You guys..theologists, catholics,...whatever you want to call yourselves, are something else. You seem to be over thinking everything so much, in order to be able to somehow explain it, that you do nothing more than further complicate it. I kinda like to think that God would want the average Joe, with an average IQ, to be able to understand his meaning. It seems, at least, like he believed the story of Adam and Eve.....
The Bible said God created the Earth. It does not say how He created it. The people who wrote the Bible were not interested in the mechanism of creation. They were theologians - not scientists. So they were asking a completely different set of questions than a scientist would ask. Just because we interpret the Bible differently does not mean we will not end up in the same place.
An Joe with an average IQ is quite capable of reasoned thought. Being capable of thought, he is also capable of understanding. These are the two primary prerequisites for looking beyond the written word of scripture and discerning its meaning. This does not require or involve "overthinking." It merely requires a questioning mind. Nor does it result in overcomplication, for the greater understanding of scripture a person achieves, the more light he throws on it, and the more light he throws on scripture, the more he simplifies it. It is the darkness that is complicated.
Protestants also read the Bible and make determinations about which parts are literal and which parts are not. Fundamentalists think Jesus was joking when he said: Protestants don't take Christ's words as literal even thoug He was pretty clear he wasn't speaking figuratively. He also said
All good points, and I look forward to addressing each one. Unfortunately, I am needed in Shreveport this morning, and will be out of pocket. We can continue this conversation later this evening. Have a great day.
I object to his characterization that environmentalism is a religion. He is not free to redefine accepted terms to make them support his thesis. If he sees some parallels between unrelated philosophies, it is worthy of attention and he is free to investigate and draw conclusions from it. I do not dismiss this at all and find it interesting. But he cannot simply change a commonly accepted definition of religion in that cursory a fashion. He ignores all the facts that preclude environmentalism from being a religion. It makes for an attention grabbing title, though. This is not Crichton the former scientist, this is Crichton the master storyteller.
I understand and I appreciate your faith. But right and wrong do not apply to faith. By definition, the faithful must be faithful whether they are right or wrong. You see? History has shown us many times that the faithful are not always right and they are not always rewarded. You need look no further than God's Chosen People, the Jews. Your dogged faith in Hebrew mythology is admirable, but God has scattered thousands of sects all over the world, each with their own oral traditions. Who is to say which is true? My people descend from Vikings. If they are right, and you're wrong...you'll never enter Valhalla. Think about that for a second. Eternity is an awfully long time my friend. :wink: Valhalla won't seem right without you.
There is nothing wrong with environmentalism. I consider myself something of an environmentalist. But it is not a religion and should not be treated as one. We always run into trouble whenever we replace God as the center of our existence. This is what Christ of speaking of when he spoke of the king whose heart was found with his treasure. I think many people - both liberals and conservatives - have done the same thing with their political ideology that some people may have done with environmentalism.
Something of an environmentalist - sounds like a conservationist. Like I said before, there's nothing wrong with caring about our environment & wanting it to flourish. The argument here is not referring to those people.
