Bertrand Russell famously said that if he stated that there was a teapot circling the Sun, nobody could prove him wrong, and that this was exactly the same as saying, without proof, that a god existed:
“Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time”
Or as Carl Sagan put it more succinctly “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.
Note that Russell was writing exactly 60 years ago, and so could happily include in his argument that the teapot was “too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes”. Sixty years on and we have massively stronger telescopes. Well, ok, he could certainly still say that the telescopes wouldn’t see a small teapot wandering through space between Earth and Mars, but a medium-sized teapot?
Telescopes can see almost back to the Big Bang, see the earliest stars and galaxies that formed. Can see the tiniest perturbations in the rings of Saturn, tiny colour differences on Mercury, changing seasons on Titan. Billions of galaxies can be seen, black holes in abundance, nebulae, distant planets circling different stars, every phenomenon of the universe. Can see every small rock and sandstorm on the surface of Mars, can see where the ice melts in Summer. Can look at details of the surface of asteroids, of comets, of lumps of rock that whizz past Earth. Can do experiments on our own Moon and see the results. Can analyse in detail the surface of the Sun, describe the history of other stars.
Telescopes can view the universe not just in the visible light spectrum, but in infrared, UV, XRay, radio waves. Can see where the “dark matter” is, can “weigh” galaxies, estimate the size of black holes. Can see the echoes of the big bang in the cosmic background radiation. Can see the arrangement of the universe in local groups of galaxies and in the super groupings.
The detail in our description of the universe is now quite astonishing. And nowhere in all that is there a sign of a teapot. Not a big one or a little one. Oh, and no sign of a fellow with a white beard and flowing robes either. Nor tall skinny gods or short stout ones. Nor any of the other imaginary elephants or buddhas or rainbow serpents. No imaginary figures, unless of course they are hiding in a sunken cave on Mars, or under the frozen surface of Titan, or shyly peeping from behind the dust clouds in a nebula, or popping in and out of a black hole in the middle of a galaxy, or, well, you get the idea. No one out there.
For the religious, like homeopaths, the less you can see the greater the proof, until the point where absolute zero evidence equals absolute certainty. So I guess they have it now – whatever the size of the telescope, or all the other devices with which we see the universe, the evidence for teapots, sorry, gods, is zero, zip, zilch, nada, nothing. Them gods ain’t nowhere man.
Nor is the teapot.
I’m disappointed. You fail to mention the coffee pot
There’s a coffee pot too?
I’m sure some people might make such an assertion
(It was a lovely post, David)
I wonder whether the teapot could be hiding in a location that is exactly opposite the earth on a plane through the sun such that it is always hidden from us by the sun. I’m sure there are equivalent arguments for god(s) but I don;t care to find them. Nice piece, again, David.
Thanks Iain. One of the many space exploration vehicles would have seen it there. But yes, you’d have to argue your teapot was hiding in a very odd place indeed. And then you’d have to ask why!
Be careful for what we search and hope for. Perhaps one day the said telescopes will be able to see beyond the Big Bang, view not only the tea-pot but also what is inside.
Maybe the much-sought-after “being” might be there – and revealed to be a god which we have no reason to like.
That would not advance society one iota – because this “post-modern” biblical revelation would be unbelievable to believers.
Please point out to me, Colin, how much society has been advanced by atheism. It seems painfully obvious that biblical revelation has motivated people to build hospitals, build educational institutions, built orphanages, deliver incalculable amounts of food to hungry people, provide comfort and medication to AIDS victim, etc. etc. etc. My money’s on the Bible.
Eric Snyder – You are like all religious people – obsessed. Religion did not build hospital, science did. And science generally does not go hand in hand with religion. How ironic that you mention aids and orphanages. Orphanages were built so that they priests could abuse children and aids is made many times worse by the Pope insistence on blaming this disease on condoms. Organised religion has done more harm to this planet and its people than any other single issue. Give me the likes of Hawking and Darwin over any bible thumping looney who think that the world was created in a week and women came from a bloke’s rib. It’s fairy stories and nothing else. If the first book written had happened to be Alice in Wonderland, you would be wearing a funny hat and worshipping white rabbits.
Not obsessed, convinced by truth. After the Council of Nicea in 325, a decree went forth from the Christian church to build a hospital in every cathedral town. Medieval hospitals were built in Europe and care provided by nuns and priests. The list goes on. Neither “religion” nor “science” built the hospitals, Christians did because they were following the biblical principle of caring for the unfortunates (and they still do).
The first orphanages were founded by the Catholic church in the 1st century. They were founded to care for the weakest members of society and not to abuse them. Your statements simply do not align with the facts of history.
Whether the name is Hawking, Carroll, Darwin, Jesus, or Horton, I’m open to learning from them as long as it is truth and not error. You, unfortunately, seem to have chosen error instead.
No my friend not the truth, opinion.
How do you personally discern the difference between historical fact and opinion? I’m puzzled by your response.
It might be Tetley tea-bags?
Russell certainly knows all about the “teapot” now! Just because you can’t see something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Before we had the technology to “see” planets outsided our solar system, we simply deduced they were there due to other indications: light “wobble”, etc.
I guess I’m just a victim of common sense; something doesn’t come from nothing. And, we’ve got a whole universe full of “something.” Where did it come from? More specifically, life doesn’t come from “non-life.” Leslie Orgel concluded it was implausible for life to come about without “when pigs fly” chemistry (The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth. http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0060018&ct=1).
I have to hand it to you guys, you have a bunch more faith than I do!
Eric Snyder – please explain how ‘god’ can suddenly exist out of nothing. Religion is nothing but vicious ratbag nuttery invented for pederasts. the catholic church proves this statement to be correct.
God didn’t just suddenly exist out of nothing. If He did, He would not be eternal. He always has existed; “In the beginning, God…”
I certainly don’t disagree with your negative comments about “religion.” I pretty much share your opinion. But, there is a great difference between religion and “relationship.” And, “relationship” with God is what biblical revelation (ala Colin, see above) is all about.
The same way “god” cannot “suddenly exist out of nothing”, nothing can exist out of nothing. I agree! Hence, evolutionary theory has never made a lot of sense to me. The first law of thermodynamics pretty much proves that something can’t come out of nothing.
But Eric, do you not see that if you can say “god is eternal” then you can say the “universe is eternal”. That is not an argument for a “god”. Try Lawrence Krauss “a universe from nothing” which is an excellent description of the argument about “origins” of the universe.
Oh, and “thermodynamic laws” have nothing to do with evolution, that’s a very old creationist lie.
Not sure why making the claim that God is eternal therefore makes the universe eternal? I will check out Krauss’ description how the universe can come from “nothing”, but it doesn’t sound logical to me. If God is eternal and the universe had a beginning, doesn’t that put God outside of the dimension of time?
I understand your contention that thermodynamics is not applicable to evolution and I shouldn’t have talked about evolutionary theory when discussing origins of the universe. But, don’t you think the first law of thermodynamics DOES have everything to do with matter (the universe) coming into existence from nothing? The beginning of the universe would have to do with energy and mass.
There is a discussion of thermodynamics and evolution here http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
Yes, David, I agree. Mentioning evolutionary theory and the laws of thermodynamics in the same paragraph was, as I mentioned above, a mistake on my part.
But, after reading a bit about Krauss’ argument, it appears he begins with the same assumptions Hawking & Mlodnow does in Grand Design; nothing “miraculous” has ever happened. Krauss delves into quantum physics and dodges the issue of where particle laws came from.
It becomes easy to dispense with origin by design when your reasoning HAS to begin with eliminating any consideration of a designer.
Didn’t go to the link, but thermodynamics and evolution have everything to do with each other. Thermodynamics makes evolution possible and drives it (temperature flows, energy flows, sinks and sources). In fact, it is the opposite of what religious people argue.
Well Brian, according to the evolutionists, neither the first nor the second law of thermodynamics apply to living systems. You can’t choose to “selectively” use these laws. They either apply or they don’t.
Some things about religion that occur to me as I ponder your latest post David.
Religious orgs provide a place for those amongst us who need some kind of reassurance that ‘everything’s alright’. A social hot spot backed by an authority of some kind and their nicely attired rep. When you haven’t got the nous to work it all out for yourself (a + b = no gods) or perhaps you’re so totally stressed (in a war zone) that you can’t cope then a God, nicely reinforced by millennia (it must be true because it happened a long time ago and we can’t check now anyway) of history, is a nice teddy bear to hold onto. And loads of people convert when the grim reaper is looking over their shoulder, fear of death and oblivion is a great motivator.
The English language is full of biblical refs, God, Bloody, Jesus Christ, Holy Cow, Sod It, Damned Hell, Holy Crap, Lordy are a bit hard to avoid using and colour our lives and are cast about like H Potter spells to great effect, although, in the books I’ve been penning over the years I’ve made it a point never to use any of these references.
The word ‘power’ when used with various religious words has significance when used in everyday language esp by those that believe that religion has power, but what kind of power, certainly not moral power, but financial power, yes, coercive power, fear-mongering.
So in order to dispel the religious miasma that stains our various cultures we need to provide something better, mind you, there are some good bits in some of the religious and spiritual practices that could do some good to include in any redesign of any moral or other ‘code of civilisation’. But I have a feeling that that kind of civilisational change will take even more millennia.
Perhaps a good place to start might be the creating of new cuss words to replace the old religious ones, any suggestions?
Don’t you find it a bit interesting that you never hear “Buddha H. Gautama!!”, “Mohammeddamned light won’t go on”, or “Oh My Confucious!”
Also, what about the transformed lives? Hard to put a leader like a Charles Colson in the category of someone who hasn’t “got the nous.” A very capable and highly achieving individual who found life “wanting” after climbing to the very peaks of power, independence and influence. I think transformed lives speak with more authority than H. Potter.
God botherers are the same as climate change deniers in that they have not one shred of evidence, research or a single provable fact to prove their beliefs.
Criticising Hawking et al for their ideas about the nature of reality is a bit rich since they at least are trying to work out how it all works; where are the God researchers?
David pointed out in an earlier blog post about the LHC, how the God botherers immediately jumped on the band wagon saying look, evidence of God! Really? Why is it evidence of God?
Note to self: must phone Dalai Lama to see if Buddhists have their own set of expletives, or any at all.
Transformed lives … evidence of what precisely, the ability to change or proof of God? I’ve just been reading With Liberty and Justice for Some by Glen Greenwald, I’d like to see some life transforming happening in the American elites … these days the 1% including the administration, are essentially lawless.
Do I sound a bit rabid, sorry about that, I guess I’m impatient for some peace in the world, some sweat reason, honesty, trust and cooperation and so on.
Barrie, of course I would disagree with you that there is not “one shred of evidence, research, or a single provable fact…” The first step of the Scientific Method is observation & description of a phenomenon. Observation and the 1st Law tells us that something doesn’t come from nothing (even Krauss has to discard quantum/particle physics to come to his conclusions). So, there is observable evidence that there is “something” throughout our universe; step 1, check.
I didn’t mean to sound as if I was “criticizing” Hawking & Mlodnow, I’m not that arrogant (and certainly not that intelligent!). I simply found it interesting the assumption they made.
There are quite a few “God researchers” if you will take the time to look. Of course, they find it nearly impossible to publish because of the strong bias against even considering that a Creator exists outside the dimensions of time. If you think there is no bias, take a look at Ben Stein’s “Expelled”;
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/. Ben is hardly a Bible thumping anti-science believer. The bias in academia is shockingly blatant.
To experience the most “peace, reason, honesty, trust and cooperation”, simply visit the society, organization, or institution where biblical principles are sincerely implemented. Of course, people aren’t perfect. But, plenty of 1%’s (at least here in the US) have learned they’re not “lawless” or above the law. Barry Minkow, Bernard Madoff, Michael Millken, Jack Abramoff, and Bill Clinton immediately come to mind.
I am grateful for the 1% who DON’T break the law too. The multiplied millions of $’s given to charity, education, medical care, housing and other areas of need are just fine by me.
to say that the bible built the hospitals and schools and etc – maybe it was that for generations atheists were oppressed and murdered by the religious, and maybe the church had all the money & power. but i am sure you would have to agree that the great expansion in health & education came about with rise of the secular state.
can an atheist be moral? http://bogong-moth.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/children-of-void.html
Seriously?! Tomas (bogong-moth) has the audacity to bag on Christians, God & biblical principle.
Then he goes on about we are simply an accident in a “dark soulless universe” & while declaring that “each life is a miracle.” And then quotes that his morality is based on “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Please enlighten me about the “generations of atheists… murdered”, I’m not familiar with how/when that happened.
Meta, I do disagree. Wherever biblical principles are practiced, the people enjoy the best education, best medical care, most stable families, most freedom and the highest quality of life for all. The “secular state” (Cuba, Soviet Union, & Red China immediately come to mind) generally oppresses the weakest and neediest in the state.
Of course atheists can be moral; I’ve never indicated anything to the contrary. There are moral agnostics and “secular statists” too. Their morality (if they do exhibit it), however, is based on biblical principle.
I disagree. My integrity is not based on biblical principles at all. We have a “christian” opposition leader here who would have us all back in the dark ages based on his biblical principles and his sense of integrity leaves a lot to be desired.
Not sure what you’re disagreeing with Oyeniyi, but the principles of truthfulness, respect for life, respect for other’s property, and honesty in general (principles I’m sure you practice) are all biblically based principles.
Which biblical principles are the ones your opposition leader wants to implement that will take you back to the “dark ages? Just curious.
Yes I agree with this wholeheartedly. And Eric Snyder’s claims about hospitals etc is too preposterous for words. Britain is just about a secular country these days and it appears to be doing OK. Wheras countries like The USA probably has good hospitals because it needs them, they keep shooting each other, bible in one hand and a gun in the other!
But, Britain was not a secular country when the hospitals (or the colleges & universities) were started.
Not too many incidents of the types of shootings you’ve described (Bible in one hand, gun in the other). Let’s face it, it would kind of ruin your aim! But, as the U.S. becomes more secular, it’s likely to happen more frequently than it does today. The implementation of biblical principles inhibits the commission of crimes against people and state.
Have you ever been to Britain? The Universities and hospitals are not all centuries old. I know that the postcard industry likes to paint that picture but it is not the case. Good joke about the bible and the gun, but it doesn’t alter the facts. More people are killed in the name of imagined Gods than for any other reason.
No, I have not visited Britain. I did not mean to imply that the universities and hospitals were old structures, sorry for any confusion. I simply meant that Oxford’s beginnings were in the 12th century and the earliest hospital was in the 10th century. Of course, these both pre-date the reformation so they were Catholic (not defending Catholicism!) but England was not so secular at the time.
Factually, more people have been killed in the name of totalitarianism than any “religious” wars. Check out Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot for starters. These guys put the Spanish Inquisition AND the Crusades to shame!
Religion is a cultural artifact Eric, not the other way round, unless of course newts have a religion. You can interrogate the universe and get answers but you can’t interrogate God, literally, only in a metaphysical sense.
Remember F1, I’m not referencing “religion” but, rather, biblical principle (arguably NOT a cultural artifact). And, with that perspective, biblical principle predates (In the beginning, God…) newts! Also, following biblical principle, you CAN interrogate God. Not that you’ll always get an answer but you certainly can get a “black & white” answer for the things that really are important in this life.
Eric, I am disagreeing that integrity and ethical behaviours are religious principles. That notion is, quite frankly, unable to be substatiated in any way at all. Both the bible and the qu’ran lay down certain behavioral rules, but so do many Sci-fi books out there.
You really need to recognize these principles are only in those books because the principles per-dated religions, not the other way around.
Keep in mind, I am not talking about “religious” principles. I’m speaking of biblical principles. As you well know, the Bible pre-dates the qu’ran by many centuries and I’m sure you’re joking about the sci-fi books.
The New Testament records that when Jesus taught the “religious leaders” of the day about love, that they were all “astonished” by His teaching. The principle of Christian love was radically new to the “religious” people of the day. This principle (and many others) did not pre-date Christianity.
As recently as the 1960′s, the Sawi tribespeople in then Dutch New Guinea esteemed deceptive practices leading up to murder as a goal to be pursued. So, I think it’s quite easy to substantiate that the absence of biblical principles facilitates barbarous behavior. The practice of biblical principles is a benefit to all society.
I would argue that the very inclusion of biblical beliefs is what has torn humanity apart for centuries. More people have been killed in the name of an imagined deity than for any other reason. And the New Testament does not “record” it opines.
Please see below in TO’s post.
Pre-dated….. The iPad loves to autocorrect
BTW, what was it that the opposition leader wanted to do that would take you back to the dark ages?
Again, for clarification, I did not reference biblical “beliefs” but, rather, biblical principles; BIG difference! People come away from a casual visit to the Bible with some very strange biblical “beliefs.”
I don’t understand how you can state the NT doesn’t record. Of course it does; that’s exactly what it does. It records the arrival of the Messiah to earth and the impact and effect that had on the culture of Judea, Samaria and the rest of the Earth. That record has stood the test of archaeology and history as accurate and is supported by more manuscript evidence, by FAR, than any other ancient “record.”
Sorry, hit the wrong button. This post should have been in response to Wordsfrom… 1:26 post.
David, what have you done, always stirring the hornet’s nest. I can see you on your farm chuckling away.
Eric, your responses are dangerously close to being fundamentalist, the un-assailable position of a dogmatist.
I have a friend who taught theology for 20 years at university, one day some 7th Day Adventists came to his door, he happened to mention that he taught about the Bible, they said to him ‘isn’t it wonderful, what do you think of it’. Later on he said to me ‘well I couldn’t really tell them it was just a load of rubbish,’ (he told them something else) I asked him, are you an atheist? After a couple of seconds he said, yes. This from a very erudite man, who knows his stuff and knows how to argue.
I remember another event, one day an Indian man came into the shop where my friend worked and a discussion about God started, my friend said to him, ‘why do you believe in God?’ The man ummed and ahhed for a few minutes and then said, ‘because he makes me happy.’
I think I prefer something with a bit more certainty; wooly thinking just doesn’t appeal to me, so Eric, why do you believe in God?
Now Fred Nile, there’s a real God loving fundamentalist for you, and he’s not shy about teaming up with the likes of the Shooters and Fishers Party who want to put hunters into our national parks, oh, and he’s dead against teaching ethics in our schools. And then there’s George Pell who thinks that human induced global warming is a load of rubbish. I think this rather negates any moral authority that either could claim for their beliefs.
I should have mentioned, as I believe you live in the US Eric, that Fred Nile is a Christian and a member of our NSW State parliament and that George Pell is Sydney’s Catholic Archbishop.
Yes, I am in the US so excuse my ignorance of things Australian. I did visit Sydney and its environs while on R&R during a tour in Viet Nam in ’68 though and fell in love with the people and the environment there.
The only thing I could learn about why Nile would oppose “ethics” classes is because he felt they were based on collectivist (Nazi & Communist) principles. Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know; just what I read. If it is true, I understand his position especially if these ethics classes were to replace biblically based ethics taught in schools. He did seem to have a pretty good record of opposing violence toward women and children and the mistreatment of Aboriginal people. So, SOME good qualities!
As far as Pell and AGW (again I don’t defend Catholicism when/if it departs from biblical principle); maybe he just hasn’t taken the time to learn about it yet. You know, David’s plentiful evidence (maybe Pell should visit the site!) has partially changed my own thoughts about climate change. I did read that Pell’s opposition was to SOME of the “hysteric and extreme claims” about climate change. I think quite a few people hesitate about buying into those extraordinary claims as well.
You use the word “dogmatist” like it’s a bad thing! There are a number of very dogmatic comments (without comment) on this blog. I do, however, seriously consider the opinions of many folks (you included) who post on David’s blog.
Not a fan of “wooly thinking” myself. So, why do I believe in God? Simply, I dogmatically believe the 1st & 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. “Something” doesn’t come from “nothing”; 1st Law. Clearly our universe is “something” so it must have had an outside source to “cause” it.
This does not automatically equate the universe with “eternity” because of the 2nd Law. Entropy says things are equilibrating (winding down) and “perpetual motion machines” can’t exist. So, our universe can’t be a perpetual motion “machine” and hence can’t be eternal. It had a beginning.
If this is true, then either science is wrong (don’t buy into that), the universe “created” itself (questionable/scientifically unreasonable), or there is a creator. If I’m walking down the beach and come across a sand castle, my first thought isn’t “Look what the waves and sand did.” I’m thinking someone had fun creating this cool sand castle. I choose the creator option and God is as good a name as any other for now.
On second thought, as more information is developed there might be more options and I will open-mindedly study and consider those options. I am neither anti-science nor anti-technology; I love the benefits both of these disciplines have brought to our standard of living.
Religion – the belief in a god, or gods, of whatever stripe – is one thing.
But Biblical pPinciples are another. Even for monotheistic Christians there is not just one bible upon which to base those principles upon.
Various interpretations from various writings and translations into numerous languages, have been made in relation to the Christian bible. These have been ongoing for a couple of millennia: The Dead Sea Scrolls in their various languages are torturous enough; but they have had a mixture of cohesion and diversification since that time. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church likes to take historical supremacy in Christian lineage; but other Coptic Churches and Catholicism differ, and stick to their own biblical principles.
One and a half thousand years down the track of “the common era”, in Merry England, King Henry the eighth set a new set of principles again, diverging from those of the Catholic bible. Just eighty years later, King James took another punt at bliblical principles and presented his version of “THE HOLY BIBLE, containing the old and new testaments translated out of their original tongues: and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by his majesty’s special command, A.D. 1611,”
Since that time, bibles have been available with various interpretations to ease the workload for minds that might be otherwise confused.
At least a modicum of flexibility has been possible without undue bloodcurdling fuss. Christian sects undoubtedly have intra-faith differences about biblical principles such as freedom for women to control their fertility; but don’t hit the headlines regarding these differences; at least not as much as the Rabbis belting each other at a Jewish synagogue, or the call for a murderous jihad against Taslima Nasrin for suggesting it was time to modernize the biblical principles of the Koran.
Each to their own principles – as long as they are genuinely civilized; but biblical? – which biblical?
Actually Colin, there is little difference in translation between the Hebrew biblical texts of the Scrolls and the 1611 KJV. The differences between the 1611 KJV and the NIV some 250 years later involve changes between Elizabethan English and 20th century English. But, there is no great “diversification” since that time or even since the BC days of the “Scrolls.” Language usage changes are the key changes and those don’t really affect basic Christian doctrine.
So as far as how we know God, how we deal with our spouse, our family, our culture, or our state those principles remain the same. Of course, there are differences of “interpretation” and those differences primarily affect church gov’t & behavior. But there is little difference between how one Christian denomination advocates relationships vs a different denomination. Some want to sing acapella and some want instrument accompaniment; so 2 different denominations. No big deal.
So to address your question “which biblical?”, let’s all try the NT as a measurement of how we govern ourselves and others for starters? We can see how that works and modify as necessary. It’d be an interesting experiment wouldn’t it?
While there is much debate here about biblical principles, we have people drowning on boats because a religious nutter politician won’t compromise, thousands dying in Syria and the USA won’t consider gun control.
Bible principles? Not a hope in hell.
If our leaders (as well as ourselves) were held accountable to upholding biblical principles, they/us would help the people drowning, they wouldn’t oppress the people in Syria, and gun control wouldn’t be necessary.
As long as you can vote in an election, peaceably gather to express your views and have a right to free speech, there IS hope.
Eric, I am afraid we are unlikely to come to much agreement, and this will be my last comment on this theme, so I will ask a final question.
How are we to ”all try the NT (New Testament) as a measurement of how we govern ourselves and others–” when differences of “interpretation’” do exist?
Differences between contemporary denominations really are a bit more than between singing acapella or instrument accompaniment. While in contemporary Christian denominations they are not as visceral as in the days of slaughtering Hugenots in 16th century France, or intra-Christian and Papal-backed Ustashi pogroms of 1939, the differences remain more than trivial.
The essence of my question lies in such an issue as: Should we take the interpretation of biblical rights of women by the not-so-lamented late Joseph Smith, perhaps that of the Vatican’s current Pope; or the interpretation by a more enlightened human being with some authority on such issues?
Colin, I do enjoy your comments and input. You have challenged me many times to learn and consider, so I don’t mean to pointlessly “argue” with you but rather discuss and try and understand.
I do think the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre was really more of a politically motivated assassanation than a difference of biblical principle interpretation. From what I learned about the Ustashi, they were idealogically Nazi nationalists and fanatically Catholic. Again, they seemed to have more of a political agenda than any desire to behave biblically.
Rather than look to the interpretations of others, how about if we “enlightened human” beings interpret the principle ourselves? How would you interpret this verse, “Be kind and compassionate to one another”? It’s pretty clear to me this in no way validates pogroms, persecutions, massacres or any other evils. Maybe we can just go with OUR interpretation and not have to rely on a political leader?
For how we treat women, how about this, at least for those who are married? “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect…” I think most wives would be OK with that! Mine is.