Hold on a gosh darn minute.

[flobadob]

Naomi24 posted a Q the other day about the church now accepting Darwin's theory of evolution. Does this mean that they now are admitting that parts of the bible are obviously completely made up? And if so how are people supposed to distinguish which parts are real and which are not supposed to be taken seriously?

Am I the only one who thinks that the bible is due another re-write, and perhaps from now on it should stop being portrayed as any way factual and more as a reference guide.

I mean, come on, does anyone care about this?

Here's the link again which was originally found by naomi24 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/rel igion/2958018/Church-to-make-posthumous-apolog y-to-Charles-Darwin.html

[flobadob]

And the jokes on Ricky https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9bk4_SRcwE

[flobadob]

I wish I'd put this under another heading. Think I might.

[naomi24]

I care. The bible, if taken from a religious viewpoint, defies logic and, hence, limits the intellect. of anyone who believes it . As far as distinguishing which parts are real and which are not, that depends upon the particular flavour of the religion - and upon those who teach that religion. The good bits are taught - and the unsavoury bits are either ignored or conveniently considered symbolic.

By the way, flobadob, why not drop the surname and call me Naomi? All the best people do, you know - and some of the worst too. Well, it's less to type at least. ;o)

[flobadob]

naomi, you've come across a major story with little effect.

[naomi24]

Do you mean the link I originally posted, or my answer to your question?

[flobadob]

Story.

[naomi24]

Yes, the implications of it have, perhaps, been somewhat overlooked.

[jno]

Jesus spoke in parables, eg about the rich going through the eyes of a camel. You can call these fables or allegories or whatever you want. It stops them being usable as news reports but it doesn't stop them being 'true' in the wider sense of the word.

[naomi24]

The link referred to a time somewhat further back than Jesus, jno.

[jno]

I know, Naomi; what I meant was that in older times people were interested in more than factual accuracy, and found their understanding was aided by the use of parables and analogies. Most of the Old Testament is reasonably historical, about the wanderings of the Israelites and what their God told them to do. But Genesis is mostly speculation about the beginning of the universe rather than history. Its explanation of how something came out of nothing hasn't actually been superseded by science yet, though it may be some day.

[naomi24]

The subject of the article is evolution, rather than creation, jno, and it raised the following question in my mind. Since we know that man has evolved, does this apology mean the church no longer believes that God created man in his present form? I feel it's a very odd thing for the Church to do.

[flobadob]

The thing is naomi, when creationists are shown to be completely wrong through scientific fact, and now by church admission, then they just talk tripe and clam up.

[naomi24]

Well, they've certainly clammed up on this link, haven't they, flobadob? It's been posted several times, but to no avail. I really would like to know the church's thinking on this one, but it seems I'd need a miracle for my wish to be granted. :o).

[jake-the-peg]

Well putting my devil's advocate hat on Naomi I feel sure that high churches like the Catholics and CofE would say that their appology to Darwin was more to do with thee way he was treated than accepting that his theory was right. Al though they do accept the possibility that that parts of the bible are analogies.

I feel sure they'd want to point out how well a created Universe gels with the Big Bang.

Speaking for the Bible literalists "yOU'RE ALL GONNA BURN IN HELL THE BIBLE'S COMPLETELY TRUE - SEND MONEY NOW!!!!"

[naomi24]

Seems you have several hats on today, Jake. Ok, Ok, the money's on it's way!

[cassa333]

It still depends on which branch of christianity you are from.

For instance the Jahovas Whitneses believe the Bible in it's entirety. The things that most people find difficult to believe on faith such as miricles and talking flaming bushes etc is taken as read as the power of God that we no longer see because of the wicked ways of the people of the world.

So the church doesn't speak for all christians only catholics.

[cassa333]

sorry forgot to subscride to the thread

[naomi24]

cassa, the link refers to the Church of England's apology to Charles Darwin..

[flobadob]

How can anyone ever live by the bible in all aspects. There is only one name for that. Mentallists.