Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gawen · 12-12-2004, 05:27 AM

For the historical/apologetic standpoint, these articles should raise a hair or two on most readers necks here. I figured some of you might be interested.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6651553/site/newsweek/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6653825/site/newsweek/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6653824/site/newsweek/

Magdlyn · 12-12-2004, 07:07 AM

From the first article, I have no problem with this:

Quote:

Tyler, TX: I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Meacham that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. But it seems as though Mr. Meacham implicitly contends that a literal interpretation of Scripture and reason ARE mutually exclusive. Why?
Jon Meacham: You raise a fascinating point, but almost everything hinges on the phrase you use: "literal interpretation." By saying "interpretation," it seems to me you and I may well agree, because my view is quite simple: one can (and should) take the scriptures seriously, read them carefully, use our hearts and minds to the fullest to comprehend their meaning, and then do all we can to live by the lessons they teach. To me, that's what "intrepretation" is. If, however, you mean that a "literal intrepretation" means accepting the Bible as a complete historical record (ie, that there were actually six days in which the world was created, or that Moses literally parted the Red Sea) rather than a document which is truthful if not accurate in the sense that one of our reporters would go outside and report a fire, then we do seem to disagree. The Bible is a brilliant, challenging, endlessly fascinating book which, I humbly submit, should be read with an eye toward the circumstances in which the various books were composed.

He also speaks positively of the gnositc scriptures and "heresy."

And this:

Quote:

My point is that rigid literalism of any kind, either theocentric or agnostic or atheistic, is arguably not satisfactory in the long run. Or at least rigid literalism—the idea that my view is of course right, and not subject to scrutiny and critical examination—is not satisfactory to me. Humility, it often seems, is the beginning of wisdom.

Can't complain about that.

Magdlyn · 12-12-2004, 07:16 AM

The scond article points out the historical inaccuracy of many passages of the nativity story, or their resemblance to the "myth" of Augustus or Tanakh imagery.

12-12-2004, 05:27 AM	#1
Gawen Contributor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Cylon Occupied Texas, but a Michigander @ heart Posts: 10,326	MSN/Newsweek articles For the historical/apologetic standpoint, these articles should raise a hair or two on most readers necks here. I figured some of you might be interested. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6651553/site/newsweek/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6653825/site/newsweek/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6653824/site/newsweek/

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-12-2004, 07:16 AM	#3
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	The scond article points out the historical inaccuracy of many passages of the nativity story, or their resemblance to the "myth" of Augustus or Tanakh imagery.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.