Evolution Debate ...
- Thread starter Planet_EN
- Start date
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/converted-to-creation-antony-flew-former-atheist.htm
Hey Pea...check this out...they have scientific evidence that god exists...
Guess it's time to change our tune... :roll:
Hey Pea...check this out...they have scientific evidence that god exists...
Guess it's time to change our tune... :roll:
If people want to have their faith, who is anyone else to criticize it? If people want to believe in God, evolution, or a hybrid of both, it is their business, and more power to them. That is why there is a freedom of choice. Believe what you want. It's when you act irrationally on these beliefs, either side of the issue, is when the problems arise.
"It's when you act irrationally on these beliefs, either side of the issue, is when the problems arise".
No kidding!!!!!! like maybe trying to replace science with myths and religion. Talk about irrationally, not to mention the lies, mis-representations, and taken out of context these demented fundies use. Keep it in the church, you got one on every corner already, read this entire thread, and learn the defination of science. It has nothing to do with the book of nonsense! Yes thats right! you call it the book of truth, and I call it the book of nonsense...either way...its just a book!
You better believe this is a problem, when the demented fundies have access to power to shove there hatred down the throats of childern, to keep them ignorant and stupid, so they can be munipulated!
Have a nice day 8)
No kidding!!!!!! like maybe trying to replace science with myths and religion. Talk about irrationally, not to mention the lies, mis-representations, and taken out of context these demented fundies use. Keep it in the church, you got one on every corner already, read this entire thread, and learn the defination of science. It has nothing to do with the book of nonsense! Yes thats right! you call it the book of truth, and I call it the book of nonsense...either way...its just a book!
You better believe this is a problem, when the demented fundies have access to power to shove there hatred down the throats of childern, to keep them ignorant and stupid, so they can be munipulated!
Have a nice day 8)
I have seen those hate mongering fundie sites vanni...please don't spoil my lunch I am gonna have with da galaniomama 
although she might like that, she could eat mine to
A interesting new book out, which is getting very good reviews, I think I will purchase this, written by a "normal christian" I will send it on to you after vanni :wink:
The Sins of Scripture:
Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love
By John Shelby Spong
If John Shelby Spong knows fear, he never shows it. Foaming evangelical detractors depict him as a sly Mephistophelean backslider, alleging bad faith and wicked tricks -- omission, distortion -- but he holds firm. Spong, the bestselling author of Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism and an intellectually ferocious retired Episcopal bishop (of Newark, N.J.), celebrates expansion and diversity within the church, rejecting prejudice, murder and punitive stupidity in the name of God.
His latest book is simply spectacular. A scholarly exposé of the Bible's fatal ideological and factual errors, The Sins of Scripture not only challenges injustices excused by fundamentalists as the "mysterious" ways of God, but presents the blueprint for a far more accurate and honest Christianity.
"I believe now that these insights would have come to me even sooner had I not been what the Bible seems to regard as a privileged person," he writes. "I do not refer to my social or economic status, which was modest to say the least, but to the fact that I was white, male, heterosexual and Christian. The Bible affirmed, or so I was taught, the value in each of these privileged designations."
The philosophically primitive rigidity of dead white males aside, how is it possible for the Bible to be considered the "Word of God" when it consists of 66 books (more if you count the Apocrypha) written over the course of more than 1,000 years? Spong asks: "Can such a claim stand even the barest scrutiny?" At a loss as to how God can be saddled with the motivations of authors warped by the "tribal and sexist prejudices of that ancient time," he is left no choice but to enter the ring swinging.
"Moses," he begins, "did not write the Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Moses had been dead for three hundred years before the first verse of the Torah achieved written form." Nor did David write the Psalms. "Yet, once again in the gospels, the Davidic authorship of the Psalms is asserted by Jesus (see Mark 12:36-37; Matt. 22:43-45 and Luke 20:42-44)." Epilepsy and mental illness resulting from possession, profound deafness caused by the devil tying the tongue? "[O]nce again in a variety of biblical passages Jesus is portrayed as making these specific claims (see Mark 1:23-26, 9:14-18; Matt. 9:13 and Luke 9:38-42)." And it just gets better.
The errors in translation and interpretation revealed by Spong call for a complete restructuring of the Christian faith. Matthew, whom he accuses of manipulation by tearing stories from their Hebrew context, "bases his virgin birth story, for example, on Isaiah 7:14. Yet he translates that text to read that a virgin shall conceive (see Matt. 1:23) when the text in Isaiah not only does not use the word 'virgin' but says that a young woman is with child." This pregnant "virgin" promptly became "the ideal woman against which all women were to be measured. . . . Since it is quite impossible in the normal course of events for a woman to be both a virgin and a mother, every other woman was immediately, by definition, assumed to be less than the ideal."
With a trial lawyer's acuity, Spong follows the evolution of the "virgin" myth throughout history. Mary first became a virgin mother in the ninth decade, when Matthew, and then Luke, promoted the grotesquely tabloid concept. Entering the creeds in the third and fourth centuries, it became the "chief bulwark in the battles that engaged the church in later centuries as that body sought to define the divinity of Jesus."
In short, the Western Catholic tradition could not glorify a woman unless she had been both desexed and dehumanized -- that is, debased.
Spong's primary -- and most devastating -- charge is that Christian evangelists have made an idol of the Bible itself, worshipping the Word of God above God. "Religion has so often been the source of the cruellest evil," he elaborates. "Its darkest and most brutal side becomes visible at the moment when the adherents of any religious system identify their understanding of God with God." It's an infinitely elegant distinction, and one with serious repercussions. "[W]hen one is 'born again,' one is newly a child. It represents a second return to a state of chronic dependency. Perhaps what we specifically need is not to be 'born again,' but to grow up and become mature adults."
The Sins of Scripture should not only be read by all those who consider themselves Christians, but also by those whose lives have been deformed or lessened by the word of anti-Semites, homophobes and misogynists masquerading as mouthpieces of God.
Spong's closing word? "Shalom."
although she might like that, she could eat mine to A interesting new book out, which is getting very good reviews, I think I will purchase this, written by a "normal christian" I will send it on to you after vanni :wink:
The Sins of Scripture:
Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love
By John Shelby Spong
If John Shelby Spong knows fear, he never shows it. Foaming evangelical detractors depict him as a sly Mephistophelean backslider, alleging bad faith and wicked tricks -- omission, distortion -- but he holds firm. Spong, the bestselling author of Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism and an intellectually ferocious retired Episcopal bishop (of Newark, N.J.), celebrates expansion and diversity within the church, rejecting prejudice, murder and punitive stupidity in the name of God.
His latest book is simply spectacular. A scholarly exposé of the Bible's fatal ideological and factual errors, The Sins of Scripture not only challenges injustices excused by fundamentalists as the "mysterious" ways of God, but presents the blueprint for a far more accurate and honest Christianity.
"I believe now that these insights would have come to me even sooner had I not been what the Bible seems to regard as a privileged person," he writes. "I do not refer to my social or economic status, which was modest to say the least, but to the fact that I was white, male, heterosexual and Christian. The Bible affirmed, or so I was taught, the value in each of these privileged designations."
The philosophically primitive rigidity of dead white males aside, how is it possible for the Bible to be considered the "Word of God" when it consists of 66 books (more if you count the Apocrypha) written over the course of more than 1,000 years? Spong asks: "Can such a claim stand even the barest scrutiny?" At a loss as to how God can be saddled with the motivations of authors warped by the "tribal and sexist prejudices of that ancient time," he is left no choice but to enter the ring swinging.
"Moses," he begins, "did not write the Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Moses had been dead for three hundred years before the first verse of the Torah achieved written form." Nor did David write the Psalms. "Yet, once again in the gospels, the Davidic authorship of the Psalms is asserted by Jesus (see Mark 12:36-37; Matt. 22:43-45 and Luke 20:42-44)." Epilepsy and mental illness resulting from possession, profound deafness caused by the devil tying the tongue? "[O]nce again in a variety of biblical passages Jesus is portrayed as making these specific claims (see Mark 1:23-26, 9:14-18; Matt. 9:13 and Luke 9:38-42)." And it just gets better.
The errors in translation and interpretation revealed by Spong call for a complete restructuring of the Christian faith. Matthew, whom he accuses of manipulation by tearing stories from their Hebrew context, "bases his virgin birth story, for example, on Isaiah 7:14. Yet he translates that text to read that a virgin shall conceive (see Matt. 1:23) when the text in Isaiah not only does not use the word 'virgin' but says that a young woman is with child." This pregnant "virgin" promptly became "the ideal woman against which all women were to be measured. . . . Since it is quite impossible in the normal course of events for a woman to be both a virgin and a mother, every other woman was immediately, by definition, assumed to be less than the ideal."
With a trial lawyer's acuity, Spong follows the evolution of the "virgin" myth throughout history. Mary first became a virgin mother in the ninth decade, when Matthew, and then Luke, promoted the grotesquely tabloid concept. Entering the creeds in the third and fourth centuries, it became the "chief bulwark in the battles that engaged the church in later centuries as that body sought to define the divinity of Jesus."
In short, the Western Catholic tradition could not glorify a woman unless she had been both desexed and dehumanized -- that is, debased.
Spong's primary -- and most devastating -- charge is that Christian evangelists have made an idol of the Bible itself, worshipping the Word of God above God. "Religion has so often been the source of the cruellest evil," he elaborates. "Its darkest and most brutal side becomes visible at the moment when the adherents of any religious system identify their understanding of God with God." It's an infinitely elegant distinction, and one with serious repercussions. "[W]hen one is 'born again,' one is newly a child. It represents a second return to a state of chronic dependency. Perhaps what we specifically need is not to be 'born again,' but to grow up and become mature adults."
The Sins of Scripture should not only be read by all those who consider themselves Christians, but also by those whose lives have been deformed or lessened by the word of anti-Semites, homophobes and misogynists masquerading as mouthpieces of God.
Spong's closing word? "Shalom."
Hm... I guess Extrafire was right, he's really not coming back. At least not this week. This is the first time in many moons he hasn't come in here on a Sunday night and tossed out more misunderstandings and disinformation.
'Nother good book people who call themselves serious Christians should read is Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ. It's about the origins and nature of Christianity in pre-Christian mythologies, and what it was all originally supposed to mean, before the early church leaders personified god in the person of Jesus and literalized much of the symbology that pre-Christian people understood quite differently. It explains why many contemporary Christians mistakenly view the Bible as a historical and scientific textbook, not the collection of allegorical and symbolic tales about human nature and spirituality it actually is. It's really quite a damning indictment of what the modern Christian church has become. He approaches it from a position of faith though, he's a committed Christian himself and deeply disturbed by what his researches revealed. Worth a read.
'Nother good book people who call themselves serious Christians should read is Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ. It's about the origins and nature of Christianity in pre-Christian mythologies, and what it was all originally supposed to mean, before the early church leaders personified god in the person of Jesus and literalized much of the symbology that pre-Christian people understood quite differently. It explains why many contemporary Christians mistakenly view the Bible as a historical and scientific textbook, not the collection of allegorical and symbolic tales about human nature and spirituality it actually is. It's really quite a damning indictment of what the modern Christian church has become. He approaches it from a position of faith though, he's a committed Christian himself and deeply disturbed by what his researches revealed. Worth a read.
Yes it does sound like a good read vanni, I will look for it to, I can only read that kind of stuff in the "little room" tho...bwhahahahahaha :lol:
Me too (ie I'll look for it, not read it in the "little room" necessarily ). Another I can recommend is 'The Bible Unearthed', by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman - it looks at recent archeological research, which indicates that many of the most famous Bible stories reflect the world of later authors, rather than actual historical facts. It's an interesting perspective on when - and why - the Bible was written, which questions the historic reliability of the Bible, and the fundamentalist/literalist interpretations of it.
). Another I can recommend is 'The Bible Unearthed', by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman - it looks at recent archeological research, which indicates that many of the most famous Bible stories reflect the world of later authors, rather than actual historical facts. It's an interesting perspective on when - and why - the Bible was written, which questions the historic reliability of the Bible, and the fundamentalist/literalist interpretations of it.
Hard-Luck Henry said:Me too (ie I'll look for it, not read it in the "little room" necessarily
What's interesting is that Finklestein is the Head of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, and Silberman is an archaeological journalist, so I tend to think highly of what they have to say...obviously their government is none too happy with these guys and their confounded discoveries though...
I am curious to...what do you make of this:
Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than fact. Conversely, creationists use those same two terms partly because the terms accentuate belief, and partly perhaps because they provide a way to package their opposition into one group, seemingly atheist and materialist, designations under which many scientists would not like to be cast. Thereby the creationists deride the scientists' theories as mere belief that ignores divine intervention, contrary to what creationists think is common sense.
Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than fact. Conversely, creationists use those same two terms partly because the terms accentuate belief, and partly perhaps because they provide a way to package their opposition into one group, seemingly atheist and materialist, designations under which many scientists would not like to be cast. Thereby the creationists deride the scientists' theories as mere belief that ignores divine intervention, contrary to what creationists think is common sense.
I'm not sure what I am. To me, evolution is as obvious as the nose on your face. I'm not mystified or torn or confused about it, nor do I elevate it to a 'religion'. It is simply another branch of science.
I'm definately not Christian; I've never really been into myths and fairytales. Even as a small child, I don't ever recall ever *really* believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or any of that.
I guess I could call myself Buddhist; as I do follow some Buddhist practices although I do not have a guru, visit a temple, nor even meditate frequently. I just find Buddhism to be less concerned with making up fantastical stories and more concerned with helping people analyze their own motivations and actions.
I guess I'm an Atheist and a Buddhist who accepts and understands the process of evolution.
I'm definately not Christian; I've never really been into myths and fairytales. Even as a small child, I don't ever recall ever *really* believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or any of that.
I guess I could call myself Buddhist; as I do follow some Buddhist practices although I do not have a guru, visit a temple, nor even meditate frequently. I just find Buddhism to be less concerned with making up fantastical stories and more concerned with helping people analyze their own motivations and actions.
I guess I'm an Atheist and a Buddhist who accepts and understands the process of evolution.
Me like I said before is a pugilist slash atheist slash obnoxious and Pea i read it slow and it still hurt my head :lol: but i get it :idea: