[DungeonMaster]

Not surprising.

[BibChr]

Gee. Another "the-Bible-or-Rome" moment.

Dan
Biblical Christianity BLOG
Pyromaniacs

[Faraday]

Since he has distorted the view of the Catholic Church and the "anti-evolution" Christians, in general, I'm not surprised to see that the author was a philosophy and polysci major. "We don't need no stinkin' nuance to attack the conservatives!"

[Wings-n-Wind]

Evangelicals, as they like to be called, believe the Bible is the literal word of God and anything that contradicts their literal interpretation of the Good Book should be flatly rejected.

The astute student columnist misses the boat here... making a very broad-brushed inaccurate statement.

Let's break this down a bit....

(1) Evangelicals bellieve the Bible is the first, foremost, and final authoritative revelation of God's written Word and God's will -- the LORD's offer of a reconciled covenant relationship that includes the ultimate promise of eternal life through Jesus Christ.

(2) Evangelicals believe in the plenary-verbal inspiration of the Biblical canon -- that the Holy Spirit inspired and guided the hearts and mind of the forty-plus authors of the Biblical books and letters.

(3) Evangelicals believe the Biblical canon is complete and closed; and choose to heed the admonitions of both Old and New Testaments... ...not to add or take away ...from the written Word.

(4) Much of the literature in the Bible is written in intentional symbolism, parables, and poetic metaphor, and apocalyptic language. All of these literary forms invite the reader to thoughtfully apply the passages; prayerfully inviting the Holy Spirit to illuminate all the Lord God is saying and imparting throught the Scriptures.

(5) Much of the Biblical literature and history IS INDEED written and intended by the authors to be taken literally. In other words... THE MAIN THINGS ARE THE PLAIN THINGS. When God issued the "Big Ten", they were not suggestions, but commandments to His covenanted people; the ancient tribes of Israel. When Jesus spoke the words of the Sermon on the Mount he wasn't "just kidding".

So.... why don't we consider literally all that was intended by the authors/speakers to be given literally to the reader/listener?.

And why don't we seize the opportunity -- to consider the parables, the poetry, and the prophecies as a catalyst for our ongoing relational experience with the Holy One.

It's so easy to get this right, as well. As we read the poetic book of Proverbs.. We can discern from Solomon's bits of wisdom the heart of the LORD to take compassion on the poor... be generous, industrious, and completely honest in all of our words and deeds. No brainer.

We read and consider... study the context, the known life and other Biblcal writings of the author. We use the proven historical/grammatical method of interpretation to cross the "bridges" of original language, ancient culture and remote geographical reference-- all in order to get into the mind and thoughts of the apostolic writers.

All of this accomplished in the atmosphere of prayer and personal reflection of our interactive RELATIONSHIP with the Living God. An abundant life God offers everyone -- to be lived in the abiding Presence we are entitled to enjoy through Jesus Christ.

All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right. 17 It is God’s way of preparing us in every way, fully equipped for every good thing God wants us to do. (Holy Bible : New Living Translation. 1997 . Tyndale House: Wheaton, Ill.)

[shekkian]

The triumphs of modern science are due in large part to the understanding of living organisms in terms of their evolutionary history. With this in mind, I urge all creationists to live consistently with their principles and shun modern medicine.

Oh yeah, and while we're at it, let's tell creationists to stop driving cars, or using electric appliances. How about they just live in caves with their blind superstitions.

(sarcasm alert)

[Claud]

But the Vatican's continued support for evolution points to just how monumental of a waste of time the evolution-intelligent design debate is.

Good overall premise, but a snide and sloppy article. The Catholic Church absolutely does *not* support evolution. It only doesn't *condemn* it--as a biological theory alone. It only comments on the aspects of it that impinge upon divine revelation and theology (cf. Pius XII's Humani Generis).

[chesley]

Where this writer makes a mistake is in assuming that "evangelicals" will follow a leader to someplace that they don't want to be.


Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson don't define evangelical beliefs. They simply share them, and if they abandon them, then evangelicals will abandon them. Someone else will arise to replace them.

It's not like evangelicals answer to a hierarchy like Catholics do. There is no Pope in evangelical churches.