Posted on 08/15/2005 9:18:06 AM PDT by hc87
Exactly eighty years after the Scopes "monkey trial" in Dayton, Tennessee, history is about to repeat itself. In a courtroom in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in late September, scientists and creationists will square off about whether and how high school students in Dover, Pennsylvania will learn about biological evolution. One would have assumed that these battles were over, but that is to underestimate the fury (and the ingenuity) of creationists scorned.
The Scopes trial of our day--Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover Area School District et al--began innocuously...
(Excerpt) Read more at tnr.com ...
And regarding dietary laws...we no longer live under the law.
As to stoning...Let he who has no sin throw the first stone.
malakhi: If you really want to know God's mind, study His creation.
This is what I don't understand about the creationists. They insist on attempting to interpret a few hundred words in Genesis in a way that explains the entire universe. That's absurd on its face.
You may not be able to "know God's mind" by studying His creation. But certainly you can know the "what, where, how" of the creation itself.
Genesis is far too much an overview to read any details into it. And if a believer truly believes that God created the universe, then they should be proud to study it and discover it's secrets, rather than bury themselves in a dark room and worship a mere book.
To the extent that you believe that it does not endorse slavery, yet Americans of 150 years ago believed that it did, is a demonstration that the Bible can mean just about anything to anyone.
If you want to know more about God, then go to the Bible.
I specifically seek out learned, (small "o") orthodox Bible teachers who don't allow their emotions to dominate their intellect. You will find lots more of them referenced on my profile page.
Note: It isn't possible for an emotionally immature mentality to ever reach any significant degree of spiritual maturity. But these types, and the cynical opportunists who take advantage of them, are dominate in today's religious pop-culture.
Provide evidence and citations relative to your claim that biblical prophecies relative to Jesus are vague.
Incredibly sweeping generalization.
Perhaps more accurately stated: There are no errors in the Bible that cannot be explained away by apologetics.
Mind you, I believe the Bible to be divinely inspired and a source of spiritual wisdom. But it was compiled by men of a particular age who necessarily spoke in the context of the knowledge and mores of that age.
Hence, the explicit acknowledgment of, rules regarding, and implicit endorsement of, slavery. In contemporary context, slavery is an abomination. Biblical passages regarding slavery are therefore tacitly "written out" of the Bible as errors of the time. In this sense (and perhaps the singularly most important sense -- that being moral authority), the Bible is in error.
But I don't believe the Bible should be written off as a result. And I don't believe a person's faith should be hung in the balance by the kind of rhetorical hairsplitting that is indulged in by Biblical literalists.
Which post are you responding to?
My last post to you was regarding slavery and the Bible, where different generations interpret the Bible in completly contradicting ways.
Exactly. Those who presumptuously go beyond their expertise make fools out of themselves.
America's Framers gave us a government which protects us from those who would otherwise be able to gain absolute power and attempt to impose their conscience on the rest of us. [See my profile page]
Of course, who you consider to be an "expert" depends a good deal upon the presuppositions you bring to the subject.
Incredibly sweeping generalization.
Perhaps I should have said that the "public is ignorant about science in general". That includes conservatives.
But my point was that the left will jump all over this and accuse conservatives of being ill-educated. And they will be correct. But I don't want them to be correct.
Are you suggesting that the Creator endowing certain inalienable rights is not foundational to our freedoms and liberties?
If so, you are not in agreement with the founding fathers nor in agreement with the founding documents (which makes you much less than conservative).
"...The left gets a genuine hard science in their hands like evolution to demonstrate how superstitious and uneducated conservatives are..."
First of all...John Kerry/Howard Dean is that you?
Second of all...there is something that my evo friends on this site have continually hammered on: science does not deal in the super natural; and the theory of evolution does not address abiogenesis (I believe that your post delves into both of those matters while referencing the ToE).
"Actual science" covers a lot more territory than evolutionary biology. In my ~35 years in biochemical research and pharmacological R&D, I do not remember the word "evolution" ever coming up. I "believe" in evolution, but it made virtually zero difference in my day to day activities, which included participating in discovery and development of at least one true "blockbuster" drug. These threads are vastly entertaining, but I am convinced the issue is of far less practical importance than all the heated rhetoric expended on them. Science, including biological science, is data driven, and will continue to be so driven, no matter if a disclaimer to the effect that biological scientists can not (yet) answer every question about the origen of specific body parts appears in textbooks.
specific citations please
I believe the discussion started out with a claim that the Bible did not contain the kind of revisions found in the practice of science.
I would call the "prohibition" of stoning a revision.
There is no prohibition of slavery, even in the new testament. The Old Testament gives explicit permission. Of course a slave owner if the slave he had just beaten died within 24 hours. No penalty if he died after 25 hours.
I, being a layman, consider the lifting of the dietary laws to be something of a revision. By they way, in what year did it become safe to eat pork?
"The Bible does not endorse/promote slavery...."
It defines the correct procedures. It nowhere says the correct porcedure is to free the slaves.
In any other context that would be considered an endorsement.
In what conceivable way do the following passages not "endorse/promote slavery"?
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart." (Eph. 6:5-6)
"Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval." (1Pet. 2:18-29)
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.” (Leviticus 25:44-46)
You have not yet responded to my post 320, posted in response to this line in your post 289:
"Yes. I think it is fine to impose Christianity. That is my position.
And I believe that my position is consistent with the founding fathers' position...Read Washington, Morris, Jay, Madison, Webster, Adams and etc."
I asked how you feel about Jews and ifyou considered Catholics to be Christian.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.