Forums | MacLife

Malkin wrote:

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

Wow! I can't believe they read my post already, decided I was right, and ... Yeah, right.

Malkin wrote:

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

Well I've known this for awhile.

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

Malkin wrote:

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

Wow! I can't believe they read my post already, decided I was right, and ... Yeah, right.

More and more of this kind of change will come as experimentation and the use of the scientific method are better known and accepted by those sufficiently educated to understand it. Education is the means.

Religion has its place. People want a philosophy by which they can understand and explore the mystery of their existence. Accepting the 'scientific' theory that it all may have come about by happenstance is pretty empty. People have egos after all. Each wants to 'feel' human existence is more than happenstance as the 'miracle' of birth suggests.

I spent 2 years in intensive study of the Bible. It has wisdom and, in the NT IMO, an evolved philosophy that mankind can aspire to and fully capable of achieving; but, probably many centuries into the future. The Christian message as espoused by Jesus is encapsulated 'hope.' Nothing more, nothing less. The message says to me as an individual that mankind has the hope of divinity (power) to overcome the mean things that tend to distract us from the higher morality we know is best to sustain humanity forever. The more mankind learns about itself and the environment, the more we will be impowered to explore the universe and if god exists find that place of god's residence.

Thus, if we are 'created' the creator will be pleased with our achievement and glad to share that residence with us. If we are not created, we will have achieved our destiny in the pursuit of the knowledge that explains our existence. It's a win-win philosophy. It is purely hypothetical. Religion has its place.

What I don't buy into is all that nonsense that the evil in the world is the work of another entity called Satan. The evil in the world is human and human instigated. Blaming another entity is pure hypocritsy and a cop out. We are responsible for the evil we make and are responsible to take it away.

I think most evil in the world is brought about by fears: of death, of suffering, of the unknown. We want control and the lack of it makes us afraid. When we are in trouble, we pray for help. Prayer is a form of meditation; a way to control our fear, collect our thoughts and think our way through a problem. And, environment is always a factor. Mankind has the ability to control environment and this will become evident the more we gain knowledge about ourselves and nature.

Time and reasonable contemplation are the ingredients that will preserve humanity if humanity truly wants to survive in a universe of violent dynamics. Violence is interesting and it helps us feel alive. Overcoming it, winning the battle of survival is exciting and a creative achievement. It pushes us to seek answers.

sewing wrote:

You'd think Mary's name would be mentioned in her own genealogy, wouldn't you? There's certainly no reason why Joseph would be mentioned in her genealogy, is there? (Well, there's one possible reason, I guess but I doubt if he married his own daughter.)

Once again, Duke, you have taken a 21st. century western culture way of thinking and used it as a proof.  However, you need to remember that the writers of the NT were 1st. century Jews, an eastern, ancient culture.  Women were not considred in lineage unless there was a specific purpose for that inclusion.

So one or the other genealogy includes Joseph when it really means Mary? Then either Jacob or Eli must be Mary's father. Demonstrate that that's the case and I'll gladly accept your theory. Even assuming that that's the case, the different number of generations in each genealogy is still troubling, and merits labelling as an inconsistency as well. Your imminent retort that the guys listed in Matthew consistently waited until they 40 or 50 to have the kids listed just flies in the face of statistical likelihood, so let me just discount that in advance. The counter-theory that Matthew deliberately left out some of Jesus' ancestors in order to ensure that his genealogy consisted of three groups of 14 generations fits a lot better with the dictates of simple common sense, especially in light of the importance that your ancient Middle Eastern culture gave to numerology.

sewing wrote:

Also, I reiterate.  The Bible explains scientific concepts to a non scienitfic people.  The scientific method is only about 150 years old.  It makes sense that God would explain things the way He did.  The people wouldn't have understood it otherwise.

Tallgeese wrote:

If one part is proved inconsistent, the claim "God made the whole darn thing perfect" falls apart. That's why one small part matters.

He didn't say He made the whole thing perfect.

Gen 1: 31 Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was excellent in every way.

Excellent is a long way from perfect.

We're not talking about the world being perfect. We're talking about the claim that the Bible is the verbatim word of God Almighty and hasn't got a single flaw in it. This claim does come mostly from the Protestant community these days, since the Catholic Church has given up on it.

sewing wrote:

They're not all ever going to agree on anything, but any preacher with a brain will tell you that the Bible has inconsistencies in it. You can't read the Book as much as they do and not notice it.

Duke,  Don't make such gerneral broadsweeping statements.  You blow your entire point.  My pastor is an extreemly intelligent man.  He scored the highest ever recorded on a testing in the service.  They made him take it twice because they thought he had cheated.  He scored higher the 2nd. time he took it.  He studies in 5 different languages 2 of them ancient Hebrew and Greek.  I will believe him over you when he says that the Bible is consistent.  As I study in my one language  of English I find remarkable consistency.

Believe what you like. My nasal epidemis remains intact.

sewing wrote:

So I challenge you to find the inconsistencies and present them here. Not what you have heard are inconsistencies but ones you have found yourself.

How about if I just post a link to a pre-existing list of them, rather than trudging my way through a job that's already been done for me?

sewing wrote:

I will get the refutiations.

Get cracking, then. You might want to start here, actually.

Metacell wrote:

Those whose faith rests on the Bible somehow being perfect have no faith.

And in a perfect world this would end the discussion.

sewing wrote:

The Bible is considered the inerrant Word of God in its original writing.  That is why it needs to be translated very carefully and studied with consideration to the audience of the time.  The translation used to study with should be one that is a more literal translation not a parphrase or more devotional translation.  The more literal the less the wording and sentence structure will be conforatble reading which is why so many people won't read them.

So you're saying it's inerrant, only if the person reading it, reads it in an "inerrant" way? Is that right?

Is that even possible? How can someone know if they way they're reading it is the "right" way to read it? How "inerrant" is that really?

sewing wrote:

The Bible is considered the inerrant Word of God in its original writing by fundamentalists

Fixed it for ya.

jerwin wrote:

Of course, Hebrew and Greek are turnoffs for some people, so somehow, you've got to inculcate the idea that a particlar translation (say. KJV) also just happens to be divinely inspired

Again, jerwin, as usual, you point out a glaring inconsistency in the method that whomever tries to interpret/understand the 'meaning' behind the scriptures. Just like ALL literature, it can be parsed and mulled over and in time a new idea is brought forth to titillate/irritate the scholars. That's the basis of all criticism!

As for sewing's adoration of his religious teacher, it's the same adoration that the followers of every religious zealot lent to corrupted teachings. It's dangerous. It shows a lack of maturity, experience and judgment. Every teacher needs to be taken to task for what is taught in the class. I came by my nickname well earned. I had more than just a few outside class sessions with instructors who took me to task for my questions. But I graduated with highest honor in spite of it. (Just a bit of bragging there)

However, no matter how good or refined one's education is, it's just that -- an education. Doesn't follow that intelligence or the power of reasoning is the foundation under the education. A well tuned computer has total recall, but can only spit out what's in the data base, not the reasoning that formulated it. Many human minds are like that, never trained to 'think' just to recall what's in the data base.

http://www.framestore-cfc.com/press/05p … 050_qt.mov

Beer and evolution.

Um...*cough*...y'all probably won't believe this, but they've found the remains of...*cough*...HOBBITS in Indonesia.



They were only about a meter tall, the caption says.

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

Um...*cough*...y'all probably won't believe this, but they've found the remains of...*cough*...HOBBITS in Indonesia.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4 … bc_203.jpg

They were only about a meter tall, the caption says.

There are a few scientists saying that this group are homosapiens but dwarfs rather than a new species.

Light Speed wrote:

There are a few scientists saying that this group are homosapiens but dwarfs rather than a new species.

BBC wrote:

The researchers say they are now more convinced than ever that Homo floresiensis represents a distinct species and not some diseased individual of modern human (Homo sapiens)as some sceptics have suggested.

"The finds further demonstrate that LB1 is not just an aberrant or pathological individual but is representative of a long-term population," they write in Nature.

A critical line in their argument is the length of time which the new collection of remains represents - possibly 80,000 years - making a disease explanation for the cause of the little people's stature and shape an unlikely one.