals, we should also sometimes show mercy and other times bring justice. This applies to a parent with a child. This applies to me. If my brother knocked my laptop onto the floor, breaking it, he would be sorry and I sincerely hope that I would forgive him for that. But if I see someone stealing money from other people, I will turn the person in rather than show mercy. Some circumstances demand taking a stand for justice, and others demand that we show mercy.

For myself, I tend to make it easy on myself by trying to forgive anything bad that's done to me, but taking a stand whenever I see bad done to others.

[Lief Erikson]

Just to let you know, Gwaimir, the above was my last post of this debate. It takes too long, and I don't think we'll end up getting anywhere.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

All right, then, Lief, I'll only reply at brief to a few points:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That does not qualify as a good reason to disbelieve them. That's a generalization about the entire text and not an argument about the translation of the specific word we're talking about. I do believe that there are occasional valid problems that can be found with the NIV translation. I use the NIV all the time, and I've bumped into one instance where they added a word to the scripture to alter the meaning, in order to impose a more mainstream evangelical interpretation on the text. In that instance, of course, they knew exactly what they were doing when they did it, so they added in a footnote that said they had done it and why. Which was jolly decent of them, though one who is just reading the text without reading the footnotes would never notice (unless they had a prior knowledge), so that stinks.

But I do think it's stupid to say that because there are different faults with the NIV translation, different problems that can be pointed to here and there, this particular word choice is unreliable. I think that's absurd. The NIV is overall very reliable. You'll find an occasional error here and there, but never big swaths of faulty text. I challenge you to provide evidence that the translation of this particular verse is faulty.

I never said the translation of this verse was faulty; I merely said that is a faulty translation over all. Which means not that most of what it says is incorrect, but that it has more errors than a number of translations. Given that the translation is faulty, it seems that the crew were not terribly careful, which to me renders their work as a whole fairly suspect. I have no problem with the translation of the verse, merely of the footnote they provide.

Well, it's a possibility. But there is no reason to say it is "quite likely" that that's true.

There's less reason to say it's likely to be false.

I agree that it's metaphorical. It's just a metaphor I've never heard applied to anyone who has passed away.

He hasn't passed away in the verse; he will. But this is comparable:

"Acts 8:16 But when the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.""

English translations of words from other languages can't always capture fully what the original word meant.

I apologize for being rude.

Of course Christianity is just. Yet it is also merciful. The two are entwined, as was demonstrated in Jesus' death on the cross. He died because justice demanded it, but through his fulfillment of justice, he brought mercy.

It is just, in so far as it took Christ's blood to wash away our sins.

He led justice to victory. It doesn't say anywhere in there that he led justice to its end. We, the nations of this Earth, are putting our hope in a God of justice. Justice is a quality God loves his people to have.

But God is first and foremost a God of mercy, before he is a God of justice. If His justice were prior to His mercy, we would not have been redeemed.

[quote=Acts]
When the islanders saw the snake hanging from his hand, they said to each other, "This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, Justice has not allowed him to live."

Even so, it is apparent that throughout both the Old and New Testaments, justice is lauded not only for God but for all men. It is one of the qualities that God loves in his followers, and modern nations too are required to follow truly the God who leads justice and is the victory of justice. We must establish and uphold justice in our own nations, in order to do God's will.

Justice is exhorted in men, exactly twice in the New Testament, in Matthew 23 and Luke 11; both are recountings of the same event so that reduces it to once. Obviously, not something that the New Testament places a great deal of emphasis on. Justice is mentioned 16 times in Scripture; mercy is mentioned 54.

We are to follow the example of Jesus. When he criticized the authorities for not showing justice, that proves that the authorities should show justice. When he demanded that they show mercy, it becomes apparent that they should also show mercy. Hence we can conclude that our nations should show both justice and mercy.

Considering it is the Pharisees, I doubt that the judgement he condemned them for lacking was lenience.

Personally, I would prefer the death sentence to life imprisonment.

I probably would too. But life is something which is absolutely sacred, and I don't believe it belongs to men.

I was.

I'm pretty sure it's not talking about death penalty.

I don't understand how this is an argument against the death penalty.

Therefore, the ideal state would not deal in only natural things, but in supernatural. Therefore, what is naturally right need not apply.

Unless God commanded it . How can obeying a command of God not be holy?

It is, but qua obeying God, not qua not mixing fibers.

Let's call it like it was. It was "the Christian thing to do in those circumstances." That doesn't mean it was "the Christian thing to do in any circumstances." That is an assumption you're making.

I know of nothing specific to those circumstances which would make it especially appropriate.

But I say the Law of Moses is Christian. The Lord made it. The Lord did not abolish it. He set out what his justice is in the Law, and the nations would do best to follow his will. He set out what his mercy is in the New Testament as well, and the nations would do best to follow it too. Both justice and mercy are parts of God's nature, and God's nature should also be our nature, as he lives in us. Hence we should be concerned about the fulfillment of both justice and mercy.

The Law of Moses is only Christian, insofar as it is a precursor and a foreshadowing in places of Christianity. Else, it is something mandated for a specific people.

As Solomon wrote in the Lord's Book of Ecclesiasties, "there is a time and place for everything under the sun" . There is a time for mercy and a time for justice. Yes, they are mutually exclusive. You can't have both simultaneously.

And the time for justice is the end of time.

Most children do not try murder, and even when they do, they usually don't know fully what they're doing. These circumstances should make a big difference in whatever response action is taken.

My point is, fathers punish their children for correction, that they might learn and grow. This is impossible with the death penalty.

As a society, we should bring justice to all citizens.

We should strive to help them grow morally, and become good (or at least better) people.

In a land without justice, evil will have its way.

Not necessarily.

Sometimes Jesus shows mercy and sometimes he exacts judgement, in the scripture (I'm thinking of the Book of Revelation). Sometimes he is gentle with people and other times he lashes out at them fiercely (even with a whip, once!). It depends on the circumstances.

The only justice we see is at the end of time. All Christ did in the temple was end an abuse; much worse was deserved.

[Aquilonis]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The weaker religion becomes, the more insane people will become.

Explain, starting with your definition of insanity as you're using it here.

I don't know what things are like with you/your situation, but in my experience my areligious/mildly religious friends are much more civil and much more "enlightened". It is that group of people that tends to ask questions, tries to find out about the world, and doesn't just accept doctrine from a book (no matter which book it is) that people wrote and people interpret. I don't know if there is a God, I don't know if there is a correct religion, but in my mind it is pretentious to assume that religion is the answer (I prefer economic and social stability myself).

To answer the question posed in this thread, banning books is not only wrong, but criminal, according to the Bill of Rights. Any citizen is allowed to print/say whatever they want to, so long as it's not copyrighted, libelous, or detrimental to the public peace (i.e. fire in a movie theater). I posted this on TWC (if any of you have heard of it) a while back, but I think I should paraphrase the idea in this case again.

If I want to write something like "I am a bloody murdering Nazi, and I think every American should be a bloody murdering Nazi too" (not my actual belief, which I hope was obvious) and threw in some hateful, racist crap for good measure, there's not any restriction on me if I can find a publisher and a place to sell it. Nobody can, or should do anything about it, because it's free speech. Mein Kampf was being sold in the Towson Waldenbooks last time I walked in there, which I think is quite admirable. I haven't read it, but one day I'd like to, because that is the way people and societies learn (from mistakes as well as triumphs). Hitler did terrible things, but if we banned his book and tried to suppress the insights he left behind, we risk his atrocities happening again.

Evolution is another example. Secular schools, sanctioned by a secular government, are now being forced by faith-based ideological groups to put stickers on biology textbooks and ban/restrict evolution teaching. The reason for this (I've been very close to or part of at least 3 of these types of families in 3 different states) is because what is being taught in the churches and at home is being undermined by the secular school system's teaching. Thus, these people want to try to restrict free flow of knowledge so their children "won't be confused".

Personally, when I have children and take them to the public library to do some research or to introduce them to reading, I'd much rather have to explain why the penguin has a boyfriend instead of a girlfriend. The alternative? Explaining to my child why the government thought it was ok to restrict what my son or daughter could or could not read. Sorry, I get to choose that, not you, Pastor/School Board Rep/Library Superintendent Smith. Which group is insane, again?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

Explain, starting with your definition of insanity as you're using it here.

Sorry, you'd had have to kept up with me for a while to understand why I left that comment so detached. I have been here for quite a while...

I don't know what things are like with you/your situation, but in my experience my areligious/mildly religious friends are much more civil and much more "enlightened".

Hmm...and much more "educated"? right? Well, go ahead and say it.
I prefer to say much more "brainwashed"...not into learning stuff-which is not har anyways-, but into learning it THE way, which is ironically, what christians are accused of themselves.

It is that group of people that tends to ask questions, tries to find out about the world, and doesn't just accept doctrine from a book (no matter which book it is) that people wrote and people interpret.

Those people also have no idea what is IN those books, nor a comprehensive idea as to what they mean. Try to find out about the world? People found out about the world long before secularism, and I find it presumptious to assume that we have somehow "discovered" things for the first time, "cuz those guys back then were so ignorant".
As for asking questions, that is just a silly allegation against religious people. Religious people ask questions all the time, or they would not have developed (I prefer "discover") the theology that is IN THOSE BOOKS.

I don't know if there is a God, I don't know if there is a correct religion, but in my mind it is pretentious to assume that religion is the answer (I prefer economic and social stability myself).

the answer to what? happiness or decent economy?

[trolls' bane]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

the answer to what? happiness or decent economy?

LOL!
Dr. Pangloss: Of what religion are you?
Dr. Geldhoff: I'm a Industrial Capitalist of Adam Smith.

[Aquilonis]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Sorry, you'd had have to kept up with me for a while to understand why I left that comment so detached. I have been here for quite a while...

Fair enough, I'm new, so I can understand that.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Hmm...and much more "educated"? right? Well, go ahead and say it.
I prefer to say much more "brainwashed"...not into learning stuff-which is not har anyways-, but into learning it THE way, which is ironically, what christians are accused of themselves.

"The" way? There are plenty of ways to learn about the world, and educated doesn't necessarily mean enlightened. If a committed Christian kept an open mind and allowed his/her mind to analyze what he/she is being presented in those religious settings, they'd develop their own, unique view on things based on their own, unique method. If an athiest academician narrowly took everything he read as fact without asking a single question about why it's there, then I would call the Christian more enlightened, even if the athiest had more formal education. However, in practice I've seen those with formal education commit themselves to a lot more questioning and analysis than those without so much education. Religious types, at least in my experience, tend to shy away from pointed questioning about their faith, as if they fear their bible-thumping ardor might be put under a microscope.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Those people also have no idea what is IN those books, nor a comprehensive idea as to what they mean. Try to find out about the world? People found out about the world long before secularism, and I find it presumptious to assume that we have somehow "discovered" things for the first time, "cuz those guys back then were so ignorant".
As for asking questions, that is just a silly allegation against religious people. Religious people ask questions all the time, or they would not have developed (I prefer "discover") the theology that is IN THOSE BOOKS.

I agree partly, but I would say be very careful when you say that. At Maryland, there is a class in which the Bible is treated as a historical document, and students have to write a paper based on their analysis of the text. Many of these students are of different religions or none at all. I believe they will come to a different conclusion (as a pastor once told me, the Bible is useless as a religious tool unless you look at it through the "lens of faith". In other words, this means "suspension of obvious disbelief" but nevermind that for now).

Secularism existed right alongside religion. It might not have been a movement, but if you believe in one religion, someone had to "make up" a few thousand other ones, right? I think secularism came first, with religion coming later as an "identity" emerged.

The guys back then were ignorant of what we know today. They just were. The Romans didn't have fuel-injected cars or laptop computers, so we must have "discovered" some way to do that. It isn't a bad thing- I'm totally ignorant of the technology we'll have in 3000, and I'm sure they'll call us that, truthfully. Knowledge builds upon knowledge, though. The Romans were ignorant of today and today's technology, but they helped us discover what we know today by laying foundations. We too are laying foundations and building upon them, and it's all a process.

Christians do ask questions, but they ask them based on the assumption that the books are infallible words of God. The entire goal of such an exercise is to make sure that they have an answer to any question regarding an imperfect book, written by many different people over a long period of time, to protect the faith. If I asked a fundamentalist to analyze the theology based on Noah's faith in God and the way he was able to save the faithful from drowning, he'd be right on that with a 5-page essay. If I asked the same fundamentalist to write the same essay on how such a vessel could have fit countless millions of animals with provisions and space for almost three months, I think he would have a much harder time answering that. I don't dispute that they ask, I just dispute their motives.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

the answer to what? happiness or decent economy?

Happiness is different things to different people, but on a societal level, if everyone can put food on the table and provide for themselves we'd see a much happier society as a whole than if 500 new churches were built. Just an opinion....

Edit- The answer to societal problems like poverty and crime.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

"The" way? There are plenty of ways to learn about the world, and educated doesn't necessarily mean enlightened.

Truce: both sides do it. And you're right about the difference between educted and enlightnened, which perhaps proves my point. I think secular academicians see themselves as more enlightened, which makes for good spectacle.

If a committed Christian kept an open mind and allowed his/her mind to analyze what he/she is being presented in those religious settings, they'd develop their own, unique view on things based on their own, unique method. If an athiest academician narrowly took everything he read as fact without asking a single question about why it's there, then I would call the Christian more enlightened, even if the athiest had more formal education.

I'd call him a heretic. But I still do not understand all of the meanings of "open mind" apperantly, because in many cases young christian students who go to college switch over to something more neutral, and perhaps atheistic. Were they being open-minded? I would say they were, a wide open window! Ready made to accompany the next dogma flying their way.
Open mindedness, yes, but then to chew on the info, and spit it out if it is harmful.

However, in practice I've seen those with formal education commit themselves to a lot more questioning and analysis than those without so much education. Religious types, at least in my experience, tend to shy away from pointed questioning about their faith, as if they fear their bible-thumping ardor might be put under a microscope.

So do non-religious people. If I asked an evolution professor why he believed the way he did, etc, putting his beliefs under a microscope, I'd be laughed at probably. The general sentiment would be "where has this fool been?"...and "that's beside the point!".

So I really don't see nay special reason for religious people to oblige. It's kinda like the dentist's chair. "Let's see what YOU'VE been chewin' on!"

I agree partly, but I would say be very careful when you say that. At Maryland, there is a class in which the Bible is treated as a historical document, and students have to write a paper based on their analysis of the text. Many of these students are of different religions or none at all. I believe they will come to a different conclusion (as a pastor once told me, the Bible is useless as a religious tool unless you look at it through the "lens of faith". In other words, this means "suspension of obvious disbelief" but nevermind that for now).

Well, it's true: the Bible is not really of much anthropological use, except maybe if you want to go over the customs of the day etc...

Secularism existed right alongside religion. It might not have been a movement, but if you believe in one religion, someone had to "make up" a few thousand other ones, right? I think secularism came first, with religion coming later as an "identity" emerged.

Chesterton would reply that it was Christianity we needed to balance out the secular paganism of our early selves. Not necesarily tossing everything pagan, but making it into something different.

The guys back then were ignorant of what we know today. They just were. The Romans didn't have fuel-injected cars or laptop computers, so we must have "discovered" some way to do that.

That's technology. And we did discover some way to do that, you're right; but other civilizations did get around not having a computer to communicate with tons of people at one time. But all the real problems have always remained the same, because as you will admit, technology has not necessarily made anything easier, only more complicated. I suppose you could argue for disease, but we've invented new ones too. You don't have to know what particles make up a blanket to have it keep you warm. We know more information about stuff, but some problems just don't go away.

It isn't a bad thing- I'm totally ignorant of the technology we'll have in 3000, and I'm sure they'll call us that, truthfully. Knowledge builds upon knowledge, though. The Romans were ignorant of today and today's technology, but they helped us discover what we know today by laying foundations. We too are laying foundations and building upon them, and it's all a process.

They may have been ignorant about what water was, but it didn't stop them from drinking it.

Christians do ask questions, but they ask them based on the assumption that the books are infallible words of God.

Theology books? Well, theology books are like Marx discovering the interconnectedness of economy: they deduce logically things like God outside of time etc...


[quote]The entire goal of such an exercise is to make sure that they have an answer to any question regarding an imperfect book, written by many different people over a long period of time, to protect the faith. If I asked a fundamentalist to analyze the theology based on Noah's faith in God and the way he was able to save the faithful from drowning, he'd be right on that with a 5-page essay. If I asked the same fundamentalist to write the same essay on how such a vessel could have fit countless millions of animals with provisions and space for almost three months, I think he would have a much harder time answering that. I don't dispute that they ask, I just dispute their motives. [quote]
Millions? I've never heard that. I heard two of each, upon which you have to consider: where did all those "millions" of species come from? Most of them are probably bacteria, or some other miniscule creatures. Besides, couldn't the unbathed animals have carried some of these chaps opn their selves?

As for questioning their motives...that's fine to do, but of course only religious people (meaning mainly fundamentalist christians) are picked on, since they're seen as so simple minded.

[Aquilonis]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Truce: both sides do it. And you're right about the difference between educted and enlightnened, which perhaps proves my point. I think secular academicians see themselves as more enlightened, which makes for good spectacle.

I think we both understand the difference. I think religious leaders see themselves as more enlightened, though, which has created great spectacle for me for over a decade now.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I'd call him a heretic. But I still do not understand all of the meanings of "open mind" apperantly, because in many cases young christian students who go to college switch over to something more neutral, and perhaps atheistic. Were they being open-minded? I would say they were, a wide open window! Ready made to accompany the next dogma flying their way.
Open mindedness, yes, but then to chew on the info, and spit it out if it is harmful.

What is harmful to you may not be harmful in their eyes. It appears the last sentence you wrote in that segment showed you did in fact understand . The place we disagree is that of harmfulness. I personally believe that if a Christian (or Muslim, or Jew) weighs all the evidence in regard to something and believes something different at the end of it, then they have made an educated (and I believe enlightened) decision. Is indoctrinating Christianity into a child and telling them nothing else not dogma?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

So do non-religious people. If I asked an evolution professor why he believed the way he did, etc, putting his beliefs under a microscope, I'd be laughed at probably. The general sentiment would be "where has this fool been?"...and "that's beside the point!".

So I really don't see nay special reason for religious people to oblige. It's kinda like the dentist's chair. "Let's see what YOU'VE been chewin' on!"

If you're an evangelist and you come to my front door asking me if I've found Jesus, you will be asked those questions. Anybody claiming to "witness" better be sure what exactly they're witnessing to me, because at that point they've already begun to oblige. With regard to "where has this fool been", I've had that kind of reaction against me before, notably in rural areas. They've looked at me like I had three heads, but I think I stood on solid ground and understood what I thought. A good professor, one who truly cares about the dissemination of knowledge, would not laugh at you. He'd sit down with you and go through it point by point because it would be in his interest not to close off avenues of information. If you were laughed at, then he's not a good professor at all.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well, it's true: the Bible is not really of much anthropological use, except maybe if you want to go over the customs of the day etc...

It can be pretty awesome for historical use, though. Some of those stories are contemporary with major wars, as well as cultural phenomena we'd never know about if they hadn't compiled the Bible at Nicaea. It can be good for anthropology too, if there's anything in there reasonably historical and contemporary with the time, as you can get a good snapshot of society.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Chesterton would reply that it was Christianity we needed to balance out the secular paganism of our early selves. Not necesarily tossing everything pagan, but making it into something different.

That does not occur just with Christianity, that particular aspect occurred in the Roman Empire and spread out from there. Humanity does not need any specific religion, though some would argue that humanity does need something bigger than itself to "rely" on. Paganism achieved that in a way, so did Islam, so did Judaism, it just depended on how they spread and why. Ironically, religions evolve over time very frequently, and the religions you see in 500 BC are markedly different from ones you see today. I wouldn't be surprised if, in 4500, you looked and saw something just as markedly different from today.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

That's technology. And we did discover some way to do that, you're right; but other civilizations did get around not having a computer to communicate with tons of people at one time. But all the real problems have always remained the same, because as you will admit, technology has not necessarily made anything easier, only more complicated. I suppose you could argue for disease, but we've invented new ones too. You don't have to know what particles make up a blanket to have it keep you warm. We know more information about stuff, but some problems just don't go away.

They did get along, but ask Augustus, hell, ask Varus. If they knew what we know today, Arminius would have been crushed and the imperium would eventually have been extended to the Volga. Communication and coordination would have been there. Also, think about this- if Rome had mass production, centralized power across the Empire, interstate highways, steamships....the city economy would turn into a country or empire-wide one. Technology has made things so, so much easier to do, we just have more of it to accomplish and more and more grandiose and lofty goals. In 120 AD, Trajan was worried about Parthians raiding his borders, and he sent an expedition that cut down the Fertile Crescent and captured their capital, one of the best Roman victories in history by the most powerful country then in existence. In 1945 AD, the most powerful country then in existence sent 5 million men into fields separated by two oceans and half the world, defeated both of them, and imposed its hegemony, which still stands in large part today. Rome could not do that. Technology made it possible.

Many of the underlying problems, though, do still exist- poverty, crime, war. They will always exist, because no matter how technological a society becomes, people will have more than others.

Finally, you don't have to know what particles make up a blanket to let it keep you warm, no. However, you do have to know that if you're going to mass produce a couple tens of millions of them to keep half the country warm cheaply. The alternative is having slaves do it by hand, which takes way longer and is a lot less efficient.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

They may have been ignorant about what water was, but it didn't stop them from drinking it.

They knew they needed it for survival. Today, we know why, which is quite useful in medicine. Next time you're sick and in the doctor's office, be thankful for that, because when they tell you to drink a lot of fluids and take bed rest, the alternative 500 years ago was cutting your arms and letting them bleed a while. Also, knowing what lives in water (like everything), purifying said water, keeping sanitation to a satisfactory level...that has increased our lifespans and helped our societies grow. Again, foundations being built upon.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Theology books? Well, theology books are like Marx discovering the interconnectedness of economy: they deduce logically things like God outside of time etc...

Deduce from what? The Bible? The Lord of the Rings, if it was taken as a religion, could do the exact same thing, and I could deduce logically how the Valar would have defeated Morgoth and destroyed Beleriand. Does that mean Eonwe went in there and actually did it? No, unless you're prepared to seriously consider that thought alongside your own, which I'm assuming you're not. Theology seems to me to be more of a philosophical pursuit at best, and I would compare it more to Comparative Literature. Within the confines of the Bible, you can put together a whole host of interconnections if you suspend your disbelief, until you realize that a lot of these things could not happen. Which brings me to the next point....

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Millions? I've never heard that. I heard two of each, upon which you have to consider: where did all those "millions" of species come from? Most of them are probably bacteria, or some other miniscule creatures. Besides, couldn't the unbathed animals have carried some of these chaps opn their selves?

Maybe, but how are these animals going to move, eat, do their business, etc. I'm currently on a religious website stating that the deck space of the ark was 101,250 ft^2 and the total volume was 1,518,750 ft^3. They assume the average vertebrate is the size of a sheep. I'm using the fundamentalist religious numbers, here, which say that the MOST conservative estimate (using one vertebrate per family, every biologist knows this isn't happening without evolution, but let's suspend disbelief here) only puts 2000 sheep-sized animals on the ark. This makes 22,250 ft^3 or, according to them, only 1.4 percent of the ark's space. I beg to differ. They assume all of these not-really-evolving vertebrates that can't die can fly continuously without stopping. I say that they'll have to land at some point, and thus that 22,250 ft^3 will result in living biomass on about 22 percent of the ark's floor at any given time. There are three other possibilities, 16,000 animals, 35,000 animals, and 40,000 animals, all of which take up more deck space than the ark had (even packed like sardines). Also, this site says insects could survive outside the ark, which is dead wrong, they'd drown, plus they'd have to be supplied with food.
So, let's all suspend bigtime disbelief for a second and say that two representatives per family (my bio teacher is dying somewhere) were on this ark and that insects could all magically somehow survive outside of it. How will you supply these animals taking up a quarter of your space? The African Elephant (avg. weight 4,000-13,000 lb) consumes one percent body weight per day. I'm going to take the absolute lowest numbers and say 400 pounds of food per day * 80 days = 32,000 pounds of plant matter per elephant (the other one would eat another 32,000 minimum). In this case, you're looking at hundreds of thousands of pounds of food for all of your animals, minimum, which is roughly five times the weight of your ship, minimum, in food alone (I'm going to assume every one of them had a system in which they did their business over the side). Also, carnivores? What would they eat? And finally, what about the plants? Nobody mentions them, but if drowned in a flood they'd be dead. Bear in mind, I'm taking their measurements, which I considered a joke before I even started messing with them, and they still can't explain that, I'm sure.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

As for questioning their motives...that's fine to do, but of course only religious people (meaning mainly fundamentalist christians) are picked on, since they're seen as so simple minded.

You just said above that the minds of Christians that thought about things and changed to a different path were a "wide open window". Who is seeing the simple mind there? For the record, there are idiots on both sides that have no idea, and trust me, I've been there- religious people do their fair share of picking too.

[trolls' bane]

Love all the math you used there!

[hectorberlioz]

What is harmful to you may not be harmful in their eyes. It appears the last sentence you wrote in that segment showed you did in fact understand . The place we disagree is that of harmfulness. I personally believe that if a Christian (or Muslim, or Jew) weighs all the evidence in regard to something and believes something different at the end of it, then they have made an educated (and I believe enlightened) decision. Is indoctrinating Christianity into a child and telling them nothing else not dogma?

Well we're naturally going to disagree over whether it is the right thing or not to teach children, so we'll not go too far there.
As for the weighing, I suppose you could say they did make an independent decision, which is a very good thing. I only disagree that independent decisions always lead to the right conclusions.

If you're an evangelist and you come to my front door asking me if I've found Jesus, you will be asked those questions. Anybody claiming to "witness" better be sure what exactly they're witnessing to me, because at that point they've already begun to oblige.

Actually, as an Orthodox Christian who accepts the church dogma stuff, it's kinda hard on me too when those guys come to my door.

I think you have a point to a certain extent: many christian door-to-door evangelists (more often Jehovah's Witnesses) can't really do much beyond telling you what they read in a pamphlet. I suppose they don't really expect everyone to know their stuff better.

With regard to "where has this fool been", I've had that kind of reaction against me before, notably in rural areas. They've looked at me like I had three heads, but I think I stood on solid ground and understood what I thought.

I wasn't saying that only religious people get picked on, but that non-religious people often do some picking too. They expect all religious people to be unprepared, just as the door-to-door evangelists expect people to be unprepared.

A good professor, one who truly cares about the dissemination of knowledge, would not laugh at you. He'd sit down with you and go through it point by point because it would be in his interest not to close off avenues of information. If you were laughed at, then he's not a good professor at all.

Oh yeah, he'd sit you down alright...while he stood pacing and lecturing
Well, we've already gone over the bad guys, the good guys can only show up and show that they're there.

That does not occur just with Christianity, that particular aspect occurred in the Roman Empire and spread out from there. Humanity does not need any specific religion, though some would argue that humanity does need something bigger than itself to "rely" on.

Paganism achieved that in a way, so did Islam, so did Judaism, it just depended on how they spread and why. Ironically, religions evolve over time very frequently, and the religions you see in 500 BC are markedly different from ones you see today. I wouldn't be surprised if, in 4500, you looked and saw something just as markedly different from today.

Well, I would like to go into paganism later, but not now. All I'll say about this is, I also would not be surprised about the religions being markedly different.

They did get along, but ask Augustus, hell, ask Varus. If they knew what we know today, Arminius would have been crushed and the imperium would eventually have been extended to the Volga. Communication and coordination would have been there. Also, think about this- if Rome had mass production, centralized power across the Empire, interstate highways, steamships....the city economy would turn into a country or empire-wide one.

That's assuming the inevitability of progress using technology, mixed with the roman psyche. If Augustus had technology, perhaps he would not have been Augustus. And Rome could have fallen just as easily, and so could we, if we transposed roman mindsets to our modern day minds.

Technology has made things so, so much easier to do, we just have more of it to accomplish and more and more grandiose and lofty goals.

No doubt! I'm not against technology, but I think it (and "progress") is volatile...and I think we think too much of both.

In 120 AD, Trajan was worried about Parthians raiding his borders, and he sent an expedition that cut down the Fertile Crescent and captured their capital, one of the best Roman victories in history by the most powerful country then in existence. In 1945 AD, the most powerful country then in existence sent 5 million men into fields separated by two oceans and half the world, defeated both of them, and imposed its hegemony, which still stands in large part today. Rome could not do that. Technology made it possible.

Again, I do see that technology has helped us accomplish many things. But of course if you think about it: if technology had not been invented, nobody would have had to conquer those places, we wouldn't have had to nuke japan, etc...thats all conjecture of course, but my point is that technology did as much harm as help.

Many of the underlying problems, though, do still exist- poverty, crime, war. They will always exist, because no matter how technological a society becomes, people will have more than others.

Well, you agree with me.

Finally, you don't have to know what particles make up a blanket to let it keep you warm, no. However, you do have to know that if you're going to mass produce a couple tens of millions of them to keep half the country warm cheaply. The alternative is having slaves do it by hand, which takes way longer and is a lot less efficient.

I did not know they put blankets together particle-by-particle these days...
Well, I do see your point, machinery replaced the slaves/workers, and thats a very nice thing.

They knew they needed it for survival. Today, we know why, which is quite useful in medicine. Next time you're sick and in the doctor's office, be thankful for that, because when they tell you to drink a lot of fluids and take bed rest, the alternative 500 years ago was cutting your arms and letting them bleed a while. Also, knowing what lives in water (like everything), purifying said water, keeping sanitation to a satisfactory level...that has increased our lifespans and helped our societies grow. Again, foundations being built upon.

Well I agree.

Deduce from what? The Bible?

Well yes!

The Lord of the Rings, if it was taken as a religion, could do the exact same thing, and I could deduce logically how the Valar would have defeated Morgoth and destroyed Beleriand. Does that mean Eonwe went in there and actually did it? No, unless you're prepared to seriously consider that thought alongside your own, which I'm assuming you're not. Theology seems to me to be more of a philosophical pursuit at best,

Theology is the practical side of philosophy.
But you are of course coming from a point where you believe the bible to be a nice put-together at best, and we're just going to disagree, so we may as well not try.

and I would compare it more to Comparative Literature.

What? I can't see it. Though if I were you, I might say I would compare it to Literature, without the comparative thrown in.

Within the confines of the Bible, you can put together a whole host of interconnections if you suspend your disbelief, until you realize that a lot of these things could not happen. Which brings me to the next point....

Every major religion has it's book, and I won't get into the Bible is unique thing, but my point is that the books of these religions were not written as popular novels like LotR, and then jumped on by religious people who decided to live it.

Maybe, but how are these animals going to move, eat, do their business, etc. I'm currently on a religious website stating that the deck space of the ark was 101,250 ft^2 and the total volume was 1,518,750 ft^3. They assume the average vertebrate is the size of a sheep.

...well, I'm not sure myself if God specified all animal types to jump inta the ark. You can probably write off all the sea species.


[quote]I'm using the fundamentalist religious numbers, here, which say that the MOST conservative estimate (using one vertebrate per family, every biologist knows this isn't happening without evolution, but let's suspend disbelief here) only puts 2000 sheep-sized animals on the ark. This makes 22,250 ft^3 or, according to them, only 1.4 percent of the ark's space. I beg to differ. They assume all of these not-really-evolving vertebrates that can't die can fly continuously without stopping. I say that they'll have to land at some point, and thus that 22,250 ft^3 will result in living biomass on about 22 percent of the ark's floor at any given time. There are three other possibilities, 16,000 animals, 35,000 animals, and 40,000 animals, all of which take up more deck space than the ark had (even packed like sardines). Also, this site says insects could survive outside the ark, which is dead wrong, they'd drown, plus they'd have to be supplied with food. [quote]
I say let's assume God told Noah to forget about the bugs, there were enough on the animals already

So, let's all suspend bigtime disbelief for a second and say that two representatives per family (my bio teacher is dying somewhere) were on this ark and that insects could all magically somehow survive outside of it. How will you supply these animals taking up a quarter of your space? The African Elephant (avg. weight 4,000-13,000 lb) consumes one percent body weight per day. I'm going to take the absolute lowest numbers and say 400 pounds of food per day * 80 days = 32,000 pounds of plant matter per elephant (the other one would eat another 32,000 minimum). In this case, you're looking at hundreds of thousands of pounds of food for all of your animals, minimum, which is roughly five times the weight of your ship, minimum, in food alone (I'm going to assume every one of them had a system in which they did their business over the side). Also, carnivores? What would they eat? And finally, what about the plants? Nobody mentions them, but if drowned in a flood they'd be dead. Bear in mind, I'm taking their measurements, which I considered a joke before I even started messing with them, and they still can't explain that, I'm sure.

All very practical stuff, I can see.

You just said above that the minds of Christians that thought about things and changed to a different path were a "wide open window". Who is seeing the simple mind there? For the record, there are idiots on both sides that have no idea, and trust me, I've been there- religious people do their fair share of picking too.

My point with that was that "goin' neutral" is seen as open-minded, even if it was done not so independently minded, as you prefer.

[Earniel]

The side-discussion in the thread 'Banned books' has been merged into this thread.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

However, in practice I've seen those with formal education commit themselves to a lot more questioning and analysis than those without so much education.

Probably true, but not necessarily having anything to do with religion. Having lived in a Communist country for a while, I can say there are plenty of "village Voltaires" as happily ignorant in their atheism because that's the way they were raised. Most people don't question the beliefs they learned as a child, whatever they may be.

Religious types, at least in my experience, tend to shy away from pointed questioning about their faith, as if they fear their bible-thumping ardor might be put under a microscope.

Well, you said you were new- the religious types on this forum don't shy away from anything

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

They did get along, but ask Augustus, hell, ask Varus. If they knew what we know today, Arminius would have been crushed and the imperium would eventually have been extended to the Volga. Communication and coordination would have been there. Also, think about this- if Rome had mass production, centralized power across the Empire, interstate highways, steamships....the city economy would turn into a country or empire-wide one. Technology has made things so, so much easier to do, we just have more of it to accomplish and more and more grandiose and lofty goals. In 120 AD, Trajan was worried about Parthians raiding his borders, and he sent an expedition that cut down the Fertile Crescent and captured their capital, one of the best Roman victories in history by the most powerful country then in existence. In 1945 AD, the most powerful country then in existence sent 5 million men into fields separated by two oceans and half the world, defeated both of them, and imposed its hegemony, which still stands in large part today. Rome could not do that. Technology made it possible.

Somehow, I'm reminded of Ransom translating for Weston....

[Aquilonis]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Probably true, but not necessarily having anything to do with religion. Having lived in a Communist country for a while, I can say there are plenty of "village Voltaires" as happily ignorant in their atheism because that's the way they were raised. Most people don't question the beliefs they learned as a child, whatever they may be.

I agree, but in a lot of ways you're talking about a different system. Athiesm is just as bad as fundamentalism in many respects as well, because you cannot prove there isn't a god or gods of some sort either. When I say educated/enlightened, I don't mean "non-fundamentalist". Your village Voltaires, in my mind, are examples of exactly what I consider wrong with evangelist fundamentalism in this country. Personally, I was raised Christian Science (which, if some of you don't know, basically says that if you believe God created you perfectly, then sickness is just an "error" and doesn't exist- believing this nonexistence will thus bring about that nonexistence). That, obviously, is about as useful as Santa to me, I won't go into much detail other than to say it...caused some problems. Thus, I'm very critical of "because I said so" religion, as it fosters the cycle of people like your Voltaire's, in any belief.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Well, you said you were new- the religious types on this forum don't shy away from anything

Usually forums are much more active with religious debate than real life. In RL, what I've found is that religious people will try to tell you about God, and when you think they're wrong they will either pity you for your lack of faith or get angry that you're questioning them, all without offering you any type of real answer other than to have faith.

[Aquilonis]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well we're naturally going to disagree over whether it is the right thing or not to teach children, so we'll not go too far there.
As for the weighing, I suppose you could say they did make an independent decision, which is a very good thing. I only disagree that independent decisions always lead to the right conclusions.

I agree with you that they do not. Obviously our idea of "the right conclusion" may be different, so one man's wrong is another man's "just fine", and vice versa. Independent decisions can lead to very stupid actions (gangs, drugs, etc) and thus some decisions have to be guided- I am definitely not advocating that kids don't have parents or authority figures. What we're debating here is, really, an unsure philosophy on the nature of the world, its beginning and end, and in my case, why I thought it should never be used in the government to ban books or create laws that respected such philosophy on the world. Now, I don't say it should be discriminated against, either, I just say that all should be equal...believe what you want but believe it because you believe it, not because your mom or your pastor said so.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Actually, as an Orthodox Christian who accepts the church dogma stuff, it's kinda hard on me too when those guys come to my door.

I think you have a point to a certain extent: many christian door-to-door evangelists (more often Jehovah's Witnesses) can't really do much beyond telling you what they read in a pamphlet. I suppose they don't really expect everyone to know their stuff better.

I believe you consider the Jehovah's Witnesses wrong in many ways if you're Orthodox...I'm not positive as to the exact belief systems of both, but I believe you'd see my point about people believing something is true and that you have to believe it too, even without any good basis. If I'm wrong about that then nevermind .

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I wasn't saying that only religious people get picked on, but that non-religious people often do some picking too. They expect all religious people to be unprepared, just as the door-to-door evangelists expect people to be unprepared.

I believe the picking should only be done if those religious people start enacting unconstitutional laws and saying what our children can or cannot read (or something of the sort). If the religious side admits they're in a free society and teaches their children that they shouldn't read those freely readable books, then I guess I can't say anything, though I respectfully would disagree. It only becomes a problem for me when the religious side makes it one, and we all know that they have a lot of times. I do agree, though, both sides do it, and both sides shouldn't.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Oh yeah, he'd sit you down alright...while he stood pacing and lecturing
Well, we've already gone over the bad guys, the good guys can only show up and show that they're there.

Again, bad professor. Good professors have two-way dialogues, not one, because everyone knows that learning is not dependent on what degree you have. I disagree with you on some points, but I believe that your points are just as valid as mine. I just have different views than you, and that's fine, that's what makes this country great.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well, I would like to go into paganism later, but not now. All I'll say about this is, I also would not be surprised about the religions being markedly different.

You'd also have to be prepared for your own to be markedly different, which would not go over well with some people living today.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

That's assuming the inevitability of progress using technology, mixed with the roman psyche. If Augustus had technology, perhaps he would not have been Augustus. And Rome could have fallen just as easily, and so could we, if we transposed roman mindsets to our modern day minds.

Agreed, because you can't possibly say what would have happened in different circumstances. I just had a conversation last week with one of my old professors about the butterfly effect- he clapped his hands and said that might help to cause a hurricane in 20 years. You never know. I was simply saying what I personally thought would occur- Romans were always as expansionist as their power would let them be, and Augustus definitely wanted Germania. If he had the tech to do it, I believe he would have. That isn't to say Rome wouldn't have fallen, but hey, you never know. Also, I don't think progress with technology is inevitable, but I sure think it helps.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

No doubt! I'm not against technology, but I think it (and "progress") is volatile...and I think we think too much of both.

True, you would have to define progress, which is very likely to mean different things to different people. The way you use it is more important. I'm not sure what else to say...I think you're right with a lot of it.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Again, I do see that technology has helped us accomplish many things. But of course if you think about it: if technology had not been invented, nobody would have had to conquer those places, we wouldn't have had to nuke japan, etc...thats all conjecture of course, but my point is that technology did as much harm as help.

No, likely we wouldn't, but what level of technology? Technology isn't invented, it just grows- the Sumerians had tech (writing), the Greeks did too (armor, bronze, then iron, etc, etc). Greece didn't even know about Britain for a long time, and even once they found that out, they thought the world ended at the Indus during the time of Alexander. Technology did a lot of harm, too, but you have to realize....Japan did not develop a nuke, and had the upper hand on us for a year in that war. We didn't have to nuke Japan (wiki "Operation Olympic") but it's a matter of costing our lives or theirs...so...

Also, again, would you rather live 35 years or 80? That's a result of technology too. It's not just warfare (though that helps), it's medicine, computers, space travel, genetics, etc, etc....civil stuff that makes life easier. I'm sure you like your air-conditioned (and in this time of year, heated) house, or even the computer that you're having our discussion on...all products of technology. The dissemination of information with this type of thing is endless, and it's only going to make that part of life better. I do think we have to be careful about how we use it, but I wouldn't say that it's as bad as you're making it seem.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I did not know they put blankets together particle-by-particle these days...
Well, I do see your point, machinery replaced the slaves/workers, and thats a very nice thing.

Devil's Advocate- the workers got fired.

However, obviously it has helped with production, and no, while we don't need to put them together particle-by-particle, we can figure out what aspect of a blanket is most efficient at holding heat and mass produce that. Further, knowing how heat is held/transferred allows us to create materials that channel/hold/reflect heat more efficiently, all of which is researched, at least, on the particle level.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Theology is the practical side of philosophy.
But you are of course coming from a point where you believe the bible to be a nice put-together at best, and we're just going to disagree, so we may as well not try.

We agree that it's philosophy- I would call it "philosophy of religion" to pull a term right off the top of my head....you'd probably call it "applied philosophy of life". Not too different, but yeah, we won't totally agree on that.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

What? I can't see it. Though if I were you, I might say I would compare it to Literature, without the comparative thrown in.

Comparative meaning the Torah, Koran, any other religions.

You're right, though, that's only one part. The literature analysis goes into it as well, which we'd do differently I'm sure, you're right.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Every major religion has it's book, and I won't get into the Bible is unique thing, but my point is that the books of these religions were not written as popular novels like LotR, and then jumped on by religious people who decided to live it.

Not as popular novels, but they didn't write them knowing that in 325 AD the Council of Nicaea would decide "Hey, I think we'll put this in!". Many of them are standalone books, they were written by different people. While I agree that they were likely religiously-based when they were written, I personally would not be so sure that they were absolute gospel. Again, we'd probably disagree. My only point with the LOTR thing was that in 2000 years if someone found a copy of that book, it could very well be jumped on as religion and two people would have this kind of discussion. Instead of "Theological Opinions II" it would be "Was this Tolkien guy a Prophet?"

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

...well, I'm not sure myself if God specified all animal types to jump inta the ark. You can probably write off all the sea species.

That site did. It was mostly the religious point of view, which I was using to refute the Ark argument. They thought of everything in order to make the animals fit, I just said why I thought they were wrong. In fact, as well as sea species, they left out insects and worms (some of which cannot live in the ocean). This has to be unfortunately credited to my religious ex-girlfriend but a while ago she wondered about saltwater and freshwater being mixed, which would pretty quickly kill a lot of those species. I didn't want to credit such a smart idea, but as much as I hated it, that would be plagiarism.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

My point with that was that "goin' neutral" is seen as open-minded, even if it was done not so independently minded, as you prefer.

Well, that's a case by case basis. I do prefer independent thought, considering as many possibilities as possible. What is seen as open minded may not be. I'm not sure that can be discussed that broadly.

[Rían]

*returns from a week-long trip to Arizona and jumps in *

Hi Aquilonis! Welcome to Entmoot!

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

My only point with the LOTR thing was that in 2000 years if someone found a copy of that book, it could very well be jumped on as religion and two people would have this kind of discussion. Instead of "Theological Opinions II" it would be "Was this Tolkien guy a Prophet?"

Nah, that's the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" mindset, like the Bible just dropped from the sky or something. Just for starters, the New Testament was written by authors who claimed to be eye-witnesses to a historical event, and there are no 2000-year gaps in church history. Tolkien never claimed that he was an eye-witness to the beautiful events in his story, that he acknowledges is fiction.

Just off the top of my head re the ark - why do the elephants have to be full-grown adults? Re the carnivores - eat them rabbits that are multiplying like rabbits! (and again, why not juveniles who require less food?) Re plants - how about seeds? (which are often carried in animal poop, anyway!) The fresh water thing is a good question - I've heard some discussion but can't recall the details now, but frankly, I think the idea is at least as feasible as the idea of humans and everything else coming from a one-celled prototype thing. *shrug*

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Somehow, I'm reminded of Ransom translating for Weston....

Heehee! Having a bi-lingual family-in-law, I really enjoyed that part of the book!

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Well, you said you were new- the religious types on this forum don't shy away from anything!

Which is as it should be, for ANY person of ANY belief (atheism included). (that's why I like to ask questions ... )

[Aquilonis]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Hi Aquilonis! Welcome to Entmoot!

Thank you , and I'm glad to be here!

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Nah, that's the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" mindset, like the Bible just dropped from the sky or something. Just for starters, the New Testament was written by authors who claimed to be eye-witnesses to a historical event, and there are no 2000-year gaps in church history. Tolkien never claimed that he was an eye-witness to the beautiful events in his story, that he acknowledges is fiction.

You make a good point about the parallels, though I wasn't talking really about what each person claimed- what I'm talking about is more of a "telephone" theory (one thing changes to another if you put it out enough times), say if Tolkien hadn't made so many pronouncements about the fact that his works were fiction, that it would leave the door open for someone to use his books a long time down the road as fact. Also (though I'm not positive about this) wasn't most of the New Testament composed ca. 60 AD and later? That would put them well off of the events they claimed to be a part of (I believe one or two of them did claim that they knew Jesus, John and another, and the rest came later). That would be equivalent at absolute best to me writing a history of World War II on the basis of oral reports. I had one grandparent who fought in that war, who died quite a long time ago- I'm not saying it can't be done, but as you get farther from the event, people are going to recall less and it will be less accurate.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Just off the top of my head re the ark - why do the elephants have to be full-grown adults? Re the carnivores - eat them rabbits that are multiplying like rabbits! (and again, why not juveniles who require less food?) Re plants - how about seeds? (which are often carried in animal poop, anyway!) The fresh water thing is a good question - I've heard some discussion but can't recall the details now, but frankly, I think the idea is at least as feasible as the idea of humans and everything else coming from a one-celled prototype thing. *shrug*

With regard to Noah's Ark, I was using the most possible religious side of the equation as possible, which states that you would only need 1,000 specific types of animal on the ark (x2 = 2000 animals), based on each biological family getting a spot (the idea being that the variation between members of each family would give rise to every species in that family). I should note, for the religious types, that the family Hominidae includes gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees, as well as humans...so I don't know if the people that put that forward really thought all that much about the idea. The other numbers, using genuses and species, I disprove in the previous post by simply proving that the ark had no space for them.

With regard to the carnivores, yes, that can occur for a while, but you have to think- at every level energy is lost, and you have to feed the rabbits ten times the energy that they'll wind up transferring to the carnivores who then eat them (trophic levels). Thus, you'll end up having to supply the grain for ten rabbits. Even if the "family rule" is correct (and I don't think it is), you have a quarter of the ship packed like sardines with animals. If they're reproducing constantly, getting killed, and consuming the food and water of ten animals (and you'd have to continually replenish your fresh water stores for the forty days it wasn't raining). Even in the absolute most religion-friendly argument, it is still a major stretch to believe that the logistics could work.

With regard to the plants, you'd need them to feed the herbivores. You could do it with seeds too, which is definitely a very good point, but you'd have to have a hugely significant biomass of plants to feed the huge amount of herbivores. Ironically, you want herbivores over carnivores, because they conserve trophic energy, but I don't know...that's a lot of potential consumption and not a lot of potential space....also refer to the fresh water issue for a thousand animals (if you added plants, then that's it, there's no way). The best I can think of for consumption is to bring in massive stores of grain and store the seeds in cargo, but still, I'm trying to bend my mind around this and it looks like it's impossible.

I still note- chimpanzees and humans being of the same line is a huge bone of contention in these types of arguments, but to accept Noah's Ark, you would have to accept the family theory, which means accepting chimpanzees, which in turn requires the acceptance of evolution. Even if you do accept that, the space in the ark still appears too small to me.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Which is as it should be, for ANY person of ANY belief (atheism included). (that's why I like to ask questions ... )

As do I. I'm a Christian by culture and birth, I guess, and I'll be celebrating Christmas with my family this year, but I have tended as I've gotten older to ask very pointed questions like the ones that have been discussed in the last few days. I believe in what Jesus taught about the way to live life, with forgiveness and compassion for all people no matter what. I do not totally believe the Bible, I do not totally believe most pastors, and I do not totally believe all the teachings of Christianity. I would not call myself an athiest, definitely- I do believe this universe had to come into being somehow, and I believe something had to have done it. However, I believe that man is a part of and subject to nature- we are not above any animal in the end, we are simply one of them, and to claim evolution is not sacrilege to me, it is claiming a part of a dynamic and changing world. I am more comfortable admitting that I don't know, rather than believing something out of pure faith which I can never be sure of. Take that as you will.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

Thank you , and I'm glad to be here!

I'd like to submit a warm welcome to you, as well .

I hope you don't mind, RÃ*an, but I'd really like to respond to the following. Please add to it, of course, by all means, if there are things I left out.

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

You make a good point about the parallels, though I wasn't talking really about what each person claimed- what I'm talking about is more of a "telephone" theory (one thing changes to another if you put it out enough times), say if Tolkien hadn't made so many pronouncements about the fact that his works were fiction, that it would leave the door open for someone to use his books a long time down the road as fact. Also (though I'm not positive about this) wasn't most of the New Testament composed ca. 60 AD and later? That would put them well off of the events they claimed to be a part of (I believe one or two of them did claim that they knew Jesus, John and another, and the rest came later). That would be equivalent at absolute best to me writing a history of World War II on the basis of oral reports. I had one grandparent who fought in that war, who died quite a long time ago- I'm not saying it can't be done, but as you get farther from the event, people are going to recall less and it will be less accurate.

You're right about the dates, it was about 60 AD that most of those manuscripts were made, give or take a few years. But that is only a 30 year gap from Jesus' crucifixion. That time gap is way smaller than it is for ANY other ancient historical text that scholars have. Most times, texts that tell different interpretations and contain substantial errors and mythological type elements come up about two to three hundred years after the original events. The fact that there is only a 30 year time gap between the time of the Gospels were written means that the possibility of a telephone game is unsupported.

Also, you talk about the possibility of inaccuracy and error. But there are many, many early texts, particularly from the 4th century AD. In these vast numbers of texts, which are more numerous than that supporting just about any other ancient historical text, there is only a small degree of error and deviation from one to another. No major doctrine is different between one text and another. If one expected there to be mistakes and changes over time, you would expect a far higher degree of error between different texts. The degree of accuracy between texts sets the New Testament a long way ahead of other historical texts from around the same time period, and it, just as does the very small 30 year gap between the time the manuscripts were written and the events that they described.

Remember also, there are other aspects to the 30 year gap issue that support the validity of the New Testament texts. The authors of those texts originally were seeking to convert the Jews. They were trying to do this a mere 30 years after those events, so if they had made untrue claims, they would have been making those untrue claims in the presence of people who knew firsthand that they weren't telling the truth. Historians from the time period such as Josephus do corroborate the New Testament claim that Jesus attracted large crowds in Israel- he was a very charismatic and popular figure. There would have been a lot of Jews who knew what actually happened in his life. So these people would have invalidated what the Gospels said over and over again. Also, the Pharisees were looking for any opportunity to invalidate the message the disciples were presenting, and if the disciples were making things up, this would have provided them with ample opportunity to do so. It would have been implausible in that time period.

Also, there are elements intrinsic to the Gospels that indicate validity. For one, there is the fact that women were the ones who originally discovered Jesus' resurrection, and it was a woman who first saw Jesus resurrected. Women, in the time of Jesus, were considered one of the least reliable forms of evidence, so if the disciples had been inventing things in the tale, they would have made the disciples themselves find the empty tomb. The fact that they said otherwise indicates that they were trying to stick as close to the facts as they could.

So does the fact that the issue of circumcision is not raised at all in the Gospels. That was an issue that was tearing up the church's insides at the time of Jesus, and there would have been strong motive to put something in Jesus' mouth about it. But the Gospels are silent, which again indicates a strong desire to cling to accuracy.

I still note- chimpanzees and humans being of the same line is a huge bone of contention in these types of arguments, but to accept Noah's Ark, you would have to accept the family theory, which means accepting chimpanzees, which in turn requires the acceptance of evolution. Even if you do accept that, the space in the ark still appears too small to me.

You know, as far as I'm concerned, the debate over whether or not evolution is possible has been made way too much of a religious issue by fundamentalist Christians. I'm a fundamentalist Christian myself, and I interpret the Bible literally, but the scripture really doesn't require a literal seven days. In fact, there is one verse in Genesis that seems to support evolution.

Fundamentalist Christians are all agreed that one doesn't have to interpret dreams and visions in the scripture literally. It is well known and accepted that God presents his truth through picture imagery. Now in the book of Revelation, the number 7 is used many, many times in that great vision, and this is broadly accepted as symbolic imagery. The events of creation in the Book of Genesis had to have been related by God to man, since man was only created on the 6th day, after all the rest of creation. He could not have witnessed what happened before him firsthand.

God very, very frequently speaks to mankind through dreams and visions- these are two of the most frequently used means of communication he uses in the Bible. It is completely possible that when God spoke to Adam and Eve, he used the symbolic language of a vision or dream to describe the creation process.

There also is a verse in Genesis chapter 1 that says the land created the animals according to their kinds. This happened in the most literal way, according to the theory of evolution. The changing environment created the different animal species in the way they are now.

I know RÃ*an believes in the literal 7 days, so she'll give you a different answer. But my main point is that evolution should not be a major bone of contention as regards Noah's ark. It shouldn't be raised as a matter of religious debate at all, at least for Christianity. If the Bible clearly intended a literal 7 days, then it would be an issue worth a religious debate. But as the Bible didn't, as it may very easily have been through a dream or vision that the Lord spoke, it really should be an issue left solely to scientific debate and not forced into the fake position of being a huge confrontation issue between science and the Bible.

As do I. I'm a Christian by culture and birth, I guess, and I'll be celebrating Christmas with my family this year, but I have tended as I've gotten older to ask very pointed questions like the ones that have been discussed in the last few days.

Excellent!

I am more comfortable admitting that I don't know, rather than believing something out of pure faith which I can never be sure of. Take that as you will.

This is completely reasonable and makes perfect sense. The fact is, though, that while many non-Christians and a fair number of Christians think that the Bible requires blind faith, this is not what the Bible teaches. Look at the lives of the apostles and early Christians as described in the scripture, and you'll see that they interacted strongly with God. They had a great deal of evidence, based upon which it was easy to believe. When you are talking with the Lord and seeing the acts of his power in clear ways, when you are seeing your prayers answered and taste of the divine love in an experiential way, then you aren't basing your beliefs on blind faith but upon reasonable faith. Then your faith is that of a child who waits at a table for his mother to give him food. He expects his mother to give him food, he has faith that his mother will give him food, for a couple very sound reasons.

1) She always has given him food. She can be trusted to give him food again, because she has provided for him so consistently in the past.
2) He has a loving relationship with his mother, and as he knows her love and has experienced a relationship with her in many ways, he knows her and hence can reasonably expect her to give him food.

In the same way, a Christian who knows the Lord, and I mean really knows the Lord in experience and interaction, has the same kind of reasonable faith. It isn't blind faith. I suspect you've read the Book of Acts. Then you know what the relationship with God can be, according to the Bible, and to a large extent what it should be. And you also have an insight into what a large Christian population still experience in their lives.


But there are more reasons for believing than experience, though experience will prove the strongest to any who seek the Lord, for when they experience themselves a real interaction with God, and God gives them the evidence that they need, they will then know the Person for themselves, and that will prove solid enough evidence.

There are many other evidences supporting Christianity and the validity of the scriptures, though. One is the fact that the disciples claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected from the dead and had many experiences with him, and then the disciples died for their beliefs. Many people die for their beliefs, but people don't die for things they know aren't true. If the disciples claimed to have interacted with the resurrected Lord, then they knew whether what they were saying was true or not. And if it wasn't, then one can't explain in any plausible way why they were willing to lay down their lives for that lie, and why none of the twelve deviated from their story, in spite of ferocious persecution.

There are other evidences too . . . the prophecies of the Old Testament are a key one, but I'm running out of time now.