First: an old Italian proverb. "You cannot reason with a German, but you can give orders." Second: only argue with a liberal when they are in the right. The more they are in the wrong, the more they become obstinate and intractable.
I support the notion of evolution as being part of intelligent design I would say so, yes. It is a very fertile area for thought. But one must be careful to place limits of sense on the notion of intelligent design, or one falls into the Fundamentalist trap of having a nosey-parkering God intervening in every petty little thing. I accept evolution as a scientific theory on the interrelationship and mutation of species. So does the Vatican (http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/nc-true.html). I do not support the misconceived use of evolution as a metaphysical category, but that is another matter. As a research historian, I would deeply resent any attempt (by, say, Muslims) to interfere with my investigations for preconceived theological reasons. If theology is true, it cannot contradict other truths: so said the greatest of all theologians, Thomas Aquinas, seven hundred and fifty years ago - following on a strong hint from St.Augustine - and so have all the greatest Catholic minds since agreed. As a culture historian, I think I can say that science itself is a product of Catholic Christian civilization, and that the use of "science" as a category to oppose to "faith" is something that belongs in the study of psychological problems (revolt against the father, against authority, against reasons) but not in serious philosophy.
I probably should have clarified better by saying 'Evangelical Pentecostal' religion, where anything seemingly resembling science is vilified and mocked until it is a bloody heap on the floor, i.e. claims that abortions cause breast cancer. Abortion might have its suckiness, and by the plateful, but that's a pretty crap accusation to make.
And yes, historically, science and Catholicism have been so strongly intertwined, which is one of the reasons I can put up with Catholicism moreso than I can most other forms of organised Christian faith. I love God, and believe in him (and Jesus, in particular) deeply in terms of him creating the world and actually giving a damn about stuff, but I really think he'd be disappointed in most of the people who call themselves Christians these days.
And I don't take all parts of the Bible literally, aside from maybe the Gospels and the part where Jesus fought the zombies off with a shotgun and a chainsaw attached to his arm, thus my belief of intelligent designs is very much that God started off the 'Big Bang' five billion years ago or so; sure, a week is impressive, but most of us can't even keep goldfish for a week. As I said: I don't take the bible too literally. I'd like to see your take on whether one can be a true Christian without taking everything in the bible literally: not for rudeness or a challenge, but because I'd genuinely like to know what you think about it.
I'd like to see your take on whether one can be a true Christian without taking everything in the bible literally
One cannot be a good Christian and take "the Bible" literally, for that would involve them not only in gross contradictions, but also in questioning the Word of God Incarnate. Jesus was fond of asking us riddles, and the biggest riddle he asked is this: while He and His disciples were everlastingly breaking the Jewish Law, especially on the matter of the Sabbath, and indeed delivering teachings that directly contradicted "Moses" word for word (e.g. the prohibition of divorce, which "Moses" allowed - in fact, Christianity is to the best of my knowledge the only religion in the world to forbid divorce altogether), at the same time He insisted that "not a comma or an accent of the Law will be changed". Unless you deal with these issues, and with hundreds like those which the Scriptures ask us every day of the week, you are not a Christian, but an idiot who is trying to believe two contradictory things. When St.Paul said that "all Scripture is inspired by God," he immediately underlined the limits of this statement by saying "and is useful for refuting error, guiding people's lives and teaching them to be upright." This does not suggest that "Scripture" is, as Muslims regard the Qur'an or Hindus the Vedas, the literal word of God existing in God's own form of existence, and revealed to men; indeed, in Christian thought, it cannot be, for we have another Word of God revealed to us - not a book, but a Person. The very word "inspired" should be translated, in my view, roughly like this: "All our sacred writings testify to the impact of the Divine Presence on living human minds". That is, they are not dictated by God, but the result of human reaction to the presence of God; as indeed is the whole New Testament. In our religion, the Word of God never wrote a line that is preserved as He would have written it; the only time we read of His writing anything, it is in the story of the woman caught in adultery, and there He was writing in the sand - nor does the text tell us what He wrote. And this too, if you will, is a paradox; another one of those riddles that Jesus asks of us, and that demand the use of our minds to answer.
That was as far as I took it, considering how much of the Old Testament I saw to be contradictory and plain incorrect when put up against the NT. (C'mon, you ever tried to remove mildew with prayer? I did it one time to be lazy and avoid cleaning the bathroom. It didn't work.) It doesn't explain to me why people take some parts of one chapter seriously but completely ignore the rest: forgive me for bringing up a cliche, but the whole 'gay' thing being a sin while people wear mixed cloth and gold jewellery; it might've been Saint Paul, or it might've been Karl Lagerfield. The nine years of catholic schooling I attended have since been wiped out with copious alcohol abuse.
I suppose I am going to have to speak out about homosexuality. I really did not want to, because there is no topic, in my experience - not excluding abortion - on which people more quickly become hysterical, persecution-minded and obsessional. Nothing is less gay, in the sense of joyful, happy, luminous, than the average liberal when faced with the issue of homosexuality and its moral status; just the other day, Icarusancalion, who claims to be a Buddhist, just shrieked and howled me right out of her LJ page for no other reason than I had objected to being called a "nutjob" just because I oppose homosexual separatism. The position of the average liberal on this matter is profoundly illiberal: you are not allowed to say anything about homosexuality that is not wholly positive, and if you do, woe betide you. If you take that position, I strongly suggest you defriend me right now, because I am not going to compromise or flatter.
Tough luck on that one, alas. I think it's just as bad to force someone against their religious convictions to accept homosexuality as it is to force someone against their non-religious convictions to not accept it, thus I can see where you're coming from. I think tolerating and accepting are different things, and though I actively support it and promote tolerance within my own community through participation in many gay-themed events here, it's not particularly my place to force my own stance upon someone with such devout beliefs. On the line of tolerating, however, is a different matter: people should tolerate, if only because people don't have to be Christian or religious, thus shouldn't have to be ruled by a moral guideline that doesn't apply to their own faith or belief system.
Please feel free to disagree on this point.
(By separatism, I suppose you're speaking of the Gay Games incident and your opposition on the grounds that if they're that good at athletics they should just perform in the major Olympics. I don't know precisely where you're coming from on this one.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-05-16 03:46 pm (UTC)I would say so, yes. It is a very fertile area for thought. But one must be careful to place limits of sense on the notion of intelligent design, or one falls into the Fundamentalist trap of having a nosey-parkering God intervening in every petty little thing. I accept evolution as a scientific theory on the interrelationship and mutation of species. So does the Vatican (http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/nc-true.html). I do not support the misconceived use of evolution as a metaphysical category, but that is another matter. As a research historian, I would deeply resent any attempt (by, say, Muslims) to interfere with my investigations for preconceived theological reasons. If theology is true, it cannot contradict other truths: so said the greatest of all theologians, Thomas Aquinas, seven hundred and fifty years ago - following on a strong hint from St.Augustine - and so have all the greatest Catholic minds since agreed. As a culture historian, I think I can say that science itself is a product of Catholic Christian civilization, and that the use of "science" as a category to oppose to "faith" is something that belongs in the study of psychological problems (revolt against the father, against authority, against reasons) but not in serious philosophy.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-17 07:50 am (UTC)And yes, historically, science and Catholicism have been so strongly intertwined, which is one of the reasons I can put up with Catholicism moreso than I can most other forms of organised Christian faith. I love God, and believe in him (and Jesus, in particular) deeply in terms of him creating the world and actually giving a damn about stuff, but I really think he'd be disappointed in most of the people who call themselves Christians these days.
And I don't take all parts of the Bible literally, aside from maybe the Gospels and the part where Jesus fought the zombies off with a shotgun and a chainsaw attached to his arm, thus my belief of intelligent designs is very much that God started off the 'Big Bang' five billion years ago or so; sure, a week is impressive, but most of us can't even keep goldfish for a week. As I said: I don't take the bible too literally. I'd like to see your take on whether one can be a true Christian without taking everything in the bible literally: not for rudeness or a challenge, but because I'd genuinely like to know what you think about it.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-17 09:00 am (UTC)One cannot be a good Christian and take "the Bible" literally, for that would involve them not only in gross contradictions, but also in questioning the Word of God Incarnate. Jesus was fond of asking us riddles, and the biggest riddle he asked is this: while He and His disciples were everlastingly breaking the Jewish Law, especially on the matter of the Sabbath, and indeed delivering teachings that directly contradicted "Moses" word for word (e.g. the prohibition of divorce, which "Moses" allowed - in fact, Christianity is to the best of my knowledge the only religion in the world to forbid divorce altogether), at the same time He insisted that "not a comma or an accent of the Law will be changed". Unless you deal with these issues, and with hundreds like those which the Scriptures ask us every day of the week, you are not a Christian, but an idiot who is trying to believe two contradictory things. When St.Paul said that "all Scripture is inspired by God," he immediately underlined the limits of this statement by saying "and is useful for refuting error, guiding people's lives and teaching them to be upright." This does not suggest that "Scripture" is, as Muslims regard the Qur'an or Hindus the Vedas, the literal word of God existing in God's own form of existence, and revealed to men; indeed, in Christian thought, it cannot be, for we have another Word of God revealed to us - not a book, but a Person. The very word "inspired" should be translated, in my view, roughly like this: "All our sacred writings testify to the impact of the Divine Presence on living human minds". That is, they are not dictated by God, but the result of human reaction to the presence of God; as indeed is the whole New Testament. In our religion, the Word of God never wrote a line that is preserved as He would have written it; the only time we read of His writing anything, it is in the story of the woman caught in adultery, and there He was writing in the sand - nor does the text tell us what He wrote. And this too, if you will, is a paradox; another one of those riddles that Jesus asks of us, and that demand the use of our minds to answer.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-17 10:20 am (UTC)That was as far as I took it, considering how much of the Old Testament I saw to be contradictory and plain incorrect when put up against the NT. (C'mon, you ever tried to remove mildew with prayer? I did it one time to be lazy and avoid cleaning the bathroom. It didn't work.) It doesn't explain to me why people take some parts of one chapter seriously but completely ignore the rest: forgive me for bringing up a cliche, but the whole 'gay' thing being a sin while people wear mixed cloth and gold jewellery; it might've been Saint Paul, or it might've been Karl Lagerfield. The nine years of catholic schooling I attended have since been wiped out with copious alcohol abuse.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-17 02:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 12:30 am (UTC)Please feel free to disagree on this point.
(By separatism, I suppose you're speaking of the Gay Games incident and your opposition on the grounds that if they're that good at athletics they should just perform in the major Olympics. I don't know precisely where you're coming from on this one.)