Ruth Rimm gives us yet another bible-- "The Lost Spiritual World". Ms. Rimm however isn't content to merely RE-translate the Word of God; she's decided there needs to be more, and crafted from her own twisted imagination no less!
With titanic hubris she ignores Revelation 22:18-19 and jokingly admits she's a heretic. Whatever she is, she's as deluded as every other child of the devil. And I don't say that lightly, because no child of GOD would do what she has done. Since there are only two camps in this war, she has managed to show her hand; a hand that no God-fearing congregation would accept or condone.
Here's a short excerpt from one of her additions, called, "The Parable of the Gorilla"
He was born in a manger a long time ago – not to a virgin – but to a gorilla. What's so funny? Who did you expect his ancestors to look like, Tom Cruise?
But wait. I'm not making fun of Jesus. I'm not mocking religion. In fact, from the deepest wellspring of my heart, I'm despairing something we've lost in our scientific culture.
Yes, if Jesus was alive today, he would understand that his ancestors, just like ours, were beasts.
No, he wouldn't run around claiming he was born of a virgin.
And, brilliant rabbi that he was, he would likely ask us to understand the miracle stories metaphorically – as morality tales – but certainly not as literal truth.
Jesus was not born of a virgin, heavens no! He was born of a gorilla...
Blasphemy!
The Muslims will eat this up. They already teach their children, and believe themselves, that Jews are Apes.
There's more at the link above...
This bring up an interesting debate: How much science should "REAL" christians believe?
Do they accept gravity and associated concepts? Do they believe the earth is spherical? Do they believe the earth rotates around the sun with numerous other bodies? Do they believe the sun is in a galaxy composed of millions of other suns? Do they accept that the earth is not the center of the universe? Do they accept Einstein's theories of realtive motion? Do they believe there are living organisms too small to see with the unaided eye? Do they believe animals can change from generation to generation? Do they accept that is is possible for a species to become extinct? Do they accept the developments of modern medicine? Do they accept analytical psychology as proposed by Karl Jung? Do they accept the water cycle of evaporation, condensation, precipitation? Do they believe the idea of nonrenewable resources?
Most scientists when polled say that they are religious and believe in a divine spirit. It's a pity so many of their co-religionists keep dumping on them.
Does believing and accepting the benefits of one part of scientific thought undermine a moral opposition to other parts of scientific thought? Specifically I'm thinking of people who don't become organ donors because they believe that the body must be whole when it is buried. Even if they have received treatment throughout their life focused on only a part of the body (like the eyes or the stomach).
What she has really done, whether she's realizes it or not, is create a god in her own image, and that, sir, is called 'Idolatry'. Anytime we create ideas of what 'our' god is, ie; 'my god is loving and would never send anyone to hell...' creates a god to suit his/er own beliefs, and has nothing to do with who God REALLY is.
What I find particually interesting is your desire to somehow frame HER idolatrous work as somehow 'scientific', and my generic Christendom's oppsoition as analogous to a rejection of science!
One must logically accept that one's spiritual reference guides every conclusion at which he/she arrives, and scientists and researchers are not above the fray in this. The facts (subjective as they are), until proven otherwise, are incontrovertable. But the conclusion as to what those facts mean comes from the scientists' personal belief system.
Your snide questions about gravity, the spherical nature of our world, the sun and the orbits of planets, etc., are insulting. Science does not undermine faith. If anything, science complements faith.
At Reasons.org in their FAQ and Resources there is definative proof that Christians need not reject science to believe in God.
I wouldn't call that idolatry maybe wacky, but not idolatry. Because EL in the past you have said "My god is righteousness." were you creating an idol.
----------------------------------
There that takes care of the distraction you put out there to get rid of my point of discussion. If you didn't know it you have a tendency to latch onto small statements and ideas and by criticizing those distract from people's main thought.
----------------------------------
The bible says in descriptive non-allegorical verse that the moon provides it's own light. It also says that the sun moves around the earth. It speaks of other stars in a manner not consistent with the view that they are equal to sol.
How do you reconcile scientific knowledge that directly contradicts the bible or strongly held christian views?
Also, I have no desire to distract anyone from any argument. If you wish to challenge me, fine, but don't think you have any real say here. Demand this and demand that all you wish... use any TONE you wish, but ultimately this is not a forum for your attacks. I can, at any time, choose to simply ignore you. For the time being, you're welcome here.
Lastly, if you're going to insist the Bible says the sun revolves around the earth, and the moon gives off its own light please include book, chapter and verse.
I would also ask that you provide an example of scientific fact that contradicts the Bible.
Item 2: Genesis specifically verses 16 and 17 say "16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,"
Under the best conditions, no more than a few thousand stars are visible with the unaided eye, yet there are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy and a hundred billion or so galaxies. Were they all created "to give light upon the earth"?
In genesis 9:13 god puts a rainbow in the sky, apparently for the first time. What happened when light passed through water vapor previously?
Leviticus 11:5-6 says hares and coneys are unclean because they "chew the cud." In fact they do not.
Joshua 10:11-12 the sun wouldn't stand still, the earth would.
2nd Samuel 14:25-26 Absalom hair which he cut yearly weighed about 5 lbs. An average person grows .3 lbs of hair each year.
Luke 23:44 If there was darkness over the entire earth then people all over the earth should have legends and stories and history about such a thing. None do.
1st Corintians 15:39 Human, baest and plant flesh is all the same - composed of cells having nucleus, DNA and other common structures.
The bible is riddled with contradictions not only of science but also of itself. Jesus told his disciples that some of them would be alive when he came again. He also told one of the thieves on the cross that they would be together in heaven. Yet christians say that Jesus after dieing on the cross went to hell for 3 days to pay everyone's sin.
Item 3: When you stated this blog you said you wanted to learn to think critically. I am simply asking critical questions based on the subjects of your posts.
I demand nothing but debate and discussion back and forth. It would be nice if you didn't moderate then other people could post while you are working out your replies. Also then I could be as viperous with some of my comments as you are with some of your posts.
If you want to preach your religious beliefs, then you need to find answers to these questions. And those answers need to be in a form you can explain to others.