Re: All the hypocrites ran away... (was Political: Palin not fit to be VP.

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Jack Hollis wrote in article
<or4ge41l2qh76sc1n9jog3sckt4ba396he@xxxxxxx>:

On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:23:05 -0700, Don Kirkman <donsno2@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Many scientists accept the idea of a religious realm, and many
religionists accept the realm of science. It's at the extremes that
those in one realm deny or downplay the worth, if not the existence,
of the other.

The difficulty is that for fundamentalist Christians, who believe in a
literal interpretation of the bible, evolution directly contradicts
their beliefs. Both can't be true

Precisely the issue. Science classes are intended to deal with
scientific truth.

Even the Catholic Church, which
does not require its followers to believe a literal interpretation of
the bible, have some problems with it if you press the issue far
enough.

The Church doctrine of original sin is a basic tenant of the
church and is the reason for the sacrament of baptism. All of that is
bound up with Genesis and Adam and Eve. If they never existed, where
did original sin come from?

Many traditional Christian groups no longer believe in Adam (the name
means "man[kind]") and Eve (the name means "life;") the story is an
allegory, not history. And that story teaches that pride and
arrogance and rebelliousness underlie original sin, pretty much
disobedience to the order of things, like picking fruit from a
forbidden tree. The concept of original sin as a hereditary infection
of the soul that needs to be washed away by baptism is considerably
later, as Greco-Roman philosophy began to affect theological thinking.

About historicity: The first chapters of the Bible have two parallel
but different accounts of how the world was formed, a God who walks in
the garden in the cool of the evening, a man formed from the dust and
a woman formed from his rib, a tree whose fruit gives an eater the
knowledge of good and evil, and a serpent who talks with the man and
the woman about god's commands. [Some of these details are in one
account or the other but not both.]

It all works very well as allegory, not so well as history. And all
the talk about dates, 4,000 years ago or 6,000 years ago, is based on
the calculations of a 17th century Anglican archbishop who figured the
world began in September, 4004 BC; "the night preceding 23 October
4004 BC, according to the Julian calendar, which in the Gregorian
calendar would be 21 September 4004 BC".
--
Don Kirkman
donsno2@xxxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • ebooks share lits 200
    ... Fire Safety Science: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium ... Reformation in Britain and Ireland Oxford History of the Christian ... Literature and Culture, State and Nation, ... Historical Guide to Edgar Allan Poe Historical Guides to American ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against IDs Theology
    ... "Logic and science work." ... attempt to depict history, and can on ocassion do so with great insight. ... You are perfectly free to hold whatever arbitrary beliefs you wish. ... Saying that modern Christians deny anatomy shows how your own ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: BHARATS (INDIAS) CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WORLD
    ... perspective of western history to the contributions of other cultures has ... >of essays explaining how the ancient Egyptians used ... Teresi was promptly ... a science writer and former editor ...
    (sci.med)
  • Re: BHARATS (INDIAS) CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WORLD
    ... perspective of western history to the contributions of other cultures has ... >of essays explaining how the ancient Egyptians used ... Teresi was promptly ... a science writer and former editor ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: BHARATS (INDIAS) CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WORLD
    ... perspective of western history to the contributions of other cultures has ... >of essays explaining how the ancient Egyptians used ... Teresi was promptly ... a science writer and former editor ...
    (sci.physics)