Catholic. But very liberal. He did baptised a bastard. :arrgh!:

Never went into a litteral interpretation of the Bible. He regarded it as a moral signpost and a history lesson. But catholics here were focused on the new testament.

There is however a rather large amount of compelling evidence that supports the big bang, and a growing amount that supports that the big bang was not the beginning, and that a vastly different state of physical reality existed before it, and gave rise to it.

But it is important to remain sceptical about these things to a degree. Sometimes big ideas get overturned. With something like the big bang it is reasonable to suggest that under further analysis it may yet prove to be a big crunch, or a big bounce, or something else entirely.

Here we go again...
Some cherry picks again.
Actually there is so much theology , philosophy and ethic based on bible.
Whole volumes of books that deal with ethics and humanism .
No one actually takes bible (old testament)literally besides ignorant atheist who try to prove some points and faithful ignorant morons.

The point I didn't miss was that you advocate the bible as a moral educator, so I simply point out that as a moral educator containing such moral lessons like being willing to murder your own child might be very confusing to someone trying to educate themselves 'morally'

There are a great many other examples, I just picked on one of the worst. Do you wish me to do some digging?

It is probably the best theory so far to explain HOW things unfolded SINCE there has been the Bang!. It does not explain WHY there was a Bang!. That does not mean that it will not see corrections, attachments, deletions, and maybe finally complete replacement.

Attempts like the pulsating/expanding-contracting universe that state that after a Bang! the universe grows, collapses again, and when it collapses into just one single point, it Bangs! again, just try to eternally delay the need to explain the Why by moving the point of time when the WHY became an important variable towards an infinite past. "It has always gone like this. Bang!-Grow-Collapse. Bang!-Grow-Collapse. It's just how it is."

WHY there are things, in the end is an object of philosophical speculation. We call it metaphysics, and we better never forget that metaphysics are always speculation for sure. We cannot know for sure, our nature and essence as the being that we are define the way we function, perceive, think and know. And with that definition stands and falls what we are not, and cannot perceive like, and cannot think out. In other words: the limited cannot embrace the unlimited. But we can know that we cannot know. That's at least something. :)

But for question about the HOW, science is the best thing we have for analysis and examination. But of course, our theories are OUR theories, however well-founded they are. They are our artificial orders by which we try to make sense of things as best as we currently can.

To me the great mystery and miracle of existence is the question why there are things at all, and mind to reflect on them. Why isn't there simply nothing instead? We cannot know that. That inability is a challenge to us, a dilemma, that we either grow by, or that burns us out and makes us falling into existential despair. That choice is ours. Or not?

What I wanted to say is, I agree with what you said. :haha:

Sorry would you like me to paraphrase the entire chapter?

No :salute:

I didn't advocate anything. I only said that the bible and other religious texts make a lot more sense if you look at them as a collection of stories with a moral than as a history book.

You're the one trying to assign a literal meaning to them and in that you are just like the Creationists.

Post edited for shamefully poor reading comprehension on my part. :P

I'm not assigning a literal meaning - it is all fiction to me and thus has no literal meaning - it is a fantasy. I'm asking how such stories can be considered good moral teaching when they contain such abhorrent, downright blasphemous stories like the one I mentioned. [edit] I'm also saying I think that the morals of many of the stories are suspect, to say the least.

How am I like creationists?

Whether you agree with it or not you're still assigning a literal meaning to a bible story. I think the lesson taught by Issac is about obedience and sacrifice. You'll note that God didn't actually make Abraham kill his son.

I made no such claim. You seem to demand either perfection or total rejection of the entire text. I would not be so dismissive.

But he made damn well sure Abraham was willing didn't he?
Got to be honest when I was read that story by a teacher my blood ran cold.

[edit] also I have to add, obedience to a murderous command? the sacrifice of your child? for what reason? because god is so insecure he needs to play a power trip on a little man to obey his command to murder his child for no other reason than god said so?

Or was it the absolute subjugation of the innate human knowledge that murdering your child is terribly wrong, and yet if you have faith that god knows best you still would? To me this is a poisonous lesson whichever way you look at it.

You see the trouble with subjective interpretation? we can experience the same story and yet take practically opposite meanings away from it. [/edit]

I make no such demands.

If it is to be held up as stories with morals, then call it how it is, fantastical stories with some good and some bad morals, often in the exact same story. The good morals can all be more directly taught without involving metaphysics anyway. Aesops fables or the I-Ching springs to mind, and both are self admittedly absolute allegory.

I would be satisfied with a conscientious edit, actually. That is if believers expect me to simply concede that their judgement of good or bad morals is correct. I have one huge problem with the arguments against literal meanings or subjective interpretation. If the story involving Abraham or indeed any biblical story is allegory, then why are some parts of the bible considered literal truth, like the existence of the christian 'God' at all? It is one thing to accuse me of assigning literal meanings to a fantasy story, but everyone who believes in the christian god assigns a literal meaning to all parts of the bible that suggest the existence of god.

Where is the differentiation between what is considered literal truth and allegory? who decides? each to their own? Who is right?

Every man must look for the answers to those questions in the chambers of their own heart. I'm not religious but I think that is the whole point.

long story short...
This can viewed that god made a point that he wasn't really into human sacrifices.
What the bible says black on white is "hey don't do this stuff i was kidding" in a somewhat crude but strong way.
If anyone ask a question if god would like sacrifices as prove of faith(some reformist lol)he can look into this story.:haha:
Very cool for that period of time....don't be into Inca stuff folks

I know :salute:

Just men? ...joking, joking.

I on the other hand tend to think of the whole point as a clever propaganda written and re-written by power hungry Jewish priests in a dark age of little enlightenment.

Maybe everyone should write their own bible, and not worry about anyone else version of it, nor show their own to others.

Yeah, that is cool for the age they were in. That Jesus feller was apparently even on about not beating your slaves so hard they died immediately, and that women although servants of men should have some rights.

Certainly progressive thinking for the time.

Can't see the relevance today though.

Nevermind :salute:

Sounds to me like you harbor a lot of hatred for a mere book.

Go ahead and write your own version. Surely you can do as good a job as a bunch of power hungry Jewish priests.

Not hatred. Exasperation and criticism. I speak my mind, as you spoke yours. That old testament god is the one who harbors hatred amongst other decidedly human failings like pride, envy, vindication etc.

And no I'm not nearly skilled enough in dark fantasy as they were. I could never write a story that made me feel sick. If the bible was written today would anyone believe in it? No. But again, I can hear the special pleading. The fact that it was written, mistranslated, re written by various people over hundreds of years, none of whom lived within 200 years of the events that are described as 'truth' or gods 'word' in the book itself, and was finalised sometime before the turn of the 2nd millenium should imply that it should be treated with even more scepticism than were it writ today, but it is not. In fact when people like me decide to point certain things out about it, I am called an 'ignorant atheist' and/or otherwise actively discouraged from speaking my mind. It's OK to ridicule politicians or celebrities, it's OK to berate people behaving badly, but religious texts are off limits for simple criticism?

No. No more special treatment. This world does not owe that book or any other immunity.

Neither do I need a bible to teach me or anyone else about my morals.

So I'll pass, thanks.

Well if one is just using parts of these books as they interpret them to apply to their lives, then one is creating yet another new version anyway.
Yes it's just a mere book but one that can be seen to have caused some of the ugliest chapters in human endeavor, or some of the brightest. That said what happened to the creation arguments?

:yep:

Ironically August said it himself: the bible is best taken not literally, but as a collection of stories to transport a moral. I called that speaking in metaphors and parables earlier in the thread.

Because what is this religion any different than this:

"The belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you eat his flesh and drink his blood and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. "

How can one take that literally, and not just as story of fiction? :woot: What does this deserve special status and privileged respect for? Better read Tolkien's Silmarillion, there you get a very poetic creation story in much better prose.