Your thoughts on prayer 2

John, this opinion is one that is unformed by any sort of serious study of scripture.  It is fundamentalism at its finest and you are the last person I would refer to as a fundmentalist.  I'm reading a book right now called "Understanding Difficult Scriptures in a Healing Way."  I just might send it to you when I'm finished if you'd like.  The authors are Matthew, Sheila and Dennis Linn.  They write:

The Bible is not inerrant scientifically, historically or even morally.  As Richard Rohr, OFM, says, the Bible is not about morality, but about ontology.  Ontology refers to being.  The Bible is about our being, about who we are:  daughters and sons of God.  Thus, as scripture scholar Eugene LaVerdiere says, it is inerrant in its fundamental assertion of "God's intention to save all human beings and all that statement implies."

Why was Jesus always getting into trouble with the Pharisees and the Saducees?  Because he was turning their world upside down with his radical interpretation of those Hebrew scriptures.  As I said earlier, you have to take into consideration where and when each piece of the Bible was written and see it as the evolution of mankind's understanding of God.  It is a compilation, written over centuries.

Here's another paragraph from the Linn's book that sort of sums that up.  (They're discussing Matthew 5:38-42 where Jesus is telling people to turn the other cheek, and how it must be understood within its cultural and historical context):

"This passage is an excellent example of how difficult it can be for us to understand scripture in a loving way if we do not understand its context.  When a scripture contradicts our life experiences of giving and receiving love, we may need a good commentary to help us understand the historical and cultural context."

In other words, what you read in scripture must be filtered thru the gospel of love that Jesus preached in order to be authentic.

I've always wondered what that big thing was that blew up.  Maybe it was a planet of God's creatures messing around with a particle accelerator or something.  As for where all the matter in the universe came from, the best explanation I've heard so far is that we can't explain it, so it must be God.

I wish I could stay and chat, but I gotta go.  I guess this is the excuse I'll use for being late for work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qAkEA-H_zE

That's brilliant, Ruth. Thanks for the grin!

As for your quip re the Big Bang... I'll leave that one hanging.  

John, I have popped in as I am about to post a few pics. Re the above. The only one I whole heartedly believe in is the birth of Jesus to a virgin. I won't ever be drawn into a debate about it. The others you mentioned, I have seen arguments that are quite plausible from both sides. It's not really important to my actual belief in God.

I will have a post for you tonight. After I have finished painting a masterpiece (not).

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/answer.asp#f4  I am waiting for a watercolour wash to dry, John, and thought I would post this link. Could you possibly confine your comments to the page itself.

What did you want me to comment on, Sue? Did you have specific points that struck you as powerful? 

As a general comment, I'll just say that this entire article is based on a deliberate misunderstanding of evolution. Although he never uses the terms, the author is talking about Microevolution and Macroevolution, and acting as if there's some magic line between them.

No such line exists.

Tto make our conversation easier, can you identify specific things in the article that impressed you? Then we can discuss them.