I’d kinda like to see an example of someone who commuted to work on faith alone.
This is the correct application of faith, even if “God” is just a metaphor. Faith can enable people to reach for their goals, or recover from a sudden tragedy. However, that’s all faith can do for anyone – faith cannot change the laws of physics, or alter consensus reality.
I think what Der Trihs is talking about is Blind Faith, which is completely different than True Faith. Blind Faith teaches you to ignore the truth, deny reality, bury your head in the sand and expect everyone around you to do the same. Blind Faith poisons the mind, creates delusions, pretends salvation while essentially condemning your mind to ignorance.
Creationism, obviously, is an extension of Blind Faith. The Christians who came up with that ridiculous theory are so possessed by their delusions, that they’re desperate to cover up the facts and ignore the truth. It’s like a security blanket they refuse to let go of. And it’s frustrating, because all these people have to do is recognize that the Genesis story is metaphorical, NOT literal, and does not contradict the TOE at all – and frankly, if God was such a petty bastard as to condemn someone’s soul for believing in science, perhaps you need to find another God to worship, ya know?
Except, if you allow that, then it could ALL be metaphorical!
What is your “True Faith” then ?? True Faith in a metaphore?
There is no basis on how to judge what is metaphore and what is True.
So, if you believe there really is a middle road , you yourself are just as eagerly clutching your blanket.
Faith is in the message and idea represented by the metaphore, not by the external appearance of the metaphore itself.
Today I go fishing, hoping to hook my antigenic prey with Y-shaped bait that, in all honesty, I’m not sure is the best to use. But like many untried things, I don’t know what will happen until the end when I see the color of my prey. Maybe I’ll fail, maybe I’ll catch my prey, but in the end it’s all about the fishing, just like The Old Man and the Sea.
Blood Drawing Research Technologist
Stephen Jay Gould wrote an interesting and, I think, important essay on William Jennings Bryan and his support for teaching Creationism. It;s reprinted in one of his collections of essays from Natural History, and is well worth reading.
The impression people might get from all the hoopla about the Scopes trial and the more recent evolution trials, and from the play and the movie Inherit the Wind is that Bryan was some sort of mindless Bible-thumping reactionary. But Bryan was a progressive and a populist. I’m not certain exactly where he’d stand in a modern political ranking, but he wouldn’t be a member of the Religious Right – too many of his stands and views were different.
Gould asked why someone with progressive views, certainly no stranger to new and innovative ideas, would champion what seems to most of us a reactionary position. He concluded, IIRC, that Bryan was fighting for what he saw as a humanist position, opposing the de-humanizing forces of Science that would ultimately lead to devaluing of people.
I don’t know if he’s right, but the point is that supporting Creationism and opposing the teaching of Evolution is not necessarily (or even mostly) a knee-jerk anti-science, pro-religion action.* It doesn’t brand one as ignorant, and people might, in fact, have philosophical reasons for taking that stand. I’d like to think that Ben stein, for instance, falls in this category. (I think his stated arguments are profoundly silly, but that’s another issue)
*And I don’t think that science and religion are necessarily opposing and incompatible views. A fine thing for an agnostic to say.
Right, the entire bible is a collection of metaphores with the one message “Have Faith”.
Besides selling short the bible’s history, it doesn’t get you any further. Faith in what exactly ? In an Angry God as described? No, that was just a metaphore.
In a loving God? No, that was just a metaphore. In a God that created us? No, that was just a metaphore. In Satan? No, that was just a metaphore.
Ah let me guess, the meaning and idea behind that ehrm…“metaphore” was, “Have Faith”?
Except for the taking a rain check on the “I’ll be back within a generation” thing…
And all the other places where God contradicts Himself. Not to mention all the many places where it’s just some human claiming to report what God says. Or what he thinks God should say.
Cal, since you ask, yes, Bryan was wrong about creationism specifically, and in his broader view that science devalues humanity. The position he held, a common one today, that it is somehow contrary to God’s will and demeaning to our understanding of Him to actually try to understand the glory of His work is simply nonsensical. Even the Renaissance Vatican knew otherwise and acted accordingly, the Galileo case notwithstanding.
Bryan’s fundamentalism, as I understand it, was, unlike the modern version, grounded in the New Testament rather than the Old. Bluntly, he believed the teachings of Jesus, and considered it a command to act on them. The teachings about humility and caring for the poor and sick and all that rot that is so scorned by the modern self-styled Religious Right. That, as you say, made him a fervent populist politically, and today would have made him a left-wing activist, in both his politics and his religion. Yes, there’s a Religious Left today too, the wing that, like Bryan, believes that to be a Christian requires taking what Christ said seriously.
Some have but not all. The ELCA is comfortable with evolution but a lot of the Baptists and Pentacostals (along with some of our ELCA membership) are not. There really is no hard and fast rule about who will believe in evolution, creation or a mixture of the two.
As for me, I fall right around mid-field. I do believe, honestly, in both. Some time in our past, something happened to make us different from other species. Over and above our diet or the normal course of evolution. Something science can’t explain or duplicate or even really define. Strict evolutionists would say that something is a gene or chemical process we have yet to discover ----- I’m fine with calling it the hand of God. Heck - call it aliens and I don’t really care all that much. Whatever helps you get through the day.
Hmm, the Center Path works pretty well for me, far better than Christianity ever did.
As for determining the difference between truth and metaphor, sometimes it’s obvious. We know the world was not created in Six Days, because we possess overwhelming evidence that the Universe is more than 14 billion years old, and the Earth itself is 4.5 billion years old – these are facts, which have been properly measured by modern science, and there is no dispute whatsoever in the scientific community (a few oddjobs aside, of course.)
On the other hand, there’s no way to disprove whether or not Jesus Christ was the Son of God, as the Bible claims. Was Jesus truly divine, or was he merely some crazy Jewish hippie who pissed off the religious elders of his day, and got executed? However, the phrase “Son of God” itself is a fallacy, because it presumes the existence of “God” – and from my perspective, there is no God, God does not exist and cannot exist, at least as described in the Bible. The existence of “God” is solely dependent on the delusional mindset of charismatic Christians – “God” is a fallacy, a daemon, an evil force which must be resisted and abjured, in order to stay on the center path to true enlightenment.
The irony of you typing this on a computer is presumably lost on you?
You would certainly know.
Regards,
Shodan
It doesn’t take one to know one.
That also is literal truth. The escape from death we are all looking for is available to every generation, but we won’t find it from man, so don’t expect to see it in the news, nor expect man to discover how to extend life to immortality. God says that to find it you must seek Him. If there is a loving God then He must have such a answer for us, but it is only when we stop trying on our own and seek the one who knows everything that He reveals such things to us.
In other words, I’m right and you have no actual counterargument.
Actually I believe the Kingdom of God, and for that matter the Garden of Eden is very technologically advanced and very beautiful. Providing for God’s Children all good things is the job of angels so we can play. In our fallen world the (fallen) angels make us work, while they play.
So you’re posting from the Garden of Eden, then? Because if not, then that little TeeVee with the typewriter attached that you’re using is powered by Science![sup]tm[/sup], not the power of God.
Sorry, but you’re wrong. That’s not remotely close to a literal interpretation.
For reminder’s sake, here are the direct quotes from Jesus Christ in the Gospels:
Matthew 24:30-34: “At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”
Mark 13:26-30: “At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens. Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”
Luke 21:25-32: “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.” He told them this parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees. When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”
And here is the definition of the word in question, courtesy of Wiktionary:
It’s been well over thirty years since Jesus Christ said those words, and I see no Son of Man appearing in the sky. (Except that one cloud does look like a fluffy bunny rabbit.) These quotes come directly from God’s Word, but clearly, God’s Word is incorrect. Therefore, either (1) God’s a liar, or (2) the Holy Bible never was the infallible Word of God. What other explanations are there?
Matt 13:13-15
FTR the passages from the Synoptic Gospels all refer to a common source (“Q”, since lost) for much of their content. The return of Jesus within a generation it isn’t so much an amplified message as it is one framed in different ways by the authors of Matthew, Mark and Luke. However, kanicbird’s response is weak and obtuse at best, and doesn’t address the contradiction uncovered when those passages and Matt 24:42 are understood literally.
The entire chapter of Matt 24 is rather political in nature, as Israel at the time of Jesus was occupied by the Roman army, and Rome worked hard to keep the Jewish people and faith in check. Jesus was referring to the political upheaval he saw coming (and Jerusalem was eventually sacked and the Temple destroyed about 40 years after the Crucifixion). His words regarding wars and persecutions based on religious beliefs was not new then and has been seen many times since. I see his words in verses 30-31 a comfort to those who find themselves on the wrong side of religious conflict and persecution, that they are not forgotten or abandoned by God despite what happens to them. I see the later verses (42+) discussing what personal responsibility and comportment should be during oppression. The oppressed are called to be true to their faith so that when the oppression is called out and stopped, they won’t be behaving in a way that makes the rest of the world say “See, they deserved it. Look at how badly they behave.”
Vlad/Igor