Discussion:
Book: Can a Smart Person Believe in God ?
(too old to reply)
j
2005-07-11 02:12:27 UTC
Permalink
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" is the title of the new book by
theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent Michael
Guillen. Before Jason posts something on it, here's a brief excerpt
(p. 119):

In Genesis 21:2, we're told God caused Abraham's infertlile wife,
Sarah, to become pregnant, even thoguh she was 90 years old.
Intellectual Cyclopes ridicule this report as nothing but a religious
fable...

But hold on. With today's rapid advances in fertility medicine,
which...has already succeeded in making a 63 year old woman pregnant,
the miracle is no longer so far-fetched.

As the American Society of Reproductive Medicine put it recently:
"[Modern Medicine] makes pregnancy feasible in virtually any
woman...regardless of age ..."

To be sure, Intellectual Cyclopes can still decry the Bibles's
story...on the grounds they don't believe in miracles, but no longer on
the grounds that it flies in the face of science - it doesn't. In
principle, a 90 year old woman can indeed become pregnant. On that,
the Bible and science now agree.
Tim Jenson
2005-07-11 02:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" is the title of the new book by
theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent Michael
Guillen. Before Jason posts something on it, here's a brief excerpt
In Genesis 21:2, we're told God caused Abraham's infertlile wife,
Sarah, to become pregnant, even thoguh she was 90 years old.
Intellectual Cyclopes ridicule this report as nothing but a religious
fable...
But hold on. With today's rapid advances in fertility medicine,
which...has already succeeded in making a 63 year old woman pregnant,
the miracle is no longer so far-fetched.
"[Modern Medicine] makes pregnancy feasible in virtually any
woman...regardless of age ..."
To be sure, Intellectual Cyclopes can still decry the Bibles's
story...on the grounds they don't believe in miracles, but no longer on
the grounds that it flies in the face of science - it doesn't. In
principle, a 90 year old woman can indeed become pregnant. On that,
the Bible and science now agree.
That us just one stupid example the Bible is filled with kinds of
errancy. To point to one stupid example doesn't prove fucking anything.
So what is the fucking point of this post?

The Bible also says the earth was created in 6 days. Does that mean
sometime in the future science will be able to do this. Or how about
raising the dead? Can science bring somebody that is rotting in the
ground back to life, now or in the future. I not talking about
cryogenics. Larerus' body wasn't frozen and by the time Jesus brought
him back to life to much damage had been done. Sure many through nano
technology, but it's doubtful. Or turning water into wine. So maybe some
of the stuff in the Bible is scientifically possible, but that doesn't
mean there is a God or that he had anything to do with it.
Born to be Wild
2005-07-11 03:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" is the title of the new book by
theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent Michael
Guillen. Before Jason posts something on it, here's a brief excerpt
In Genesis 21:2, we're told God caused Abraham's infertlile wife,
Sarah, to become pregnant, even thoguh she was 90 years old.
Intellectual Cyclopes ridicule this report as nothing but a religious
fable...
But hold on. With today's rapid advances in fertility medicine,
which...has already succeeded in making a 63 year old woman pregnant,
the miracle is no longer so far-fetched.
"[Modern Medicine] makes pregnancy feasible in virtually any
woman...regardless of age ..."
To be sure, Intellectual Cyclopes can still decry the Bibles's
story...on the grounds they don't believe in miracles, but no longer on
the grounds that it flies in the face of science - it doesn't. In
principle, a 90 year old woman can indeed become pregnant. On that,
the Bible and science now agree.
Why is God always raping our wives ?

Landing on the moon was miracle the Bible
never mentioned. Waking up every morning
is a miracle. Miracle, miracle, miracle.

Mother Nature is the easiest god to believe in.

She has some strict commandments, the laws of nature.

She complains when we do bad things to the environment.

She is merciful, even when we make mistakes like polluting rivers,
she cleans up after us.

She is just, and rewards those who take care of the environment.

She commands respect, and punishes those who break her laws.

She provides for all our needs.

She is beautiful beyond comparison.

She even has a sense of humor.

She is loveable. Oh, is she loveable.
shane
2005-07-11 03:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" is the title of the new book by
theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent Michael
Guillen. Before Jason posts something on it, here's a brief excerpt
In Genesis 21:2, we're told God caused Abraham's infertlile wife,
Sarah, to become pregnant, even thoguh she was 90 years old.
Intellectual Cyclopes ridicule this report as nothing but a religious
fable...
Well i don't know whether they ridicule the report so much as ridicule
those who take the report at face value. There is a difference you know.
Post by j
But hold on. With today's rapid advances in fertility medicine,
which...has already succeeded in making a 63 year old woman pregnant,
the miracle is no longer so far-fetched.
I am very interested to know why you, or anyone, wants to devalue a
miracle into science. Isn't the whole point of a miracle to be something
that cannot be done by natural means?
Post by j
"[Modern Medicine] makes pregnancy feasible in virtually any
woman...regardless of age ..."
And your point would be?
Post by j
To be sure, Intellectual Cyclopes can still decry the Bibles's
story...on the grounds they don't believe in miracles, but no longer on
the grounds that it flies in the face of science - it doesn't. In
principle, a 90 year old woman can indeed become pregnant. On that,
the Bible and science now agree.
So you have neatly removed one more miracle from the biblical canon. At
around this point I'm calling LOKI.
--
shane
Cheezits
2005-07-11 03:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by shane
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" is the title of the new book by
theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent Michael
Guillen. Before Jason posts something on it, here's a brief excerpt
In Genesis 21:2, we're told God caused Abraham's infertlile wife,
Sarah, to become pregnant, even thoguh she was 90 years old.
[etc.]
Post by shane
Post by j
"[Modern Medicine] makes pregnancy feasible in virtually any
woman...regardless of age ..."
And your point would be?
Modern medicine existed in Abraham's time. Or what we think is modern
medicine is really God making things happen by magic. Or that only stupid
people believe in God.

Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Daniel T.
2005-07-11 03:11:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" is the title of the new book by
theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent Michael
Guillen. Before Jason posts something on it, here's a brief excerpt
In Genesis 21:2, we're told God caused Abraham's infertlile wife,
Sarah, to become pregnant, even thoguh she was 90 years old.
Intellectual Cyclopes ridicule this report as nothing but a religious
fable...
But hold on. With today's rapid advances in fertility medicine,
which...has already succeeded in making a 63 year old woman pregnant,
the miracle is no longer so far-fetched.
"[Modern Medicine] makes pregnancy feasible in virtually any
woman...regardless of age ..."
To be sure, Intellectual Cyclopes can still decry the Bibles's
story...on the grounds they don't believe in miracles, but no longer on
the grounds that it flies in the face of science - it doesn't. In
principle, a 90 year old woman can indeed become pregnant. On that,
the Bible and science now agree.
How many children did Michal (the daughter of Saul) have? (2 Samuel
6:23, 2 Samuel 21:8)

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign? (2 Kings 8:26, 2 Chronicles
22:2)

What was Jesus' paternal grandfater's name? (Matt 1:16, Luke 3:23)

Who killed Saul? (1 Samuel 31:4-6, 2 Samuel 21:12)

No amount of technology can explain away the errors in the Bible.
Tim Jenson
2005-07-11 03:12:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" is the title of the new book by
theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent Michael
Guillen. Before Jason posts something on it, here's a brief excerpt
In Genesis 21:2, we're told God caused Abraham's infertlile wife,
Sarah, to become pregnant, even thoguh she was 90 years old.
Intellectual Cyclopes ridicule this report as nothing but a religious
fable...
But hold on. With today's rapid advances in fertility medicine,
which...has already succeeded in making a 63 year old woman pregnant,
the miracle is no longer so far-fetched.
"[Modern Medicine] makes pregnancy feasible in virtually any
woman...regardless of age ..."
To be sure, Intellectual Cyclopes can still decry the Bibles's
story...on the grounds they don't believe in miracles, but no longer on
the grounds that it flies in the face of science - it doesn't. In
principle, a 90 year old woman can indeed become pregnant. On that,
the Bible and science now agree.
That is just one stupid example. The Bible is filled with all kinds of
errancy. To point out one stupid example doesn't prove a fucking thing.
So what is the fucking point of this post?

The Bible also says the earth was created in 6 days. Does that mean
sometime in the future science will be able to do this? Or how about
raising the dead? Can science bring somebody that is rotting in the
ground back to life, now or in the future? I am not talking about
cryogenics. Larerus' body wasn't frozen and by the time Jesus brought
him back to life to much damage had been done. You could argue science
could do it through nanotechnology, but it's doubtful. Or turning water
into wine? If you don't have the core atoms or elements it is impossible.

So maybe some of the stuff in the Bible is scientifically possible,
but that doesn't mean there is a God or that he had anything to do with it.
Crusader
2005-07-11 03:44:20 UTC
Permalink
The stupidity of unbelievers is great.The hard part is to try to make`m see
the light,i think it is their problem......
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" is the title of the new book by
theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent Michael
Guillen. Before Jason posts something on it, here's a brief excerpt
In Genesis 21:2, we're told God caused Abraham's infertlile wife,
Sarah, to become pregnant, even thoguh she was 90 years old.
Intellectual Cyclopes ridicule this report as nothing but a religious
fable...
But hold on. With today's rapid advances in fertility medicine,
which...has already succeeded in making a 63 year old woman pregnant,
the miracle is no longer so far-fetched.
"[Modern Medicine] makes pregnancy feasible in virtually any
woman...regardless of age ..."
To be sure, Intellectual Cyclopes can still decry the Bibles's
story...on the grounds they don't believe in miracles, but no longer on
the grounds that it flies in the face of science - it doesn't. In
principle, a 90 year old woman can indeed become pregnant. On that,
the Bible and science now agree.
quibbler
2005-07-11 05:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?"
Smart people can do stupid things, like asserting belief in a culturally
popular fairy tale, such as God. However, smart people cannot be
intellectually honest about such belief or defend this belief with
evidence and logic. Rather, they must forever twist the facts and
distort the logic until they mangle it into what they wish it said,
rather than what it actually does say. What the evidence actually says
is that there is no good or compelling reason to believe in any god.
There are many theological seminaries which exist for the sole purpose
of lying on this point and hoping to confuse the issue in the minds of
the simple, so that they can keep the gravy train of religion going.
BTW, I think that it would be more honest to change the word
"theological" to "the illogical". It would at least warn people about
the nature of the priestly profession.
Post by j
is the title of the new book by
theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent Michael
Guillen. Before Jason posts something on it, here's a brief excerpt
In Genesis 21:2, we're told God caused Abraham's infertlile wife,
Sarah, to become pregnant, even thoguh she was 90 years old.
How do we know that it was god who did it, as opposed to just being some
kind of biological anomaly?
Post by j
Intellectual Cyclopes
Does the book actually use a moronic term like "Intellectual Cyclopes"?
If so then it appears to be nothing but poorly written theo-propaganda.
Post by j
ridicule this report as nothing but a religious
fable...
But hold on. With today's rapid advances in fertility medicine,
Irrelevant. We dont' care whether medical science may one day achieve
it. We care whether it could be achieved through religious mumbo-jumbo
and we care to know how it was verified that the omnipotent creator of
the universe personally intervened in the womb of this woman.
Post by j
which...has already succeeded in making a 63 year old woman pregnant,
the miracle is no longer so far-fetched.
It sounds like what you are really trying to say is that we shouldn't
even regard it as a miracle, presuming, for the sake of argument that
the fairy tale contained any germ of truth or not. Maybe the author did
hear of a very old lady becoming pregnant at some time. So what?
Post by j
As the American Society of Reproductive Medicine
"[Modern Medicine] makes pregnancy feasible in virtually any
woman...regardless of age ..."
Then the bible lyingly cast this as some kind of miracle when
supernatural intervention was not required. This book in question self-
proclaims its audience to be "smart" people who tend toward the
religious side, but the book doesn't show evidence of smartness in
authorship or reasoning.
Post by j
To be sure, Intellectual Cyclopes can still decry the Bibles's
story...on the grounds they don't believe in miracles,
Considering that the author of the book has invested so much time in
showing that it didn't have to be a miracle, this would seem to be
unnecessary in the case at hand.
Post by j
but no longer on
the grounds that it flies in the face of science
Wrong. It has yet to be demonstrated. Furthermore, the article I found
from ASRM is a bit more cautious:
http://www.asrm.org/Media/Ethics/postmemo.html
It says the woman has to have a normal uterus and that certain
artificial techniques can be used, but it makes no guarantees.
Post by j
- it doesn't.
Every day technology makes things possible that were not previously. To
conclude that it is somehow wrong for people to show skepticism before a
scientific accomplishment has been demonstrated is not only
unreasonable, but calls for people to indulge in pure speculation.
Post by j
In
principle, a 90 year old woman can indeed become pregnant.
Well, firstly, that's a far cry from actually showing that it happened.
When a 90-year-old-woman actually becomes pregnant then you will have
taken the first step on a long journey to verify that this took place in
the case of Sarah. However, this does not justify the assertion that we
should take any particular claim made by the bible on faith. You are not
there yet, by any stretch of the imagination, in this particular case.
Furthermore, even if the bible were right about fifty percent of the
things they said, which is wildly optimistic, that would be no better
than we would expect from chance, particularly if they make vague binary
predictions without clear criteria for evaluating fulfillment. In the
case of Sarah, the fact that other women might achieve this result with
modern medicine doesn't establish that she did do in the slightest.
Post by j
On that,
the Bible and science now agree.
No, actually it doesn't until it is actually demonstrated. One
scientific opinion said that it was possible through modern medical
technology. They didn't say it was possible through Hebrew witch
doctors and rain dance ceremonies.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
thissteve
2005-07-11 05:29:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" is the title of the new book by
theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent Michael
Guillen.
Considering that belief in "God" is a vague and large subject, the
answer is definitely "yes." There, I've saved money on a book.

If his next book is titled something like "Can a Smart Person Believe
in the Physical Resurrection of Jesus Christ?", then I might want to
look at it.
Niels van der Linden
2005-07-11 06:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" is the title of the new book by
theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent Michael
Guillen. Before Jason posts something on it, here's a brief excerpt
In Genesis 21:2, we're told God caused Abraham's infertlile wife,
Sarah, to become pregnant, even thoguh she was 90 years old.
Intellectual Cyclopes ridicule this report as nothing but a religious
fable...
If you say so.
Post by j
But hold on. With today's rapid advances in fertility medicine,
which...has already succeeded in making a 63 year old woman pregnant,
the miracle is no longer so far-fetched.
Sure.
Post by j
"[Modern Medicine] makes pregnancy feasible in virtually any
woman...regardless of age ..."
Ok.
Post by j
To be sure, Intellectual Cyclopes can still decry the Bibles's
story...on the grounds they don't believe in miracles, but no longer on
the grounds that it flies in the face of science - it doesn't.
The story is a bit larger than mainly "90 year old woman can get pregnant".
And I'm not sure where you define the story to begin and end. If you're
trying to say the Bible could happen, you've still got a long way to go. It
also occures to me that you're leaving out time. If you're trying to say the
Bible could have actually happened in the time it supposedly did (at least
before the stories where written down) (=saying it's actual history), you're
in for a pickle. It's also not clear why you would try to do so.
Post by j
In
principle, a 90 year old woman can indeed become pregnant. On that,
the Bible and science now agree.
And?
Post by j
Can a smart person believe in God?
Not sure what you mean. For me, god (lowercase) is a metaphor. What is it
for you, or for 'smart persons'? Why do you capitalize the word.
--
Niels

Alt.Atheist #2237

"The thing that saved me was Upanishads; Hinduism. Where you have
practically the same mythology [as Roman Catholicism], but it has been
intellectually interpreted. Say, already in the 9th century BC the Hindus
realized that all the deities are projections of psychological powers and
they are within you not out there [points away]."
-Joseph Campbell in The Hero's Journey
Alan Morgan
2005-07-11 06:35:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" is the title of the new book by
theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent Michael
Guillen. Before Jason posts something on it, here's a brief excerpt
Guillen also claims to be a man of faith. This is, of course, a lie
because, as we know, faith and science are incompatible (I know I've
seen a post in the last few days that said that).
Post by j
In Genesis 21:2, we're told God caused Abraham's infertlile wife,
Sarah, to become pregnant, even thoguh she was 90 years old.
Intellectual Cyclopes ridicule this report as nothing but a religious
fable...
Actually, I'd never heard of the story. If I were going to point
out bits of the Bible that defied common sense I think I could pick
out something with a little more zip than a 90 year old woman giving
birth.
Post by j
But hold on. With today's rapid advances in fertility medicine,
which...has already succeeded in making a 63 year old woman pregnant,
the miracle is no longer so far-fetched.
Hey sparky, as soon as you allow God into the picture then I don't
think that any miracle is exactly "far-fetched".

Alan
--
Defendit numerus
Greywolf
2005-07-11 06:49:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" is the title of the new book by
theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent Michael
Guillen. Before Jason posts something on it, here's a brief excerpt
In Genesis 21:2, we're told God caused Abraham's infertlile wife,
Sarah, to become pregnant, even thoguh she was 90 years old.
Intellectual Cyclopes ridicule this report as nothing but a religious
fable...
But hold on. With today's rapid advances in fertility medicine,
which...has already succeeded in making a 63 year old woman pregnant,
the miracle is no longer so far-fetched.
"[Modern Medicine] makes pregnancy feasible in virtually any
woman...regardless of age ..."
To be sure, Intellectual Cyclopes can still decry the Bibles's
story...on the grounds they don't believe in miracles, but no longer on
the grounds that it flies in the face of science - it doesn't. In
principle, a 90 year old woman can indeed become pregnant. On that,
the Bible and science now agree.
First off, were told that Sarah was "infertile." How does anyone know that
to have been actually the case? What if people just *thought* she was
infertile. And how does anyone know for sure "God" had anything to do with
anything? And why am I commenting on such a stupid passage in the bible? Can
a smart person believe in the bible? Of course. That only shows that they're
not actually *utilizing* their intelligence when it comes to religion.
Anyone who believes that a 1st-century Jew actually raised people from the
dead, or that a whole slew of dead people arose from the dead shortly after
Jesus' death and walked into the city of Jerusalem where they were "seen by
many," has put their brain on hold. They *want* to believe that nonsense for
who knows what reason. But that kind of thinking is just plain crazy. And I
mean crazy! I can't understand it, and I probably never will. If only these
"smart" people could just see how stupid they really are. But then again,
their religion blinds them so I guess a lot of them never will.

Greywolf
TomS
2005-07-11 11:03:00 UTC
Permalink
"On 10 Jul 2005 19:12:27 -0700, in article
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" is the title of the new book by
theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent Michael
Guillen. Before Jason posts something on it, here's a brief excerpt
In Genesis 21:2, we're told God caused Abraham's infertlile wife,
Sarah, to become pregnant, even thoguh she was 90 years old.
Intellectual Cyclopes ridicule this report as nothing but a religious
fable...
But hold on. With today's rapid advances in fertility medicine,
which...has already succeeded in making a 63 year old woman pregnant,
the miracle is no longer so far-fetched.
"[Modern Medicine] makes pregnancy feasible in virtually any
woman...regardless of age ..."
To be sure, Intellectual Cyclopes can still decry the Bibles's
story...on the grounds they don't believe in miracles, but no longer on
the grounds that it flies in the face of science - it doesn't. In
principle, a 90 year old woman can indeed become pregnant. On that,
the Bible and science now agree.
The question that interests me about this, is:

Does this line of reasoning mean that *reproductive*biology*
was thought of as contrary to the Bible?

Does this mean that, in order to be a person of faith, one
had to deny *reproductive*biology*?

I don't think so. And I don't think that there is any
movement out there for "Scientific Storkism", or "Intelligent
Reproduction". There is no movement for "teaching the controversy"
about reproductive biology.

Why, then, is there such concern about *evolution*?

Why, if a person of faith can accept both reproductive biology
and the Bible -- why does anybody think that there is any problem
with accepting both evolution and the Bible?

Think about this, for a moment: The reason that the Bible makes
a Big Deal about miracles is, often, that they are *contrary*to*
what everybody knows as the ordinary working of nature. Why should
anyone be surprised that Biblical miracles are contrary to modern
sciences? Would they be miracles, if they were just the ordinary
working of the natural world?

Of course, I realize that some of the miracles, such as the
sun and the moon standing still, present more difficult cases for
a Biblical literalist. And there are other problems, too. My point
is that *evolutionary*biology* does not present any special problems
that any other science also presents. And just about nobody is
eager to overthrow all of these other sciences.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
..The Earth obey'd, and strait/Op'ning her fertil Woomb teem'd at a Birth/
Innumerous living Creatures, perfet formes,/Limb'd and full grown: out of the
ground up rose/As from his Laire the wilde Beast...
Milton, Paradise Lost. Book VII 453-457
quibbler
2005-07-11 14:28:57 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@drn.newsguy.com>, ***@newsguy.com
says...
Post by TomS
Does this line of reasoning mean that *reproductive*biology*
was thought of as contrary to the Bible?
In principle, any time that a scientific result disagrees with biblical
nonsense, theists compartmentalize and reject the science that
contradicts their faith.
Post by TomS
Does this mean that, in order to be a person of faith, one
had to deny *reproductive*biology*?
One does have to distort biology to serve one's theology, which is
exactly what dishonest pseudo-science schlock-writer Michael Guillen
did. He lied about the science and distorted what it meant in order to
bolster his preconceived religious prejudices.
Post by TomS
I don't think so. And I don't think that there is any
movement out there for "Scientific Storkism", or "Intelligent
Reproduction". There is no movement for "teaching the controversy"
about reproductive biology.
But there is always a bowel "movement" out of the lying mouthes of
priests, theologians and believers to distort any fact which challenges
their views. Guillen tells us, for example, that science now supports
the bible because advances in medical technology can be used to allow a
60-year-old woman to become pregnant. Of course, this would be like
saying that science supports the story of Samson slaying a thousand
philistines with the jawbone of an ass because we now have steroids and
performance enhancing drugs which could make him really strong. For
that matter, modern technology says that maybe if he used a machine gun
he could achieve that same result, so by the same logic Guillen uses,
perhaps he really just used a machine gun that he thought was a
"jawbone".
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
Mark Stahl
2005-07-11 18:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by TomS
I don't think so. And I don't think that there is any
movement out there for "Scientific Storkism", or "Intelligent
Reproduction". There is no movement for "teaching the controversy"
about reproductive biology.
well, not yet maybe. but don't be so sure it's not going to happen.

http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/nosex.asp

:-)
Herb Huston
2005-07-11 12:35:39 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
j <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
}"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" is the title of the new book by
}theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent Michael
}Guillen. Before Jason posts something on it, here's a brief excerpt
}(p. 119):
}
}In Genesis 21:2, we're told God caused Abraham's infertlile wife,
}Sarah, to become pregnant, even thoguh she was 90 years old.
}Intellectual Cyclopes ridicule this report as nothing but a religious
}fable...
}
}But hold on. With today's rapid advances in fertility medicine,
}which...has already succeeded in making a 63 year old woman pregnant,
}the miracle is no longer so far-fetched.
}
}As the American Society of Reproductive Medicine put it recently:
}"[Modern Medicine] makes pregnancy feasible in virtually any
}woman...regardless of age ..."
}
}To be sure, Intellectual Cyclopes can still decry the Bibles's
}story...on the grounds they don't believe in miracles, but no longer on
}the grounds that it flies in the face of science - it doesn't. In
}principle, a 90 year old woman can indeed become pregnant. On that,
}the Bible and science now agree.

Can these women become pregnant with their own ova?
--
-- Herb Huston
-- ***@radix.net
-- http://www.radix.net/~huston
quibbler
2005-07-11 14:34:08 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@corp.supernews.com>, ***@radix.net
says...
Post by Herb Huston
}"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" is the title of the new book by
}theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent Michael
}Guillen. Before Jason posts something on it, here's a brief excerpt
}
}In Genesis 21:2, we're told God caused Abraham's infertlile wife,
}Sarah, to become pregnant, even thoguh she was 90 years old.
}Intellectual Cyclopes ridicule this report as nothing but a religious
}fable...
}
}But hold on. With today's rapid advances in fertility medicine,
}which...has already succeeded in making a 63 year old woman pregnant,
}the miracle is no longer so far-fetched.
}
}"[Modern Medicine] makes pregnancy feasible in virtually any
}woman...regardless of age ..."
}
}To be sure, Intellectual Cyclopes can still decry the Bibles's
}story...on the grounds they don't believe in miracles, but no longer on
}the grounds that it flies in the face of science - it doesn't. In
}principle, a 90 year old woman can indeed become pregnant. On that,
}the Bible and science now agree.
Can these women become pregnant with their own ova?
No. Guillen cites some unnamed study by The American Society of
Reproductive Medicine. The article I posted from them
http://www.asrm.org/Media/Ethics/postmemo.html
states "women of postreproductive age may give birth by using donated
oocytes fertilized in vitro and transferred to their uteri"
Otherwise, we must necessarily presume that Isaac had Downs' Syndrome.
Think about it. It would explain a lot.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
Harlequin
2005-07-11 12:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" is the title of the new book by
theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent
Michael Guillen. Before Jason posts something on it, here's a brief
In Genesis 21:2, we're told God caused Abraham's infertlile wife,
Sarah, to become pregnant, even thoguh she was 90 years old.
Intellectual Cyclopes ridicule this report as nothing but a religious
fable...
But hold on. With today's rapid advances in fertility medicine,
which...has already succeeded in making a 63 year old woman pregnant,
the miracle is no longer so far-fetched.
"[Modern Medicine] makes pregnancy feasible in virtually any
woman...regardless of age ..."
To be sure, Intellectual Cyclopes can still decry the Bibles's
story...on the grounds they don't believe in miracles, but no longer
on the grounds that it flies in the face of science - it doesn't. In
principle, a 90 year old woman can indeed become pregnant. On that,
the Bible and science now agree.
Coming soon: genetic engineering allows asses to talk.

Plans for a space elevator proves the Tower of Babel.
--
Anti-spam: replace "***@sdc." with "harlequin2@"

"Scam artists all use the 'debate ploy': perpetual-motion-machine
inventors, magnet therapists, UFO conspiracy theorists, all of them.
They win just by being on the same platform."
- Bob Park
Herb Huston
2005-07-11 13:18:05 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@68.12.19.6>,
Harlequin <***@sdc.cox.net> wrote:
}Coming soon: genetic engineering allows asses to talk.

Already been done. Haven't you been reading Grendel's articles?
--
-- Herb Huston
-- ***@radix.net
-- http://www.radix.net/~huston
Mark VandeWettering
2005-07-11 14:02:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" is the title of the new book by
theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent Michael
Guillen. Before Jason posts something on it, here's a brief excerpt
In Genesis 21:2, we're told God caused Abraham's infertlile wife,
Sarah, to become pregnant, even thoguh she was 90 years old.
Intellectual Cyclopes ridicule this report as nothing but a religious
fable...
But hold on. With today's rapid advances in fertility medicine,
which...has already succeeded in making a 63 year old woman pregnant,
the miracle is no longer so far-fetched.
"[Modern Medicine] makes pregnancy feasible in virtually any
woman...regardless of age ..."
To be sure, Intellectual Cyclopes can still decry the Bibles's
story...on the grounds they don't believe in miracles, but no longer on
the grounds that it flies in the face of science - it doesn't. In
principle, a 90 year old woman can indeed become pregnant. On that,
the Bible and science now agree.
Is this supposed to be an instance of how a smart person can be religious?
It doesn't seem very, well, smart.

Mark
VoiceOfReason
2005-07-11 14:25:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" is the title of the new book by
theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent Michael
Guillen. Before Jason posts something on it, here's a brief excerpt
In Genesis 21:2, we're told God caused Abraham's infertlile wife,
Sarah, to become pregnant, even thoguh she was 90 years old.
Intellectual Cyclopes ridicule this report as nothing but a religious
fable...
So do Biblical scholars.
Post by j
But hold on. With today's rapid advances in fertility medicine,
which...has already succeeded in making a 63 year old woman pregnant,
the miracle is no longer so far-fetched.
There's no evidence they had advanced fertility medicines thousands of
years ago.
Post by j
"[Modern Medicine] makes pregnancy feasible in virtually any
woman...regardless of age ..."
Sounds like an overstatement meant for mass consumption.
Post by j
To be sure, Intellectual Cyclopes can still decry the Bibles's
story...on the grounds they don't believe in miracles, but no longer on
the grounds that it flies in the face of science - it doesn't. In
principle, a 90 year old woman can indeed become pregnant. On that,
the Bible and science now agree.
Ask your English teacher about the concept of an allegory.
AC
2005-07-11 14:44:20 UTC
Permalink
On 10 Jul 2005 19:12:27 -0700,
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" is the title of the new book by
theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent Michael
Guillen. Before Jason posts something on it, here's a brief excerpt
In Genesis 21:2, we're told God caused Abraham's infertlile wife,
Sarah, to become pregnant, even thoguh she was 90 years old.
Intellectual Cyclopes ridicule this report as nothing but a religious
fable...
But hold on. With today's rapid advances in fertility medicine,
which...has already succeeded in making a 63 year old woman pregnant,
the miracle is no longer so far-fetched.
"[Modern Medicine] makes pregnancy feasible in virtually any
woman...regardless of age ..."
To be sure, Intellectual Cyclopes can still decry the Bibles's
story...on the grounds they don't believe in miracles, but no longer on
the grounds that it flies in the face of science - it doesn't. In
principle, a 90 year old woman can indeed become pregnant. On that,
the Bible and science now agree.
Haven't read the book, but is he contending that Sarah took fertility pills
or took part in an in vitro fertilization?

Whatever you think of miracles, if you're going to assert that Sarah's
pregnancy was a wonder of science or that the Long Day was God with a big
flashlight, then it seems to me that you're rejecting miracles as well.
--
***@hotmail.com
Lt. Kizhe Catson
2005-07-11 15:10:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" is the title of the new book by
theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent Michael
Guillen. Before Jason posts something on it, here's a brief excerpt
In Genesis 21:2, we're told God caused Abraham's infertlile wife,
Sarah, to become pregnant, even thoguh she was 90 years old.
Intellectual Cyclopes ridicule this report as nothing but a religious
fable...
But hold on. With today's rapid advances in fertility medicine,
which...has already succeeded in making a 63 year old woman pregnant,
the miracle is no longer so far-fetched.
"[Modern Medicine] makes pregnancy feasible in virtually any
woman...regardless of age ..."
To be sure, Intellectual Cyclopes can still decry the Bibles's
story...on the grounds they don't believe in miracles, but no longer on
the grounds that it flies in the face of science - it doesn't. In
Disbelieving in the Bible on the grounds that miracles are impossible
seems like circular logic: it's part of the standard definition of God
that he gets to muck with natural law and make stuff happen whenever it
suits his purposes. This is a straw man he's putting up.
Post by j
principle, a 90 year old woman can indeed become pregnant. On that,
the Bible and science now agree.
What a stupid statement. All kinds of things are possible "in
principle", but require a minimum level of technology. If that
technology happens not to have been invented yet, the thing remains
impossible in *practice*. His answer doesn't even succeed in knocking
down his own straw man!

This guy is a "theoretical physicist"?

-- Kizhe
Cheezits
2005-07-11 15:21:53 UTC
Permalink
[etc.]
Post by Lt. Kizhe Catson
Post by j
principle, a 90 year old woman can indeed become pregnant. On that,
the Bible and science now agree.
What a stupid statement. All kinds of things are possible "in
principle", but require a minimum level of technology. If that
technology happens not to have been invented yet, the thing remains
impossible in *practice*. His answer doesn't even succeed in knocking
down his own straw man!
This guy is a "theoretical physicist"?
Theoretically he's a physicist. I suppose it's possible in principle.

Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Niels van der Linden
2005-07-11 17:17:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cheezits
Post by Lt. Kizhe Catson
This guy is a "theoretical physicist"?
Theoretically he's a physicist. I suppose it's possible in principle.
:-)
j
2005-07-11 17:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lt. Kizhe Catson
This guy is a "theoretical physicist"?
Guillen taught physics for 8 years at Harvard, but the point he was
trying to make with that example (1 of 4 examples) was that "Science
and religion are becoming more ... compatible".
Lt. Kizhe Catson
2005-07-11 17:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by j
Post by Lt. Kizhe Catson
This guy is a "theoretical physicist"?
Guillen taught physics for 8 years at Harvard, but the point he was
trying to make with that example (1 of 4 examples) was that "Science
and religion are becoming more ... compatible".
But it's a mind-bogglingly stupid example. It looks like he's trying to
make the apologetic move of "Minimizing the Miracles" to disarm the
skeptic -- but it really doesn't work (and IMHO is irrelevant anyway).

I don't have a problem accepting that a smart person can believe in God
-- I know quite a few such. The question should be: "How can a stupid
person teach at Harvard?" or: "How can a smart person say such stupid
things?"

-- Kizhe
quibbler
2005-07-11 17:59:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by j
Post by Lt. Kizhe Catson
This guy is a "theoretical physicist"?
Guillen taught physics for 8 years at Harvard, but the point he was
trying to make with that example (1 of 4 examples) was that "Science
and religion are becoming more ... compatible".
If that was his point, then that is not what the example communicated.
What it communicated is that his religious belief leads him into making
idiotic arguments. His contention is that approximately 4000 years
after the alleged event, science has almost reached a level where it can
do some of the things that the bible claimed, only it uses reliable
technology, rather than mumbo jumbo and burnt offerings to achieve these
things. Guillen's argument is so pathetic that it is clear that
religion has rotted his brain and left him desperately grasping at
straws because he can't bear to admit that he was wrong about the
religious brainwashing he swallowed as a kid. It no more establishes a
link between science and religion than the invention of surfing
establishes that jesus walked on water.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
Niels van der Linden
2005-07-11 18:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by quibbler
Post by j
Post by Lt. Kizhe Catson
This guy is a "theoretical physicist"?
Guillen taught physics for 8 years at Harvard, but the point he was
trying to make with that example (1 of 4 examples) was that "Science
and religion are becoming more ... compatible".
If that was his point, then that is not what the example communicated.
What it communicated is that his religious belief leads him into making
idiotic arguments. His contention is that approximately 4000 years
after the alleged event, science has almost reached a level where it can
do some of the things that the bible claimed, only it uses reliable
technology, rather than mumbo jumbo and burnt offerings to achieve these
things. Guillen's argument is so pathetic that it is clear that
religion has rotted his brain and left him desperately grasping at
straws because he can't bear to admit that he was wrong about the
religious brainwashing he swallowed as a kid. It no more establishes a
link between science and religion than the invention of surfing
establishes that jesus walked on water.
Maybe walking on water is allegorical talk for pissing your pants!
Crusader
2005-07-11 03:44:20 UTC
Permalink
The stupidity of unbelievers is great.The hard part is to try to make`m see
the light,i think it is their problem......
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" is the title of the new book by
theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent Michael
Guillen. Before Jason posts something on it, here's a brief excerpt
In Genesis 21:2, we're told God caused Abraham's infertlile wife,
Sarah, to become pregnant, even thoguh she was 90 years old.
Intellectual Cyclopes ridicule this report as nothing but a religious
fable...
But hold on. With today's rapid advances in fertility medicine,
which...has already succeeded in making a 63 year old woman pregnant,
the miracle is no longer so far-fetched.
"[Modern Medicine] makes pregnancy feasible in virtually any
woman...regardless of age ..."
To be sure, Intellectual Cyclopes can still decry the Bibles's
story...on the grounds they don't believe in miracles, but no longer on
the grounds that it flies in the face of science - it doesn't. In
principle, a 90 year old woman can indeed become pregnant. On that,
the Bible and science now agree.
macaddicted
2005-07-11 22:40:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?"
I hope so. I'm working on my masters in theology. I'd like to think I
have an above average intelligence (though opinions vary...).
--
macaddicted
Theology should quietly accept the fact that there are various kinds
of knowledge and that it has to face this pluralism of knowledge
constantly in the hope of acheiving a fruitful exchange. J. Metz
Daniel T.
2005-07-12 00:51:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by macaddicted
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?"
I hope so. I'm working on my masters in theology. I'd like to think I
have an above average intelligence (though opinions vary...).
How do you reconcile the questions I posed about what the Bible says?

How many children did Michal (the daughter of Saul) have? (2 Samuel
6:23, 2 Samuel 21:8)

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign? (2 Kings 8:26, 2 Chronicles
22:2)

What was Jesus' paternal grandfater's name? (Matt 1:16, Luke 3:23)

Who killed Saul? (1 Samuel 31:4-6, 2 Samuel 21:12)
macaddicted
2005-07-12 02:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel T.
Post by macaddicted
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?"
I hope so. I'm working on my masters in theology. I'd like to think I
have an above average intelligence (though opinions vary...).
How do you reconcile the questions I posed about what the Bible says?
How many children did Michal (the daughter of Saul) have? (2 Samuel
6:23, 2 Samuel 21:8)
How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign? (2 Kings 8:26, 2 Chronicles
22:2)
What was Jesus' paternal grandfater's name? (Matt 1:16, Luke 3:23)
Who killed Saul? (1 Samuel 31:4-6, 2 Samuel 21:12)
Well, as I am Roman Catholic I don't read the Bible literally. In fact I
have been taught specifically NOT to read the Bible literally, but to
use the historical-critical method. So I do not read the "History" books
as history books. The same goes for any mention you might come up with
for the Synoptic problems.

My solution to the problem you state would be to note the difference and
try to understand why the author made these contradictory statements.
Since I don't have a couple o' grand to drop on an Anchor Bible library
(I'm saving up for one of those new Intel based Macs), and the
commentaries I do have don't give me a sufficient basis to give you any
sort of an answer.

I will however give you my personal favorites to use along the same
line:

When did Jesus go up to Jerusalem?

How many times does Jesus go up to Jerusalem?

When is the cleansing of the Temple?

The list goes on, and I haven't even stopped playing with the Gospel of
John yet.
--
macaddicted
Theology should quietly accept the fact that there are various kinds
of knowledge and that it has to face this pluralism of knowledge
constantly in the hope of acheiving a fruitful exchange. J. Metz
Niels van der Linden
2005-07-12 03:26:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by macaddicted
Well, as I am Roman Catholic I don't read the Bible literally. In fact I
have been taught specifically NOT to read the Bible literally, but to
use the historical-critical method.
That doesn't make sense. Do you agree with the pope or not? What kind of
method is that one you mention? If you don't take things literally, how *do*
you take them? What makes you think there was a Jesus of Nazareth? What is
your study all about? Do you believe in a god who is out there and is *not*
a metaphor for (a part of) the mystery of being? In case of contradictory
statements, why do you assume there was one writer, and there was no
editting afterwards? In case you see fellow RC's taking the Bible literally,
what do you do about it? Do you recognize the structural child-abuse by
priests in your organization, what do you think is the cause of it, and what
are you doing about it?
--
Niels

Atheist #2237

"The thing that saved me was Upanishads; Hinduism. Where you have
practically the same mythology [as Roman Catholicism], but it has been
intellectually interpreted. Say, already in the 9th century BC the Hindus
realized that all the deities are projections of psychological powers and
they are within you not out there [points away]."
-Joseph Campbell in The Hero's Journey
macaddicted
2005-07-12 23:16:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Niels van der Linden
Post by macaddicted
Well, as I am Roman Catholic I don't read the Bible literally. In fact I
have been taught specifically NOT to read the Bible literally, but to
use the historical-critical method.
That doesn't make sense. Do you agree with the pope or not?
In what sense do you ask.
Post by Niels van der Linden
What kind of
method is that one you mention?
In the historical-critical method the researcher seeks to understand
what the author of the passage was trying to convey to the audience to
whom he was writing/speaking. From within this method that is the
"literal" sense of the scripture. Only once one has discovererd through
exegesis what the original intent of the author was can one seek,
through hermeneutics, to try to bring that message forward into the
modern world.
Post by Niels van der Linden
If you don't take things literally, how *do*
you take them?
See above. The Church holds that the Bible is instructive where faith
and morals are concerned.
Post by Niels van der Linden
What makes you think there was a Jesus of Nazareth?
When it comes down to it mostly tradition and faith. There is some
arguement over the validity of historical sources.
Post by Niels van der Linden
What is
your study all about?
Faith, and my place in a world that is greater than can be fully
understood by man.
Post by Niels van der Linden
Do you believe in a god who is out there and is *not*
a metaphor for (a part of) the mystery of being?
Yes I do believe that there is a god who is "out there" (don't ask me to
tell you where there is), but confronting the mystery of being is part
of theology.
Post by Niels van der Linden
In case of contradictory
statements, why do you assume there was one writer, and there was no
editting afterwards?
I haven't done a systematic study of Samuel, so I can't speak to its
authorship. But I understand your question.
Post by Niels van der Linden
In case you see fellow RC's taking the Bible literally,
what do you do about it?
Well, I had a long (too long) debate with Pagano a couple of years ago
about that. I can point to several documents, such as "Interpretting the
Bible in the Church" or the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. It is a
problem that crops up all too often in private bible study groups in
just about any parish. Most of the interpretive works on scripture are
Protestant, so their theology, usually fairly evangelical, can't help
but slip in. Usually I walk them through the official documents and the
Catechism.
Post by Niels van der Linden
Do you recognize the structural child-abuse by
priests in your organization, what do you think is the cause of it, and what
are you doing about it?
I have to admit that when I read the question I objected to the word
"structural," but given the systematic protection that was offered to
priests who were being abusive towards members of their congregations it
is hard to object. Having attended the seminary for my diocese for my
degree I'm not certain that enough time for training and reflection is
put aside for entering a life of celibacy. The glib answer is to do away
with celibacy (or alternately homosexual priests), but that would solve
one problem and give rise to others. There is no support system for
married priests, and hasn't been for many centuries. It is not as simple
as one would think.
--
macaddicted
Theology should quietly accept the fact that there are various kinds
of knowledge and that it has to face this pluralism of knowledge
constantly in the hope of acheiving a fruitful exchange. J. Metz
Niels van der Linden
2005-07-13 00:02:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by macaddicted
Post by Niels van der Linden
Post by macaddicted
Well, as I am Roman Catholic I don't read the Bible literally. In fact I
have been taught specifically NOT to read the Bible literally, but to
use the historical-critical method.
That doesn't make sense. Do you agree with the pope or not?
In what sense do you ask.
In everything he speaks out in name of your church.
Post by macaddicted
Post by Niels van der Linden
What kind of
method is that one you mention?
In the historical-critical method the researcher seeks to understand
what the author of the passage was trying to convey to the audience to
whom he was writing/speaking. From within this method that is the
"literal" sense of the scripture. Only once one has discovererd through
exegesis what the original intent of the author was can one seek,
through hermeneutics, to try to bring that message forward into the
modern world.
Post by Niels van der Linden
If you don't take things literally, how *do*
you take them?
See above. The Church holds that the Bible is instructive where faith
and morals are concerned.
Ok, it appeares you understand there never was a flood, Moses, exodus or
tower of Babel. Why isn't this articulated in church, and in particular: to
children? Why is there so little heard about the explanations of these
myths, and what the symbols represent?
Post by macaddicted
Post by Niels van der Linden
What makes you think there was a Jesus of Nazareth?
When it comes down to it mostly tradition and faith.
So basically just tradition. If you understand the old testament is a
mythology, and was created in ways that myths are created, then finding no
evidence for the actual Jezus of Nazareth, isn't the logical answer that
that too was created a myth?
Post by macaddicted
There is some
arguement over the validity of historical sources.
Post by Niels van der Linden
What is
your study all about?
Faith, and my place in a world that is greater than can be fully
understood by man.
What do you mean by that: faith.
Post by macaddicted
Post by Niels van der Linden
Do you believe in a god who is out there and is *not*
a metaphor for (a part of) the mystery of being?
Yes I do believe that there is a god who is "out there" (don't ask me to
tell you where there is), but confronting the mystery of being is part
of theology.
All cultures of all time and all place have created mythologies. Don't you
think that they were all created as answers to the mysteries of being?
Post by macaddicted
Post by Niels van der Linden
In case of contradictory
statements, why do you assume there was one writer, and there was no
editting afterwards?
I haven't done a systematic study of Samuel, so I can't speak to its
authorship. But I understand your question.
Post by Niels van der Linden
In case you see fellow RC's taking the Bible literally,
what do you do about it?
Well, I had a long (too long) debate with Pagano a couple of years ago
about that. I can point to several documents, such as "Interpretting the
Bible in the Church" or the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. It is a
problem that crops up all too often in private bible study groups in
just about any parish. Most of the interpretive works on scripture are
Protestant, so their theology, usually fairly evangelical, can't help
but slip in. Usually I walk them through the official documents and the
Catechism.
Post by Niels van der Linden
Do you recognize the structural child-abuse by
priests in your organization, what do you think is the cause of it, and what
are you doing about it?
I have to admit that when I read the question I objected to the word
"structural," but given the systematic protection that was offered to
priests who were being abusive towards members of their congregations it
is hard to object. Having attended the seminary for my diocese for my
degree I'm not certain that enough time for training and reflection is
put aside for entering a life of celibacy. The glib answer is to do away
with celibacy (or alternately homosexual priests), but that would solve
one problem and give rise to others. There is no support system for
married priests, and hasn't been for many centuries. It is not as simple
as one would think.
macaddicted
2005-07-13 02:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Niels van der Linden
Post by macaddicted
Post by Niels van der Linden
Post by macaddicted
Well, as I am Roman Catholic I don't read the Bible literally. In fact I
have been taught specifically NOT to read the Bible literally, but to
use the historical-critical method.
That doesn't make sense. Do you agree with the pope or not?
In what sense do you ask.
In everything he speaks out in name of your church.
In those limited areas where he speaks with the authority of the
teaching office that is incumbent in taking up the office of bishop then
yes. But not everything the Pope says falls within those guidelines. The
oft quoted 1996 statement of evolution that JPII made (and with which I
heartily agree) is not an example of the Pope exercising his teaching
office. From a strictly theological standpoint the statement carried
little weight beyond the fact that it expressed the opinioin of the then
current Pope.
Post by Niels van der Linden
Post by macaddicted
Post by Niels van der Linden
What kind of
method is that one you mention?
In the historical-critical method the researcher seeks to understand
what the author of the passage was trying to convey to the audience to
whom he was writing/speaking. From within this method that is the
"literal" sense of the scripture. Only once one has discovererd through
exegesis what the original intent of the author was can one seek,
through hermeneutics, to try to bring that message forward into the
modern world.
Post by Niels van der Linden
If you don't take things literally, how *do*
you take them?
See above. The Church holds that the Bible is instructive where faith
and morals are concerned.
Ok, it appeares you understand there never was a flood, Moses, exodus or
tower of Babel. Why isn't this articulated in church, and in particular: to
children? Why is there so little heard about the explanations of these
myths, and what the symbols represent?
Well, in my first term I did a paper on the theme of water as a metaphor
for chaos in the creation and flood myths. Yes, I very purposefully use
the term myth. And I am well aware that the first 12 chapters of Genesis
are most certainly not history, especially not in the sense we
understand the term today.
Post by Niels van der Linden
Post by macaddicted
Post by Niels van der Linden
What makes you think there was a Jesus of Nazareth?
When it comes down to it mostly tradition and faith.
So basically just tradition. If you understand the old testament is a
mythology, and was created in ways that myths are created, then finding no
evidence for the actual Jezus of Nazareth, isn't the logical answer that
that too was created a myth?
No, not really. We have a tradition that refers back to the a physical
person in the writings of the earliest Church fathers. It is enough for
me.
Post by Niels van der Linden
Post by macaddicted
There is some
arguement over the validity of historical sources.
Post by Niels van der Linden
What is
your study all about?
Faith, and my place in a world that is greater than can be fully
understood by man.
What do you mean by that: faith.
I mean that there are answers that science cannot provide. You may
disagree.
Post by Niels van der Linden
Post by macaddicted
Post by Niels van der Linden
Do you believe in a god who is out there and is *not*
a metaphor for (a part of) the mystery of being?
Yes I do believe that there is a god who is "out there" (don't ask me to
tell you where there is), but confronting the mystery of being is part
of theology.
All cultures of all time and all place have created mythologies. Don't you
think that they were all created as answers to the mysteries of being?
Certainly. I just happen to think that Christianity provides the best
answers. But my Catholicism does not require that because I have a
preference for my particular faith that I must disavow those outside my
faith.

[snip]
--
macaddicted
Theology should quietly accept the fact that there are various kinds
of knowledge and that it has to face this pluralism of knowledge
constantly in the hope of acheiving a fruitful exchange. J. Metz
Niels van der Linden
2005-07-13 03:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by macaddicted
Post by Niels van der Linden
Post by macaddicted
Post by Niels van der Linden
That doesn't make sense. Do you agree with the pope or not?
In what sense do you ask.
In everything he speaks out in name of your church.
In those limited areas where he speaks with the authority of the
teaching office that is incumbent in taking up the office of bishop then
yes. But not everything the Pope says falls within those guidelines. The
oft quoted 1996 statement of evolution that JPII made (and with which I
heartily agree) is not an example of the Pope exercising his teaching
office. From a strictly theological standpoint the statement carried
little weight beyond the fact that it expressed the opinioin of the then
current Pope.
Post by Niels van der Linden
Post by macaddicted
Post by Niels van der Linden
What kind of
method is that one you mention?
In the historical-critical method the researcher seeks to understand
what the author of the passage was trying to convey to the audience to
whom he was writing/speaking. From within this method that is the
"literal" sense of the scripture. Only once one has discovererd through
exegesis what the original intent of the author was can one seek,
through hermeneutics, to try to bring that message forward into the
modern world.
Post by Niels van der Linden
If you don't take things literally, how *do*
you take them?
See above. The Church holds that the Bible is instructive where faith
and morals are concerned.
Ok, it appeares you understand there never was a flood, Moses, exodus or
tower of Babel. Why isn't this articulated in church, and in particular: to
children? Why is there so little heard about the explanations of these
myths, and what the symbols represent?
Well, in my first term I did a paper on the theme of water as a metaphor
for chaos in the creation and flood myths. Yes, I very purposefully use
the term myth. And I am well aware that the first 12 chapters of Genesis
are most certainly not history, especially not in the sense we
understand the term today.
Why isn't this articulated in church, and in particular: to children? Why is
there so little heard about the explanations of these myths, and what the
symbols represent?
Post by macaddicted
Post by Niels van der Linden
Post by macaddicted
Post by Niels van der Linden
What makes you think there was a Jesus of Nazareth?
When it comes down to it mostly tradition and faith.
So basically just tradition. If you understand the old testament is a
mythology, and was created in ways that myths are created, then finding no
evidence for the actual Jezus of Nazareth, isn't the logical answer that
that too was created a myth?
No, not really. We have a tradition that refers back to the a physical
person in the writings of the earliest Church fathers. It is enough for
me.
Why can the flood be a metaphor and the virgin birth, resurrection etc. be
not?

Much of the Jesus tale has parallels in much older fables, which have
identical principal and supporting characters, identical story lines, and
identical moral purpose. In fact there were all kinds of Jesus stories
(consider it an artform), and the "Church fathers" simply voted on which one
they would use and which they would discard off.

Isn't that "enough" to tickle your natural interest?
Post by macaddicted
Post by Niels van der Linden
Post by macaddicted
There is some
arguement over the validity of historical sources.
Post by Niels van der Linden
What is
your study all about?
Faith, and my place in a world that is greater than can be fully
understood by man.
What do you mean by that: faith.
I mean that there are answers that science cannot provide.
Your study is about answers science cannot provide?
Post by macaddicted
You may
disagree.
Post by Niels van der Linden
Post by macaddicted
Post by Niels van der Linden
Do you believe in a god who is out there and is *not*
a metaphor for (a part of) the mystery of being?
Yes I do believe that there is a god who is "out there" (don't ask me to
tell you where there is), but confronting the mystery of being is part
of theology.
All cultures of all time and all place have created mythologies. Don't you
think that they were all created as answers to the mysteries of being?
Certainly.
Then what leaves that of the god that it out there? Or these guys?:

[..]
Abaris Greek
Abas Greek
Abassi Nigeria/Africa
Abderus Greek
Abeguwo [goddess] Oceania
Abeona [goddess] Roman
Abere [goddess] Oceania
Ab Kin Xoc Maya
Abnoba [goddess] Celtic
Abraxas Roman
Abuk [goddess] Dinka/Africa
Abundantia [goddess] Roman
Acamas Greek
Acantha [goddess] Greek
Acat Maya
Acaviser [goddess] Roman
Acca [goddess] Roman
Acca Larentia [goddess] Roman
Achall [goddess] Irish
Achelois [goddess] Greek
Achelous Greek
Achilles Greek
Achtan [goddess] Irish
Achtland [goddess] Celtic
Acis Greek
Aclla [goddess] Inca
Acna [goddess] Maya/Mexico
Actaeon Greek
Acuecueyotlcihuatl*Aztec/Mexico
Adad Babylonian
Adamanthea [goddess] Greek
Adamisil Wedo [goddess] Haiti
Adapa Babylonian
Adaro Oceania
Adeona [goddess] Roman
Aditi [goddess] Asian
Adityas Asian
Admeta [goddess] Roman
Admete [goddess] Greek
Admetus Greek
Adonis Greek
Adrammelech Babylonia
Adrastus Greek
Adsagsona [goddess] Celtic
Adu Ogyinae Ashanti/Africa
Aeacus Greek
Aebh [goddess] Celtic
Aed Celtic
Aédon [goddess] Greek
Aedos [goddess] Roman
Aega [goddess] Greek
Aegeria [goddess] Roman
Aegeus Greek
Aegina [goddess] Greek
Aegir Norse
Aegis Greek
Aegisthus Greek
Aegyptus Greek
etc..
Post by macaddicted
I just happen to think that Christianity provides the best
answers.
Christianty is basically a thousands of years old mythology based in an
entirely different culture and time. Surely once you have a mythological
understanding, you can use mythologies from other cultures and times? For
instance the Hindus understood already hundreds of years before the creation
of the Jesus story that 'deities are projections of psychological powers and
they are within you'. Up to this day I'm not getting that vibe from any
mono-theist religion. Hence my question: "Why isn't this articulated in
church, and in particular: to children? Why is there so little heard about
the explanations of these myths, and what the symbols represent?".
Post by macaddicted
But my Catholicism does not require that because I have a
preference for my particular faith that I must disavow those outside my
faith.
Movies contain life-lessons. Why can't I watch different movies?
--
Niels

Atheist #2237

"The thing that saved me was Upanishads; Hinduism. Where you have
practically the same mythology [as Roman Catholicism], but it has been
intellectually interpreted. Say, already in the 9th century BC the Hindus
realized that all the deities are projections of psychological powers and
they are within you not out there [points away]."
-Joseph Campbell in The Hero's Journey
macaddicted
2005-07-13 20:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Niels van der Linden
Post by macaddicted
Post by Niels van der Linden
Post by macaddicted
Post by Niels van der Linden
That doesn't make sense. Do you agree with the pope or not?
In what sense do you ask.
In everything he speaks out in name of your church.
In those limited areas where he speaks with the authority of the
teaching office that is incumbent in taking up the office of bishop then
yes. But not everything the Pope says falls within those guidelines. The
oft quoted 1996 statement of evolution that JPII made (and with which I
heartily agree) is not an example of the Pope exercising his teaching
office. From a strictly theological standpoint the statement carried
little weight beyond the fact that it expressed the opinioin of the then
current Pope.
Post by Niels van der Linden
Post by macaddicted
Post by Niels van der Linden
What kind of
method is that one you mention?
In the historical-critical method the researcher seeks to understand
what the author of the passage was trying to convey to the audience to
whom he was writing/speaking. From within this method that is the
"literal" sense of the scripture. Only once one has discovererd through
exegesis what the original intent of the author was can one seek,
through hermeneutics, to try to bring that message forward into the
modern world.
Post by Niels van der Linden
If you don't take things literally, how *do*
you take them?
See above. The Church holds that the Bible is instructive where faith
and morals are concerned.
Ok, it appeares you understand there never was a flood, Moses, exodus or
tower of Babel. Why isn't this articulated in church, and in particular: to
children? Why is there so little heard about the explanations of these
myths, and what the symbols represent?
Well, in my first term I did a paper on the theme of water as a metaphor
for chaos in the creation and flood myths. Yes, I very purposefully use
the term myth. And I am well aware that the first 12 chapters of Genesis
are most certainly not history, especially not in the sense we
understand the term today.
Why isn't this articulated in church, and in particular: to children? Why is
there so little heard about the explanations of these myths, and what the
symbols represent?
In parish based elementary religious education, for which I was a
teacher for 7 years, a great deal is made of the symbols, especially the
flood as they prefigure the sacraments of eucharist, baptism and
reconciliation. I cannot speak to all parishes, or even to what every
teacher is teaching in each class in my own parish.
Post by Niels van der Linden
Post by macaddicted
Post by Niels van der Linden
Post by macaddicted
Post by Niels van der Linden
What makes you think there was a Jesus of Nazareth?
When it comes down to it mostly tradition and faith.
So basically just tradition. If you understand the old testament is a
mythology, and was created in ways that myths are created, then finding no
evidence for the actual Jezus of Nazareth, isn't the logical answer that
that too was created a myth?
No, not really. We have a tradition that refers back to the a physical
person in the writings of the earliest Church fathers. It is enough for
me.
Why can the flood be a metaphor and the virgin birth, resurrection etc. be
not?
Much of the Jesus tale has parallels in much older fables, which have
identical principal and supporting characters, identical story lines, and
identical moral purpose. In fact there were all kinds of Jesus stories
(consider it an artform), and the "Church fathers" simply voted on which one
they would use and which they would discard off.
Isn't that "enough" to tickle your natural interest?
From the nature of your question (and previous questions) it seems you
are well versed in the discussion. At this point we are really going to
start a clip-and-paste thread, me from my sources, you from yours. I am
not trying to convince you that Christianity is correct, and you are not
going to convince me that Christianity is incorrect. But I truly do
value your questions. I thank you for the time you have taken to
challenge me.

But as to your specific question, the Church does not view the beginning
of Genesis (chapters 1-12) as history, but does believe that there is
historicity, but not "history" in the modern use of the word, in the
Gospels. In other words the Gospels relate actual events, but do not
portray them in a manner in which a modern reader would consider a
presentation of historical fact.

Lastly, there were many interpretations of the life of Jesus and the
meaning of the incarnation. But they were all based on the presumption
of a historical Jesus. The nature of _who_ or _what_ Jesus was was a
matter for debate. The fact _that_ Jesus was was not.

[snip]
--
macaddicted
Theology should quietly accept the fact that there are various kinds
of knowledge and that it has to face this pluralism of knowledge
constantly in the hope of acheiving a fruitful exchange. J. Metz
Herb Huston
2005-07-13 13:46:13 UTC
Permalink
In article <1gzl9ap.czblrxc99mpsN%***@REMOVETHIScomcast.net>,
macaddicted <***@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
} There is no support system for
}married priests, and hasn't been for many centuries. It is not as simple
}as one would think.

The Anglicans, for one, seem to have figured it out.
--
-- Herb Huston
-- ***@radix.net
-- http://www.radix.net/~huston
Lt. Kizhe Catson
2005-07-13 14:26:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herb Huston
} There is no support system for
}married priests, and hasn't been for many centuries. It is not as simple
}as one would think.
The Anglicans, for one, seem to have figured it out.
As have the Eastern Rite Catholics.

-- Kizhe
macaddicted
2005-07-13 20:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herb Huston
} There is no support system for
}married priests, and hasn't been for many centuries. It is not as simple
}as one would think.
The Anglicans, for one, seem to have figured it out.
Oh I'm not saying there is a theological problem. The problem is more
social and practical. What do you do with married priests? Where do they
and their families live? The rectory is going to get crowded pretty
fast. Is the right to marry limited to diocesan priests (who take a vow
of chastity) or do we extend it to religious priests as well (who take a
vow of celibacy). Does the Rule of each Orders need to be re-written?
What affect does this new right have on the Rule of each Order? What
about the non-ordained religious? Do we have married monks and nuns?
They also follow a particular Rule, but are not ordained. And those are
the easy questions. I'm not saying they could not be overcome, but that
it is not simply a matter of suddenly allowing a married clergy.

I would be curious if anyone has done a historical survey of what
happened when the Anglican priests started to marry.
--
macaddicted
Theology should quietly accept the fact that there are various kinds
of knowledge and that it has to face this pluralism of knowledge
constantly in the hope of acheiving a fruitful exchange. J. Metz
Daniel T.
2005-07-12 14:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by macaddicted
Post by Daniel T.
Post by macaddicted
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?"
I hope so. I'm working on my masters in theology. I'd like to think I
have an above average intelligence (though opinions vary...).
How do you reconcile the questions I posed about what the Bible says?
How many children did Michal (the daughter of Saul) have? (2 Samuel
6:23, 2 Samuel 21:8)
How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign? (2 Kings 8:26, 2 Chronicles
22:2)
What was Jesus' paternal grandfater's name? (Matt 1:16, Luke 3:23)
Who killed Saul? (1 Samuel 31:4-6, 2 Samuel 21:12)
Well, as I am Roman Catholic I don't read the Bible literally. In fact I
have been taught specifically NOT to read the Bible literally, but to
use the historical-critical method. So I do not read the "History" books
as history books. The same goes for any mention you might come up with
for the Synoptic problems.
My solution to the problem you state would be to note the difference and
try to understand why the author made these contradictory statements.
Since I don't have a couple o' grand to drop on an Anchor Bible library
(I'm saving up for one of those new Intel based Macs), and the
commentaries I do have don't give me a sufficient basis to give you any
sort of an answer.
I will however give you my personal favorites to use along the same
When did Jesus go up to Jerusalem?
How many times does Jesus go up to Jerusalem?
When is the cleansing of the Temple?
The list goes on, and I haven't even stopped playing with the Gospel of
John yet.
We cannot take everything the Bible says as literal gospel we must
interpret, equivocate, and sometimes discard parts of it. To me, it
shows that there is something higher than God as reveled in the Bible,
and that thing guides us in determining what parts of the Bible are
true, what parts are parable, what parts are unimportant and what parts
are down right wrong.

Now one could say that the "thing" discussed above is God, as in God
himself guides us, but that would destroy the primacy of the Bible. For
if God guides us when reading the Bible, then he can guide us when
reading any other philosophical work.

For example the "gay marriage" issue (and please don't start talking
about which side you stand on this issue, save that for another thread.)
Reasonable people, disagree. This means that either (a) God is not in
all of us or (b) He gives each of us a different moral compass, (c) one
side is actively seeking to do what they know is wrong or (d) He is
actually silent on such issues.

To accept (a) means that there are chosen people and God is exclusionary.
To accept (b) means that God is arbitrary.
To accept (c) means that everyone who doesn't agree with you is evil.
To accept (d) means that you are interpreting God incorrectly.)

Are any of the above palatable to you? What does the God inside you tell
you?
macaddicted
2005-07-12 23:16:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel T.
Post by macaddicted
Post by Daniel T.
Post by macaddicted
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?"
I hope so. I'm working on my masters in theology. I'd like to think I
have an above average intelligence (though opinions vary...).
How do you reconcile the questions I posed about what the Bible says?
How many children did Michal (the daughter of Saul) have? (2 Samuel
6:23, 2 Samuel 21:8)
How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign? (2 Kings 8:26, 2 Chronicles
22:2)
What was Jesus' paternal grandfater's name? (Matt 1:16, Luke 3:23)
Who killed Saul? (1 Samuel 31:4-6, 2 Samuel 21:12)
Well, as I am Roman Catholic I don't read the Bible literally. In fact I
have been taught specifically NOT to read the Bible literally, but to
use the historical-critical method. So I do not read the "History" books
as history books. The same goes for any mention you might come up with
for the Synoptic problems.
My solution to the problem you state would be to note the difference and
try to understand why the author made these contradictory statements.
Since I don't have a couple o' grand to drop on an Anchor Bible library
(I'm saving up for one of those new Intel based Macs), and the
commentaries I do have don't give me a sufficient basis to give you any
sort of an answer.
I will however give you my personal favorites to use along the same
When did Jesus go up to Jerusalem?
How many times does Jesus go up to Jerusalem?
When is the cleansing of the Temple?
The list goes on, and I haven't even stopped playing with the Gospel of
John yet.
We cannot take everything the Bible says as literal gospel we must
interpret, equivocate, and sometimes discard parts of it. To me, it
shows that there is something higher than God as reveled in the Bible,
and that thing guides us in determining what parts of the Bible are
true, what parts are parable, what parts are unimportant and what parts
are down right wrong.
I don't agree. You can allow for its being misinterpreted, but the cloth
falls apart if you allow that parts of it are wrong.
Post by Daniel T.
Now one could say that the "thing" discussed above is God, as in God
himself guides us, but that would destroy the primacy of the Bible. For
if God guides us when reading the Bible, then he can guide us when
reading any other philosophical work.
For example the "gay marriage" issue (and please don't start talking
about which side you stand on this issue, save that for another thread.)
Reasonable people, disagree. This means that either (a) God is not in
all of us or (b) He gives each of us a different moral compass, (c) one
side is actively seeking to do what they know is wrong or (d) He is
actually silent on such issues.
To accept (a) means that there are chosen people and God is exclusionary.
To accept (b) means that God is arbitrary.
To accept (c) means that everyone who doesn't agree with you is evil.
To accept (d) means that you are interpreting God incorrectly.)
Are any of the above palatable to you? What does the God inside you tell
you?
--
macaddicted
Theology should quietly accept the fact that there are various kinds
of knowledge and that it has to face this pluralism of knowledge
constantly in the hope of acheiving a fruitful exchange. J. Metz
Daniel T.
2005-07-13 00:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by macaddicted
Post by Daniel T.
Post by macaddicted
Post by Daniel T.
Post by macaddicted
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?"
I hope so. I'm working on my masters in theology. I'd like to think I
have an above average intelligence (though opinions vary...).
How do you reconcile the questions I posed about what the Bible says?
How many children did Michal (the daughter of Saul) have? (2 Samuel
6:23, 2 Samuel 21:8)
How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign? (2 Kings 8:26, 2 Chronicles
22:2)
What was Jesus' paternal grandfater's name? (Matt 1:16, Luke 3:23)
Who killed Saul? (1 Samuel 31:4-6, 2 Samuel 21:12)
Well, as I am Roman Catholic I don't read the Bible literally. In fact I
have been taught specifically NOT to read the Bible literally, but to
use the historical-critical method. So I do not read the "History" books
as history books. The same goes for any mention you might come up with
for the Synoptic problems.
My solution to the problem you state would be to note the difference and
try to understand why the author made these contradictory statements.
Since I don't have a couple o' grand to drop on an Anchor Bible library
(I'm saving up for one of those new Intel based Macs), and the
commentaries I do have don't give me a sufficient basis to give you any
sort of an answer.
I will however give you my personal favorites to use along the same
When did Jesus go up to Jerusalem?
How many times does Jesus go up to Jerusalem?
When is the cleansing of the Temple?
The list goes on, and I haven't even stopped playing with the Gospel of
John yet.
We cannot take everything the Bible says as literal gospel we must
interpret, equivocate, and sometimes discard parts of it. To me, it
shows that there is something higher than God as reveled in the Bible,
and that thing guides us in determining what parts of the Bible are
true, what parts are parable, what parts are unimportant and what parts
are down right wrong.
I don't agree. You can allow for its being misinterpreted, but the cloth
falls apart if you allow that parts of it are wrong.
One of 2 Samuel 6:23 and 2 Samuel 21:8 must be wrong. As such it is
unreasonable to assume that the Bible is entirely correct. Since some
parts are known to be wrong, it's reasonable to assume that other parts
are wrong even without absolute proof of incorrectness.
Post by macaddicted
Post by Daniel T.
Now one could say that the "thing" discussed above is God, as in God
himself guides us, but that would destroy the primacy of the Bible. For
if God guides us when reading the Bible, then he can guide us when
reading any other philosophical work.
For example the "gay marriage" issue (and please don't start talking
about which side you stand on this issue, save that for another thread.)
Reasonable people, disagree. This means that either (a) God is not in
all of us or (b) He gives each of us a different moral compass, (c) one
side is actively seeking to do what they know is wrong or (d) He is
actually silent on such issues.
To accept (a) means that there are chosen people and God is exclusionary.
To accept (b) means that God is arbitrary.
To accept (c) means that everyone who doesn't agree with you is evil.
To accept (d) means that you are interpreting God incorrectly.)
Are any of the above palatable to you? What does the God inside you tell
you?
What do you say to the question above?
macaddicted
2005-07-13 02:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel T.
Post by macaddicted
Post by Daniel T.
Post by macaddicted
Post by Daniel T.
Post by macaddicted
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?"
I hope so. I'm working on my masters in theology. I'd like to
think I have an above average intelligence (though opinions
vary...).
How do you reconcile the questions I posed about what the Bible says?
How many children did Michal (the daughter of Saul) have? (2
Samuel 6:23, 2 Samuel 21:8)
How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign? (2 Kings 8:26, 2
Chronicles 22:2)
What was Jesus' paternal grandfater's name? (Matt 1:16, Luke 3:23)
Who killed Saul? (1 Samuel 31:4-6, 2 Samuel 21:12)
Well, as I am Roman Catholic I don't read the Bible literally. In fact I
have been taught specifically NOT to read the Bible literally, but to
use the historical-critical method. So I do not read the "History" books
as history books. The same goes for any mention you might come up with
for the Synoptic problems.
My solution to the problem you state would be to note the difference and
try to understand why the author made these contradictory statements.
Since I don't have a couple o' grand to drop on an Anchor Bible library
(I'm saving up for one of those new Intel based Macs), and the
commentaries I do have don't give me a sufficient basis to give you any
sort of an answer.
I will however give you my personal favorites to use along the same
When did Jesus go up to Jerusalem?
How many times does Jesus go up to Jerusalem?
When is the cleansing of the Temple?
The list goes on, and I haven't even stopped playing with the Gospel of
John yet.
We cannot take everything the Bible says as literal gospel we must
interpret, equivocate, and sometimes discard parts of it. To me, it
shows that there is something higher than God as reveled in the Bible,
and that thing guides us in determining what parts of the Bible are
true, what parts are parable, what parts are unimportant and what parts
are down right wrong.
I don't agree. You can allow for its being misinterpreted, but the cloth
falls apart if you allow that parts of it are wrong.
One of 2 Samuel 6:23 and 2 Samuel 21:8 must be wrong. As such it is
unreasonable to assume that the Bible is entirely correct. Since some
parts are known to be wrong, it's reasonable to assume that other parts
are wrong even without absolute proof of incorrectness.
Sorry, hadn't meant to post a reply to you yet. I thought I had it
stored to finish later, that is why it got truncated.

Again, I am not required by my faith to interpret even the "historical"
books as history. If they make a historical error I kind of shrug my
shoulders and move on.
Post by Daniel T.
Post by macaddicted
Post by Daniel T.
Now one could say that the "thing" discussed above is God, as in God
himself guides us, but that would destroy the primacy of the Bible. For
if God guides us when reading the Bible, then he can guide us when
reading any other philosophical work.
For example the "gay marriage" issue (and please don't start talking
about which side you stand on this issue, save that for another thread.)
Actually I have a couple of head/heart arguements going on. Gay marriage
and the death penalty top the list.
Post by Daniel T.
Post by macaddicted
Post by Daniel T.
Reasonable people, disagree. This means that either (a) God is not in
all of us or (b) He gives each of us a different moral compass, (c) one
side is actively seeking to do what they know is wrong or (d) He is
actually silent on such issues.
To accept (a) means that there are chosen people and God is exclusionary.
To accept (b) means that God is arbitrary.
To accept (c) means that everyone who doesn't agree with you is evil.
To accept (d) means that you are interpreting God incorrectly.)
Are any of the above palatable to you? What does the God inside you tell
you?
What do you say to the question above?
(e) God is in all of us, but we sometimes cannot, or chose to not, hear
him/her (there has got to be a gender neutral pronoun that is not "it").
Which is sort of (c), but I think your example is a bit extreme. I
hesitate to speak to the motives of a Gay person who seeks marriage in
the Church in the same way that I hesitate to speak to those who seek to
bar homosexuals from the clergy. That is simply the way I approach the
world, though it may seem overly meek.
--
macaddicted
Theology should quietly accept the fact that there are various kinds
of knowledge and that it has to face this pluralism of knowledge
constantly in the hope of acheiving a fruitful exchange. J. Metz
Daniel T.
2005-07-13 23:38:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by macaddicted
Post by Daniel T.
Post by macaddicted
Post by Daniel T.
Post by macaddicted
Post by Herb Huston
In article
Post by macaddicted
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?"
I hope so. I'm working on my masters in theology. I'd like to
think I have an above average intelligence (though opinions
vary...).
How do you reconcile the questions I posed about what the Bible says?
How many children did Michal (the daughter of Saul) have? (2
Samuel 6:23, 2 Samuel 21:8)
How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign? (2 Kings 8:26, 2
Chronicles 22:2)
What was Jesus' paternal grandfater's name? (Matt 1:16, Luke 3:23)
Who killed Saul? (1 Samuel 31:4-6, 2 Samuel 21:12)
Well, as I am Roman Catholic I don't read the Bible literally. In fact I
have been taught specifically NOT to read the Bible literally, but to
use the historical-critical method. So I do not read the "History" books
as history books. The same goes for any mention you might come up with
for the Synoptic problems.
My solution to the problem you state would be to note the difference and
try to understand why the author made these contradictory statements.
Since I don't have a couple o' grand to drop on an Anchor Bible library
(I'm saving up for one of those new Intel based Macs), and the
commentaries I do have don't give me a sufficient basis to give you any
sort of an answer.
I will however give you my personal favorites to use along the same
When did Jesus go up to Jerusalem?
How many times does Jesus go up to Jerusalem?
When is the cleansing of the Temple?
The list goes on, and I haven't even stopped playing with the Gospel of
John yet.
We cannot take everything the Bible says as literal gospel we must
interpret, equivocate, and sometimes discard parts of it. To me, it
shows that there is something higher than God as reveled in the Bible,
and that thing guides us in determining what parts of the Bible are
true, what parts are parable, what parts are unimportant and what parts
are down right wrong.
I don't agree. You can allow for its being misinterpreted, but the cloth
falls apart if you allow that parts of it are wrong.
One of 2 Samuel 6:23 and 2 Samuel 21:8 must be wrong. As such it is
unreasonable to assume that the Bible is entirely correct. Since some
parts are known to be wrong, it's reasonable to assume that other parts
are wrong even without absolute proof of incorrectness.
Sorry, hadn't meant to post a reply to you yet. I thought I had it
stored to finish later, that is why it got truncated.
Again, I am not required by my faith to interpret even the "historical"
books as history. If they make a historical error I kind of shrug my
shoulders and move on.
The key here though is that you accept that the Bible contains errors.
If it contains errors of historical fact, why would you expect it to be
inerrant when it comes to anything else? And how do you know which parts
are correct and which are wrong?
Post by macaddicted
Post by Daniel T.
Post by macaddicted
Post by Daniel T.
Reasonable people, disagree. This means that either (a) God is not in
all of us or (b) He gives each of us a different moral compass, (c) one
side is actively seeking to do what they know is wrong or (d) He is
actually silent on such issues.
To accept (a) means that there are chosen people and God is exclusionary.
To accept (b) means that God is arbitrary.
To accept (c) means that everyone who doesn't agree with you is evil.
To accept (d) means that you are interpreting God incorrectly.)
Are any of the above palatable to you? What does the God inside you tell
you?
What do you say to the question above?
(e) God is in all of us, but we sometimes cannot, or chose to not, hear
him/her (there has got to be a gender neutral pronoun that is not "it").
To claim that people "choose not to hear" God is to say they are Evil.
Just like a child is bad when he refuses to listen to his parent. Which
is (c) above.

To claim that people "cannot hear" God is to say that, effectively, God
is not within them (at least not strong enough to be heard.) Which is
(a) above.

Are you saying that you think both (a) and (c) are true?
Post by macaddicted
Which is sort of (c), but I think your example is a bit extreme. I
hesitate to speak to the motives of a Gay person who seeks marriage in
the Church in the same way that I hesitate to speak to those who seek to
bar homosexuals from the clergy. That is simply the way I approach the
world, though it may seem overly meek.
Extreme but accurate. What else can you say about a person who knowingly
does something wrong?
macaddicted
2005-07-14 00:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel T.
Post by macaddicted
Post by Daniel T.
Post by macaddicted
Post by Herb Huston
In article
Post by macaddicted
Post by Herb Huston
In article
Post by macaddicted
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?"
I hope so. I'm working on my masters in theology. I'd like to
think I have an above average intelligence (though opinions
vary...).
How do you reconcile the questions I posed about what the Bible
says?
How many children did Michal (the daughter of Saul) have? (2
Samuel 6:23, 2 Samuel 21:8)
How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign? (2 Kings 8:26, 2
Chronicles 22:2)
What was Jesus' paternal grandfater's name? (Matt 1:16, Luke 3:23)
Who killed Saul? (1 Samuel 31:4-6, 2 Samuel 21:12)
Well, as I am Roman Catholic I don't read the Bible literally. In
fact I
have been taught specifically NOT to read the Bible literally,
but to use the historical-critical method. So I do not read the
"History" books
as history books. The same goes for any mention you might come up with
for the Synoptic problems.
My solution to the problem you state would be to note the difference
and
try to understand why the author made these contradictory
statements. Since I don't have a couple o' grand to drop on an
Anchor Bible
library
(I'm saving up for one of those new Intel based Macs), and the
commentaries I do have don't give me a sufficient basis to give you any
sort of an answer.
I will however give you my personal favorites to use along the same
When did Jesus go up to Jerusalem?
How many times does Jesus go up to Jerusalem?
When is the cleansing of the Temple?
The list goes on, and I haven't even stopped playing with the Gospel of
John yet.
We cannot take everything the Bible says as literal gospel we must
interpret, equivocate, and sometimes discard parts of it. To me,
it shows that there is something higher than God as reveled in the
Bible, and that thing guides us in determining what parts of the
Bible are true, what parts are parable, what parts are unimportant
and what parts are down right wrong.
I don't agree. You can allow for its being misinterpreted, but the cloth
falls apart if you allow that parts of it are wrong.
One of 2 Samuel 6:23 and 2 Samuel 21:8 must be wrong. As such it is
unreasonable to assume that the Bible is entirely correct. Since some
parts are known to be wrong, it's reasonable to assume that other parts
are wrong even without absolute proof of incorrectness.
Sorry, hadn't meant to post a reply to you yet. I thought I had it
stored to finish later, that is why it got truncated.
Again, I am not required by my faith to interpret even the "historical"
books as history. If they make a historical error I kind of shrug my
shoulders and move on.
The key here though is that you accept that the Bible contains errors.
If it contains errors of historical fact, why would you expect it to be
inerrant when it comes to anything else? And how do you know which parts
are correct and which are wrong?
Let's just say it: The Church has learned its lesson on trying to read
too much into scripture. History and science are two things we simply
don't try to pull out of the Bible.
Post by Daniel T.
Post by macaddicted
Post by Daniel T.
Post by macaddicted
Post by Herb Huston
Reasonable people, disagree. This means that either (a) God is not
in all of us or (b) He gives each of us a different moral compass,
(c) one side is actively seeking to do what they know is wrong or
(d) He is actually silent on such issues.
To accept (a) means that there are chosen people and God is
exclusionary. To accept (b) means that God is arbitrary. To accept
(c) means that everyone who doesn't agree with you is evil. To
accept (d) means that you are interpreting God incorrectly.)
Are any of the above palatable to you? What does the God inside
you tell you?
What do you say to the question above?
(e) God is in all of us, but we sometimes cannot, or chose to not, hear
him/her (there has got to be a gender neutral pronoun that is not "it").
To claim that people "choose not to hear" God is to say they are Evil.
Just like a child is bad when he refuses to listen to his parent. Which
is (c) above.
You are trying to ascribe an intentionality to a particular viewpoint. I
refuse look at a general a view and attribute a particular judgement on
all who may hold that view.
Post by Daniel T.
To claim that people "cannot hear" God is to say that, effectively, God
is not within them (at least not strong enough to be heard.) Which is
(a) above.
God is always available to be heard, it is a basic tenet of the theology
of grace. That we are distracted from his voice does not mean that it is
not there to be heard. To use a metaphore: have you ever tried to listen
to someone whispering to you from across a noisy room?
Post by Daniel T.
Are you saying that you think both (a) and (c) are true?
No.
Post by Daniel T.
Post by macaddicted
Which is sort of (c), but I think your example is a bit extreme. I
hesitate to speak to the motives of a Gay person who seeks marriage in
the Church in the same way that I hesitate to speak to those who seek to
bar homosexuals from the clergy. That is simply the way I approach the
world, though it may seem overly meek.
Extreme but accurate. What else can you say about a person who knowingly
does something wrong?
A man who pours gasoline over a floor to burn down a house has done an
evil. A man who drops a lit cigarete and burns down a house was
careless, but not necessarily evil, though the end result in both cases
is the same.
--
macaddicted
Theology should quietly accept the fact that there are various kinds
of knowledge and that it has to face this pluralism of knowledge
constantly in the hope of acheiving a fruitful exchange. J. Metz
Daniel T.
2005-07-14 03:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by macaddicted
Post by Daniel T.
The key here though is that you accept that the Bible contains errors.
If it contains errors of historical fact, why would you expect it to be
inerrant when it comes to anything else? And how do you know which parts
are correct and which are wrong?
Let's just say it: The Church has learned its lesson on trying to read
too much into scripture. History and science are two things we simply
don't try to pull out of the Bible.
If the Bible is so unreliable about things that we (and they) can
actually verify, then why would you think it is accurate about things
that can't be verified?
Post by macaddicted
Post by Daniel T.
Post by macaddicted
Post by Daniel T.
Post by Daniel T.
Reasonable people, disagree. This means that either (a) God is not
in all of us or (b) He gives each of us a different moral compass,
(c) one side is actively seeking to do what they know is wrong or
(d) He is actually silent on such issues.
To accept (a) means that there are chosen people and God is
exclusionary. To accept (b) means that God is arbitrary. To accept
(c) means that everyone who doesn't agree with you is evil. To
accept (d) means that you are interpreting God incorrectly.)
Are any of the above palatable to you? What does the God inside
you tell you?
What do you say to the question above?
(e) God is in all of us, but we sometimes cannot, or chose to not, hear
him/her (there has got to be a gender neutral pronoun that is not "it").
To claim that people "choose not to hear" God is to say they are Evil.
Just like a child is bad when he refuses to listen to his parent. Which
is (c) above.
You are trying to ascribe an intentionality to a particular viewpoint. I
refuse look at a general a view and attribute a particular judgement on
all who may hold that view.
Post by Daniel T.
To claim that people "cannot hear" God is to say that, effectively, God
is not within them (at least not strong enough to be heard.) Which is
(a) above.
God is always available to be heard, it is a basic tenet of the theology
of grace. That we are distracted from his voice does not mean that it is
not there to be heard. To use a metaphore: have you ever tried to listen
to someone whispering to you from across a noisy room?
Bad metaphor, someone whispering is trying not to be heard. Presumably,
God is trying to be heard yet you say that some can't hear Him. This
implies that he is sometimes unsuccessful... Hmm...
Post by macaddicted
Post by Daniel T.
Are you saying that you think both (a) and (c) are true?
No.
It was a rhetorical question. You effectively said just that.
Post by macaddicted
Post by Daniel T.
Post by macaddicted
Which is sort of (c), but I think your example is a bit extreme. I
hesitate to speak to the motives of a Gay person who seeks marriage in
the Church in the same way that I hesitate to speak to those who seek to
bar homosexuals from the clergy. That is simply the way I approach the
world, though it may seem overly meek.
Extreme but accurate. What else can you say about a person who knowingly
does something wrong?
A man who pours gasoline over a floor to burn down a house has done an
evil. A man who drops a lit cigarete and burns down a house was
careless, but not necessarily evil, though the end result in both cases
is the same.
Pointless diversion. When a person *knowingly* does something wrong he
is bad, doing evil. To hear Gods words and disagree would be *knowingly*
doing something wrong.
thissteve
2005-07-14 05:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel T.
One of 2 Samuel 6:23 and 2 Samuel 21:8 must be wrong.
*sigh* I know King Kong is fiction but the point still stands--did
"Beauty" kill him or the guys shooting from the planes? Of course the
answer is "both", at least for those with reading comprehension.

You would never dream of putting any other writing into this kind of
absurd literary straightjacket. But when it comes to the Bible,
suddenly the rules change.

If I play your game, I must also reject anything from Polybius or
Thucydides.
Post by Daniel T.
Reasonable people, disagree. This means that either (a) God is not in
all of us or (b) He gives each of us a different moral compass, (c) one
side is actively seeking to do what they know is wrong or (d) He is
actually silent on such issues.
To accept (a) means that there are chosen people and God is exclusionary.
I accept (a), and yes God is exclusionary. Maybe you haven't noticed,
but the world's major religions teach different things. They can't all
be right. Looking specifically at their divergent teachings on the
nature of God, it's clear that at most ONE can be right. Sorry if that
isn't PC, but it's common sense.
Daniel T.
2005-07-14 13:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by thissteve
Post by Daniel T.
One of 2 Samuel 6:23 and 2 Samuel 21:8 must be wrong.
*sigh* I know King Kong is fiction but the point still stands--did
"Beauty" kill him or the guys shooting from the planes? Of course the
answer is "both", at least for those with reading comprehension.
You would never dream of putting any other writing into this kind of
absurd literary straightjacket. But when it comes to the Bible,
suddenly the rules change.
Not just when it comes to the Bible. Any work purported to be factual
must undergo the same scrutiny. Once it is accepted that the Bible is
myth, then all questions about its "truth" vanish, much like any work by
Michael Crichton.
Post by thissteve
Post by Daniel T.
Reasonable people, disagree. This means that either (a) God is not in
all of us or (b) He gives each of us a different moral compass, (c) one
side is actively seeking to do what they know is wrong or (d) He is
actually silent on such issues.
To accept (a) means that there are chosen people and God is exclusionary.
I accept (a), and yes God is exclusionary. Maybe you haven't noticed,
but the world's major religions teach different things. They can't all
be right. Looking specifically at their divergent teachings on the
nature of God, it's clear that at most ONE can be right. Sorry if that
isn't PC, but it's common sense.
More than one religion may be right, if there is more than one god... So
you believe that anyone who is not a follower of the "one true faith"
(whichever that may be) is soulless? Without a moral compass?

thissteve
2005-07-12 16:27:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel T.
Who killed Saul? (1 Samuel 31:4-6, 2 Samuel 21:12)
The Philistines. They wounded him critically with arrows, cut off his
head, and it was their attack that induced Saul to run himself through.
If you're going to torture a contradiction out of that, then let me
stump you with Who killed King Kong?

Another question: why didn't the fake historian who pieced this stuff
together edit such things out?
Herb Huston
2005-07-13 11:49:29 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
thissteve <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
}Daniel T. wrote:
}> Who killed Saul? (1 Samuel 31:4-6, 2 Samuel 21:12)
}
}The Philistines. They wounded him critically with arrows, cut off his
}head, and it was their attack that induced Saul to run himself through.

Saul ran himself through AFTER his head had been cut off?

} If you're going to torture a contradiction out of that, then let me
}stump you with Who killed King Kong?

"'Twas Beauty killed the Beast."
--
-- Herb Huston
-- ***@radix.net
-- http://www.radix.net/~huston
quibbler
2005-07-13 14:54:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by thissteve
Post by Daniel T.
Who killed Saul? (1 Samuel 31:4-6, 2 Samuel 21:12)
The Philistines.
Perhaps according to 2 Sam 21. But according to 2 Sam 1:8-10 it says,
"He asked me, 'Who are you?' 'An Amalekite,' I answered. Then he said to
me, 'Stand over me and kill me! I am in the throes of death, but I'm
still alive.' So I stood over him and killed him." So the Philistines
did not succeed in killing him. Then there are the other accounts, like
1 Sam 31:4,"Saul said to his armor-bearer, 'Draw your sword and run me
through, or these uncircumcised fellows will come and run me through and
abuse me.' But his armor-bearer was terrified and would not do it; so
Saul took his own sword and fell on it. 5 When the armor-bearer saw that
Saul was dead, he too fell on his sword and died with him."
Post by thissteve
They wounded him critically with arrows, cut off his
head,
They could have cut his head off after he was already dead. How do you
know when he actually died? Some accounts testify that he died from his
self-inflicted wounds, while others claim that it was an Amelikite and
others still that it was the Philistines or the "Lord". You can't have
it all those ways.


and it was their attack that induced Saul to run himself through.
Post by thissteve
If you're going to torture a contradiction out of that, then let me
stump you with Who killed King Kong?
He was a fictional character, much like Saul. Therefore, technically,
nobody killed him. But, according to some, either saint Mario or
Stanley the Bugman may have killed Donkey Kong.
Post by thissteve
Another question: why didn't the fake historian who pieced this stuff
together edit such things out?
There are lots of reasons that people like Ezra and others had trouble
redacting manuscripts which were already spread out over large
geographic areas. Rather, they just relied on the self-imposed
stupidity of people like you to attempt to illogically explain away the
obvious contradictions.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
j
2005-07-12 02:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?"
Actually, I never presented that as a question to be answered, it just
happens to be the title of the book written by Michael Guillen (see
post # 1).
l***@yahoo.com
2005-07-13 19:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by j
"Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" is the title of the new book by
theoretical physicist and former ABC News science correspondent Michael
Guillen. Before Jason posts something on it, here's a brief excerpt
In Genesis 21:2, we're told God caused Abraham's infertlile wife,
Sarah, to become pregnant, even thoguh she was 90 years old.
Intellectual Cyclopes ridicule this report as nothing but a religious
fable...
But hold on. With today's rapid advances in fertility medicine,
which...has already succeeded in making a 63 year old woman pregnant,
the miracle is no longer so far-fetched.
So this book is basically the same as "The Science of the X-Files" and
"The Science of Harry Potter," only with the Bible?

I know a lot of smart people who believe in God. Smart enough that this
concept will deeply and profoundly embarrass them. Hopefully it will
blow over fast.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...