Question: What should we do to reduce our impact on the environment?
Richard Cizik: Well I think that the Bible is authoritative. I believe it’s infallible and inerrant in the original autographs. It is my basis for life and conduct. And what that means is that if the Bible from Genesis to Revelation says that we’re to be stewards of the earth, then we are to be stewards of the earth. If in Genesis it says that we are to protect and care for it, and yes, exercise dominion over all living things – the birds of the air, the fish of the sea – and exercise a dominion that’s balanced with this kind of stewardship … And then it also says in Revelation that God will judge those who destroy the earth. In fact it says in Revelation 11:18 that God will destroy those who destroy the earth. That is a warning. That is a warning to all of those who would say this doesn’t matter. And so for those who have an argument on this issue, I say, “I’m sorry. Your argument is not with me. Your argument is with God, because either His Word says this or it doesn’t, and it does.” So if it says we are to be a steward over all of it, and that we someday have to give it back to Him, and will be held accountable in what shape we give it back to Him … therefore if that’s the case, we have no right either to plunder, or pillage, or destroy it, or allow others to do that in our name. And so for those who think, “Well it’s not my duty,” or, “It’s not my responsibility,” or, “I won’t be held accountable.” Au contraire. I say that’s not right. You will be held accountable by God’s word. Because at the end of time, we’ll either be found to be a steward – “Well done my good and faithful servant,” the Lord will say – or He will say otherwise. “Why didn’t you do that which I commanded you to do? What was it? Were there blinkers on your eyes that allowed you to just say, ‘Oh well this is just a Democrat or blue state issue.’ Or ‘It’s the greens, the environmental issue. It’s their duty, not my duty.’” I don’t think God lets us off the hook that way.
Recorded on: 6/25/07
Discuss
susanne scholz on January 7, 2008, 9:42 AM
This position statement confirms what "intellectuals" (New York Times) fear about religion discourse. Why do you post this simplistic, literalist theological %u201Cclichéd%u201D statement? Find serious scholars who study their subject matter and provide us with serious discourse, not more of the same we find elsewhere, especially when the topic is religion and the Bible.
Stephen Kaufman on January 7, 2008, 11:51 AM
There are thousands of qualified people around the world of all faiths who understand the origin of the bibles (note plural!!!) and their role in the development of Western culture. Why on Earth would you want to begin the discussion with a fundamentalist? I thought this was supposed to be for people who "think"!!
susanne scholz on January 7, 2008, 2:42 PM
This position statement confirms what “intellectuals” (New York Times) fear about religion discourse. Why do you post this simplistic, literalist theological %u201Cclich
Stephen Kaufman on January 7, 2008, 4:51 PM
There are thousands of qualified people around the world of all faiths who understand the origin of the bibles (note plural!!!) and their role in the development of Western culture. Why on Earth would you want to begin the discussion with a fundamentalist? I thought this was supposed to be for people who “think”!!
Susan Harding on January 7, 2008, 5:45 PM
Listen carefully to Cizik. He%u2019s preaching to the choir in the sense that he%u2019s agreeing with evangelicals that the Bible is true, but he%u2019s telling them something they don%u2019t expect, or want, to hear. He%u2019s saying that the Bible (God) is against global warming. He wants climate change, not abortion or gay marriage, to be evangelicals%u2019 hot button issue. I don%u2019t agree with him about the Bible, but I do about global warming. Cizik as a brilliant ally to have & I thank him for this posting!
Susan Harding on January 7, 2008, 10:45 PM
Listen carefully to Cizik. He%u2019s preaching to the choir in the sense that he%u2019s agreeing with evangelicals that the Bible is true, but he%u2019s telling them something they don%u2019t expect, or want, to hear. He%u2019s saying that the Bible (God) is against global warming. He wants climate change, not abortion or gay marriage, to be evangelicals%u2019 hot button issue. I don%u2019t agree with him about the Bible, but I do about global warming. Cizik as a brilliant ally to have & I thank him for this posting!
Peter Kennedy on January 9, 2008, 11:27 PM
The greatest tragedy of human development so far is that we have not been able to leave behind the terrible baggage of religion. That religious "belief" is so pervasive in human culture must habe some biological or evolutionary value. But what could it be? Is Dawkins right on this topic?
Peter Kennedy on January 10, 2008, 4:27 AM
The greatest tragedy of human development so far is that we have not been able to leave behind the terrible baggage of religion. That religious “belief” is so pervasive in human culture must habe some biological or evolutionary value. But what could it be? Is Dawkins right on this topic?
Chris Day on January 15, 2008, 7:24 PM
The bible should be interpreted literally. Its truly correct in everyway.
James Imnotgonnatellyou on January 15, 2008, 7:34 PM
The bible(s) should be used as a historical text to give us bearing on the workings of the past, not used as a religious document. The actual events in the bible(s) has(have) clearly been diluted of much of the fact that it(they) originally contained by the passage of time and multiple changes made to it(them) during that time.
jebus lampshade on January 15, 2008, 7:50 PM
everyone here misses the mark. the question is inherently subjective. how else are you going to expect people to answer this question? left or right they are going to push their agenda weather they realize it or not.
Jamie Barbour on January 15, 2008, 8:56 PM
the only way for our world to know true peace is to eliminate all world "religions" it is what seperates us. every religion should be united to form one whole religion
Chris Day on January 16, 2008, 12:24 AM
The bible should be interpreted literally. Its truly correct in everyway.
James Imnotgonnatellyou on January 16, 2008, 12:34 AM
The bible(s) should be used as a historical text to give us bearing on the workings of the past, not used as a religious document. The actual events in the bible(s) has(have) clearly been diluted of much of the fact that it(they) originally contained by the passage of time and multiple changes made to it(them) during that time.
jebus lampshade on January 16, 2008, 12:50 AM
everyone here misses the mark. the question is inherently subjective. how else are you going to expect people to answer this question? left or right they are going to push their agenda weather they realize it or not.
Jamie Barbour on January 16, 2008, 1:56 AM
the only way for our world to know true peace is to eliminate all world “religions” it is what seperates us. every religion should be united to form one whole religion
Alex Wickers on January 16, 2008, 6:32 AM
Axiom… not to offend your opinion, you are entitled to it… Unification is great, but the problem lies in deciding what religion to make universal, expecting mindless cooperation, and abandoning age-old script. Many are devoted to their religion, Many dont care, and others are atheist. A better solution is learning to accept ad live together. People like thich nhat hanh and others work to make buddha and jesus one… but i dont think the world will ever accept one for of faith…. also, i think the bible should be taken with a large grain of salt and be loooked at philosophically
Andrew Torr on January 16, 2008, 6:41 AM
There is nothing special about the Bible to separate it from any other piece of fictional literature. There is absolutely no good reason, in its contents or in how it came to be, for anyone to believe otherwise.
Fred Stopp on January 16, 2008, 9:34 AM
Any reasoning which states that the bible is partly literal and partly metaphorical – is flawed.
There are no footnotes to which parts should be taken literally.
The bible is created by man, and is a tool used by the few to control the many
William Meyer on January 16, 2008, 11:15 AM
i do believe in the message of the bible with regard to the environment. i think it is our duty (the human species) to start taking care of the earth in a more responsible way. however i have to say that the bible should not be interpreted literally…if that were the case imagine where we would actually be right now…
Alex Wickers on January 16, 2008, 11:32 AM
Axiom… not to offend your opinion, you are entitled to it… Unification is great, but the problem lies in deciding what religion to make universal, expecting mindless cooperation, and abandoning age-old script. Many are devoted to their religion, Many dont care, and others are atheist. A better solution is learning to accept ad live together. People like thich nhat hanh and others work to make buddha and jesus one… but i dont think the world will ever accept one for of faith…. also, i think the bible should be taken with a large grain of salt and be loooked at philosophically
Andrew Torr on January 16, 2008, 11:41 AM
There is nothing special about the Bible to separate it from any other piece of fictional literature. There is absolutely no good reason, in its contents or in how it came to be, for anyone to believe otherwise.
Cody POWPOW on January 16, 2008, 1:11 PM
OMG this man is insane…the bible is absolutule flawed…i honestly cant belive he said its infallibal.
so in exodus 21:7 the bible says its ok to sell my daughter into slavery. Levidicus 25:44 says is ok for me to buy slaves only if thier from my another nation..i think id like to own some american slaves but sadly your coutry has decided to go against the word of god in denying me that infallibal right. what happened to stoneing people who blaspheme – leviticus 24:10-16.
And please check these passeges for yourself!There is something seriously wrong with this picture.
Fred Stopp on January 16, 2008, 2:34 PM
Any reasoning which states that the bible is partly literal and partly metaphorical – is flawed.
There are no footnotes to which parts should be taken literally.
The bible is created by man, and is a tool used by the few to control the many
a a on January 16, 2008, 3:11 PM
"Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand." – Matthew 13:13.
If the Bible is a work of fiction, why do so many scholars consider it to be one of the most accurate historical documents EVER written?
Interesting how a common laborer from a boorish province can have such a huge effect on so many people now and throughout history.
james anon on January 16, 2008, 3:24 PM
Poster, Richard, is not attempting to argue that the bible is truly infallible, or written under god's influence, or anything like that, this is another argument altogether.
Instead, he questions the argument, made by many Christians (Ann Coulter), that because God has granted man dominion over the earth we are not accountable for its destruction. Personally, as an atheist, I find it encouraging that this ridiculous (and dangerous) argument can be refuted even under the working assumption that the bible is truth.
I think that, at least on the environmental issue, conservatives have hijacked the Christian religion and used it to push their own separate agenda. They have done this by cherry picking biblical phrases and perverting their intended meaning. This needs to stop as it's bad for Christians and non-Christians alike. This video is a step in the right direction.
Daina Dalton on January 16, 2008, 4:10 PM
What Bible? I am a Christian so I know what Bible we are all talking about, but what version? I mean I am not always confident that the Full Life Study Bible sitting on my coffee table right now is the complete WORD! There are even debates going on right now on the translation of virgin. Yes that might be what was originally written, but we have no idea that the way we interpret it means what it mean then! I am not questioning God's Word, I am question man and I think the Bible covers the issue of the human mind, judgment and interpretation. Also religion and faith is not the world%u2019s problem people are. The bible is not a work of fiction, umans just have not been able to crack it yet.
William Meyer on January 16, 2008, 4:15 PM
i do believe in the message of the bible with regard to the environment. i think it is our duty (the human species) to start taking care of the earth in a more responsible way. however i have to say that the bible should not be interpreted literally…if that were the case imagine where we would actually be right now…
Levi Hoeniges on January 16, 2008, 5:23 PM
i agreed with some that he said, but you know it sounded like he was talking about the Constitiuion, no one can interpret the bible succesfully, but we can take the major points and stories from it and just live it.
Cody POWPOW on January 16, 2008, 6:11 PM
OMG this man is insane…the bible is absolutule flawed…i honestly cant belive he said its infallibal.
so in exodus 21:7 the bible says its ok to sell my daughter into slavery. Levidicus 25:44 says is ok for me to buy slaves only if thier from my another nation..i think id like to own some american slaves but sadly your coutry has decided to go against the word of god in denying me that infallibal right. what happened to stoneing people who blaspheme – leviticus 24:10-16.
And please check these passeges for yourself!There is something seriously wrong with this picture.
a a on January 16, 2008, 8:11 PM
“Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.” – Matthew 13:13.
If the Bible is a work of fiction, why do so many scholars consider it to be one of the most accurate historical documents EVER written?
Interesting how a common laborer from a boorish province can have such a huge effect on so many people now and throughout history.
james anon on January 16, 2008, 8:24 PM
Poster, Richard, is not attempting to argue that the bible is truly infallible, or written under god’s influence, or anything like that, this is another argument altogether.
Instead, he questions the argument, made by many Christians (Ann Coulter), that because God has granted man dominion over the earth we are not accountable for its destruction. Personally, as an atheist, I find it encouraging that this ridiculous (and dangerous) argument can be refuted even under the working assumption that the bible is truth.
I think that, at least on the environmental issue, conservatives have hijacked the Christian religion and used it to push their own separate agenda. They have done this by cherry picking biblical phrases and perverting their intended meaning. This needs to stop as it’s bad for Christians and non-Christians alike. This video is a step in the right direction.
Daina Dalton on January 16, 2008, 9:10 PM
What Bible? I am a Christian so I know what Bible we are all talking about, but what version? I mean I am not always confident that the Full Life Study Bible sitting on my coffee table right now is the complete WORD! There are even debates going on right now on the translation of virgin. Yes that might be what was originally written, but we have no idea that the way we interpret it means what it mean then! I am not questioning God’s Word, I am question man and I think the Bible covers the issue of the human mind, judgment and interpretation. Also religion and faith is not the world%u2019s problem people are. The bible is not a work of fiction, umans just have not been able to crack it yet.
Levi Hoeniges on January 16, 2008, 10:23 PM
i agreed with some that he said, but you know it sounded like he was talking about the Constitiuion, no one can interpret the bible succesfully, but we can take the major points and stories from it and just live it.
Carson Kelly on January 16, 2008, 10:44 PM
Is he for real?
Why do Bible thumpers take this book so literally? Arguments such as these are just circular and silly.
I agree that the earth needs to be tended to. This is common sense from an instinctual view of self preservation, not some divinely ordained directive. It is pretty simple from self survival.
These thumpers are well intended, and christian faith based inspired organizations have brought a tremendous benefit to this world, but seriously. the arc of this belief structure is on the decline…
Carson Kelly on January 16, 2008, 10:44 PM
Is he for real?
Why do Bible thumpers take this book so literally? Arguments such as these are just circular and silly.
I agree that the earth needs to be tended to. This is common sense from an instinctual view of self preservation, not some divinely ordained directive. It is pretty simple from self survival.
These thumpers are well intended, and christian faith based inspired organizations have brought a tremendous benefit to this world, but seriously. the arc of this belief structure is on the decline…
Carson Kelly on January 17, 2008, 3:44 AM
Is he for real?
Why do Bible thumpers take this book so literally? Arguments such as these are just circular and silly.
I agree that the earth needs to be tended to. This is common sense from an instinctual view of self preservation, not some divinely ordained directive. It is pretty simple from self survival.
These thumpers are well intended, and christian faith based inspired organizations have brought a tremendous benefit to this world, but seriously. the arc of this belief structure is on the decline…
Carson Kelly on January 17, 2008, 3:44 AM
Is he for real?
Why do Bible thumpers take this book so literally? Arguments such as these are just circular and silly.
I agree that the earth needs to be tended to. This is common sense from an instinctual view of self preservation, not some divinely ordained directive. It is pretty simple from self survival.
These thumpers are well intended, and christian faith based inspired organizations have brought a tremendous benefit to this world, but seriously. the arc of this belief structure is on the decline…
Cody POWPOW on January 17, 2008, 10:13 AM
To poster Donny Mac,
As a student of both history and religion i have to say your waaaaaaaay off mark in claiming that "many scholars consider it to be one of the most accurate historical documents EVER written" that is simply not true. In fact most scholars argue that it filled with historical inaccuracies, poor contextual transaltions, and is total hearsay…NOT ACCURATE HISTORY. even the new testament cant agree with itself…i dont even want to bother with the lit crit problems associated with the old testament right now. The new testament was selected, editied, changed, revised and complied hudreds of years after any of the gospels were supposedly written…absolutly none of its presumabley original scripts exist today.
Cody POWPOW on January 17, 2008, 10:14 AM
infallibal hey? so in exodus 21:7 the bible says its ok to sell my daughter into slavery. Levidicus 25:44 says is ok for me to buy slaves only if thier from my another nation..i think id like to own some american slaves but sadly your country has decided to go against the word of god in denying me that infallibal right. what happened to stoneing people who blaspheme – leviticus 24:10-16. And please check these passeges for yourself! There is something seriously wrong with this picture.
eileen fleming on January 17, 2008, 11:39 AM
The Bible was NOT FAXED in from God!
Have you heard the true tale of the Bedouin named Mohammed Ali?
How about the Nag´ Hammâdi library?
I begin this true story at its beginning in 1945, in Egypt, in the land just above the bend of the Nile, north of the Valley of the Kings, across the river from the city of Nag´ Hammâdi, near the hamlet of al-Qasr, under a cliff called Jabal al-Tarif.
An Egyptian Bedouin named Mohammed Ali was out gathering sabakh, a nitrate-rich fertilizer for the crops that he grew in the small hamlet of al-Qasr.
He was aghast to stumble upon a skeleton as he dug, and bewildered when he uncovered a two-foot high earthenware jar. A bowl had been placed over the top, and it was sealed with bitumen.
At first, the Bedouin thought an evil genie was within, but when he shook the heavy jar, he heard things moving and thought it might be gold.
He smashed the jar open and out fluttered pieces of gold particles that he tried to catch, but they disappeared. When he peered into the jar, he was dismayed to find twelve leather-bound books.
Mohammed Ali was illiterate, so he placed no great value on books, but was confident he could sell them and make something for his troubles. So he carried the jar filled with books back to the homestead.
Now, Mohammed Ali also happened to be a fugitive from the law, for he had wielded the weapon that spilled the blood of a patriarch during a violent incident in a generation-long family feud, not so very long before.
After a few days of mulling over possibilities, he decided to give his find to the local Coptic priest for safekeeping. You see, he feared the authorities soon would be lurking about and would confiscate his possession before he could receive any money for it.
His mother ripped out many pages to keep the home fire going, and I grieve and wonder what ancient treasures she burned.
Anyway, the priest passed it on to his brother-in-law, a traveling tutor, who brought the books to the Coptic museum in Cairo on October 4, 1946.
What was found were ancient compositions, written in Coptic that had been translated from ancient Greek. The volumes were leather-bound pages of papyrus, and no doubt the gold dust that Mohammed Ali witnessed was from papyrus fragments that had broken off.
Under the leadership of UNESCO, Egypt, and the American scholar James Robinson, these anthologies and collections of texts with titles like the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene have now been translated into many languages.
I contend that when USA Christians fall in love with the Mystery of God; we will begin the world again.
These ancient texts offer NO new answers; but they do provide us with a glimpse of Christianity at its very roots, and it was most diverse indeed.
The most likely source for these books that have become known as the Nag Hamadi Library, was the Pachomius Monastery, which thrived for centuries just three miles from the burial site.
Scholars agree that most likely a monk from there buried these books in the wilderness under the cliff of Jabl al-Tarif for safe-keeping.
These texts had been deemed heretical by those who were gaining power through the political arena; the Proto-orthodox.
In the 4th century, Emperor Constantine, a pagan warrior became the first Christian ruler, but waited until he was on his deathbed before being baptized.
I contend that the most decisive event in the history of Christendom occurred when Emperor Constantine accepted the Christian faith, for those who had once been persecuted were now protected by an earthly king.
Both a patriarchal monarchical state and church were formed at the same time.
Power struggles and debates were common among the early Christians.
Individual churches determined which texts were read, and they all had their favorites.
Constantine sought to unite his empire, and uniting the church was a savvy political move.
He announced he would pay for fifty illuminated copies of scripture to be bound, and thus the biblical canon was established and sealed.
There was fierce debate among the bishops about what should be included and what left out.
The proto-orthodox, who had now become the dominant voice, determined what was heretical for everyone.
The proto-orthodox demanded much-loved scripture to be burned, usually because it did not fit their understanding of God.
Many of these texts were considered Gnostic.
Gnosis is defined as knowledge discerned intuitively.
Gnostic texts offer deep mystery that is discerned via intuition, not rational thought.
This is not the way for fundamentalists.
A Gnostic is open to receiving intuitive knowledge of deep spiritual truth.
For students of the New Testament, this is a much greater find than the Dead Sea Scrolls. Forty of the texts had previously been unknown to modern scholars.
Thirty-five scholars worked diligently on these translations, and all agreed that the bound books themselves date back to the fourth century and were written in Coptic translated from Greek and Aramaic-which is what Jesus spoke!
The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of the sayings of Jesus, words of wisdom, proverbs, parables, and some very confounding mysteries.
About 35 of the 114 sayings have no counterpart in the New Testament, while at least 20 are almost identical, and 54 have similarities.
Many scholars concur that the sayings were originally written in Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, the language of Jesus and his followers.
It is very possible the sayings are closer to the words Jesus actually spoke than what is found in the canonical gospels.
Two thousand years ago, there was lively debate about who Jesus was, and why he came.
The proto-orthodox, who were the majority, considered these gnostic texts anathema and thus deemed them heretical for many reasons.
The main reason is that they did not fit neatly into the evolving dogma.
Gnostic texts offer us mystery, not answers.
Jesus said he came that we would have life to the full; abundant life [John 10:10] and that takes deep thought.
Falling in love with the Mystery of God is a great place to start.
This story continues WAWA Blog January 18, 2008:
The Stages of the Soul and How Religiosity/Fundamentalism is holding up Evolution
WAWA:
http://wearewideawake.org/
Cody POWPOW on January 17, 2008, 3:13 PM
To poster Donny Mac,
As a student of both history and religion i have to say your waaaaaaaay off mark in claiming that “many scholars consider it to be one of the most accurate historical documents EVER written” that is simply not true. In fact most scholars argue that it filled with historical inaccuracies, poor contextual transaltions, and is total hearsay…NOT ACCURATE HISTORY. even the new testament cant agree with itself…i dont even want to bother with the lit crit problems associated with the old testament right now. The new testament was selected, editied, changed, revised and complied hudreds of years after any of the gospels were supposedly written…absolutly none of its presumabley original scripts exist today.
Cody POWPOW on January 17, 2008, 3:14 PM
infallibal hey? so in exodus 21:7 the bible says its ok to sell my daughter into slavery. Levidicus 25:44 says is ok for me to buy slaves only if thier from my another nation..i think id like to own some american slaves but sadly your country has decided to go against the word of god in denying me that infallibal right. what happened to stoneing people who blaspheme – leviticus 24:10-16. And please check these passeges for yourself! There is something seriously wrong with this picture.
eileen fleming on January 17, 2008, 4:39 PM
The Bible was NOT FAXED in from God!
Have you heard the true tale of the Bedouin named Mohammed Ali?
How about the Nag
James McDowell on January 17, 2008, 7:44 PM
The bible is not ment to be taken literally it is supposed to be a text for teaching people of the Christian faith how to live a moral life. The bible is not even accurate about how the stories in it are told. Stories differ from author to author based on the message the writer wishes to get across. The four gospels show this the most with their use of stories told by Jesus in order to get ideas across.
Madison Marasco on January 17, 2008, 11:16 PM
I’m sorry but I am pretty sure the bible wasn’t written in english. As well making any analyzation of the bible basically an analyzation of an interpretation of a situation that happened in biblical times. We also know that the writing down of situations never leads to bias.
James McDowell on January 18, 2008, 12:44 AM
The bible is not ment to be taken literally it is supposed to be a text for teaching people of the Christian faith how to live a moral life. The bible is not even accurate about how the stories in it are told. Stories differ from author to author based on the message the writer wishes to get across. The four gospels show this the most with their use of stories told by Jesus in order to get ideas across.
Randall Menser on January 18, 2008, 1:57 PM
This comes across more as God;s position on global warming than it does as your position on the legitimacy of the bible.
Randall Menser on January 18, 2008, 6:57 PM
This comes across more as God;s position on global warming than it does as your position on the legitimacy of the bible.
Steven Simonic on January 19, 2008, 1:14 AM
The Bible is a book of fairy tales written in the bronze age to keep the people in line.
Frank Hannan on January 19, 2008, 4:13 AM
Yikes! How wrong can you be?
The Bible is riddled with contradiction and nonsense. You can try to explain it away but why should you have to do that with the word of God?
Frank Hannan on January 19, 2008, 4:19 AM
Yikes! How wrong can you be? The Bible is riddled with contradictions and nonsense. One can try to explain the contradictions but why should you have to do that with the word of God? There is just too much that is not reasonable in the Bible to accept it as anything other than Bronze age attempts to understand the world.
It is embarrassing to think how many people believe in such nonsense. Step outside the bubble and see it for what it truly is. Therein lies the path to truth.
Steven Simonic on January 19, 2008, 6:14 AM
The Bible is a book of fairy tales written in the bronze age to keep the people in line.
Frank Hannan on January 19, 2008, 9:13 AM
Yikes! How wrong can you be?
The Bible is riddled with contradiction and nonsense. You can try to explain it away but why should you have to do that with the word of God?
Frank Hannan on January 19, 2008, 9:19 AM
Yikes! How wrong can you be? The Bible is riddled with contradictions and nonsense. One can try to explain the contradictions but why should you have to do that with the word of God? There is just too much that is not reasonable in the Bible to accept it as anything other than Bronze age attempts to understand the world.
It is embarrassing to think how many people believe in such nonsense. Step outside the bubble and see it for what it truly is. Therein lies the path to truth.
Cody POWPOW on January 19, 2008, 3:38 PM
infallibal hey? so in exodus 21:7 the bible says its ok to sell my daughter into slavery. Levidicus 25:44 says is ok for me to buy slaves only if thier from my another nation..i think id like to own some american slaves but sadly your country has decided to go against the word of god in denying me that infallibal right. what happened to stoneing people to death who blaspheme – leviticus 24:10-16. And please check these passeges for yourself! There is something seriously wrong with this picture.
Tony Purdom on January 19, 2008, 5:07 PM
I think that the bible should be interpreted as a work of fiction with many ill concieved notions. A work of art with stregths and weaknesses. It should not be accepted as absolute, because that is where the great abuses come from. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Cody POWPOW on January 19, 2008, 8:38 PM
infallibal hey? so in exodus 21:7 the bible says its ok to sell my daughter into slavery. Levidicus 25:44 says is ok for me to buy slaves only if thier from my another nation..i think id like to own some american slaves but sadly your country has decided to go against the word of god in denying me that infallibal right. what happened to stoneing people to death who blaspheme – leviticus 24:10-16. And please check these passeges for yourself! There is something seriously wrong with this picture.
Tony Purdom on January 19, 2008, 10:07 PM
I think that the bible should be interpreted as a work of fiction with many ill concieved notions. A work of art with stregths and weaknesses. It should not be accepted as absolute, because that is where the great abuses come from. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Edward Pye on January 20, 2008, 8:48 PM
ha its funny looking at this site – all the interviewees who are speaking against doctrine are nervous and shakey while the ones for it are the smoothest speakers on here – does that say something…? does it say that the message that is the most fallible must be delivered in the most proficient way to make it more believable?
Edward Pye on January 21, 2008, 1:48 AM
ha its funny looking at this site – all the interviewees who are speaking against doctrine are nervous and shakey while the ones for it are the smoothest speakers on here – does that say something…? does it say that the message that is the most fallible must be delivered in the most proficient way to make it more believable?
Lev!n on January 21, 2008, 1:04 PM
The Bible is a story of faith and a instruction on how one should live their life. One problem though…the Bible was written by man, and man is corrupt. Now religion is important. I myself am religious. I believe in the Lord and Savior of Jesus Christ. But Christ was a man as well. Very charismatic and had a good way at viewing the world. He would not be happy by the way that religion has been organized and corrupted.In essence, the Bible is a political tool to control and instill fear into people, when it should be used to seek peace, comfort, and enlighten.
Lev!n on January 21, 2008, 6:04 PM
The Bible is a story of faith and a instruction on how one should live their life. One problem though…the Bible was written by man, and man is corrupt. Now religion is important. I myself am religious. I believe in the Lord and Savior of Jesus Christ. But Christ was a man as well. Very charismatic and had a good way at viewing the world. He would not be happy by the way that religion has been organized and corrupted.In essence, the Bible is a political tool to control and instill fear into people, when it should be used to seek peace, comfort, and enlighten.
Josh Friedman on January 23, 2008, 11:34 AM
"But Christ was a man as well."
In the story, yes, but I wouldn't be so sure about reality
Matt Hanley on January 23, 2008, 1:36 PM
Applying a literal interpretation to the Bible based on our modern world view is not the way to read the Bible. You must read it within the historical context in which it was written. You must have a good understand of ancient Hebrew culture. The ancient Hebrews used a great deal of metaphor and illustrative language. If you read the Bible in its original Hebrew many, many of the verses rhyme and have poetic rhythm. I think it is hard for some modern American Christians to take this perspective, but the modern Jewish church seems to be less removed from ancient Hebrew culture, and they tend to understand the symbolism in the Bible quite well. They usually don%u2019t get hung up on a literal seven day creation, because they understand that the numbers 5 and 7 were poetic numbers in ancient Hebrew culture.
On the other hand, to compare the Bible to lies or fairy tales is just juvenile and just illustrates a great lack of understand. You cannot confuse an ancient historical text like the Bible with the modern people that use it as a political tool. It was never intended to be as such.
Berndt Grupe on January 23, 2008, 1:45 PM
There is plenty of historical evidence that Jesus not only existed, but also that He did the miracles attributed to Him. Josephus is a good source from the first century. That's if you can't believe all the people that were witnesses of Him and willingly died horrific deaths for Him. Many of them wrote about Him, His works and His teachings at that time.
Alexander Cram on January 23, 2008, 2:20 PM
I read it. It is the worst bit of story telling I've wasted my time with. Out of all my books it first on the list for toilet paper if I ever run out.
Brian Weickmann on January 23, 2008, 3:28 PM
To take literally what the Bible says is one of the most unwise things you can do while reading the bible. The whole thing is interpretation, one doesn't read The Art of War, to learn how to fight opposing armies. The whole point is application to your daily life. So for those who take everything literally of course you're going to see it as a piece of crap (don't forget it is over 2,000 years old). There is of course going to be a gap between what is meant and what is said, just look at parent children interactions there are many discrepancies between what people say and what people do and thats an age gap of 40ish years much less 2,000. So I would say keep an open mind don't just dismiss it right away.
Brian Weickmann on January 23, 2008, 3:33 PM
Oh, and it people like Richard Cizik that turn people off of the bible. I don't think you can clamor for the good ole days because the literal context of the bible isn't relevant. Cizik is obviously living in the past where what the bible says is law. Unfortunately for him there is a little more to this world than just the bible. Blind faith does nothing and that is what he is asking, truly understanding faith is what separates a follower from a believer.
Josh Friedman on January 23, 2008, 4:34 PM
“But Christ was a man as well.”
In the story, yes, but I wouldn’t be so sure about reality
Josh Friedman on January 23, 2008, 4:45 PM
Berndt-
Josephus was not even born until after Jesus's "death"
In Josephus's huge 21 volume work, "Antiquities of the Jews", there is one tiny paragraph about Jesus
This paragraph contains phrases that either didn't exist at the time of Josephus or that Josephus, a Jew, would have never used. This has lead even most Christian scholars to agree that the passage was altered later. Many other scholars believe the entire paragraph was a much later edition, especially since it interrupts a logical flow from the paragraph before it to the one after.
Oh, and of the dozens of famous Jewish and Roman historians that wrote many works during and right after the time of Jesus's "life", Josephus's paragraph is the only one about him. Odd for a man that wowed huge crowds with his miracles to have been missed in so many history books
Matt Hanley on January 23, 2008, 6:36 PM
Applying a literal interpretation to the Bible based on our modern world view is not the way to read the Bible. You must read it within the historical context in which it was written. You must have a good understand of ancient Hebrew culture. The ancient Hebrews used a great deal of metaphor and illustrative language. If you read the Bible in its original Hebrew many, many of the verses rhyme and have poetic rhythm. I think it is hard for some modern American Christians to take this perspective, but the modern Jewish church seems to be less removed from ancient Hebrew culture, and they tend to understand the symbolism in the Bible quite well. They usually don%u2019t get hung up on a literal seven day creation, because they understand that the numbers 5 and 7 were poetic numbers in ancient Hebrew culture.
On the other hand, to compare the Bible to lies or fairy tales is just juvenile and just illustrates a great lack of understand. You cannot confuse an ancient historical text like the Bible with the modern people that use it as a political tool. It was never intended to be as such.
Berndt Grupe on January 23, 2008, 6:45 PM
There is plenty of historical evidence that Jesus not only existed, but also that He did the miracles attributed to Him. Josephus is a good source from the first century. That’s if you can’t believe all the people that were witnesses of Him and willingly died horrific deaths for Him. Many of them wrote about Him, His works and His teachings at that time.
Alexander Cram on January 23, 2008, 7:20 PM
I read it. It is the worst bit of story telling I’ve wasted my time with. Out of all my books it first on the list for toilet paper if I ever run out.
Matt Hanley on January 23, 2008, 7:38 PM
Akodo Alex: That is the dumbest response. Why do you even bother?
Brian Weickmann on January 23, 2008, 8:28 PM
To take literally what the Bible says is one of the most unwise things you can do while reading the bible. The whole thing is interpretation, one doesn’t read The Art of War, to learn how to fight opposing armies. The whole point is application to your daily life. So for those who take everything literally of course you’re going to see it as a piece of crap (don’t forget it is over 2,000 years old). There is of course going to be a gap between what is meant and what is said, just look at parent children interactions there are many discrepancies between what people say and what people do and thats an age gap of 40ish years much less 2,000. So I would say keep an open mind don’t just dismiss it right away.
Brian Weickmann on January 23, 2008, 8:33 PM
Oh, and it people like Richard Cizik that turn people off of the bible. I don’t think you can clamor for the good ole days because the literal context of the bible isn’t relevant. Cizik is obviously living in the past where what the bible says is law. Unfortunately for him there is a little more to this world than just the bible. Blind faith does nothing and that is what he is asking, truly understanding faith is what separates a follower from a believer.
Alexander Cram on January 23, 2008, 9:31 PM
blur almost said the same about yours but bit my tongue. The first time this stack of 2-ply was put on paper by the the church was around 440 C.E. under Roman rule. With an average life span of 30 that means that even if it were true it would have been retold over like 14 generations. Anyone who has played telephone knows the more you retell something the more messed up it gets. On top of that it justified every thing Rome wanted it to so the republic could go on the way it had been. We know how well that turned out.
Josh Friedman on January 23, 2008, 9:45 PM
Berndt-
Josephus was not even born until after Jesus’s “death”
In Josephus’s huge 21 volume work, “Antiquities of the Jews”, there is one tiny paragraph about Jesus
This paragraph contains phrases that either didn’t exist at the time of Josephus or that Josephus, a Jew, would have never used. This has lead even most Christian scholars to agree that the passage was altered later. Many other scholars believe the entire paragraph was a much later edition, especially since it interrupts a logical flow from the paragraph before it to the one after.
Oh, and of the dozens of famous Jewish and Roman historians that wrote many works during and right after the time of Jesus’s “life”, Josephus’s paragraph is the only one about him. Odd for a man that wowed huge crowds with his miracles to have been missed in so many history books
Billy Dennis Jr on January 23, 2008, 10:22 PM
Most of you have it right the Bible is a work of fiction. An attempt to explain the things Ancient people had no answers for. One of the worst moral guides even written, a book that in so many was the spawner of evil. If you believe the bible is the word of god in this day in age with all we know of science and the physical world you are a complete idiot. To all the Christians out there if you want to think outside the box, you are going to have to get the hell out of the box. What that means is you need to take an objective look at the bible and what you believe, that is the only way you can see religion for what it is. Odds are your pride will not let you do so and that's sad. If you don't knowledge and truth will continue to elude you.
Matt Hanley on January 24, 2008, 12:38 AM
Akodo Alex: That is the dumbest response. Why do you even bother?
Alexander Cram on January 24, 2008, 2:31 AM
blur almost said the same about yours but bit my tongue. The first time this stack of 2-ply was put on paper by the the church was around 440 C.E. under Roman rule. With an average life span of 30 that means that even if it were true it would have been retold over like 14 generations. Anyone who has played telephone knows the more you retell something the more messed up it gets. On top of that it justified every thing Rome wanted it to so the republic could go on the way it had been. We know how well that turned out.
Billy Dennis Jr on January 24, 2008, 3:22 AM
Most of you have it right the Bible is a work of fiction. An attempt to explain the things Ancient people had no answers for. One of the worst moral guides even written, a book that in so many was the spawner of evil. If you believe the bible is the word of god in this day in age with all we know of science and the physical world you are a complete idiot. To all the Christians out there if you want to think outside the box, you are going to have to get the hell out of the box. What that means is you need to take an objective look at the bible and what you believe, that is the only way you can see religion for what it is. Odds are your pride will not let you do so and that’s sad. If you don’t knowledge and truth will continue to elude you.
Robert Borden on January 24, 2008, 5:12 AM
As things are set up, the 'punishment,' will be earth's rejection of those doing the harm: humans! The earth will survive until the big black hole. As for Christians' Bible reading, do it like Jesus! He read the Torah for truth and the rest for commentary. Same: Gospels for truth, the rest for commentary, esp Revelation. Although Rev and the way things are set up agree. Jeez, all you serious types, name callers, passionate believers and non – you spoil an old man's morning coffee. How must the Creator feel – it is even older!
Leroy Jones on January 24, 2008, 8:40 AM
I'm not a big fan of revelations (who was this John and if his dreams came/come true during a lifetime who will even know until reviewed by history).
But the rest of the book is a pretty good history book of one family and their lessons of hope can apply to life no matter what period of history.
so its a hope book because there's rarely anything new under the sun.
Robert Borden on January 24, 2008, 10:12 AM
As things are set up, the ‘punishment,’ will be earth’s rejection of those doing the harm: humans! The earth will survive until the big black hole. As for Christians’ Bible reading, do it like Jesus! He read the Torah for truth and the rest for commentary. Same: Gospels for truth, the rest for commentary, esp Revelation. Although Rev and the way things are set up agree. Jeez, all you serious types, name callers, passionate believers and non – you spoil an old man’s morning coffee. How must the Creator feel – it is even older!
Leroy Jones on January 24, 2008, 1:40 PM
I’m not a big fan of revelations (who was this John and if his dreams came/come true during a lifetime who will even know until reviewed by history).
But the rest of the book is a pretty good history book of one family and their lessons of hope can apply to life no matter what period of history.
so its a hope book because there’s rarely anything new under the sun.
Matt Hanley on January 24, 2008, 5:48 PM
Akodo Alex: I'd like to know why my statement required you to bite your tongue. While I worry about your health, I don%u2019t care whether you agree with me or not. Most of the time it is pointless to argue with people such as yourself because you take no time to understand what you are talking about. Instead, you quickly, if not immediately, resort to juvenile analogies and disingenuous remarks%u2014 if not simple name calling. You think that anyone with a view different from your own is mindless; and, you try to place yourself in an ivory tower looking down on irrational beings%u2014yet, you still speak only mindlessly, use gapless reasoning, and resort to statistics pulled from thin air.
You respond to my comment, I assume, trying to argue the factual inaccuracies of the bible. However, at no time was I arguing that the Bible was factually accurate. I reread my comment, and I reread yours. However, I fail to see what you are responding to. It seems as though I am receiving some kind of cookie-cutter response you usually give to conservative evangelicals. As I don%u2019t subscribe to such beliefs, you%u2019ll find it hard to argue against me. My qualm with you is your superiority complex. I don%u2019t argue against atheism, but I dislike loud-mouthed anti-theists. This could be an intellectual discussion, but you bring us back to Junior High School.
Matt Hanley on January 24, 2008, 10:48 PM
Akodo Alex: I’d like to know why my statement required you to bite your tongue. While I worry about your health, I don%u2019t care whether you agree with me or not. Most of the time it is pointless to argue with people such as yourself because you take no time to understand what you are talking about. Instead, you quickly, if not immediately, resort to juvenile analogies and disingenuous remarks%u2014 if not simple name calling. You think that anyone with a view different from your own is mindless; and, you try to place yourself in an ivory tower looking down on irrational beings%u2014yet, you still speak only mindlessly, use gapless reasoning, and resort to statistics pulled from thin air.
You respond to my comment, I assume, trying to argue the factual inaccuracies of the bible. However, at no time was I arguing that the Bible was factually accurate. I reread my comment, and I reread yours. However, I fail to see what you are responding to. It seems as though I am receiving some kind of cookie-cutter response you usually give to conservative evangelicals. As I don%u2019t subscribe to such beliefs, you%u2019ll find it hard to argue against me. My qualm with you is your superiority complex. I don%u2019t argue against atheism, but I dislike loud-mouthed anti-theists. This could be an intellectual discussion, but you bring us back to Junior High School.
Madison Marasco on January 26, 2008, 10:20 PM
I am sad this guy had to be the "expert" of this topic. If he hadn't have said things with the intent of disapproval this could have been a reasonable discussion.
Madison Marasco on January 27, 2008, 3:20 AM
I am sad this guy had to be the “expert” of this topic. If he hadn’t have said things with the intent of disapproval this could have been a reasonable discussion.
Rolland Therrien on January 27, 2008, 6:07 AM
This reasoning sounds like it would be a good way to get the bible-thumping Religious Conservatives behind the idea of Environmentalism.
Rolland Therrien on January 27, 2008, 11:07 AM
This reasoning sounds like it would be a good way to get the bible-thumping Religious Conservatives behind the idea of Environmentalism.
Bronzson Woods on January 29, 2008, 4:34 PM
i agree with what he is saying but i think that the stance that the bible is completely authoritative is to strong a stance. the bible says that we should stone homosexuals and burn users of witch craft. yet we all accept that those are not practices that a loving christian would condone, much less participate in.
Bronzson Woods on January 29, 2008, 9:34 PM
i agree with what he is saying but i think that the stance that the bible is completely authoritative is to strong a stance. the bible says that we should stone homosexuals and burn users of witch craft. yet we all accept that those are not practices that a loving christian would condone, much less participate in.
Cody POWPOW on February 3, 2008, 2:57 PM
infallibal hey? so in exodus 21:7 the bible says its ok to sell my daughter into slavery. Levidicus 25:44 says is ok for me to buy slaves only if thier from my another nation..i think id like to own some american slaves but sadly your country has decided to go against the word of god in denying me that infallibal right. what happened to stoneing people to death who blaspheme – leviticus 24:10-16. And please check these passeges for yourself! There is something seriously wrong with this picture.
Cody POWPOW on February 3, 2008, 7:57 PM
infallibal hey? so in exodus 21:7 the bible says its ok to sell my daughter into slavery. Levidicus 25:44 says is ok for me to buy slaves only if thier from my another nation..i think id like to own some american slaves but sadly your country has decided to go against the word of god in denying me that infallibal right. what happened to stoneing people to death who blaspheme – leviticus 24:10-16. And please check these passeges for yourself! There is something seriously wrong with this picture.
Jen Something on February 9, 2008, 1:33 PM
If war deception and lies were hell and work of the devil.
Truth and justice were good and work of God.
I would vote Ron Paul.
Or someone not in a secret group that tells the truth!!!!
Jen Something on February 9, 2008, 6:33 PM
If war deception and lies were hell and work of the devil.
Truth and justice were good and work of God.
I would vote Ron Paul.
Or someone not in a secret group that tells the truth!!!!
guy baldovi on February 10, 2008, 6:32 AM
bible is just another very dark fairy tale, used to enslave , bodies and minds.
Humans will punish themselves for being too stupid.
guy baldovi on February 10, 2008, 11:32 AM
bible is just another very dark fairy tale, used to enslave , bodies and minds.Humans will punish themselves for being too stupid.
Nick S on February 11, 2008, 9:40 AM
You can always tell the christian from the non christian in these discussions, The non christian will listen to others and consider what they say, the christian will automatically take the offense and become rude. Why do christians believe that only their oppinion matters, that their beliefs are they only beliefs? I'm sorry but I can not live my life with a closed mind, I have a huge disability, its called free thinking, and I refuse to let some Pompous As* tell me how to live, what to think, and what to believe. You want me to be a christian? you want me to fall on my knees and praise? Tell your God to stop being a dead beat dad, and come visit his kids once and a while, according to the Bible, nearly everyone saw God, talked to him, went to Mcdonald's for a Big Mac, now he's no where to be found. Maybe we should get Morey Povich to do a dead beat dad show on him and track him down?
Nick S on February 11, 2008, 2:40 PM
You can always tell the christian from the non christian in these discussions, The non christian will listen to others and consider what they say, the christian will automatically take the offense and become rude. Why do christians believe that only their oppinion matters, that their beliefs are they only beliefs? I’m sorry but I can not live my life with a closed mind, I have a huge disability, its called free thinking, and I refuse to let some Pompous As* tell me how to live, what to think, and what to believe. You want me to be a christian? you want me to fall on my knees and praise? Tell your God to stop being a dead beat dad, and come visit his kids once and a while, according to the Bible, nearly everyone saw God, talked to him, went to Mcdonald’s for a Big Mac, now he’s no where to be found. Maybe we should get Morey Povich to do a dead beat dad show on him and track him down?
David Anderson on February 12, 2008, 8:14 PM
With great skepticism.
David Anderson on February 13, 2008, 1:14 AM
With great skepticism.
lucy rice on February 13, 2008, 2:10 PM
The Bible is possibly one of the most violent books around, although it is still considered holy. In fact it is sexist, biased, racist, and a bunch of other
-ists. I found not to long ago that if a book is Holy it shouldn't have these aspects, so I changed my religious biews. The Bible is completely misinterpreted on a daily basis, or just on Sunday. Of course, to play Devil's Advocate, let's give it a fair chance. Christianity is the youngest of the five main religions and a great deal of its ideas and views are based on other religions. Not to bash on other religions, but why hasn't the question, "How should the Koran be interpreted?" or, "How should the Torah be interpreted?" I do find Christianity to be the most hypocritical religion and the Bible misinterpreted but if those of us that are nonchristian will listen to others and consider what they say then we also have the ability to consider all sides of an argument.
lucy rice on February 13, 2008, 7:10 PM
The Bible is possibly one of the most violent books around, although it is still considered holy. In fact it is sexist, biased, racist, and a bunch of other
-ists. I found not to long ago that if a book is Holy it shouldn’t have these aspects, so I changed my religious biews. The Bible is completely misinterpreted on a daily basis, or just on Sunday. Of course, to play Devil’s Advocate, let’s give it a fair chance. Christianity is the youngest of the five main religions and a great deal of its ideas and views are based on other religions. Not to bash on other religions, but why hasn’t the question, “How should the Koran be interpreted?” or, “How should the Torah be interpreted?” I do find Christianity to be the most hypocritical religion and the Bible misinterpreted but if those of us that are nonchristian will listen to others and consider what they say then we also have the ability to consider all sides of an argument.
James Stumfall on February 17, 2008, 10:39 PM
hey, ive got a question. if your an atheist that would logically mean that you were an evolutionist right? ok so if your an evolutionist, that would mean you believe all life is an accident (from what i know of the idea) right? so if your an evolutionist and life is merely an accident, what is the point of this argument? (sorry for changin the topic, just want some opinions _)
James Stumfall on February 18, 2008, 3:39 AM
hey, ive got a question. if your an atheist that would logically mean that you were an evolutionist right? ok so if your an evolutionist, that would mean you believe all life is an accident (from what i know of the idea) right? so if your an evolutionist and life is merely an accident, what is the point of this argument? (sorry for changin the topic, just want some opinions _)
Tim Prather on February 18, 2008, 5:07 PM
To Socratic Apostle,
I can barely comprehend your argument it is so ignorant and convoluted. To address your statements:
1. Atheism and evolution are not necessarily two ideas within the same sphere of ideology. Many religious people understand and accept the theory of evolution because it is a scientifically accepted theory that is corroborated by many pieces of evidence.
2. Evolution has nothing to do with "accident". Its called natural selection and the biological advancement process. I suggest reading up on the Origin of Species or evolution in general before making a sweeping statement that really is a logical fallacy.
Don't take what I'm saying offensively. Most people don't understand evolution or atheism yet feel they are perfectly versed in both subjects while bashing them. Learn about evolution at the very least. We as the human race must understand biology to understand ourselves.
Tim Prather on February 18, 2008, 10:07 PM
To Socratic Apostle,
I can barely comprehend your argument it is so ignorant and convoluted. To address your statements:
1. Atheism and evolution are not necessarily two ideas within the same sphere of ideology. Many religious people understand and accept the theory of evolution because it is a scientifically accepted theory that is corroborated by many pieces of evidence.
2. Evolution has nothing to do with “accident”. Its called natural selection and the biological advancement process. I suggest reading up on the Origin of Species or evolution in general before making a sweeping statement that really is a logical fallacy.
Don’t take what I’m saying offensively. Most people don’t understand evolution or atheism yet feel they are perfectly versed in both subjects while bashing them. Learn about evolution at the very least. We as the human race must understand biology to understand ourselves.
Mark Powers on February 21, 2008, 8:52 PM
I have heard a lot of rationalizations for the contradictions in the Bible, and most, if not all, have been unconvincing. From the beginning of Genesis, where there are two versions of the Creation that disagree on the order in which the various plants and animals were brought into being, to the Gospels of the New Testament, which disagree on the geneology of Jesus' descent from King David and even the identities of who saw Jesus first after his resurrection, as well as the people and places he visited both before and after the resurrection, Bible apologists have explanations for every issue I can throw at them. Unfortunately, most of the explanations either don't make sense at all, or they only bring up more questions. I like to think of myself as a fairly intelligent and perceptive person (which may not actually be the case, but please allow me my delusions), and yet my reading of, and conversations about, the Bible, doesn't give me answers to anything, only more and more questions.
One thing I am certain about is that the personal attacks that almost invariably creep into these commentaries are useless, and do not further either intellectual or spiritual discourse. I understand that religion strikes deeply into the emotions of many people, but to let anger be the driving force behind an argument is to destroy the very basis of this website. In other words, one can be passionate about a point of view without smearing the intellect or character of those who disagree.
I've had some spirited debates about religion, and I've never felt the need to call anybody names over it. I come to this website to expand my mind; isn't that what we all should be doing?
Mark Powers on February 22, 2008, 1:52 AM
I have heard a lot of rationalizations for the contradictions in the Bible, and most, if not all, have been unconvincing. From the beginning of Genesis, where there are two versions of the Creation that disagree on the order in which the various plants and animals were brought into being, to the Gospels of the New Testament, which disagree on the geneology of Jesus’ descent from King David and even the identities of who saw Jesus first after his resurrection, as well as the people and places he visited both before and after the resurrection, Bible apologists have explanations for every issue I can throw at them. Unfortunately, most of the explanations either don’t make sense at all, or they only bring up more questions. I like to think of myself as a fairly intelligent and perceptive person (which may not actually be the case, but please allow me my delusions), and yet my reading of, and conversations about, the Bible, doesn’t give me answers to anything, only more and more questions.
One thing I am certain about is that the personal attacks that almost invariably creep into these commentaries are useless, and do not further either intellectual or spiritual discourse. I understand that religion strikes deeply into the emotions of many people, but to let anger be the driving force behind an argument is to destroy the very basis of this website. In other words, one can be passionate about a point of view without smearing the intellect or character of those who disagree.
I’ve had some spirited debates about religion, and I’ve never felt the need to call anybody names over it. I come to this website to expand my mind; isn’t that what we all should be doing?
James York on February 28, 2008, 4:22 PM
Well, he is stuck. Stuck in a 5 year old's projection of a power-figure as being God. He will never understand God while he is projecting his 5 year old vision of power onto God.
So, some ideas he will find difficult: 1) God is not a power figure, 2) God does not judge and does not punish anyone, ever (why would She?), 3) We are loved unconditionally – that means that there is nothing you can do to get God to love you because She already does, and there is nothing you can do to get God not to love you because she loves you unconditionally.
So, who has the power? We do. We decide to create morality and ethics, or, not. That is part of the gift of being loved unconditionally. You get to decide. And, if you are wrong in some way, then change it. That is where to power actually is… in each of us.
James York on February 28, 2008, 9:22 PM
Well, he is stuck. Stuck in a 5 year old’s projection of a power-figure as being God. He will never understand God while he is projecting his 5 year old vision of power onto God.
So, some ideas he will find difficult: 1) God is not a power figure, 2) God does not judge and does not punish anyone, ever (why would She?), 3) We are loved unconditionally – that means that there is nothing you can do to get God to love you because She already does, and there is nothing you can do to get God not to love you because she loves you unconditionally.
So, who has the power? We do. We decide to create morality and ethics, or, not. That is part of the gift of being loved unconditionally. You get to decide. And, if you are wrong in some way, then change it. That is where to power actually is… in each of us.
Elijah Stone on March 1, 2008, 2:37 PM
i have a question for you how do you know (besides blind faith) that the bible is gods word and how could any of us possibly know gods will?
Adam Glynn on March 1, 2008, 6:15 PM
Based on what is being discussed I see God as a symbol for the universe,he is absolutely right that if we do not take care of Earth then it will in fact be given back to the Universe or "God"….when it comes to being controlled by the Universe there are no loupoles,there have been many warnings for instince Venus's run-away greenhouse effect which will surely be our fate unless we do something about it which ultimately makes us its "caretakers"
Elijah Stone on March 1, 2008, 7:37 PM
i have a question for you how do you know (besides blind faith) that the bible is gods word and how could any of us possibly know gods will?
Adam Glynn on March 1, 2008, 11:15 PM
Based on what is being discussed I see God as a symbol for the universe,he is absolutely right that if we do not take care of Earth then it will in fact be given back to the Universe or “God”….when it comes to being controlled by the Universe there are no loupoles,there have been many warnings for instince Venus’s run-away greenhouse effect which will surely be our fate unless we do something about it which ultimately makes us its “caretakers”
Tom Orr on March 4, 2008, 9:39 AM
The first question would have to be – which bible? There have been many! As far as being "infallible and inerrant in the original autographs" we must ask who has read the texts in God's handwriting (original autograph) or read the various books of the bible in their individual authors handwriting.
Given that we don't know with any certainty who actually set pen to paper, quill to papyrus or chisel to stone, reading any of the "original autographs" of the bible would be somewhat problematic to say the least.
Tom Orr on March 4, 2008, 2:39 PM
The first question would have to be – which bible? There have been many! As far as being “infallible and inerrant in the original autographs” we must ask who has read the texts in God’s handwriting (original autograph) or read the various books of the bible in their individual authors handwriting.
Given that we don’t know with any certainty who actually set pen to paper, quill to papyrus or chisel to stone, reading any of the “original autographs” of the bible would be somewhat problematic to say the least.
Keith Wood on March 4, 2008, 10:06 PM
I respect the message that we should be stewards of the earth. Unfortunately this is something that those Christians eagerly anticipating Armageddon easily dismiss. However, there is no reason that we should need the Bible's "authority" to do so. We have the foresight of what can occur to us and future generations if we do not take care of the earth. Isn't that enough?
Keith Wood on March 5, 2008, 3:06 AM
I respect the message that we should be stewards of the earth. Unfortunately this is something that those Christians eagerly anticipating Armageddon easily dismiss. However, there is no reason that we should need the Bible’s “authority” to do so. We have the foresight of what can occur to us and future generations if we do not take care of the earth. Isn’t that enough?
Renaud Orban on March 5, 2008, 7:55 PM
Welcome in the world of an evangelical…
I've heard a lot about them but its the first time i hear one…
That's amazing…
LOL
Musycks on March 5, 2008, 8:19 PM
How sad that this probably nice well meaning man is held up as an expert. In what? Stupidity? How any sane human being can think the contradicory drivel in the Bible is 'inerrant' is in need of a reality check. I would merely ask him, which bits?The Old T has some of the most biggoted, racist tracts any fool put pen to paper for. In Deuteronomy, he would be required to kill anyone who says you should follow another God except the God of Abraham. Oddly most Christians would probably put Muslims in this category as most I know are unaware that all 3 monotheistic religions share the same Dog. The fact that judaism got a warm and cuddly face with JC to do the PR sell on his 'dad', a pretty poisonous, cranky Old man…. oh yeah, who had some time on his hands 6 Billion or so years ago, and thought, 'might create a Universe today, nothing much on tele'…and then proceeded to make something so mighty and vast and astonishing…. that most of it can never be known to the people he made it for! us!…. some design.
The Pythons were right… pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'cause there's bugger all down here on earth.
Renaud Orban on March 6, 2008, 12:55 AM
Welcome in the world of an evangelical…
I’ve heard a lot about them but its the first time i hear one…
That’s amazing…
LOL
Musycks on March 6, 2008, 1:19 AM
How sad that this probably nice well meaning man is held up as an expert. In what? Stupidity? How any sane human being can think the contradicory drivel in the Bible is ‘inerrant’ is in need of a reality check. I would merely ask him, which bits?The Old T has some of the most biggoted, racist tracts any fool put pen to paper for. In Deuteronomy, he would be required to kill anyone who says you should follow another God except the God of Abraham. Oddly most Christians would probably put Muslims in this category as most I know are unaware that all 3 monotheistic religions share the same Dog. The fact that judaism got a warm and cuddly face with JC to do the PR sell on his ‘dad’, a pretty poisonous, cranky Old man…. oh yeah, who had some time on his hands 6 Billion or so years ago, and thought, ‘might create a Universe today, nothing much on tele’…and then proceeded to make something so mighty and vast and astonishing…. that most of it can never be known to the people he made it for! us!…. some design.
The Pythons were right… pray that there’s intelligent life somewhere up in space, ‘cause there’s bugger all down here on earth.
Joseph Mifsud on March 9, 2008, 11:26 AM
To me, the Bible (or religion in general, be it the Koran, Torah, or what have you) teaches love for your fellow man. Love for all things given to us by God, whoever that is.
But we let it divide us and hate others?
We have real issues to deal with: disease, the environment, poverty, and the list goes on. The Bible teaches to help the sick and anyone in need. To love.
We're all in the same boat. It's a shame that we do not act that way.Joseph Mifsud on March 9, 2008, 3:26 PM
To me, the Bible (or religion in general, be it the Koran, Torah, or what have you) teaches love for your fellow man. Love for all things given to us by God, whoever that is.
But we let it divide us and hate others?
We have real issues to deal with: disease, the environment, poverty, and the list goes on. The Bible teaches to help the sick and anyone in need. To love.
We’re all in the same boat. It’s a shame that we do not act that way.
Musycks on March 9, 2008, 6:59 PM
Inky,
How nice that you should find that in there.. but how selective. You espouse a mostly humanist viewpoint, so welcome aboard.. but we don't need some stone age manual to work out it's better to be kind and loving than hateful. Those books have been the source of more division and hatred hitorically, than just about any other factor in human development. It's not enough for you to tell me how you find what you do in there, please explain how the same books can be used to justify the evils done in the name of the sky-god contained? You can chant 'God is love' all you like, but the evidence does not support that stance.
Musycks on March 9, 2008, 10:59 PM
Inky,
How nice that you should find that in there.. but how selective. You espouse a mostly humanist viewpoint, so welcome aboard.. but we don’t need some stone age manual to work out it’s better to be kind and loving than hateful. Those books have been the source of more division and hatred hitorically, than just about any other factor in human development. It’s not enough for you to tell me how you find what you do in there, please explain how the same books can be used to justify the evils done in the name of the sky-god contained? You can chant ‘God is love’ all you like, but the evidence does not support that stance.
Alfie Noakes on March 12, 2008, 9:28 AM
Sigh…
I'm all for saving the planet, but this guy isn't giving us the right reasons to do so. He's borderline insane.
Alfie Noakes on March 12, 2008, 1:28 PM
Sigh…
I’m all for saving the planet, but this guy isn’t giving us the right reasons to do so. He’s borderline insane.
Chris Hupka on March 17, 2008, 8:15 AM
I'm really happy to read that there are rational people out there that can think for themselves instead of reciting babble like an evangelical dictaphone that has running for the past 2000 years.
Chris Hupka on March 17, 2008, 12:15 PM
I’m really happy to read that there are rational people out there that can think for themselves instead of reciting babble like an evangelical dictaphone that has running for the past 2000 years.
Mary Coyote on March 23, 2008, 10:49 PM
The Way-We-Live is more important than What-We-Believe.
Taking Christ out of Christianity:
Avant garde pastor teaches a new Christianity where the-way-you-live is more important than beliefs.
Vosper says there's been virtually a consensus among scholars for the past 30 years that the Bible is not some DIVINE EMANATION; it is not The Authoritative Word of God For All Time.
It is a HUMAN PROJECT filled with contradictions and the conflicting world-views and respective political perspectives of its authors.
And yet, she says, the liberal Christian churches, including her own, won't acknowledge to the congregation that it is a human project, that it's wrong in parts and that
in the 21st centuryit's no more useful as a spiritual and religious guide than a number of other books.She says now that the work of biblical scholars has become publicly accessible, the churches and their clergy are caught living a lie that few people will buy much longer.
Posted By: MICHAEL VALPY
link to:
http://www.bigthink.com/faith-beliefs/9057
Mary Coyote on March 24, 2008, 2:49 AM
The Way-We-Live is more important than What-We-Believe.
Taking Christ out of Christianity:
Avant garde pastor teaches a new Christianity where the-way-you-live is more important than beliefs.
Vosper says there’s been virtually a consensus among scholars for the past 30 years that the Bible is not some DIVINE EMANATION; it is not The Authoritative Word of God For All Time.
It is a HUMAN PROJECT filled with contradictions and the conflicting world-views and respective political perspectives of its authors.
And yet, she says, the liberal Christian churches, including her own, won’t acknowledge to the congregation that it is a human project, that it’s wrong in parts and that
in the 21st centuryit’s no more useful as a spiritual and religious guide than a number of other books.She says now that the work of biblical scholars has become publicly accessible, the churches and their clergy are caught living a lie that few people will buy much longer.
Posted By: MICHAEL VALPY
link to:
http://www.bigthink.com/faith-beliefs/9057
James Rouse on April 22, 2008, 2:56 PM
Indeed his message is respectful and I am glad that he acknowledges Global Warming, but the fact remains that he is threatening eternal damnation. I'm going neutral on thing one.
James Rouse on April 22, 2008, 6:56 PM
Indeed his message is respectful and I am glad that he acknowledges Global Warming, but the fact remains that he is threatening eternal damnation. I’m going neutral on thing one.
Ted Peterson on May 19, 2008, 8:27 PM
This guy is delusional.
Replace every instance of "god" with "Elvis", and you'll see how disgusting he sounds.
Also, global warming is not "destroying the planet". The planet will very much still be here. We are doing nothing harmful to it. It doesn't care. It will keep existing. Our effect of warming is just a pinprick compared to the volcanoes and other natural events.
Ted Peterson on May 20, 2008, 12:27 AM
This guy is delusional.
Replace every instance of “god” with “Elvis”, and you’ll see how disgusting he sounds.
Also, global warming is not “destroying the planet”. The planet will very much still be here. We are doing nothing harmful to it. It doesn’t care. It will keep existing. Our effect of warming is just a pinprick compared to the volcanoes and other natural events.
Pamela Butler on June 3, 2008, 1:10 PM
It isn't at all surprising that people are leaving their parents churches in droves or that evangelicals are back pedaling with ideas like co-belligerency. As humankind learns more about this world, they can dispel the religious mythologies, which served for a time in our evolution, but they have outgrown their usefullness. Now science and self knowledge can replace them up to the point of our limited abilities to comprehend. The rest remains a mystery.
We have to care about the earth, just like we care about our kitchens and bathrooms, it is our home. You can live with no hot water but you can't live with no water.
Those of you who think we have no impact on the planet, consider the deserts. Tens of thousands of years of ignorant crop cultivation stripped the soil. We have an impact, more now than ever, there are so many of us altering things we don't begin to understand. We'll kill ourselves before the earth goes anyplace, but there have been mass extinctions before — there were the dinosaurs, and perhaps others we don't even know about.
Pamela Butler on June 3, 2008, 5:10 PM
It isn’t at all surprising that people are leaving their parents churches in droves or that evangelicals are back pedaling with ideas like co-belligerency. As humankind learns more about this world, they can dispel the religious mythologies, which served for a time in our evolution, but they have outgrown their usefullness. Now science and self knowledge can replace them up to the point of our limited abilities to comprehend. The rest remains a mystery.
We have to care about the earth, just like we care about our kitchens and bathrooms, it is our home. You can live with no hot water but you can’t live with no water.
Those of you who think we have no impact on the planet, consider the deserts. Tens of thousands of years of ignorant crop cultivation stripped the soil. We have an impact, more now than ever, there are so many of us altering things we don’t begin to understand. We’ll kill ourselves before the earth goes anyplace, but there have been mass extinctions before — there were the dinosaurs, and perhaps others we don’t even know about.
Vinton E Heuck on August 12, 2008, 4:16 PM
Isn't it incedible that one can read such a willfully ignorant and dangerous credo in our time? Little wonder that we stand on such dangerous ground. Between Cizik and all of his fellow religionists, be they in in Kansas, Waziristan or Sumatra, none of us have much of a chance. How sad, especially for the children.
Vinton E Heuck on August 12, 2008, 8:16 PM
Isn’t it incedible that one can read such a willfully ignorant and dangerous credo in our time? Little wonder that we stand on such dangerous ground. Between Cizik and all of his fellow religionists, be they in in Kansas, Waziristan or Sumatra, none of us have much of a chance. How sad, especially for the children.
Vermin Vermin on November 13, 2008, 1:02 PM
It should’nt be interperted.
Samuel DeArmon on November 19, 2008, 12:35 AM
Again the question is this; How should the Bible be interpreted?
You look at these old “Fun with Dick and Jane” grade school books and read things like “See Dick run”. What does that mean? How do you interpret that?
A grade school child understands exactly what is being said in this sentence. Interpret it any way you please-but in the final analysis, “See Dick run” means “See Dick run”. You need no commentary. You need no dictionary. It means what it says, and says what it means.
Now look at Genesis 1:1; “In the beginning God create the heavens and the earth”.
What does that mean? Well, what does it say? Do you need a commentary to understand this? Do you need a dictionary? No! It mean what it says and it says what it means. It interprets itself.
Believe it or not, 80 to 90 percent of the Bible interprets itself the very same way in which Genesis 1:1 interprets itself: In the verse, right where its written. What does this mean? It means that when you open the bible and start reading, you have an 80 to 90 percent chance of understanding exactly what is written, where it is written. Not because of a commentary. Not because of a dictionary. Its because, like Dick and Jane, the Bible interprets itself, right where its written.
So how should the Bible be interpreted? By simply letting it interpret itself.
Matt Pidlysny on November 28, 2008, 1:10 PM
But what about the why?
Joseph Ress on December 7, 2008, 1:52 PM
Why bother “interpreting” obvious fiction intended to deceive?
Similarly, why bother believing in god at all? Is there any difference between a believer and a non-believer? Why does the number of believers vary inversely to IQ?
Andy Hamilton on December 19, 2008, 6:07 AM
the bible should be interpreted metaphorically. it is an astrological metaphor in which the pepole are thankful for the sun’s ability to give life (well at least jesus’s story.
Andy Hamilton on December 19, 2008, 6:08 AM
one more thing, we are no better than any other animal, therefore we should not control them.
Benjamin Powers III on December 19, 2008, 1:15 PM
How is this man an expert? His first statements include the phrase “…(the Bible is) infallible and inerrant in the original autographs…”, which shows an abysmal lack of knowledge on the origins of the Bible. Does he really think that we really know who wrote the Pentateuch or the Gospels? Interpret the Bible the same way we interpret any other work of literature – like the Illiad, Frankenstein or even Blade Runner.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register