You are viewing ljchristian

04 January 2010 @ 02:25 pm
The Dawkins Evolution
31 October 2007 @ 06:59 pm
This makes the point quite well.
22 December 2006 @ 01:03 pm
The myth that the medievals believed in a flat earth

Turns out medievals weren't as ignorant of the shape of the earth as is popularly assumed. One cannot say the same about moderns' ignorance of the medievals, unfortunately (myself included).
13 December 2006 @ 03:40 pm
BTW, Christmas was *not* "based on a pagan holiday."

Apparently, it was the other way around.
03 December 2006 @ 02:04 pm
The Accuracy of Scripture

A very good article by Jimmy Akin detailing the Catholic position on the inerrancy of Scripture. It also highlights a problem commonly found in fundamentalist circles (of both the Christian and atheist types), that is, not taking into account what the sacred writers are intending to assert when they write, and simply reading the text in a literalistic manner.

This problem accounts for quite a few of the supposed "errors" in Scripture that one finds. Akin gives a perfect example in choosing the first chapter of Genesis. After all, one can hardly accuse the author of Genesis of teaching "scientifc error" if he is not attempting to assert scientific fact in the first place. That would be the equivalent of charging Christ with "historical error" by stating that the Good Samaritan never actually existed. Such reasoning, unfortunately, kind of misses the whole point of the passage in question.

In fact, Akin on his blog makes very good, brief arguments for not interpreting Genesis 1 in a literalistic manner but rather in a different manner. I particularly appreciate the interpretation he presents since it does not rely on the findings of modern science, but solely on the clues found in the text itself. (Personally, I would be interested in reading such arguments more in depth some day, when I have more time...)

My own position could be put thus: I believe Scripture to be inerrant in whatsoever it intends to assert (whether that be faith and morals, science, history, etc.). However, one must determine what it is the text is actually intending to assert in the first place. If one reads poetry as science, or reads parable as history, then any resulting "errors" or "contradictions" do not lie with the text, but with one's own interpretation of the same.

For as the substantial Word of God became like to men in all things, "except sin," so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error [Source]
02 December 2006 @ 03:27 am
Chesterton on miraclesCollapse )