Fundamental errors
The fundies are still posting several essays a day on my post about Creationism. It’s hard to take the discussion seriously when one of the main participants writes on his own blog:
Life started 6000 years ago, it took 6 days for all of creation to be completed and there is no evidence contrary to this position.
He also said, in this comment:
At one time humankind believed that we had 152 ‘vestigal’ organs, now that list is virtually non-existant, we once believed the world was flat, we once were sure that Newtonian physics ruled the universed. We’ve been proved wrong before, I’m pretty sure it can happen again.
Yeah, that’s the point. We used to believe in Creationism, but we were proved wrong. Should we still teach kids that people have 152 vestigal organs, or that the world is flat, in the interests of “informed choice”?
But later he tells us:
I think that … there is no reason for anyone to respect/believe the viewpoint of creationists…
Well, okay then. Finally we’ve reached agreement.
But none of the comments have a patch on the Assemblies of God’s Queensland Senate candidate. Chris from work pointed me towards a newsletter (pdf, p9) in which John Lewis explained why he supports teaching superstition as science:
If we teach our kids that they’re highly developed monkeys, why should we be surprised when they act like them.
These guys have a Senator. And they want to put Creationism in schools to stop kids acting like monkeys. What I want to know is, why doesn’t God just smite the little bastards?
You say you want an evolution
You may have seen this Gallup survey which shows what, to me anyway, is a surprisingly high number of Americans who give little credence to the theory of evolution: Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin’s theory…
There’s much more about creationists — American ones, who presumably are the inspiration for those in Australia and elsewhere — at David Neiwert’s Orcinus.
Their real agenda is, of course, theocracy.
I can’t believe how long Wombat’s posts were in particular. I did a word count on them, and his last two posts contained nearly four-and-a-half thousand between them, during which he just repeated himself to every single evolutionazi he spotted. Then he blamed the complexity of the issue. He would, wouldn’t he?
Every single detail has to be treated just as seriously as the rest! If you’re reading this, Wombat, it just occurred to me that you would make an absolutely brilliant filibusterer.
Rob, I see no particular problem in the freedom to believe in fairy tales, though foisting them on my children as fact is something that will never, ever happen.
I propose a very genuine separation of church and state. Fundies should have their own schools and hospitals, where they can learn about this broad, flat earth and can be protected from wild, maniacal, rampant abortionists and blood transfusionists lurking under every Bush. Perhaps there could be a fundie Roads & Traffic authority, where there are no actual traffic rules, merely a prayer for safe arrival.
God is my co-pilot, too.
-weez
I doubt that Creationism will ever be taught in Science classes in our high schools - especially not the public ones. Although FF may chomp at the bit and make life hard for all the rational people out there, they won’t get far.
Unlike the US, we have more centralised education systems and cherish our secular beginnings a lot more IMHO. You are unlikely to see the curfuffle that is unfolding in Cobb County, Georgia over here. Oh sure, the fundies will try and make some noise in their own electorates, but they won’t be able to convince people across an entire state. They don’t have that problem in the US.
Of course, maybe I’m just being optimistic.
PS. I just finished reading the Nov 2004 National Geographic article on Evolutionary Theory, and it’s pretty good. Not very deep. But breaks the issue down quite well. Said alot of what I was trying to say in the previous thread about the nature of a theory and a fact (far better than I of course).
And FF have a senator thanks to labor and the democrats handing the sixth spot in vic to them on a silver platter. FF polled so badly they didn’t get their deposit back yet managed to put a nutter in parliament. cant wait for July 1 2005.
It’s a screwed up electoral system when that happens yet Pauline Hanson can get $200, 00o or so of public funding but not be elected
Oh, man. I saw that 6000 years/6 days/no contrary evidence thing last week and nearly died laughing. I was gonna make a smarmy comment but realised it was mean and bottled it in, but I just have to let this go:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! HAH HAH HAH HAH HA!!!
Woo. That feels better.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go eat a banana.
“I’m going to go eat a banana.”
Ha! Classic.
One of my favourite cartoons
Amanda: That was gold.
Rob: I aim to please.
Seriously though, so what if we came from monkeys? We are who we are, no matter how we got here, so we should just accept that, be proud of the things we’ve achieved and try to learn from where we’ve utterly fucked up.
John Lewis says we shouldn’t tell kids we’re highly developed monkeys? WTF? ‘Highly developed’, honey, means we’re different to monkeys. Better, even, if you need that particular relative distinction to help you sleep at night.
And anyway, what’re you supposed to tell an inquisitive kid who asks why chimps have the same shaped hands as us, or something? “Oh, God wasn’t feeling too creative that day, so he just did some cut-and-pasting.” That’d just be blasphemous!
And how do we teach history without explaining to kids that most Anglo Australians are descended from convicts? If we teach them they’re descended from convicts, they’ll act like convicts!
A whole pile of those disclaimer stickers.
The point about kids “acting like monkeys” is vitally important to why fundamentalist Christians labour the point on creationism when liberal Christians have long since accepted that part of the bible as symbolism. It’s also the reason they focus on the “man/monkey” evolution area and ignore the broader theory. Fundies need there to be a strict division between humans and animals. They need animals to have been created on one “day”, and humans on another. They need humans to be a special case, not just another branch on a universal tree, where we have more in common with a pine tree than one sort of bacteria does with another sort. In a usenet discussion on evolution recently, I saw someone try to claim that humans are “mammals, but not animals”. This comes to the heart of the problem - fundamentalist Christianity demands that humans are isolated, special, “other”. Evidence, of course, points otherwise, whether you want to count DNA similarities, or simply look into a chimpanzee’s eyes. In order to counter these obvious problems, therefore, they have to cling to a complex and internally inconsistant argument ranging from the earth being only 6000 years old, to God burying dinosaur bones to trick us. The funniest argument of all, and one that reveals their poor understanding of evolution, is of course the “If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys” one. To which, I answer “If God created man from dust, why is there still dust?”
Propagandists of Evolutionism, in their attempts to discredit research into the true Biblical foundations of Origins, have often accused Creation Science of being a non-experimental endeavor.
But of course the Propagandists are wrong! as demonstrated thusly:
Objective scientific research
I actually don’t have a problem with people being taught about creationism in school. I do have a problem with people being taught creationism as fact and what’s more being taught it in science class.
I actually find theology/philosophy really interesting, and would have no problem with it being taught in schools, provided that it was a ‘this is what some people believe…this is their arguments in relation to creation…etc’ class, which could teach people about aetheism and Neitzche in the same class as people would learn about Islam or Thomas Aquinas or Machiavelli. It helps people develop understanding about the people around them, I think.
But in science?? No way.
PR badge engineering alert: creationism now “intelligent design.”
Creationism isn’t really a problem in Australia. I’m more worried about the extremely small proportion of supporters of Darwinian evolution who “believe” in it, without knowing they’re unwittingly accepting a version which is closer to Lamarck.
Hi Norman!
CL that is completely wrong.
There is a lot more to intelligent design than there is to creationism and it is not related.
Dr Stephen Myer wrote a paper for the Proceedings of the Biological Society of WAshington.
The paper was rejected by some Darwinists before they had even read it. Indeed no paper can be submitted on this topic now.
The Darwinists are as bad as the creationists in this area probably worse as they put ona pretence of science.
The paper was rejected by some Darwinists before they had even read it.
I don’t know how you can make that sort of claim, as I assume the paper was subject to anonymous peer-review like all scientific journal papers. If it was reviewed and rejected, one can only assume that was due to poor methodology and lack of hypothesis testing.
Contrary to creationist claims, there is constant debate on the reach and importance of evolution and natural selection in the scientific community. My filing cabinet has dozens of papers challenging some aspect or application of evolutionary theory. These, however, are all modelled or experimentally tested claims rather than the philosophical “watchmaker” rhetoric of creationists. Occam’s razor is, as always, a good guide. The explaination required and mental hoops that have to be jumped through to believe the universe 6,000 years old are much greater than those required to believe it’s billions of years old.
I agree with gjw. I’m sure there are “Darwinists”, as Homer states, that believe in their own theories in a faith-like manner. But as scientists they are subject to the same peer-review process as every one else in the scientific community.
MY mistake,
It was published and peer reviewed.
The noise started after it was published by people who admitted they had not read the article
I will leave you boys to fight it but I do want to say Panda’s Thumb is an evolution blog which you might be intrested in visiting, if you don’t already.
[…] a First at the moment) their true colours seem to be showing. Robert Corr got into the act twice and Tim Dunlop and DoDo, The Manic Preacher have also blogge […]
Alright I’ll bite. Just quickly though.
I won’t bother defending my position, again, as it has been to death, resurrection and beyond. Though I must say Mr Corr your quoting of me is slightly out of context with the no-one needs to respect the creationist viewpoint. What I was meaning, perhaps my communication skills need working on, is that I would like people to respect the person even if they don’t respect the viewpoint. Sorry if anyone is confused by lack of eloquence.
Once again I’d like to assert, I do not believe public schools should be forced to teach creationism, biblical or otherwise. I don’t believe they should be teaching evolution either. Also I’m not sure it’s correct to say that I “have a Senator”, I have never heard of John Lewis before and I am entirely ignorant of his views.
Couple of other things:
Firstly, Wombats posts were and are ridiculously long, he is a long time friend of mine and poster on my blog, I haven’t been reading his comments for a while. Wombat the filibuster is an awesome association. :)
GJW: In regards to why Fundies need creation, it’s because a literal reading of the bible is a lot harder if death enters the world before sin. Yes it is important that man came before animals, and Genesis is a history book, but the kicker that even someone who just believes in the New Testament should understand is that death comes after sin.
I think thats about it. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss things, I always enjoy a good debate. :)
Didn’t man come AFTER the animals?
Has anyone noticed the curious connection between phonics and creationism?
The folks at the fundamentalist Carey College in New Zealand were so impressed by Janet Albrechtsen’s talk on the reading wars that they posted it on their website.
I’d be willing to bet that most people who favor creation science over evolution also favor phonics over whole language (the reverse is almost certainly not true). Why is this?
Yes. The last creation.
Hey thewaya,
I agree with all your thoughts ( except for your mistake of man coming before the animals) however My great problem is by insisting on creationism you amplify the issue of HOW
God created the Earth of which there is very litte and is incidental to the main story.
Namely WHY an for WHO did God create the World.
That said evoltion has holes however we wil always inlyn have a hypothesis of how the Earth was created because of evidence.
sorry people, thats a typo. I was in a rush, man comes after the animals. :)
Homer: I personally believe that the how is extremely important. If God did use evolution then Romans 5:12 is 100% incorrect. If Romans 5:12 is incorrect then there is no real need for salvation. If there is no need for salvation then Jesus rose again in vain.
Don: Haven’t heard the whole phonics vs language debate, you got any links?
Sorry thewaya but I don’t understand your reference to romans 5:12
I am angered by this. Evolution has a plethora of evidence to back it up. Some things may not be completely correct or not fully understood but that is unimportant. We still teach newtonian physics at school because it is an appropriate - it fits. The same goes for evolution.
You might not believe in evolution, but like it or not it is the most plausible explanation. Look at the facts objectively. You are welcome to believe otherwise but you are not welcome to deprive kids of learning something that stands up to scientific scrutiny.
I have the upmost confidence that evolution is correct, but, say you are right and it is not. It doesn’t matter that kids have been learning it, that is science. You find a theory that best fits and work with it, if the evidence changes, change the theory. This has happened with atomic models time and time again.
At the moment evolution is the leading theory - teach it.
Spot on Gassit. You’re a God. Can I come over and worship you?
Thanks for the link to Panda’s Thumb Amanda. Been going through the back-catalogue. Good stuff.
As an appendix to a quick discussion in the previous thread. The SMH today reports that, “Australian scientists have dismissed as ill-informed claims that a member of a tiny new species of prehistoric human, known as Hobbits, found on the Indonesian island of Flores, was a modern human with a brain deformity”.
Just noticed the quote I wrote there.
a tiny new species of prehistoric human, known as Hobbits
Bloody hell. Science reporters can be tools sometimes.
Homer: Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin . Evolution requires death to create new forms of life. But sin can’t enter the scheme of things until humankind is created. If evolution is right then humankind can’t appear until it evolves, requiring death.
Your quote obviously requires a literal (read: wrong) interpretation of the Creation story, thewaya. But it doesn’t negate the idea of salvation. Well, not exactly. It depends on how you view “salvation”.
The mega-fundies (I know Homer objects to the term, but Homer objects to a lot of things…) who consider “salvation” a real-life get-out-of-gaol-free card, where you can do as you please provided you attend Church occasionally, praise Jesus and bash homosexuals, would undoubtedly agree with the idea that, unless you can thus stave off death, you don’t need to be saved. But such people already believe that the world is 6008 (or something around that) years old and was created in exactly six days. They reject the idea of evolution because “dinosaurs are fake”, “carbon dating is a fraud”, and “if we evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?”.
There’s more to believing in God than “if we’re good, He won’t kill us!” God doesn’t say “love me or die, bitch!”, and death does not exist to punish sinners. That said, the people who believe otherwise are not just embittered atheists, but also a rather scary number of Christians.
John Lewis, gjw and thewaya all help explain one reason why many creationists oppose evolution. It’s a winner-takes all scenario. If Darwin was right, they believe, that would mean we are merely monkeys stumbling through a soul-less world. There would be no basis for morality (the deeper meaning of the downright funny “if we tell our kids that they’re highly developed monkeys, why should we be surprised when they act like them.” Life would be a dreary and meaningless, an existential nightmare, with the Crucifixion a meaningless sacrifice and hope of salvation a cruel joke.
Hey, I can’t blame you - I knee-jerkily oppose most of evolutionary psych, regardless of its merits, because I imagine it presents a sickening vision of all modern societies petty injustices reified as natural fact.
There are philosophical/theological claims, and there is science. On a fundamental level, they can’t be seperated from each other (science depends on philosophical beliefs, and vice versa), but for day to day functioning, you shouldn’t mix them anymore than you should follow those pills with jello shots . . .
1) Even if the universe is devoid of Meaning, our everyday experience proves that is full of meaning. Look at trees, smile at a baby.
2) Thewaya - there are various ways to reconcile both things. For example, the allegorical take on the Adam to Jesus arc: ie, my cat cannot sin and almost certainly isn’t aware that he will one day (hopefully a long time from now) die (someone once said the difference between us and the birds is that a bird knows it *can* die, but we know that we *will* . . .).
Genesis could be read as in part a brillant (inspired?) allegorical account of the development of human intelligence - both the ability to sin (the knowledge of good and evil) and the knowledge of death. Indeed, it may well be that whatever let us knowingly do good or evil from an evolutionary standpoint did result (whether from the same cause or as a eventual result) in the knowledge of our eventual mortality. This reading does not need to exclude the existence of God. . .
(I know, you don’t buy it. Fair ’nuff. )
-Dan S.
That should have been
“modern societies*’* petty injustices”
and after I go all grammar police over nic’s “cants” on the previous thread, too. Out, out, damned apostrophe! Or in, I guess . . .
I’m ignoring the whole evolution vs creationism debate for a moment and concentrating just on Biblical interpretation as I think that this is a more productive discussion to have.
Mark: I’d like to hear your take on what salvation is. I agree that death isn’t punishment for sinners. Also how would you interpret that quote from Romans 5? I’m not sure what your take on the Christian God is, but from my readings of the Bible there is a choice to be made between following Him or going our own way. Due to His perfect and just nature, choosing sin results in eternal death or seperation from Him. I would love to see references saying otherwise.
Dan S.: Once again the problem with Genesis being an allegory and not history is that it requires a radical departure from other Bible passages that assert that death entered creation when sin did, which only occured after humankind were created. Now obviously if you want to pick and choose what parts of the Bible you want to believe in thats fine. But taking the Bible as a whole, and if you actually believe it, then I don’t see how anything other then a literal creation can work.
“But taking the Bible as a whole, and if you actually believe it, then I don’t see how anything other then a literal creation can work.”
On the other hand, the Bible might just be a collection of stories written by dozens of people across the ages, fallible and reflective of the times in which it was produced, rewritten and altered to suit personal tastes and political preferences.
Just a thought.
Your whole perspective is wrong. You’re starting from “The Bible is correct, because I believe it”, and moving to “I refuse to believe anything that contradicts it.” How about looking at the evidence?
This is getting tedious.
Getting the Fundamentals Right
I, being a “fundie”, have been diligently replying to a number of posts on kick&scream about evolution and creation. Having voiced my opinion on the evidence and dabbled in the creation vs evolution debate, things have sinced moved on to the topic
Robert: I acknowledged that I was ignoring the whole evolution vs creationism debate because some people had brought up the topic that it is all well and good to believe in the Bible and in evolution, I was making the point that salvation doesn’t work without creation. Obviously these argumenst aren’t meant to be my ’scientific proof of creation’. They are directed only at people attempting to reconcile Biblical salvation and Christianity with evolution.
I have looked at and posted evidence earlier about creationism, and know that often these internet debates often just end up going on in circles.
sorry forgot the last couple of lines of my last comment:
…So I decided to let what I’ve said and the links I’ve provided in that area speak for themselves.
” Once again the problem with Genesis being an allegory and not history is that it requires a radical departure from other Bible passages that assert that death entered creation when sin did, which only occured after humankind were created. ”
I think most everyone will agree that sin doesn’t show up before human beings, whatever view you take. If you take death to mean literal death - that before sin all beings were immortal - than there truly is no way to reconcile these two things. However, if you read it as the knowledge, the awareness of mortality - which is a much heavier burden than the mere unrealized fact of death - then there is less of a gap. I fail to grasp why this would negate the need for salvation. Dogs clearly have no such need - with humans the issue is far less clear.
- Although the artistic tradition of showing Adam’s skull at the base of the Cross are certainly impressive in terms of patterns and continuity.
*Anyway* - as an atheist, I certainly don’t believe such an interpretation; I’m offering it only as a demonstration of one way both things could be smooshed together in case anyone feels the need to do so. I agree that these sorts of conversations tend to go round and round - anyway my big issue isn’t what people believe, it’s the attempt to sabotage the teaching of evolution in U.S. public school science classes. We agree that creationism should not be a required subject; however, to say, as per thewaya.org’s tagboard, that evolution (in a science class) shouldn’t be either just doesn’t make any sense. It’s like teaching a class on European history without mentioning Christianity, only worse. Just think of it as scientific fundamentalism.
I can respect thewaya’s intellectual consistency. What really bothers me is the alliance, here in the States, between biblical creationists and Intelligent Design adherents. After all, I live in Pennsylvania, home of the first school district in the country (perhaps the world?) to mandate the teaching of ID
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/living/education/10233215.htm
I mean, sure, ID offer a vision of science purged of intellectual curiousity, but it also suggests a world of religion devoid of faith. It makes an idol out of ignorance, in a way that seems oddly pagan - a tarted-up version of seeing gods in any unexplainable natural phenomena. Honestly. ‘We can’t explain how the bacterial flagellum evolved yet, so that proves we were Designed’ - blech!! At least Paley found proof of God’s existence in the unimaginable, inexplainable mysteries of the natural world. Modern IDers find it by mocking the very exploration of such mysteries. If we were divinely created, than scientific discovery is, even unwittingly, a hymn of praise and worship. In that case, ID is like someone getting a marvelous, painstakingly choosen gift all wrapped up and then tossing it aside, exclaiming, well, I *know* you care about me, I don’t have to bother to open it!
[/rant]
Oh, and while the sociological-landscape parallels between Australia and the U.S. are often strained at best - when I looked at www.thewaya.org and started reading about organic food and sustainability, my brain almost melted; there must be liberal fundamentalists here, but I’ve never heard of them (although apparently polls show a solid number of creationist (U.S.)Democrats . . . anyway, I am very sure the creationist/phonics thing works over here as well. Don’t entirely understand it, although it *feels* right, in sociological terms. The phonics-whole language debate is largely politicized nonsense, anyway - good teachers use both approaches. I would guess in general these sorts of issues line up like magnetic fillings oriented to much larger, underlying belief systems/worldviews/habitus/life experience, etc. Ideas about authority, experimentation, how we learn stuff. This is actually a really interesting issue - and one that could go somewhere - wish I had the knowledge or time . . .
I enjoy melting a few brains here and there. :)
Interestingly enough it’s quite an adventure being a liberal fundamentalist, there’s not many of us around. At least not at my local church. I don’t quite fit in either stereotype I guess.
In regards to phonics, do you have any links about the debate, as I have heard nothing about it at all. I’d love to find out more.
Hard to find good links on the ‘Reading Wars’ - the phonics vs. whole language debate (just try a yahoo or google search, but with a large grain of salt) - take
http://buckhoff.topcities.com/phonics_vs_whole_language.htm
for example - part of their description of whole language is bizarre, seeming to imply that the majority of whole languag advocates believe that merely dropping a child into a print-rich environment will magically lead to literacy. One of the problems - something endemic in teaching, possibly (at least here in the U.S.) because teachers are too often not equipped to deal with theory in the classroom - is that an initial, quite reasonable idea was sometimes distorted by people who didn’t really understand what it was or how to apply it. Then the whole issue became even more politized as it seeped into the public arena. The current consensus over here involves ‘Balanced Literacy,’ which combines different approaches into an all-around package, involving both authentic literacy experiences and and more explicit instruction, among other things . . .
http://www.earlyliterature.ecsd.net/balanced%20literacy.htm
Perhaps the best description of whole language is that it attempts to recreate in the classroom the experience of growing up in a home rich with mainstream literacy experiences - being read too often, rooms full of books and other forms of text that are clearly used in meaningful, useful, rewarding ways, having a large number of other adult-directed encounters with literacy - “what does _that_ sign say?” etc. - but in a more structured format, with phonics instruction (at least nowadays) carried out through these experiences, rather then in isolation. One criticism is while this might work fine for kids for whom this is merely an extension of their home experience, kids from other backgrounds run into trouble.
A lot of U.S. literacy instruction seems to pretty much follow the lead of work from Australia and especially New Zealand, for example Marie Clay. Bush&Co. strongly supports phonics; a web search reveals a strongly anti-whole language screed by the right wing Heritage Foundation, all very odd . . ..
a few links
http://www.usa.pipeline.com/~rgibson/phonics.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1041/is_n2_v75/ai_19056034
http://www.connectionscharterschool.org/language_arts.htm
This is a real, if often stupid debate. Evolution vs. creationism, while sometimes lining up the same supporters, simply isn’t. That’s more like people arguing over learning to read vs. (from a teaching of science viewpoint only) that reading is bad because then we won’t remember stuff well . . .
inexact analogy. sorry
-Dan S.
Hey thewaya, you have a problem with Roman5:12
unless you believe Adam and Eve only eat fruit and vegetables.
What were the cattle exactly for if not to eat once and a while.
It is Adam’s action that lead to Adam dying . It also had cosequences for the environment as well.
I wouldn’t worry about rob. He offers specious translations of 1 Cor 6:9.
Hey thewaya, you have a problem with Genesis as well. In the first creation story man is created after the animals, but in the second story he is created before the animals.
Do those who take the bible as literal also take the racist, sexist and homophobic passages as literal? For example:
Matthew 15:22-28: She pleaded with Jesus to cure her daughter who she believed was possessed by a demon. He first ignored her, but then explained that he was sent only to bring the Gospel to the Jews, not to the Gentiles [Greeks] such as she. Jesus replied to the desperate mother that it was not right for him “to take the children’s bread and to cast it to dogs.”
The Bible also often describes women as inferior to men, as sexual predators, as an item of property, and as deceitful and untrustworthy. They could be sold permanently into slavery; the enslavement of men was temporary. Non-virgin brides — but not non-virgin grooms — were stoned to death. Some women who were raped and who did not cry out would also be executed.
Leviticus 18:22:
“You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination.”
Leviticus 20:13:
“If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death.”
Romans 1:26-27:
“For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”
I’ve heard defenses that 1) these merely represent the view-point of the time and 2) the passages about homosexuals referred to heterosexuals who lay with members of the same sex as part of a pagan ritual, going against their true sexuality. However, in regards to 1) doesn’t this mean that the Bible’s view on abortion, chastity, marriage, sex, and a range of other issues, could be mere products of those ancient times, and have no relevance today? And as for 2) the context of this gay-sex doesn’t really matter if the punishment is death!
How do those who take the Bible literally view these passages? This is not an attempt to paint such people as either homophobic, sexist, or racist, or to start up an argument. I’m just interested to know how one can take the words of the Bible as truth, and yet selectively disregard some of its sentiments.
Natasha,
Racism, You don’t mention that not only did he cure her but mentioned that her faith was greaterthan the Jews. The reason for going to the Jews first goes back to Genesis 12:3
remember god chose the Jews .
Unless you are Rob corr almost everyone agrees that homosexuality is regarded as a sinful practice. Mind you every one indulges in sinful practices.
The reason for the death penalty in Leviticus is twofold.
1) They are wandering from Egypt to Palestine. In both areas you had ‘cultured’ socities where theses practices were commmon. The Israelites were to be holy ie apart from all other societies
20 they had to realise how holy God was.
As for the role of women you have provided no evidence for your assertion. If you do so I will endeavour to provide an explanation.
I’ll ignore your silly comment about homosexuality being sinful, Homer.
Your argument admits that the laws set down in the Bible are a product of their times. You are effectively saying that there would be no need for the death penalty for some of the crimes mentioned if the Israelites did not live in the vicinity of certain other societies.
This is exactly Natasha’s point. The Bible can not be read out of context. We can not blindly apply the words of the Bible to modern society without first determining whether they are appropriate to current circumstances.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/wom_list.html
Robb,
I wasn’t saying that at all.
I was saying the reason for the death penalty for the Israelites.
note we are not the Israelites. The death penalty was put in for a number of offences we would regard as extreme you have to remember that the Israelites were to represent God.
don’t you understand the implications of Genesis 12:3?
There is clear N/T evidence for saying homosexuality, either sex, is sinful. however the death penalty is not applicable.
In regards to your response to that racist passage, this doesn’t explain the description of Greeks as dogs. What about this:
11:5
And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.
11:6
And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more.
11:7
But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.
In regards to the passage dealing with gay-sex, you are essentially saying it is impossible to read the Bible literally and not be homophobic?
OK, and as for the sexism:
The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” (Genesis 2:18)
When a woman gives birth to a baby boy, she is unclean for 7 days and must purify for 33 days — Refer to Lev.12:5
When a women gives birth to a baby girl, she is unclean for 14 days and must purify for 66 days — Refer to Lev.12:2.
19:20
And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
27:3
And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.
27:4
And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.
27:5
And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
27:6
And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.
27:7
And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
38:24
And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.
25:6
And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
25:7
And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;
25:8
And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.
25:9
And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.
25:10
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
25:11
Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy.
25:12
Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace.
If you’d like I can post more examples of both racism, sexism and homophobia, but I’m more interested in your response to such passages. Your admittance that it’s impossible to view the Bible as literal and not be homophobic is quite startling. Is it still truth in regards to foreigners and women?
By the way, though I don’t really want to dignify your comment, you’ll find those who view homosexuality as ’sinful’ to be firmly in the minority.
Homer: Adam and Eve and all animals were vegetarian before the fall. The animals and cattle were for God’s glory like everything else. Also God could also foresee the fall, so perhaps he planned ahead?
Zoot: if you check out my blog you’ll see how the 2 creation stories complement each other. Your comment about animals is incorrect, Genesis 2 says “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field” obviously referring to before man was created.
I’m not sure why everyone is so against homosexuality being a sin. Sex before marriage, blasphemy, etc. These are all sins as well. Why the big fuss over what is considered sinful? I’m assuming you don’t believe what the Bible says. Is it really expected of Christians to update the list of what is sin for each generation?
Something being a sin indicates that it is wrong, no? Homosexuality is not wrong.
Why wouldn’t it be possible to interpret the Bible as having been written by authors who were intent on promoting their own religious and spiritual beliefs? After-all, the writers lived in a pre-scientific age, which treated slavery, genocide, mass murder, and the oppression of women as acceptable.
Also, since meaningful scientific study of sexual orientation did not begin until circa 1950 CE, biblical authors had no awareness of the topic. When the Bible and science disagree, libral christians give greater weight to the recent findings of human sexuality researchers.
Most interpret the creation story in Genesis as composed of myths derived from Middle Eastern pagan religions. Many do not accept the reality of the fall of humanity.
When liberal theologians study the Bible for guidance on homosexuality, they generally look for applicable biblical themes, like those advocating justice, love, monogamy, caring, commitment, etc.
Also, do you believe women are lesser creatures than men, or do you simply attribute this to the times the Bible was written in? When the Bible mentions things like the requirement that women make a sacrifice of two animals to repent for the sin of giving birth, how can you assume it has relevance today in its literal form?
Something being a sin does indicate it is wrong, I’m just wondering why people care that homosexual behaviour is a sin when many other common acts are sins too. Sexual relations before marriage is a sin. Blaspheming is a sin. Greed is a sin. Not being a Christian is a sin. Now just because something is a sin doesn’t mean we should treat the people who do these things in a certain way. The denotion of sin is meant to demonstrate a God-given instruction for living.
It isn’t possible to interpret the Bible as you say because it would turn faith it an experience of pick what you like and ignore what you don’t. Obviously more liberal Christians are quite happy to do this and that is their choice. I believe that the all scripture is God breathed and useful.
I’m sure most liberal Christians do read the Bible as you say they do, but that doesn’t mean that is the correct way to read it.
I’m not sure what verses you are referring to in your last paragraph, I am not aware of those statements being made in the Bible. Please give me the references so I can investigate further.
As I understand it, fundies don’t believe that homosexuality is a sin in and of itself, it’s only the act of homosexual sex that is sinful.
Natasha, I asm certainly not go and expalin every example you have given but the bible does not decribe Greeks as dogs.
Read the text properly.
If you have read what I said previously then you will have some idea of what the the first five books of the bible are about.
Only ‘liberal’ christians state that homosexuality is not a sin. These people glide from being geniune liberals to being outright heretics.
Almost every mainstream and even non0mainstrean denomination agrees.
It is why all sex outside marriage is sinful.
The waya it isnot state that they were vegetarians. The text does say cattle which usually means beef cattle not cows. however if they didn’t eat meat then why have them?
Are you also saying they didn’t eat any fruit or vegetables that ‘died’?
thewaya - In regards to the sacrifice after childbirth:
12:6
And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or dove,
for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
12:7
Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.
12:8
And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.
If something being sinful does not mean it is wrong, then can you please explain the point of sin? Aren’t these things supposed to dictate whether you reach Heaven or not?
Secondly, in a text that espouses animal sacrifice and stoning to death for certain sins and crimes, isn’t it evident that some aspects of the Bible have to be looked at in the context of the time it was written in? If you didn’t want to ‘pick and choose’, surely you’d have to advocate that we continue primitive forms of capital punishment, animal sacrifice, putting menstruating women into isolation for 7 days, the execution of couples who commit adultery, and a thousand other things that are undisputably a product of the times and have no bearing today. Does your mind truly have to be stuck 2,000 years in the past to be a real Christian?
Also, nobody seems to have answered my question in regards to women yet. To be a true Christian, do you have to view them as inferior?
By the way, the woman in the example of racism is a Canaanite and a Gentile. My references on the woman say she was technically from Greece, but I wasn’t making the point that Greeks in particular were being referred to as dogs. Instead, it is widely known that Gentiles were referred to as dogs by the Isrealites, Gentiles being all non-Israelites. (Please refer to Matthew 15:22-28) Here, when the woman asked to be cured, first Jesus ignores her, then states that it would be wrong to “Take the children’s bread and to cast it to the dogs.”
How do respond to passage where Jesus orders the children of Egypt killed?
Yobbo: you are 100% correct.
Natasha:
Lev 12:6 requires a sin offering to remind the parents of the original sin and that the child is born into sin. Additionally, many commentators say that the sin offering covers the mother for any sins that occurred during the ordeal of childbirth.
Also there is a difference between being unclean and being sinful. Uncleanliness can occur from a whole range of thigns, like having an illness, being around dead bodies, a woman’s period, etc. These things aren’t necessarily sin, but they do make a person unclean. Many would say that the cleanliness laws made good sense for a people wandering the desert for 40 years. By seperating out health risks from the rest of the community, God ensured the survival of His people. Also, it set the nation of Israel apart as God’s people.
A point also has to be made about the difference between the Old Testament and New Testament. With the resurrection of Christ some things have changed as He as fulfilled the purpose of the law. Also all the Levitical laws were given to the Israelites for a purpose while they waited the coming of Christ. We aren’t meant to be engaging in animal sacrifices any longer. If you’d like me to fully explain why and what the change is, I’d be happy to. But it may end up being a long comment, so perhaps I’d better do it on my own blog.
Also Natasha, you might want to check your translation in regards to woman inferiority. As the KJV isn’t as reliable as say the NIV or NASB. When it was written humankinds understanding of Hebrew was not as advanced as it is now. For example Lev 19:20 in the NIV has no mention of scourging, it says there must be due punishment and the man must make a sacrifice of atonment.
In regards to the Genesis creation of woman, God saw it was not good for man to be alone so He created woman. Later on the text tells us that God made man and woman in His image. Neither one is inferior to the other. When Genesis says “make a helper suitable”, the Hebrew is referring to a creation comparable or completing of Adam. That is, Adam was not fully whole without Eve, and vice versa.
In regards Matthew 15 , obviously Jesus knew the whole time that He would be healing the woman. He was testing her faith, and allowing her to demonstrate her knowledge to those around them. Sometimes God humbles us before lifting us up. Also it must be remember that Jesus came first for the Jews and then to the Gentiles. The Israelites are God’s chosen people, it was their duty to spread the word to us Gentiles.
Which passage does Jesus order the children of Egypt killed?
Sorry I haven’t addressed all of your references yet, I am a bit busy currently.
Homer: I’m not sure what your question is asking. But in Gen 1:30 it says God gave everything that moved “every green plant” for food.
Good to see you still at it TheWaya. “Never give up, never surrender” heh?
By the way Homer. Was just curious what your official position is on Evolution vs Creationism. You haven’t really spelled it out. It would help us put the two sides here in better perspective given your unquestionable gravitas.
JC as you well know everything about me is questionable.
My view is
Creationists miss the main reason for the first chapter of Genesis.
( by the way thewaya, a better translation is herb not plant!)
Evolution has a number of problems as well however then you really must define what type of evolution we are talking about as there are moe factions in this school than the ALP!
Homer. Oooh that sounds like you’ve pulled up a deck chair on those 6-foot palings to me. That’s not a criticism - I know how much balance you need to pull that off.
Sorry for the confusion, but I think my main question was which idea do you see as the most plausible explanation for our own origins, as a species/planet?
I appreciate that Evolutionary Theory is a diverse branch of Science (and yes the ALP factions do come to mind), and I also appreciate that some of us are loath to ever agree with [shock horror] raging greeny progressives, but I sometimes think it is important that everyone displays their colours. Is there any part of Evolutionary Theory that you find more plausible than Creationism or Intelligent Design?
thewaya - by admitting that some aspects of the Bible have no relevance today, as they were written specifically to be culturally relevant to those who lived at the time (i.e the Israelites), doesn’t this also allow you to ‘pick and choose’ so the Bible fits your existing beliefs? You say that homosexuality is a sin, yet you make excuses for the Bible’s references to capital punishment, sacrifice, senseless murder, keeping slaves, etc. because these do not concur with your own views? If you’re going to look at the Bible selectively anyway, why not just leave the medieval stuff behind too?
And why do I keep having to point out Bible passages to the Christians? ;-)
11:5
And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.
11:6
And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more.
11:7
But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.
Did the lord truly kill every man, woman and child of Egypt?
Evolution has a number of problems as well however then you really must define what type of evolution we are talking about as there are moe factions in this school than the ALP!
I think this is overstated. Those “factions” disagree about the mechanism of evolution but not that evolution happened. So you don’t have to have to have formed a firm view on punctuated equilibrium or whatever to acknowledge evolution as a fact.
Disagreement, by the way, is no bad thing. Science is a self-correcting mechanism and this is how progress is made.
My aplogies JC as you would rightly know a boofhead like me needs a very straight question otherwise I won’t understand where you are coming from.
As I believe that Creationism does not explain how the Earth was created I therefore believe whatever theory of Evolution has more credence nothwithstanding its various holes.
Vanessa try reading what has been said about your previous posts before asking for expalanations again.
Homer - I presume by ‘Vanessa’ (though I don’t know where you pulled that name from) you are referring to me? The only semblance of an ‘answer’ or ‘explanation’ I’ve gotten out of you particularly is the assertion that homosexuality is a sin, yet the death penalty is a product of the times, and that Jesus cured that Gentile woman. You don’t seem to understand the real argument here. If you’re already selectively explaining away sections of the Bible as culturally irrelevant, such as the death penalty and animal sacrifice, how is it any less faithful to tar its references to homosexuality, for example, with the same brush? Either you interpret the Bible as the direct word of god, and get something like this:
The Way Life Would Be if Scripture Were Followed Without Question
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 also states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have neighbours who insist on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask he police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread(cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?(Lev.20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
carpe diem, lash
Or, you, as I suspect you do, discredit these things as being culturally irrelevant to current times. So, aren’t those who interpret the Bible ‘literally’ doing the same kind of selective reading that liberal Christians are also doing, and are so loathed for? It seems so. The ‘literal’ way seems to be merely an excuse for conservatives to justify their existing views. A little bit homophobic? That’s fine, because the Bible says it’s a sin. Anti-abortion? That’s OK too, because some guy wasted his seed on the ground and incurred the wrath of god. Happen to be against Capital punishment? Well, execution was just the standard punishment for those crimes in Israel at the time, it doesn’t apply today… Come on guys, it appears the only difference between ‘literal’ Christians and ‘liberal’ Christians is that one group is more intolerant, or more right-wing, than the other.
Sorry I put that down to my age.
The book of Leviticus is about God’s chosen people about to enter the promised land where they are to be a royal preishood assiting people to be with God.
The rules are for two purposes:
1) they are to show the Israelites how holy God is
2) they are not to copy their ‘highly cultured’ neigbours
The rules applied to the Israelites not to us however they do point out sinful practices.
The difference between people who take the bible literally like me and those who don’t is that God talks to me through the bible.
The others do have any way for God to talk to them!
Natasha: I never said some parts of the Bible have no relevance for today, Leviticus is a great history book that can teach us many valuable things. However with the coming of Christ things have changed. For instance, in the New Testament we are told the not to bag people for doing things on the Sabbath, we are told circumcision is no longer required, we are told the sacrifice system is over. However the New Testament also gives us rules for living, some of them tougher then the Old Testament. We are told that even looking at a someone lustfully is committing adultery and a sin, we are told that thinking of doing harm to someone is a sin, and we are also told that sexual relations between people of the same sex is still a sin.
I’m not picking and choosing what I want to believe. There is heaps of stuff I’d prefer not to have to worry about, but I understand that Biblical guidelines are for my own good. I am not looking at the Bible selectively, I am looking at it wholistically.
In regards to where “Jesus orders” all the Egyptian children killed. What occured is that God warned the Egyptians of what was to come if they didn’t let the Israelites go. The Israelites had suffered generations of bondage and God had given Pharaoh many opportunities to free them. This was a last resort to get God’s people free. It was a horrid occurrence, but one that had to be done.
In regards to that “letter” you posted, it seems to think that taking the Bible literally means ignoring all semblence of context and New Testament writing. You are constructing straw-men arguments and then tearing them down. Rather then pre-supposing why fundamentalists believe what they do about abortion and homosexuality, and how about you actually try and find out what verses they would use to back it up?
Abortion isn’t wrong because of that incident with the spilling of the seed, it is wrong because God knits us together in our mothers womb, before birth He has a plan for all of us. Life begins at conception, I can get Bible verses to attest to this fact if you’d like.
Homer has already explained how Leviticus should be read, it has been superseded by Christ’s ultimate sacrifice. Perhaps you should read up about proper Biblical reading before misquoting passages.
I would never use Leviticus to demonstrate that homosexuality is a sin. There is ample evidence in the New Testament, as well as supporting passages in Genesis.
Could you provide these? I had not heard this before.
Sorry for the delay. Would just like to say thanks for the clarification Homer.
For the record, I take a similar position. Evolutionary Theory may well have a few holes, but it goes further to explaining the origin of, well everything, than any other theory. Of course, that is by sheer virtue of it being grounded in Science, of which I am truly thankful for. The onus is now on Science to plug the gaps.
I just hope you weren’t neglecting to plant your flag because you wanted to see your idealogical enemies stew for a bit. I know I’ve done that before. LOL.
And thanks also for the great posts on all the Biblical stuff Natasha, Homer, TheWaya. I never knew how biblically ignorant I was. My beer-guzzling, cigarette-smoking, four-lettered parish priest would have my hide. Sorry Fr. Greg!
Has anyone prepared a one hundred word summary of this discussion?
NT references about homosexual behaviour: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Also there are other verses that refer to sexual perversion. Additionally, Jesus reaffirms the Genesis plan of a man and woman to marry in Matthew 19:1-12, giving the only other option as celibacy. From Genesis, God created man and woman as complements. The sexual act is used to bond them together as one, any other use of it is a incorrect. So masturbation, sex before marriage, homosexual relations, all incorrect.
Now the point must also be made that there is no reason to single out homosexuals for persecution. “Radical” Christians with their “God hates gays” signs are just as offensive to me as to most rational people. God loves everyone, and so should we. I hate the homophobia that has spread through much of the Church. Our reaction to homosexual behaviour should be the same as our reaction to masturbation or sex before marriage. One of love, support and guidance. Not of ostracisation and persecution.
thewaya - that was the kind of response I was looking for, thankyou… And thanks for bearing the atheists throughout all our prodding and challenging. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Correct thewaya. Welldone.
My view is society has more to fear from adultery and fornication than homosexuality. A few more sermons on these topics and a few less on the latter would be better allround.
Just checked the nostalgia page- you keep waya’s essays and remove mine, well you’re a biased loser Robert. And you accuse the dudes who wrote the bible of just trying to suit their own ends- well people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. The day you allow people’s freedom of speech and freedom of debate rather than censoring those that don’t support, let alone might even poke a hole in your viewpoint- is the only day you’ll have the moral fibre to comment on bias and people twisting facts and situations to suit their own ends. I won’t hold my breath.
You dickhead, Wombat, you’re looking at the wrong post. All of your delusional rantings are preserved over here — right where you left them.
Wasn’t looking for those rantings, as brilliant as they are i must say! im referring to the ones you so happily and discreetly removed from this thread hoping no-one would notice. Don’t you watch the Agency Robert- we’re everywhere, we see all. In English- ‘We win, you lose, have a nice day!”
I’m afraid I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. When I delete a comment (a rare occurrence) I leave a note explaining why. I’ve just checked my email archive — I receive a notice of every comment left — and there is nothing there to suggest you ever left a comment on this post.
If you’ve got something to say, go right ahead! I won’t delete it, I’ll probably laugh at it. But if you decide not to post anything, don’t come back in six months’ time pretending you did. You’re paranoid and delusional.