"The scientist who extends his predictions to fields in which he cannot either prove or challenge them, however, has ceased acting as a scientist."

We should never forget this. The truths in the Bible are eternal, while the facts, as the writers understood them, are solely representative of their culture. Science is ever-changing and it must be as we seek further knowledge of our world it can never be static.

So there's a section genetic code that is significantly different in humans than in chickens, mice, rats, and chimps. Earth shattering. Language like "preserved through the transmutation of the species" and "during 300 million years it remained almost intact from the common ancestor of chicken and mice to the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans" incorporate a Darwinian world view that the study does not prove or even attempt to support, but simply assumes and takes for granted.

Moreover, the questions that this study raises in my mind do not seem to have occurred to the author, e.g., how is it that such an extensive section of genetic code could not have become garbled by mutations, DNA copying errors, over the course of 300 million years? Isn't this evidence that the proofreading enzymes are extraordinarily effective at correcting genetic copying errors, such that this section of genetic code was copied unimpaired hundreds of millions of times, over hundreds of millions of years in uncounted different species? And if the genetic copying machinery is this unerring, what of mutations, DNA copying errors, which are thought to be the raw material of evolution and the only way that new genetic information emerges to change one species into another? Whither evolution? More importantly, how could random DNA copying errors change one function in ancestors of humans into a different function in humans without going through multiple stages of non-functionality that would be eliminated from the gene pool by natural selection?

These are some of the reasons I have a "problem taking seriously what scientists tell me about the way life has been and is evolving on this planet."

I have enjoyed Dr. Weiss' writings for many years and I thank him for his many contributions to our conversation. I found many things to agree with in this posting such as: "Faith is a very powerful agent, but its power can be either beneficent or maleficent." Other statements are more puzzling. Let me focus on two.

Dr. Weiss writes: "If the Bible provides information that today someone may consider of historical or scientific interest, it is marginal, tangential, without details and inconsequential." I confess that this takes my breath away in its expansiveness. I have always thought that Christians are in fact founded upon at least a certain set of historical "facts" surrounding Jesus, His life, death and resurrection. In other words, I have a hard time accepting that these are "inconsequential". In my mind, if they are not true in reality then "faith" in them is pointless, absurd and an example of faith being maleficent.

Dr. Weiss also says: "No scientific or historical understanding, contingent and temporal, can threaten faith." I beg to differ here as well. The reigning and preeminent scientific understanding of the cosmos and living things, as expounded by the most well-known scientists appears to me to be the view that no such thing as a God brought the universe into existence nor had anything to do with creating life or bringing about the emergence of intelligent self-conscious beings we call homo sapiens. If this is true in reality then it in fact destroys faith altogether in a God described in the Bible as the original Creator and the re-Creator of a redeemed humanity at some point still in the future.

If it does not destroy such faith then I submit it will have the effect Dr. Weiss also describes: "When faith stands against reason [the truth of science], however, it becomes the destroyer of the unity of the person." In other words, it would be an absurd and delusional faith because disconnected from the true reality of the universe.

Although I have disagreements I appreciate the conversation which stimulates one to think this through.

Thank you for the post. Very interesting information for lay people like me. I'm so happy that God has given us the ability to decipher some of the mysteries of this life. God has also blessed us with people of intellectual minds that spend time contemplating these wonderful scientific findings and stimulate us with this knowledge. But, basically I am interested in knowing how all this information will reveal God to those who don't know Him. I can see how it builds my faith in Him, in knowing that He has created this wonderful world and that in the end, He is in control of it all. But, how does this information help us do what He commanded us to do. "Go preach and make disciples..."?
And as far as the Bible being written by mere humans;... it was inspired by God. So if the Bible says it, I believe it. Therefore, "In the beginning God..."

I, too, would like Herold to expound further on this sentence:

"If the Bible provides information that today someone may consider of historical or scientific interest, it is marginal, tangential, without details and inconsequential."

It is a commonplace that Christian faith is rooted in history--in the story (not mere fairy tale) of Israel and of Jesus. I read the Bible as a set of literary works, and have no trouble interpreting the Genesis pre-history in symbolic terms, or in acknowledging historical error in the parts of the narrative that present themselves as a record of what happened in time. But the most basic of its historical claims--certainly the resurrection fits into this category--really do matter. And even though the event itself cannot be addressed by the historical methodology we associate with academia, the history of the early church, and the eventual decline of paganism, do make a difference, if not a dispositive difference, as to the resurrection's plausibility. The resurrection is not MERE wishful thinking, even if it remains, at bottom, a matter of trust.

I suppose your answer to Ken's second point (but I would like to know) is that when scientists pontificate on why things exist at all, they have stepped outside their profession of science, and become ideologues. But as I say, I would like to know.

Chuck

Herold, I wonder if you think Faith or Reason is the better tool to bring us closer to Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, singing, "To the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!" (Rev 5:13), or whether the answer to the question of human destiny lies in another domain?

Everyone is focusing on Weiss's remarkable assertion that the Bible has nothing significant to say about science or history, but that isn't the most outrageous passage. This is:

"When faith stands against reason, however, it becomes the destroyer of the unity of the person. Such faith reduces the horizon and debilitates, maybe even sickens, the person."

Translation: if you deny the truth of Darwinism, you may be sick, you may have a mental illness. Talk about totalitarianism, there's a play right out of the Soviet playbook; dissidents are not only wrong or misguided, they are mentally ill.

By the way, the Soviets weren't the only totalitarians to use the mental illness strategem. Muslims also do it:

"If a Muslim says, 'I have embraced another religion instead of Islam' he--before he is called to repentance--will be brought before a group of medical specialists, so that they can examine him to see if he is still in his right mind. After he has then been called to repentence, but decides to hold fast to the testimony of another religion not coming from Allah--that is, not Islam--he will be judged [executed]."
-- King Hassan II of Morocco

Now, if only we can get the Adventist Review to publish such articles...

/Bevin

Dr. Weiss concludes his thought provoking column with an apparently sound declaration: "I have never placed, nor will I ever place, my faith in science or in history. Their truths are contingent until new evidence is presented." This peroration is obviously intended to draw a line between the object/subject of faith (God) and the object/subject of knowledge (science and history).

Is Dr. Weiss attempting to "have his cake and eat it too"? Has he thought about the implications of "contingent truth"? Isn't the very notion of "contingent truth" a confession of faith--"I believe this to be true until proven otherwise?" It seems to me that the second sentence betrays a conflict of faith.

On the subject of truth, I wonder if Dr. Weiss is willing to embrace a Truth that is irrefutably undeniable: scientific discoveries about human origins are subject to presupposition laden interpretation. Those who become mesmerized by the "overwhelming" evidence of certain scientific "advances" have already allowed themselves to be overwhelmed by certain "scientific" premises that are absolutely impossible to verify.

The Truth is, in uncritically (or even critically) embracing consensus undergirded "advances" in science, one may not have chosen to place her face in science, but has definitely chosen to place her faith in scientists. The same is true for history: we may not place our faith in history, but we certainly place our faith in historians.

If Dr. Weiss truly believes what he has written, the title of his column should be amended by replacing the conjunction with a declarative predicate: "Science is My Faith." This is not to negate the sincerity of my colleague's faith in God, it is simply to point out that his current faith is conflicted.

I appreciate the fact that we have an article which estimulates me to stop and think a few things over. That alone is worth a lot.
After thinking for a while I see that this is the point we sooner or later are going to reach if we accept certain presuppostitions. The main supposition that IMO leads to Mr. Weiss's views (shared in one form or another by many others)is that the Bible is not God's inspired Word. I'm not talking about the various theories of inspiration, but about acceptance that the Bible is an inspired product and not only the result of inspired experiences with God. The former will discuss how it was inspired, but will accept that that the Bible is significant in all areas it talks about acknowledging that is does not use our present methodology. The latter will consider that the product is subjective and has motivational values, but does not express any other truth apart from the fact that there was encounter and experience with God (Martin Buber strongly comes to mind).
It seems to me that Mr. Weiss' article, although very well written and showing erudition, follows the latter. I quote: "The intention of its [the Bible's] authors is to testify on behalf of God, to show God’s power, justice, loyalty and love. Many of the things they tell are not accurate and many are not edifying. The Bible reflects the way a people saw themselves guided, protected and chastised by God. It is a testimony of faith, and the faith of its authors is worthy of emulation. The believer who vetoes the advances of science, in a misguided defense of a misreading of the biblical stories, has ceased to be reasonable."
When we dichotomize faith and reason we get ourselves into quite a mess and end not being Christian at all. It sounds like Kiekegaard's response to Nietzscheian philosophy. I do believe that Chuck's position is just a few steps away from Herold's, because it's the logical conclusion.
In a world without an absolute, where everything is relative and subjective my own will (and interpretations) is law. Nietzsche understood that very well and that's why he is the true father of post-modern thinking.
In order to be a Christian I have to be Sola Scriptura. As a Christian I can and must discuss, disagree, search and study, but without the whole Bible as God's word I would simply be religious. No problem with that, but please just don't call it Christian.
with kind regards
Hamlet

quote from the article:

..."No scientific or historical understanding, contingent and temporal, can threaten faith."..

quote from Hebrews 11:8

..."By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went."...

one wonders, with the benefit of hindsight and ..."historical understanding"..., if Abraham would have "adjusted" his faith to suggest to God that he stay in Harran, next to the Euphrates River...and there enjoy a year round supply of agricultural irrigation..and not try to settle near the crossroads of civilizations warring nations.

instead, his faith required him to accept Gods "call" to go to what would be a dry, dusty Canaan, almost always subject to drought and the ravages of neighboring armies....
..."not knowing whither he went"...

drought so bad later that Abe's kids/grandkids would have to
migrate to the Nile looking for water and food, according to the story, where God apparently stood by and watched them become slaves. All this necessary since their Lord either couldn't or wouldn't help overcome the drought which might have enabled them to stay in their Holy land, instead of having to return 400 yrs later and kill the inhabitants (except save the virgins) who had stayed and made a go of it despite the weather and wars.

The place was surrounded by armies so bad that at one time their Lord would even promise the Hebrews that He would make them eat their kids during a siege.

question:
shouldn't "faith" be subject to, modified by ..."scientific or historical understanding"...?

since apparently divine omniscience and foreknowledge may have failed the Hebrews this time according to their Family Biography we call the Old Test.

those who fail to learn from the past, well, they often fail...

suggestion:
its good to have faith, but verify, like Reagan said.
and not necessarily in that order.

I shall try to address briefly some of the questions and comments.

I said that I would let scientists and historians inform me about the past and how things function in nature and that whatever information they produce is contingent and continually re-examined, tested, and applied. As a reasonable person, who is not a scientist, I am not in a position to argue the details of scientific explanations or to understand how scientific discoveries are applied in different fields for the benefit or the detriment of humanity. I recognize, however, that I must be consistent. Either I reject science and history as practiced in the academy or I agree to benefit from its advances. On account of this some think I have placed my faith in science, or have a conflicted faith. I would think that "letting scientists inform me" and "having faith in science" are not quite the same thing.
Of course, letting scientists inform me also includes having some interest in the arguments scientists have with each other. Whether there are copying errors in DNA and proofreading enzymes are very effective or not, I have no expertise to test. I expect scientists to continue to investigate such matters and eventually the rest of us will know.
I am quite aware that lately some very good scientists have been propounding that God is a delusion, does not exist, or is not at all involved with what goes on in the world because life has evolved in a very haphazard, chancy, purposeless way. I said, as Elaine underlined, that scientist who venture in this field have ceased to act as scientists. We all know that scientists can be believers, agnostics and atheists, and at times they expressed themselves, quite legitimately, as such. The rest of us should be able to determine whether the scientist or the atheist is making statements.

I am not one who finds helpful to speak of belief in God and belief in scientific information as comparable. To take seriously information about the distance from the earth to Mars, the surface of Africa, or the stages in embryonic development has nothing to do, as far as I am concerned, with Faith in God.

Historians who have studied the Gospels using the proper tools to evaluate evidence and giving reasons for prefering one source over another when they do not agree more or less agree as to what can be said historically about Jesus of Nazareth: He was born of a woman; he was baptized by John; he began his ministry in competition with John as a baptizer; he had many followers, but a close circle of special disciples; his coming to Jerusalem created a popular disturbance, he celebrated a last meal with this close circle; he was crucified by Pontius Pilate. It is very difficult for them to agree as to what was the core of his message. Undoubtedly it was such that caused Pilate to crucify him as one leading a revolt against Rome.
Now, is this information enough to make Him the Saviour of the World? The one who died for my sins? I know that Christians have claimed that their faith is based on historical facts. I don't see how you can jump from a crucifixion, one among the hundreds performed by Romans between the years 25 and 35, to Savior of the World on account of the naked historical fact. The repeated mantra that the spade of the archaeologist confirms the Bible is a distraction. If it were the case that the spade of the archaeologist proves that the general historical circumstances described in the Bible are in accord with what we otherwise have come to know about the times, all we have proven is that the Bible is reliable history. We have proven nothing about its inspiration.
On the other hand, when I find that the Bible is not that good a historical source, does this disprove its inspiration? Absolutely not. I do not expect to find history in the academic sense written when such history did not exist.

Finally, When I join my brothers and sisters and the angels in heaven in worship, I am pure and simply just a man of faith.

Herold, thank you for you additional comments giving some of us a deeper understanding of your initial article.

We have made far too much of the Bible as the be-all and end-all for all disciplines and in so doing have conflated them in a most disorted and inaccurate manner. Why is it impossible to believe that good Christians may try to emulate the principles Christ gave us without also believing in all the miraculous episodes written by first century writers; writers who wrote just as their contemporaries of gods, miracles and ideas that were common then but should not, nor cannot be accepted as literal and factual today.

Is a Christian defined by the ability to believe in the completely literal Bible, or is it simply sufficient to try to live justly, love mercy and abide by the Golden Rule. It is in adding ever more doctrines and dogma that has given the church the well-deserved antipathy of many, with its hundreds of different denominations, all claiming to have the truth.

Elaine, in answer to your question, yes, Christianity is defined by its doctrines and if you do not by faith believe those doctrines, you are not a Christian. The main tenets can be found in the Nicene Creed, and are that Jesus Christ was God and the Son of God, that he became incarnate of the virgin Mary, died on the cross to save us from our sins, rose from the dead, and is coming again to judge the quick and the dead.

If you live justly, love mercy and abide by the Golden Rule, you're obviously trying to be a good person, but there is nothing in those behavioral aspirations to distinguish you from a good Jew, a good Muslim, or a good atheist, and it is wrongheaded in the extreme to pretend "Christianity" can be stripped of faith and reduced to behavior.

Faith is complex, as it is simple.

When academia starts acting as a priesthood, alarm bells should ring for genuine scientists.

David Read:

What's the quiz about on the Day of Judgment?

Convictions do matter. The Bible story, too.

And when you pay attention to the latter, for example, you know that Jesus advanced a particular trajectory of the Hebrew vision, namely, the one expressed in the peacemaking message you find in Isaiah (think 2 and 53), in Ezekiel (think 34), in Micah (think 4 and well as 6) and of Zechariah (think 9).

So it is very misleading just to say: "If you live justly, love mercy and abide by the Golden Rule, you're obviously trying to be a good person, but there is nothing in those behavioral aspirations to distinguish you from a good Jew, a good Muslim, or a good atheist."

How many Muslims do you know who would embrace what Jesus said, in Matthew 5, about peacemaking and the love of your enemies? (A similar question could be asked, of course, of others, including members of popular Christian churches.)

What distinguishes disciples of Christ, most foundationally, is a way of life, and that's why the first Christians (see Acts) were thought of as followers of the "Way."

Again, convictions matter: you can't get to Christ's Lordship without believing that he really is sitting at the Father's right hand.

But your assumption that "faith" and "behavior" are in completely different categories is a mistake. In Romans Paul speaks (at least twice) of the "obedience of faith." Faith is very close to...faithfulness.

Once you grasp this point, endless fussing over doctrinal detail seems less important. Whether, for example, God "spoke" the world into being just like that, or did it over seven twenty-four hour days, or did it some other way, just ceases to matter. What matters is that God (whom we know through Christ) is our Maker.

On the judgment day, no one will have to know the arcana of either evolution or creationISM.

Chuck

There will be many in heaven who were never Christians; in fact, who never claimed any particular religious belief. But, if we can only be judged by our actions, and not our personal beliefs, then all those who lived by the Golden Rule and "loved justice, mercy, and walked humbly" as they knew how, will be in heaven. There are no tests of doctrines nor "gatekeepers" who will ask for one's formal membership in any organization. To believe that heaven is only reserved for a special few who believe as you do (how boring!) would make it a choice of last resort. Mark Twain's comment is still true under those conditions: "For climate, I would choose heaven; for good conversation, hell."

Chuck, as you can see from Elaine's post subsequent to yours, she's leaving religious belief completely out of the question of salvation, and basing eternal life totally on works. She won't even finish the quote from Micah about walking humbly "with your God" because she's leaving God out of it. For Elaine, belief in God or Christ is not necessary to salvation. To describe Elaine's belief system as "Christian" is ludicrous. Which wouldn't be any of my business, except that she keeps posting at Spectrum and Adventist Today urging that Adventists substitute her vision of "Christianity", an ethical system stripped of supernatural elements, for the biblical Christianity that we currently embrace.

As for you, Chuck, you really should consider joining the Roman Catholic Church, because like you they are not fussy about how God created the world, and also like you they are quite insistent that salvation is not by faith alone, but by faith plus works. By contrast, I am fussy about insisting that God created the world in six literal days, as God wrote with His own finger twice, and that salvation is by faith in Christ alone. I fervently hope the Adventist Church always stays closer to my position than yours.

There is a huge difference between believing in a life-style and believing in a moniker.

Elaine believes that it is more important that you "love your neighbor as yourself" and "love the Lord your God" THAN that you

(a) know the moniker of that God

(b) know a bunch of silly half-truths about what to wear, eat, and say

(c) know some science or history

There is also a huge difference between believing that a life-style will show itself in the way one acts and believing that one can live a sinless life.

It is not "faith" to say that you believe something, but not follow through on the consequences of that belief.

/Bevin

I agree with David. Elaine's "vision" is no different than that of numerous Jews who live "good" lives. They devote themselvs to the medical field, have happy marriages, send their well adjusted children to the best schools, exercise, eat temperately, and so forth. Their righteousness exceeds that of most Adventists, and most people in general.

What goes on in their heart? Do they curse Jesus or bless him? Since many are orthodox Jews, must it be the former? Thankfully, God is their judge. I'm fairly certain that the path they take is not a safe one for any Adventist or former Adventist.

Chuck, You really do not understand the "obedience of faith." You continue to toss the phrase around as if it somehow vindicates your position. It does not. It only demonstrates that you have missed the point of Paul's teaching in the NT.

The "obedience of faith"=belief in Christ. It is not something we do by performing or not performing certain outward acts.

We should rejoice that neither Hansen nor Elaine, nor any other human will be the gatekeeper for heaven's gates. That should make us all feel more assurance. "Man looks at the outward appearance but the Lord knows our hearts."

David,

If - like you say - "you live justly, love mercy and abide by the Golden Rule, you're obviously trying to be a good person", then you are a follower of what Jesus thought. Yes, perhaps you never even heard about Jesus, but you are in practice agreeing with his teaching. That's what real, deep Christianity is all about. It's not about names, or this or that creed (the Nicene creed you mention is not even in the Bible and only reflects a much later and imperfect understanding of part of the church, totally outdated now).

On the other hand, if you are not ready to be a good Samaritan, to turn the other cheek and love your enemies (including those scary liberals in your own church), then, in my humble opinion, you are not living Jesus's teachings.

another "my way or the highway" scarcely Christian comment?

..."Chuck, you really should consider joining the Roman Catholic Church, because like you they are not fussy about how God created the world, and also like you they are quite insistent that salvation is not by faith alone, but by faith plus works. By contrast, I am fussy about insisting that God created the world in six literal days, as ...
...God wrote with His own finger twice,....
and that salvation is by faith in Christ alone. I fervently hope the Adventist Church always stays closer to my position than yours."...

David...lets not argue the 144 hrs of creation, because you INSIST....

but lets look at another place where we might differ:

you say God wrote the 10C's with his own finger:

here's the first time:

ex 31:18 When God had finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two flat stones on which he had written all of his laws with his own hand.

so God gave Moses the two flat stone on which God had written the laws..with his own hand...

ok so far.

but after Moses lost it, and smashed the cuneiform tablets which may have represented the laws of hammurabi condensed into clay tablets...later claimed to have been written by God himself.....

the 2nd set of commandments differs:

ex 3426 I am the LORD your God, and you must bring the first part of your harvest to the place of worship. Don't boil a young goat in its mother's milk.

..."27 The LORD told Moses to put these laws in writing, as part of his agreement with Israel. 28 Moses stayed on the mountain with the LORD for forty days and nights, without eating or drinking. And he wrote down the Ten Commandments, the most important part of God's agreement with his people. "...

several issues here:
1) I agree..its not good to boil your goats in their mothers milk....so we have no problem there.
but

2) the Lord told MOSES to put these laws in writing....doesn't that mean that the 2nd set of laws was written by Moses, not God as you claim?

3) how could anybody live in a desert environment for "40" days without food or water? or does the magical number "40" only mean....many....since that is the highest number that two ignorant shepherd boys could count to on their combined fingers and toes, and went into use as the meaning of "many", like we use "few" for "several", and "score" for 20....

4) ..."And ....he ...wrote down the Ten Commandments"...

the name which this pronoun ...HE...seems to point to is Moses...and didn't God tell Moses to write down the laws in the prior sentance?

so, could it be wrong thatGod wrote both sets of laws in stone with His own finger? the 2nd time it seems to say that God told Moses to write them down, and He (moses) did.

and

5) none of the 10 C's have anything to do with the creation tale, as you claim....
..."God created the world in six literal days, as God wrote with His own finger twice,"....

if you let your preconceived beliefs justify your Bible study, instead of studying the bible and then reaching a conclusion... could you be doing the same with your dinosaur book? writing what you believe SDA's already know BEFORE doing all the research that scientists do?

and your belief that the world was created in only 144 earth hours? and I bet you believe it all happened in 4004 BC, no? what scientific studies have you read to reach these conclusions? or did you just take Ussher's explanation of some ancient story tellers edutainment around some stone age campfire?

and if you choose to send me away like Chuck, I would prefer the UU to the RCC please....more democratic highered-arky like I prefer. Sure, they are a bit mixed up...not knowing exactly what doctrines to require...but that kindamakes for a gentle fellowship, where nobody tells the other to leave if they don't believe the way they do.

but maybe I've already said too much like REM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_XFMCgeI7c

John Alfke, Ex. 34:1 is pretty clear and hard to misinterpret: "The Lord said to Moses, 'Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.'" See, also, Deut. 10:1-2. The part about boiling a goat in its mother's milk (Ex. 34:26) was not included in the stone tablets, nor is that a reasonable reading of the passage. That part was spoken audibly by God (Ex. 34:10) after which God told Moses to write it down (Ex. 34:27).

None of the 10 commandments have anything to do with the creation tale??? What about the Fourth Commandment: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, but rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

I know you're just trying to ridicule me for being a mindless fundamentalist and biblical literalist, but you are not helping your cause. You argue like you're high on pot. Consider yourself banished to the UU, whatever that is.

Jag, good luck finding a religion that doesn't promote justice, mercy and doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. These are all good things, but not uniquely Christian. The Golden Rule was not original to Jesus, but was taught by Rabbi Hillel and was already well known in Jesus' time. It was also a favorite of Confucius.

As to justice, the Qur'an states, "God enjoins justice and the doing of good" 16:90. As to peacemaking, the Qur'an states, "if two groups of believers fall to fighting, make peace between them . . . and if they revert, make peace between them with Justice, and deal equitably: for verily, God loves those who act equitably!" 49:9. As to mercy, every sura in the Qur'an begins "In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful."

This business of trying to reduce Christianity to ethical principles that are in fact universal and not unique to Christianity has to stop. I understand why it is so attractive to the Spectrum/Atoday crowd: it excuses your lack of belief in core Christian doctrines. You argue that belief doesn't matter, only behavior or ethics, so your lack of belief in core Christian doctrines should not disqualify you from calling yourselves Christians. You think that as long as you are trying to live according to an ethical system that you (mistakenly) believe is uniquely Christian, then it doesn't matter that you don't believe in God, or Christ, or creation, or miracles, or angels, or the inspiration of Scripture, etc.

You say that "its not about names," but Scripture says otherwise. "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Phil. 2:9-11. "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven." Acts 2:38. "It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you compeletely healed. He is the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. Salvation is found in none else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:10-12.

So, yes, names matter. It is about names. But it is with despair that I cite Scripture to the Spectrum/Atoday crowd, knowing that most of you don't believe that all Scripture is "god-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped ofr every good work." 2 Tim. 3:16.

ON the contrary, we do believe that

"god-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped ofr every good work." 2 Tim. 3:16.

It does NOT say "God written, and is correct in historical and scientific detail" for two reasons

(a) the writer of this statement knew that HE and not God had chosen the words

(b) the writer of this statement did not know ANY books that were accurate history or science

/Bevin

David, You have realized that the Spectrum community is not a community of faith. Spectrumland is the land of the apikorsim, a term fairly well illustrated by Potok in either "The Chosen" or "The Promise," perhaps both. Trying to reason with most is futile. Their positions are not based on honest intellectual or spiritual inquiry. They merely reflect the confusion of their own unbelief and spiritual darkness.

The great tragedy is that many of these individuals retain SDA church membership. Some may even have leadership rolls. Is it any wonder that the denomination is not growing when virtual atheists who attack Scripture are Sabbath school teachers?

I appreciate your Christian perpective. Casting pearls before swine is a thankless work.

UU, perhaps Unitarian Universalist?

Hansen,

Matthew 7, I just read it through again, it has a lot more in it than verse 6 for this discussion.

The word is not the same as the Word.

..."Consider yourself banished to the UU, whatever that is"...David

The Principles and Purposes of the Unitarian Universalist Association

We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote

The inherent dignity and worth of every person;

Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;

Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;

A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;

The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;

The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;

Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part;

The living tradition which we share draws from many sources:

Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;

Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;

Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;

Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;

Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.

Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

Grateful for the religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles our faith, we are inspired to deepen our understanding and expand our vision. As free congregations we enter into this covenant, promising to one another our mutual trust and support.
end quote.
**************************************

so, David, if I am to be banished, thanx for suggesting banishing me to such a nice place.
I think I'll take my clothes off now, put a flower in my hair,
and join the great mandella, and like the Charlie Daniels Band, take another toke, and wait til life gets easier.

actually, thanks to my strict SDA upbringing and EGW downputting, I still neither smoke, drink, nor kill animals to sacrifice or eat.

But I do no longer believe that underground coal fires cause earthquakes, or that there are tall, majestic people living (presumably) on Jupiter, or that you can fit 144,000 virgin guys on the sea of glass in a perfect square, or that it all began in a literal 144 earth hours, and somehow Noah forgot to take the Dinos on the ark, so they got buried beneath the iridium layer, either 4500 yrs ago, or 65 million, we're not sure yet. And of course, I no longer believe that after the alleged flood, the water went down, because everything points to the waters having come UP.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061012085548.htm

and all the scientific data points to it all having been going on for far longer than a literal interpretation of the Bible allows.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html

This is a golden oldie--but John you made me do it!

Jimmy came home from Sunday School. His mother asked him what he had learned. He said: "Moses lead the Children of Isreal out of Egypt. Pharaoph and his army chased Moses. The Children of Israel were trapped by the Red Sea. So Moses had his Corp of Engineers build a pontoon bridge and they all got across, then the engineers blew up the bridge and the Egyption army all drown. Jimmy's mother said: "Jimmy, is that what the teacher told you?" Jimmy said, "No but if you don't believe me, you sure won't believe what she told us!"

What we need to know is that in the beginning God!

We certainly can observe that the earth has had a catestrphic history and man has had a violent past, blaming the God he doesn't believe in for all of his troubles.

In the meantime, I stick with the Apostles John and Paul on the Christ event and its meaning for me and my extended family. Tom

Harold my eyes started to glaze over when I realized you have accepted the dating that gets us to millions and billions of years and data that makes chimpanzees our cousins and uncles. Science is what man can observe, not extrapolate.

Math is a science also, yet why not very many Christians speak of guys like John Baumgardner and Catastophic Plate Tectonics or those that using Math talk of Intelligent Design and belittle it as science. Probabilty math is as much or more science as the extrapolation of evolution and common ancestry. No observation, no equation with the extrapolation, just guesswork.

Math is not science. Language is not science.

Math is one of many tools that science uses

Unfortunately the ability to write sentences that sound scientific is also not limited to science.

Science requires the development of hypotheses, repeatable experiments, and matching predicted to observed results.

Evolution is science, because it makes predictions and the predictions match observations, even though they might not have. When ID starts making such predictions, it can be called science - and not before

/Bevin

Dear avid,

You're right! Jesus and Rabbi Hillel were actually members of the same religion - Judaism. To be precise, the same, liberal wing of this religion. No wonder their teachings had similarities. And you are right that different religions are like branches of the same tree. Their teachings may be similar, though they are not identical. Choose the branch that suits you. Choose the path to God that is best for you. We are all individuals, we are all different - why would we need to belong to the same religion/church? I never said that Christianity was better than, say, Buddhism. Objectively, it is not. It may only be better for the likes of you and me. Our Buddhist sisters and brothers can spiritually do just as well as us.

According to Jesus' own teaching, love of God and love of your neighbour are all that counts. All! Isn't it really exactly about ethical principles (or about how we live)? The rest, we can say (to quote Rabbi Hillel again), is just commentary. Therefore if you stop "reducing" (I would say "expanding") Christianity to ethical principles you may find you have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Will much be left - apart from stiff dogma?

Of course it doesn't matter what you believe when it comes to, for instance, "the inspiration of Scripture". There is nothing in the Bible itself about it, it's all just church dogma - read: a human, fallible concept.

Your quotes, however, are misplaced. They don't prove it is about names. They don't prove that the "Adventist" label is any better than "Lutheran" or "Roman Catholic". Or "Christian" better than "Muslim".

Another of your quotes may be commonly mistranslated. How about an alternative: "all writings that are inspired are useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training righteousness, so that the person of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16)? If you put it like this, then certanly Mahatma Gandhi's writings will qualify as inspired too. Remember, there were many different canons in the early church - practically every local church had its own. It was the Catholic church that "standardised" the NT, and the Protestants (included Adventist) "worship Rome" when they accept the Roman canon probably more than they would by celebrating Sunday.

Jag, I'm thinking you're alot like Donald Sutherland's character in "Kelly's Heroes." As I read your little speech, I try to imagine it being spoken by "oddball", the hippie Sherman Tank commander, as he's puffing on a doobie, and it all makes perfect sense.

Well, David, thanks, I will take it as a complement. ;-)

Anyone who has read down this far is probably desperate for something sensible on the subject.

Try Hilaire Belloc: Survivals and New Arrivals, Chap. 3 (v).

Science is a method not a conclusion. It attempts to prove an observation methodically to an acceptable level of probability. Some issues such as origins are not subject to such methodology. Nor is there a metronone capable of marking the eons of time since God.

Thus science and relgion are ultimately reduced to faith or belief.

Did we really have to go to the moon to prove that moon rocks are much the same as earth rocks and the same age?

The arguments of today, differ none from the arguments of Job's day.

And the propositional truths of Paul's day are the propositional truths of ours as well. Tom

David,

In the timeless words of Oddball:

"Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?"

:oP

(It's actually hopeful for me that you can reference Kelly's Heroes. . .)

Becci

Science is a method not a conclusion.

partly true....but using the methods of science one can reach reasonable conclusions

It attempts to prove an observation methodically to an acceptable level of probability.

true... some things are likely, some not. is it likely that in the past snakes and donkeys were able to talk, but today they do not? or is this part of the miraculous, and maybe unbelieveable history of tall tales told around the campfire, outside of sciences ability to discover?

Some issues such as origins are not subject to such methodology.

not true:
go to www.talkorigins and you will find many ways that origins can be understood by using the methods of science.

Nor is there a metronone capable of marking the eons of time since God.

yes there are: the speed of gasses and light escaping from SN87a prove that the distance to it measured by simple geometry coincide...two methods that prove its distance is 167,000 light years away...so it blew up that long ago, and we are just seeing it now... it was NOT created in 4004 BC as claimed by a literal reading of ancient goat herder technology

and the radio decay of heavy elements gives a wonderful "metronome" yardstick by which to study the ancient past.

Thus science and relgion are ultimately reduced to faith or belief.

no....many things in science can be "proven" by their meshing with other things... such as the distance to SN87a above...
or the ancient age of corals proven from radiographic methods which correspond to the moons regression back in time being closer to earth, giving shorter tide days, as reflected in the diurnal coral growth patterns....

Did we really have to go to the moon to prove that moon rocks are much the same as earth rocks and the same age?

yes; the moon rocks we now know are composed of surface earth material....which proves the hypothesis that the moon developed out of an almost direct hit by a small planet between 3 and 4 Billions yrs ago.... moon rocks lack the iron content of the interior of the earth since it was mostly earth surface rocks which got blown up into orbit around the earth which coalesced into our moon.

The arguments of today, differ none from the arguments of Job's day.

yes they do differ...today many if not most people (outside of literal fundies) have improved their morality to a point where they find it absurd to believe a loving God would deliberately play a cosmic game with the devil, and stand by and watch as Jobs kids, servants, and aimals are killed in the gamble.

The comment box is not available on the La Sierra stories so I'll post here as it's somewhat related.

I came a cross an interesting, long blog post (compared to his normal length) by PZ Myers, one of those "interviewed" in the disgraced Ben Stein's movie Expelled.

Here is a section:

"Meanwhile, the Seventh Day Adventists are freaking out, and protesting that kids are actually exposed to good science in the biology program at "their" university, which they think ought to be teaching only the dogma of their religion. If you ask me, their kids look to be getting a far better education than they deserve.

WARNING TO BIOLOGY PROGRAMS EVERYWHERE: The student, Carlos Cerna, has announced his intention to get a Ph.D. in molecular biology. If you take him on, be aware that he's going to need a lot of remedial instruction, that he has an attitude, and that he probably just wants a degree from your institution so he can use it to peddle creationism to the ignorant. Don't let him slip through your program without thoroughly grilling him on the basics of biology, or he's going to bring some shame on your program."

Read the whole entry here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/carlos_cerna_will_someday_dem...

Thanks Keafan, I saw that one coming a mile away and wondered on the old threads how the entire controversy had managed to stay under the radar for as long as it has. Pharyngula is the most read science blog by a mile (average of 80,000 visits a day) and La Sierra is going to be hurt by this. I should say that the science graduates are going to hurt by it anyway.

Beth

SDA colleges (or so-called universities) create catch-22 situations for their teaching staff with many of the courses offered. Its hard to figure how a Prof can teach, to any level of thoroughness, geology, geography, astronomy, anthropology, history, biology, biochemistry, physics, or accepted methods of scientific research with parents screaming anytime the teacher tells the commonly understood knowledge of today instead of the top thinking from 2,000 years ago.

Maybe the church should ban everything that has to do with current scientific knowledge and how that knowledge has been arrived at.

The writer of the above article is a good catholic in thought and rationale. After the Galileo debacle they decided that since it would be futile and stupid to argue with advances in science and, since the Bible is not wrong, they came to the conclusion that the proper way to handle the problem is to admit that it was their INTERPRETATION of the Bible that was wrong. Now, like Weiss, everybody seems to want to argue that Genesis was not believed literally and it doesn't make scientific statements and blah blah blah. That Jesus actually was on this planet and was resurrected HAS to be believed. Other than that glaring common attribute of multiple mythical gods of the time, everybody is free to interpret the Bible however they wish.

Unfortunately for fundamentalist churches such as our SDA church its difficult to keep children as believers once they are exposed to reality. So, they have their own schools where these scientific facts can be glossed over or contradicted enough to leave doubt. Or, go so far as Ellen White to say that geologists that come up with a time-line longer than 6000 years are agents of Satan.

If they don't want to accept current knowledge they shouldn't think they are going to get an education that is sought after in the current world. Those that go through SDA institutions and try to get a PhD at a top secular university are going to get the shock of their life both culturally and mentally.

I think most of you already are aware of the article that was posted on InsideHigherEd.com about the controversy around La Sierra. Here is a link to the article for those who haven't read it yet.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/09/01/evolution

LSU's statement is posted here:

http://www.educatetruth.com/articles/lsu-statement-regarding-inside-high...

Shane Hilde

"If they don't want to accept current knowledge they shouldn't think they are going to get an education that is sought after in the current world. Those that go through SDA institutions and try to get a PhD at a top secular university are going to get the shock of their life both culturally and mentally."

Well,I probably don't need to remind anyone here that there are pockets of believers who don't see any reason for one of their own to go to a "top secular university" for a PhD or anything else because (a) the world is soon going to end, and has been ending for the last 150+ years and (b) their time would be better spent in medical missionary work or distributing copies of the Great Controversy.

Nevertheless, somehow the SDA church managed to spawn a range of educational and professional medical institutions in the nineteenth century, so who knows.

The biology teacher was hired by La Sierra University to teach biology, not religion. Those are two entirely different disciplines. If the university is unhappy with their teaching of science, it the administration that will either choose to retain, or to fire them.

It would be totally improper for the religion teachers to teach science courses; it is equally wrong to expect that the science teachers teach religion. Those students wishing to learn a subject, take those courses fully expecting to be taught the best and most available knowledge in each discipline. To do otherwise would be to misrespresent their credentials--credentials which do not cross over into other areas. Just as no one would go to a civil engineer to diagnose and treat a medical condition, just so a teacher who moves out of his discipline into another is abusing his academic qualifications.

Some people say that American education is substandard. Maybe it's because the country was established by religious fanatics. Maybe there is another reason. However, it is peculiar, that America is still stuck on a debate that in the rest of civilised world was settled over 100 ago. Come on, Adventists, it's time to celebrate the Evolution Weekend with the rest of the Christian world. God does not call on anyone to remain ignorant.

Bevin, sorry to burst your bubble:

"Mathematics is the science and study of quantity, structure, space, and change. Mathematicians seek out patterns,[2][3] formulate new conjectures, and establish truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions.[4]

...

Through the use of abstraction and logical reasoning, mathematics evolved from counting, calculation, measurement, and the systematic study of the shapes and motions of physical objects. Practical mathematics has been a human activity for as far back as written records go (see: History of Mathematics). Rigorous arguments first appeared in Greek mathematics, most notably in Euclid's Elements. Mathematics continued to develop, in fitful bursts, until the Renaissance, when mathematical innovations interacted with new scientific discoveries, leading to an acceleration in research that continues to the present day.[7]

"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics

Elaine, Jan Paulsen is correct, when paying for an Adventist education, when wandering about the landscape, lead by an Adventist Professor, parents or other payor, expect to end up back at the "barrack" at the end of the day. Introduce all manner of educational experiences but remember what one is paying for, what "spin" the institution attending was created with. Venture out, but return them to the "stall" after the adventure, eh???

I like to think he was meaning to remind them at the end of the journey of God - rather than leaving them stranded in the wilderness of atheism

Dr Weiss, the only problem I have with your presentation is the assertion that the Bible can be an authority on spiritual things even though it "not that good a historical source." To me, it seems that if the Bible has no credibility tied up in its "scientific" or historical accounts, ANY religious guide would be as good as the next.

I don't have a problem drawing such a conclusion per se. Religion is story telling and ultimately we respond to the story that is most appealing to us. To millions of people the Mormon story, which has no historical legs whatsoever, reveals the secrets of the universe. To vastly more millions the story of Lord Krishna's escapades in the mythological Vrindavan forest is the coat closet through which you enter the world of wonder. As a person with little or no faith remaining, that's not a problem. Mine is rather intellectual.

To me, your view of the Bible seems to clash with Christianity's perennial claim to exclusivity, to being, along with its Master "the way, the truth and the life." If the Bible walks on legs of faith alone, doesn't that "reduce" Christianity to a mere conviction alongside a myriad of others?

"remember what one is paying for."

This is the preconception too many students and parents assume about paying for an education: "I, or my kids deserve a good grade, because look how much it costs me." One doesn't "buy" an education, it is something one engages in, and students are not an
empty bucket merely waiting to be filled, but have an open mind that is willing to begin critically thinking about a larger world.
If we could all merely "pay" and receive a college degree--might as well go to one of the many diploma mills, pay your money, and declare yourself "educated." Better yet, if one wishes to be taught the Biblical concept of creation, history, and science, one is wasting both time and money for a college education. Simply get out your Bible and declare yourself highly educated--on the Bible.

"Elaine, in answer to your question, yes, Christianity is defined by its doctrines and if you do not by faith believe those doctrines, you are not a Christian. The main tenets can be found in the Nicene Creed"

Nicene creed?! What so sacred about the nicene creed? There is a good research coming out that suggests that Christianity has lost its way long before Nicene creed was established, which was anyway political exercise as much as (if not more) a theological one. And doctrines? Of course they are not the truth in themselves but rather description of peoples' (or group of people) experience with that ultimate truth- which is God Himself.
....And I would rather suggest that weather someone is a Christian or not should be left to the concerned person to decide for her/himself. History teaches us that whenever someone ordains himself to decide for others affiliation things regularly turn to end in quite unchristian manner.

When will Christianity begin to focus on the principles Christ left us and not insist that only belief in the absurd miracles is the essence of Christianity. Either belief in all the miracles is the sum and substance, or the timeless principles are the true characterization of Christianity. To honor such a leader, it should be played out in our daily living, and not merely an allegiance to impossible beliefs that, in any other context or age, would be considered most questionable: similar to those deluded folk who believe in extraterrerestial aliens, UFOs, weeping statues, and such. It is in how we live, not merely what we claim to believe, that the totality of our lives are judged.

Whether one is a Christian should be a self-designation.

Elaine, I've come to the conclusion that Jesus as a role model means precious little to a lot of Christians, especially Protestants. Taking their cue from Paul, they reduce Jesus to an X or a Y in a soteriological equation. To this type of Christian the most sacred duty of man is to save yourself, not to be a blessing to others. It's about them, not Jesus.

Jag, nobody says American higher education is substandard; American higher education is the envy of the entire world. American education falls down at the grade school and high school level. Arguably, American HS education doesn't work as well as European because we don't do a good job of separating students into a pre-university track and a vocational training track, and hence do not do a good job of preparing those students who acutally should go on to university for that experience.

dalmatian, I am not saying that a Christian has to subcribe to every word and phrase of the Nicene Creed, and it is true that the church had already begun going rapidly downhill at the time the Nicene Creed was formulated.

I am saying that Christianity is a faith, a belief system, not just a system of ethics or good works. I am saying that there is necessarily more to "mere Christianity" or basic Christianity than just trying to live a good life. A "Christianity" based strictly on good works, without a faith component, is radically defective.

Aage, taking Jesus as a role model includes not just behavior but faith. Jesus Himself told us to believe in Himself, to accept by faith that He was the Son of God: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:16-18)

Jesus also claimed to be God: "The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple." (John 8:57-59) It is the fact that Jesus was God that gives force to His example, in terms of ethics or behavior. If Jesus was just a "wise teacher" who delusionally claimed to be God, why should I pay any special attention to the record of His behavior?

David,
I am not fmailiar with American education at all, therefore I wasn't expressing my opinion. And obviously everyone knows about Harvard, Stanford or MIT. It would appear though that there are excellent universities there as well as mediocre ones. Unfortunately I can't think much of LSU, if a paper - like Cerna's - is submitted by a student who is about to graduate in biology! He should have been failed before his first year was over. This has nothing to do with his beliefs, but is based on the knowledge presented as well as the style of his presentation.

Aage:

I did not refer at all in my piece to the authority of the Bible. I said that it is a testimony of faith and the faith of its authors is worthy of emulation.
As to the authority of the Bible, I do not think its authority is "potestas"= official authority, like the authority of the policeman with a badge. In its case the badge is ecclesiastical canonization. Its authority is "autoritas", the authority readers grant to authors who convince them of what they say. I agree with Martin Luther, who argued that for the Bible to be Word of God the same Holy Spirit who inspired the author has to inspire the reader of Scripture. The Bible as a book in a shelf does not enjoy any authority. It is on this account that I find the liturgy of the Eastern Church, which is otherwise very rich and meaningful, a bit disappointing. It parades the Bible as an icon around the nave for people to worship it. Of course, protestant fundamentalist don't perform the ritual but do the same.
I also find unappealing the notion that one has to have faith in the Bible, or in the doctrines that one concots with Biblical texts, or that one has to have faith in order to do science. I reserve the notion of faith only for my faith in God. Other things I take seriously, intellectually. Faith involves much more than the intellect; it involves the whole person.
I agree that doctrines are important, but not because I put my faith in them. Doctrines, theology, is the way in which I make reasonable sense, I explain to myself and to whoever else may be interested, of my faith in God. The reason doctrines are important is because they inform the way in which I live my life, not becuase they open up the gates of heaven for me.

Thank you for the question

Dear Herold,

Thank you for your deep and thoughtful comment. You represent the kind of Christianity that I find truly inspiring, because it shows me an example that I find appealing enough to follow. I do not have to agree with your every belief in order to respect your faith. Unfortunately, most fundamentalist Christianity is about witch hunts and telling me what to do and not to do - to please God, of course. But I'd rather decide on that with my God directly rather than through such fanatical mediators who always seem to know better. Maybe - like you say - they are simply not inspired by the Holy Spirit, and this is what makes them believe in a flat-earth kind of approach to science - and literalist interpretations of the Bible (though only where it suits them).

Dr Weiss
Thank you for taking the time to comment. I agree that faith is Kirkegaardian in its nature. "Faith comes from the hearing of the word", or as you put it:

"...for the Bible to be Word of God the same Holy Spirit who inspired the author has to inspire the reader of Scripture. The Bible as a book in a shelf does not enjoy any authority."

This, of course, is the way any scripture-based faith operates. Kierkegaard's binary, either/or, approach to faith has great appeal. Even spiritual paupers, such as I, at times feel the tug of faith (C.S. Lewis certainly was right about that), but to us it's no longer a question of faith vs no faith but which faith to subject to such a radical choice.

This dilemma is heightened by the realization that the Bible is, by Enlightenment standards, very flawed and that it, from a religious point of view, often seems to slander the very idea of God (e.g.the genocidal inclination of the Torah's deity). I forget which theologian said that the Bible is not the word of God; at best, it contains the word of God. Even that sounds optimistic to me.

David
You said:"...taking Jesus as a role model includes not just behavior but faith."

I'll certainly grant you that. My pet peeve is that so many people who believe very firmly in Jesus, down to the minutae of orthodox doctrine, care so little about his life and example. I'm constantly appalled at the hardness of Christian hearts in the face of human suffering. In the US and South Africa, for example, the majority of Christians endorsed racial apartheid with their silence and their collaboration for generations. They, including SDAs, opposed the Civil Rights movement in the US in the 1960s, and today many of them are opposed to idea that 47 million countrymen without access to health care is none of their business.

It's a strange world we live in when thoroughly secular people elsewhere in the world are scandalized by the way US Christians have abandoned the values they associate the most with Jesus--his deep compassion with the poor, the ones we, on this side of the Atlantic, often refer to as "losers."

Social darwinists in the US fantasize about Obama being a socialist. If only it was true. We could use a socialist with heart to preach Jesus to the Christians of this country.

Aage, there aren't 47 million Americans "without access to health care." There are about that many without health insurance (including me). Lack of health insurance does not equate to lack of access to health care. The problem with American health care is not the people who have no insurance, but the 85% who have it and thus do nothing to economize on their use of health care, their use of the time of doctors and nurses and their use of hospital facilities. The free market works very well for everything else, why would we throw it out for health care? What needs to be done, and I'm absolutely not kidding, is to outlaw health insurance, except for high deductible catastrophic coverage which would kick in at about $15,000 to $20,000 dollars. That would re-introduce market rationing, which we have for houses, cars, transportation, vacations, food, clothes, entertainment, gadgets, etc.

In the alternative, we can go the single payer route, but that involves government-controlled compulsory rationing. It ivolves waits of several months for surgeries in the UK and Canada that you can schedule within a week in the U.S. Some type of rationing is unavoidable, and if you don't have market rationing, you have government-controlled rationing. And the people who use up the most health care are people, typically old people, in the last year of their lives. That's the inescapably logical place to start denying care. In other words, when it is time for people to die, let them die. If you don't know this is happening now, you are wilfully ignorant:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-....

That you find this system more Christlike than the American system is bizarre to me. I don't understand or relate to your value system at all; your claim that socialism is more Christlike than capitalism and free markets is utterly repulsive to me.

Herold, Aage and Jag,

I have enjoyed reading your thoughts on faith. Thank you for sharing in this open forum.

David,
Not sure why this discussion has strayed to the health territory. But since it has, shouldn't heatht care be available to accessible to evryone who needs it? How we achieve it is another matter. Somehow no other developed country seems to be interested in the American example, which tells me that it must at least have its flaws. I mean, if people - like yourself - can afford not to have health insurance and still have acces to it, then why on earth would anyone want to be insured???

David,

You are repeating discredited Republican lies about the UK health care system. Until the Republican party became such an unrelenting supplier of lies, they were my party of choice, but no more. I prefer public discussion based on truth.

The UK does not ration care, does not have a single payor system, and surgery is available when needed. Just as in the USA the insurance companies restrict what they will pay for and the doctors only do something they believe is for the good of the patient.

If you read the whole article you linked to, and assuming you understand the USA medical system, you will see it is describing something that is also done in the USA - both for patients on the already govt run medicare insurance, and for patients with private insurance

/Bevin

David

You wrote, in response to Aage, that "your claim that socialism is more Christlike than capitalism and free markets is utterly repulsive to me."

The Puritans of Mayflower fame ran their colony for the first couple of years as a communist group till they were starving to death and the system was changed. All communist groups prior to 1850 were christian. Karl Marx joined a christian communist society, then later replaced God as the head of his system with a centralized political system.

Our Founding Fathers set up our political system as a variation on the pagan Greek & Roman systems and our economy on the agnostic Adam Smith's principles found in his Wealth of Nations.

The NT (Acts & Paul especially) endorsed collective ownership, not personal ownership. This is 180 degrees from the objective humanism of Ayne Rand, the newly adopted hero of the Religious Right. Glen Beck goes so far as to say "... how does Hollywood make Ayn Rand's book about, really about selfishness, the ultimate in capitalism."

True christianity would be communal. Socialism is between communism and capitalism. Capitalism is as far to the opposite end of the spectrum as you can get from Christ.

Capitalist christians like to reference the Parable of the Talents of Matthew 25 for support. However, the story has the master as being evil and rewarding the servant with the most, stating that (v 29) "For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him." Additionally, the master reprimanded the servant for not committing the sin of usury. Its more plausible that Jesus was applauding the servant who hid the single talent in the ground for the brave act of refusing to partake in the master's evilness.

David
I have trouble with any 'ism, be it socialism or conservativism. All I'm saying is that the socialists I grew up among, the social democrats of Europe, have more compassion for the poor than most American Christians, especially conservative Christians.

I lived European health care for more than four decades before I moved to this country ten years ago. It's not a perfect system but vastly better than the US system. Child mortality rates are much lower, people live longer and nobody wants a system such as we have. Nobody.

PS. Once again we're way off topic but in the US of today all threads lead to health care and the puzzling sight of Christians once again lining up with the powers of political reaction (which, incidentally, was probably the main reason why the Christian church became so discredited in Europe.)

Jag, health care is available and accessible to everyone who needs it in the USA. I've been without health INSURANCE for 9 years, now, and have had no trouble getting access to health CARE. To conflate health insurance with health care, and then argue that those without the former also are without the latter, is just a base-stealing rhetorical strategy that will not work with any well informed person.

Bevin, the article I linked to was published in a British newspaper, the Telegraph, and the letter the article was about was written by English doctors. How exactly do you think Republican party propaganda crept into it?

And what the English doctors say is interesting: Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death, then they are put on a "death pathway," and given pain-killing drugs and allowed die, “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong. As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients." Dr Hargreaves . . . added that some patients were being “wrongly” put on the pathway, which created a “self-fulfilling prophecy” that they would die. He said: “I have been practising palliative medicine for more than 20 years and I am getting more concerned about this 'death pathway' that is coming in. It is supposed to let people die with dignity but it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Patients who are allowed to become dehydrated and then become confused can be wrongly put on this pathway.”

The article also points out why this is being done: To prevent scarce medical resources being wasted on patients who are going to die anyway. "What they are trying to do is stop people being overtreated as they are dying."

Keafan, "The Puritans of Mayflower fame ran their colony for the first couple of years as a communist group till they were starving to death and the system was changed." Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about capitalism v. communism? Do you really think it is more Christian if everyone starves to death? Do you really think God wants us all to starve to death trying to implement an economic system the Bible does not endorse (or even mention, really)? And no, I don't think Jesus was applauding the servant who buried his talent, but if you are that confused about a very straightforward parable, it goes a long way toward explaining your moral confusion about communism.

Aage, you are badly misinformed about Americans and concern for the poor. Americans give 300 billion a year to charity, which dwarfs charitable contributions given in Europe. No developed country approaches American giving. For example, in 1995, Americans gave, per capita, three and a half times as much to causes and charities as the French, seven times as much as the Germans, and 14 times as much as the Italians. Similarly, in 1998, Americans were 15 percent more likely to volunteer their time than the Dutch, 21 percent more likely than the Swiss, and 32 percent more likely than the Germans. There is a good article about patterns of charitable giving here:

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nat....

The irony behind all of your comments is that you keep trying to push a political agenda ("reform" of health care) by arguing that socialist or single payer health care is more Christian than the USA's current health care system. But you've all more or less confessed to not being believing Christians. Your belief system is stripped of supernatural elements and reduced to an ethical system; by any historically accepted definition this is not Christianity at all. So why on earth would I care what you think is more "Christian" when it comes to health care?

The Golden Rule is neither Christian nor Jewish: it is found in nearly all ancient cultures. Ethics is built on that motto. Healthcare is no different than education, police and fire protection, and the many other systems operated by the government. It is simply a difference in ideology: the Europeans believe that the care of health for its citizens is as important as education, and police and fire protection: IOW, it benefits everyone to ensure the good health of its citizens.

David, you seem to pride yourself on having no health insurance. If and when you have an accident, sudden illness or any of the many events that can occur at any time, who do you think will pay for your care but the taxpayers, and unless you are independently wealthy, I can assure you that unless it is very minor condition, you will not be able to afford it. This is one reason healthcare is expensive today: we ALL pay for the care of the indigients among us, and the ER is the most expensive place of last resort when those who need help have no health insurance.

You say: "health care is available and accessible to everyone who needs it in the USA. I've been without health INSURANCE for 9 years, now, and have had no trouble getting access to health CARE."

You should share your secret with the Congress: they would love to know your success at getting healthcare. It is either because you are young and healthy, have no family dependent on you, or what could it be. By the time you may need insurance, you could easily be denied because of a "preexisting condition" of which you are totally unaware--if you knew how many qualified for that "preexistent condition" it would be a big surprise.

In most states, it is a requirement that anyone with a car must have a driver's license and insurance. Some do not, and when there is an accident, especially with bodily injuries, who is responsible if not the person who is liable, or else we who do carry insurance pay higher premiums to cover those who do not. We call it "free-loading" and those of us who carry insurance, pay for those who do not. There is no free lunch.

Medicare and Medicaid are both government run programs and they operate at a far lower administratie cost than the private insurers, which is why the insurance lobbyists are so busily advocating against a single-payer system--they know that they cannot compete with a non-profit system. Some of the largest insurance CEOs have annual salaries well into double-digit millions. I have yet to hear a single Medicare recipient complain of their coverage, and yet the U.S. government subsidizes Medicare Advantage plans that compete directly with Medicare to the tune of $177 billion! Please explain why the government, on one hand offers straight Medicare, and on the other hand subsidizes private companies to offer coverage under the same plan.

The true reason for the ever increasing cost of medical care is the shortage of primary care physicians, as they make approximately one-third that of the specialists yet must expend the same amount of time and money before begin practicing, usually with a heavy debt load. Procedures, whether surgical or radiology, etc., are valued much higher. A surgeon who spends less than 25 min. to place a stent in an artery, is paid approximately 4 time the amount a cardiologist receives for taking an exgtensive history and physical and treating the hypertensive patient with medication, lifestyle changes and avoids surgery all together. IOW, procedures are valued much more highly than the face-to-face time with a physician--the primary care doctor, yet the results are the same.

These inequitable relative values were established in 1985 by an economist!! and are currently approved by a 29-member committee appointed by the AMA--of which only three are primary care physicians--the remainder are specialists in other fields. Yet, no patient can go directly to a specialist unless he is first referred by a primary care physician who takes a history and physical and makes the decision on who of the many specialists to see. There is currently a major shortage of primary care physicians throughout the U.S.

As for rationing--it took me more than 6 months for an elective hip replacement, and by the several months before surgery I was in a wheelchair and no longer ambulatory. Another 6-months wait before a knee replacement; the average wait to see many specialists is between 6-9 months unless it is an emergency.

The quality of care in the U.S. is far down on the list of first world nations, yet the cost is much higher--for lower results. There is no reason we can't have a government system competing with private, if the private sector is so good and efficient it should certainly compete with, if not crush a bloated, uncaring bureaucracy. The same mentality that stands against government health care is the same mentality that has outsourced our prisons, military and intelligence service and we all but outsourced a war, and how well did that turn out. If we are to compete on the world labor market we need government health care to take the cost off the backs of our business. If we don't we will keep bleeding jobs and all the unemployed goes on government health care anyway. Anyone that can't see that coming is blind.

David, the Telegraph article you linked to clearly said that the basic approach was good, but that the doctors were concerned that it may be, on RARE occassions, misused.

I just finished as fascinating book - http://www.katrinafirlik.com/another_day_frontal_lobe_reviews.htm

In it, the authoring US neurosurgeon clearly describes treating patients in manners designed to hasten yet dignify their deaths.

There is four things that need to be done in the USA.

(1) Malpractise reform - right now a handful of people get paid too much when they are injured, a lot of people DON'T get too collect, and lawyers take far too big a share. I was very disappointed when tort reform was taken off the table.

(2) Catastrophic illness reform. You describe yourself as 'not having insurance'. That means you have been paying for your own minor care. Good for you. But IF YOU HAVE A CATASTROPHIC ILLNESS, who is going to pay? In the current USA system your costs are going to fall on the tax payer and those of us who have been paying insurance - because that is who the hospital is going to pass your bill to.

(3) Making sure that poor people use a PCP rather than the 10x more expensive ER as the primary medical contact. Right now we are paying far too much for their treatment because they go to ER's

(4) Doing something to fund preventive care rather than the (much more expensive) definitive care for chronic illnesses

/Bevin

Elaine and Bevin,

Many thanks for your explanation of the US healthcare system - as usual, I have learned a lot from your posts!