kidwithknife
Posts: 193
Joined: 9/9/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Hello Kidwithknife, are you are well? Hey thedark. I'm pretty good. Hope you're doing ok. quote:
For the first, total agreement with you. I should have added that caveat. I think we're reading from the same page then. I don't think we can probably understand Western civilisation without having at least a basic grounding in Christianity. Personally I'm in favour of teaching philosophy in secondary school and I see theology as a branch of that. quote:
For the second. Both. And you are correct, the bible never made that claim. Interesting. I have the following problems with literal innerancy. For it to stand, it needs to be falsifable in all areas, not just the spiritual. And I can't see how it is, particuarly on scientific matters. If we take the Genesis creation accounts as an example, they very much reflect the Greek concept of the universe, which we now know to be incorrect. There's also the problem of inclusion and exclusion. Which, if any, of the apocrypha do we include? While some of them are of dubious authenticity, I don't think that's universally the case. The final issue I have is more abstract. I actually think that to take all parts of the Bible literally, including the more poetic parts, is to miss out. There are parts of the Bible I actually think are stronger for being myths. quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent It takes merely a logical mind; a mind more concerned with empiricism than abstract notions and metaphysics. On the other hand, the view that empiricism is the best way of understanding the world is not provable using purely empirical methods.
_____________________________
We went to see the fall of Rome - I thought it would please us To watch how the mighty go in a blaze of hubris But I just stood there hypnotised by all the beautiful madness (New Model Army, Into the Wind)
|