Reading the Bible

One of the highlights of this year and something of a spiritual lifeline has been the weekly Bible study at Starbucks every Thursday morning. Six pastors have read our way throught the New Testament together and it has been most edifying and a good discipline. We start on Genesis in the New Year.

Beat Attitude is the brains behind another Bible-reading scheme, which we are encouraging St Silasites and friends to engage with. The details can be found here. It's another good way of reading the Bible regularly. The resources needed are available on the internet, which should make it accessible to most people in the congregation.

Bible reading is one of the things that has sustained me most in the darker days of 2009. Why not give it a go too?

Comments

[Billy]

Would be interesting to see your thoughts on whether genesis is a historcally accurate document or not and how it relates to other very similar Mesopotamian stories.

I think it's important to know whether it is intended to be literal or metaphorical. If the original intention was literal, then we can easily dismiss it as mythology. If it was originally intended to be metaphorical, then it does not necessarily clash with the facts of evolution and archaeology.

[Andrew T]

Ho, hum Billy.

Evolutionism is NOT a fact as even it's pushers will no doubt eventually admit. It is a THEORY that has remained un-proven to this day despite 150 years of being punted by atheists as the big weapon that will destroy religion. It will hopefully join Marxism on the scrapheap of crackpot ideology before too much longer.

I am no scientist but I do at least know that for something to be accepted as proven scientific fact it has to be both observable and repeatable. Evolutionism is neither.

Turning to archaeology, you might like to note that recent discoveries regarding the city of Nineveh have shown that its description in the book of Jonah in terms of dimension and population are remarkably accurate.

[ryan]

>>Evolutionism is NOT a fact as even it's pushers will no doubt eventually admit. It is a THEORY that has remained un-proven to this day despite 150 years of being punted by atheists as the big weapon that will destroy religion

Do you know what 'theory' means in a scientific sense Andrew? Mathematicians deal in 'proof' in the sense you mean it. Can we prove (in terms of replicate it in a lab) that the sun will come up in the morning?
Gravity is 'just' a theory. And you do realise that speciation very much HAS been observed? Nor is evolution some variation of atheistic ideology. The C of E and the vatican have accepted it. Perhaps you could explain why the *overhelming* scientific consensus would disagree with you? Are we to accept that , somehow, they are all too dense to know the real( !) meaning of science which you implicitly profer? And can I ask how old you think the earth is?

>> I am no scientist but I do at least know that for something to be accepted as proven scientific fact it has to be both observable and repeatable

Ah, if you scoff at the idea that gravity is 'just' a theory, perhaps (given that rigorous standard) you've seen some gravitons? If so, you might want to publish your results. You'd win the Nobel.

All the creationist lobby have accomplished (in a theological sense) is to make people think that believing nonsense like a 6,000 year old earth is a prerequisite of a Christianity, and so driving people away from the Gospel.

[Billy]

“Ho, hum Billy”

Hello Andrew. Already I can tell you probably don’t understand evolution.

“Evolutionism is NOT a fact as even it's pushers will no doubt eventually admit.”

Sorry to disappoint you, but have you heard of antibiotic resistance? The observed evolution of nylonase? the evolution of swine flu? the observed evolution of anti predator strategies in various animal groups? etc……. We have core samples showing changes in lake fauna, transitional fossils aplenty for all vertebrate groups, biogeography, molecular cladistics – need I go on?

“ It is a THEORY that has remained un-proven to this day despite 150 years of being punted by atheists as the big weapon that will destroy religion.”

I’m curious to know if you actually know what the definition of a theory is. Please tell me in your own words, because you either don’t know, are ignorant of the facts or in creationist denial mode. The truth is that more and more evidence is uncovered every week. Try reading some proper science and not creationist propaganda.
BTW, in case you missed it, many Christians are compelled to accept the evidence too. You are associating evolution with atheists. This tells me exactly how little you know about the subject. I suggest that you read some Dawkins, Coyne, Carroll or Miller (who is actually a Christian)

“It will hopefully join Marxism on the scrapheap of crackpot ideology before too much longer.”

Spoken like someone who doesn’t know an ideology from a theory.

Augustine of Hippo wrote “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.” (De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [408]).

Creationists should take note! Moderates should also take note. Creationists make thinking folk atheists. The church may not like that, but that’s the way it is. In the scientific community, creationism is a joke, moderates should take this seriously. I take it that in relation to my initial question, Andrew thinks genesis was intended to be a history book. Therefore, I have to reject the bible.

“I am no scientist but I do at least know that for something to be accepted as proven scientific fact it has to be both observable and repeatable. Evolutionism is neither.”

This is patently obvious. If you think evolution SHOULD be repeatable, then you don’t understand evolution. Next you'll be telling me that we believe the eye evolved in a single step. If we start evolution again, we wouldn’t expect to get dinosaurs and people. What does happen from time to time is that different lineages of organisms come up with similar solutions to similar problems – bats, and birds have wings for example, different lineages of “ice fish” have almost identical antifreeze molecules, but when we look at the genes, the codon usage is different. There are many more examples. So, things do repeat in a sense – making your claim wrong on two counts.
Going back to antibiotic resistance, it is both observable and reproducible. See what a few FACTS do to creationist claims?
Evolution can also be shown to be false at any time – in 150 years, it has only got stronger. Show me some Rabbits in Cambrian rocks and he game’s up.
Now, tell me, what in your mind would prove evolution true and what would prove it false?

“Turning to archaeology, you might like to note that recent discoveries regarding the city of Nineveh have shown that its description in the book of Jonah in terms of dimension and population are remarkably accurate.”

Evidence in a fundamentalist pamphlet? I don't doubt that some of the places mentioned in the bible are real. I was however talking about genesis – which mentions states that didn’t exist at the time.
While you are here, I’ve asked you several times to demonstrate moral absolutes exist and that homosexuals break these unbendable laws. Any chance of an answer?

[m0ok]

Hi Andrew.

>Evolutionism is NOT a fact as even it's pushers will no doubt eventually admit. It is a THEORY that has remained un-proven >to this day despite 150 years of being punted by atheists as the big weapon that will destroy religion

I'm sure you're sincere enough, but honestly, talk like this just makes it easier for non-Christians to ignore anything else you say to them on faith matters - it just pushes the 'nutter' button for most people.

Why cling so dearly to 7-day Creationism? If the Christian gospel is true, then that's the important bit, I'd have thought? Because if the Christian gospel _is_ true, then surely it doesn't matter a jot whether life evolved on earth, came from Mars or was fired through a straw from the 7th dimension.

A very good friend of mine who's a born-again Christian says on these things: "I don't really care. I just think we need to get people saved."

Now, I'm no longer a Christian (born-again or otherwise), but when I was - that struck a chord.

For me, 7-day Creationism never made any sense. Sure I'm not smart enough to read peer-reviewed journal articles on the ins-and-outs of evolution by eminent scientists, but just looking at the world around you, isn't it clear that nothing is static and everything changes?

In any case, I always thought that I came face-to-face with God and it turned out I was wrong, it wouldn't be the only thing, and it wouldn't really be a big deal.

I'd ask you this - is it more important to you that you win people to the argument for 7-Day Creationism or that you express the love and compassion of Jesus to them? I'd encourage you to go with compassion all the way - us non-Christians are more moved and impressed by that. :)

Anyway - Happy Christmas ;)

m0ok

[Billy]

Hi M0ok,

The problem with Fundies is that to them the whole bible has to be literally true. I was at a talk by the CEO of the creation "museum" and this was his message. It seems to be the party line : that and discriminating against gays. I don't expect I can reason people like Andrew out of a position that he didn't reason himself into in the first place. He is a very typcal creationist: totally ignorant about what he rejects. I absolutely have to reject any belief sytem based on creationism. The "love of Christ" is irrelevant if we have to deny the FACTS and believe in stolen myths about talking snakes and floods. This is why I was asking about thr ORIGINAL intention of the book of genesis.

If anyone wants a "laugh", check out the links about a visit to the "museum" http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/tales_of_the_300_more_accounts.php It really is a crime against education.

[ryan]

I read this post by Derren Brown on evolution today which - for some inexplicable reason - made me think of our dear Fr.Rector-Gadget.. http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2009/12/dad-dancing-result-evolution-scientists-claim/
;-)

[GadgetVicar]

Ryan,

You should have been in church on Christmas Day....I carefully avoided the "daddy" dancing that was being encouraged from the front!

[m0ok]

Hah! Do Dad Jokes also have a root in evolution? :)

I wonder what would happen if you sprayed on some lynx deodorant _while_ Dad Dancing.

Would the young ladies be locked in a cycle of attraction and repulsion as if they were on bungee cords? :)

[Billy]

Well, since it looks like our creationist isn’t coming back, I’ll furnish you with a proper definition of a theory. A theory is a working model that helps make sense of the facts. It is created through observation, experimentation (testing) and reason. It must also be open to falsification. It can therefore be shown to be false. In 150 years, nothing has shown evolution is false – no out of sequence fossils, no inexplicable DNA sequences, no Kangaroos in Europe etc……

Every time a genome is sequenced or a fossil discovered, it confirms evolutionary theory. Evolution is not some hunch. It is the most rigorously tested of all scientific theories. It most certainly is not an ideology.

Try searching peer reviewed scientific papers http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez . In the last year alone, there were 7569 papers on evolution – that’s 7569 pieces of research or reviews that have had to pass rigorous scientific criteria (in just one year). Creationism gets 9 hits – and they are all critical of it (in fact, some of the hits aren’t even about creationism). Irreducible complexity; the creationist’s pseudoscientific hoax (and argument from ignorance) gets 20 hits – all either critical or not actually about irreducible complexity.
Creationists bang on about “teaching the controversy”. News flash, there is NO controversy in science about whether evolution is true.

Want to argue about atomic theory or the round earth theory too?

Anyone else notice that all of these creationist sites want your money?

Creationists, please get an education. At least learn what science and evolution actually are. As M0ok pointed out, all you guys do is set off the nutter alarm. How can anyone take anything you guys say about god seriously when you have zero understanding of evolution and believe in young earth creationism and a nonsensical gloal flood as fundamentals of your beliefs (that are unsupported by evidence).
The only reason creationism "works" is because it distorts and denies the truth for the ignorant - before passing round the collection plate.