To all religious people....

Originally posted by inimalist
one of the most important researchers (a team leader) on the project mapping the human genome was/is a devout Catholic

The Language of God by Francis S. Collins FTW!

Its actually a good read, but CS Lewis makes a more universal argument for God. A lot of his (Collins's) time is spent tearing down Young Earth Creationism, so I like it as a source against Fundies. He is by far the most rational proponent for ID (he calls it BioLogos, which has some significant differences with ID) that I have found so far. I don't agree with all of his points, (or his premise) but he certainly argues them well.

Is that who you were talking about?

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
DUDE!!!! NO WAY!!! i met Zeus! He told me that he, Posiden and Jesus go bowling every Friday! But Jesus has a curfew because his dad wants him home before midnight. Zeus told me that the guys make fun of Jesus for still living with his dad, but Jesus trys to explain to them how he lives with himself, but its all too complicated. Zeus was chill.

Cool...

Jesus never mentioned them to me...

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Cool...

Jesus never mentioned them to me...

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
DUDE!!!! NO WAY!!! i met Zeus! He told me that he, Posiden and Jesus go bowling every Friday! But Jesus has a curfew because his dad wants him home before midnight. Zeus told me that the guys make fun of Jesus for still living with his dad, but Jesus trys to explain to them how he lives with himself, but its all too complicated. Zeus was chill.

lol

You can't prove Jesus didn't appear to him in the flesh. You might think there are better explanations for that, but you can't say it didn't happen.

Mocking important subjective experiences that people have isn't really productive either...

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

The Language of God by Francis S. Collins FTW!

Its actually a good read, but CS Lewis makes a more universal argument for God. A lot of his (Collins's) time is spent tearing down Young Earth Creationism, so I like it as a source against Fundies. He is by far the most rational proponent for ID (he calls it BioLogos, which has some significant differences with ID) that I have found so far. I don't agree with all of his points, (or his premise) but he certainly argues them well.

Is that who you were talking about?

absolutely. Actually, he had a really good point from a talk he gave, I'm paraphrasing of course (I wasn't there either, for what thats worth): Evolutionary science needs to steal back the word "design". Its a major linguistic tool for the ID crowd, simply because it rhetorically insinuates that evolution is the cobblestone random chance theory the ID proponents paint it as. He said that evolutionary design is a type of design, by the environment, and is not random at all.

I like him, though I have never read anything of his 😬

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
http://www.godisimaginary.com/excuses.htm hopefully that one video will make more sense after you read this.

They give that summary. Think about it a bit and you'll realize the massive gaping holes in their logic. It may prove that Jesus lied, that he isn't omnipotent or that he lacks the singular power to appear spontaneously when called. The claim that him not doing so disproves his existence is asinine and insane to anyone with even a passing familiarity with formal logic.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They give that summary. Think about it a bit and you'll realize the massive gaping holes in their logic. It may prove that Jesus lied, that he isn't omnipotent or that he lacks the singular power to appear spontaneously when called. The claim that him not doing so disproves his existence is asinine and insane to anyone with even a passing familiarity with formal logic.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Ahh, but Jesus is God and God is omnipotent and perfect. So that God can, or should be able to, do it. Maybe there is a God. But the god we are talking about, Yahweh, is imaginary because he cant do it.

Just because he doesn't do it. Doesn't mean he can't.

Null: Do you believe the bible can be interpreted as metaphor?

Sure, but Dert: 13:1 says Take everything I say as fact, add nothing to it, and take nothing away. So, it really CANT be interpreted as a metaphor.... although SOME parts can, things that come up repeatedly and in detail should be taken as biblical fact.

Originally posted by inimalist
Admiral Akbar: Do you believe the bible can be interpreted as metaphor?

As a metaphor for what exactly?

No, he was talking to me, and i think he meant parts of the bible.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Sure, but Dert: 13:1 says Take everything I say as fact, add nothing to it, and take nothing away. So, it really CANT be interpreted as a metaphor.... although SOME parts can, things that come up repeatedly and in detail should be taken as biblical fact.

so no then, you don't think it can be...

unfortunately, I feel you have fallen into the same mindset that you oppose. You have a very strict idea of what it means for someone to believe in a religion and what that entails, much like fundamentalists of every religion do.

While you see the need for things in the bible to be absolute, there are many people (the majority) who don't see this need. There are no strict interpretations.

As someone who doesn't believe in God or the books thereof, I don't personally feel that I have the authority to interpret any biblical passages, so I can't talk about Dert, that passage or what ever else might qualify as Biblical fact... Why do you feel there is no other way to read that passage? Do you know the context?

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
As a metaphor for what exactly?

as someone who doesn't believe in the bible, I don't feel I have the personal qualifications to interpret meaning from it

EDIT: less cynically, I guess I meant to say "as literal described, word for word, fact", metaphor probably doesn't work grammatically. Does make it sound all sweet and pretty though 😉

Originally posted by inimalist
as someone who doesn't believe in the bible, I don't feel I have the personal qualifications to interpret meaning from it

EDIT: less cynically, I guess I meant to say "as literal described, word for word, fact", metaphor probably doesn't work grammatically. Does make it sound all sweet and pretty though 😉

Then maybe someone who does read and study scripture can answer it. Anyone out there, shed some light on this question.

EDIT- 🙂

Originally posted by inimalist
so no then, you don't think it can be...

unfortunately, I feel you have fallen into the same mindset that you oppose. You have a very strict idea of what it means for someone to believe in a religion and what that entails, much like fundamentalists of every religion do.

While you see the need for things in the bible to be absolute, there are many people (the majority) who don't see this need. There are no strict interpretations.

As someone who doesn't believe in God or the books thereof, I don't personally feel that I have the authority to interpret any biblical passages, so I can't talk about Dert, that passage or what ever else might qualify as Biblical fact... Why do you feel there is no other way to read that passage? Do you know the context?

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
That is all very true.

awwww, thank you 🙂

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
But think of it this way.

oh, so it isn't true 🙁

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
The bible is a story right?

as someone who doesn't believe in the bible I don't feel knowledgeable enough about it to make such a statement

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Do you need a degree to interpret stories? Do you have to go to college to learn the meaning of Star Wars? No.

yes, absolutly

There are entire departments dedicated to the interpretation of hidden meanings and morals within stories.

I don't think you thought that one through

lest you feel as credible a source on Hemingway as someone with a degree in American literature.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
As Thomas Jefferson said "Theology is not taught in the institution."

He didn't say that, and the only quote I could find similar to that was: "a professorship of theology should have no
place in our institution", refering to the University of Virginia and his radical idea, for the day, that religion and education should be seperate.

He was not saying you don't need to know something to have an informed opinion about it.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
That passage means you cannot interpret the bible metaphorically.

in your opinion

could you clarify the theological grounds you are using to make that assertion?

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Sure, it may be wrong, but then the whole bible is out of wack.

or it, and the bible, could mean something completely different from your interpretation of it, unless you think you know the absolute biblical truth?

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Maybe there is no God, and he is just a pantheistic metaphor. But people believe he exists, that he grants miracles, and the like. They interpret that literally, or at least a HUGE amount of americans do (Gallup poll shows that 60% of americans believe the bible is the literal word of God).

lol, it isn't a popularity contest. I'm saying there are many people around the world who have no problem believing in the bible and not needing it to be word for word truth.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
So what is the criterion of real and metaphor? It cant be that whatever we agree with is real, and the rest is metaphor.

as someone who doesn't believe in the bible I don't feel knowledgeable enough about it to make such a judgment

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Then maybe someone who does read and study scripture can answer it. Anyone out there, shed some light on this question.

EDIT- 🙂

that goes for the above post as well, and yes, that is the Jefferson thought i had in mind, and i completely agree with him.

Do you have to believe the in the bible to answer those questions? You need only read it and understand it.

I've also never read it

I'm obviously saying that for the rhetorical effect, re: I don't think a bunch of atheists really have the right to make judgment of what qualifies as biblical interpretation. That we think it is ridiculous goes without saying, but to start making claims about meanings... Sure, it can mean something to you.

but who has the RIGHT to make claims on it then? What is the CRITERION for saying what is and isn't literal truth? Only God can decide what is right and wrong, we HUMANS can only interpret it. and i believe that GOD intended to right it as a literal book, not up for interpretation. And by God, i mean ignorant Bronze age men.