The Economics of Biblical Literalism - or...

[MarginOfError]

Wow. You must be about ready to retire the walker for a scooter chair. :)

Anyway, I asked for this reason. It will help you understand my statement, which applies to how I feel. I do not apply this to others, per se. I see science as a Philosphy of Men. I use the term specifically. Now, as is the intent wrapped around that statement, it is meant to take parcels and shreds of truth and make them seem like more importnant than the flaws. So, when one takes science to disprove the bible, I see a promise from the other side being followed up on.

Does the fact that we have found no scientific evidence of a grand flood of the scale that seems to be indicated in the bible mean that the story is not valid? No. It could mean that we just haven't found proof. It could mean that it did not happen. Or, it could mean that from the perspective or view of the person writing it, the whole of the earth they knew was covered. There is a belief that one of the floods around the Black Sea, I think, could have occurred in such a way as to be construed as a 'Great Flood'. Regardless, when others push that it is foolish for us to believe that a flood occurred because science does not back it up, I see the Philosophy of Men coming forth. On the other hand, if they want to discuss that maybe there are other plausible answers, other ways that a type of great flood could have occurred, or, perhaps even better, what the purpose of the story truly is, then I would find worth in their conversation.

Another example, Revelations. Look at the descriptions of the various things fighting. How could such fantastical creatures exist, right? No way science could back up such fantastical creatures. Unless, one stops for a minute and asks, what would the weapons of our day, our tanks, helicopters, etc, appear to be to John the Revelator? And, even if John understood what they truly were, how would the people of that time make sense of the story if he wrote about the iron tanks and the helicopters? But, does it make the story any less important? Or, does it make it any less likely he saw what he claims he saw? No.

So, there is great value to me in believing what the bible teaches. And, since I have faith in what the bible teaches and I do not have faith in the science of men, I choose to believe the bible more closely. This does not make me any less of a person, any more crazy than someone who believes in science.

Comparing science to the Philosophy of Men is a pretty gross error. We could spend a great deal of time quoting scripture, general authorities, and wise men throughout history that make the case that scientific pursuits enhance our divinity, but I'll just sum it up with the end point: "But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God" (2 Nephi 9:29).

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Pure science is driven by objective, replicable, and quantifiable observation. When science remains pure, it's about as godly a thing as you can possibly find. And when science remains pure, it's absolutely beautiful. Pure science lifts theology to even greater value.

It's when science is bastardized with ideology (be it for or against religion) that science becomes the perversion you describe. In fact, your description of science as the Philosophy of Man is every bit the Philosophy of Man as what you claim science to be.

[Gatorman]

"But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God" (2 Nephi 9:29).

You just made my point exactly. When science begins to be used, either without the counsels of God or with the intent to shred the faith of others in the bible, it becomes exactly that, the Philosophies of Men. That is my issue. Using science to suggest that a donkey could not have possibly talked suggests that Heavenly Father is not all powerful. Using science to suggest that there is no possible way Adam and Eve where the first man and woman does the same thing. Using science to have a discussion where both sides are equally listened to and one side is not told they are foolish, ignorant, or lying, is perfectly acceptable. Science does not:

1 - Prove a donkey never talked.

2 - Conclusively prove that Adam and Eve came from homonids.

3 - Prove that a great flood did not happen.

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Agreed. I have never suggested they were.

It's when science is bastardized with ideology (be it for or against religion) that science becomes the perversion you describe. In fact, your description of science as the Philosophy of Man is every bit the Philosophy of Man as what you claim science to be.

Again, my objection is not to science. My objection is when science is used to tear the Bible apart. I have an issue when science is elevated above the scriptures. I have an issue when it is suggested that if there is no economic or some other calculable benefit, then belief in the bible is foolish. What is the 'value' in believing that a donkey talked? It excercises our faith. It can help make our testimony stronger. It shows to our Heavenly Father that we trust his word and his teachings. Is it measurable? Not always in ways we understand. But, it does have a positive affect in our life.

Now, where I have seen suggestions of negativity directly at me is when I suggest that if science and the bible disagree, I will favor the bible or other scriptures. I have faith in what it teaches, I do not put faith in science. I trust Heavenly Father far more t han I trust man.

[MarginOfError]

You just made my point exactly. When science begins to be used, either without the counsels of God or with the intent to shred the faith of others in the bible, it becomes exactly that, the Philosophies of Men. That is my issue. Using science to suggest that a donkey could not have possibly talked suggests that Heavenly Father is not all powerful.

That is patently false. Science makes no statement whatsoever about the God's omnipotence. The statement that science would make is that given what we know about muscular requirements in human language and muscular limitations in donkeys, there is no evidence to support that a donkey could speak human language. What science requires is that we look at the incident without the narrow-minded literalism that the donkey was made to speak in a human language.

Using science to suggest that there is no possible way Adam and Eve where the first man and woman does the same thing.

Nonsense. In fact, there's plenty of evidence that Adam and Eve weren't the first man and woman without the use of science. All you need is a rudimentary education in Hebrew. For instance, Adam, means literally, mankind. When read with that interpretation, God created mankind from the dust of the earth. What's more, while it is clear that there was a first prophet given patriarchal status, it is highly unlikely that his name was actually Adam.

Using science to have a discussion where both sides are equally listened to and one side is not told they are foolish, ignorant, or lying, is perfectly acceptable.

Let me just cross reference this statement with another quote: "Now, where I have seen suggestions of negativity directly at me is when I suggest that if science and the bible disagree, I will favor the bible or other scriptures. I have faith in what it teaches, I do not put faith in science. I trust Heavenly Father far more than I trust man."

So much for equally listened to.

Science does not:

1 - Prove a donkey never talked.

Nor does the bible prove that it did

2 - Conclusively prove that Adam and Eve came from homonids.

Nor does the bible prove that they did not

3 - Prove that a great flood did not happen.

Nor does the bible prove that it did.

Agreed. I have never suggested they were.

Anyway, I asked for this reason. It will help you understand my statement, which applies to how I feel. I do not apply this to others, per se. I see science as a Philosphy of Men. I use the term specifically. Now, as is the intent wrapped around that statement, it is meant to take parcels and shreds of truth and make them seem like more importnant than the flaws. So, when one takes science to disprove the bible, I see a promise from the other side being followed up on.

So, there is great value to me in believing what the bible teaches. And, since I have faith in what the bible teaches and I do not have faith in the science of men, I choose to believe the bible more closely. This does not make me any less of a person, any more crazy than someone who believes in science.

Again, my objection is not to science. My objection is when science is used to tear the Bible apart.

God forbid we should seek to understand the historical inaccuracies of the most influential book in history.

I have an issue when science is elevated above the scriptures. I have an issue when it is suggested that if there is no economic or some other calculable benefit, then belief in the bible is foolish.

This was never stated. The case was made that a literalist interpretation gains you nothing over the non-literalist interpretation.

What is the 'value' in believing that a donkey talked? It excercises our faith.

More nonsense. The talking donkey has very little to do with the spiritual truths taught in that story.

It can help make our testimony stronger. It shows to our Heavenly Father that we trust his word and his teachings. Is it measurable? Not always in ways we understand. But, it does have a positive affect in our life.

But is that positive effect any greater than would be gained through the non-literalist view.

[Gatorman]

So, in the end, because I choose to favor the bible to the science, I am wrong. You are right, there is no proof that a donkey did or did not talk in that specific occasion. And, there is the crux. I believe it is possible, because Heavenly Father can achieve whatever he wishes. I don't see evidence by science that it didn't happen. I see scientific evidence that suggests it can not happen without outside influence. So, I do not dismiss and call it impossible. I recognize that it is impossible without Heavenly Father.

[StallionMcBeastly]

I think snow made a very good post.

I too don't take the Bible 100% literal. I believe there was a man Adam and a woman Eve BUT I think symbolism could have been used to explain their story. Was it REALLY a fruit God didn't want them to eat to commit sin? Or is that symbol for some other act? Was Eve REALLY created from Adam's rib? Or is that simplified symbolic version of how God really goes about creating human bodies?

Was Adam REALLY created from the dust of the Earth? I don't think so - I think that's symbolic for something else.

Either way, this doesn't detract from my faith or testimony.

[prisonchaplain]

Ah, you assume that there is a purpose, but that is a very big, and unsupportable I think, assumption. We don’t even know who wrote the account let alone know what God thinks of it. God Himself just isn’t weighing in on the matter so it could well be that there is no purpose. It’s just there. OT authors weren’t historians as we understand one who records history. They attempted to paint Israel inside a religious and moral framework. They advocated for a certain type or pattern of religious life and depicted what God’s kingdom should be like. Historical balance or accuracy was not an issue for them. So, it’s not a matter, unless you have good evidence to the contrary, of what God wanted from the account, but what concept the author was trying to convey. Your thoughts on the matter make some sense; or the author could be saying, don't mess with authority figures or we'll kill you. I don't know but what I do know is that it couldn't have happened the way it was described. It contradicts our belief in a just God. It may have been a real event but if so, there was a lot more to the story.

Not to beat it into the ground but there are three options:

-God is not just

-The story is false

-The story is not accurate or complete.

... then there is simply appealing to mystery - in this matter a wholly unappealing tact.

If this is what we're left with, then what does it mean to say scriptures are inspired of God, and are holy canon? Also, does the Triple carry this level of inspiration? Is it also human writings, inspired, but full of stories that often have dubious purposes?

[Snow]

So, in the end, because I choose to favor the bible to the science, I am wrong. You are right, there is no proof that a donkey did or did not talk in that specific occasion. And, there is the crux. I believe it is possible, because Heavenly Father can achieve whatever he wishes. I don't see evidence by science that it didn't happen. I see scientific evidence that suggests it can not happen without outside influence. So, I do not dismiss and call it impossible. I recognize that it is impossible without Heavenly Father.

No Gatorman, reason it out. It is not a matter of me being right and you being wrong. In this instance we don't know what happened. All we can say is in the case of the donkey, I am someone views the world in normal terms - the world works like we observe it to work, and you are someone who believes in magic, but can't or won't offer up a compelling reason for it.

[Snow]

If this is what we're left with, then what does it mean to say scriptures are inspired of God, and are holy canon? Also, does the Triple carry this level of inspiration? Is it also human writings, inspired, but full of stories that often have dubious purposes?

Admittedly, that is a problem. At least for you. You do not believe that God guides his people through living prophets anymore. My belief system, however, offers the additional tools of living inspired prophets and the idea of personal revelation as well as scripture. I don't have to rely on what some anonymous writer said 3 thousand years ago about events that happened 2 thousand years before that. If it is irrelevant for salvation, I can ignore it, and if it is important I can bring more tools to bear to understand it.

[pam]

I've kind of stayed out of this but let me put my two cents in for what it's worth. I've read through this as have I read previous threads and posts. I see both sides.

You have a story of a talking donkey and of a world wide flood. Let me use those for examples. Did they happen? I don't know. Could they have happened? Yes. At least in my opinion. God has a lot of power to make such things happen. I lived my entire life hearing and learning about stories such as these. I've also learned stories about Christ raising people from the dead. To some that would seem an impossible feat. But I believed it happened. Do I have proof it happened? No.

But stories whether real or allegorical are used to teach. We use allegories in every day life to teach.

As Snow has mentioned several times concerning a talking donkey; he never said it COULDN'T happen he has said based on the timeline he didn't believe it happened. I can accept his reasoning on it as it makes sense.

On the same token, if a story such as this strengthens a testimony, helps someone to learn a truth..then that's okay too.

I think we need to consider and be respectful to both sides of the issue. Who is right and who is wrong? I don't know but to me doesn't really matter. If someone wants to believe the stories as fact and that they happened..I think it's wonderful. If someone wants to say they believe it COULD happen but based on timeline and some science find it hard to believe it happened..who's to say that's wrong too?

All of us have different knowledge and experience. While I know really nothing about Biblical time history, Snow is very much more knowledgeable. Does the fact that he is more knowledgeable in this make him right over someone who wants to believe in literalism in the scriptures? No not always. There are many stories in the scriptures that we can take as literal or we can take as allegorical. There is a message to be learned in all of them and to me that's what is important.

I've probably said things here that have been said numerous times already. For that I apologize.

Now guys..take off the boxing gloves and back to your respective corners.

[Gatorman]

Thank you Pam, that has been my point. Snow started out his last post to me okay. He can't prove it either. Then, he returns to the insults and abbrasiveness that he gets away with. He states he believe in what is 'normal' and I believe in 'magic'. How about if, instead Snow, you state that I believe that Heavenly Father is powerful enough to overcome the limitations of our nature and can make a Donkey talk, if he wants. There is nothing magical I am suggesting. I am suggesting that our Heavenly Father with his infinite power can make a donkey talk, if he wants. Same with the flood. It could be a limitation of the 'view' of the writer versus a true world wide flood.

I have acknowlegded that I don't have the answers. I have acknowledged that my faith is based on these things and not what science teaches us. In return, Snow is allowed to insult and belittle me and others as believers in dogma and that it is foolish and wasteful to believe in dogma that way. That there is no value in how we believe. So, no, I do not respect this part of Snow's opinions. He is intelligent, perhaps. But, the way he posts wastes it for many.

[prisonchaplain]

Admittedly, that is a problem. At least for you. You do not believe that God guides his people through living prophets anymore. My belief system, however, offers the additional tools of living inspired prophets and the idea of personal revelation as well as scripture. I don't have to rely on what some anonymous writer said 3 thousand years ago about events that happened 2 thousand years before that. If it is irrelevant for salvation, I can ignore it, and if it is important I can bring more tools to bear to understand it.

I sensed this would be an important string, and right I was! My first thought was, hey wait, I'm Pentecostal--we do have continuing prophecies, dreams, visions, etc. But, ultimately, you remain correct. For we subject all alleged prophecies, tongues and interpretation, etc. to the authority of Scripture. If there is a discrespency, Bible trumps the revelation. I'd hate to think this comes down to canon vs. the living prophets, but perhaps it does?

[pam]

Thank you Pam, that has been my point. Snow started out his last post to me okay. He can't prove it either. Then, he returns to the insults and abbrasiveness that he gets away with. He states he believe in what is 'normal' and I believe in 'magic'. How about if, instead Snow, you state that I believe that Heavenly Father is powerful enough to overcome the limitations of our nature and can make a Donkey talk, if he wants. There is nothing magical I am suggesting. I am suggesting that our Heavenly Father with his infinite power can make a donkey talk, if he wants. Same with the flood. It could be a limitation of the 'view' of the writer versus a true world wide flood.

I have acknowlegded that I don't have the answers. I have acknowledged that my faith is based on these things and not what science teaches us. In return, Snow is allowed to insult and belittle me and others as believers in dogma and that it is foolish and wasteful to believe in dogma that way. That there is no value in how we believe. So, no, I do not respect this part of Snow's opinions. He is intelligent, perhaps. But, the way he posts wastes it for many.

Just so you realize this was in no way taking sides. If it was taken that way, then the point I was trying to make was lost.

[FlyingPurpleMonkey]

Being new here I am curious how this Snow person can continually get away with insulting people. It seems that a moderator comment to calm down only seems to come along when someone tired of being insulted calls him on it, and the comment is generally directed at that person with a passing wink at Snow and talk of how knowledgeable he is. Very strange if you ask me. But since no one is... <shrug>

[pam]

6. Posting issues you have with a moderator or administrator anywhere on the site will not be allowed. Please follow the chain of authority if you have any concerns. Any such posts will be removed and the poster will be subject to the consequences of breaking the rules.

If you have an issue with a moderator then direct that privately to a moderator.

[prisonchaplain]

Just so you realize this was in no way taking sides. If it was taken that way, then the point I was trying to make was lost.

Let me ask the larger question, for my own knowledge...within LDS teaching, there is room for both the most literal interpretations, and for the approach Snow suggests, right? In other words, you have your "Baptists" and "Episcopaleans" too?

[Moksha]

You're going to persuade no one, no one will be persuaded by you,...

This must be true because it is a chiasmus.

:)

[FlyingPurpleMonkey]

This must be true because it is a chiasmus.

:)

No Laugh button... you get a thanks instead

[Snow]

I'd hate to think this comes down to canon vs. the living prophets, but perhaps it does?

At least in theory. :)

[Snow]

Thank you Pam, that has been my point. Snow started out his last post to me okay. He can't prove it either. Then, he returns to the insults and abbrasiveness that he gets away with. He states he believe in what is 'normal' and I believe in 'magic'. How about if, instead Snow, you state that I believe that Heavenly Father is powerful enough to overcome the limitations of our nature and can make a Donkey talk, if he wants. There is nothing magical I am suggesting. I am suggesting that our Heavenly Father with his infinite power can make a donkey talk, if he wants. Same with the flood. It could be a limitation of the 'view' of the writer versus a true world wide flood.

Stop your carping and buy a dictionary:

Magic: ...invokes supernatural powers to influence events; any mysterious or extraordinary quality or power.

It's not all about you Gatorman.

[Moksha]

Let me ask the larger question, for my own knowledge...within LDS teaching, there is room for both the most literal interpretations, and for the approach Snow suggests, right? In other words, you have your "Baptists" and "Episcopaleans" too?

This analogy of Baptists and Episcopalians is an excellent one.

:)

[Gatorman]

6. Posting issues you have with a moderator or administrator anywhere on the site will not be allowed. Please follow the chain of authority if you have any concerns. Any such posts will be removed and the poster will be subject to the consequences of breaking the rules.

If you have an issue with a moderator then direct that privately to a moderator.

I am aware of the rules Pam. The enforcement of the rules have been made clear. Thank you for the reminder though.

[Gatorman]

Stop your carping and buy a dictionary:

Magic: ...invokes supernatural powers to influence events; any mysterious or extraordinary quality or power.

It's not all about you Gatorman.

A difference then. I see Heavenly Father's abilities as natural, not super natural. However, I am well aware of your knowledge of our language and your use of it to state exactly what you want.

[Gatorman]

Just so you realize this was in no way taking sides. If it was taken that way, then the point I was trying to make was lost.

I didn't say you were Pam. It is the fact that science does not disprove a talking donkey. It does not disprove a great flood. I believe Heavenly Father is perfectly capable of using his power to make a donkey talk.

[pam]

I am aware of the rules Pam. The enforcement of the rules have been made clear. Thank you for the reminder though.

My apologies on that one. Was not directed to you but to a post that I deleted. Sorry, didn't mean for it to appear twas directed at you.

[pam]

Let me ask the larger question, for my own knowledge...within LDS teaching, there is room for both the most literal interpretations, and for the approach Snow suggests, right? In other words, you have your "Baptists" and "Episcopaleans" too?

I believe there is room for both even in the LDS religion.