How would have Jesus responded to Darwin?

Post Reply New Topic

Three of the verses I searched for earlier are present in quotation to my response to Bill K. I'll be back later though and respond in more detail then.

My opinions might not be so harsh if those same evangelicals I'm critical of were more concerned with the spirit behind the letter of the word, rather than the letter. Plus, favoring those who have over those who have not isn't one of their most endearing points.
And as for my opinions of other Christians goes, it's hard to like somebody who says I - and worse - my little girl are going to hell because we lack any sort of "believer's baptism," and because I don't buy into that rapture and millennialism crap.
And it should be noted, I never once said evangelicals weren't real Christians, or that they are going to hell. On the contrary. But I reserve the right to continually be critical of them.

Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Using language that could best be understood by the listeners of the time is hardly lying.
This is why I end up beating my head against the wall when I'm discussing anything with you biblical literalists.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

And likewise, if I'm to be a "literalist", it is also annoying to hear the musings of biblical Humpty Dumptyists for which every word means precisely whatever they want them to mean, nothing more and nothing less.

Diverting the argument, huh? Nice one for someone who appeals to (and misuse of) fallacies to try to defend their position.


And you supposedly know this how?


Either what Kraichgauer implied, or the Bible writers had limited understanding and knowledge of the message, leading to inevitable human error, or the Bible is false.

This also applies to biblical literalists because biblical literalists are not in agreement of what the Bible means.


The issue from a Christian standpoint regarding evolution, cosmology and geology is that you either have to reject science and reason to embrace the literal interpretation of an ancient book and doctrine.

Or the alternative, 'the literal interpretation must be wrong if faced with evidence that contradicts it'. Catholics did that, given the problem with Galileo, and they later said that "the empirical evidence contradicted our interpretation of scripture, therefore our interpretation was wrong". Now, I personally believe that this is an ad hoc solution, but there you go the reason why is that, and, at least it looks better than rejecting the scientific method to favor an ancient sacred book, which pratically is: complete rejection of empirical evidence towards explaining reality to favor wishful thinking.

Oh, how long have I waited for someone to say something like that.

These REALLY wants its own thread - but if I start one everyone tiptoes away. So here goes. Ye who figure the Bible is bunk and get upset if it is referred to better look away. Ye who THINK you take the Bible literally and ignore the places you fudge, you better stick fingers in your ears.

Okay.

A We are in God's image. Okay with that? That does not mean God has ten fingers and a coccyx and baby blue eyes - forget physicals, God is NOT physical. We are constructed with similarities in mental and spiriyual structure.

B. That similarity mean God can communicate with us in ways we cannot communicate with a hog.

C. God communicates with us to a large extent using human symbolic systems and human languages. Yay Philologos! What I do IS worthwhile.

D. That includes [in the case of communicating ideas - orders are different]
1. Strings of data. Some of us are into that, but it does not take you far, let me, as a professional data stringer and data slinger, tell you.
2. Reasoning, whether syllogistic or Socratic. This also has its handicaps. It requires close attention and patterned thought, and teachers and lawyers find they have to be careful how they use it.
3. Illustration and parable. As when a teacher explains things to the class using slides and sample problems. What I just said is one example of a parable. The average human mind gets the point a lot quicker than with the other two modes.

E. You will have seen that Jesus is reported to have used parables a lot. Like other speakers of his day, both formal and informal. Like myriads of teachers and parents through the ages. Like a well constructed TV science program.

F. Schroedinger's Cat is not a lie. The Grasshopper and the Ant is not a lie. Sir Simpson and Sir Sampson is not a lie. The story of the Good Samaritan is not a lie.

G. Is there any sect of Bible Believers for whom it is an article of faith that Jesus was talking about one specific Samaritan? Jesus saw the story in the Nazareth Weekly Scroll,maybe, and used it in his discussions? No. We humans - in God's image - are so used to discourse based on parables we hardly ever question it.

H. If God on the earth talks to us in parables, will not God beyond use them to communicate through his prophets? Yes he will. The OT is packed chock full of symbols and parables. Does any sect claim Job is a literal report, that every conversation including Data talking with God is word for word? That would be a pretty weird sect. I'm not talking about fooling around deciding what Leviathan is.

I. So - if the Genesis account of the creation is not to be seen as a peer-reviewed research report in the Intergalactic Journal of Applied Cosmology - do not want to hurt any feelings, but it might by now be clear what I am thinking - that does not make it false. Nor useless. Nor not of God.

AND for sure God does not lie - he just does not always bring out all the data.

Does that matter? I don't think so.

What matters is that the Bible isn't something to be taken so seriously. It's just a collection of books written by ancient people who lacked access to the knowledge that we now have access to.

If it did not matter to mme I would not have asked. I rather like to know what is being said and when it is unclear I query it.

As for your last paragraph, I hardly know where to start.

I will - uncharacteristically - keep it VERY short and just ask:

What makes you think that the Bible - or the Qur'an - or the Tripitaka - or Plato - or Nietzsche - or Shakespeare - or Tolstoy - or Utopia - or 1984 - why in the name of Great Patham's sgian dubh would you think those were valued as repositories of KNOWLEDGE?

Knowledge keeps changing.people change their minds, new data come to light, old facts are forgotten. one clique's interpretation replaces another in the consensus. We hae my parent's 1911 Britannica - a great collection, well written with authority, but every year more aerticles are out of date.

Do you really think, when academia does not bother to read anything written more than 50 years back, that people go to the Constitution, or to the Rubaiyat for knowledge? Consider there might be other - better - reasons.

What blunnet said.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The question is not, are you a literalist? One more time, consistent literal Bible interpretation is impossible and most INCONSISTENT literal interpretation of select passages is ad hoc and slanted - you find two sets taking DIFFERENT parts literally.

The question is rather, would you call yourself, or want to be, a literalist?

Further - the "Humpty Dumptyists", as you call them - I tend to think first of Big Brother, but the principle is the same - include many literalist wannabes, as they say "Day means Day HERE, and HERE it means year, and in this other passage it means je ne sais quoi [That is nescio quid for anybody here who cannot speak Frankly],"

There are certains here who pervert and wrest with malicious intent where it is not sinmple ignorance, and any of us may err in interpretations,

But from anybody Christian here, or anybody else of good will, I have not seen any egregious wresting.

He mightve taken Darwin aside and whispered "Chuck, we both know you're right about how the universe works but my flock cant handle those kinda facts right now. So Im sending you to a a future centurey when my flock can better handle a mechanisitc view of things- maybeeee- oh - a centurey after a future guy invents the steam engine- ill assign you tooo.... the mid nineteenth centurey."
I can see that.

Red herrings.

The Bible is good for nothing ... except to give gullible people false hope and a false sense of security. If you consider this a good reason to take the Bible seriously, then you are out of your mind, lol.

Right.... the findings of age are a result of multiple tests that arrive at the same conclusions. The overall compatibility of all findings is such that even though a distorted reinterpretation of data may be logically possible, the contortions necessary for it end up ridiculous.

I mean, your idea is likely found from Russell Humphrey's efforts, the stark irony is found in the first chapter of Starlight and Time: "Some laymen pondering this question wonder if the astronomers' estimates of distances[of galaxies] might be greatly in error. I don't think so. Astronomers have dozens of methods for estimating such distances, all of which generally agree with each other...." The irony is that this EXACT argument is used by people who hold to a much much older earth when using metrics like radiometric dating. We have multiple dating methods, and other methods, as well, and they all generally agree with each other. They just DON'T agree with the idea of a 6 day earth. Creationism is more intellectually dead than Marxism, and the adherents deserve LESS respect than the apologists for Stalin and Mao. Yes, a clever person can think of ways to spin the efforts of both figures, but truth isn't a matter of being clever, it's a matter of the best interpretation of data, and creationism hasn't even been respectable in over a generation at this point.

I imagine him being like a magician whose secret is being guessed at. Changing the subject, playing coy, or returning the question. The journey in the quest for knowledge isn't the same if someone gives away the answers.

Jesus did not speak a word of English and Darwin did not speak a word of Hebrew or Aramaic.

ruveyn