Bigthink - Idea Comments Feed

Comment on: Re: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:16:07 +0100

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.

Comment on: Re: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:02:04 +0100

Given that all religious texts are works of fiction (who among us has ever directly encountered God, Heaven, Angels or any of the other putative aspects of religious belief), this question is really on for the literary types. The issue is whether or not we should allow such interpretations to drive behavior in the real world. In my view, to do so is tantamount to deciding that one should live one's life according to the dictates of novelists!

Comment on: Re: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:10:08 +0100

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.

Comment on: Re: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:32:46 +0100

You miss the point of global warming. We won't destroy the earth. We will destroy us and some other living creatures. We need to do something to save us. It is self serving.

Comment on: Re: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:15:24 +0100

I absolutely agree with Mushinronjya. This planet is millions of years old. Volcanoes have been erupting and sending off poisonous gases for millions of years.

Our industrial age has only been going for around 200 years. That is a blink of time. Do I think that we should be kinder to the planet...yes...Is global warming true as to what is being labeled as global warming? No.

We are such a vein species to believe that what we are doing has any impact on what will happen to this Earth. This Earth will be destroyed by a meteor before it is ever destroyed due to car emissions. It is another way to scare people to make them do what they want you to do.

I don't know how you can post a site that promotes thinking and have someone like Cizik posting on it.

Comment on: Re: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Tue, 20 May 2008 04:27:44 +0100

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.

Comment on: Re: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:56:51 +0100

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.

Comment on: Re: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 06:49:29 +0100

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 century- it'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

Comment on: Re: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:15:03 +0100

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.

Comment on: Re: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:28:24 +0100

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.

Comment on: Re: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 02:59:39 +0100

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.

Comment on: Re: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:26:55 +0100

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.

Comment on: Re: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 06:19:19 +0100

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.

Comment on: Re: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 05:55:24 +0100

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

Comment on: Re: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:06:57 +0100

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?

Comment on: Re: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:39:28 +0100

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.

Comment on: Re: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 04:15:01 +0100

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"

Comment on: Re: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:37:35 +0100

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?

Comment on: Re: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:22:29 +0100

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.

Comment on: Re: How should the Bible be interpreted?

Bigthink — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 06:52:49 +0100

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?