.

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

.

You wrote :

« If I was offered two texts unseen, one taken from Wikipedia, and one from the Bible, I think I'd know in which I would have more confidence. Only one has earned the reputation of containing 'gospel' truth. »
.

Which “gospel truth” do you have in mind, Dan ?

I understand there are as many different “gospel truths” as there are Christian denominations, i.e., approx. 45,000 at the latest count (2014), apart from a general consensus on the “core doctrines”: the divinity of Jesus and the authority of the bible.

It appears that the major differences depend on the branch of Christianity the denominations belong to: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism or Anglicanism.

But, whichever way you look at it, that’s still quite a lot of “gospel truths” to choose from don’t you think ?

http://www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/documents/StatusOfGlobalMission.pdf

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/branches

.

Dan S de Merengue wrote: "There are Catholic theologians who see the obvious difficulties with Darwin and evolution."

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

To the best of my knowledge, there are no obvious difficulties with Darwin and evolution. It may contradict their theology, but facts and reason have a way of contradicting fantasy. Catholic theologians placed Galileo under house arrest for supporting Copernicus' idea that the earth orbits the sun. Giordano Bruno who was burned at the stake in 1600 by the decision of Catholic theologians maintained that there were other solar systems with planets orbiting other suns. It is reasonable to assume that many Catholic theologians cannot understand science. One can only be thankful that those superstitious groups of men no longer have the power to arrest people or burn them at the stake.

grateful: In other words you cann't support the statement but are too cowardly to admit it.

You are wrong. You probably misunderstood the statement because of your limited understanding of the English language & it's nuances.

The Koran as it is in it's entirety is Misogynistic in it treatment of women as merely sex objects to be owned or traded. (72 virgins) The Koran has three things as it's Sacred Tenants. Allah as only in the Koran, the Killing of Infidels & Sex with anything that moves. (women, children & animals)

grateful: How many of these manuscripts can you say has been preserved?

Quite a few actually. While, for most of them, not in their entirety. Egyptian Hieoglyphs, The Gilgamesh Sagas, Zorasterism, The three Budhists books & I'm sure Yutsie will attest the the Vedas being some 5000 years old.

It is believed that Mahommad couldn't read or write & had a scribe, as was the fashon in those days. The words wern't put down in one place until a hundred years or so after Mahommads death. <‘Muslims believe that the Qur’an they read today is the same text that was standardised under Uthman > Also, What Islamic people believe is what they are told to believe or be killed. We see a verification of that now in the Middle East. The Sharia Laws were set down at the same time.

The Koran itself & the Sharia Laws are a Comblobminanation of Middle Eastern Mans Cultural Practices at the time of writing. The Devine Revelations is only there to potray some sort of legitimacy to the Koran. A writers trick.

Jayb wrote: "The Devine Revelations is only there to potray some sort of legitimacy to the Koran. A writers trick."

The same thing applies to the Bible. Divine Revelation gives legitimacy to the cultural practices at the time the different parts of the Bible were generated. The Bible is no more legitimate than the Koran. Even fundamentalists admit that by their acts. They generally no longer support polygamy or slavery which were both accepted in the Bible. I doubt that many fundamentalists would accept the claim of a pregnant daughter that she was a virgin.

David f: The same thing applies to the Bible. Divine Revelation gives legitimacy to the cultural practices at the time the different parts of the Bible were generated. The Bible is no more legitimate than the Koran.

Oh, I agree. Maybe some old Hippies (Kumbyah) should get together & have a "Devine Revelation" based on 21st. Century practises & write a new "Book." Gee's, what a mess that would be. Oh, wait..., Rastafarians.

David f
Newton was deeply religious, though unorthodox. He wrote more about religion than science. To say he was Christian from fear of persecution or cultural blindness is to misrepresent him and his motives.

Einstein did not believe in a personal god, but described himself as religious.

Your statement “I don't think one can be greatly above average intelligence and believe in the biblical god” seems rather arrogant, and flies in the face of evidence of religious beliefs of some of the West’s greatest thinkers. But of course it rather depends on what you mean by believing in a biblical god. I would agree that young-earth seven-day creationism is not intellectually tenable given what we know today. But the bible is not a science textbook or historical journal (though it does contain some history).

Dan
I agree there is a variety of interpretations of creation within the Roman Catholic church, and others (including Anglicanism, my denomination). In my experience and observation, the ones who see evolution and the big bang as incompatible with their understanding of creation are a minority.

I accuse Batten of torturing both science and theology because he is making a category error in trying to portray scientific and theological accounts of creation as essentially the same thing. In doing so, he repeats critiques of evolution and cosmology that have been debunked many times.

More importantly, he devalues and misunderstands Genesis by interpreting it as primarily an historical account of how we came to be here. Yuri posted a great quote from John Dominick Crossan is his comments on an article by Peter Sellick: "“My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.”

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18180

Read symbolically, Genesis 1-3 has profound things to say about nature and the human condition. Read literally, it is nonsense.