The New York Times has a strange quote from Speaker Nancy Pelosi:
“Science is a gift of God to all of us and science has take us to a place that is biblical in its power to cure,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. “And that is the embryonic stem cell research.”
I completely agree that science, like all good things, can sometimes be viewed as a gift from God. I'm less clear, though, on the other part of that sentence. How exactly is it "biblical" to kill a human being in the fanciful hope that we one day might obtain cures for other humans beings? Is that written in one of those obscure Old Testament books that no one reads?
Perhaps Ms. Pelosi, Democratic House leader and theologian, can explain that one for us.
Comments (4)
"Biblical"
1. of or in the Bible: a Biblical name.
2. in accord with the Bible.
3. evocative of or suggesting the Bible or Biblical times, esp. in size or extent: disaster on a Biblical scale; a Biblical landscape.
I would think that you would agree with her use of term Joe, in that its the destruction of embryos on a biblicalscale.
It is a weird term for her to use, it usually has a negative connotation. I remember it most commonly used in reference to the destruction caused by an Atom bomb. Of course that probably because I'm old enough to remember actual duck and cover drills done in school in case of nuclear attack. As I recall, Joe is from the gen-x or slacker generation so he might not have heard it used in that way.
June 7, 2007 6:07 PM | Comment Permalink
Given how many Christian denominations claim to be following the bible, and how different these denominations are...
It follows that each of those denominations should considers the others un-biblical.
Certinly the Catholics official position that all prostants are misguided, unbiblical and hellbound. Orthodox says the same. While the protestants are less unified in doctrine, the fundamentalists are very strong in their insistance that non-protestants, espicially catholics, are unbiblican and hellbound.
While even the most rediculous of christian cults claim that the bible supports them. Even Phelps claims he is following biblical instructions in protesting funerals.
With the abolition of slavery, the bible was used as one of the most effective arguments in favour of maintaining slavery. When the rights of women were increased, the bible was turned to for reasons to keep them oppressed. There were times when "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" was considered, merely by being in the bible, an immutable directive to kill witches.
So, does anyone have the authority to declare what is and isn't biblical?
June 10, 2007 3:31 AM | Comment Permalink
Read the Bible in context and there is no way anyone could ever back slavery or the oppression of women...
Unfortunately that is the biggest problem here, the majority of the people that reference the Bible in public haven't read it, and use it as a way to rationalize their position on an issue, not to glorify our Creator.
When that happens it gives a false reflection of what is in the Bible making those who believe in the Word look like hypocrites, and gives credence to responses such as yours.
Anyone who uses the Bible to preach hate or oppression is giving you a reflection of themselves, not the one who created you.
June 12, 2007 6:30 PM | Comment Permalink
"Read the Bible in context and there is no way anyone could ever back slavery or the oppression of women..."
*sighs*
Actually, people could. Not you, perhaps, but I could easily dig up a sizable mine of quotes by people who used the bible to justify both of those, and all sorts of other things. The bible is very subject to intrepretation - just look at the huge variety present in Christian denominations, all reading from the same (or nearly the same) bible.
Some people read the bible and see the loving God. Some read it and see the wrathful God. Neither is right, neither is wrong. They are just looking at it in differing ways, and seeing only the parts they wish to see.
June 13, 2007 2:48 PM | Comment Permalink