text:
Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
Is this book purported to be a treatment on the biographical assets of the book of Genesis or a summary statement of the purpose of its entire existence? If it is the former then I applaud Hendel's scholarship and intellectual contribution. If it is to be the latter, then I question its legitimacy. Let us not criticize fundamentalists for making more of Genesis than they ought while at the same time lauding a far more recent and less respected book (The Book of Genesis: A Biography) as a literary turning point in the ongoing debate of "science vs. religion". The statement "only recently has it (the book of Genesis) been championed by some as the literal and inerrant word of God" is flatly inaccurate. Early church fathers and even the public teachings of Jesus Christ view the Mosaic writings in this very manner. Let us not allow this discussion to degenerate into another predictable slur on fundamentalists whose arguments are portrayed as illogical and contradictory. They are equally as rational when taken in context.
Excellent article on a book I will read. I do believe in one God who goes by many names. The books of the Bible - and other holy and scriptural books as well - are the feeble attempts of Man to describe the indescribable presence of God to their children over the centuries. Lacking our level of scientific knowledge, they did the best they could. Asked then, "where did all of this come from?", Man spoke of the earth and the skies. He did not speak of Big Bang or quantum physics. Today we substitute these advanced ideas because we think we understand them. In a thousand years people will shake their heads at our simplicity.
Does this introspective analysis diminish God? To the contrary, we are reminded every day and century that those attributes we thought to be God are explainable through science. This amplifies God, who we now realize must be even more grand and powerful that we imagined.
We continue to read sacred texts because they are Scriptural to us. Despite the obvious flaws in science or the telling, we read the searching works of others in the hopes we will find God in the ways that others did before us. And then to pass on our own stories of faith to our children.
In my humble opinion there are not two diffferent accounts but accounts of two different events or occanances . The Bible firstly refers to the creation of the universe and life itself , from moist earth at the begging of time after the creation of this universe at some point in time life in its rudimentary from evolved from the elements . The second reference is to the expulsion of mankind from its perch in the peidimont areas just after the last ice age eneded and the thaw set in , this is also the time when man achieved consciousness . Adam and Eve are part of the later description , where heaven is where all or most of the small members comprising mankind were based , as the thaw set in mankind was "expelled" from the meager abode to newly blossoming river valleys , the Noah description is symbolic of many such floods which must have occurred at different times around the globe, hence the occurance of this description in various religions and myths all over the globe. Adam and Eves original sin was tne acquisation of consciousness , the understanding of right from wrong , the realization of shame etc.
Hope this does not offend any one and as far as I am concerned the Koran also refers to these two different occurances . It is common to link these , n my opinion in correctly
Some here need to get beyond the sterile (peurile?) debate of faith vs. scientific fact. Stephen Gould's NOMA (Non Overlapping Magesteria) says it all. Each to its own realm, thank you.
Completely agree. Don't preach faith as fact. There should be separation of church and state. Which is why creationism shouldn't be taught in State schools. End of.
Lord Plushbottom,
Your words are perfect: "sterile", "peurile". I add "stupid".
I also second CFCHeadHunter who seconded you: Completely agree. Don't preach faith as fact. There should be separation of church and state. Which is why creationism shouldn't be taught in State schools. End of.
End of. Period. Full Stop. Finis.
Here's also link to understanding what NOMA is: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-Overlapping_Magisteria. Note Stephen Gould's idea is not entirely new. A similar concept was used by the twelfth-century Muslim philosopher Averroes. To fend off the fierce religious dogmatic criticism of Aristotelian schools, he proposed that science and Islam presented two different types of truth, one pertaining to nature, and one the supernatural. The concept was vehemently rejected by later thinkers, including Thomas Aquinas.
Just as we cannot prove the existece of God we cannot prove religious absolutes such as the omnipotence of God. The one thing which should be common is the truth. Science does not claim the absolute truth but instead claims that a truth is indicated based on our current knowledge. It is open ended and therefore capable of change. Religion on the other hand makes claims of absolute truth without the need for credible evidence. There is no evidence that religion has anything to do with truth. If it did there would be no need for faith.
To suggest without a doubt (absolutely) that absolute truth does not exist - is itself an absolute truth. You contradict yourself.
Your statement on what science does, what it purports to do is IMO spot on. Unless Lord Plushbottom and CFCHeadHunter disagree, it amplifies their thoughts on the same subject.
Science does not posit there is no truth. It merely claims it has an idea on what it knows based on current knowledge. Current knowledge is by definition subject to ongoing inquiry in accordance to a methodology, known as the Scientific Method. There is no internal inconsistency or contradiction, nor external, as represented.
Watch sophistry in action from those who complain about sophistry. No data, no evidence, no methodology, mere endless internal arguments, words against words, the essence of sophistry. Hopeless.
I've always found that it takes far more faith to believe in evolution than that God created the Heavens and the Earth in six days.
We should just do away with State schools!
1. (Philosophy)
• a method of argument that is seemingly plausible though actually invalid and misleading
• the art of using such arguments
2. Subtle but unsound or fallacious reasoning
"To suggest without a doubt (absolutely) that absolute truth does not exist - is itself an absolute truth. You contradict yourself."
In the first instance, CFCHH did not suggest absolute truth does not exist. You said he did. Read him again.
Then you proceeded to argue against what you said he said - i.e., based on something you made up.
Then you reached the conclusion that he contradicted himself based on something you made up.
It all that was deliberate, you used deceit in your argument - sophistry at top form. If that was inadvertent, you showed poor reading comprehension.
Either way, your arguement in quotes was fallacious.
The following link might be of help: It is Philosophy 101 on what sophistry is apart from a cursory dictionary definition of the word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism. It does require freshman reading comprehension.
Even St. Augustine's quote addressed memebers in his own flock. It was passionately and convincingly written. You somehow leaped to use it as a piece of writing to chide "atheist". Another top flight example of sophistry, in this case incomprehensible sophistry. St. Augustine is weeping in his heavenly grave.
Faith is not subject to the study of science. Scientists respect that. Science is outside the purview of faith. You need to learn to respect that, instead of chasing after all and any non-believer in your faith to accuse them of sophistry, especially when you don't seem to understand what sophistry means (please invest some time to understand what differentiates science and faith. You have at least that burden). Lord Plushbottom's post, in a few words, informs and speaks volumes. Please read the link. You are contriving an argument where there is none, insisting on a controversy that is pure artefact by sophistry. One often wonders why.
This is a very good (and sad) example of "Sophistry" in action… Here is a link http://www.economist.com/comment/1785896#comment-1785896
A partial copy is supplied here:
"-----> "To suggest without a doubt (absolutely) that absolute truth does not exist - is itself an absolute truth. You contradict yourself."
In the first instance, CFCHH did not suggest absolute truth does not exist. You said he did. Read him again.
Then you proceeded to argue against what you said he said - i.e., based on something you made up.
Then you reached the conclusion that he contradicted himself based on something you made up.
It all that was deliberate, you used deceit in your argument - sophistry at top form. If that was inadvertent, you showed poor reading comprehension. <-----"
This is actually quite very very sad. I agree completely; CFCHeadHunter did not suggest anything about "absolute truth", I never wrote that CFCHeadHunter did. The person who first commented regarding "absolute truth" was raggar. That is why I replied to raggar - I did not make that reply to CFCHeadHunter at all.
And I'm the one who is accused of "poor reading comprehension"… I'm NOT the one who has a history of deceit in an argument or making arguments based on something made up.
Regarding my quoting of St Augustine, here is a link…
I replied to CFCHeadHunter with that quotation. I invite, to whom it may concern, to judge for yourself the rest…
"CFCHeadHunter did not suggest anything about "absolute truth", I never wrote that CFCHeadHunter did. The person who first commented regarding "absolute truth" was raggar. That is why I replied to raggar - I did not make that reply to CFCHeadHunter at all."
Stand corrected as to correct name of person who was said to have commented about science laying a claim on absolute truth. Here is C&P of what raggar said -
raggarin reply to Lord PlushbottomDec 6th, 13:27
Just as we cannot prove the existece of God we cannot prove religious absolutes such as the omnipotence of God. The one thing which should be common is the truth. Science does not claim the absolute truth but instead claims that a truth is indicated based on our current knowledge. It is open ended and therefore capable of change. Religion on the other hand makes claims of absolute truth without the need for credible evidence. There is no evidence that religion has anything to do with truth. If it did there would be no need for faith."
Note @raggar's comment was in reply to @Lord Plushbottom who provided the concept of NOMA in his stand alone post.
Here's what you said in reply to what @raggar said:
"To suggest without a doubt (absolutely) that absolute truth does not exist - is itself an absolute truth. You contradict yourself."
@raggar did not say what you said he said. That is reading comprehension.
All the rest of my earlier comment stands.
You also need to understand the meaning of sophistry before you use that term. Philosophy 101. Reading comprehension was in reference to (1)Philosophy 101, (2)what @raggar wrote, (3)whom St.Augustine was concerned about in his impassioned plea. (hint: they weren't the "atheists". Try minus "a")
It is otherwise established you read Merriam-Webster.
All good tidings to you. And please, just in case, a reminder you do not have my permission to pray for me as one of the non-believers of your faith you very kindly pray for. But if you insist, I too will pray for you.
You wrote "@raggar did not say what you said he said. That is reading comprehension."
BUT THEN AGAIN, I did not write (say) that he did… I wrote (capitalized here for emphasis) "TO SUGGEST WITH OUT A DOUBT…". The definition for "suggest" is "put forward for consideration". @raggar never replied that he did not suggest that "absolute truth does not exist".
AGAIN; your reading comprehension is lacking…
Then you went on to write "Reading comprehension was in reference to (1)Philosophy 101, (2)what @raggar wrote, (3)whom St. Augustine was concerned about in his impassioned plea. (hint: they weren't the "atheists". Try minus "a")"
IN YOUR EARLIER STATEMENT you wrote "you showed poor reading comprehension" in reference to your showing of your lack of reading comprehension in whom you thought I replied "To suggest without a doubt (absolutely) that absolute truth does not exist…" to. In your earlier statement you went on to only SUGGEST that "It does require freshman reading comprehension." I would suggest that elementary school reading comprehension should be adequate. I believe my reading comprehension was quite good starting sometime in parochial school – perhaps starting in the 4th or 5th, maybe 3rd grade.
ALSO, I did not write that St. Augustine was concerned about atheist in his quotation – St. Augustine was stating that "non-Christian knows something about the earth…". In a later reply to CFCHeadHunter's follow-on reply to me; I suggested that "…like Christianity; the atheist have their own "Reckless and incompetent expounders". You show your lack of reading comprehension again.
AND ALSO, Merriam-Webster is a dictionary. Dictionaries contain definitions of words. If you have a problem with their definition of "sophistry", then please contact them to correct their definition. And then, please contact all of the other dictionaries as well.
Merriam-Webster is a dictionary. Dictionaries contain definitions of words. If you have a problem with their definition of "sophistry", then please contact them to correct their definition. And then, please contact all of the other dictionaries as well.
Sigh...sigh...sigh...i can almost weep...
I don't have a problem with M-W, Sir.
No generic dictionary for the everyday usage of a language can capture the definition of a specific word of substantive meaning that involves an entire body of knowledge extant and evolving.
This is why we have specific dictionaries for specific branches of knowledge. And they go through revisions and additions every few years. Examples are Dorland for General Medicine (and more differentiated ones as you go into specialized areas), Black for law, at least 7 for Philosophy (compiled by Oxford, Cambridge, Penguin, Routledge, etc.), and others for Music, Science, Paleontology, Anthropology, Egyptian Studies, Botany, Geology, Metallurgy….the list is endless.
I am sure you will learn a lot by looking up the word SOPHISTRY in either Oxford or Cambridge, neither of which costs more than $25 at Amazon. Alternatively you can go to the library. Or alternatively yet you can go to Wiki, but understand not all Wiki stuff is peer-reviewed, so you do have to know enough to know what you are reading.
You appear to know even less than I thought you did, or you wouldn't have made the comment regarding Merriam-Webster.
Most educated people know the limits and purview of their knowledge. That is why they seek to continue their education as a matter of life-long learning and as a matter of moral duty, the latter in so far as they can't resist the impulse to pass moral judgment on other people different from they, or they seek to be involved in public-policy decision making that has real consequences to real people. THIS in place of insisting that the world stop and hold its breath while they indulge in an assortment of fantasies going to their unchanging and unchangeable views of the the world and the people in it.
Frequently these unchanging and unchangeable views manifest in the form of religious DOGMA, whatever the "religion" is that prescribes the DOGMA.
I respect your faith more than I can explain to you (it requires Advanced Reading Comprehension and looking up words in many specialized dictionaries).
All I hope and ask, is for you to not talk beyond the purview of your knowledge, which does have the appearance of being more limited than average, or criticize folks who don't subscribe to your faith by using such terms as "sophistry", "delusion" and "deceit". That is not the behavior of someone who truly understands the teaching of, in your case, Jesus Christ.
By the way, your LEAP to apply what Augustine said – chiding his own flock - to chiding all atheists, is a supreme example of sophistry, the very same word you used to criticize all arguments advanced by all "atheists" as to why they don't believe in a God, even though the vast majority of them would provide, and have provided, the respectable detail of linking one and the other by some kind of conjunctive logic.
Perhaps after you attain a sufficient understanding of what those words mean – sophistry, delusion, deceit, you will have an appreciation how clueless you have been.
Thank you for not praying for me. At least I earned that much.
Worthless Scholar; unless a person such as you would ridicule, misrepresent, and try to belittle me for what I write; then what I write would not be true.
However; you do ridicule, misrepresent, and try to belittle me. Therefore, I must be right and true.
Worthless Scholar; unless a person such as you would ridicule, misrepresent, and try to belittle me for what I write; then what I write would not be true.
However; you do ridicule, misrepresent, and try to belittle me. Therefore, I must be right and true.
Look up SOPHISTRY, and see how perfect this sophistry example of yours is in the gem you wrote above.
More reading comprehension difficulty. That is not ridiculing you. It is hard to point out a fact if the fact itself is not complimentary. I apologize for using the description in the earlier post "more limited than average". That was belitttling. I was frustrated to no end. And what I observed may be a fact.
The part you did not read is (reading comprehension again??) I said I respect your faith . I cannot begin to render my reasons why I would respect your faith despite the differences in our world views, because truly in order to do so I will need to use words that are not found in Merriam-Webster.
Perhaps I can do it this way - Various persons I admire have lived a life exemplary of the best in the Roman Catholic teachings. I respect them for the way they have lived, not for the way they won SOPHISTRY CONTESTS. Indeed, they were not at all concerned they won anything in sophistry contests. These people are, for me, Rose Kennedy, Mother Teresa, one female Bishop whose name slipped my tongue at the moment, and some older people much longer ago. I respect them because their faith enabled them to do things few people can do, endure and triumph over trials few people can face, let alone survive. They showed by their deeds what their faith taught them; they never go around telling other people they were bad people because these other people believe in different faiths and would do thing differently or solve life's problems differently, including problems having to do with the beginning of life and the end of life and who should marry whom.
I am not a scholar, let alone a worthless one. A true scholar would laugh at my degree of scholarship. A true scholar is many times smarter than I am. I do not begin to qualify. I am a doer. You must't belittle me by calling me a "worthless scholar". You see how you tried to belittle me there? "WORTHLESS" is not a complimentary word. You not only tried to belittle me, but invalidate and annihilate everything about me. That is much more than what you said I did to you. Would Jesus say I am worthless? Think about it. Try to look into the mirror from time to time. . It is educational.
Again, as I have always said, I respect your faith. But please don't chase after those who disgree with you on matters concerning their lives and tell them, when they try to explain to you why your faith doesn't work for them, they are guilty of sophistry, deceit and delusion. YOU SEE AGAIN HOW YOU BELTTLE ALL THOSE PEOPLE, and now apply your own sophistry gem to yourself.
No faith can be a sound faith if it contains a built-in double standard. Please try to get rid of that double standard, as Mother Tereasa did, as Rose Kennedy did, as the female bishop did, and countless other Catholics do.
I thank you for engaging in this exchange. It has not been a pleasant experience for me, and I can see it probably was not a pleasant experience for you. But we both continued to engage inspite of the hardship. In that regard, we both must have cared about something important to us, and I believe that something is not a bad thing.
You wrote "I thank you for engaging in this exchange. It has not been a pleasant experience for me, and I can see it probably was not a pleasant experience for you. But we both continued to engage inspite of the hardship. In that regard, we both must have cared about something important to us, and I believe that something is not a bad thing."
I agree completely with this statement of yours…
It is my belief that our dialogues spiral into chaos because you very frequently misinterpret what I have written. In my replies to you I have to try to correct your misinterpretations – otherwise readers might believe you are right in your misinterpretations.
Regarding the current string of comments & replies:
• @raggar was contradictory in his statement – I did not write that @CFCHeadHunter contradicted himself.
• You brought up the topic of "sophistry" in the current string of comments. I provided a dictionary definition of the word "sophistry". I did not discuss "sophistry" – I simply provided the definition so others can evaluate its usage. Before I used that word many months ago, I first researched the word quite extensively. I try to be "accurate" as best I can. Maybe that has something to do with me being a metallurgist – I don't know.
• I provided my most recent quotation of St. Augustine in my reply to @CFCHeadHunter because he disparaged St. Augustine and I wanted to set the record straight the best I can. I source the quotations I use the best I can.
• I used the word "sophistry" in a follow-on reply to @CFCHeadHunter because he attempted again to disparage St. Augustine.
• In my follow-on reply to @CFCHeadHunter, and in my usage of the word "sophistry", I tried to make the point that both Christians and atheists have their "Reckless and incompetent expounders". I tried to make the point that both Christians and atheists have those among them who make things worse rather than better.
• Regarding my remarks of atheist; I used the words "some", "most", "not all" in characterizing them. Online I've had some very good dialogue and found some agreement with a couple atheists (Secular Humanist).
I think I've covered everything regarding our current string of contentious comments & replies.
Regarding Mother Teresa; I have a lot of respect for Mother Teresa and the Missionaries of Charity. She had shown that it is humanly possible, albeit very very difficult, to do such profound good in alleviating misery. She, throughout her religious life, also questioned how God could allow such deep misery to exist. I think it is common for Christians to ask this question. My answer (and I believe Mother Teresa would agree) is that God works through us in alleviating misery. I will go on to also write that I believe that God works not only through those who believe in Him, but also through those who are his most ardent disbelievers. But additionally, both Christians and atheist also at times give in to their human weaknesses and do bad.
I hope (and pray) you do not misconstrue what I have just written… I hope you can see clearly what is in my heart…
Take care…
Also, I wanted to mention that you were very astute in writing...
"I thank you for engaging in this exchange. It has not been a pleasant experience for me, and I can see it probably was not a pleasant experience for you. But we both continued to engage inspite of the hardship. In that regard, we both must have cared about something important to us, and I believe that something is not a bad thing."
Again, I agree completely with this statement of yours…
... My answer (and I believe Mother Teresa would agree) is that God works through us in alleviating misery. I will go on to also write that I believe that God works not only through those who believe in Him, but also through those who are his most ardent disbelievers. But additionally, both Christians and atheist also at times give in to their human weaknesses and do bad.
Thank you for this writing. I am so happy we arrived at this mark. It has not been an easy walk for either you or me. I know because I was in it.
I appreciate also your taking the time to find order in the chaos.
I would only add to the human weaknesses you observe the other side of weakness, which is strength and resilience, and a beneficence of the heart which the Creator left in all people when he created them, as an after-thought or aforethought nobody knows. That is the part for each faith to decide.
I hope (and pray) you do not misconstrue what I have just written… I hope you can see clearly what is in my heart…
My dear friend, I feel this a rare sane moment in the lunacy of cyberspace communication. I want to thank you for that, and the thanks is from my heart as well, and note that 'tis once more the season of Christmas…. You take care too, always.
Astuteness is my job. :)
I did post directly to you in my last post, which I realized only after I posted. I hope that was all right. You have been very good in honoring my request made once a long time ago. I greatly appreciate that, and I hope likewise for you our age-old knot has come untied. But still do me one favor: Never pray for me 'cause I really do not believe in prayers. I take it badly when someone says he/she'll will pray for me. :)
You wrote "I take it badly when someone says he/she will pray for me. :)"
I understand your feelings... :-) :-) :-) Those words come across hollow, especially from a stranger.
I promise that I will not pray for you personally. :-) :-) :-) However, I don't remembering that I ever said I did. But I do pray for various groups of people for a variety of reasons. This is in addition to my prayers for family and close friends.
I'm also very happy that we have come to an understanding... :-) :-) :-) It has been a difficult road.
However; we both know that we are on opposite sides of some issues, and we both believe firmly in our positions. Hopefully, any future dialogues will not spiral out of control into chaos.
On praying, of course you pray for your family and close friends and people you care for, and that may sometimes even includes people you don't know (e.g.disaster victims you can't personally lend a hand to or have little $ to donate to).
What I ask is simply when two faiths collide, do not settle differences by saying,"I'll pray for you." Even God won't like it, I can assure you. That is an abuse of prayers. He would want you to be mature enough to settle differences by proving He, and praying to Him, has enabled and will enable you to DO his teachings, not TALK his teaching. I am sure God will agree with that too.
God does not exist for being prayed to when a person merely wants to win an argument. If that is the purpose of his existence, He would resign. Ask him if that might be true next time you pray to Him.
I also ask that you learn to RESPECT other people's faiths, and QUIT the nonsensical claim, or the appearance of a nonsensical claim, that your faith - Catholicism - has a MONOPOLY on VALUES. That talks is patently stupid, and offensive to believers in other faiths. When/if you continue to engage in that exercise, one wonders what your motive is. I am sure God would agree on that point also.
On chaos, No sophistry --> Nothing will spiral out of control.
Constructive dialogues are conceived from facts. Facts are the way out of chaos. Sophistry is the Grand Master of chaos.
OK. I am done here. Wish you all the best.
You wrote "OK. I am done here. Wish you all the best."
I wish you all the best as well...
Also, maybe if you were less emotional and more stoic you might see that I do respect other people's faith.
That's good. That's really all I ask.
Also, as with most things, only time will tell.
I do not necessarily see a competition between stoicism and emotionality. There is a time and place for everything. And people are different. As long as the core of the apple is good, it is a good apple. I dislike any assumption of hegemony.
I meant this thread has to end some time. If you want to be the last. It's OK. Take care....
I have had lengthy discussions with some surprisingly articulate Young Earth Creationists and find the common sense argument works best. For instance the last time I asked why all the top energy companies refer to oil as taking millions of years to form, the answer came "Knowing or not knowing how old oil is doesn't help you find it. If it does show me the evidence."
It was then followed by a long diatribe on how the Enlightenment had poisoned the scientific community. So I pointed out that it was illogical to assume that scientists were taking a deliberately anti-religious line, when an old earth was accepted by the heads of all the abrahamic religions (Pope, Archbishop of Canterbury, Chief Rabbi of UK and now even Pat Robertson). To this the response was that "Many so-called Christian religious people have jettisoned the authority and sufficiency of divinely inspired scripture in favor of what modern evolutionary science says". He then bemoaned the fact that creationist scientists were shunned for "taking the bible seriously".
Unfortunately those who accord a single piece of evidence (whether divinely inspired or not) unimpeachable authority and sufficiency forfeit the right to be called scientists.
Other reviews of Professor Hendel's book "The Book of Genesis: A Biography":
Thank you TE! I just LOVE Augustinian logic!
"The {insert name of holy book} is gospel truth. Until (of course)such time as any part of it shall be disproved, at which time that part shall be considered only metaphorical with the rest remaining literal. Until...."
I'd expect this kind of rigorous logic would allow for forgetfulness as to which parts have been disproved. I haven't come across it before, and it sheds light on the evasive and contradictory arguments put forward by some theists. Thank you again!
St. Augustine - De Genesi ad Litteram
Translation by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion".
De Genesi ad Litteram "The Literal Meaning of Genesis"
Wonderful, thanks. Totally surreal. Not even Python could script this stuff !
I agree completely… Atheists are a particularly strange breed – some are quite delusional and contradictory. Most atheists (not all) are quite liberal in their use of sophistry in their comments and replies. I guess they have to resort to sophistry because their arguments are so weak. I find some of them especially funny when they overtly try to project an air of intelligence in their comments. Some also appear to be quite the "slight of hand" artist with their facts.
I guess, like Christianity; the atheist have their own "Reckless and incompetent expounders".
Hey, easy there, buckaroo. " Not even Python could script this stuff !" That is a bold statement, CFCHH. The Pythons were omnipotent and could have scripted pretty much anything - since they were gods, you know...
I'd have to write that it is an "absolute truth" that Monty Python has to be the funniest TV series that I have ever seen.
A few post above, I responded to the meaning of the word "sophistry" and its historical origin (in link if read). You are a poster who is better versed than I on the history of philosophy in the period covering the early Greeks (Aristotle and Plato) and their influence on the later emergence of the Scientific Method. Kindly point out my errors if any were made. I'd appreciate it.
You adduce the pupil, and the pupil's pupil, regarding your question. Go to the source. Go to the teacher who had Plato as a pupil; who in turn had Aristotle as a pupil: Socrates. The Socratic method is still one of the best to use for arriving at a rational, and logical, answers - for which he was rewarded with the death sentence... The premise, though, for the effective usage of said method is intellectual and moral honesty. Without those two, it makes no difference what fallacies you are able to point out in any argument/discussion, you are merely whistling in the wind. Any non-falsifiable proposition can have any solution. Simple as that. From false premises follows what you like...( see attached link)
Since you asked, I'll opine that, your mistake was/is missing the truth in the previous sentence. Let me regale you with an Indian fairy tale that was read to me in my early childhood.
The Rabbit claims very loudly that (s)he knows everything there is to know. One day the Fox asks the Rabbit to come to the Zoo because the Fox wants to show something to the Rabbit. The Fox shows the Rabbit a giraffe, and asks "What kind of animal is this, Rabbit?". The Rabbit looks at the giraffe for a long while, and answers: " Fox, there is no such animal." Well, how does one deal with the Rabbit in human form?...
Generalizing for all parameters, I very much share the following thought about religion and those who need religion of any kind, whether it involves one, or many, Invisible Friend(s); or the secular kind (your choice of -ism) practiced by equally demented followers:
"There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths"
Bertrand Russell
on Mankind
Thanks for both posts. Thanks for taking the time on a subject beaten to death but time and again threatened to be beaten back to life.
Answer to your Q "How does one deal with the Rabbit in human form?": Run, as fast as one could.
On second post, Russell, of course was one honest thinker no rabbits can deal with. Honesty of the intellectual kind is not in the rabbit gene.
Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three.
Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three.
I must give you the benefit of the doubt, so I assume that the double posting was intentional. Nice. You said twice that, the number I shall count is three. I shall count to three and not two...
Again, if it was intentional (which I really hope), I truly appreciate it.
I grew up about as hardcore Lutheran as could be, and I clearly remember repeatedly asking my Missouri Synod grade school and high school teachers whether there was scientific proof for the flood and other Biblical episodes. Some of them claimed there was; others said there was, but it's been destroyed or archaeologists haven't found it yet. Nobody ever said no.
I remember fossils and dinosaurs being particularly problematic. I also remember regular invocation of the 'some things must be accepted on faith' line as the final word. That said, a few tried to bend scientific ideas and discoveries into 'proof', sometimes combining them in ways that surely would've given even a young Richard Dawkins a coronary.
I see now that they were terribly conflicted about these ideas themselves. They weren't scientists or philosophers or historians; they were well-intentioned believers who were trying their best to do God's Work. However, most of them had grown up in the pro-science can-do years of post-WWII America, and they prized common sense and pragmatism. They must've had a really dreadful time trying to reconcile fundamental reason and their everyday observations with the literal Lutheran traditions regarding the purity of Scripture.
Bless their souls, my teachers simply could not bear to face the inconsistencies raised by historical criticism, nor even the incongruities across English translations. They were fixated on how it all had to be historical fact...somehow...it just had to be!
Unfortunately, their internal turmoil manifested externally in some nasty ways: anyone who dared question the Bible's veracity was automatically labeled a dangerous heretic, someone to be shunned and ostracized. No wonder then that my first forays into the wider world were so traumatic.
As I look back now, I appreciate the gifts of common sense and pragmatism; rather less so the exceptionally high tolerance for cognitive dissonance. Mostly I think that two fine things were sacrificed on the altar of literalism: truth and imagination. Both are summed up gloriously in this gem from GK Chesterton: "Fairy Tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten."
Perhaps if imbued with a bit more imagination, some of the most profound and ecumenical Biblical truths could help us defeat the altogether too real dragons of religious fundamentalism, no matter the stripe.
A sensitive post -- many thanks.
I knew a Missouri Synod pastor who told me "I believe the Bible when it says that the whale swallowed Jonah. BUT, I'd believe the Bible if said that Jonah swallowed the whale." Since I could not remember a time when I did not believe in Evolution, I listened respectfully to what he said but did an inward eye-roll.
Were we to prune the Bible so that what remained was consistent with what we know about science and history what would remain is a novella. (Actually, some of the history is decent.)
I often find that people fall into several rough categories:
Those who profess the Bible is inerrant. These souls fit Mark Twain's definiton of faith as "Believing what you know ain't true." Like the Red Queen, each of these Christians must believe six impossible things before breakfast.
Then, there are those who are convinced the Bible contains "Deep spiritual truths" -- which they can't quite tease out. Like a drip of water on a facuet, the "meaning" seems just about fall into place -- but, somehow, never does. These people are sure that "it will be made clear to us in time" -- such as why they bought into the NASDAQ in January of 2000.
Many others try to historicize the Bible -- to "prove" it. I recall a film from forty years ago that tried to demonstrate that an expedition had "found" Noah's ark. Or, they assert that the "pillar of fire" of the Exodus was actually forward scouts' campfires. As if the writer of Genesis was too stupid to say "And the scouts lit campfires so they wouldn't freze to death and, beside, cold lizard-meat is pretty disgusting."
There are,of course, those who simply dismiss the whole Bible as a "fairy tale." Much of it, of course, is indistinguishable from fairy tales and these people have a solid point.
Many of us, though, take the good with the bad. We don't believe that Joshua made the sun stand-still nd are dubious that snakes have much to tell us re fruit. We don't think that fossils (Republicans excepted) are left over from "Noah's Flud" and if donkeys can talk, a la Balim's ass, what could they possibly have to say -- I, mean, they're donkeys, right?
(On the other hand, having been dethatched by Nature decades ago, I am inclined to believe the story in which Elijah summons up bears to eat small children who taunted him for being bald. It seems a bit extreme though -- perhaps he should have just summoned up an aardvark.)
But, "You shall love thy neighbor as thyself" or "Blessed are the merciful" and "What is required of you but to love mercy and walk humbly with thy God?" have, to my ears, the ring of something true. True now, and true forever.
So, I prefer not to scoff.
And, I do not scoff at the sayings of the Buddha or the writings of Muhammed or the insights from the Bahavad-Gita. Nor do I sneer at the good will of Col. Ingersoll and like skeptics of good faith.
There may be oceans of bathwater in these various religous tubs but withall there is also a very valuable, if small, baby.
Good ideas are where you find them. You find a lot of them in the Bible. But, when you read it keep in mind the theological writings of St. Sporting Life: "It ain't necessarity so."
But, also remember . . . It ain't (all if it) necessarily false.
I love all the silly comments. The greatest danger to a believer is a former believer turned non-believer (apostasy). Well, I used to be a believer, and then life happened, and I learned about the world, and came to the conclusion that Mr. Kierkegaard came to many years ago: "if God is omnipotent, then he is not compassionate, and if God is compassionate, then he must not be omnipotent". Why else would human life entail such unbounded suffering? Why else would innocent children die horrible, violent deaths? Explain to me, dear believers, how you can reconcile the world with a benevolent and omnipotent God? Why does God give children cancer? Why does God destroy a church in an earthquake, when his believers were huddled there for protection? (a story made famous by Heinrich von Kleist... a believer turned apostate)
I've asked a lot of believers these questions. They never provide answers.
I find that it is much more valuable and much more reliable, much more rational and much more believable, to interpret the world without the idea of a benevolent, omnipotent God. If God exists, his existence is irrelevant to our existence; this is obvious. Why else would there, again, be so much suffering? (please, please don't give me that "God is pissed" bullshit. Please don't. That basically implies that God is not belevolent, and thus is not a Christian God).
We are human. Our lives our human. Our dreams our human. Lets live our lives with our fellow humans, and recognize the question of God's existence for what it is: the ultimate irrelevant question.
And, also, as to the comment below about how "faith is emotional not intellectual"... that is total bullshit. Most of the great Christian Theologians were incredibly intellectual. There has been more philosophy based on religious interpretation than those based on secular observations. Nietzsche would not exist except as an antithesis to religion. Hegel was very religious. Kierkegaard I already mentioned. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Dante Algheiri, Shakespeare, even good ol' Darwin, were all heavily influenced by religious intellectual debate. If you care about the interpretation of the world and finding the essence of being, it involves emotions and intellect. Without the juxtaposition and subsquent fusion of the two, there is no worthwhile interpretation to be had. So, yeah, that whole "faith is emotional not intellectual" is just a cop out for people who can't reconcile their life experiences to their faith. Because, well, the Christian worldview is irreconciable with historical fact and life experience.
God has the best public relations in the world. Something great happens in someone's life, like buying a new house or scoring a game winning touchdown, it is totally god up there making it happen. He is a huge steelers fan. But when a Tsunami wipes a village in Indonesia off the map, kids torn from their mothers arms and drowned all of a sudden God has a plan or it is "free will" or beyond human understanding. And as my favorite author Sam Harris says, "Who can understand gods will? Yet it is precisely our human understanding of gods will that establishes his goodness in the first place."
Well put, sir. I too dislike when athletes invoke God's will when they win. And if God is a steeler's fan, I am not a fan of God. Also, if God cared about football, Tebow would be a good qb. Instead, he's not even good enough to take over for the worst starting qb in football. God, I hate the Jets.
Fr. Robert Barron "Catholicism: PROBLEM OF EVIL"
Fr. Robert Barron "Fr. Barron comments on God, the Tsunami, and the Problem of Evil"
Interesting conclusion. I find it impossible to conceive of a world with suffering that doesnt have a God. For example, you should accept suffering as part of life and not be upset by it if there is no God because its all meaningless anyway.
By the way, there are plenty of Christians who are well grounded in historical fact and with loads of life experience who as a result have a very deep faith. It is incorrect to say that the CHristian worldview is 'irreconciable with historical fact and life experience'
I am very upset by suffering. I just don't see how a Christian God would let us suffer the way he does. How can you not concieve of a world with suffering and without God? So God creates suffering.. why? To make heaven that much better? Read some existentialism, please.
People who knew a lot about the Christian faith but could not reconcile it include: Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Camus, Heinrich von Kleist, Emmanual Kant, Fydor Dostoevsky, Soren Kierkegaard, Karl Marx (yes, his father was Jewish, but he also converted his family when Karl was very young), Charles Darwin (who in the end wished that his work hadn't been published). I'd rather throw my lot in with them than these supposed Christians "who are well grounded in historical fact and with loads of life experience who as a result have a very deep faith". Can they reconcile Dresden? How about the 2 million dead civilian Japanese the US killed in fire bombing alone (not even mentioning the A-bombs)? The Battle of the Marne? How about the Battle of the Somme? Gallipoli? The Armenian genocide? One fifth of the Polish population dying during the Second World War? The entirety of Russian history?
I think most people ignore these things. Most people don't know anything about the true atrocities of history, and the true wanton destruction man visits upon himself.
The author sounds surprized by St. Augustines interpretation vs. Luther. Basically it gives way to why Christ established the universal "catholic" church today known as the Catholic church. I do not need to study engineering to be sure a bridge is safe, someone else can do that for me. I do not need to discern doctrine, let a philpsopher of the church do that for me. It is completely logical. God Bless.
Christ did not establish the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was established centuries after his death, by political opponents of the Holy Roman Emperor. But, y'know, historical fact is second to theological beliefs, and apparently always will be.
By any rational definition, the Orthodox Church is just as legitimate as the Catholic Church; in fact, more legitimate because it hasn't been sullied by millenia of corruption, greed, and power politics.
oops, posted it more than once.
The difference between the maths and materials science that make a bridge safe, and the disputed beliefs of any religion, is huge. Whenever a bridge fails, an investigation determines whether the failure was one of design, materials or a new phenomenon, and lessons are learnt, recorded and published. Such is the scientific method, and the knowledge accumulated over the years has made us pretty good at building bridges. So yes, on the whole, you can rely upon the scientists, engineers and quality controllers to make safe bridges.
Leaving a philosopher of "the church" to think for you sounds a whole load more risky. Even within the modern christian religion, there are more sects and schisms than I can keep track of: Transubstantiation: catholic
Can't use a car: Amish
Polygamy: Mormon
etc etc etc.
Then there's the possibility that your choice of faith or sect may be wrong. Then there's the Augustinian logic, which declares that what you're reading may be literal or figurative, depending on whether it been disproved yet. These are not solid foundations for anything.
You would be completely wrong, Willy! The old Testament is the Jewish Torah. The New Testament existed as separate books until the Romans stopped persecuting Christians around 300AD. In 325 the first Council of Nicaea convened and determined what books were the most theologically consistent. Martin Luther started the Reformation movement with his 95 Theses, in the 1500s.
The Torah, my good man, is only the first five books of the Tanakh. The Torah ("Teaching", also known as the Five Books of Moses), Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim ("Writings")—hence TaNaKh. The complete Tanakh is what is commonly referred to as the "old Testament". Please, spare us any more of your ignorance, will you, you ultracrepidarian?...
To Eastern Orthodox, all non-Orthodox are heretics and "Franks". They actually share that with traditional Muslims. They have some points, but the "more legitimante because it hasn't been sullied by..." is hogwash. They also say this about the "Oriental" Christian Churches who have ancient differences with the Orthodox. Althought they have some better theology than Catholics and Protestants, "Corruption, greed, and power politics" are well represented in Eastern Orthodox history. Please show at least some objectivity.
Objectivity? Do you assume, then, that I'm Eastern Orthodox? I am none of the sort. Babtized Presbyterian, I have had no interest in attending church for at least a decade. I was merely pointing out that "Christ did not found the Catholic Church" and that "any other church is just as legitimate". So, sorry to offend Catholics, or whatever. I don't like any churches, period. I think people should make up their own damn minds about the world and create their own worldviews based on a continuous experience with as many differing perspectives as possible.
"Only recently, for example, has it been championed by some as the literal and inerrant word of God, to be believed in every plain detail. Biblical fundamentalism has its strongest roots in the late 19th century. Before then, the faithful, if they read it at all, were on the whole freer in their interpretations—not because they were any less devout, or less convinced of the book's divine inspiration, but because puzzles in the text seemed to point to deeper, hidden meanings."
Unfortunately, an entire generation has grown up not knowing this kind of religion was real or widespread. "The Church / Religious / Christian / Muslim / Jewish / etc" are now terms and phrases that mass produce cynicism and intellectual contempt. Whatever we need to do as a society to return to the above-mentioned time, well let's get on that
The mass contempt kind of reminds one the Mongol/Turkic people's reaction to the vituperative squabbles of the Eastern Church over the Nestorian "Luminous" doctrine and incessant warring of the Iconoclasts and Iconodules. They chucked the entire Christian enterprise enmasse and accepted Hanafist Islam instead. The cynicism and intellectual contempt of the newer generations towards Christianity is for very similar reasons. Pragmatic and practical religion was chucked for doctrinal disputes.
Who decided which stories to include in the bible and which should be left to scholars of the future?
Part of that answer lies in the committees that were put together by Martin Luther after he nailed his theses to the Church door. They went through and voted on which books should be contained in the "new" bible; "Revelations" got the fewest number of votes for those books that were to be retained, hence it being placed last in most bibles. Tell that to a literal-interpreting Evangelist and their head might explode.
You would be completely wrong, Willy! The Old Testament is the Jewish Torah. The New Testament existed as separate books until the Romans stopped persecuting Christians around 300AD. In 325 the first Council of Nicaea convened and determined what books were the most theologically consistent. Martin Luther started the Reformation movement with his 95 Theses, in the 1500s.
The Torah, my good man, is only the first five books of the Tanakh. The Torah ("Teaching", also known as the Five Books of Moses), Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim ("Writings")—hence TaNaKh. The complete Tanakh is what is commonly referred to as the "old Testament". Please, spare us any more of your ignorance, will you, you ultracrepidarian?...
Same old story. Only difference between Luther and early Nicene councils was Luther was just a tad more democratic than Roman state. Its been said that the difference between the Jewish Bible and Christian one is that Jewish is history, while Christian one is politics.
I was not "completely wrong". I merely mispoke when I said that the councils were so late in history. They did, in fact, have a number of councils between the time of Christ and present day, and I'm almost positive that Luther rejiggered the format of the Bible to fit into his Protestant ideals of what religion ought to be. I was wrong, but not completely wrong!
I continue to be surprised how many people try explain and square the bible as interpretation, metaphor and/or allegory, as if humans living between tenth and sixth BC for the old testament were expert linguists and wordsmiths capable of anything else but purporting superstition and ignorance. I would say the principle of parsimony applies here. The bible was more than likely made up and written by human beings who derived a great deal of material from pagan traditions.
Your argument basically boils down to: 'They probably made it up because they were primitive'. Not a great argument if I am honest and full of assumptions.
That was the summation of an argument rather than a detailed grievance, so you kind of summed up a summation. I could point to the numerous inconsistencies between the different books of the bible or question how a book written by god or divinely inspired by him/her could possibly get the greatest questions of morality wrong (slavery, gender equality, barbarism, murder, sacrifice, etc.) Furthermore, from what we know about the authors, it is difficult to believe any significant amount of the original writings remain untainted from the generations of oral history before even the first book was written including the numerous translations. Every version had to be hand copied by scribes with their own biases and subjective interpretations. I would argue the greater assumption is made by the billions of Christians around the world that their book is an inerrant text from the creator of the universe.
You could try but you would fail. The alleged biblical inconsistencies do not exist and on the greatest questions of morality the Bible has taken a lead both in its day and currently with an ancient theocracy that was an extremely fair and equal system if properly implemented to the promotion of equality for all by someone like the apostle Paul in later books.
Scribe error was minimal as can be seen from the dead sea scrolls where very early versions of a number of manuscripts were found which were virtually identical to the later ones in use. What we see in the Bible is virtually the same as what was used in ancient times.
There are books upon books that point out all these inconsistencies; it really isn't even a debate. I challenge you to just Google "Bible inconsistencies" and see what comes up. You will find respectable websites and analysis all with references to the book, chapter and paragraph. You are just deluding yourself if you think there are none. Here is one that lists over 700.
I also don't see how you can even use the Dead Sea scrolls as an example as 1.) Only 22% of the scrolls include biblical texts 2.) According to The Oxford Companion to Archaeology:
The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100. [108]
And you still haven't dealt with the fact that many of Jesus's stories were passed down orally for generations before the first line of the New Testament was written. That is a long game of telephone.
There are books and books that point out that there are no inconnsistencies, it really isnt even a debate.
Oh wait a minute, it is a debate. When some qualified people disagree with other qualified people say Theologians or academics from a range of Universities) then it is actually a debate with each side claiming things and defending their evidence!
Your quote is straight out of wikipedia, which we all know is 100% accurate right down to the [108] that you left on the end of your paragraph. Suffice to say the dead sea scrolls do plenty to validate the idea that the Bible we have is pretty much the same as the scrolls that they had.
The NT was written by eye witnesses in the later part of the 1st century AD. No telephone problems there.
I understand how a debate works. You can still call it that if you want, but it is very one sided. You can use the first link i sent you and pick up a bible at a book store and find the same inconsistencies. I think ive made my point.
The quote is from the Oxford Companion to Archeology which is referenced in Wikipedia, which i found. The source material as a cited and direct quote is legitimate.
Eye witnesses? Wow. The catholic church doesnt even make that claim. There is general concensus between theologians and scientists that the earliest books of the bible (and there were hundreds of them circulating) were not written until decades after supposed events and the new testament was orginally written in the greek language, not Jesus's native Aramaic.
11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)
1. cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chap. 2 "On Revelation:" Denzinger 1787 (3006); Biblical Commission, Decree of June 18,1915: Denzinger 2180 (3629): EB 420; Holy Office, Epistle of Dec. 22, 1923: EB 499.
2. cf. Pius XII, encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu," Sept. 30, 1943: A.A.S. 35 (1943) p. 314; Enchiridion Bible. (EB) 556.
3. "In" and "for" man: cf. Heb. 1, and 4, 7; ("in"): 2 Sm. 23,2; Matt.1:22 and various places; ("for"): First Vatican Council, Schema on Catholic Doctrine, note 9: Coll. Lac. VII, 522.
4. Leo XIII, encyclical "Providentissimus Deus," Nov. 18, 1893: Denzinger 1952 (3293); EB 125.
So anything written in ancient times is worthless? Instead of bashing the Bible, maybe we should just put it in its historical context, along other great works of ancient literature, such as "The Iliad", "The Odyssey", Hesiod's "Theogeny", "Gilgamesh", "The Bhagava-Ghita", "The Mabinogian", etc. The problem with your argument is that by calling the writers of the Bible illerate and stupid you've just discounted the first thousand years of human writing. Which is, well, really stupid.
That not what I am saying. I am arguing that the bible is not the perfect word of the creator of the universe. I am more than willing to admit that it is a fantastic piece of prose that should be revered and studied along with the other literary classics you listed. There is some really great stuff in the bible such as the golden rule, but there are far more examples of deplorable barbarism, suffering and genocide. Like most things, we should not be quick to jump to conclusions based on little or bad evidence, but rather be a selective consumer and recognize the bible for what it is based on what we know or have reason to believe.
I think that, fundamentally, we're in agreement. I was mostly just objecting to your rather harsh language, as I find that often marginalizes one's argument. The Bible is an excellent source of wisdom. So are Aesop's Fables.
I am broadly in areement with the Roman Catholic statement you posted.
When talking about eye witnesses, I was talking about the gospels. FOr example the gospel of John was probably written in AD 90 by the apostle John who was an eyewitness to the events he describes.
Of course the OT is not written by eye witnesses, that was not the claim.
Finally the debate is NOT in any way one sided. You simply agree with one side strongly. There is plenty of evidence for a consistent and historically accurate Bible and the Bible is often cited as a very strong and historice series of ancient documents. There is no middle ground in any debate of this nature because agreeing with one side or the other means having to make lifestyle changes (as it affects a core belief). Saying it is one sided is simply a way of dismissing the other wide in the same way that Republicans think a debate on taxes is clearly one sided and duh why doesnt anyone else see it.
That [it is deplorable] is a matter of opinion. Many people, myself included can of course find difficulties with parts of the Bible we may not fully understand but it is a step too far to call any of it deplorable, unless of course you have an interest in confirming pre existing bias.
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15)
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27)
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15)
"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
These are but a few examples of what i would call deplorable actions, which must be considered independent of human opinion (objectively wrong.) I guess if you do not agree, there is nothing else i can say to press my point.
Now is not the time for a reasonable theological debate*, we have neither the space nor the time although I will briefly mention that even the Bible itself calls the old testament law temporary for its time.
Suffice to say that as mentioned earlier, academics, theologians and other educated people throughout the ages have not thought that the Bible, or these passages specifically (having existed since written) are 'deplorable' although I am starting to think that the chip on your shoulder about the Bible is deplorable.
Jesus, an established historical figure, and a well read expert in the old testament (amongst other things) thought very highly of the old testament and built his teachings upon it. Those who built Christianity, who were willing to sacrifice even their own lives, had no problems with its consistency or reliability. Would you stake your life on your opinion?
We do not need to debate further, I think I have established that the matter is one for debate and not as clear cut as you seem to want it to be. You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to write off other peoples opinions, particularly when they are anchored in a debate where evidence exists to back it up.
*We could easily explore context here, for example, it is important not to quote parts of a law without understanding the whole law in contrast to what you have done in an attempt to score some cheap points.
:-) :-) :-)
The 'Book of Genesis' a.k.a. the 'Book of Jewish Fairy Tales'
TS912 aka 'I like insulting things I have no knowledge of because I have a chip on my shoulder about religion'
Never let hatred for a race get in the way of a bad joke, right TS2912?
Well, it is Jewish and it is a fairy tale. Do you have any *facts* to refute either point?
I think you are an intolerant fundamentalist for calling a valuable historical text with no unproven facts within it a fairy tale.
The book of Genesis has 'no unproven facts'???
I guess you graduated from the Bin Laden University :)
(You guys have the same mindset, same God, different prophets)
You intolerant anti Bible fundamentalists are full of allegations and thin on facts.
Thus far, what can be proved of Genesis (mostly the historical sections towards the end), has been.
Well, the honorable 'Omricon' has admitted that the beginning and middle of Genesis is (essentially) nonsense.
BUT he goes to claim that 'historical sections towards the end' have been proved.
Let's test his assertion.
The last statement of Genesis states "And Joseph died, being one hundred ten years old; he was embalmed and placed in a coffin in Egypt."
So where is his tomb and body? I'm looking for the irrefutable proof (you should be able to provide), not some nonsensical claim
Nothing on this world is irrefutable. However, Genesis is pretty historically accurate describing ancient Hebrew and Egyptian customs (and sometimes leaders) to a corroboratable level with other ancient documents.
Unfotunately you failed to read on from Genesis - his body was removed from its tomb according to the Bible at a later date.
I post this mainly for the benefit of others as it is clear that your fundamentalist intolerance makes you impossible to reason with. Do you watch Fox by any chance?
"his body was removed from its tomb according to the Bible at a later date."
How convenient!
And so the 'proof' that Joseph died @110 and was embalmed and buried in Egypt is the statement in the Bible that his body was removed (from a tomb in an unknown location).
To call this the reasoning of a deranged person would be to insult the mental capacity (of a deranged person) :)
Nice bit of straw man there. Because I cant find coroborating historical manuscripts for the last sentence in Genesis therefore the whole thing must be a fairy tale?
no point in further discussion, you arent going to listen anyway because you are a close minded zealout. :)
In the spirit of this article, I really recommend "Joseph and his brothers" by Thomas Mann, one of the best books ever written.
If you think about it, well known names such as Jesus, Joseph and Noah etc they all came to reinstate justice and equality and to help poor people, which is in thier times or ours is virtually impossible. Know that Jesus is coming back along with Al imama Al mahdai to help the poor ones and reinstate justice once more.
Good Lord, the muslems have joined the debate now.
I think this guy is saying that God sends his Prophets to the people to help them along. Sounds more Bahai than Muslim in all.
This article forgets to mention that the Hebrew Scriptures credits Moses for the final work, but before him the 'Genesis' stories were probably orally passed down. The Scribes had plenty of time to change the two creation stories (or any number of embarrassing parts of the book), but they did not. Apparently they had some respect for it's message.
I wish I could recommend this several times.
Strange then that the scribes were not embarrassed by Numbers 31 where Moses gets angry with the Hebrews for sparing the women and children after conquering the Midianites. He then tells them to go back and finish the job, and kill everyone except for the "women-children, that have not known a man by lying with him"
I guess Moses exhortations to genocide and child-rape weren't embarrassing to the authors of the Torah.
That is how war was conducted in those days. Also it was not child rape, it is unmarried women (virgins) who would not have been raped.
Seems like you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder? Time to let it go. Read the Bible properly and you will see it for what it is, a force for good, a way of knowing your identity and not as you seem to think, an object of ridicule for someone with no knowledge of ancient historical norms.
Why start bashing this story, when God drowns everything except for a few with a big flood in Genesis 6? If you don't like Biblical notions of God's judgement and wrath, perhaps the Gilgamesh story where the capricious gods are to blame for flooding poor humanity would suit you better.
I am perfectly happy to compare the Bible to the epic of Gilgamesh as long as we see them in the same context, ancient texts which are products of their time. Nobody thinks that the Epic of Gilgamesh is a useful source for modern ethical living, and nobody should see the Bible in this light either.
Wow, unbelievable. Forcible marriage of female children is not rape. Is your real name Todd Akin, by any chance?
And you don't get away with the excuse "in those days" either. Apparently mass child murder was a bit too much for Moses followers, which is why he got angry with them. See I believe most people have basic humanity which tells them that killing children is wrong, even in warfare. I believe people have always known this, even in Biblical times. And it takes a dogma, in the hands of a genuinely evil or deranged leader, Moses, Hitler, Pol Pot, to deprive them of this humanity to murder children.
This is why Numbers 31 is so telling. You can visualise Moses followers sparing the children of the Midianites after the battle, because it goes against their basic humanity to kill them. It takes Moses, prophet of god, to show them the right way to commit genocide. There's no way you can read this passage and come back to say that the Bible is a force for good.
Wow unbelievable how big the chip on your shoulder is, let it go why dont ya?
Female children were not forcibly married until they were old enough to count as adults. And guess what? Everyone was 'forcibly married' in those days, that is what arranged marriage is.
The US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshuima killing every man, woman and child in the blast radius in order to end a war and save more lives than it cost. Ancient warfare was no different. When surrender did not occur, everyone was killed. This meant surrender was much more likely for the next city and more lives were spared.
Labelling Moses as a 'mass murderer' is going to get disagreement from just about everybody except for the others who are helping you carry that massive chip on your shoulder. He was as much a murderer as Eisenhower.
In fact it was Truman, not Eisenhower who authorized the use of the atomic bomb, but no matter. The argument that he had to use the atomic bomb to end the war is one thing and we can discuss that if you like, but nobody thinks Truman or Eisenhower was Moses. And nobody claims that he was doing the work of God, at least nobody who is sane. Furthermore your analogy is grossly incorrect. The Midianites had surrendered, they were beaten. All that were left were women and children. To take your analogy properly, it would be as if after the unconditional Japanese surrender Truman ordered the mass slaughter of the entire Japanese population, with the exception of female virgins and had those shipped back to the US to be given to the GIs.
I don't believe Moses parted the Red Sea, or turned a staff into a snake, because such things are patently ridiculous. However Moses ordering the slaughter of thousands of innocents after battle is perfectly believable, because yes, we know things like that happened in those times and in our own. But if you are telling me that this was the will of a higher power, then your religion is a perverted monstrosity.
And please stop talking about chips on shoulders. Perhaps you find it offensive for someone to question your beliefs but if anything, you need to free your own mind and realise the Bible is just a book written by men, with no more moral import than Homer's Iliad. The Bible has some moral lessons, but so does Homer's Iliad, so does the Koran. I am prepared to believe that it is a number of things, including an imperfect legendary history of a people, a creation story, a set of does and don'ts but that's it really. It is no more the word of God than the Koran or half a dozen other "holy" books that people claim are the universal truth.
You have your belief system (no God/no holy books) and I have mine. We are both religious and defend our belief.
It is not 'patently ridiculous' to believe that a miracle may have happened (eg parting the red sea) unless you already believe that there is no God and miracles cant happen, therefore to call it ridiculous is circular reasoning. Furthermore, you are cherry picking by believing that Moses was a mass murderer and also that he did not preside over some miracles, like the parting of the red sea.
If there was a God and he did part the red sea and then later ordered the specific sub group of Midianites to be slaughtered (they were not innocent) for consistent and moral reasons then the text works fine. It is only abhorent if you assume that God doesnt exist and there were no miracles so I can understand your confusion.
I am aware that Truman authorised the bomb, I used Eisenhower as a secondary example of a general in a world war. The Japanese did offer a conditional surrender but it wasnt enough for the US. In fact the same principles apply. US: Kill a few civilians to preserve the majority. Ancient warfare: Kill a few civilians to encourage an orderly surrender by the rest (in other towns)
Why bother discussing your point about history, if you've already judged monotheistic faith and its ethics as entirely wrong?
"circular reasoning" is a favorite retort of yours isn't it? But it doesn't apply. I say it is ridiculous to believe a man parted the sea or turned a stick into a snake, because our experience and knowledge of the world shows us that such things cannot happen and there is no evidence that they ever happened. This is not circular, it is empirical.
Here is a genuine example of circular reasoning:
1) The Bible says Moses parted the Red Sea
2) How can we believe the Bible?
3) Because it's the word of God.
4) How do we know it's the word of God?
5) The Bible says so.
6) Goto (2)
"They were not innocent"
It is really unbelievable that the stance you are taking on Numbers 31. The implications of this are to say that (for instance) the one month old (male) child at his mothers breast must both now be slaughtered because Moses and by implication God says so. A religion that takes this (Bible-literalist) viewpoint that Moses was doing God's work is utterly disgusting and abhorrent to any rational caring human being.
"Kill a few civilians to encourage...the rest"
That's about the most concise definition of genocidal terrorism that I have heard. Do you really think that's how the US military operates? I really hope you are not a member of the US armed forces.
It's probably pointless to carry on arguing the details of Numbers 31, Genesis or miracles. Your belief system appears to rest on the literal truth of the Bible. I don't expect to dissuade you from this.
But it is obvious that the Bible says many things which are factually incorrect and morally repugnant. In fact the vast majority of Christians (Roman Catholics for example) would agree holding the view that the Bible may be a source of moral guidance, but an imperfect one.
Your reasoning is flawed. There is evidence that miracles happened, they were witnessed and written down. More to the point you personally don't have any empirical evidence. Besides, part of a definition of a miracle is that it is outside the norm.
The US destroyed an entire city to stop the second world war. No matter how you twist it, it is utilitarian, kill a few civilians and the rest will surrender. It is war.
There appear to be a bunch of things which are only obvious to you but which are in fact opinions. It is pointless to argue, but mainly because you are intolerant and refuse to accept that other people have different (well grounded) beliefs to you.
For example, the Bible does not say things which are factually incorrect and is never morally repugnant. This is simply your biased view based on pre existing assumptions and misconceptions and a need to ensure that any belief system that conflicts with your own is discredited.
Numbers 32 is NOT morally reprehensible when properly understood. It is NOTHING like the way you like to portray it and I would encourage any other readers of this post to read the entirety of the first 5 books of the Bible as well as the New Testament with an open mind. This should clear up any misconceptions and unfounded allegations which are thrown around by the intolerant.
Where did the Book of Genesis come from?
eh.. Someone made it up.
Well a number of people made it up, over time, taking it's origin in legends from Sumer, Egypt, thousands of years before the Bible existed.
The concept of the flood came from the agricultural communities in Mesopotamia and Egypt, where the annual flood was essential to the life giving harvest. The flood also destroyed and killed people. The Egyptians also worshipped the Benben, which was the first piece of land to emerge from the waters. From this came Noah, the ark and Mout Ararat, which they believed was the highest peak in the world.
It's easy to see their reasoning, if a yearly Nile/Tigris/Euphrates flood destroy's life and recreates it then maybe the whole world was created in a giant flood.
Then there is Adam and Eve and the tree of Life which was also copied and adapted from much older Sumerian texts. The actual garden story may have originated as a real place, owned by an earthly Mesopotamian king, guarded by massive stone Cherubs.
I think the Mormons believe Eden is in Missouri somewhere.
It is a big assumption to say that somebody made it up. It is circular reasoning to say that.
Flood legends come from cultures all over the globe, many of them totally unconnected but bearing many similarities and many nowhere near a flood plain. There is something to that.
> There is something to that.
And that something is firstly that floods are a frequent and devastating disaster that people tell stories about for many generations after, and also that people migrate.
Take for example the ancient Celtic religion of Ireland in which Danu was the mother goddess of the great river. What's that? there are no great rivers in Ireland? Well it turns out there was one in the part of Europe they migrated from - for she is the goddess of the Danube (and the Dniepr, the Dniestr and the Don).
Those ancient people certainly got around a bit.
I fail to see your point. Floods happened. It is possible that a really big regional or semi global flood occurred at some point which caused similar stories to appear. It is also entirely possible that God was somehow involved in either flooding or getting out of floods or both.
Alternativey you can decide that you already dont believe in God and therefore assume that the whole thing was not divine in any way. That too is circular reasoning.
Poking fun at the Mormons doesn't make your statement more true.
Many of the stories featuring in the book of Genesis appear in other traditions as well, but there is no evidence of one being the 'original'. People in that area (the fertile crescent) traveled, traded and met each other on a continuous basis, and liked to exchange stories and ideas. They all spoke similar languages, and communication between them was easy.
As for the 'Tree of Life' - there is simply no such story in the book of Genesis. The tree mentioned in it is the tree of knowledge, or wisdom - under another interpretation (Hebrew: "pri etz ha-daat"). Needles to say that the same is true for the later 'apple' interpretation - no apple is mentioned in the book of Genesis.
Your belief in the origin of Noah's myth being in the seasonal floods is interesting, but it's unsubstantiated. Another interpretation, and a more interesting one IMO, links this ancient Middle-Eastern myth to a much earlier period, when the black sea was flooded by the water of the Mediterranean sea gushing through the Bosphorus opened by a massive earthquake. Archaeological evidence of human settlements was found at the bottom of the black sea, and dated to about 7,000 BC, if I remember correctly.
"Poking fun at the Mormons doesn't make your statement more true."
Perhaps not, but it does make it a whole lot funnier. I got a chuckle out of the comment.
Isn't it a bigger assumption to conclude that it did occur exactly as described (despite a lack of established scientific evidence) and that it was caused by an omnipotent being as a punishment on mankind?
Isn't it more reasonable to conclude that Noah parting the waters is a story (a wonderful story, but not fact) rather than a historic account of a man trancending the laws of physics?
If that isn't obvious...
Yes, you are right, I meant to say "The Tree of Knowledge", it was but a Darwinist keyboard slip to call it the "Tree of Life".
But I don't buy the Black Sea/Mediterranean flood myth. The last Mediterranean refilling was far too long ago (5 Million years) and despite a lot of looking, the evidence for a catastrophic Black Sea flood is pretty weak. I think this is a classic example of people trying to fit the Bible into actual history/archaeology and failing.
Noah didn't part the waters, Moses did (allegedly).
Noah was a much more practical man, he built a boat.
Why didn't Moses think of that?
Moses was more practical than Noah. Moses knew that it would be impossible for him to build an ark by the time the army of Egyptians reach them. So he choose the more possible way of asking God to show them the way.
"Yee shall know them [in time] by their fruits."
Sounds like Nash Equilibrium Point Math to me, (QED) common sense, (Just what DID the Door Mouse say?) and maybe even Lao Tzu et al, right Festus? Oh, and what's the complexity ratio between our little jello-brains and The Universe? But still, does that mean Utterly Obsequious humility is advisable when reading two/three/or more old geezers from waaaaaay before aircraft, (etc) telecommunications, (etc) nuclear weapons, (etc, like the UN) and all this NEW stuff, (etc)? And JUST what about Biblical hottie Ruth? And why, re A&E, the apple, which,(OMG)evolved in western China, WESTERN CHINA,(!!!)
Apparently ye shall know a few others by their fruitcakes.
Dear Mr. CEO / Teacher
"Apparently ye shall know a few others by their fruitcakes."
Absolutely! But did you mean me, or THEM? (let me leap to the conclusion you mean THEM…)
Quite enjoyed some of your posts: "In my opinion, 99.9999% of scholars are pedants - Let me try and explain this in terms an arrogant person can understand - …not all Scots are thrifty, not all Irish are drunks (well, not all of them) and not all Italians play the mandolin. - It is the REST of us that are 'perverted.' - I also know how to spell. (In one of your posts, did you mean "old" instead of "hold"?) - with a tranquilizer gun and subdue fierce creatures without harming them? Why couldn't something similar work in America. (indeed!) - I know what "pro bono" means. It is Latin for "Cannot find a job." (Wait CEO/teach, is that from the view of the lawyer, or the jobless schmuck asking for free legal work?)
One of the great things about TE is the access it gives on to a poster's previous posts. Instead of a single post's faceless position, the previous posts bring flesh and blood life to a poster. Try it.
In support of you meaning THEM: I'm an x Viet Vet Special Forces A Team Commander, got my first diplomatic passport in 1957 (for Vietnam, before the war. Want proof, Mr. CEO?, Sir? ;- ) and now, ["Please take a moment in your busy life and stoop to help them."] I teach English in Nanjing, with a little SinoYankee private diplomacy on the side. In that arena, my post was written for a specific and limited readership, some of whom are scholars, allegedly.
Wanna get in touch, my fellow teacher? My operational program here is very successful. Chipnanjingatyahoodotcom. Sounds like a possible STARTING POINT to me. How you?
Great bitch slap to a pompous ass that is not as smart as he wants us to believe he is.
The Economist explains: Who would pay a "mansion tax"
The Economist explains
Football and British politics: David Cameron's own goal
Game theory
Britain's election campaign: April 26th: The deafening silence of David...
The week ahead: A very normal affair
Football and politics: David Cameron's own goal
America's Ukrainian mission: Training wheels
Have you listened to The Economist Radio on Facebook?
The Economist Radio is an on-demand social listening platform that allows you to listen, share and recommend The Economist audio content
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you'll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more


text:
So, the zombie apocalypse happened. What now - Comments
We welcome your comments. Commentary and photos submitted to StarNet (azstarnet.com) may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in azstarnet.com's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Star, StarNet, or its parent company. See the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.
Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks on other site users are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on azstarnet.com.
You may not post copyrighted material from another publication. (Link to it instead, using a headline or very brief excerpt.)
No short set of guidelines such as this can spell out all possible instances of material or behavior that we might deem to be a violation of our publishing standards, and we reserve the right to remove any material posted to the site.
Most Popular
- 1 Hansen: Byrne, UA look to reclaim former success
- 2 Street Smarts: Few Tucsonans saw Wyatt Earp as hero
- 3 McSally told about postal consolidation's negative impacts
- 4 Isabel Celis vanished 3 years ago
- 5 Arizona basketball: With Poeltl, Utes will challenge again
- 6 Big Jim: A massacre revisited
- 7 Results for Southern Arizona runners in the Boston Marathon
- 8 Man killed in east-side single-vehicle crash
- 9 Sunny days return for Tucson's Skyline Country Club
- 10 Bring back all your Blue Bell ice cream
Follow the Arizona Daily Star
Deals, offers & events
View more...Sunset Rides available at All Around Trail Horses - View the sunset from a scenic viewpoint. (520) 298-8980
Bring your camera. Approximately 1 1/2 hours total. $55 per person.
Ask what our soup of the day is or Albondigas is always good! Molina's Midway Mexican 520-325-9957
Come in and try our Carne Asada Tacos or maybe a Chile Relleno…
Your Children can Learn and Enjoy Horseback Riding this Spring at Just Horsin' Around Day Camp ~ Call 520-591-1615 to Register Today!
Got a horse crazy kid between the ages of 7 and 18? Our horse…
Care giving for your loved ones in a family setting at Elderhaven
ELDERHAVEN is a non-denominational Christian Adult Care Home p…
Premium vaping products all made in the U.S.A.! Tucson's Vape Escape is the place to be! Stop by the shop today! 520-333-4318
Looking for the hottest new items to vape with? We carry hand…

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The names are legendary and so are their stories! Below is a list of all the men and women who have been inducted into the Jackrabbit Sports Hall of Fame. If you want to read more about their accomplishments, click on the links below. |
Jackrabbit Extra
Watch Live & On-Demand SDSU Sports
Justin Sell Show (05.06.2015)
Baseball Highlights vs Western...


text:
The Office of Student Life promotes and aids in creating a campus climate and culture that respects and celebrates diversity. We are committed to creating educational programs/events that promote awareness and understanding of diversity, social justice, gender equity, historically underrepresented communities, multiculturalism, and much more. Contact email@example.com for more information.
Diversity Programs
Clubs: Student Life oversees all of the campus diversity student organizations. The office provides guidance and resources for groups to be successful.
Dine & Dialogue Series: The Discussions on Diversity program provides students and the campus an opportunity to engage in discussion on a variety of topics with guest presenters. Students learn more about people from different backgrounds and experiences and have an open discussion in addition to having their questions answered. Check out our recent online flyer here.
Diversity Council: The Diversity Council is an advisory body established to coordinate and guide ongoing progress in fulfilling the commitment to diversity outlined in the mission statement and identified as a priority through UW Bothell's strategic planning processes.
Diversity Programmers: Diversity programmers educate the campus on differences and similarities between groups and individuals while promoting a welcoming environment. They encourage students to promote acceptance and inclusiveness in their daily lives while becoming global citizens.
Large Diversity Events and Student Trainings: Student Life hosts a number of large events and trainings during the year. Programs include ally training, diversity training, Intercultural Night, Bollywood Night, Martin Luther King Jr. Day of Service, and Lunar New Year, among others.
IDEA (Identity, Dialogue, Expression, Action) Project: IDEA Project is a site (UW1 Room 161) for expression, deliberation, strategic planning, action, and reflection. IDEA Project draws on the many experiences and talents of UWB's diverse student population to design and implement events, projects, programs, and collaborative initiatives that address issues of student concern. Diversity is understood across all pathways of difference. This project is a collaboration between Student Life and Community Based Learning and Research. Contact Leah Shelton for more information email@example.com.
Intercultural Leadership Alliance (ILA) - The Intercultural Leadership Alliance (ILA) educates students, faculty and staff about creating a universally inclusive campus by creating an environment that supports the well-being of all identities, all backgrounds, and all experiences and where everyone's opinions are heard, valued, and affirmed.
International Student Facilitators (ISF) - International Student Facilitators (ISF) are current international and domestic students here to introduce international/domestic students to student life at UW Bothell.
Reflection Room: The Reflection Room offers students a place to relax and engage in the five areas of wellness: intellectual, spiritual, emotional, social and physical. Located in UW1-380.
About Us
Diversity Programmers
Other Annual Programs:
Intercultural Night
Lunar New Year
MLK Day of Service
email@example.com Office of Student Life