Narrow to a specific question

[Hubriss]

I made my first post about an hour ago with three questions on it who’s discussions could go on forever, so I’ve decided to pick one and put it out.

1. In light of the fact that there is increasingly more evidence contradicting the bible, many (you) in our society seem to disregard it even though it is much more solid than what the church has to offer. How do you get around such discoveries as evolution, the Big Bang, the lack of any evidence that a soul controls the body (the body can‘t function without the brain, a soul does not connect sensations with ideas and meanings). I believe that in order to believe the church entirely, it is a must to believe all (or at least most) of the miracles and stories in the bible, because if the creation story isn’t true, what’s to say that Jesus and his miracles really happened (supposed evidence that he is the son of God)?
   Saying that it is not necessary to believe the bible literally to me means discount everything it has to say. If what the religion was based on (the old testament) is not true, then there is NO BASIS for the new testament. On the other hand, if you believe the bible and all its stories… I’d have to say you’re ignorant.

These are some of my favorite topics as I’m more of a scientific kind of guy. No one has yet to be able to explain theirselves out of them.

 

[Aaron_I]

It’s important not to overreact to new Biblical criticisms. That’s not because these findings aren’t significant, but because they’re incomplete. For example, some years ago, archaelogists hadn’t found any evidence of the city where Abraham was supposed to have come from. They saw this as proof that he wasn’t a historical figure. However, the city was eventually found, and the argument was lost. Another similar example is that Biblical history seems to contradict with documented Egyptian history. However, David Rohl’s new chronology has resolved this issue.

There are three examples you mention. I’ll start with the third. You must understand that humans are by their nature both body and spirit. Even in heaven our souls will be united to bodies, so there is no problem saying that the body can’t live without the brain. One thing to possibly consider is what’s known as near-death experiences. These people have no brain waves, yet still have thoughts. Also, have you ever considered that the brain acts like a radio? It converts a signal from the soul to our understanding, but is not the source of the actual signal.

It’s pretty late now, so I’ll leave the other points for other people to cover. Keep in mind that while the secular world seeks to progress in knowledge and truth, the Church is already there.

 

[Hubriss]

To Aaron:
No, there is no spirit acting as a “radio,” and our bodies are not copied and pasted into heaven.

There is a surgury that is performed on patients that often suffer from aneurisms in the brain. In this procedure, surgeons cut the Corpus Collosum with is a band of neurons that connects much of the two hemispheres of our brain together. They’ve done some experiments on people who have gone through these procedures. One interesting thing they’ve discovered with most of the people is that when they stare at a dot, and an object is placed in their left field of vision, they can see the object, but they can not describe it. Most people’s control over their speech and language is in the left hemisphere of their brain. So their right hemisphere is receiving these images, but it cannot relay the imformation to their left hemisphere, and then describe what they see to the experimenter. This for the most part proves that there is not a soul connecting our experiences with our actions and that our thoughts depend entirely on the brain.

Just because they might have found where Abraham could have lived is far from proof that he actually existed or that God spoke with him.

 

[awalt]

Hubriss,

If you are looking for 100% proof of the Bible, you won’t find it - and that’s not what Jesus said.

We are saved by our Faith, which is given to us as a gift from God. We must accept that gift to have faith and believe - many people don’t. All devout Catholics do. This gift is there for everyone.

Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6). The Bible is effective in those who have faith (1 Th 2:13). Christ dwells int he heart of people who have faith (Eph 3:17).

There are many, many points about faith in the Bible - I especially like 2 Cor 13:5: Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? —unless indeed you fail to meet the test!

But we believe that our God is a God of love, who permits us all to make choices for Him or away from Him. You can choose either way as well. But don’t expect anyone to PROVE the Bible, nor should you expect to convince anyone here that it is not the Truth of our God.

God bless,

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Hubriss:

I made my first post about an hour ago with three questions on it who’s discussions could go on forever, so I’ve decided to pick one and put it out.

1. In light of the fact that there is increasingly more evidence contradicting the bible, many (you) in our society seem to disregard it even though it is much more solid than what the church has to offer. How do you get around such discoveries as evolution,

Evolution does not contradict the Bible - or Church teaching. Assuming you are speaking of the evolution of the human Species - God made man out of the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7) and breathed into him the breath of life making him a Living Soul. The parts we are most concerned with is that A) God formed man (While not being specific about HOW he did it…could have been an evolutionary process of the BODY) and that B) God instilled in us a soul…which came DIRECTLY from God…not evolution.

the Big Bang,

Again…does not contradict. It is rather, even MORE evidence of the miracle of creation…where did the material come from? What (who) caused it to go BANG? IF the big bang is in fact reality…and it is still only a theory - the fact that God crammed all the known universe into such a tiny speck, ordered it’s end result, AND the materials for life here in the process, makes it more of a miracle (to me) than the generally accepted (Fundamentalist) rendering of Genesis 1 and 2.

the lack of any evidence that a soul controls the body (the body can‘t function without the brain, a soul does not connect sensations with ideas and meanings).

The brain is the computer of the body…without it, the body does not function outside of direct intervention from God, or modern medicine . The Soul does not control the body here on earth, rather it has - through the leadings of the Holy Spirit - influence upon us…influence we must FOLLOW in order to progress in spiritual things. Spiritual things can only be understood with the Spirit. The meaning of ‘they have eyes to see but are blind, ears to hear but are deaf’

I believe that in order to believe the church entirely, it is a must to believe all (or at least most) of the miracles and stories in the bible, because if the creation story isn’t true, what’s to say that Jesus and his miracles really happened (supposed evidence that he is the son of God)?

There are many sources outside of the Bible which mention, some in great detail - the miracles of Christ…as well as Saints of the Church. The Apostle John’s attempted

execution being but one of the stories…COULD SOMEONE PLEASE POST LINKS FOR THESE? I’M RUNNING OUT OF TIME…

Saying that it is not necessary to believe the bible literally to me means discount everything it has to say. If what the religion was based on (the old testament) is not true, then there is NO BASIS for the new testament. On the other hand, if you believe the bible and all its stories… I’d have to say you’re ignorant.

All scripture is inspired of God (God Breathed) and therefore it is Truth. All scripture also has literal meanings (Although it may be outside the realm of our present understanding) and concurrent spiritual or anagogical meanings. Yet: both are True. Example: Scripture says - God created man of the dust of the ground…Spiritual Truth: God Created man…Literal truth - evolution MAY have been the vehicle He chose to bring the Human Body into existance, using the dust and flotsam HE CREATED as ingredients.

Also - keep in mind that scripture was penned by man - FROM the inspiration of God - yet actually put down in writing by man…therefore many things were written in the vernacular and understanding of the time and place of the writers, and so must be understood within that framwork. Also much of Scripture is/was also meant to be read and understood by people of ALL times and places…and simultaneously be true FOR ALL levels of understanding…literally and spiritually. Amazing - huh?

These are some of my favorite topics as I’m more of a scientific kind of guy. No one has yet to be able to explain theirselves out of them.

 

[SemperJase]

Hubriss:

How do you get around such discoveries as evolution, the Big Bang, the lack of any evidence that a soul controls the body (the body can‘t function without the brain, a soul does not connect sensations with ideas and meanings).

I think you have put more faith in science than it claims for itself. Evolution (I assume you are speaking of one species evolving into another) has not yet been proved. It is still a theory.

The Big Bang is still a theory. Even so, it raises the question, what created the mass for the Big Bang? I’ve even heard one theorist claim that it spontaneously came into existence. The universe somehow created itself. That takes even more faith than a belief in God.

The soul, well that is a mystery as well. I don’t find brain mutilation a convincing proof that souls don’t exist.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hubriss:

lack of any evidence that a soul controls the body (the body can‘t function without the brain, a soul does not connect sensations with ideas and meanings). .

I am curious what experiment one would set up to prove this?

 

[rwoehmke]

Hubriss:

On the other hand, if you believe the bible and all its stories… I’d have to say you’re ignorant. These are some of my favorite topics as I’m more of a scientific kind of guy. No one has yet to be able to explain theirselves out of them.

A little puffed up with pride, are we? Someone had a saying that that is what goes before the fall. I have read about most of the stuff you are referring to as making the Bible meaningless and maybe even more, but it still amazes me that the message given by the theological understanding of the Bible still comes through despite what one choses to accept as history as it actually happened and not how it is described. I am inclined to believe that as the story progresses from Genisis to Revelation it becomes more and more factual. It is not necessary that the OT be history as we do history today for the message to come through and be accepted by people of Faith. The Bible is in fact not a history text, but primarily a work of theology. Some are too proud to accept that.

 

[ReformedCatholic]

I don’t have answers to the questions you pose, but your scientific focus makes me wonder if you have researched String Theory. Some of the most fascinating stuff and in my opinion is really showing that the science of physics is on its way to proving the existence of God! Cool!

 

[Hubriss]

The only reason evolution is still a theory is because religious people don’t accept it. Otherwise, if you knew what it was and understood the concepts behind it, you will find that it overwhelming.

If the bible is just stories written by theologians, we can just throw it back with the rest of the philosophers and religion. Theologians are people. These people that lived years ago know no more than what we do today.

More of what I think is in my other post.

 

[Hubriss]

The only reason evolution is still a theory is because religious people don’t accept it. Otherwise, if you knew what it was and understood the concepts behind it, you will find that it is absolutely true.

If the bible is just stories written by theologians, we can just throw it back with the rest of the philosophers and religion. Theologians are people. These people that lived years ago know no more than what we do today.

More of what I think is in my other post.

 

[Contarini]

Hubriss:

I
How do you get around such discoveries as evolution, the Big Bang,

The Big Bang confirms rather than challenging Christian theology.

As I’ve said on another thread, I don’t think evolution conflicts with belief in God at all. It does require us to read some of the Scriptures and some of our traditions in a new light, but that’s all to the good. I don’t see it as something to be “gotten around” at all.

the lack of any evidence that a soul controls the body (the body can‘t function without the brain, a soul does not connect sensations with ideas and meanings).

That (if true) simply confirms the movement away from Platonist dualism which has been going on in Western Christianity at least since the 13th century. Indeed, I think a good case could be made that the greater attention paid to the body beginning with the high medieval scholastics led to the scientific theories in which you put so much trust. (Although a case could also be made that modern science owes a lot to Cartesian views of the body as a mere machine–science has simply eliminated the Cartesian “ghost.”) So again, you’re making a bunch of assumptions here that I find unconvincing.

The view that a soul “controls” the body sounds like the Platonic view that the soul relates to the body as a pilot to a ship. As I said, this was rejected by 13th-century scholastics such as Aquinas in favor of the Aristotelian view that the soul is the “form” of the body. (I’m not claiming that it was completely rejected.)

This dualism made a huge comeback with Descartes’ idea of the “ghost in the machine” (of course there was plenty of Platonism throughout the Renaissance period–I’m oversimplifying a lot of stuff). This is a far more radical dualism even than that of the Church Fathers, it seems to me. And I think it led on the one hand to the reductionistic scientific view of the body as a mere mechanism, and on the other to the identification of a religious view of the self with an autonomous “soul” that “controls the body.”

In other words, you are attacking Descartes, a 17th-century philosopher of dubious orthodoxy, under the erroneous impression that his view is *the *Christian view. You are not even engaging with the richest and most interesting traditions of historic Christianity.

I believe that in order to believe the church entirely, it is a must to believe all (or at least most) of the miracles and stories in the bible,

But you appear not to be a Christian. So how on earth do you have the right to tell Christians what to believe? This is really some cheek. The only people who can decide what is a “must” to believe within a certain religion are people who believe the religion. Making up your own straw-man version of a religion in order to debunk it is both lazy and dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself.

If you want to argue with Christians, you need to listen to what we believe before attacking it. Otherwise you’re wasting your breath.

because if the creation story isn’t true,

Who says it isn’t true? I say that the creation story in Genesis is not a literal, historical account, but rather a mythical account. It is true in the way myths are true, not in the way historical narratives are true.

what’s to say that Jesus and his miracles really happened (supposed evidence that he is the son of God)?

This would be a valid argument only if Christians were arguing that Jesus’ miracles really happened on the basis of a prior belief that everything in the Bible really happened. There are Christians who argue this way. I think they are entirely wrongheaded. If you want to disprove their position, go ahead. But you have not thereby disproved Christianity, only one of the sillier arguments made in its favor. What is the point? Why not tackle the strongest arguments for Christianity? Wouldn’t that be more fun and challenging?

I believe the Bible because I believe in Jesus, not the other way round.

 

[Contarini]

Saying that it is not necessary to believe the bible literally to me means discount everything it has to say.

Frankly, why should I care what it means to you? Disproving a literal view of the Bible disproves a literal view of the Bible. Period. It doesn’t disprove anything else. (No one really takes a consistently literal view of the Bible anyway, but that’s another argument–there certainly are people who foolishly claim to be literalists.)

If what the religion was based on (the old testament) is not true, then there is NO BASIS for the new testament.

But I believe the Old Testament is true. I simply don’t believe that every narrative in it is to be taken as literally accurate in every detail. That is not the basis on which I believe in the New Testament.

There may be no basis for believing the New Testament in your view. Well, then go and disbelieve in it. It’s quite possible that the reasons why I believe in it would seem foolish to you.

But if you want to make an argument that thoughtful, non-fundamentalist Christians will find interesting (let alone challenging), you need to do much better than you have done so far.

Your argument so far amounts to this:

Extreme fundamentalism is the only valid form of Christianity.
Fundamentalism is false.
Therefore Christianity is false.

But since non-fundamentalists disagree with the first statement, we have no reason to care about any of the rest of your argument.

If the bible is just stories written by theologians,

Whether the Bible was written by “theologians” or not depends on how we are defining theologians. Some authors of the Bible could be called theologians. Others probably not.

The Bible as a whole is not “just stories” if you mean by that “fictional narratives.” Some of the Bible is fictional, some of it is history, much of it is not narrative of any kind.

But the Bible is a collection of stories handed down by believers of the past. I think the basic problem is that you think this is in itself contemptible. That is your loss. Until you come to see stories as potentially divine, you will not be able to believe that the Bible is divine.

If being a “scientific kind of guy” means that you think the only form truth can take is a scientific theory, then all I can say is that “scientific guys” have given up part of their humanity. And that’s too high a price to pay for being “scientific.” (I don’t think for a minute that really being scientific necessarily involves this, by the way.)

Humans are story-telling animals. The difference between us goes beyond the fact that I’m a Christian believer and you’re not. The real difference is that I relate to the world in the same way people have been relating to it for thousands–no doubt hundreds of thousands–of years. And you think this is worthless. Again, that’s your loss. Perhaps some day you will feel it to be so.

we can just throw it back with the rest of the philosophers and religion.

And where is that? If you’re starting from the premise that philosophy and religion in general are worthless, then no wonder you reject Christianity. But I think that’s a silly, indeed a barbaric premise.

Theologians are people. These people that lived years ago know no more than what we do today.

How do you know what they knew or didn’t know?

Again, there seem to be hidden assumptions here:

1. Being “people” somehow means that one’s views have no value. (A truly strange idea.)
2. We have nothing to learn from people who lived many years ago.

None of your arguments are going to be persuasive to people who don’t share your very dubious presuppositions.

Edwin

 

[Hubriss]

Let me ask you two things then Contarini.

Why do you believe Jesus was God/The Son of God?

and

Do you approve of “cafeteria catholics?”

You seem to only literally believe what has not yet been proven or disproven. Do you believe in the Tower of Babel? The strength of that bearded prophet guy Simon (i think)? Because if God is really God, and he is all powerful, WHY the hell then is this stuff in the Old Testament not believable?

You have no argument that the body has a soul. You don’t even know what a soul is. It is only speculation of what a soul might be, assuming there is a soul.

“And where is that? If you’re starting from the premise that philosophy and religion in general are worthless, then no wonder you reject Christianity. But I think that’s a silly, indeed a barbaric premise.”

• Believing in Christianity requires the rejection of all other religions. So however you can explain why they aren’t true and their value is where you can then put Christianity as well.

 

[Kirane]

Hubriss:

I How do you get around such discoveries as evolution, the Big Bang, …

In a radio broadcast in 1949, Hoyle disparaged the theory which competed with his steady state theory by saying:”These theories were based on the hypothesis that all the matter in the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past.” This was the event which named the competing theory the big bang theory. However, the big bang theory was being offered twenty years earlier by Father Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian priest, who in 1927 said that the universe (Creation?) started with a small super atom. I don’t know if he was the very first one with this idea, but anyway, it is reported that at first, when he tried to discuss this idea with others, it was not enthusiastically embraced at that time. It was only later on, with the evidence from quasars and redshifts in the 60’s and the microwave background that killed the steady state theory and helped to provide proof for the big bang theory of Father Georges Lemaitre. So it is not so much a problem of getting around the big bang theory, as seeing it the largely the product of a Catholic priest in the first place.

 

[Hubriss]

Kirane:

In a radio broadcast in 1949, Hoyle disparaged the theory which competed with his steady state theory by saying:”These theories were based on the hypothesis that all the matter in the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past.” This was the event which named the competing theory the big bang theory. However, the big bang theory was being offered twenty years earlier by Father Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian priest, who in 1927 said that the universe (Creation?) started with a small super atom. I don’t know if he was the very first one with this idea, but anyway, it is reported that at first, when he tried to discuss this idea with others, it was not enthusiastically embraced at that time. It was only later on, with the evidence from quasars and redshifts in the 60’s and the microwave background that killed the steady state theory and helped to provide proof for the big bang theory of Father Georges Lemaitre. So it is not so much a problem of getting around the big bang theory, as seeing it the largely the product of a Catholic priest in the first place.

Yeah right. Even if this priest did suggest the theory first, he didn’t base it on any scientific evidence or contribute to any of its specifics. It’s more likely he just used it in a homily or something as a metaphor to describe something else. Otherwise, it would be known as the Lemaitre Theory.

 

[ReformedCatholic]

Other suggestions for your edification:

*The Holy Science by Yuketeswar

Autobiography of a Yogi by Yogananda

The Power of Intention by Wayne Dyer*

 

[RobNY]

Hubriss:

Just because they might have found where Abraham could have lived is far from proof that he actually existed or that God spoke with him.

Aaron is not claiming such a thing in his post. Go back and reread Aaron’s first paragraph carefully for the claims he makes.

 

[Thal59]

In light of the fact that there is increasingly more evidence contradicting the bible, many (you) in our society seem to disregard it even though it is much more solid than what the church has to offer.

What evidence are you talking about? Rather than make a blanket, generic statement and then heralding it to be fact, you may wish to be more specific. And, just what is it that is “much more solid?” The church has taught the fullness of truth for almost 2,000 years now. It has been instrumental in promoting education and health care for all people. Its truths have remained effective and unchanging for two millenium. Science on the other hand, changes year by year. It is unstable. If it progresses from point A to B to C, then “C” may be a fairly enlightened position, but it also betrays the errency of where it was at point A.

You have based the premise of your question on a non-descript “fact,” with which you use to support a false secondary premise. I would not deem this an agreeable way to propose a question, if the person asking it is to be considered sincere.

Hubriss:

How do you get around such discoveries as evolution, the Big Bang, the lack of any evidence that a soul controls the body (the body can‘t function without the brain, a soul does not connect sensations with ideas and meanings).

Red text first. Evolution is a highly contested theory. While most, myself included, would consider the validity of minor changes within a species, the idea that sea-creatures “evolved” into apes who later evolved into men has absolutely no “proof” to support it whatsoever. About the only thing that has shown extreme levels of evolution on earth, is the theory of evolution itself. The “Big Bang,” as you have conveniently truncated it, is called “The Big Bang Theory.” It too, is entirely theoretical. It has definitavely proved nothing.

Blue text. Again, you resort to a false premise. I know of no one who believes the soul controls the body, at least not in the anatomical way you are suggesting. There are many organs the body cannot function without, but they do not control the body either. Your hypothesis that… “a soul does not connect sensations with ideas and meanings…” is self defeating since you have not defined exactly what the soul is and what its affect on the human body or mind might be. In essence, you have “implied” that there is no evidence to support the validity of the existence of the soul, but then you declare authoritatively what it can or cannot do.

Hubriss:

I believe that in order to believe the church entirely, it is a must to believe all (or at least most) of the miracles and stories in the bible, because if the creation story isn’t true, what’s to say that Jesus and his miracles really happened (supposed evidence that he is the son of God)?

You have no understanding of the story of creation. But I believe someone had explained this in your original thread. In relation to “supposed evidence” regarding the existence of Jesus, there is much more evidence to support His existence than there is to support yours. If you were to die tonight, how many people would remember you? What solid proof would there be that you existed once your bones turned to dust?

Yet, the world will still know Jesus, have testimonies of Him, and historical documents to support Him long after you and I are forgotten.

Hubriss:

Saying that it is not necessary to believe the bible literally to me means discount everything it has to say.

This is a false conclusion which is the product of oversimplification to the point of uselessness. Some books in the Bible are historical, some are instructive; they can be read and understood literally. Others, however, are poetic or prophetic and cannot be understood on a literal basis. In other words, one cannot expect to understand a profound and inspired text by reading it in a shallow and uninspired manner. If you read a verse in a poem that stated…“I would tear the stars down from the sky for you!” would you discount it as poetry because it is not “literally” possible for someone to tear the stars down from the sky? If you did so, your opinion would be worthless to anyone who would discern that you cannot perceive the style and purpose of the writing.

This is a poor attempt to discard the entirety of the bible on a poor premise that is, in and of itself, wholly discardable.

 

[Thal59]

If what the religion was based on (the old testament) is not true, then there is NO BASIS for the new testament. On the other hand, if you believe the bible and all its stories… I’d have to say you’re ignorant.

Oh, dear. The religion of the Old testament, Judaism, does not rely on the OT itself because the religion preceeds the writing. What we call Judaism existed thousands of years before the OT was penned. Judaism is not a product of the OT, the OT is a product of Judaism. The same is true of the New Testament and the church. The church did not come out of the NT, the NT came out of the church. Since your “if-then” statement errantly puts the cart before the horse, it too is a useless observation.

Tell me something, Hubriss. Have you studied Hebrew? Do you understand the Jewish traditions from antiquity? Are you an expert in Scriptural study? Do you have a degree in divinity or theology? Just what do you know about the Bible? Until you can answer these questions, your conclusion that people who believe the bible are “ignorant” is as unsubstantiated as your previous false premises.

Hubriss:

These are some of my favorite topics as I’m more of a scientific kind of guy. No one has yet to be able to explain theirselves out of them.

What you mean is “No one has been able to change my mind on the subject.” But if I took to a point of view that was based on as much misinformation as yours is, I doubt abyone could change my mind with a reasonable argument either.

Thal59