|
Post by iamiam on Jun 6, 2007 22:07:20 GMT -5
I was reading through one of the other threads in this section, and it reminded me of this website - fixedearth.com - that I ran across a few months back, and not sure if anyone else has seen it (and please forgive me if its has been posted before!) and actually all this below is from a blog post I wrote about it back when I first saw the site - since I would basically say the same things again now to throw my opinion on the matter in the ring, I'll just save the trouble and paste what I wrote before: ..endorsed by Georgia state Rep. Ben Bridges (our good friend trying to ban evolution from schools) check out fixedearth.com.
basically the whole site can be summarized down to this [poorly-written] gem:
"What strikes you as being some thoughts that people would have if--in the short space of a few weeks--the universally held conviction that the Earth rotates on an "axis" daily and orbits the sun annually was exposed as an unscientific deception?
Keep in mind that a rotating, orbiting earth is not counted as a mere hypothesis or even a theory anywhere in the world today. Oh no. Rather, this concept is an unquestioned "truth"; an established "fact" in all books and other media everywhere, church media included."
-I've bbeen hung over and bored this afternoon so I've been browsing around this site for a couple hours trying to find a point that could possibly cause a reasonable person to perhaps become just slightly skeptical of the (what I once thought was non-controversial) idea that the earth orbited around the sun (and not vise-versa), but all I found so far is stuff like "Sixty-Seven Scriptural References Which Tell Us That It Is The Sun And Not The Earth That Moves".------------------- I guess the point being, there are people who believe crazy stuff like this, and for no better reason than they are convinced this is what the Bible says. And I feel this is a single example of how some people simply seem unable to process Biblical metaphorical language and parables. But I'd love to hear what other people think.
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on Jun 7, 2007 18:03:18 GMT -5
The best part of sites like that (not just religious oriented, but anything that's some new "scientific theory/truth) is how they say they have all the answers, but first you have to buy a book. IF they did indeed have solid proof, shouldn't it have been published in some journal or something? If not, shouldn't they be posting all their "findings" for free, so everyone could "know the truth"?
The shoddy construction of that webpage (a layperson could make a better looking one with a simple WYSIWYG editor) also damages whatever credibility the author has/had.
|
|
|
Post by tragicmishap on Jun 7, 2007 20:00:13 GMT -5
Well why don't we raise the question that Carnage posed in another thread? How can we accept some parts of the Bible as metaphor and others as literal truth?
|
|
|
Post by iamiam on Jun 9, 2007 10:34:36 GMT -5
Well why don't we raise the question that Carnage posed in another thread? How can we accept some parts of the Bible as metaphor and others as literal truth? Are you saying the Bible must entirely be one or the other, as if it were a newspaper article, history book, or science text -- where truth only takes the form of presented facts? I think that notion is absurd. When Jesus broke bread and said "This is my body" was he being literal or metaphorical? What about next when he says "But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table." ? I think overall the words of Jesus make an interesting point of study on this topic, as he presents Truth in many cases using literal statements, and many other cases by speaking figuratively. So if this mix is how Jesus presented Truth, why do we expect different from the entire rest of the Bible?
|
|
|
Post by iamiam on Jun 9, 2007 10:38:32 GMT -5
The best part of sites like that (not just religious oriented, but anything that's some new "scientific theory/truth) is how they say they have all the answers, but first you have to buy a book. IF they did indeed have solid proof, shouldn't it have been published in some journal or something? If not, shouldn't they be posting all their "findings" for free, so everyone could "know the truth"? The shoddy construction of that webpage (a layperson could make a better looking one with a simple WYSIWYG editor) also damages whatever credibility the author has/had. Agreed, agreed, and agreed. I think the distrubing point isn't that people like this goofball are out there - well of course they are -- nor that he's trying to make a buck. But that we have lawmakers like Rep. Ben Bridges in my home state who are looking to pass laws based on this garbage.
|
|
|
Post by autobodycad on Jun 12, 2007 10:05:27 GMT -5
The best part of sites like that (not just religious oriented, but anything that's some new "scientific theory/truth) is how they say they have all the answers, but first you have to buy a book. IF they did indeed have solid proof, shouldn't it have been published in some journal or something? If not, shouldn't they be posting all their "findings" for free, so everyone could "know the truth"? This reminds me of Kevin Trudeau. Every time you turn on the TV, he's sitting down with someone, being 'interviewed'. He somehow knows all about wealth and health and the good life. Exactly what he does for a living (other than swindle people into buying his books), I have no idea.
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on Jun 12, 2007 15:17:49 GMT -5
Well why don't we raise the question that Carnage posed in another thread? How can we accept some parts of the Bible as metaphor and others as literal truth? Are you saying the Bible must entirely be one or the other, as if it were a newspaper article, history book, or science text -- where truth only takes the form of presented facts? I think that notion is absurd. When Jesus broke bread and said "This is my body" was he being literal or metaphorical? What about next when he says "But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table." ? I think overall the words of Jesus make an interesting point of study on this topic, as he presents Truth in many cases using literal statements, and many other cases by speaking figuratively. So if this mix is how Jesus presented Truth, why do we expect different from the entire rest of the Bible? My statement wasn't meant to imply that things that were obviously metaphors should be taken literally (i.e., the stories that start out something like "once there was a man..."). I was referring to the things that are not implicitly metaphors/stories. Religious folks are content to classify this latter group as either literal or figurative, depending on how they're feeling at the time, or what the current scientific info or societal trends are. The bible is definitely NOT a newspaper article, history book, or science text. It is a religious document. As such, it should not be interpreted nor given the same authority as a newspaper article, history book, or science text.
|
|
|
Post by iamiam on Jun 19, 2007 19:46:21 GMT -5
Religious folks are content to classify this latter group as either literal or figurative, depending on how they're feeling at the time, or what the current scientific info or societal trends are. Can you give me an example of what you're talking about, because I'm trying to think of one and nothing comes to mind. BTW I don't think there's anything wrong with scientific discovery changing the way people view things - I mean, that's the whole point, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on Jun 23, 2007 23:07:08 GMT -5
Religious folks are content to classify this latter group as either literal or figurative, depending on how they're feeling at the time, or what the current scientific info or societal trends are. Can you give me an example of what you're talking about, because I'm trying to think of one and nothing comes to mind. BTW I don't think there's anything wrong with scientific discovery changing the way people view things - I mean, that's the whole point, isn't it? The things I was referring to is mostly the OT stories that christians hold to be fact or "science". A few hundred years ago it was the geocentric vs heliocentric model of the universe debate. Lately it's been the age of the earth. I can remember a time when almost all religious groups held to a young earth idea. With the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary that has been recently gathered, more and more groups are switching to an old earth belief, and changing the creation story from a literal one to a metaphorical one. Basically, they modify their belief system in order to fit current scientific thinking. IF any sort of story like that can be interpreted either way (literal or metaphorical), then what prevents the rest of the bible from being the exact same thing?
|
|
|
Post by drenchedecent on Jun 24, 2007 11:23:32 GMT -5
The bible is definitely NOT a newspaper article, history book, or science text. It is a religious document. As such, it should not be interpreted nor given the same authority as a newspaper article, history book, or science text. the Bible has MORE authority than a newspaper article, history book or science text because it is INSPIRED by GOD.
|
|
|
Post by tragicmishap on Jun 26, 2007 18:47:19 GMT -5
Well why don't we raise the question that Carnage posed in another thread? How can we accept some parts of the Bible as metaphor and others as literal truth? Are you saying the Bible must entirely be one or the other, as if it were a newspaper article, history book, or science text -- where truth only takes the form of presented facts? I think that notion is absurd. When Jesus broke bread and said "This is my body" was he being literal or metaphorical? What about next when he says "But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table." ? I think overall the words of Jesus make an interesting point of study on this topic, as he presents Truth in many cases using literal statements, and many other cases by speaking figuratively. So if this mix is how Jesus presented Truth, why do we expect different from the entire rest of the Bible? Why are you attacking me? I asked a simple question. There are obviously both literal and figurative passages in Scripture. My question leaves that open for discussion. And it wasn't my question to begin with. It was Broken Carnage's question which he posed in the same thread that I wrote this: "However it is worth pointing out that there are portions of the Bible that are clearly not literal. Jesus' parables for instance. No one believes they literally happened somewhere. That is clearly understood by the reader. He tells them to demonstrate a moral. Revelations and the superlative language used in other prophetic books are mostly metaphorical. Even those who say they interpret Revelations literally don't literally believe in a seven headed dragon with ten horns rising from the sea to chase a women all over creation. C.S. Lewis thought that the books of Job and Jonah are fictional stories intended to teach a moral lesson. I'm with him on the book of Job. I disagree with him about Jonah, which it's rare to find me disagreeing with Lewis . "
|
|
|
Post by tragicmishap on Jun 26, 2007 18:56:23 GMT -5
I have many reasons why I believe the Genesis account to be a literal historical document. It's definitely not a scientific document, but it is meant to be a historical one. One reason is the two long genealogies in Genesis. There is no metaphorical value in them at all. In the gospels, Jesus did not recite genealogies in his parables. There are however genealogies at the beginning of Matthew and Luke. Do you take those genealogies as meant to be figurative or literal? I believe they are obviously meant to be literal, as are the ones in Genesis. This leads me to believe that Genesis, like the gospels, is meant to be a historical account of events that actually happened. Now, you could still argue that just because the author intended them to be literal and believed them to be so doesn't mean they are. But there's no sense in claiming the author of Genesis meant it to be some metaphorical parable.
Mostly I determine what's literal and what's not by whether or not the text reads like a story or a history. In other words, I compare the style of writing with other fictions and histories that I've read and know for sure which category they belong to. Perhaps that's flawed, but that's how I usually do it.
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on Jun 30, 2007 23:19:57 GMT -5
The bible is definitely NOT a newspaper article, history book, or science text. It is a religious document. As such, it should not be interpreted nor given the same authority as a newspaper article, history book, or science text. the Bible has MORE authority than a newspaper article, history book or science text because it is INSPIRED by GOD. Um, how bout not? The bible has whatever authority you choose to give it. As such, it does NOT have universal authority, and thus has no REAL authority.
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on Jun 30, 2007 23:31:23 GMT -5
One reason is the two long genealogies in Genesis. There is no metaphorical value in them at all. And we have similar things in the LOTR universe. I've also seen other authors create similar genealogies for their characters. Does this mean that these works of fiction should be interpreted as a real, literal history? So you're telling me all the "old wives tales" and the like should be taken as absolute truth, because they've been passed down from generation to generation, and people have written them down as truth at some point in time? This can only work if you read other fictions and histories that are written at approximately the same time as the bible is supposed to have been written. Otherwise you're comparing literary works from two very different eras, and will likely get skewed outcomes due to differences in writing styles and literary devices. However, it should be noted that the determinations of your method still leaves the interpretation of the bible up to the reader. In other words, what's literal and what's metaphorical is up to you - it's all interpretation, and it's highly likely that two readers will end up with different viewpoints.
|
|
|
Post by iamiam on Jul 14, 2007 20:40:22 GMT -5
Why are you attacking me? I asked a simple question. " Sorry- I didn't mean to sound like I was attacking you or anyone! I think we basically agree on the general point, but the question you raised seemed to infer that both literal & figurative language couldn't be mixed together for some reason. So I don't think Genesis ch 1 is literal, but your point about the genealogies is a good one. Maybe something to do with they way which stories and names are passed on in an oral tradition before being eventually written down... hey I don;t know. The things I was referring to is mostly the OT stories that christians hold to be fact or "science". A few hundred years ago it was the geocentric vs heliocentric model of the universe debate. And per the OP, obviously some out there still want to debate the geocentric vs non-geocentric (i think maybe a more accurate word than heliocentric). But I think we might agree that trying to use science to support matters of faith is silly, and (at least for me) flies completely in the face of what faith really should be about. Or, I guess I mean to say is that any question really worthy of faith isn't going to be testable by science the first place (e.g. on the existence or nature of God, or is Jesus the son of God?). But faith that is all wrapped up in matters such as how old the earth is and whether or not men evolved from apes is basically squandered I think, because while both of those are important questions for science, I think they are at best tangential (but arguably irrelevant) to religion.
|
|
|
Post by tragicmishap on Aug 16, 2007 19:43:53 GMT -5
That's interesting. I view evolution and Darwinism as religions in their own right. To do science at some point you have to take some first principles on faith. It is surprising how specific aspects of certain theories are only believed because that makes sense with the theory, and not because of actual evidence. More recent philosophies of science tend to evaluate scientific theories not on their truth value but on their practical value because of this realization. In other words, you have to have faith in something to even do science. Since people who do science often have different beliefs, the only way a scientific theory can be objectively evaluated is to evaluate the practical achievements and advancements which can be attributed to that theory. My beef is with people who
1) Don't understand the difference between belief and fact in their own views and tend to believe that everything they believe is fact
2) Because of 1), will not accept or allow other belief systems scientific validity, despite the obvious hypocrisy involved in that belief
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on Aug 20, 2007 19:18:53 GMT -5
I really wish people would stop dismissing evolution because it has the unfortunate word "theory" attached to it. Do you know why evolution is still referred to as "theory"? Mostly it's because it occurs on a timescale beyond a human lifespan. Evolution is as much a "theory" as the law of gravity (which, in case you didn't know, is far, far from an absolute "law").
Here's the difference between science and religion: science tests itself, and can thus prove itself wrong, in which case it adapts to the new evidence. It does not dismiss something just because it disagrees with current thinking. Religion on the other hand, is composed of dogma established by a holy book, the church, etc. Dogma is unchanging. If something comes to light that disagrees with dogma, the new something is automatically dismissed. Religion is static; science is dynamic. This is what has allowed us as a society to progress as far as we have technologically. If science were composed of dogma, we would still be using sticks for tools.
|
|
|
Post by vineyardite on Aug 21, 2007 10:09:19 GMT -5
I still use rulers...
|
|
|
Post by autobodycad on Aug 27, 2007 16:29:51 GMT -5
I really wish people would stop dismissing evolution because it has the unfortunate word "theory" attached to it. Do you know why evolution is still referred to as "theory"? Mostly it's because it occurs on a timescale beyond a human lifespan. Evolution is as much a "theory" as the law of gravity (which, in case you didn't know, is far, far from an absolute "law"). Here's the difference between science and religion: science tests itself, and can thus prove itself wrong, in which case it adapts to the new evidence. It does not dismiss something just because it disagrees with current thinking. Religion on the other hand, is composed of dogma established by a holy book, the church, etc. Dogma is unchanging. If something comes to light that disagrees with dogma, the new something is automatically dismissed. Religion is static; science is dynamic. This is what has allowed us as a society to progress as far as we have technologically. If science were composed of dogma, we would still be using sticks for tools. and the origin of the universe was a one-time deal (as far as we know) and can't be repeated or tested, so no origins theory will ever be true science.
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on Aug 29, 2007 18:36:10 GMT -5
and the origin of the universe was a one-time deal (as far as we know) and can't be repeated or tested, so no origins theory will ever be true science. So you ignore the fact that credible theory is based on observable occurrences?
|
|