When is a myth not a myth?

[Gregory Matthews]

We do not need to, and should not, conclude that every thing recorded as inspired was revealed to the author in a vision. The evidence is that some things thought to be inspired come from seccular sources.

When such happens there are potentially two truisms:

a) A basis in a seccular source does not mean that the "inspired" passage is not inspired. It may be inspired.

The fact that a seccular source is quoted in an inspired passage does not mean that the origonal source is inspired.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Would that fundamentally change the meaning and/or value of the Book of Job?

---

Neither of those is the real issue. The reall issue is authority.

"Hamlet" or "MacBeth" are very meaningful and valuable. They are not authoritative.

Christians believe the Bible is authoritative, and that its authority derives, at least in part, from inspiration.

Many non-believers hold that the Bible stories are meaningful and valuable, but not authoritative.

So the issue that distinguishes between belief and non-belief, here, is neither meaning nor value, but authority.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

Quote:

---

Would that fundamentally change the meaning and/or value of the Book of Job?

---

Neither of those is the real issue. The reall issue is authority.

"Hamlet" or "MacBeth" are very meaningful and valuable. They are not authoritative.

Christians believe the Bible is authoritative, and that its authority derives, at least in part, from inspiration.

Many non-believers hold that the Bible stories are meaningful and valuable, but not authoritative.

So the issue that distinguishes between belief and non-belief, here, is neither meaning nor value, but authority.

---

Very good explanation, Ed. And I believe it was true authority. You are aware there is someone in this universe who claims authority over fallible human beings, while all the while using unlawful means to prove God a tyrannical despot. Anything said that has intent to destroy true authority of the Word, places one on the side of the enemy of souls, although in some cases unbeknownst to the individual involved because of misinformation.

[:"red"] "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots." [/] Luke 23:34 KJV

[:"red"] "And if you had only known what this saying means, I desire mercy [readiness to help, to spare, to forgive] rather than sacrifice and sacrificial victims, you would not have condemned the guiltless. [/]Matthew 12:7

AMP

Keep the faith!

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Christians believe the Bible is authoritative, and that its authority derives, at least in part, from inspiration.

---

No, they don't.

Christian's believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. They use a variety of sources and methods of interpretation to decide what their Lord wants them to do.

For three years of His life, and hundreds of years after His death there were Christian's and no Bible.

Some christian's invest some level of authority in some interpretation of some particular passages in some specific translation of some collection of ancient writings. However it is NOT true that to be a christian you must accept that Genesis must be literally understood to teach a literal 6 day creation approximately 6000 years ago.

Some christian's want to use their interpretation of their translation of their selected portions of the Bible and guilt/force to impose their beliefs on other christians.

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Christians believe the Bible is authoritative, and that its authority derives, at least in part, from inspiration.

---

No, they don't.

Christian's believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. They use a variety of sources and methods of interpretation to decide what their Lord wants them to do.

---

Wow, that post is all over the lot.

It's so full of erroneous assumptions and straw men it's almost totally incoherent. Reads more like a list of personal grievances than anything else.

To say flatly that Christians don't believe that the Bible is authoritative is ludicrous.

Here's an interesting statement:

Quote:

---

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God,

given by divine inspiration

through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the

authoritative

revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history.

[emphasis added]

---

Christians might disagree over some of the details, but the vast majority would agree with the statements in bold.

Are there someChristians who don't believe the Bible is authoritative? Probably, depending on how you define the words "Chtistian," and "authoritative."

Quote:

---

For three years of His life, and hundreds of years after His death there were Christian's and no Bible.

---

This is really an embarrasing statement in virtually every detail. While, yes, what we know as the Bible was not finalized for some time, Christ himself referred to 'the Scriptures." And from the quotations He and others use, we have a good idea of what they considered Scriptural, and it included all of what was finalized as the OT.

But "three years?" One hardly knows what to do with that. Does it mean that the Bible started when he was three years old? Or only during the last three years of his life? Did the Bible magically appear for three years during his teens and disappear later? It's virtually impossible to find a way to make that "three years" statement make any sense.

And "hundreds of years?" We have documents from before that time that refer to many of the books of the New Testament as already accepted. And as mentioned the OT was largely settled.

Quote:

---

Some christian's invest some level of authority in some interpretation of some particular passages in some specific translation of some collection of ancient writings. However it is NOT true that to be a christian you must accept that Genesis must be literally understood to teach a literal 6 day creation approximately 6000 years ago.

---

This has the dubious distinction of being BOTH a non-sequitur AND a straw man. The first sentence has so many modifiers as to reduce it into syntactical mush. The second sentence is apparently the author's personal credo, which is fine, but it wasn't under discussion, and it contributes little here.

Quote:

---

Some christian's want to use their interpretation of their translation of their selected portions of the Bible and guilt/force to impose their beliefs on other christians.

---

True enough, but beside the point.

From the vehemence of the post, it would appear that "some Christians" want to impose their heterodox views on every discussion.

In an attempt to salvage the discussion, one might ask whether individuals here consider the Bible to be authoritative?

Looks like we definitely have at least one "no."

[cardw]

Quote:

---

In an attempt to salvage the discussion, one might ask whether individuals here consider the Bible to be authoritative?

---

Does the conversation need to be salvaged?

Is the Christian life based on authority or something else?

I, personally, have found that holding the Bible as a legislative authority is a form of idol worship.

I think Bevin's point is that while Jesus may have quoted scripture, this was not the primary evidence that Jesus used. It should also be noted that Jesus did not leave us with writings from his own hand, but rather the emphasis of his legacy was the Spirit.

His presentations came from real life and He often presented the difficulty of using words and scripture as proofs or authority. He appealed to people's sense of love, wisdom and fairness. This is illustrated quite strikingly in the parable of the Good Samaritan. This was an "answer" to an appeal to scriptural authority in the definition of one's neighbor. This is brilliantly presented in His question,"Who was this man's neighbor?" Technically the Samaritan did not have the "correct" theology or even the correct authority. Jesus bypassed all of that nonsense.

We do the same nonsense when we appeal to the Bible as some kind of authority in the sense of proof, literalness, and superstition. I'm NOT saying that the Bible is without use. I AM saying that using it as an authority is often harmful and misleading. It is a simplistic application of myth.

[Bravus]

Ed wrote:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

...say the author inferred, rather than was shown in vision, the original challenge from Satan to God. Would that fundamentally change the meaning and/or value of the Book of Job?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Neither of those is the real issue. The real issue is authority.

"Hamlet" or "MacBeth" are very meaningful and valuable. They are not authoritative.

Christians believe the Bible is authoritative, and that its authority derives, at least in part, from inspiration.

Many non-believers hold that the Bible stories are meaningful and valuable, but not authoritative.

So the issue that distinguishes between belief and non-belief, here, is neither meaning nor value, but authority.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Good point, and good clarification. OK, let me ask the clarified question:

Say the author inferred, rather than was shown in vision, the original challenge from Satan to God. Would that fundamentally change the authoritativeness of the Book of Job?

We can unpack this into two separate questions:

1. Does the story have to be literally true in all its particulars to be authoritative?

2. What is the mechanism of inspiration for a scene occurring in heaven if not a vision? Verbal?

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Okay, a non 'ulterior' question! What would be your meaning for the word 'authoritative?

---

Excellent question. Those who formed the canon of Scripture determined that the teachings in the Bible were "normative," that they defined what it means to be a Christian.

So that would be my starting point. Does the Bible tell us what it means to become a Christian, and to live a life like Christ?

(I take being Christ-like to be the definition of the word "Christian." Note that "Christian" is an adjective, and has only later become a noun.)

[there buster]

Quote:

---

I'm NOT saying that the Bible is without use. I AM saying that using it as an authority is often harmful and misleading. It is a simplistic application of myth.

---

1. What sort of use would be appropriate?

2. What source of authority do you have for your beliefs?

3. I disagree that using the Bible as authority is necessarily "a simplistic application of myth." I have seen uses that are, and those that are not. I agree that misuse is more common that appropriate use, but the legal maxim "abuse does not prohibit use" applies here.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Say the author inferred, rather than was shown in vision, the original challenge from Satan to God. Would that fundamentally change the authoritativeness of the Book of Job?

We can unpack this into two separate questions:

1. Does the story have to be literally true in all its particulars to be authoritative?

2. What is the mechanism of inspiration for a scene occurring in heaven if not a vision? Verbal?

---

I would leave aside the troubling word "inferred," as I'm not sure it reflects with precision what you're getting at. And in any case, both questions are excellent and could justify a thread of their own.

For question 1) I would suggest the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man as a test case. Virtually every scholar agrees that this is not a factual account.

a) Is it authoritative?

If not, why not?

c) If so, in what way is it authoritative, or what is authoritative about it?

d) How do we make that determination?

It seems to me that the answer to d) is the key, and it might even answer cardw's concerns.

I'll take up question 2 separately.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

2. What is the mechanism of inspiration for a scene occurring in heaven if not a vision? Verbal?

---

This is a difficult question which Christians too often dodge.

As a starting point. Consider the different genres present in the Bible

• narrative history
• prophecy
• poetry/song
• correspondence
• biography
• wisdom
• chronicles
• apocalyptic
• song of solomon--I give up, what genre is it?

(I may have left some out)

All of these the early church determined to be "inspired," "normative," "authoritative" for Christians

It looks like inspiration works in many different ways

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Christians might disagree over some of the details, but the vast majority would agree with the statements in bold.

---

Exactly. You first said that Christians believe the Bible to be authorative. Now you are qualifying that statement by saying that most christians agree in general with that statement but differ widely in what it means.

We agree.

Furthermore the NT christians largely agreed that most of the OT rules no longer applied to them. Furthermore the understanding of ancient writings of the time had two fundamental differences than that of today

• They KNEW that the books were NOT written by the person or even in the era the book was attributed to - it was a common and well-understood literary device.

• They KNEW that the events in the books were exagerations, simplifications, and sometimes fabrications - again because it was a common and well-understood literary device.

Their definition of authoritative was FOR PROVIDING GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR LIVING, not the modern SCIENTIFICALLY AND HISTORICALLY ACCURATE.

Most christians abuse these writings horribly - and it truely offends the Jews and others who understand the context to see them being so abused.

It is like watching someone using Wiley-E-Coyote cartoons to study physics.

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

---

You first said that Christians believe the Bible to be authorative. Now you are qualifying that statement by saying that most christians agree in general with that statement but differ widely in what it means.

---

There are fringe groups that claim to be Christians who disagree, but they are just that--fringe. C. S. Lewis called them "Christianity and water" types. I can find you self-professed Christians who believe God is a woman, and that the Earth is in fact the center of the universe. Their delusions do not represent the norm for Christianity.

Quote:

---

# They KNEW that the books were NOT written by the person or even in the era the book was attributed to - it was a common and well-understood literary device.

# They KNEW that the events in the books were exagerations, simplifications, and sometimes fabrications - again because it was a common and well-understood literary device.

---

Yes, it was a common device to use a name of someone famous. There has been an American author writing on economics under the name "Adam Smith" the last 25 years or so, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a real Adam Smith who wrote "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776. The ancients did know that names were sometimes used as psuedonyms, but that didn't mean they believed NONE of the books attributed to an author were actually written by him.

Probably the most embarrassing mistake in this regard is to Daniel, which was commonly assumed psuedonymous, and from a much later period. But archaelogy continually verifies more details which affirm the internally claimed dates for Daniel.

As far as KNOWING that the events were exaggerations, etc. Epistemologically, that's difficult, unless you beg the question. Since you apparently start out KNOWING these things, evidence is futile.

Quote:

---

Their definition of authoritative was FOR PROVIDING GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR LIVING, not the modern SCIENTIFICALLY AND HISTORICALLY ACCURATE.

---

They believed the Bible described actual events, which revealed God's dealings with men. They essentially believed these to be "true myths."

As for "scientific" accuracy, that is an anachronism--science as we know it did not exist.

At the same time, they did indeed believe in the virgin birth, for example. And, as C.S. Lewis points out, they believed in miracles, not because they were ignorant of what we would call "science," but because they understood it very well. Virgin birth is not miraculous unless you understand how conception ordinarily occurs.

It is precisely because they DID understand nature that they took miracles to be supernatural.

Really, your arguments sound a lot like the 19th century theologians one gets assigne at the seminary. Archeaology has shed much light, increasing exponentially even in the last thirty years, and rendered many of the old arguments moot.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "They KNEW that the books were NOT written by the person or even in the era the book was attributed to - it was a common and well-understood literary device."

It is a constant journey to attempt to discover the litterary background of the Biblical books. I am certain that there is more to be discovered. But, the ancient notions on these matter cannot simplisticly be dismissed. Some of the evidence against certain ancient posiitons on their literaly background is not fully convincing.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

Quote:

---

Okay, a non 'ulterior' question! What would be your meaning for the word 'authoritative?

---

Those who formed the canon of Scripture determined that the teachings in the Bible were "normative," that they defined what it means to be a Christian.

---

Ed, you obviously know there is a determined assault on the Holy Scriptures as to their veracity. Your own effort by argument, to give logical and lucid explanation to enable people to find faith in the Word is to be commended. However

IMO, there is definitive truth from the Word revealing you are fighting a losing battle.

These Scriptures noted are in no way meant to indicate any disagreement on my part with your conclusions. They merely reveal, at least to some extent, my conclusion of the futility in trying to persuade those who have no desire to be convinced other than what they already believe. I refer to no person in particular, only suggest the kingdom will not be revealed by argument.

[:"red"] "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." [/] Ephesians 6:12 NKJV

[:"red"] "And he said to him, If Moses and the prophets they do not hear, neither if one may rise out of the dead will they be persuaded." [/] Luke 16:31 YLT

[:"red"] "For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." [/] Mark 13:22 NKJV

[:"red"] " If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God..." [/] John 7:17 NASB

Keep the faith!

[cardw]

Quote:

---

Ed, you obviously know there is a determined assault on the Holy Scriptures as to their veracity. Your own effort by argument, to give logical and lucid explanation to enable people to find faith in the Word is to be commended.

---

Have you looked at the world today? There is a determined assault by those who claim to have the authority of God and the scriptures on our basic freedoms. The 700 club, with Pat Robertson, is only one of many examples. This is not unique among fundamental style approaches. You can look throughout history and find some of the most cruel and inhuman treatment done in the name of the authority of scripture. And the victors time and time again gloss over the history and make heros of men like Calvin and Luther just because they had "correct" theology.

There is good evidence that this occurs in the Bible as well. It is because those in Christian circles hide their heads and are content to simply consider any attack on their beliefs as the work of Satan that these terrible acts are carried out in the name of God. What terrible ignorant arrogance. This is why Pat Robertson calls for the assisination of heads of state and blames hurricane Katrina on Ellen Degeneres for hosting the Emmys. (New Orleans was her home town)

When you promote these types of methods you are promoting violence because the ultimate end of a belief system that considers others that disagree as demons, will eventually justify violence against those it labels as non-human.

I will speak out against this as long as I have the freedom to do so. You may be a very moral person, but ignorance is just as effective as hatred.

[Gregory Matthews]

Authorative: There seems to be some discussion here as to whether the Bible is authorative. This is not a simple question to answer. Yes, speaking simply, as will most (I think.) Christians, I beleive that the Bible is authorative. But, the meaning attached to that is not simplistic. There will be some differences in what people will mean by that. But, there are other major aspects of that question:

The first may be in the meaning that I attach to a verse of Scripture that I believe to be authorative. Ex. 20:8-11 is a passage that is likely to be considered authorative by the majorative SDAs. O.K. Yet, the meaning that I will attach to that passage will likely differ from that of another Christian who may also consider it to be authorative.

There is also another aspect to this question. Every authorative part of Scripture must be applied to one's life if it is to have meaning. In my example above, I, as a SDA am likely to apply that passage to the 7th day of the week. While another person will likely apply it to the 1st day of the week. Both of us may claim to that that passage as normative, or as authority. Yet, we will likely have a different application.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

There is a determined assault by those who claim to have the authority of God and the scriptures on our basic freedoms. The 700 club, with Pat Robertson, is only one of many examples.

---

I don't watch the 700 club. Could you tell me which of our basic freedoms they are explicitly attacking?

Quote:

---

When you promote these types of methods

---

If that was addressed to me, what types of methods do you perceive me to be promoting that have you so concerned?

Quote:

---

will eventually justify violence against those it labels as non-human

---

Actually, in recent history it has been Godless systems such as Communism and Fascism which have done far worse, in both numbers and cruelty, than those things done in the name of religion. The body count for communism in the 20th century alone is around 100 million.

And it was fascism that labeled Jews, Poles, and others as unter menschen, less than human.

Yes, people have been killed by the misuse of religion, and it is a terrible thing.

But in the 20th century, many more were killed misusing science. Both Nazism and Communism claimed to be based on science. No one is ranting and railing about abandoning science because it was misused.

A little balance and perspective are in order.

[cardw]

Quote:

---

I don't watch the 700 club. Could you tell me which of our basic freedoms they are explicitly attacking?

---

It is their position that the United States is a Christian nation and should be guided by the principles outlined in the Bible. They have successfully legislated that Christian events can be held in public owned facilities including high schools. This would include evangelistic efforts. This is using government to promote religion. This will be abused and that is why the founders were very specific in their separation of church and state because, even in their day, religious organizations were very intent on gaining political power.

We can see the evidence of this in the example of the Air Force Academy where religion was used to exclude certain students and favor others. The 700 club is not about a balanced government but about taking over government. The 700 club used its legal wing to support those who were abusing their position within the Air Force Academy.

Another example of their influence is that their "Faith based" charity organization was listed second on favored organizations to recieve government money for hurricane relief even though that money could also be used for evangelism. They were listed before many other non faith organizations who have much more experience and have much larger infastructures to provide relief and specifically designed to give relief.

Quote:

---

If that was addressed to me, what types of methods do you perceive me to be promoting that have you so concerned?

---

This was not addressed to you.

Quote:

---

Actually, in recent history it has been Godless systems such as Communism and Fascism which have done far worse, in both numbers and cruelty, than those things done in the name of religion. The body count for communism in the 20th century alone is around 100 million.

And it was fascism that labeled Jews, Poles, and others as unter menschen, less than human.

Yes, people have been killed by the misuse of religion, and it is a terrible thing.

But in the 20th century, many more were killed misusing science. Both Nazism and Communism claimed to be based on science. No one is ranting and railing about abandoning science because it was misused.

---

Hitler claimed that he was sent by God. He was raised in a Jesuit system. Communism was not a science but a philosophy. I am not ranting and raving about abandoning Christianity. I am talking about fundamentalism in what ever form it presents itself. Atheism has a forms of fundamentalism. Islam has forms of fundamentalism. A very common characteristic is that there is some kind of abosulte authority very often based on some writing. This, to me, is an essential element to the idea of idol worship. This denies the essential mystery of the universe, which opens the door for arrogance and abuse.

[cardw]

Hitler knew the power of creating a myth. Here are a few examples of his quotes about God.

"We are all proud that through God's powerful aid, we have become once more true Germans"

"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew"

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

Here is another related Christian link to Hitler through Martin Luther.

Quote:

---

In Mein Kampf, Hitler listed Martin Luther as one of the greatest reformers. And similar to Luther in the 1500s, Hitler spoke against the Jews. The Nazi plan to create a German Reich Church laid its bases on the "Spirit of Dr. Martin Luther." The first physical violence against the Jews came on November 9-10 on Kristallnacht (Crystal Night) where the Nazis killed Jews, shattered glass windows, and destroyed hundreds of synagogues, just as Luther had proposed. In Daniel Johah Goldhagen's book, Hitler's Willing Executioners, he writes:

"One leading Protestant churchman, Bishop Martin Sasse published a compendium of Martin Luther's antisemitic vitriol shortly after Kristallnacht's orgy of anti-Jewish violence. In the foreword to the volume, he applauded the burning of the synagogues and the coincidence of the day: 'On November 10, 1938, on Luther's birthday, the synagogues are burning in Germany.' The German people, he urged, ought to heed these words 'of the greatest antisemite of his time, the warner of his people against the Jews.'"

No apologist can claim that Martin Luther bore his anti-Jewishness out of youthful naivete', uneducation, or out of unfounded Christianity. On the contrary, Luther in his youth expressed a great optimism about Jewish conversion to Christianity. But in his later years, Luther began to realize that the Jews would not convert to his wishes. His anti-Jewishness grew slowly over time. His logic came not from science or reason, but rather from Scripture and his Faith. His "On the Jews and Their Lies" shows remarkable study into the Bible and fanatical biblical reasoning. Luther, at age 60 wrote this dangerous "little" book at the prime of his maturity, and in full knowledge in support of his beliefs and Christianity.

Few people today realize that Luther wrote 'On the Jews and Their Lies.' (He also wrote such works like "Against the Sabbatarians.")

Freethinkers should become aware of the anti-Semitic influence that Luther has brought on the world. His vehement attack on Jews and his powerful influence on the believers of the Germans has brought a new hypothesis to mind: that the Holocaust, and indeed, the eliminationist form of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany may not have occurred without the influence from Luther's book "On the Jews and Their Lies."

---

So if we are still willing to stay ignorant then again I say ignorance is just as harmful as active hatred. I would venture to say that Christianity has created its modern myths just as effectively as the Greeks theirs.

[there buster]

I'm sorry, which of our basic freedoms has been abridged by the 700 club?

[there buster]

Wow, 1922. That was before the Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler's prison sentence, and Mein Kampf. He was using Christian language to deceive. Abuse does not prohibit use.

I think you'll find that the time of actual Nazi dominance, which didn't begin until after 1933, Christianity was downplayed, and even subjugated. It is not even remotely conceivable that Nazism is a natural outcome of Christianity. That's absurd.

I notice you have little to say about Stalin; nothing to say about Pol Pot; Mao; the killing fields of the atheist powers dwarf in both numbers and cruelty anything done in the name of religion.

Evolution was the myth of the 20th century. The eugenics movement which permeated Nazism was a natural outcome of belief in Evolution. It produced the atheist powers of the day, who claimed scientific basis for their ideology.

Evolution has seen its day.

Of course, science was no more responsible for Stalin's crimes than religion is responsible for bin Laden's.

In both cases, evil men bent powerful ideas to their use, and ignorant men blamed the misused ideas for the crimes of their abusers.

[bevin]

ROFLOL

Quote:

---

Evolution was the myth of the 20th century.

---

When I mentioned Creationism, Ed wrote

Quote:

---

The second sentence is apparently the author's personal credo, which is fine, but it wasn't under discussion, and it contributes little here.

---

so who trots it out now...

Is evolution a myth? Clearly not. It is a scientific theory, subjected to repeated experimentation, useful for predicting the results of experiments, and the finer details of the theory are being modified as a result of those experiments.

Ed's connection to the Nazi eugenics stuff to evolution is utter nonsense. Both creationists and evolutionists believe that the gene pool can be shaped by selective breeding. The Nazi's, with their personality cults and rituals, look a LOT more like a bunch of Southern Baptists or Catholics than they do like a bunch of evolutionists.

/Bevin

[cardw]

Quote:

---

I think you'll find that the time of actual Nazi dominance, which didn't begin until after 1933, Christianity was downplayed, and even subjugated. It is not even remotely conceivable that Nazism is a natural outcome of Christianity. That's absurd.

---

You are posting positions against points I did not make. This is dishonest. You state by inference that I said Nazism is a natural outcome of Christianity. I said no such thing. I said holding any kind of writings as absolute authority is a form of idol worship and WHEN it encourages people to label others as demonic it leads to violence against those whom it labels as less than human. It is quite clear that the Bible separates those who are demons or demon influenced and those who are "righteous."

This tendancy is independent of religious or philosophical foundations.

Quote:

---

Evolution was the myth of the 20th century. The eugenics movement which permeated Nazism was a natural outcome of belief in Evolution. It produced the atheist powers of the day, who claimed scientific basis for their ideology.

---

Certainly Hitler adapted many theories and justifications for his attack of the Jewish people. Are you saying that Luther had no influence on the direction that Hitler took on this issue? I find it hard to believe, when Hitler found much to admire in Luther's antisemitism.

To ignore Christianity's prejudices is to make Christianity out as this pure movement with no faults. And to point out the faults of other movements is just smoke and mirrors. I don't care if its Christianity, atheism, evolution, or whatever. If it begins to promote an us and them, lesser and greater than ideology, this is the first step toward violence towards those on the outside.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

I think you'll find that the time of actual Nazi dominance, which didn't begin until after 1933, Christianity was downplayed, and even subjugated. It is not even remotely conceivable that Nazism is a natural outcome of Christianity. That's absurd.

---

Maybe in your mind....

Christianity? Just as there are many brands of the gospel, so are there many brands of "Christianity." The God made from the framework of Mainline Christianity makes Hitler look like a choirboy.

The 19th century skeptic, Robert G. Ingersoll, spoke for multitudes through the ages, when he stated:

• "Christians have placed upon the throne of the universe a God of eternal hate. I cannot worship a being whose vengeance is boundless, whose cruelty shoreless, and whose malice is increased by the agonies he inflicts." [The Great Infidels, 1881.]