deKooning

Toto: your first quote was an example of the poorest exegesis I have seen in a very long time. The line before verse ten clearly states that this is a “dream.”

[ August 17, 2001: Message edited by: deKooning ]

freemonkey

It's not necessarily about what the bible says, but rather how it's interpreted, IMO.

And not only that, but the way in which those interpretations are used to justify things like slavery.

ex-preacher

Regarding the flat earth, it is true that the Bible doesn't have a verse saying "the earth is flat," but that implication is certainly present in many verses as mentioned above (see Job 38:13). And there is never any indication to the contrary (despite the claims that passages in Job or Isaiah that inerrantists cite erroneously).

From a historical perspective, many of the ancient Greeks and Egyptians, such as Aristarchus, discovered that the earth was a sphere. Unfortunately, this opinion displeased church fathers. When the Christian church gained control of the Roman empire, they systematically destroyed all pagan writings, including the great library at Alkexandria. During the "dark ages" of church control, almost everyone assumed that the earth was flat. As church control cracked and Muslim scholars re-introduced the classical works, intelligent Westerners re-adopted the spherical earth view.

The church's opposition to Galileo's theory of heliocentricity is another good example. Church leaders quoted passages such as Psalm 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."

On racism, there are numerous passages in the OT, but here's a surprising one in the NT: Matthew 15:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30. Jesus refuses to heal a woman's son because she is not Jewish. He says, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs." And no, that was not a compliment. He changes his mind after she insists that even dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the table. (This raises another question about God changing his mind, or maybe he was just playing games with her mind.)

Toto

deKooning: Your beef is with the Flat Earth Bible, not with me. Check out the link I gave - it presents the case that actual Bible believers use for a flat earth. Needless to say, not many Christians follow them, and I wasn't impressed enough to try to find the 72 Bible verses that support the flat earth.

ex-preacher: let me just head off an attack from Bede. He has a long-running dispute with several of the regulars over whether you can blame Christians for burning the library at Alexandria. You can check out his web site or past threads on Feedback Discussion. I don't agree with his analysis, but let's not rehash the matter here.

And I question the relevance of Matthew 15:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30, where Jesus refused to heal a non-Jewish woman's son. I don't think that the difference between Jews and Syrians (a national or tribal difference or a religious difference) is comparable to the difference between white Europeans and the Africans that they enslaved, which is what we usually think of as the basis of racism. Christianity has many problems, but I don't think inherent racism is among them.

But maybe I should stop defending Christians.

Fairfield Porter

Ex-Preacher: Although Scriptural references were made in the conflict between Galileo and the Church, the real debate was fueled not by the Bible, but by the difference between the deductive method of Scholastic science and Galileo’s inductive method, using new and strange equipment.

Foxhole Atheist: I was going to make a comment similar to that of your first line, and if it is true, I find it perverse, as Christianity (religion) and science hold such different domain. To put the kind of faith in the latter that should be placed in the former is naïve. We can call his the “salvific method,” in order to highlight the degree of hope he placed in mere science. Perhaps that is why he spent so much time and energy looking for redemption on other planets.

deKooning

[ August 19, 2001: Message edited by: Fairfield Porter ]

Fairfield Porter

Backslider / Lori: My first post on this board was not really an ad-hominem against Sagan, as if I called him a name. I was attacking his authority. I was implying that his credibility to write on theological matters is suspect, given that his authority is in matters of science, not elsewhere.

ex-preacher

Fairfield/dekooning, Based on the little I've read, I have trouble accepting that. Can you give me a reputable source for your information?

Fairfield Porter

Ex-Preacher: To my recollection, my information came from class lectures with William Davis (Ph.D, Notre Dame, Philosophy) at Covenant College, although I might have studied some of this on my own in different history books. I just moved to Chicago and brought with me only art books (I’m going back to art school) and some philosophy, leaving seven eighths of my library at my parent's home. I will see if I can find a couple sources of your liking if you can be patient.

[ August 20, 2001: Message edited by: Fairfield Porter ]

backslider

ad hominem
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
:marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

"Carl Sagan’s understand of religion and Christianity in particular is kind of naïve. His fervent belief in scientism is naïve too, almost precious."

It looks like a fit to me. Calling him naive and precious does nothing to disprove his contention that the bible says the earth is flat (regardless of whether or not this is true).

Fairfield Porter

Back Slider: You posted my comment, but did you read it? I never called him naive or precious. I said his understanding of religion and in particular Christianity is naive. There is a difference. And I appriciate the clarification on the definition of ad hominem arguments. But you obviously did not pay much attention to what I wrote, much less the meaning behind it. I did very well in logic class. Did you?