UK Bishops speak out about Biblical literalism

Promoting tolerance and rejecting fundamentalism? It just further proves that Catholics aren't really Christians.

Britain is becoming a thoroughly post-Christian society (fewer than 25% believe in a personal God - and fewer than 10% go to Church every week), and few of those believe in anything close to Biblical literalism.

Of course, there is always a chance of a backlash - the only significant growing religious movements are the Christian house churches which tend to be fundamentalist and Islam, both of which are more hostile to evolution, but the vast majority of people in Britain believe evolution happened.

I just came across this page - http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_comp.htm - which shows the results of a survey held in 1991. 76.7% of British people believed in "human evolution" - second only to the then East Germany and more than double that of the USA. I have no reason to believe it's much different today.

BTW: in that survey - http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_comp.htm - look at the "Bible" column (number of people who believe "the Bible is literally the Word of God") in the USA it's 33.5% the UK... 7%.

Methinks not fertile ground for ID any time soon.

This article was in the Times weeks ago and is typical Ruth Gledhill reporting - not a high level of accuracy.

There is nothing new about this as to my knowledge RC Bishops here in England have taken genesis non-literally since Wiseman became the first RC Bishop in Britain since the 1550s in 1851. In the 1830s he gave some lectures and argued very strongly for a non-literal Genesis and quoted at length form Evangelical Anglican writers like Sumner

It is all old hat.

But what is worrying is that more and more Anglican clergy in England are adopting Young Earth Creationist positions and probably now make up 10% of Church of England clergy. In 1971 when I started to train for the Anglican ministry (changing from exploration geology) there weren't even 1%. What is more worrying is that in the 1860s I can't think of ONE YEC among Anglican clergy though I have researched it at length.

Michael Roberts beat me to making that pretty much the same comment. It really isn't a big deal for Catholics to not to be reading the bible literally. I mean the fact that they had mass in Latin until is related to the idea that we're supposed to trust to priests with their interpretations. If it's meant to be literal than we don't need the priest for interpretations. I think it's more a sign of the influence of protestant views on the general population that the Church is now feeling that they even need to make these statements, which is more disconcerting.

I see the point you all are making - that it is disconcerting that the Bishops evenfelt that they had to make this statement.

On the other hand, their remarks about the negative influence of intolerant fundamentalism are quite timely. And, to someone like me battling young-earth creationists in Kansas, it's good to have such a clearcut statement on his from Catholics, even if they are in England.

63. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the "Big Bang" and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.

I have a theory about the appeal of Biblical literalism to evangelical protestants, although it's probably not original since I've seen allusions to these ideas from many other people. But I haven't seen it stated it quite this directly.

As I see it, it comes from two sources. First, evangelical Christianity (as opposed to Catholicism and some other more traditional or orthodox protestant sects) demands, and feeds off, a much greater sense of personal engagment and identity with the group of fellow believers and their common faith. They require a much stronger personal committment in encouraging believers to engage in very overt public demonstrations of their faith like waving hands in the air, eyes shut tightly in praise, speaking in tongues, etc. The evangelical social model involves a rather cult-like absorption into the group. Cult-like, that is, insofar as it promotes a fairly high degree of subsumption of the individual identity to the group, but not to the same degree as a true cult, which essentially reverts people to a pre-adolescent stage of dependency. Yet at the same time, evangelical Christians also seek to actively engage, indeed to conquer in some sense, the world-at-large. The tension between these conflicting imperatives no doubt brings with it a certain amount of inner turmoil for the believer and may amplify the stress associated with the occasional 3 am doubts that plague all believers (which are just a part of having faith). So I think evangelicals have a much greater sense of urgency with regard to justifying their faith to the broader world (and to themselves).

Second, in addtion to inner turmoil, fundamentalist, in general, have inherited an "anti-tradition" tradtion, which makes it very hard for them to admit or even to see that they have, in fact, inherited a tradition. This, I believe, is the source of their insistence upon literalism. The underlying reason seems, prima facia, rather noble. Begining with Luther, the leaders of the Reformation championed a kind of Christian populism against the stiffling and corrupt clericalism and heady Scholastic theological 'tradtion' of the Catholic Church. The significance of the publication of the Gutenberg Bible powerfully symbolizes this trend. During the course of the Reformation, the hope was that "sola scriptura", reliance on the Bible alone as opposed to tradition, would lead to a reformed yet reunified Christendom. This hope proved in vain (leading to a break up based on differening interpretaions and theologies) because the Bible is a thoroughly blended concoction of history, myth, allegory, moral teaching and speculation (believers will no doubt take issue with that last one). So, even conceding, for the sake of argument, that the Bible is the "Word of God", it still requires some thoughtful interpretion here and there. This may terribly annoy a populist ant-intellectual, but it's a pretty obvious fact to any intelligent person who just takes an honest look at the Bible. Still, many hoped that just by bringing the people to the Bible, one could eliminate all of the corruptions of "tradition" and bring Christians together under a single unambiguous Bible-based understanding of Christianity that any barely literate believer could read out of the Bible for himself.

Thus began the myth of Biblical literalism. I call it a myth, because, although it is often claimed that everybody automatically assumed everything was literally true in the past, Biblical literalism was explicitly repudiated by many of the Church's best minds starting from the founders like Paul, Agustine, etc. and continuoung through the middle ages (Aquinas, for example). Don't read too much into this, since, the Catholic Church's condemnation of Gallileo, for example, although it was based as much on over-zealous Thomism as it was on Biblical literalism, relied on Biblical literalism for justification. So you can't let the Catholic Church off the hook here. My point is just that the insistence on Biblical literalism was not really traditional or unquestionably accepted, at least by the literati in the Church, prior to the Reformation.

Most of the older "mainstream" protestant denominations have not insisted upon literalism, at least not for some time. They, like the Catholic Church, now have their own "tradition(s)". This means that they rely upon their respective received interpretations of the Bible to suppport their particular theologies. One can obtain some sympathy with the evangelical's anti-tradition populism upon considering the Catholic Church's centralized authoritarian control over theology, things like the Vatican's "power to define" with regard to acceptable theology and Biblical interpretation. The Catholic Church has always been very authoritarian but, also, in modern times it has grown partly by adopting a kind of sweeping synchretism. This must create enormous internal tensions, so they probably feel they need to retain their tradition of centralized control of theological thinking just to keep from lapsing into chaos. But, moving from Catholicisms hard-to-accept authoritarianism, the presumably opposite extreme of Biblical literalism is at least as problematic. And it's terribly dishonest.

The reason it's dishonest is that there is, in fact, no such thing as a literal interpretation of the Bible. That's a striking claim. I will accept that I'm wrong when someone can show me a document that presents a line-by-line written literal interpretation that has been signed off on by all reputable living theologians. Until such time, I stand adamant in my claim: There is NO SUCH THING as a literal interpretation of the Bible. The fundamentalist literalists are dishonest (beginning with themselves) because they are every bit as much the purveyors of tradtional theologies, eg Southern Baptist evangelical theology, Chataqua revivalist theologies and, in some cases perfectionistic Calvinist theologies (although these fundamentalists are not evangelicals but "reconstructionists"), as those more orthodox sects whose "traditions" they denegrate as mere 'religion' (as opposed to the "Biblical truth" they claim to preach). All of the evangelical/fundamentalist sects have sectarian theologies, presumed to derive directly from the Bible. But the fact is that not a single one of the fundamentalist/evangelical theologies actually derives simply from an uncontroversial, literal reading of the Bible. They are all based upon the interpretations and theological ideas favored by their founders and their leaders, ie, from their "traditions". Suggesting that they are any different from any of the other sects in this regard is simply a lie. I know they probably believe this untruth, so perhaps the word "lie" is a little harsh. But I really think they ought to be honest enough with themselves to recognize their dependence upon their own traditional interpretaions of the Bible (as well as their own interpreters). If they could be honest about this, then they might be a bit less sanguine about accepting the notion that the Bible must be interpreted as it might be read and understood by an unsupervised six year old with little understanding of humanity or of nature, because that is precisely what Biblical literalism entails.

I agree with Micheal Robert's interpretation of the situation here in the UK. Obviously organizations like AIG and people like Dr. Monty White, Philip Bell, and John McKay are having some effect on the church in the UK. Looking at the AIG events calender, and John Mckay's speaking schedule, there seems to be an overwhelming rush by the evangelical churches here to adopt the young earth creationist point of view. I haven't heard anyone from the evangelical wing of the church speaking out against organizations like AIG.

John McKay for instance will be on Revelation TV on November 16th (Sky Digital channel 676) and I know for a fact that the interviewer (Howard Conder) will not ask any awkward questions since he himself is a Young Earth Creationist. Unless people phone in to the programme and contradict him he will just have a free run (I have watched him being interviewed before on this channel). I only wish more educated people in the evangelical wing of the church would speak out against this doctrine and point out it's very serious short comings and errors. In my opinion it (Young Earth Creationism) is a form of heresy. It can only damage the church in the long run.

By the way there's a piece on Ken Ham's blog today about the Presbyterian church in the US being too liberal.

A "literal interpretation" is almost an oxymoron, anyway, somewhat akin to the assertion that there exists somewhere a person who speaks a widely-spoken language with "no accent." For example, it is sometimes claimed that people from Nebraska (e.g. Johnny Carson) have "no accent," but I can show you several million Britons who would insist that Nebraskans have an "American accent." I would like someone who believes in a "literal interpretation" of the Bible tell me what the phrase "the eye of the needle" means (as in "camel through").

Bill: I have heard some people say that the needle is not the same as modern one, like you would use for sewing for example. Apparently the "needle" mentioned in scripture was some sort of doorway or entrance. It was possible for the Camel to get through but only with extreme difficulty.

Anyway, that's what I've been told by a friend who's in the Brethren church.

Peter: Yes, that's the most sensible interpretation. However, that definition was apparently lost for several centuries in the early church, and there are some denominations which still insist that the "door" definition is incorrect and the passage refers to the need for a miracle.

Surprising few seem to know Eurobarometer polls. Last Eurobarometer 224 was published this summer. Jan-Feb 2005 they asked many interesting science questions in different European countries.
In United Kingdom 1307 citizens were asked like this :"Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals" (Table QA10.12). Answer were:
UK: 79% True, 13% False, 8% I don't know. Europeans average (in 25 countries) were:
EU: 70% True, 20% False, 10% I don't know. Most disbelief in human evolution was in Turkey: 25% True, 51% False, 22% I d k.

Claim QA10.8 "The earliest humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs" got in UK:
UK: 28% True, 64% False, 8 % I d k when EU25 average answers were:
EU: 23% True, 66% False, 11% I d k.

Claim QA10.1."The Sun goes around the Earth" got this response in UK:
UK: 40% True, 56% False, 4% I d k. EU 25 average answers were:
EU: 29% True, 66% False, 4% I d k.

Claim QA10.13. "It takes one month for the Earth to go around the Sun" got in UK:
UK: 19% True, 61% False, 20% I d k (quite many hesitating?). In EU25 average answers were:
EU: 17% True, 66% False, 16% I d k.

You can study June 2005 Eurobarometer_224 poll results (1.87 MB pdf file) here:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_224_report_en.pdf
Tables for each question and each 25 countries start from page 165..

Bill: I have heard some people say that the needle is not the same as modern one, like you would use for sewing for example. Apparently the "needle" mentioned in scripture was some sort of doorway or entrance. It was possible for the Camel to get through but only with extreme difficulty.

What I heard was that 'camel' is probably a mistranslation and that a near-synonym meaning 'rope' was what was really intended. I don't know if most scholars accept that, tho.

The "eye of the needle" example proves that it's pointless challenging Biblical literalists over Bible "difficulties" (as they call them). There's always a way to twist and contort the texts and facts to make them fit.

Heck, they even have an explanation as to why the Bible "appears to say" the value of pi is 3 and not 3.14.

Ironically, these literal explanations tend to stretch credullity much more than saying the error was simply an honest mistake.

The only thing I would add about the prospect of creationism being on the rise in the UK... if it ever gets as bad as there as it is in the States today, then heaven help America because by then I would be expect the USA to be a fully fledged theocracy.

(I doubt either will ever happen.)

The "eye of the needle" example proves that it's pointless challenging Biblical literalists over Bible "difficulties" (as they call them). There's always a way to twist and contort the texts and facts to make them fit.

And very very few of them seem to agree with what almost any interpretation, literal or metaphorical, of that passage would imply: you shouldn't be rich.

Quite...

The fallacy that the US was founded on "Christian Values" misses by a mile. The religious refugees who sailed on the Mayflower were far more interested in Mammon.

Whether or not that's accurate (and I don't think it is), it's irrelevant, because the Pilgrims didn't found the U.S. The U.S. was founded on the values of the Enlightenment, which came a century after the Mayflower landed.

"http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_comp.htm"

I've never heard of a theological figure whom I have less respect for then bishop Sponge, who seems to soak up like sponge whatever the latest trend is, and whose primary figure of adoration seems to be himself. He doesn't seem to believe in anything which is real, tangiable.

I wonder when the Christian church will tell the real story about Jesus and who was the true inventor of Christianity. Jesus was a marginal Jew who was either born to a prostitute, from rape or from an extra-marital affair. Much later he was turned into an enigma of first order by myths made up by Paul. Paul was a guy who never met Jesus and was the real founder of the Christian religion. About 250 years of critical historical research has uncovered the truth about Jesus and examples of these are the works of Gerd Ludemann.

As I heard the "Eye of the Needle" argument, it referred to a gate on the eastern side of the Old City of Jerusalem, now known as the Golden Gate, then known as the Eye of the Needle, because it was very hard to get through on a camel. Not impossible, but hard. Hence the metaphor - not impossible, but hard.

But I think the whole argument is full of it. Jesus didn't make light demands of his followers. He meant if you were rich, you were damned.

I wonder when the Christian church will tell the real story about Jesus and who was the true inventor of Christianity. Jesus was a marginal Jew who was either born to a prostitute, from rape or from an extra-marital affair.

He meant if you were rich, you were damned.

He meant if you were rich, you were damned.

There is, OTOH, a strong evidentiary argument that Jesus never existed at all

here's very little evidence that Homer existed. Does that mean the Iliad is invalid as a piece of classical literature, or that nobody actually wrote it?

For that matter, what historical evidence is there for Socrates, apart from the works of Plato and Xenophon (just as "biassed" as the Gospels) and his appearance as a fictional character in the works of Aristophanes?

Plato and Xenophon (just as "biassed" as the Gospels)

Er, "witnesses".

People who demand that the Bible is true and should be taken literally very often contradict themselves. Just think of Revelations. The literal reading would be that a great beast will arise from the sea. How many Christians believes that to be literally true? Then, getting to the figure that only 144 000 people will enter heaven and they all cry symbolism. Yet they argue against all evidence that the Creation story in Genesis is true. The truth is that the two Creation myths in Genesis came from the Babylonians and that Moses never wrote Genesis. Theologians are taught this during their degrees, yet they seldom tell the people about it.

So, understanding this, why is it so important for them to take the Creation story in Genesis as truth? Do they really believe that the Earth was void and then God made the sun? When such a discrepancy pops up, they always have some strange explanation, twisting the literal meaning of the text. So their own statement that the literal bible is the truth means nothing, because they back out of the literal meaning to symbolism as soon as they are cornered with their own texts.

Then there are the Gnostic Gospels of Thomas the 5th Gospel

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.html

and the suggestion that Buddhist teachings influenced Jesus.

You could spend a lifetime investigating the Jesus story as some scholars have and not get to the bottom of it. Trust your own judgment, if it sounds too unlikely or far fetched then it is. Put on your scientists "why? hat" and ask the question what is the reason/motive for this story. There are endless resources available to help with rational interpretations that do not invoke "magical thinking".

Renier
This is from another thread it's long but nails the ontology of fundamentalism and literal bible interpretation.

http://www.counterpunch.org/davis01082005.html

It also explains why some of the 9/11 bombers put aluminum foil on their privates ;>

As we appear to have descended to personal abuse and spelling flames ("its authors weren't witnesses", incidentally), there seems to be little point in continuing this discussion.

However, I'll make one more attempt to convey my argument. We have the Iliad, whether or not we can prove that it was written by one historical individual named Homer. We have Socrates' teachings, whether or not he actually said what Plato reports him as saying. We have the Christian church, whether or not we can prove that Jesus existed. Investigation of the roots of a work of literature, philosophy, or religion is certainly useful and interesting, but it's not a substitute for engaging with the _content_ of the work itself.

M wrote

I wonder when the Christian church will tell the real story about Jesus and who was the true inventor of Christianity. Jesus was a marginal Jew who was either born to a prostitute, from rape or from an extra-marital affair. Much later he was turned into an enigma of first order by myths made up by Paul. Paul was a guy who never met Jesus and was the real founder of the Christian religion. About 250 years of critical historical research has uncovered the truth about Jesus and examples of these are the works of Gerd Ludemann.

Michael says;
Really I have as much respect for Ludemann's scholarship as I have for any YEC work of science. It's what my neighbor's bull leaves on the fields!

More seriously rigorous scholarship finds Ludemann very tendentious.

To carry on from my previous psot , read some works by NT Wright, - far better intellectual scholarship!

From: Michael Zimmerman To: clergyproject@lists.uwosh.edu Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 11:45 AM Subject: [Clergyproject] Last Call for Help - Clergy Letter Project Dear Friends, Thank you for signing the Clergy Letter - and for passing it along to friends and colleagues. Because of your efforts, we are very close to reaching our goal of 10,000 signatures from Christian clergy on the letter. As of right now, we have 9,229 signatures. While I know that many of you have already shared the letter with others, I am hoping that each of you can do just a drop more to enable us to reach our goal soon. If you can post the letter on a list serve for clergy, or share it with colleagues who have not yet signed, it would help enormously. (If you like, you can view all 9,229 signatures, in alphabetical order, by going to: http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm ) Once we reach our goal of 10,000 signatures we'll work to obtain significant national and local attention for the letter and for the premise that religion and science can comfortably coexist. As I've said in the past, we'll be aided in this effort by Fenton Communications and the Christian Alliance for Progress. I'll be back in touch with more specifics once we reach our goal. In the meantime, please help by circulating the letter a bit more widely. I can't thank you enough - your previous efforts and the warm words of support many of you have written have meant a great deal. Michael p.s. If you've received this e-mail directly from me, it means that you have already signed the letter and thus there is no reason to sign it again! An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible - the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark - convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts. We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as one theory among others is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth. To view the list of thousands of religious leaders who have signed this letter already, please go to: http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm ; &nbs p; &nb sp; If you would like to sign this letter, please send an e-mail to mz@uwosh.edu listing: Your Title and Name Affiliation/Church (optional) City and State Michael Zimmerman Office of the Dean College of Letters and Science University of Wisconsin Oshkosh Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901 (920) 424-1210 mz@uwosh.edu Clergyproject mailing list Clergyproject@lists.uwosh.edu http://lists.uwosh.edu/mailman/listinfo/clergyproject

The Song of Songs aka the Song of Solomon is pornographic if read literally e.g. 1:13 My beloved is like a fragrant pouch of myrrh spending the night between my breasts
3:1 All night long on my bed I longed for my lover
4:5 Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of the gazelle grazing among the lilies. (from http://bible.com/bible_read.html, chose New English Translation)

So if someone says the Bible is only to be read literally, ask what he thinks of such passages as these.

The Book of Revelations is a wonderful source of nonsense. Particularly 666 as "the number of the beast". I once received a request from a customer of a website my company created, asking that their membership personal id be changed from "5666" because of its closeness to "666". I mean to say, 666 is the exact number of the beast. The Bible does not say "the number of the beast contains 666". The customer would not have objected to say "6566".

That wonderful source of nonsense has given us the fundamentalist second coming literal Xian idiots behind the DI.

I wonder what this bishop's group's position on psychoneural dualism is ... that's still a sticking point with Catholics ...

Where science meets thought ...The Brain

V. S. Ramachandran best known for his work in Neurology tells an anecdote in one of his Reith Lectures

A boy says to his girlfriend "love is just a bunch of neurons firing" and the girls says "see, I told you it was real".

Available in MP3 download. He has lectured widely on art - as well as visual perception and the brain have a listen its well worth it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/

I don't know whether the Thomas More Law Society is coming from, but they are not representative of mainstream Catholic thought.

— joe

Particularly 666 as "the number of the beast".

— PaulP

There is, OTOH, a strong evidentiary argument that Jesus never existed at all

— morbius

If you are going to criticize the last book in the canon, at least call it by its proper name Revelation not "Revelations". By the way, some manuscripts contain the number 661 rather than 666.

You do, of course, realize these bishops speak with no authority? Only the Magisterium of the Church could make any binding (for Roman Catholics) statement about the accuracy of the bible.

Really I have as much respect for Ludemann's scholarship as I have for any YEC work of science. It's what my neighbor's bull leaves on the fields! More seriously rigorous scholarship finds Ludemann very tendentious. To carry on from my previous psot , read some works by NT Wright, - far better intellectual scholarship!

— Michael Roberts

Last word WRT the camel and the eye of the needle. I had assumed this was more widely known. The story, AIUI, is that the "eye of the needle" was a small door adjacent to or actually within the large doors of any walled city. Caravans arriving at night, when the large doors were closed, used the smaller, more defensible door opened by the night watchman. This smaller door was just wide and tall enough to accomodate one camel, but *without* the rider or the normal baggage attached to either side of the camel. Hence, the analogy is clear. A rich man must shed or denounce all of his worldly posessions before entering the kingdom of heaven.

You maybe right that Jesus never existed but I tend to think that he did

Here is Gerd Ludemann's homepage.

We have the Iliad, whether or not we can prove that it was written by one historical individual named Homer. We have Socrates' teachings, whether or not he actually said what Plato reports him as saying. We have the Christian church, whether or not we can prove that Jesus existed. Investigation of the roots of a work of literature, philosophy, or religion is certainly useful and interesting, but it's not a substitute for engaging with the _content_ of the work itself.

Last word WRT the camel and the eye of the needle

Many fundamentalists seek to explain away the obvious hostility to wealth in the saying attributed to Jesus, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24). Fundamentalists today constantly tell each other that the "eye of the needle" was a narrow gate into Jerusalem through which a camel could just barely squeeze, implying that even rich people can get into Heaven, provided that they walk a straight and narrow path. While believing this no doubt lowers the cognitive dissonance they suffer between the resentment against wealth that is integral to the Christian religion they revere, and their own desire to achieve, it is nonetheless a silly legend, like the alligators in the sewers. The Jerome Biblical Commentary is a standard reference work found in many libraries, written by Catholic scholars. Its commentary on Matthew 19:24 states bluntly, "the figure of the camel and the eye of the needle means exactly what is said; it does not refer to a cable or a small gate of Jerusalem." The Abingdon Interpreter's Bible is a major reference work compiled by Protestant scholars, and its analysis of this passage is in full agreement. Unfortunately for the fundamentalists, the concensus of New Testament scholars is that Matthew's passage barring rich people from heaven means exactly what it says. It remains to be seen how many of them are willing to give up all their wealth in accordance with the ideals they claim to profess.

Index: 1. Mission-Critical Principles: the Prophet's arsenal. 1a. Retroactive Shoehorning: a Prophet's best friend. 1b. Vaticinium ex Eventu: After-the-fact prophecy. 1c. The Law of Large Numbers: 1 in a million is all you need with a million prophecies. 1d. Predicting the Obvious: Case studies in "duh." 1e. False Fulfillment: Don't let the facts stop you. 1f. Self-Fulfilling Prophecies: "They make it possible." 1g. Confirmation Bias: Make them squeal with select fulfillment. 1h. Wishful Thinking: Play off their dreams, hopes and fears for greater success. 1i. Dealing with Doubts: Reconciling Prophet Guilt Syndrome. 1j. Prophecy Aids: Dressing up both Prophecy and Fulfillment. 2. Damage Control: the general anti-skeptic FAQ. 2a. Specifics, Dates and Deadlines: a Prophet's bane. 2b. Unfalsifiable Escape Hatches: Preventing demonstrable prophecy failures. 2c. Unexpected Difficulties/Apologetics: Apologizing for failed prophecy. 3. Concluding Remarks. 3a. Prophecy Verification Criteria: Avoid getting duped by other Prophets. 3b. About: "Just who is this bozo, revealing our trade secrets?" 3c. Acknowledgements.

there is a strong evidentiary argument that Jesus never existed. And you have offered no rebuttal to that argument.

— morbius

You do, of course, realize these bishops speak with no authority?

I have a theory about the appeal of Biblical literalism to evangelical protestants, although it's probably not original since I've seen allusions to these ideas from many other people. But I haven't seen it stated it quite this directly.

* sighs * OK, I'll bite.

The arguments presented on the page you linked to boil down to: [utterly erroneous characterization]

I'm not saying it's _impossible_ to prove something, or someone, didn't exist; but the article you mention doesn't, in my opinion, manage to do that.

And my point still remains. Irrespective of whether or not Jesus existed, the Christian church and the Christian faith undeniably do.

By the way, some manuscripts contain the number 661 rather than 666.

You do, of course, realize these bishops speak with no authority? Only the Magisterium of the Church could make any binding (for Roman Catholics) statement about the accuracy of the bible.

budda,

They have no binding authority on interpreting scripture, whatsoever, period. And that is what we are talking about here. They do have administrative authority, that's true--but that is not what we are talking about. A Catholic bishop may give his opinion on scripture interpretation, but a Catholic is not obligated to believe it, should it differ from official teaching--which is the role of the Magisterium. That is one way the RCC can claim to speak with one voice.

As for 666, my personal opinion is that Revelation is mostly referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and the beast is Nero. In other words, I don't think Revelation refers to some future tribulation. That is a minority opinion.

They have no binding authority on interpreting scripture, whatsoever, period. [...] A Catholic bishop may give his opinion on scripture interpretation, but a Catholic is not obligated to believe it, should it differ from official teaching---which is the role of the Magisterium.

This calls for wisdom. Whoever is intelligent can figure out the meaning of the number of the beast, because the number stands for the name of someone. Its number is 666.

As for 666, my personal opinion [...] is a minority opinion.

Heddle said

"my personal opinion is that Revelation is mostly referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and the beast is Nero. In other words, I don't think Revelation refers to some future tribulation. That is a minority opinion."

Since most authoritative biblical historians would agree with Heddle why is it not the majority opinion ?

Why is it that those who have a fact based outlook on reality rather than a magic based outlook on reality are completely dismissed by the magical thinking crowd ?

They have no binding authority on interpreting scripture, whatsoever, period.

buddha,

You do grasp the difference: the Magisterium is comprised of bishops in union with the pope, but that does not mean everything bishops teach comes from the Magisterium? You do know about Ex Cathedra, infallibility,etc. If you read the relevant section in the Catholic Encyclopedia you will see that these bishops are speaking as a group of bishops--much like the American bishops get together and make non-binding statements.

You are just a man, Heddle. Your religious opinions are no more holy or divine or infallible than anyone else's, and you don't know any more about god than anyone else does.

— RDLenny Flank

Blast for a bit of a refresher do a search on PT for all posts that have the word delusion.

Then explain this
.
.
.
.
.

He had bought a large map representing the sea,
Without the least vestige of land:
And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be
A map they could all understand.
.
.
.
.
.

And then look up "Genko Koan" and meditate on it until you wake up.

Blast.... that's Genjo Koan

Blast, old buddy. Back for more, are you?

What is the source of YOUR religious authority, Blast? Websites run by "ecological visionaries"? (snicker) (giggle) BWA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!

Have you found any genes for cobra venom yet in a garter snake?

Why not?

Dear reverend, please explain this text: "Those who hear you, hear me."

[...] the Magisterium is comprised of bishops in union with the pope, but that does not mean everything bishops teach comes from the Magisterium?

If you read the relevant section in the Catholic Encyclopedia [...]

Answer the question Lenny.

Blast for a bit of a refresher do a search on PT for all posts that have the word delusion.

— k.e.

I think it's time to close this thread, and move on.

It's been interesting, and I've learned a lot. However the conversation has deteriorated today.

Thanks,

Jack

It's been requested that I re-open this thread. I'll do this, with a request that people stay on topic, and that the discussion not degenerate into personal attacks.

Thanks for the interest.

Jack

Well, I just have one simple question for all the fundie/IDers out there. It goes:

What exactly is the source of your religious authority. What exactly makes your (or ANY person's) religious opinions more (or less) authoritative than anyone else's. Why should anyone pay any more attention to my religious opinions, or yours, than we pay to the religious opinions of my next door neighbor or my gardener or the guy who delivered my pizza last night. It seems to me that no one alive would or could know any more about God than anyone else alive does, since there doesn't seem to be any potential source of such knowledge that isn't equally available to everyone else. You pray; I pray. You read the Bible; I read the Bible. You go to church and listen to the pastor; I go to church and listen to the pastor. So what is it, exactly, that makes your religious opinion any more (or less) valid than anyone else's. Are you more holy than anyone else? Do you walk more closely with God than anyone else? Does God love you best? Are you the best Biblical scholar in human history? What exactly makes your opinions better than anyone else's? Other than your say-so?

Is it your opinion that not only is the Bible inerrant and infallible, but YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of it are also inerrant and infallible? Sorry, but I simply don't believe that you are infallible. Would you mind explaining to me why I SHOULD think you are? Other than your say-so?

It seems to me that your religious opinions are just that, your opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else's religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow your religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.

Can you show me anything to indicate otherwise? Other than your say-so?

I never said that Jesus never existed --- I said there's a strong evidentiary case for that position. OTOH, you "tend to think that he did" --- oh, well, I guess that settles it.

You maybe right that Jesus never existed but I tend to think that he did

— morbius

Can you and Tevildo kind of try to remember what scientific reasoning is and how it works?Here is Gerd Ludemann's homepage.

There are non-biblical sources from the first century about Jesus, i.e. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20. 196-200 where we hear about the martyrdom of James, the brother of Christ. Other passages in Josephus might be interpolations, though is unlikely. People who say that Jesus did not exist fail to account for the sudden rise of Christianity.

— GERD LÃœDEMANN

Lenny, you still haven't answered the question. What does it mean when Jesus says, "Whoever hears you, hears me"?

You pray; I pray. You read the Bible; I read the Bible. You go to church and listen to the pastor; I go to church and listen to the pastor.

— RDLenny Flank

Blast, Your religious opinions are just that, your opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else's religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow your religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.

Lenny, you still haven't answered the question. What does it mean when Jesus says, "Whoever hears you, hears me"?

This saying may have great meaning for someone somewhere in some life setting, but what possible relevance can it have to the question of whether or not ID or evolution has the better evidence to explain the current diversity of life on earth? In the here and now, not in the great by and by?

Particulalry since IDers keep telling everyone, at every available opportunity, that ID is not religion and isn't just religious apologeitcs.

Or are IDers just lying to us about that, Blast?

So let me ask you the same question I asked Sal, Blast:

*ahem*

You must KNOW that your ID heroes are in court right now trying to argue that creationism/ID is SCIENCE and has NO RELIGIOUS PURPOSE OR AIM. You must KNOW that if the courts rule that creationism/ID is NOT science and IS nothing but religious doctrine, then your ID crap will never see the inside of a science classroom. So you must KNOW that every time you blither to us that creationism/ID is all about God and faith and the Bible and all that, you are UNDERMINING YOUR OWN HEROES by demonstrating, right here in public, that your heroes are just lying under oath when they claim that creationism/ID has NO religious purpose or aims.

So why the heck do you do it ANYWAY? Why the heck are you in here yammering about religion when your own leaders are trying so desperately to argue that ID/creationism is NOT about religion? Are you really THAT stupid? Really and truly?

Why are you in here arguing that ID/creationism is all about God and the Bible, while Discovery Institute and other creationists are currently in Kansas and Dover arguing that ID/creationism is NOT all about God and the Bible?

Why are you **undercutting your own side**????????

I really truly want to know.

Oh, and I am still waiting for you to go ahead and tell me what makes your religious opinions any better than anyone else's. Other than your say-so.

Naturally, Blast, I don't really expect any answer from you. However, as with Sal, I ask anyway because my questions make their point all by themselves, whether you answer or not. I don't need your cooperation. (shrug)

Is this rhetorical or factual, Lenny? I'm genuinely interested.

Why is this a moral or religius issue for you in the first place, for crying out loud?

The best book on related issues is Gerd Theissen/Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998 with detailed discussions of Josephus, etc.

— GERD LÃœDEMANN