2. Scrabulous -- website where you can play Scrabble online for free.
3. The Balcony Archive has over 5,000 videos of movie reviews from Roger Ebert, Gene Siskel, and Richard Roeper. (HT: Kottke.org)
The Reverend Peter Gomes, Minister of Harvard’s Memorial Church, says, “There are probably more evangelicals [on Harvard’s campus today] than at any time since the seventeenth century.” The Ivy League’s desire for diversity opened new doors for religious students. Evangelical groups today sponsor campus-wide forums, Bible studies, and debates about the relevance of faith to everything from science to international affairs.
In part, this can be attributed to the growing number of Asian-American students. On many Ivy League campuses, they have come to dominate evangelical groups. At Yale, 90 percent of the Campus Crusade for Christ members are Asian American; in the 1980s, the same chapter was 100 percent white. In fact, the growing presence of Asian-Americans on elite campuses may be the single largest demographic factor in evangelicalism’s ascent at places like Yale and Harvard.
5. Immersive pictures of the new 7 Wonders of the World (HT: Very Short List)
6. Lee Harris on dealing with individuals who lack "self-mastery":
Civilizing the young is one of the first duties of any society, though it is a duty that certain cultures have discharged with vastly more success than others. If there are many people in the society whose behavior is characterized by akrasia, or moral weakness, then the society, for its own good, has a right and an obligation to keep them from dangers to which they, by nature, are especially vulnerable. The sociological motive behind such Puritanism is not a hatred of pleasure as such, but only of those pleasures that weaken the will and undermine self-control. Some pleasures are wholesome and acceptable, and should be encouraged. Other pleasures challenge not just individual self-control but the collective self-control of the whole community, threatening the ethical foundation of the society; such pleasures must be curbed. Lead us not into temptation, both for our own good and the welfare of the general society.
7. An Outsider Look at Unregenerate Church Membership:
A story is told in Kenya of a prominent pastor from the United States who visited Nairobi and was introduced to the Kenyan church leadership as ‘pastor of one of the largest churches in America, with more than 20,000 members. Each week more than 8,000 attend his preaching.’ Visibly moved, the Kenyan leader led his brothers to pray for the American pastor who could not find more than half of his church members on Sunday morning!
(HT: Tribalogue)
8. Ten Great (but Fake) Tech and Science Videos (HT: Kevin Keith)
9. Quote of the Week: From General Robert E. Lee (1863):
It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers. In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor-geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I am readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I will, in turn, do my best for the Cause by writing editorials - after the fact.
(HT: Maggie's Farm)
10. Thabiti Anyabwile takes on the slogan "Question Authority":
That was the slogan of a generation disillusioned by what they saw as the abuses of those in power. A steady stream of foreign policy failures, presidential scandals, and corporate abuses left an entire generation skeptical of authority.
According to some educators, for example, the only way to teach children to have a balanced view of the world is to teach them to skeptically question everything in the curriculum or the text. Nothing is to be taken for granted; everything is to be examined as an antagonist.
And for some, "authority" is synonymous with "tyranny." There is no essential difference between the exercise of authority and responsibility for others and a repressive boot pressed across the neck of the people.
In the first Forbes 400 [1982], oil was the source of 22.8 percent of the fortunes, manufacturing 15.3 percent, finance 9 percent, and technology 3 percent. By 2006 oil had fallen to 8.5 percent and manufacturing to 8.5 percent. Technology, however, had risen to 11.75 percent and finance to an extraordinary 24.5 percent.
12. David Heddle offers an interesting perspective on Satan's power:
The book of Job contains a powerful lesson. No, not the one about patience and perseverance. I'm thinking more of this one: Satan is relatively impotent. He can operate only within God's permissive will. And there is only one weapon in his arsenal. He is not after our souls (what would he do with them?) He is not engaged in a battle of good vs. evil with God (talk about asymmetric warfare.)
I'm not certain that the "Satan" referred to in Job is the Satan. And I don't agree there is "only one weapon in his arsenal." What say you?
UPDATE: David reposts a very good blog post he wrote about Satan. It's well worth reading. (I agree with about 99% of it.)
13. When creationism becomes a stumbling block:
I want to remove the stumbling block to the Gospel message that is being created by a dogmatic presentation of Creationism. Not the belief in a young earth and creation without evolution per se, but the “either/or” teaching that comes with it. I am not here to argue for an old earth or evolution, necessarily, but against the false dichotomy that so often comes along with Creationism. More and more people are being taught that an old earth/evolution and Christianity are wholly inconsistent and that if you believe one, you can not really believe the other. Such a blanket statement puts two very distinct groups in crisis and I am convinced that souls are being lost to the Kingdom as a result. This may sound a bit over-dramatic, but I have seen too many people distracted from the Gospel message by this issue.
(HT: Parchment and Pen)
14. Reading is Fundamental (Part I) -- How to Read Like a Scholar
15. Reading is Fundamental (Part II) -- How to Read Like Al Mohler
16. Reading is Fundamental (Part III) -- How to Read Like Tim Challies
17. Lee Harris on freedom and drug legalization:
Herein may well lie one of the great advantages that highly authoritarian forms of government have over open and liberal society. They are in a position to crack down on social epidemics, like drugs, in ways that are far more effective, because far more brutal, than any option available to societies like Dalrymple's England or DeGrandpre's America. If so, what a fascinating paradox to present to [John Stuart Mill]-those societies that most closely followed his "simple universal principle" could eventually be undone by their excess of liberty; in which case, the epitaph of the open society might well be taken from Dalrymple's assessment of the addicts he dealt with in the British slum: "Freedom was bad for them, because they did not know what to do with it."
Open societies cannot be open to everything. Even if it were possible to draw with great precision the line between what is harmful only to me and what is harmful to others, no society can tolerate a population that is committed to enslaving itself to drugs, just as no democracy can permit itself to be liquidated by a majority vote. What often goes unnoticed about Mill's simple universal principle-unnoticed by even Mill himself-is that he stipulates that his rule applies to "member[s] of a civilized community" (emphasis added). But in order to have a civilized community in the first place, the members of such a community must obtain a high degree of self-mastery over their impulses and urges. The weak-willed and the impetuous, as Aristotle recognized clearly, cannot by themselves create a civilized community-and even if they find themselves in the midst of it, they will have no capacity to sustain it. Indeed, because of their own weakness, they will weaken the community of which they are a part, often to the point of endangering its capacity to remain free and open.
18. Was Old Testament-era Israel a Constitutional Monarchy?
19. Bizzare News Story of the Week: Online couple cheated with each other
Sana Klaric and husband Adnan, who used the names "Sweetie" and "Prince of Joy" in an online chatroom, spent hours telling each other about their marriage troubles, Metro.co.uk reported.
The truth emerged when the two turned up for a date. Now the pair, from Zenica in central Bosnia, are divorcing after accusing each other of being unfaithful.
(HT: Challies.com)
20. For the Kids: How to Make Playdough (Play-doh) (HT: Lifehacker)
21. Dr. Mark Hendrikson on poverty and the "liberal temptation":
Christians who happen to be political liberals are fond of citing scriptural verses exhorting believers to perform charitable deeds. Indeed, there are many such verses, and they mean what they say. But what the liberals invariably fail to see is that the Bible never indicates that it is the Christian's duty to compel others to do charitable works; rather, Christians themselves are expected to do those works. There is no charity by proxy in the Bible. True charity comes from an inner, spiritual impulsion, not from outward political compulsion. That is the essential difference between Caesar and Christ.
The liberal approach to poverty is also rendered problematical by their anti-capitalist, anti-business mentality. Liberals regard themselves as the good guys for initiating government programs to help Americans of modest means, while disdaining businessmen as selfish, less-than-moral beings who are engaged in the selfish and morally inferior pursuit of profits. This is an unduly harsh assessment of businessmen; in fact, it is spectacularly ignorant and perversely unfair. A person may not like the daily tussle of business or individual businesspersons who behave abusively, and they are fully justified in being repulsed by illegal conduct. However, there is a vital historical fact that anti-business liberals generally overlook: business' role in reducing poverty.
(HT: Acton Institute PowerBlog)
22. The Church and Small Numbers: From a 1964 letter by theologian Hermann Sasse to fellow pastors:
Our Lord has always shown a remarkable predilection for small numbers and little flocks. Instead of organizing vast evangelistic campaigns He has, in the terms of modern missiology, wasted His time by seeking the individual, leaving the ninety-nine in the desert for the one lost sheep. We modern Christians seem sometimes to think and act as if He said: 'Where two or three millions are gathered in my name . . .
(HT: Cranach)
23. People making a sturgeonface. (HT: The Presurfer)
24. How to Study the Bible for a Sermon (HT: SmartChristian)
25. LOLCat of the Week
26. 8 Easy Ways To Remove Tough Stains
27. Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit appears to have caught NASA and James Hansen quietly changing historical data that is available on NASA's website. (HT: OTB)
28. Sign of the Times: Macho Advertisements Are Putting Feminine Men Off Products, Research Says --Marlboro Man, or his current macho billboard equivalent, is putting off metrosexuals from buying products, research shows. A new study shows that men with characteristics such as sensitivity and tenderness are put off products promoted by advertisements featuring squared-jawed hunks, preferring those featuring more feminine looking male models instead.
29. Dogs can, monkeys and wolves can't
The researchers held two containers, one empty and the other containing food, in front of chimpanzees and dogs. Then they pointed to the correct container. The canines understood the gesture immediately, while the apes, genetically much more closely related to humans, were often perplexed by the pointing finger.
That's not all. Many dogs were even capable of interpreting the researcher's gaze. When the scientists looked at a container, the dogs would search inside for food, but when they looked in the direction of the container but focused on a point above it on the wall, the dogs were able to understand that this was not meant as a sign.
30. Ken Myers on worldliness [PDF]
When I was a boy, many American Christians assumed that an alliance with the world was a bad thing. From [John 14:27], from Romans 12:1f., from James 1:27, from 1 John 2:15, and from many other less explicit biblical texts, they knew that worldliness was a condition fervently to be avoided by faithful disciples. Unfortunately, they believed that worldliness was adequately defined by delighted participation in almost any kind of cultural activity; movies, card-playing, alcohol, and tobacco were especially singled out, but the general principle was that "worldly" meant "bodily." Since that time, the Gnosticism implicit in such attitudes has been abandoned by many Christians, a change for which we must be grateful. But it seems as if American Christians have moved from assuming that all cultural activities are inherently suspect to assuming that all cultural activities are inherently innocent and beyond criticism. Rejecting a bad definition of worldliness, we exhibit almost no collective concern whatsoever about avoiding worldliness rightly defined.
(HT: TruePravda)
31. Beer Drinking Has More To Do With Brain Rewards Than Taste Receptors -- Different zests for beer might reveal more about alcohol's effect on the brain reward system than inherent differences in taste sensitivity, according to findings by a group of researchers led by Judy Grisel of Furman University.
32. New Strategy Could Dramatically Slow The Spread Of HIV -- Giving a daily antiretroviral pill to people to prevent HIV could profoundly slow the spread of the infection in sub-Saharan Africa, where it is a full-blown epidemic, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine researchers report.
33. String Theory in 2 minutes
(HT: New Covenant)
For those following link #12 to read what I wrote about Satan, here is a more comprehensive description of my position:
http://helives.blogspot.com/2007/09/rerun-sunday-school-on-satan.html
#11
The fact that 25% of the Forbes 400 are in finance is troubling. Ever since reading "Arrogant Capital" by Kevin Phillips many years ago I have been concerned about the "financialization" of America. He documents the downfall of many rich countries and cultures and found that they had all become "financialized" right before their downfall as world powers.
#29
I was watching a PBS program on dogs a while back and the point was made that wolves (and wild dogs, I presume) are smarter than domesticated dogs because their heads are bigger and therefore have bigger brains. Just one more reason to "question the authority" of PBS.
#13
I have never understood the young earth creationists. To me, it makes no sense to insist that the creator of the universe was bound by six 24 hour days. It is silly nonsense. I believe in evolution as natural selection and as biological change in species over time.
I know and respect people who believe in the young earth, and love them as Christian family, but I just don't understand them. Unfortunately, it reflects on all Bible-believing Christians. I agree that souls can be lost for Christ, because many outsiders looking in see us all as young earthers and reject Christianity on that basis alone. I'm assuming that's what the writer of #13 was getting at.
"They are in a position to crack down on social epidemics, like drugs, in ways that are far more effective, because far more brutal, than any option available to societies like Dalrymple's England or DeGrandpre's America."
More effective? Really? People still think that our modern day drug war is effective?
"To me, it makes no sense to insist that the creator of the universe was bound by six 24 hour days.'
He wasn't, but that's how He said that He did it. Probably for us. He is not bound by time.
"I believe in evolution as natural selection and as biological change in species over time."
So do young earth creationists. Natural selection was first proposed by a creationist not Darwin. A young earth creationist would probably tell you that mandrills, drills, and baboons are the result of evolution. While all different species they are the same kind(biblical word) and can reproduce with each other. The biggest difference in thinking might be in how fast this can take place. We have gotten our dogs from selective breeding and it doesn't take all that long.
Perhaps they are not so much insisting that God was bound by 6 days of 24 hours each, but rather limiting only their understanding of God's power. I think we must not limit ourselves one way or the other. God's power would indeed make it possible for Him to have created the universe and everything in it within a time frame of 6 days, or even within a time frame of 6 hours, or 6 seconds, or whatever. We must also leave ourselves open to the possibility that God's power also makes it possible that His order of creation was so subtle that the only thing discernable would be that creation took billions of years and leave atheists the option to conclude He does not exist.
I'm looking at 10 tabs on my browser from your 33 Things.
Not bad.
"He wasn't, but that's how He said that He did it. Probably for us. He is not bound by time."
He didnt say anything...some yahoos who live thousands of years ago and went to their graves believing they lived on a small flat disk and falsly claimed to be speaking for God said that.
"Perhaps they are not so much insisting that God was bound by 6 days of 24 hours each, but rather limiting only their understanding of God's power. I think we must not limit ourselves one way or the other. God's power would indeed make it possible for Him to have created the universe and everything in it within a time frame of 6 days, or even within a time frame of 6 hours, or 6 seconds, or whatever. We must also leave ourselves open to the possibility that God's power also makes it possible that His order of creation was so subtle that the only thing discernable would be that creation took billions of years and leave atheists the option to conclude He does not exist."
And yes you still wind up doing that all the time....the whole of christian history is little more than a gigantic exemple of men trying to limit God to human boundries by taking aspects of reality which they personally like and making them the defining attributes of God...i like love same as the next person but that does not make it an attribute of God;..thats an attribute of ME...what if i like the color blue...does that make God blue? why dont you try practicing instead of preaching...see how you like it...
Thanks for the link to marshillaudio.org, Joe. We appreciate it!
Best,
Albert
#13
This is the writer of that article, if anyone has any particular questions.
As for it being "how God said he did it", that is where I think the problem lies. I believe the Bible is God inspired and inerrant message to us, but that to read it correctly we have to take into consideration the time and place of the human authorship. At the time these accounts were first told and first written down, people did not tell the stories about the past using strict literal historical narrative. They just didn't find that literary genre compelling, especially for an event such as the creation of the entire universe. They preferred to tell about these events using figurative, symbolic and typological language. Still describing true events in the past, just not using our modern method of writing history.
The reason it's an either/or proposition (creationist belief) is that is goes to biblical inerrancy and accuracy.
If a confessing Christian can explain away the simple narrative of the six days of creation found in Genesis, he can explain away any other scripture he pleases.
But, Marie, that is the point. It is not explaining away anything, it is attempting to read it correctly. Personally, I reached the conclusion that it was almost assuredly meant to be read non-literally before I had even considered the science, so it was not a "conforming Scripture to science" issue.
It does, indeed, go to Biblical accuracy, but not the question of whether the Bible is accurate (it is), but whether we are reading it accurately. If we get it wrong, and insist that it is saying something that it is not saying, then we are presenting the Bible to the world incorrectly.
Always remember the geocentrism controversy. If the Christians at the time had stuck with the approach you present they would still be insisting that the Bible clearly proclaims a geocentric universe, with a "fixed earth" around which all else rotates. We did not just "explain away" all those Scriptures, we just began to interpret them correctly.
I'll have to disagree with you, Vance.
In Scripture we find narrative style write, poetry of various types, and prophecy.
The Genesis account of creation is a straight narrative, historical style.
It is also referred to as a straight narrative in other parts of Scripture. For example, when the ten commandments were given, God gave as the reason for the 4th: "for in six days God created the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all this is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore, the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it."
How would that make sense if the creation account were but an analogy?
Just as Jesus in the gospels referred to the fact that God made woman for man to cleave together, when arguing against divorce. He was not referring to a prophetic type of something or another. It is a quite literal reference.
Other examples abound, but you get my point. If the Genesis account were to be taken as poetry or analogy or prophecy, it would be referred to as such by other Scriptures.
marie:
I know it's hopeless because logic is not involved here, but I need to say it anyway.
1. What about all those passages where it says a thousand years are like a day? Time has no meaning in eternity. It's absolute silliness to talk about God acting in time before there was any. TIME HAS NO MEANING WHATSOEVER TO GOD!!
2. There was no 24-hour day as we understand it until the fourth day of creation.
3. There was no 24-hour day as we understand it until the fourth day of creation. In case you missed it.
So you think that we Christians who don't believe in six 24-hour days are in danger of losing our faith? That we will throw out all the other difficult passages? Please. As Christians we believe in so many things that are "unbelievable" and beyond our understanding. Just read the Apostle's Creed, for Pete's sake. ;)
The notion that our faith is weak because we don't believe in six 24-hour days is ridiculous.
Just in case J.D.'s point wasn't sufficiently clear: "Morning" and "Evening" are defined by the position of the sun in the sky. Prior to the creation of the sun, "morning" and "evening" are incoherent and meaningless in a "straight narrative historical style."
I don't believe that anyone is consistent in treating the first couple of chapters in Genesis as straight historical narrative. A straightforward reading of Genesis 1 indicates that the visible universe, including the orbits of the sun and the moon lie in the sky, between the sea and a second, suspended layer of water. Genesis 1:7 is clear that the "water" above is the same stuff as the "water" below. Genesis 1:9-10 indicates that the "water" below is the sea, good old H2O, so the "water" above must be too. Genesis 1:14-18 indicates that the sun, moon and stars lie between the two layers of water.
To take Genesis 1 as straightforward history, you need to reject virtually everything we know about the physical universe, including the nature of the sun and stars. Even young earth creationists don't do that. All their blathering on about vapor canopies is in direct contradiction to a straightforward reading Genesis 1, because their hypothetical vapor canopy is part of the earth's atmosphere. It is not above the sun and stars.
If you were to read Genesis 1 simply on its own terms, without attempting to interpret it based on your knowledge of geology, physics, and astronomy, you'd probably end up with a cosmology that looks like a sandwich with layers of sky and water sitting on top of a flattish earth. It's not clear to me why young earth creationists allow (some) astronomy and (some) geology to inform their interpretation of scripture, but they reject genetics, ecology, and evolutionary biology.
Marie, I am not saying that it is mere poetry or some kind of fable. It is telling about true events in the past in the way they told about true events in the past. What about the text, given the nature of writing in the ancient near east, would lead anyone to believe that it is straight historical narrative? It is only with modern minds (and some of that scientific modernism began back in the early middle ages, actually) that we would ever read it that way.
As for your ten commandment example, what you have to understand is that the ancient Israelites, while understanding that the text was not meant to be strict literal history (the way we would read it), it was still written as inspired by God with a meaning and purpose. If God chose to inspire the text in that six-day construct, with a seventh day of rest, it was for a reason, not just mere poetry. That would not at all have meant that they looked back and saw it as six 24-hour periods. It is the "six plus one" motif that God gave them which is important. This is shown by the fact that they used that same motif for rotating crops - six years on, one year off, referring back to the same creation account, IIRC.
To them, what the text said was very real and true, and important in its construct, but in a very different way than we consider it today.
jd,
to answer your two points:
1. What about all those passages where it says a thousand years are like a day?
Well, I suppose that means what it says. . .God is not bound by time, He created it, it has no hold on Him. I'm not sure why, if that is the case, he can't have created in six days like He said He did. He works in time all the time. For instance, Jesus rose again on the third day. Right? Even though Jesus is not bound by time, he works within it.
2. There was no 24-hour day as we understand it until the fourth day of creation.
How do you know how long the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd days were? I know there was no sun nor moon at that point. But is that how "day" is defined? He uses the Hebrew word, yom, which means 24 hour day everywhere else.
Why can we not just accept what God's Word simply states?
Marie, you say:
"Why can we not just accept what God's Word simply states?"
But that is exactly my point. What it "simply states" to you is determined by your cultural background and setting. You have been raised in a modernistic culture that reads such text in a certain way. If I asked an ancient Israelite what the Scripture "simply states", the answer would be very different.
And, really, do you just accept what it says in its simplest, plainest sense in modern terms? Of course not. You don't read the text to describe a geocentric universe, even though that is the simplest and plainest reading. You have grown up knowing that the earth revolves around the sun, spinning all the while on its own axis. This is just something you accept and so when you read the text, you naturally read it with that scientific knowledge firmly in mind and make the necessary adjustment (even if subconsciously) so that it fits with your heliocentric scientific understanding.
But, for those in 1600, this was anathema. They were faced with scientific evidence that directly contradicted their traditional reading of Scripture, based on the "plain and simple" reading. Luther, Calvin and the entire Catholic Church condemned this new "scientific lie" since it challenged what the Bible said.
They eventually had to realize (as we do now) that the problem was not with the science, or with Scripture, but with their reading of Scripture.
Eventually, there will come a day when we look back on this controversy the same way.
Vance,
Good theology should make the complex simple. You seem determined to make the simple complex.
Marie, you are not reading carefully. You have, more than once, implied that I think God cannot have created the world in six 24-hour days. I have not written that, implied that or ever thought that.
However, I do believe that given the physical record of the age of the earth, if God created the world as you young earthers suggest, then God is a kind of trickster. He made things appear to be much older than they actually are. I refuse to believe that God is a trickster. He is the creator and Master of the universe.
Don't insult us ever again by suggesting that we don't believe in God's omnipotence! The question is not could he do it, but rather, would he do it? If you answer, Yes, He would do it, then your God is at best misleading.
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation."
St Augustine of Hippo,
"On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis", AD 408
Didn't someone write a song about #19 about 25 years ago?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_(Rupert_Holmes_song)
#33 is out-dated as of about 1995. There are/were multiple string theories. Enter Supergravity and Brane cosmology. Read up on M-theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
Vance: I usually only lurk at this site, having long since given up on trying to have a rational discourse with Boonton, Mummon, Ludwig, John W., etc. It is amazing how frozen in amber these guys are. I'm certain if we were to analyze the several million posts they have left over the years we could distill out about 82 basic sentences with the first standard deviation taking in about 99.999% of their writings.
However, as you seem to be in a slightly different league than them, I need to challenge your statement: "Luther, Calvin and the entire Catholic Church condemned this new 'scientific lie' since it challenged what the Bible said."
Given the fact Luther was already dead for 18 years when Galileo was born, and Calvin died in the year in which Galileo was born, how precisely did Luther and Calvin condemn this new "scientific lie?"
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.
Cheesehead,
I was speaking of Calvin and Luther's response to the new heliocentric model presented by Copernicus, which is what Galileo was formalizing and promoting. They both condemned heliocentrism (which we now know to be true), Luther in particular said it was contrary to Scripture. I don't think there is an actual quote from Calvin on that point, but he said that those who assert that the earth moves and turns are possessed by the devil.
Cheesehead:
Luther and Calvin did condemn the new scientific theory of heliocentrism, which was presented first by Copernicus, and which Galileo later championed. Luther said it was contrary to Scripture (and was pretty dramatic in his condemnation) and Calvin said anyone who asserted that the earth moved and turned was "possessed by the devil".
(this may be a double-post, the first did not seem to go through)
JD,
I have no intention of insulting you or anyone else. I have no way of knowing what you think about God's omnipotence, over all.
I don't think of God as a "trickster." To create a world with pre-aged items in it (Adam was created a man, not an embryo; trees were not all in the ground in seed form, etc.) is not "trickery" in my opinion.
I think the danger of your view is that, if you apply similar interpretation techniques to other Scripture, you can deny any doctrine you wish. You may not wish to, but others certainly do and will.
But Marie, that does not make any sense. As has been stated, it is not as if the world just look as if it was created "in maturity", but it is created with evidences of past events which would not need to be there just for "functionality". It would be as if God implanted Adam with memories of a past that never happened.
But your concern over denying any doctrine if you don't accept a particular reading of Genesis equally does not hold any water. You have to take each text on its own and determine what is the most likely interpretation. And to say that it will be the plainest to our modern ears will not work at all. I have already shown that by pointing out how you, yourself, do not read the text in its plainest meaning. If you accept that the earth spins on its axis and revolves around the sun, then you have allowed scientific understanding to inform how you read Scripture, and do NOT read it in its most basic, straightforward fashion.
Vance, you may be misinterpreting Luther's remarks. From the abstract of a "Copernicus and Martin Luther: An Encounter Between Science and Religion" by D.H. Kobe (Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of North Texas):
Martin Luther has been severely criticized for a remark he made about Copernicus and his heliocentric theory. When this offhand remark, made at the dinner table four years before the publication of On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, is considered in its historical context, it is shown to be in keeping with the generally accepted scholarly opinion of the time. Luther's view of science in general and astronomy in particular is much more sophisticated than indicated by this single impromptu remark. In the thought of Luther there are two sources of knowledge - experience and revelation. By experience he meant all the human disciplines (or ``science"), and by revelation he meant Biblical theology. Each discipline should have its own technical language and methods. Science and Biblical theology should not conflict, since when speaking of the same phenomena they use a different language. Luther used the clear and literal interpretation of the text of the Bible, except when there were compelling reasons for doing otherwise. Rather than use the Bible as a source of scientific facts and theories as is done by a literalist, he interpreted it as being the witness to Christ. Quotations from Luther are used to illustrate his approach.
The full paper can be found at:
http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=AJPIAS000066000003000190000001&idtype=cvips
if interested.
Well, we can consider the quotes themselves:
"Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding."
- Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43.
"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
- Martin Luther, Table Talk
It may be that these can be analyzed different ways, but the bottom line is that he was rejecting the new science not just on scientific grounds, but on Biblical grounds. He is taking a literalist approach where one is not needed, and then holding to that position in the face of the new evidence.
Perhaps you should read the paper I cited for a better understanding of the quotes and their origins. As to the science he rejected, as is noted, his understanding was the scientific consensus of the time and had been for centuries. It's kind of silly to count against Luther (or Calvin for that matter) their reluctance to accept what at the time was a pretty cutting edge theory. It would be like criticizing Billy Graham for not accepting String Theory (assuming it can ever be proven).
I have read those arguments all before and I understand them. The point is still the same. He was not only rejecting the science because it was new science, but because it was contrary to what he thought Scripture said. If it was JUST newfangled theories, he would not have bothered.
The bottom-line is that his approach is the same approach that so many creationists take today.
It may be that these can be analyzed different ways, but the bottom line is that he was rejecting the new science not just on scientific grounds, but on Biblical grounds. He is taking a literalist approach where one is not needed, and then holding to that position in the face of the new evidence.
What evidence was there? Galileo didn't introduce the telescope to astronomy until 1609, long after Luther's death. Copernicus hadn't even published his views until 4 years after the quote you cite (and even that Table Talk quote is a first hand recollection of dinner conversations published 20 years after Luther's death). Even at that, Luther didn't just reject it on a religious basis, he rejected it on a scientific basis as well; from you own quote "This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy".
Right, but again, do you think he would even be bothered by it if it was not for his religious objection? He stated his approach: read it literal, even if the science points in the other direction. As he said: if we don't understand it, we should believe a literal interpretation of the text anyway, or conform them to our understanding of how things work.
Now, whether he would have held that view as more evidence came in, I don't know. Maybe he would have, I like to think so. But the point is that his approach was "literal first", since Scripture "simply states" the way God created. I think that is the core of where the problem lies. There is no reason to start with literalist presumption in the first place.
Ultimately, the point is that Luther and Calvin and the Catholic Church were all wrong. They thought that Scripture said one thing, when it really did not say that at all. And, they condemned the new science, in part at least, because of this seeming contradiction of Scripture.
The same thing is happening now. Only we have dramatically more evidence of an old earth and evolution than there was of heliocentricity at the time of Luther and Calvin, I will give them that.
Sorry, I meant to say that I would hope that he would have CHANGED his views as the evidence came in. If he had lived long enough and HAD changed his views, he would be that much further along than the Creationists nowadays, who refuse to do so.
Vance,
au contraire.
"If you accept that the earth spins on its axis and revolves around the sun, then you have allowed scientific understanding to inform how you read Scripture, and do NOT read it in its most basic, straightforward fashion."
No, I am willing to entertain any theory that does not contradict Scripture. Scripture does not in any place deny the earth spinning on its axis, or, for that matter, being flat. So I can entertain it, accept it, reject it, whatever. It is not a matter of doctrine.
However, a specific six days of creation is listed in Scripture, which is incompatible with any type of "several million years of evolution" theory. I therefore reject evolutionary theory on that basis.
Similarly, Scripture says the Israelites crossed the Red Sea. Some may argue from an archeological perspective that it was the Black Sea, or an obscure river, or a parable. I will reject these theories because they contradict Scripture.
If, however, they say we think they crossed the Sea here, or there, or at this time, I can entertain these ideas, because they do not contradict Scripture.
Right, but again, do you think he would even be bothered by it if it was not for his religious objection?
I don't know and neither do you. Luther was quite an educated man for his time so it would not surprise me if it would have bothered him even if it didn't contradict his reading of the Bible.
This brings me to another point. There is a tendency, especially among the atheist left to engage in a sort of "temporal-centrism", if you will. The tendency to assume that people who lived in the relatively distant past are "Fruit Loops" because they believed the scientific and religious consensus of the time. In the late 16th century, the Ptolemaic view of the solar system was the dominant view and had been for centuries and the Bible, much more than today, was viewed as a history book as well as a religious document. When Luther quotes Joshua to support the geocentric view of the solar system, he was citing Joshua's historic observation of the sun standing still in the sky, not a religious doctrine found in the Bible supporting geocentrism. The reality is that if you had been born in the middle to late 16th century, even if you had been fortunate enough to be well educated, you would have been much more likely to support the geocentric view then the heliocentric view of the universe. Another reality is that it was men like Luther and Calvin, who were willing to question the established order (even at the risk of their own lives) that make the modern, post-Enlightenment society we live in possible. You should be thanking people like Calvin and Luther, not belittling them. You were born on third base, but like to fancy that you hit a triple.
You know, Vance, the Catholic Church never condemned heliocentrism as you stated above. Individual churchmen may have, but in the usual sense that most people mean by “The Church condemned…” – formal, magisterial condemnation of heretical teaching – never.
Incidentally, Catholic churchmen were often quite open to heliocentrism – remember that Copernicus himself was a Catholic church administrator and probably in later life a priest! As Giorgio de Santillana (professor of history and philosophy of science at MIT) wrote, “It has been known for a long time that a major part of the Church intellectuals were on the side of Galileo, while the clearest opposition to him came from secular ideas.”
Even Cardinal Bellarmine said, commenting on the Galileo affair specifically, “I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated.”
And Vance, "There is no reason to start with literalist presumption in the first place." Why not?
Marie, what about Psalm 93:1b and Psalm 104:5? “Surely the world is established, so that it cannot be moved.” “You who laid the foundations of the earth, so that it should not be moved forever.” If taken literally, that sounds pretty clear to me.
Ucfengr, excellent point about chronological snobbery.
I wrote a similar post on Creationism and faith a while back, Is Creationism a Barrier to Faith?
JD wrote: I have never understood the young earth creationists.
It is clear from your rhetoric that you absolutely do not understand what us YECs teach, otherwise, you might not be so derisive. In fact, until you can do a good job of explaining what YECs believe and why, you should probably keep your uninformed criticism to yourself.
seeker:
I know exactly what you teach. You teach that the creator of the universe--an idea that is beyond comprehension--created the universe in six 24-hour days. And because you believe that the Bible says those days were 24 hours the earth can only be about 6000 years old. How's that for a close approximation of what you teach?
I also believe that devotion to six 24 hour days of creation is almost cultish in that it elevates a certain small section of the Bible to an importance which it shouldn't have.
I may be uninformed as to all the various things that you teach, but I'm adequately informed as to the verses upon which you base all your teaching. As I've explained, I think the notion that the Bible teaches six 24 hour days is silly and basically makes it contradict itself. I don't understand the importance you give to that doctrine, while ignoring many other passages, that when taken literally, you would also find silly. For example, how do you feel about the passage where Jesus says, "This is my body?" Does that mean you are eating Jesus' actual body?
I also think your screen name is rather ironic.
I would like to make clear what I believe about evolution. I believe natural selection occurs. Natural selection may also have caused some change across species. I'm not sure how much evidence there really is for this. I don't trust much of the "evidence" that's out there. I don't really have a problem with some ancestry going back through apes. However, I know that at some point in time God acted and created man. No matter what we looked like, all of a sudden we knew what we looked like, and we knew we were not like any other created thing. That did not occur through evolution. Spirit does not come from anywhere around here or anywhere out there as a result of cosmic explosions.
I do not believe in evolutionism, ie, that all life came from somewhere other than God, and that we are on a never-ending biological train to perfection. There might be some evidence for humans and animals getting better physically, but I suppose it depends on what epoch you're living in. What I do know is that, without the revelation of God, people tend to get worse. They have not improved and are not evolving toward a spiritually higher plane. That is the kind of evolution which I fear is being taught. That is evolution as religion.
I agree with C.S. Lewis that spiritual beings are on either one of two courses, towards heaven or hell. Some of us may not be moving very fast towards either one, but we are on our way. I don't know if that helps anyone understand, but I suspect there are a lot of Christians who believe the way I do.
Atlantic,
In my first post, I referenced the fact that Scripture is written in the following literary forms: historical narrative, poetry, prophecy, doctrinal instruction, and greetings.
You ask about taking the Psalms literally:
Marie, what about Psalm 93:1b and Psalm 104:5? “Surely the world is established, so that it cannot be moved.” “You who laid the foundations of the earth, so that it should not be moved forever.” If taken literally, that sounds pretty clear to me.
The Psalms are universally acknowledged to be in a poetic literary form.
Genesis is historical narrative.
I do not believe in evolutionism, ie, that all life came from somewhere other than God, and that we are on a never-ending biological train to perfection. There might be some evidence for humans and animals getting better physically, but I suppose it depends on what epoch you're living in.
There is no such thing. Evolution does not talk about origins. While life has been on earth a long time it still is only a small part of the universe's life. In other words life came from the matter that was here. Where the matter came from is another story.
Evolution is not about perfection but adaptation. A mammoth is not less perfect than a modern elephant, it is just different in that it adapted for a different environment. There's an open debate about whether or not evolution even 'goes anywhere'.
They have not improved and are not evolving toward a spiritually higher plane. That is the kind of evolution which I fear is being taught. That is evolution as religion.
This is comic book or Star Trek evolution where some beign 'evolves to the next plane' seemingly by grunting and thinking real hard for a few moments. It has as little to do with real evolution as Star Wars does to real space travel. If you read any of the big maintream books on evolution (even by the hated Dennett) you won't find this type of stuff in it.
For example, how do you feel about the passage where Jesus says, "This is my body?" Does that mean you are eating Jesus' actual body?
Actually Catholics do take that passage quite literally but you make a valid point regarding getting obsessed with one single passage that is not talking about anything important (unlike the Jesus passage). My personal view is that the Genesis story is more along the lines of a fairy tale. It's true in the sense that all such tales are true because it resonates in some way with us but it isn't meant to be taken as literally true. Long before science was able to say anything about the origin of the earth or life many very intelligent readers of Genesis recognized it wasn't a literal story in the sense that the Gospels are.
How do you think spiritual growth happens? What books have most helped you grow spiritually Mike says we can choose to run to Christ or run away from Christ. Think about the last week. did you run to Christ, or away from Christ? Or both? In the last month, what decision have you made that have drawn you closer to God? What decisions have you made that have distanced you from God?Dealing with my friends leaving for the summer as well my friend Hannah leaving who just left as well as my grandpa dying, I would have to say I choose to run to Christ. My decisions to not let how I feel about losing friends since they are moving on or just home for the summer distract me from love and seeking Jesus.