Birdstrike, this is a "story"? It is more like a Blog to me. But...Most churches have done away with their "confession of faith" statements, or their hide them and pretend they don't exist or are just some "old document" that doesn't really matter that much anymore. "Doctrine Divides, Christ Unites" is the mantra.

What many (not all) people today are looking for in a church is programs for the kids, programs for therapy and self-help and a place where they can "belong." Once a church doesn't fill those needs anymore, people just move on to the next church down the road. What a particular denomination holds to doctrinally doesn't matter that much anymore (again, talking in general terms). Did you have a fight over how the donut ministry should be run? Just leave.

Our family holds to the "London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689." We agree with probably 95% of what is outlined in this confession. NO, it is not the Bible, but rather a summary of what we believe the Bible teaches on key topics like "Of the Holy Scriptures," "Creation," and "Free Will" (there are 32 topics in all). It is not designed to be a substitute for the Scriptures, but rather a way to make clear what a particular group or demonination believes the Scripture teaches and why.

Churches who base themselves on programs, fun and entertainment will always have people coming and going and shopping for the better "product." That is just the way it seems to be now.

Welcome to "fast food religion" - today McD's seems good, then next week I will head over to Subway.

Hi Gail,

I see your point. You're saying that Statements of Faith aren't intended to be "authoritative" (though they exclude me from membership); rather, they are simply saying "This is what we get out of the Bible". But this verifies the obvious: Scriptures are NOT clear to everyone, and there is obviously a need for authoritative interpretation. The Church should be one, shouldn't it?

And yes, you're probably right - Blog? Story? I couldn't decide. . .

Birdstrike

Birdstrike,

I can interpret the bible with authority.

Joszef,

Really? What authority would you have?

Birdstrike,

God gave me some silver tablets that allow me to interpret the bible the way he intended it to be read.

HA HA HA ! ! ! Oh my goodness you're funny - please stop ! ! Whew, what a card !

You're an "agnostic", correct? Please tell us what an agnostic believes. . .

Joszef_Pelikan,

You remind me of back when I taught middle school kids in the city. There would always be some emotionally incomplete scoffer that would take disruptive shots at serious, intellectual topics - because they felt intimidated. But perhaps I've got you all wrong.

I seriously would like to hear what you believe. It's clear that you think that Christians are all a bunch of idiots. Would you care to explain to us why you think this way?

Birdstrike,

I think you've got me all wrong. I do not see this as an intellectual topic, so I did not see my unintellectual remark as disruptive. From my perspective one can interpret the bible with authority much like one can interpret any compilation of folklore. I am not intimidated by Christianity, heaven or hell.

Actually, the golden tablet comment was a shot at Mormons. But what if I was being honest? What if God had actually given someone the secret to biblical interpretation with no way to prove it? You would probably laugh at them like you laughed at me. So why are you so willing to believe the equally far fetched stories of the Bible? Is it because they are old stories? (The longer something is held to be true, the easier it is to accept) Or is it because so many already accept Biblical stories? Or has God come to you personally and directly in a way that can be verified and demonstrated?

You are right that I am an agnostic. I do not believe anything, because I do not know if is a God or Gods. I can not prove there is a God, nor can I disprove there is a God. Not knowing does not bother me.

continued...

I do not think Christians are idiots, but I do not think one can have an intellectual conversation with most Christians about Christianity. From my perspective women having 1 fewer rib than men, snakes that talk, people living inside of fish bellies, virgins giving birth etc. are all wonderful fiction. Evidence and observation would tell us that the aforementioned events and characters are very improbable. Christians are generally quite defensive and irrational when I suggest that the Bible does not hold up against observed reality.

So before we can talk about who has Authority to interpret the Bible (with the assumption that the Bible is the word or somehow of God), we might first want to question: Can we prove there is a God, and can we prove that he is the God of the bible?

Joszef:

What you were being was hateful. Yet what was more revealing was your chain of logic: "Truth" all revolved around you. 90% of the people in this town may see this topic as important, but you don't - therefore, it isn't, and furthermore, I (you) can enter their conversation and take shots for fun". This follows the same logic as someone who goes into the ghetto and starts shooting black people: "They aren't people to me, therefore they aren't, therefore I can enter their neighborhood and take shots at them".

We're getting an interesting picture of your morality.

Secondly, I agree with you about the anti-intellectual attitude of some Christians. It drives me nuts. In fact, if I appear to be a little harsh on some religions sometimes it is because I am convinced that atheism and anti-theism is caused by "bad religion".

But I can assure you that I find so-called "freethinkers", "skeptics", "rationalists", etc. (condescending terms for atheists and agnostics) are some of the most intellectually stunted people I have ever met. In fact, I have never met one that can demonstrate to me that atheism or agnosticism is a more rational, scientific point of view than Christianity. Maybe you're the first, huh?!

Regarding your last question to me, you fail to understand science. In the end, nothing we know of now is absolutely "provable" in a strict sense, because until we know EVERYTHING (which will be a long time), we must make unproven fundamental assumptions. That's why science does NOT sit back and demand "proof" as you suggest; rather, it first entails the construction of hypotheses. Einstein's law, gravity - all of these are technically unproven theories.

All I have to prove is that my hypothesis is more reasonable than yours.

So - once again - what is your belief system? What is your theory of right, wrong? (perhaps I already know). . .

Jozsef,

Do you believe that there IS a right and a wrong? Apparently you determine it?

Oh, and lastly, I don't mean to imply that you'd go into a ghetto and start shooting black people (perhaps that was a bit over the top). My apologies.

But this is the very same logic you used for taking shots at theists. If one isn't wrong, then the other isn't either.

Birdstrike,

I am not being hateful. I harbor no ill will toward you or Christians. I never said this topic was unimportant, I said that It was not intellectual.

You posted a topic about religion on a blog, a blog which belongs to a community, a community that is not comprised solely of Christians. So no, me poking fun at your blog is not analogous to some racial supremacist going in to a black neighborhood and shooting black people. That is about the stupidest analogy I have heard (and I read Y_Ss posts).

Are you really getting a picture of my morality, or are you trying to fit me in to your caricature of an agnostic?

I don't doubt that there are intellectually stunted atheists and agnostics.

I don't know if I can make the case that agnosticism is more rational than Christianity, but I can make the case that it is more scientific. To be a Christian one must believe things that can not be verified by observation. How many times have you observed or seen direct evidence of a virgin human giving birth (without medical intervention)? What evidence suggests a whales belly is a suitable place to sustain human life?

What we can observe, show others and repeat (yielding predictable results) would suggest that many of the stories in the bible are physically highly improbable. On the other hand, there is no evidence that directly disproves the existence of God or Jesus....

continued...

Many agnostics realize they can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the Christian (or any God/Gods for that matter). Anyhow, what is so offensive about not knowing?

Birdstrike,

I don't know if there is an absolute right and wrong for every situation. I think our understanding of right and wrong changes over time. When did slavery become wrong?

Joszef:

1) Regarding "poking fun", you intentionally ignoring the point here. In your mind, if something is "right", then it is. May I treat you this same way?

2) Regarding rationality and science, again, I don't think that you understand science. Science is simply "discovery" in a broad sense (the root word comes from the Latin "to know"). Science as we know it today is simply a methodical, systematic approach to discovery (the Scientific Method was invented by the Catholic Church, by the way).

So I'm confused - If my hypothesis is "more rational" than your hypothesis, then I am pretty much "more scientific" by definition. As it is, you refuse to even make a hypothesis.

My hypothesis is an intricate one, which explains meaning, right, wrong, etc. in exquisite detail - yet it also says that if something is in conflict with logic and reason, I don't have to believe it.

Your hypothesis is - well, what? There is no right and wrong? The world is as-you-see-it?

Help me see how you are more "scientific" than I am. . .

1. You can read my mind now? Didn't I just get done telling you that there is a lot that I don't know, and that I was not sure if there is a "right" for every situation?

2. So erm, what is your hypothesis? And since I don't understand science, could you explain the observation that supports your hypothesis? Maybee after you tell me these things we can test your hypothesis against reality. You wouldn't mind open criticism of your hypothesis would you?

Here is my hypothesis: A God exists. Here is my alternate hypothesis: A God does not exist.

I will now be accepting evidence.

1. I know quite a lot about you now. By your slavery comment, you are a moral relativist - and pretty hardcore, too, if you're willing to suggest that something you don't understand isn't "intellectual", simply because you don't consider it so - and then use this self-referent logic to base your morality on.

2. My hypothesis is Roman Catholicism. In scientific terms, it can even rise to the level of being a "theory", as this definition from the National Academy of Sciences (2005) suggests:

"In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena."

You can inspect my hypothesis in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (online at vatican[dot]va)

Regarding your hypothesis, I have to make the following observations:

As you can perhaps tell, I love to debate this kind of thing. I think that debate with a person more intelligent than one's self is perhaps the most efficient way to learn. I'm currently trying to prod my fellow Christians into healthy and constructive dialog as we speak (and failing miserably).

But I've also debated plenty of atheists - in fact, I currently co-moderate a Yahoo group for atheists and so-called "freethinkers". I've met smart theists and smart a-theists.

But agnostic is impossible to debate with, on account of its refusal to take any position at all. It is manifest intellectual laziness. Play-it-safe, "don't quote me on anything", etc. To sum up agnosticism, we can say: "I don't know, and I don't care".

I give you credit for hanging in there so far. But could you be intellectually lazy? You

1. Don't understand the Scientific Method,

2. Don't understand Christianity (you don't understand that much of the Bible is allegorical)

3. Don't understand atheism or agnosticism

For instance, you claim "every possible alternative" is somehow a "hypothesis"? And now I am supposed to bring you evidence? You refuse to get even to step 1 of the Scientific Method.

How is anybody supposed to have an intelligent conversation with you?

I never made a comment about slavery, I asked a question.

Here is my opinion on slavery: I think slavery is wrong, was wrong and should continue to be viewed as wrong. The bible doesn't seem to share my opinion on slavery though.

I have given you my opinion, and I would like to hear yours. Is slavery wrong? Has it always been wrong? If it has always been wrong why does the bible seem to regulate but not prohibit it? (Since you are Catholic, I presume you will not be using the 1 Timothy 1:10 argument).

I went to the website you posted and couldn't find anything about a hypothesis. Would you mind typing it out here, like I did for you?

Birdstrike,

in reply to your 11:13 post:

Congratulations on your debate moderation gig. I am glad you have met smart people.

Agnostics are impossible to debate with, if you don't have any evidence to support your position. :) I do take a position, and that position is " I do not know if there is a God or Gods". My position will change if I receive or discover evidence. You can quote me on anything, but all you seem to do is misquote me. To sum up my belief as an agnostic " I don't know, but I do care".

1. I am a scientist.

2. I have read the bible more than a few times, but you could be right. I may not understand Christianity. Just which biblical stories that I mentioned are allegorical? Which ones are not? Was Mary a virgin in the literal sense?

3. I haven't given atheism much though since I can not disprove God. You could be right, I might not understand atheism. I think I understand what agnosticism is.

I never claimed every possible alternative is a hypothesis. I made two propositions, neither of which was really a hypothesis (since I lack observation to support either) , but more a definition of the question (God: Yes or No).

I don't know how anyone is supposed to have an intelligent conversation with me. I don't think of my conversations in terms of intelligent and not intelligent. For me it is more interesting or not interesting.

JP,

It's a diversion, but I'll nibble anyway:

Wrong is always wrong. If it were not an objective reality, it wouldn't exist. But there is a difference between objective moral law and our UNDERSTANDING of that objective reality.

As far as that goes, God simply does the best He can do with us. Jesus points this out in Matthew 19 where, on the question of divorce, there really isn't any such thing (i.e., it was against objective moral law), but Moses allowed it because the Israelites were so "unteachable". But it was wrong all along.

Same with slavery. It's objectively wrong and always has been - yet it has been a normal part of human history until very, very recently. You need to keep in mind that regulation of slavery restricts the slaveholder and benefits the slave.

I cannot give you a complete theology lesson here, but in a nutshell, the idea is that God has given us free will on this planet. That is a huge gift, but also a huge responsibility. Man has abused that freewill in many ways, but God has also given us a slow "revelation" of moral law over time.

Regarding the Vatican website, click on the "Resource Library" rondelle (just under the XVI in the pope's title); you'll then see the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Or, go to Trinity books in town and pick one up. Maybe I'll even treat. Regarding 1 Tim 10, I don't know what you're talking about.

I'd love to know what kind of "scientist" you are! You don't have to tell me, but why are you not familiar with the Scientific Method? If you cannot put forward a well-thought-out hypothesis, you cannot proceed. Einstein said once that a "problem well-defined is half-solved". Your agnosticism hampers you here.

Regarding Christianity, in the Catholic Faith, ANYTHING that is unscientific does not have to be believed. Why? Because there cannot be any conflict between Science and Religion. Truth is Truth, right?

Much of the Bible may allegorical - but we must remember that we don't look to 6,000 year-old Hebrews for a modern understanding of science. Historical and scientific facts may exist there, but not necessarily. We do find moral truths there, and correctly interpreted (see my article above), it explains profound truths of that kind.

Let me help you formulate your hypothesis:

Where does "right" and "wrong" come from?

Birdstrike,

So, why is slavery wrong? The bible does not say it is a sin. You will have to forgive me, since my only understanding of God's moral code comes from the bible. According to the bible it is morally OK for you to own slaves as long as you treat them as outlined by the bible.

I have no hypothesis about the origin of "right and wrong". Why should I? I can speculate about why it might be beneficial for our species or any population to have some sort of moral code, but it would hardly be a hypothesis. You claim that I am unfamiliar with the scientific method, yet you throw the term hypothesis around like a layperson, demanding that I have a hypothesis about everything. I do not presume to have a hypothesis about everything.

Instead of helping me formulate a hypothesis, why don't you formulate your own? Answer your own question "where does right and wrong come from" with a hypothesis." By the way, a link to the Vatican website is not a hypothesis, it is a cop-out.

Since when did morality "come from the Bible"? And since when did the Bible become the sole, only, all-inclusive guide? The Bible sits within the context of a Church (it is a Catholic book). Furthermore, the Church reveals morality, not create it. Morality exists as an objective reality (Natural Law), just like gravity or physics. You misunderstand what the Bible is (that's okay, because most Christians do too).

The second problem with your "slavery" thing is that the issue is far more complex than you suggest, and cannot be answered devoid of context. For instance, what is it when a man is technically "free", drives a BMW and owns a big house with a trophy wife in it. But the house isn't paid for, nor is the car - and perhaps even the wife's trendy clothes aren't even paid for. He works 12 hour days at the "firm" for an abusive boss, who knows that he and everybody else that works for him lives hand-to-mouth financially. He has been thoroughly brainwashed by the school system and the media, and believes that his worth is determined by his social status - yet if he misses a paycheck, his entire world disappears. Is this not a form of slavery? Note also that slavery in O.T. times was generally much more benign than the slavery we knew in the American South - and yet even in America, some Blacks actually returned to the plantation. In short, one has to add a context and define one's terms to answer this - but Christianity can and does answer it in each situation.

JP,

I enjoy chatting with you and can continue if you wish - but we really cannot go to far if you cannot formulate some sort of hypothesis for meaning and morality, right and wrong. Psychologically we know that people are not happy until they do. Yet I can also assure you that you do not have to leave your brain behind to do this either; indeed, it is more rational and scientific than atheism or agnosticism. Have you ever heard this?:

"A mental defect or disease that makes it impossible for a person to understand the wrongfulness of his acts or, even if he understands them, to distinguish right from wrong."

It is the legal definition of criminal insanity.

No, a man working to pay off the stuff he chose to buy is not a slave. What a sloppy analogy. You are right, I guess slavery is OK since "some Blacks actually returned to the plantation". We only need to treat our slaves in each situation as outlined by the bible (or was it the Catholic church). By the way, I have been thinking about digging out a pool and making some other home improvements, do you have any children you would be willing to sell in to slave labor?

So what was your hypothesis again? Was is that the Catholic church and only the Catholic church is the authority by which morality is revealed? (This is just a guess since you never actually posted a hypothesis).

By the way, I think you answered the question you initially asked in this Blog : " Who Can Interpret the Bible with Authority? "

Your answer: "The Bible sits within the context of a Church (it is a Catholic book)."

Just out of curiosity, why do you ask a question that you already know the answer to?

I've answered plenty of your questions. It's your turn, so let's recap:

1) You "do not believe anything", "don't know if there is an absolute right or wrong", and that "doesn't bother you".

2) You stated that one "cannot have an intellectual conversation with Christians", yet admitted a few posts later that you understand neither Christianity nor atheism.

3) Apparently cannot (or refuse to) formulate a hypothesis in accordance with the Scientific Method

4) Admittedly made an "unintellectual remark" - simply because you deemed the topic unintellectual (a topic which you later confess that you don't understand),

5) Willing to translate your lack of moral foundation into action, as making multiple (I saw the one you posted to Tim Pickard), stupid and admittedly anti-intellectual comments are just "poking fun" to you.

Can you explain yourself? Again, I feel like I'm talking with a middle school wise guy, who thought that he could take a shot to impress his friends and get away with it, but failed.

.

How can I have an intellectual conversation with an anti-intellectual?

Explain yourself:

Are you utterly amoral?

If so, that doesn't seem to be a problem to you?

Here is a complete response to all of your questions. I am still waiting for your hypothesis.

1. When you take quotes out of context and/or don't include the entire quote in order to misrepresent the quoter, it is probably wise to do so a. Not on the same thread as the original quote b. Not to the quoted. You just make yourself look desperate to win (whatever that is).

to clarify quote 1: I do not believe anything without evidence, and since there is no verifiable evidence supporting the existence of God (or that he does't exist) I hold no belief. This will change pending evidence.

Full quote 2: "I don't know if there is an absolute right and wrong for every situation." for example: A transplant surgeon has 1 heart and 12 potential recipients all with an equal prognosis without the transplant. Several are single parents with young children, several are young teenagers. Which recipient should get the transplant? Is there an absolute right to this question? There are many ethical/moral questions that seem to have no absolute right and wrong.

2. Full quote: "I DO NOT THINK one can have an intellectual conversation with MOST Christians ABOUT CHRISTIANITY." You quoted me as saying "cannot have an intellectual conversation with Christians". Can you see the difference here? I have had many interesting (some might call them intellectual) conversations with Christians ranging from CYP450 kinetics to Thermodynamics and free will. cont.

Mr. Pelikan,

You say: "I do not believe anything without evidence". You absolutely, completely fail to understand the Scientific Method.

I may post an article on this sometime, but for now trust me: You are approaching this whole business - indeed your life - in an UNSCIENTIFIC manner. Please go out and do some research on how science really works.

cont..

However, from my experience most Christians will ignore or form argue without evidence when it comes to Christianity. This is a personal observation, strictly anecdotal and holds little scientific merit. If I wanted to prove it I would start by conducting a study.

I said I do not understand Christianity with the hope that I could get you to tell me which parts of the bible are allegorical and which are literal. It seems to me that anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation of Christianity you would consider to not understand Christianity.

3. One does not need to make a hypothesis about everything. I have made no observations that would lead me to develop a hypothesis. If at some point I realize there is a way I could test for the existence of God or the origin of Morality, then I might form a hypothesis. You seem very concerned with this for some odd reason, yet you continually refuse to supply one of your own. Let's see it.

4. Yes, I was poking fun at you, Christianity and the Mormons. So sue me :) I suspected you already knew the answer to your question, and are unwilling to change your opinion. ("Ill take Catholic Church for 300 Alex")

5. Lack of Moral foundation? Tell me, is slavery sinful? I think it is.

I do not view myself as amoral. I have a moral code, but it is not the moral code of the Catholic church. (see, I think slavery is sinful).

Birdstrike,

You keep saying that I do not understand the scientific method, but you offer no evidence or explanation. You just ask me to trust you. By now you must realize that I will not trust you without evidence :P

It is possible that we have a different idea of belief. "I believe.." to me is about synonymous with "there is a very high probability that..."

For example, I believe that the earth will continue to rotate during the next 24 hours. I believe that water will boil at about 100 degrees at 1 atm.

Pelikan,

Regarding being sued, as long as you don't make defamatory statements (lies) about my character, you'll be fine. No, I can't sue you for making your cherished anti-intellectual comments! :-)

I gave you an answer to the slavery question. You completely missed the point of my answer. I can see that I will have to explain the Scientific Method as it pertains to religion, so I will try to post an article on the topic.

For now, however, the best way for me to explain Christianity will be for me to help you formulate your hypothesis. For the 4th or 5th time:

.

Do you believe in right and wrong? If so, where does it come from?

Birdstrike,

Pelikan is my father, please call me Joszef.

In many situations I think there is a right decision and a wrong decision. In other situations it is less clear to me which decision is right and which is wrong (take for example the transplant hypothetical). I do not know for certain where our understanding of right and wrong came from. I can make a few guesses though.

Guess number one: I imagine that a certain social etiquette would be beneficial for a population. A population with social etiquette favoring the survival and reproduction of the individual within the population would contribute toward population growth and success. These rules of etiquette would be different and dynamic depending, influenced by the environment and state of the population.

Guess number two: The magic man done it.

edit: "These rules of etiquette would be different and dynamic depending, influenced by the environment and state of the population. "

should read: "These rules of etiquette would be different and dynamic for each population, influenced by the environment and state of each population. "

It would seem to me that some folks fail to look around themselves and consider the world and the heavens and for that matter all of creation. There must be some force and or power that keeps this universe humming along like a fine tuned engine in an auto. If there was no order in these things I could maybe divert back to the position of Josef_Pelikan. I do know that their is a spiritual and a physical creation and there are keys to the message in the Bible. The best key maybe found in: 2 Pet. 1: 20-21 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. It would seem to me based on these two verses that one must receive those words in the same way that the prophets did as the Bible instructs, that is by the power of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost being the third member of the Godhead.

Oh my goodness, grinun, what an excellent verse! But I wonder if we are seeing it differently: It is clearly another refutation of Sola Scriptura ("Bible Only"). God does not speak to every person who thinks that the Holy Ghost is speaking to him; rather, God has always annointed a consecrated few - prophets, priests, and in the case of Jesus, the 12 Apostles. Biblical interpretation is NOT a matter for every Tom, Dick and Harry - at least in an authoritative sense. This is why only an authoritative Church could have held doctrine together, and indeed, canonized the Bible itself. An authoritative Church is also the cure for "denominationalism" today.

See grinunbarett, you got it all wrong. You tried to read a verse and figure it out for yourself, what a mistake. You see the Catholic church has told Birdstrike that the only source of correct biblical interpretation is the Catholic church, because that is how the Catholic church has interpreted the bible. If you don't believe me, just ask the Catholic Church!

Where do you think that the Bible came from, Joszef?! :-D

Multiple sources, Birdstrike. Some of those sources predate the Catholic church. Don't get me wrong, I can see the appeal in cornering the God market.

Joszef,

You misunderstand - of course the Bible came from "multiple sources". But who determined what was Inspired and what was not? It was the Catholic Church that determined what was the Word of God and what was not in a painstaking and well-documented process.

Again, the issue of "authority" pops up. Only the Catholic Church had the authority to determine which books would be part of the Bible and which would not.

Birdstrike,

You should listen to yourself. You make the Bible sound like it was conceived and written by man (which is what I suspect is the case).

I still wonder what your initial intent was with this story. It is clear you already knew the answer to the question you posed. It does not seem like you are trying to convert anyone. It seems to me that you just want to show other people that you are right.

I could be wrong, but you seem to be more full or yourself than the holy spirit.

Joszef,

The Bible WAS "written by man" - but authored by the Holy Spirit. That's what a Catholic believes. Yes, it's the Word of God, but there is a science to it's interpretation, so that it forms a consistent, coherent whole. That's the trick.

Regarding my intent, that's a hard question to answer. I'm trying to be humble (really), and yet I want to provoke some thought out there too, as I think that "atrophy of the brain" is pandemic today. Check out my last article on "Faith Only?": Everyone hated it (perfect 1.0 rating), because their pastors teach them that they're "saved once-and-for-all" after an altar call, and that "works don't count" - yet despite hundreds of views, not a single person even attempted to refute it. Somebody's preaching nonsense (often unknowingly) and calling it the word of God.

Hey, at least I don't go around posting anti-intellectual remarks on topics I'm not familiar with!!

Let's put things in perspective!

:-D

If you change : "Somebody's preaching nonsense (often unknowingly) and calling it the word of God. " to Everybody but me and my church is preaching nonsense (often unknowingly) and calling it the word of God. " it would be more honest.

If you changed it to "Everybody is preaching nonsense (often unknowingly) and calling it the word of God. " it would be close to my opinion.

If there was a science to biblical interpretation, it would be available for all to see, criticize and test against reality. There would be no "take my word for it". There would be no secrecy, no colored smoke coming out of a chimneys signifying the new infallible human.

Joszef,

Are you just trying to wind me up? When did I say I knew it all? There are people way smarter and more knowledgeable than I am.

As for you, you're smart obviously. But I am curious as to how you come to conclusions so fast on a topic that you admittedly need some schooling in. Instead of throwing out conclusions, wouldn't it be less "risky" to simply ask questions?

For instance, you're oh-so-wrong about Scriptural interpretation - there is a well-developed methodology that goes back thousands of years. A summary of it is right in the Catechism. In fact, it's probably worth a blog on the topic (thanks for the idea)!

Birdstrike: My son Joszef left last night for a cabin in the mountains, so I would not expect a response for a few days. I am intrigued, however with the notion that there is a "science" to Biblical interpretation. Is this "science" anything more than the "well-developed methodology that goes back thousands of years"? Is there anything that differentiates the "science" of Catholic Biblical interpretation from the "science" of reviewing the sacred texts of any other religion, such as those of the Hindu, Buddhist, Mayan, or Mormon religions?

Excellent question.

There is misperception out there - pushed by the New Atheists I might add - that Science somehow only deals with the observable, physical world; anything else - and certainly anything spiritual - is "unscientific". This is absolutely not the case. Two examples:

1) What is a "quark"? A noted physicist was asked this once. After much thought, the physicist answered: "They are equations which help us make predictions". Note that there is no physical evidence here at all, and indeed, there may not even be any physical existence here either - but the PURELY intellectual nature of the field does not stop it from being a "science".

2) I asked a noted physicist myself once about the field of quantum physics. He told me that quantum physics is one of "statistical mathematics". Again, note that there is no "evidence" here in a physical sense, since everything is too small to be observed. The field is entirely an intellectual one.

Theology used to be called "the queen of the sciences". Why? Because it asked the BIG questions: Why are we here? Who are we? Is there any meaning? Is there any right and wrong, good or evil?" Suddenly, these are not "scientific"? In truth, the New Atheists (anti-theists really) are simply imposing their dogma on society in an attempt to make a cultural shift. It is they who are unscientific, and many mainstream scientists have "called" them on it.

Science is simply

(cont):

The root word for Science comes from the Latin word "to know". Science is discovery in its broadest sense, but I would add that it is discovery in a systematic way - essentially following the Scientific Method. As you probably know, Science asks us to always construct hypotheses and test them against the best evidence avalable, using logic and reason all the way.

Note that it is NOT scientific to sit back with one's hands folded, as the New Atheists do, and say "Show me the evidence." I need to write an article on this, but gets the Scientific Method out of order.

ALL theories are flawed, right? Yet we MUST have them! Indeed, the entire space mission was planned using Newtownian physics, which we know has been superceded by Einsteinian physics - and yet the former reflects enough truth, to enough accuracy, to do the job quite well.

The Atheist hypothesis is no hypothesis at all for the most important question in existence. All the "great" Atheists saw this, and either went insane or in an anti-intellectual direction (positivism). Atheism declares there to be no meaning, no good, no evil, no morality, etc. How good of a model is that?

Better - and actually more scientific - to be a good Mormon or Muslim (even with the anti-reason aspects involved) than a devout atheist.

I hope that I answered you question, by the way. Religions can be considered hypotheses - models - in a scientific sense. Like all scientific theories, some are good, some are bad, and some are just plain stupid or dangerous.

Christianity uniquely integrated "Faith" and "Reason" in a way that no other religion did; indeed, this was why the Rule of Law and Science (respectively) flourished in the West as it did nowhere else.

Both Faith and Reason are necessary. With all "faith" that can jump out of reason, you get Islam. But with all "reason" and no "faith", one gets Nazi Germany or Marxism.

gulliver:

I'll try to post a blog on the Catholic approach to Biblical interpretation sometime soon.

You have a smart kid, by the way! It's a pleasure chatting with him.

The "Philosopher's Stone" exists,

only for the Alchemist;

Who descry from days of old,

a precious, specious Gold.

CR

Chuxx,

How does that apply here?

The poem like the stone has two meanings. Think about it.

The "Philosopher's Stone" exists,

only for the Alchemist;

.

- Reality is utterly subjective?

.

Who descry from days of old,

a precious, specious Gold.

.

Truth is unknowable?

.

Help us out oh wise one. . .

"Truth is unknowable?"

Yes! Many things are true yet some are impalpable.

Gold is both real and allegorical here.

The mythic "Philosophers Stone" could provide truth though some sought the intangible.

Ahh, but there IS Truth, is there not?

Yes! Only in Reality do we find Truth. What else is there?

"I don't need to be a global citizen,

'Cause I'm blessed by nationality,

I'm a member of a growing populace,

We enforce our popularity

There are things that seem to pull us under and

There are things that drag us down,

But there's a power and a vital presence

That's lurking all around

We've got the American Jesus

Bolstering national faith

We've got the American Jesus

Overwhelming millions every day"

- Bad Religion

"ChristianKiller", we're all thrilled that you've come to terms with alcohol. Now you need to come to terms with your anger. Perhaps that's the root of the problem.

Also... Saladin "Salah Ad-din Yusuf Ibn Ayyub (westernized to "Saladin"), also known as Al-malik An-nasir Salah Ad-din Yusuf I", means "righteousness of the faith"... not Christian Killer. Please, please do your homework.

ChristianKiller, I have nothing to hide.

.

What's your point here? It's just anger on your part. Why?

ChristianKiller,

I really don't think you know what you're talking about. Seriously.

Ok... I'll bring it up at a better time.

By the way... everyone here at the Journal knows about my drinking, drug use, violence and arrests.That is not news... it's attempted bullying and it doesn't work. It is funny though. Feel free to use it all against me... all that will happen is that the natives will get mad at you, not me. I've already been through all that with another genius and it all worked out to my benefit. So go ahead... do your worst.

I'll go ahead and remind everyone tonight myself. Thanks for the reminder.

Yes, but why the anger? The personal attacks?

Why can't we just stick to ideas? Be nice to eachother?

If you think that I've made a logical or factual error, why don't you just use your wits and make me look silly?

Isn't that the standard around here?

Listen, tough - guy,

1) Regarding your girlfriend, I have known her for well over four years. When we last talked, I NO knowledge that you and her were an item at time (I learned this from you squawking about it in a blog). She in fact returned my call, which was absolutely most cordial. In no way have I "bullied" your "girlfriend", and I haven't spoken to her since.

2) Regarding my employment history, I'm quite proud of it. Note that I have NEVER been fired. Get your facts straight; if you don't, you may well wind up in court.

3) Regarding your history, I really don't care. But there's a theme of anger here. It's fine to go off on ideas, theories, religions, institutions and even public figures when it affects policy - but attacks on identifiable people? Volunteer choir members? Identifiable priests? Now me.

(correction) - add the word "had" before the capitalized "NO".

This whole article and the subsequent commentary is insulting to the Catholic Church and hardly the message Jesus spoke in the Gospels.

Matthew 9:13

"Go and learn what this means: 'I desire Mercy, not sacrifice,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Birdstrike - As Catholics, I think we should be setting an example in humility. Leaven is not one of the visible signs of our Faith and has no place in a Catholic sanctuary, an Islamic Mosque, or a Buddhist Temple, for that matter. We all need to be humble before God, looking for those similarities that unite us...not trying to "one-up" each other in religion. Threats of lawsuits are most offensive to me and destroy lives, even when they are unfounded and do not prevail in court. As the Bible tells us, even the pagans take each other to court. Surely we can do better than this.

Saladin has achieved much, with much higher accolades, than you or I ever have and then fallen from a much higher place literally to the depths of Hell. You can't possibly understand this until you have experienced the same, which I hope you do not. Many priests, a few bishops and a couple of archbishops have been dealt the cross and insanity of alcoholism, and beat it with the tremendous gift of humility. I have no doubt that God views these people differently than you or I would.

Observer: It's too hard for the Pharisee to see past his tassels. He's got to know that these offenses are confession worthy... and for the good of his soul... he aught to take a moral inventory and ask himself if this is the example a "Catholic" should leave. Hint - it isn't. All the evangelism in the world is undone with poor behavior. He's wasting his breath and he needs to practice the Gospel before he tries telling anyone else about it. Practice it and live it first... then tell me about it. Otherwise it's just bogus. He values his reputation more than he values the words of Christ. It's blasphemy and idol worship... a disgrace to the Church.

Peace.

P.S. Birdy... I'm done here. To be honest.. you're not worth the space online. :) Go ahead and get the last word in. It's really all you have.

Observer,

What is going on here is subtle form of bullying. It's VERY clear from this blog who jumped in and simply picked a fight. Why?

A rough past does not excuse bad behavior. I've been through quite alot too - but I do not use it to excuse myself, as the "gentleman"'s most recent blog attempts to do. There is a difference between compassion and enablement.

Best wishes to you, Observer

Observer, one other comment:

Norris McWhorter, African American and author of "Losing The Race: Self Sabotage in Black America", gives a revealing picture of what he feels is wrong with his "people". He identifies three major characteristics, two of them being "antiintellectualism" and "separatism".

.

But perhaps the most isidious is what he calls the "Cult of Victimology". Being a victim is terrible, injustices are wrong and should be righted, restitution should be made, of course. All that is true. But victimology can also be something people foster as a weapon of intimidation as well.

Christian Killer? What a B1tch!

Birdstrike - I could not agree with you more concerning acting like a gentleman and good behavior, which is why I do not understand the lack of dignity perpetuated towards each other in these blogs. Compulsion in religion is not very Catholic. I do not want those out there that read this to be confused about what Catholicism really is. Anyone who is really seeking truth, will find it...

I do not enable Saladin...as a matter of fact, the bar I hold up for him and for myself is much higher than most and alot heavier. If I feel he has been wrong, I tell him in person, not before a group of strangers who do not care about him. Even with his brash attitude, he carries his humility like the best of the saints (he wasn't always that way) and it behooves me to tread lightly on that one, especially before the One who sees and hears all. It is hardly an act of victimization or enabling...and guess what, he is no victim! He is a miracle and lucky to be alive!

Observer,

I was "inspired" to write this blog/story after hearing a local pastor say to his flock "No Christian would have a picture of Jesus in their house". This same pastor has an article online which states that the Catholic Church knowingly wants people to go to hell, and he also teaches the "elect" theory, whereby God supposedly knowingly predestined people to hell with no choice in the matter. This is wrong.

I agree with you about "compulsion" in religion. God respects our free will absolutely, and the Catholic Church does too. But regarding doctrine, there are not multiple "truths". Not all conflicting interpretations of the Bible are correct. There is obviously a need for an authoritative, correct teaching of the Bible. When every "Joe M.Div" out there thinks that he/she can suddenly be their own Magisterium, Christianity turns "bad", as in the aforementioned example.

Regarding my "victimology" statement, I stand by it. I think that is at play here; just my opinion. But I am thrilled for the miracles wrought in the life of your friend! I wish you and him many more.

"i like your christ. i do not like your christians, they are so unlike your christ"--- ghandi

saw a bumper sticker that said that.

seems to me too many people are too judgemental and too defensive. oh well. i will do my part to remain open minded. perhaps birdstrike will do the same. historically though, he will perceive my words as a taunt and hastily reply prior to self reflection and simply solidify my point of "to each his own" . wars worldwide are only fought for two reasons. 1. resources 2. religion. this blog is fine point on how inflammatory the issue is.

Birdstrike - You are correct...there is not multiple truths but many languages telling the same truth. Yes I agree, there are many Christians out there who are great at Church, but don't have a clue about the message, Catholics included. I have found Buddhists who are better Christians than many Christians. Go figure. I have prayed with Muslims who "get" and practice the Gospels better than some priests and many church "leaders". This does not make the words of God any less true or important. This may be why Jesus said "the Son of Man has no where to lay His head..."

getalong - you have recited well and obviously are on a good path...thank you

Observer,

Your point is well taken about hypocrites.

You remember Scott Hahn, right? He said once: "Intellectuals rule the world (usually from beyond the grave)". His point was that bad ideas have bad consequences - overwhelmingly so. Indeed, they chart the course of history. Macchiavelli, Ockham, Descarte - all of these people had "little" ideas that had grave consequences.

Bad ideas have bad consequences. Two examples:

1) Abortion. It all comes down to the definition of this "thing" inside the womb, doesn't it? Is it a human being or isn't it?

2) Marriage. It all comes down to a definition again. Is marriage a fixed concept or an ever-changing one? Note that the battle over Prop 8 was simply over the definition of that word.

On an individual level, we have to act morally to the best of our ability - that's true. But on a social and political level, getting the ideas right also matters a great deal.

getalong:

Have you ever considered how many wars have been started from a LACK of religion? Could moral relativism (no fixed, objective morality) be a problem? The history of the 20th Century suggests that it is a BIG problem!

Wars are started by BAD religion, and NO religion too.

right wrong good bad, its all about religion. you made my point quite clear.

I'd agree if it weren't clear that a-theism is a belief system too, chock full of its own dogma. It is not fair to target "religion" in general, because some sort of moral system is necessary.

Actually Einsteins theory of General Relativity is proven- Example one: Time slows down as an object moves faster, we set the clocks on satellites back 7 minutes, so that we you pull up your GPS device it tells you you are at a coffee shop in Auburn, Ca and not Venezuela. Two- gravity is simply the spaced warped by the mass of an object, every object has a mass and thus gravitational pull. It requires our spaceships travel at 26000 MPH to transcend the warped space caused by Earth. Three- Carbon dating is accurate, it decays at a given rate. How do we know this in a way that we can actually observe? We use similar elements that decay at a much faster rate (about 90 years) to power the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft in what is called a radioisotope thermoelectric generator. It uses the heat from decaying elements to generate power. If we apply the same mathematical principles to the carbon dating used to determine the age of a dinosaur then we know it's age. How can you argue that?

Lastly no where have I ever seen a proposed "intelligent design" theory backed by any level of mathematics. Math does not lie, except to those who are too unreasonable to see it's evidence.

Also there are thousands and thousands of scientist from all different fields of study who all support the same conclusions. They based their conclusions on the evidence the retrieve, which has some level of mathematics involved. This stuff is not invented. They are not sitting in a lab saying "let's say this bone is 20000000000 million years old, that will really piss the Christians off!" If you are going to suggest any part of science is not real, then PLEASE present some tangible evidence.

I don't know how all that ties into this post- aside from one of Birdstrike's earlier comments. Anyways.... What's the point of having Bible Studies or even reading the bible if you need someone to interpret it for you? I should have a investment specialist interpret ticker symbols for me because I don't think I can figure it out. What's GS stand for?

Also, you realize you can't prove the validity of the Bible right? You have no evidence. Just a bunch of stories bundled into a book, that was approved by a Roman Emperor so he could unite a failing country and bring it back to health. It's a western (traditionally white person) belief set. That same Roman Emperor destroyed the world's library in Alexandria because he said people do not need to know about the history of other religions and cultures all that's needed is Christianity. That moment can be attributed to the rise of the dark ages when education was essentially laughed at. Thankfully many text survived like the original stone tablets telling the story of the great flood (told by pagans 1500 years before any of the oldest Jewish texts). Plagiarism? The entire story of Christ is one giant plagiarized story told by 3 other cultures before his birth. So essentially you "right" from "wrong" is pagan in it's original form.

When you look in the sky and you see with your own eyes that there is 14 billion light years worth of stars, black holes, dark matter, 100 billion galaxies, etc, do you really believe god made that in 7 days with us as the center of that universe? You know that moons orbiting Saturn have the basic elements to support life? They just happen to be too far from the sun? That's our own solar system. Your idea of God needs to come into the modern age.

Hi ski,

You labor under more than a few misconceptions about the Bible. For starters, 1) the "plagiarism" thing has been utterly disproven (it comes from the "Jesus Myth" fiction of the 19th Century), and 2) Christianity is not at odds with science (only fundamentalism is).

Do you believe in any higher power?

I should add that the book of Genesis was never meant to be a scientific treatise. Rather, it is intended to convey moral and theological truths.

It may - or may not - contain scientific or historical "facts". Again, we see the need for an authoritative interpretation, consistent with both Christian revelation and science.

Religion is based on faith, not verifiable data. It is impossible to win a religious argument because religion is based on faith. That faith either is taught to young children by a religious entity or is found later in life as a result of an inner need. It is impossible to demonstrate with any verifiable data that any religion is better than any other religion because the faithful are just that "Faithful" There could be a million posts to this letter and not one post would change anyones's mind.

You misunderstand religion. Yes, there is "blind" faith, but faith does not have to be blind. It can - and should - be rational and utterly consistent with science.

Jon,

I take it that you do not believe in a "higher power". . .

Actually the plagiarism thing has not been disproved. Nice try

I am not sure how I would define higher power. Not in the Christian or any current religious sense. That is something I will have to think about in more detail. If nothing else this was a good story that brought a lot of discussion. Job well done Birdstrike. I hope you continue to post so we can debate further. Lastly, I could have faith that the stories told in the Bible are true. I could also have faith in not believing the stories of the Bible. I make my assessment based on my environment.

May I ask you where you think "morality" comes from?

Does it have to come from anywhere? Or is it human nature to act as we do? To suggest morality comes from somewhere would suggest morality has a beginning. I don't see how it has a starting or ending point.

ski,

Yes, if morality is real, it has to come from somewhere! Not only that, but it must be "authoritative". Certainly the Creator of the universe is "authoritative", if nothing else! But if I come to you and say ". . . because the Bible says so", that may not hold much weight with you.

So now, imagine yourself as a dad attempting to explain to his child why something is "wrong" - but each time you make a statement, you keep getting a "Why?", or a "Says Who?" back.

What - or to Whom - do you appeal to as an ultimate source?

In a way, I'm also asking "Is there really such thing as right and wrong?"

ski,

Of course I AM trying to bait you into a friendly discussion!

But in any case, religion is a "model" for morality. Yes, some are good, some are bad, and some are downright dangerous.

But it is NOT "unscientific" or even "blind" to have a model for morality. Indeed, atheism cannot provide one.

Best wishes.

I kindly agree to disagree that morality has a ultimate source; however, I see your point that atheism cannot provide a model because atheist have not defined a set of "guidelines". Atheism does not necessarily follow a traditional/standard belief set such as other religions. Anyways good discussion.

Regards

ski,

Stay tuned for an article I'll write someday soon, which will hold that atheism is a highly rigid, indeed "dogmatic" belief system. You can pick me apart then! No doubt I'll receive as much "love" and affection on that post as I did here.

Nice chatting with you!

LOL sounds good Birdstrike. I look forward to it.

I was looking for the article with the most commentary in the Auburn Journal. I was pleasantly surprised to find out it was this one. The title of the article is asking probably THE most important question of the Century. I thought Birdstrike did a marvelous job responding. However, Birdstrike, for those who believe so strongly in Sola Scriptura, you should have given them a little more to chew on, for instance, when Christ called forth Simon and changed his name to Peter (meaning Rock). Then He told Peter, "You are Peter, and upon This Rock, I will build My Church". (the capitalizations and punctuations are my emphasis) He (the Lord) then said, ."..and the gates of Hell SHALL NOT prevail against it." This statement by Christ, and backed up by historical evidence, illustrates that Christ specifically gave PETER (and his successors) THE AUTHORITY to determine, what is TRUE for Faith and Morals - in relationship to His (Christ's) Church. The Magisterium is the teaching body of the Church and it, specifically, determines matters of Faith and Morals under the headship of the Chair of Peter. So, in essence, Jesus Christ gave HIS authority to the CHAIR of PETER for the Church.

ezk317 - Where were you when I needed you?!! :-)

Yes, I agree that it's a critical question - and I must admit I was shocked at the splashback I received. But you've got the right answer!