Posted on 12/04/2007 11:44:21 PM PST by Plutarch
Both well reasoned replies. Thanks.
But that's what the Huckster's campaign is all about - I'm the religious one, vote for me. He made religion one of his central themes and then gets upset when theology becomes a central question. 'Faith, family, freedom' - that's his platform. So suck it up, Huckster, this is what you've made it into.
Ahh, that isn't very nice : ( I understand what truth means, I was just not sure if you did.
The point I am trying to make is that literal is normally an adjective for truth, ie. free from exaggeration or embellishment, the literal truth. When we read the Bible it is generally easy to tell when it is a parable or trying to describe an actual event. Your trying to separate the two terms is simply a disingenuous ruse on your part. You should be ashamed of yourself.
When Huckabee is asked whether he believes the Bible is literally true, basically they are asking whether he believes Noah put all of the animals in the world on his Ark for a year, whether PI equals three, did a frog lead an army in battle?, or any of the other varied myths and stories in the Bible. It is a litmus test of sorts of whether he is rational and logical.
Huckabee's anger at the question is telling. Christians who believe the Bible to be the literal word of God should be proud to proclaim that fact. Proud that God said that PI equals three. Do you really want a mealy mouthed Christian President?
I think deep down inside Christians know that much of the Bible is a fairy tale. They know that Joshua didn't stop the earth rotating. They know that looking at the staff didn't save any lives. They are simply afraid to face the truth. The truth is harsh and cold, but the truth will set you free : )
BTW, I have no leanings either way towards Huckabee. Truth be told, I don't know much about him, but this reporter seems to fit the usual profile.
A quick look at the Hebrew words in Genesis appears to nullify your comment. I say 'appears' because the common word for 'spirit' --ruach-- is not used but the information conveyed indicates Adam had a 'nephesh' --aliveness-- into which God 'breathed' a spirit so that the nephesh became a 'living soul' (in transliterate Hebrew, H'aDM LNPhSh ChYH ... 'man became a soul living'). The time span from start to 'adam' into whom God 'breathed' spirit could be any length, including billions of years from dust to a man with a soul but not a spirit. What the Genesis passage makes clear however is that a nephesh must have a 'ruach' to be an alive on spirit level soul.
Scripture and Jewish tradition speak of the soul/spirit in four levels:
1. nephesh – the will to live, the animal soul, or the soul of all living things (Genesis 1:20) which by Jewish tradition returns to the “earth” after death. In Romans 8, this is seen as a whole, the creation longing for the children of God to be revealed. This is what betty boop and I have often described here as being field-like because it exists in all points of space/time.
2. ruach - the self-will or free will peculiar to man (abstraction, anticipation, intention, etc.) – by Jewish tradition, the pivot wherein a man decides to be Godly minded or earthy minded (also related to Romans 8, choosing)
3. neshama - the breath of God given to Adam (Genesis 2:7) which may also be seen as the “ears to hear” (John 10) - a sense of belonging beyond space/time, a predisposition to seek God and seek answers to the deep questions such as “what is the meaning of life?"
4. ruach Elohim - the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2) which indwells Christians (I Cor 2, John 3) – the presently existing in the “beyond” while still in the flesh. (Col 3:3) This is the life in passage : "In him was life, and the life was the light of men..." (John 1)
This post offers a very interesting thought...many people consider the soul to be something that was given to man, was breathed into him by God..on the other hand, I know of people who muse that this is incorrect, rather man, is the living soul himself, or in other words, man himself, is a living soul...the soul is not something separate from the man...
Spirit is the aspect God breathed into an alive (having a soul like all other alive things) human to bring him to the next level of God’s Creation, embued with Spirit. It is very instructive to see the fact that we have a soul of life and a spirit of LIFE. A man without God’s Spirit in the human spirit is spoken of as ‘dead’ by Jesus. To end this ‘deadness’ one must be Born Again, as Jesus taught Nicodemus.
When you talk ‘having a soul like all other alive things’, do I take this to mean, that only man has a soul, or rather that man, himself is the soul?...or do you mean, by all other alive things, that this also includes the animals, such as dogs, cats, birds, etc...in other words, do all living things have a soul, or are all living things, souls?...I know to some, this may be merely a matter of semantics, but I think it is important...
The soul is in all living things, each has a soul. In plants, some believe the soul is spread over the entire species. With animals, especially higher animals like mammals, the soul is the will, the emotion, and the mind. ONLY humans have the spirit. Think of the tent tabernacle of the Hebrews, with outer court (body of living cells, each having a will to live), inner Holy Place (the soul of collective behavior for the organism), and in humans the Holy Of Holies where God came once per year to be with the people.
Thanks for your reply...I had not thought about plants, tho of course, they are living as well....therefore they have soul, or are souls...it is all very interesting...
So then, when Christians say that they believe the Bible is literally true, then they aren't saying that they believe every word in it is to be taken literally. They are saying it is true without embellishment. When Jesus says that He is the vine or the Bread of Life, they know that He is not a green plant with leaves or a loaf of bread.
I've known Christians for decades and even among the staunchest in the way of Bible interpretation, they recognize poetry, analogy, parables, metaphors, similes, and other literary devices. The study done by Baylor proves nothing as the way the questions were worded and the other options offered can affect the outcome. If, when people were asked if they believed the Bible was literally true and they interpreted it as the meaning above, free of embellishment, then that would be fine. If the pollsters meant *Do you believe that everything in the Bible must be taken literally?* and they didn't word it that way, then the answers are invalid because that was not the question asked.
As far as the pi thing, evos keep dragging that one up and it has been explained before on the evo threads. I think Dave may have been the one who did it. If not, perhaps he can find it.
God created animals as kinds. If only the kinds were taken on the ark and variation within species allowed for the variety we see today, that would be much more plausible. But then, it would be so less easy to try to discredit Christians for believing something when it could really of happened.
Huckabee's anger at the question is telling.
Huckabee's anger is only telling that he recognizes a trap when he sees one, as has been addressed earlier in the thread.
"The truth will set you free"? How hypocritical to try everything in your power to discredit Scripture and then quote it at someone.
It's only your opinion that it's all myths and fairy tales. You're taking that on faith just as Christians take it on faith that the events are real. If they're not real, then provide some evidence, good solid data, etc that scientists like so much, to disprove them. After all, that's what scientists are supposed to do to theories, disprove them. It the accounts are false, lets see the evidence.
And no, most Christians don't "know" deep down that it's mostly fairy tales; that's just your own wishful thinking.
But since science isn’t about truth anyway, I wouldn’t expect any scientist or evolutionist to recognize it if it hit them over the head, so your confusion is understandable.
That is clearly a poke at me and my list of definitions (available on my FR homepage).
You still don't get it, do you? I have explained this to you several times now, but you apparently are unwilling to learn what science is really about -- you prefer to cling to your cherished and discredited strawmen in spite of evidence that shows you are completely wrong.
Here is a good definition of "truth" -- not mine, but from a Caltech website:
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.But you keep nagging and harping on science for not pursuing "truth" even when you know that that is not what science does.
You realize that you look silly every time you post this stuff...
So go ahead -- post away! You just make your side look ridiculous every time you post nonsense (St. Augustine had it right!).
Another great interview of a real conservative!
http://www.wspa.com/midatlantic/spa/news.apx.-content-articles-SPA-2007-12-05-0011.html
Your statement reminds me of one of those "warnings" periodically sent from the middle east wackos in regards to "things" desecrating their ...oh, so pure religion.
Are you going to incite a riot because of that?
It looks to me that fanaticism works both ways.
Thank you so much for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!
I would agree there is an element of figurativeness and metaphorical insight to the numbers. Numbers have specific meanings and refer to specific subject/s planted through out the Bible, examples; number 5 means 'grace', 7 means spiritual completeness, 8 means 'new beginnings', etc. The Heavenly Father is the perfection of the natural and the descriptive word most commonly used for Him would be super-natural. We in these flesh bodies are allowed but a glimpse into the pure perfection of that One who created all things including the soul.
A flesh body requires intellect, as would a soul. The brain is to the flesh body as the spirit is to the soul. Where the soul is/goes so would that intellect the spirit.
They don't mean that everything has to be taken literally. Everyone understands that poetry, parables, analogies, etc. are not literally true. That is not the point. They are talking about items that are clearly meant to be taken as historical fact, like Joshua stopping the earth and the moon.
You have implied that you believe Joshua and Noah were actual facts and indeed the literal truth. If you and Huckabee believe them to be the literal truth then why not proudly proclaim that fact? Why not proudly proclaim that the earth was created in 7 days and that PI equals 3? You do believe in an omnipotent God who can do anything don't you? Or are you ashamed of your beliefs?
Huckabee's anger is only telling that he recognizes a trap when he sees one, as has been addressed earlier in the thread.
Yes the trap is very simple. They are simply asking him if he believes in the Miracles of God. Obviously he doesn't have the faith to stand up and say YES!
It's only your opinion that it's all myths and fairy tales. You're taking that on faith just as Christians take it on faith that the events are real. If they're not real, then provide some evidence, good solid data, etc that scientists like so much, to disprove them. After all, that's what scientists are supposed to do to theories, disprove them. It the accounts are false, lets see the evidence.
Certainly it is only my opinion that the miracles of the Bible are fairy tales and myths. And I freely admit that I can't disprove them. It is beyond my ability to prove that demons don't exist. Luckily for me, it is your burden to prove that they do. If I told you that I had a God in my pocket that obeyed my every desire would you accept that on faith?
And no, most Christians don't "know" deep down that it's mostly fairy tales; that's just your own wishful thinking.
If they didn't then they wouldn't be defensive like you. They would proudly proclaim that PI equals three, that because Samson didn't cut his hair he was able to shove two pillars apart and bring down a palace, that three boys did indeed walk out of a burning fire.
'Christians' don't have the courage of their convictions because they know that they are wrong. F=GMm/r2 trumps the Bible every time.
I’m not a big Huck fan, but what he said on this was correct. His beliefs on the issue don’t matter since education is handled by the states.
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.