You’re familiar with this question, right? If Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, who did son, Cain, “marry” in order to go on to populate an entire city? Bible literalists don’t like to come right out and suggest the obvious: incest (who can blame them?), but (bless their hearts) they do their best.
Impressive. At 1:50 (in the video) we’re told that there are “seven biblical answers for where she came from”; all we gotta do is go to the website to get ‘em.
So, I went there — and, here’s what I found:
The Bible Plumb Line: Cain’s Wife and Other Perspectives.
Have you ever heard the question, “Where did Cain’s Wife come from?” Did you realize there are more than NINE Biblical answers? Did you realize that many questions of the lost come from only the first 9 chapters of the Bible (Creation to the Flood)?
Price : $25.00
That’s right. You gotta buy ‘em. To hear the biblical answers, you’ll need 25 buckaroos. Maybe that’s a good price — especially as it seems that they’ve figgered out two extra answers since they made the video. Now there are “NINE” biblical answers! I dunno. Maybe 25 dollars for nine biblical answers is a good deal.
So, like me, you’ll probably want to go fer it and add the book to your shopping cart. That’s when you’ll get a more detailed product description:
This book is written from the standpoint that the Bible is absolutely accurate in all respects, and there is not a “need” to argue scientific or “lost” objections. The focus of much of this book is to demonstrate how to “dis-arm” the nay-sayer so that those with an evangelical call can return to their message….
It gives several (More than 5) potential sources for Cain’s wife, and instructs the reader on the easiest response, and the most “mind-stretching” responses, all having a potential for truth.
Dang! Now, there’s “more than 5″ answers. I spose I’ll think on this for awhile and, hopefully, by the time my Seven – or NINE – or more than 5 – answers git here, my mind’ll be plenty stretched to receive potential truth.
So the Bible is full of ancient and “absolutely accurate” answers “all having a potential for truth?” Ironically I could go with that, if only they meant it!
All answers “having a potential for truth” is intelligent, evolved and completely humanist, like the clever boy hiding a bird in his hands, trying to trap the wise old man by asking if it’s alive or dead, while both answers still have the potential for truth.
The only Real Truth is that the answer is in our own hands.
“all having a potential for truth”
***Ain’t that just precious. The answers aren’t guaranteed to be the actual truth but have that potential. So, with that standard, you can say just about anything!
***Oh. . . that is what they do. . . never mind.
Nance — successfully fighting the urge to buy the video, so far, :) but isn’t it nice that video was invented so we didn’t have to rely on some old book for the truth or, at least, the potential for truth.
This is why I love the Bible and that’s regardless of whether I’m a believer or an agnostic at a given moment. To me it seems pretty obvious there were other people around for Cain to hook up with. That’s not simply because he found a wife but because he needed the protection of God’s mark. God gave him a mark so that he wouldn’t be a man without a tribe and an outcast. Now why on earth would that be important if the only tribe around was his mom and dad’s?
But it doesn’t end there. The Bible (if you’re a moderate or liberal scholar anyway) is a collection of what was previously oral tales that made it. That implies there was material that didn’t make it. Maybe stuff that was forgotten or maybe stuff that was so well known that the editor didn’t feel he needed to fill in the blanks. What I find so interesting it that for every bit of story that made it into the Bible there are probably countless tales that didn’t. And all we ever get are the hints, like Cain marrying a woman who, if we take the bible literally, shouldn’t be there. There’s a whole mythology Christians don’t have.
*sigh*
That’s probably not a bad thing as really, we’re talking Jewish mythology, NOT Christian and what we don’t know as Christians (Sorry folks, I may be one again after all :D) is safe from our Christ-centric interpretations.
Um…you do know that if you mention the Bible I’m going to get all geeky on you, right?
Oh my, but that is lame.
Reminds me of the Quantity is Job 1 album, which listed 5 songs on the back of the CD, 9 songs inside, and there are actually 17 tracks. Only, they were trying to be funny. [sigh] [smile]
~Luke
You can get nine answers for 25 bucks? That’s less than three bucks apiece. A bargain.
I used to get in trouble for asking questions like those.
“No, the Bible is not full of contradictions. You’re just not right with God. When you are, you will not question.”
Um. Yeah.
“That’s probably not a bad thing as really, we’re talking Jewish mythology, NOT Christian and what we don’t know as Christians (Sorry folks, I may be one again after all :D) is safe from our Christ-centric interpretations.
JJ is going geeky with Dawn, except more so — to a humanist it’s ALL human history and mythology, so I claim the potential truths in all of it, no matter what story it’s in or out of for any particular dogma . . .
;-)
Related thought from our unschooling 1996:
Dawn:
Is that where the term “Holey Bible” comes from? :)
.
Curses! For an atheist blogger, I think I’ve got more Christian readers than anybody I know. I must be doing godlessness all wrong! [laughing]
Ami:
Good point, when you say it like that :)
The tricky part is that nine non-answers are the same price :)
“JJ is going geeky with Dawn, except more so — to a humanist it’s ALL human history and mythology, so I claim the potential truths in all of it, no matter what story it’s in or out of for any particular dogma . . .
;-)”
Oh heck, don’t think that even as a Christian I don’t see the potential truths in all human history and mythology, just that I don’t think they need to be squeezed through into some Jesus Christ cake pan before baking…Something I think happens too much with the OT.
But frankly, I think you’re position is a good one. I do see a lot of people who seem ready to chuck the Bible into septic lagoon of history (I actually feel into one as a kid. Nasty place to be). I don’t get it. They’re ancient documents people!! Don’t dismiss them! Claim them as a part of our shared heritage!
“Curses! For an atheist blogger, I think I’ve got more Christian readers than anybody I know. I must be doing godlessness all wrong! [laughing]”
While duh. For a start instead of [laughing] it should be [evil cackle]. And you really don’t eat enough babies.
Nance:
Yes! Good thing God has apologists to explain what He could have explained Himself, but didn’t, for some reason that He never explained. Nonetheless, apologists know the reason, which is lucky for us… Did I mention that there’s a Part II to this post?
You’re absolutely right, Dawn. “I really need to cackle more,” she mused, headed off to the kitchen to prepare a tasty fetuses stir fry for dinner :P
Dawn,
What I have never really understood about moderate or liberal Christians is why they self-identify as Christians when they reject so much of the Bible and embrace (as equally valid) the teachings of other religious traditions and mythology. And, if one acknowledges that the Bible was constructed (or failed to be constructed correctly) by human “editors” (limited by their times and own political motives), can it reasonably be expected to provide a solid foundation upon which to base one’s life for those living today? Ken Ham (yes, the total idiot who runs Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum) makes a point: If you can’t trust the Genesis account, why would you presume that the stories of the Resurrection or the Sermon on the Mount are reliable retellings of history? Just curious about your thoughts :)
Well, I’m not Dawn, but I can tell you why I self-identify as Christian: Because most people are too stupid comprehend “Deist.” Plus, that box is not on any forms. Oh, and it gets people off my back on the rare occasions I attend church with my husband. Of course, I don’t base my life on the bible, some people just assume I do because I’m not out eating babies, like some who shall remain nameless :-)
I don’t want to sound argumentative but I’m new to the idea that there were “other people around for Cain to hook up with.” First, I have to say that I *love* the idea of Cain “hooking up” (evil cackle). Second, I’m thinking that if there were other people (not decended from Eve), they’d be free of Original Sin — just like aliens from outer-space, according to the Vatican – isn’t that right? Maybe that’s where “moral atheists” come from… or, at least, the ones that don’t eat babies :)
Working backwards:
“If you can’t trust the Genesis account, why would you presume that the stories of the Resurrection or the Sermon on the Mount are reliable retellings of history?”
That really is sort of a, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” sort of question. I trust the Genesis account deeply. I trust that the first creation story is a poetic liturgical piece meant to relate core principles about ancient Hebraic beliefs. I trust the second creation piece and the rest of Genesis are stories from the Ancient Hebrews told and retold to tell of human truths through humour and drama just like all mythology. I don’t accept them as history but that doesn’t mean I reject them or don’t trust them.
Also, I don’t think the Sermon on the Mount or the Resurrection ARE reliable retellings of history. The Resurrection? Which one? Each gospel author had a different account and Mark’s gospel most likely originally ended with just an empty tomb, no resurrection at all. How can I claim there is a reliable resurrection story when four early Christian writers couldn’t decide on the details?
I don’t reject any of the Bible, I just don’t accept it on the same terms as a Ken Ham.
“And, if one acknowledges that the Bible was constructed (or failed to be constructed correctly) by human “editors” (limited by their times and own political motives), can it reasonably be expected to provide a solid foundation upon which to base one’s life for those living today?”
Why does it have to be written or dictated by God to be a solid foundation? I know that’s an obvious question if you’re coming out of a conservative tradition but if you’re not? Heck, the first humanists were Christians after all and in the first creation account God did see that we were good so why could we not write a half decent account of what it is to be human with some thoughtful observations of how to conduct yourself in a half-decent manner thrown in for good measure? Why would the weight of centuries of writings crossing several cultures not turn out to have some relevancy for people today?
“What I have never really understood about moderate or liberal Christians is why they self-identify as Christians when they reject so much of the Bible and embrace (as equally valid) the teachings of other religious traditions and mythology”
Well, I don’t know about other Christians but I don’t reject any of it, even the baby smashing bits. And though I enjoy learning about other beliefs and feel they can inform my belief and faith I’m Christian because it’s what I am. Sounds sort of dumb but I haven’t completely figured it out yet. I suppose it has a lot to do with the fact that I know a lot of Christians, have a Christian community I enjoy and know a lot more about my faith than other faiths. That, at least would be the outsider looking in POV. And there’s faith in Christ of course. But I ain’t good at expressing that and people tend to take it as they wish to take it anyway, presuming I mean something like a born-again or a personified, personalized Jesus. Which I don’t.
I don’t know if that helps. I guess I’d sum it up by saying that if you’re viewing the Bible from a certain tradition of interpretation then my answers probably won’t satisfy. But if you can step out of that you might see where I’m coming from.
Meanie:
That’s interesting. Now that you mention it, I’ll bet a lot of deists are checking the Christian box — even the ones who have never even heard the word “deist” before :)
Dawn:
I guess my question would be: Where did you get the idea that it’s a poetic liturical piece “meant” to do anything? Who says that and why do you believe them? How could anyone possibly know (or reliably guess) that – especially if the Bible is really nothing more than a hodge-podge of myth-based stories, told and retold over millenia, absent the role of God?
Because if the Bible wasn’t written or dictated by God, then it’s really nothing more than a lot of amoral moralizing by a handful of crude, ignorant, sexist, bloodthirsty, locust-eating, Bronze-Era men with an obsessive fear of menstrual blood and penis foreskins (not that I have anything against people who eat locusts). Why give it the time of day? If someone is looking for a “half decent account of what it is to be human with some thoughtful observations of how to conduct yourself in a half-decent manner thrown in for good measure” there is an *endless* selection of far better books from which to choose.
I guess I don’t get the loyal attraction to Christianity. Picking up on your wife-beating reference :)… The Bible is like the man who beats his wife, humiliates his children, kicks the dog, cheats his employer… but, “provides for his family.” There’s just not enough good to redeem the bad.
But, that said, I do get the community identity aspect of religion. “I’m Christian because it’s what I am” actually makes sense to me — plus, it reminds me of Popeye (“I yam what I yam…”), so it can’t be a bad thing :)
Dawn: “Well, I don’t know about other Christians but I don’t reject any of it, even the baby smashing bits. And though I enjoy learning about other beliefs and feel they can inform my belief and faith I’m Christian because it’s what I am. Sounds sort of dumb but I haven’t completely figured it out yet. I suppose it has a lot to do with the fact that I know a lot of Christians, have a Christian community I enjoy and know a lot more about my faith than other faiths. That, at least would be the outsider looking in POV. And there’s faith in Christ of course. But I ain’t good at expressing that and people tend to take it as they wish to take it anyway, presuming I mean something like a born-again or a personified, personalized Jesus. Which I don’t.”
It doesn’t sound dumb. It sounds real. You are a Christian by culture, if nothing else.
When there is something else — as when you throw in “faith in Christ of course” — then it gets into religion.
But the bulk of it is just where you happen to live and who you happen to know and happen to celebrate holidays with and mourn with, etc.
I was raised, as many people are, to celebrate Christmas. There is not one Christian in this household but you wouldn’t know it in December. (Until last December when we skipped Christmas for financial reasons.) And we celebrated Easter when the kids were younger. And we celebrate the Fourth of July and the New Year.
Why? None of these holidays have any religious significance in our household. They are purely cultural events.
And, yes, when you look at it from the outside, that could look pretty dumb. :) But that’s how both my DH and I were raised. Nothing more or less profound. If we had been raised in nominally-Jewish households, we’d be celebrating Hannukah.
Nance
The Bible as a solid foundation?
No. Not really.
It’s a foundation if you want to live based on a particular, very convoluted, story.
But it’s not necessary, or uniquely helpful, in discovering foundational principles for living a good life.
Nance
uh, yeah, I recind all criticism of Christianity at this time :S
I wonder what would happen if Gallup and Pew polls made that distinction, between common north American cultural heritage we all share by virtue of well, being here, and explicit, devout, actively practicing Christianity? Hmmm . . .
JJ,
Meanie got me wondering the same thing, about how many check the Christianity box without giving it much thought. For years, my husband checked the Catholic box, until he couldn’t take my teasing (“to be a Catholic, don’t you have to, uh, believe in God?”) any longer.
She can’t shoot us all the way from Canada. Can she? :)
Nance
Nance:
We’ll have to keep a close eye on her posts. If she starts coursework for getting her private pilot’s license, I say we run — though she could probably captain a boat to make her way to where you are. I just wish that imposter hadn’t used my username to post comments critical of Christianity when, in truth, it’s my favorite religion! :D
I think Dawn sounds a lot like Betty Malone, in her respect for combining human faith and human reason. (That’s a compliment, to both of them!)
Hi JJ,
These conversations are difficult because, while I really prefer to keep it abstract, it’s so easy for them to become personal. I’ll try to bring it back to the abstract.
My *very generalized* thoughts (as of tonight):
It seems that, among (literalist and non-literalist) Christians that I’ve known over the years, most chose *first* to believe (for personal, social reasons); then, recognizing (on some level) that religious belief and scientific thought are logically incompatible, they altered one or the other: literalists altered their science to fit their religious beliefs, while non-literalists altered their religious beliefs to fit their science.
I guess my views make me a skeptic :/
“I guess my question would be: Where did you get the idea that it’s a poetic liturical piece “meant” to do anything? Who says that and why do you believe them?”
It’s a pretty generally accepted view of most moderate and liberal biblical scholars. They get to that decision by textual criticism. Read the first creation piece and you notice the structure and style is very different from what follows. It’s also internally consistent in a way much of what follows in Genesis isn’t (Other parts of Genesis and the Penateuch are thought to be a synthesis of as many as four sources – Google Documentary Hypothesis). Gosh, visit Bible discussion forums at the good atheist boards (like freeratio.org) and there will be folks there who can give a person a great primer on this stuff.
“How could anyone possibly know (or reliably guess) that – especially if the Bible is really nothing more than a hodge-podge of myth-based stories, told and retold over millenia, absent the role of God?”
Through textual, historical and other forms of criticism. The same means we evaluate other ancient documents.
“Because if the Bible wasn’t written or dictated by God, then it’s really nothing more than a lot of amoral moralizing by a handful of crude, ignorant, sexist, bloodthirsty, locust-eating, Bronze-Era men with an obsessive fear of menstrual blood and penis foreskins (not that I have anything against people who eat locusts).”
Not so fast. That’s a big claim to make and frankly you’d have to tear out a lot of the Bible to make it work. Take the first creation story. Where do you see any of the above in it?
I don’t deny there’s a lot of violent stuff in the Bible but that’s generally true of most stories about the human experience. How else do we get an informative and important body of writings but to write about the bad stuff as well as the good? The problem comes when the readers decide those stories are unquestionable dictates from God, when people decide to approach the Bible uncritically as if it’s an Ikea manual.
” Why give it the time of day? If someone is looking for a “half decent account of what it is to be human with some thoughtful observations of how to conduct yourself in a half-decent manner thrown in for good measure” there is an *endless* selection of far better books from which to choose.”
Well obviously I disagree. :D Not that there aren’t other good books but this one is my favourite because of the great range of time it covers, the different cultures it reflects (Ancient Hebrew, Greek and Early Christian) and the fact that it’s part of the foundation for Western thought.
“I guess I don’t get the loyal attraction to Christianity. Picking up on your wife-beating reference :)… The Bible is like the man who beats his wife, humiliates his children, kicks the dog, cheats his employer… but, “provides for his family.” There’s just not enough good to redeem the bad.”
That simply hasn’t been my experience. I don’t deny many people have had that experience but it hasn’t been mine.
I don’t really think I can give satisfactory answers to your questions because I sort of feel like we’re describing landscapes across a fence. I’m insisting the land is grassy with rolling hills and you’re insisting it’s flat and sandy but we’re describing what’s over each other’s shoulders and we aren’t looking behind us to see what the other person means. :D If that makes sense…Me and my metaphors!
You know what I think would be interesting? Some sort of liberal/moderate Bible study for non-believers. Not the hokey kind of, “what does the piece of scripture mean to you?” thing but maybe something where the first creation story was compared with Ovid’s in Metamorphoses or we read the story of Abraham and Isaac and Kierkegard’s Fear and Trembling or looked at child sacrifice or examined Mark and Matthew and discussed which audience each gospel writer was shaping their message for. Discussions that would move the Bible out of just a Christian framework and reveal/explore connections it has with other cultures.
We do some of that in my EFM course but there are times I think, okay, so that first creation story is nifty but shucks, have you read Ovid’s? Or do you know there are parrallels with Mic Mac (aboriginal people in my neck of the woods) or even scientific creation stories (the Big Bang story IS something, by virtue of oversimplification to portray truth, approaching myth in my mind)? Because I think you’re right about reading other books to inform us about what it means to be human. The Bible is a great source IMO but it’s not there in isolation and it can be informed and can inform other great sources.
And don’t ever worry about getting critical about Christianity Lynn, I think Christianity and Christians deserve criticism and need it. Even when it’s me. :D
Sorry Lynn, I didn’t mean to personalize by, um, interjecting persons!
But you know what they say — there are two kinds of people, and one of those kinds is the kind who says there are two kinds of people! ;-)
To me the words themselves make these conversations difficult no matter what kind of person anyone may be. There’s only kind of person, the kind who struggle to understand her own kind . . .
The comparative literature approach Dawn suggests for cultural study of what it means to be human, sounds very much what (atheist) Favorite Daughter has just decided to double-major in.
” literalists altered their science to fit their religious beliefs,”
I can see this within certain boundaries. Literalists as we know them today (they do represent a very modern movement although that’s not to say some form of literalists haven’t been around since the beginning) have done that to some degree.
Fundamentalist first came about as a reaction to textual criticism (reading the Bible with a critical eye on the men wrote it) in the last century. After all, seeing that there may be mistakes or errors in the texts we derive the Bible from sort of conflicts with a sola scriptura POV. Literalism and creationism came a little later and creationism in particular came out of a tradition concerned with social justice. There’s a great Teaching Company course on Evolution that outlines creationism as well as evolution. Anyway, I don’t think creationism was initially about rejecting science as much as embracing a literal text and it’s implications on social justice but it certainly involved into manufacturing science to support their interpretation. Now that I’ve typed that I wonder if it coincides with the period when the Southern Baptist Convention sort of reshaped Baptists and social justice seemed to fade. One support (a good one I think) failed and another took it’s place?
“non-literalists altered their religious beliefs to fit their science.”
That’s shakier. Non-literalists have been around for as long as Christianity. Augustine was one for instance. And even modern non-literalist views are more shaped by textual criticism or church authority (like the RC church) then they are by science whether a lot of Christians know that or not.
But your idea also presupposes there a belief that needs altering. Where I live non-literalism amongst Christians is the norm. That’s the belief they being with and the one most mainline churches espouse. There’s no editing of beliefs to fit with scientific views
“I think Dawn sounds a lot like Betty Malone, in her respect for combining human faith and human reason. (That’s a compliment, to both of them!)”
I’m literally bound to do that. :) I’m Anglican and our guiding principle is the three legged stool idea. That our religion rests on three foundations – scripture, tradition and reason. All have to be held in measure and balance with the others.
Now I’ve got to go find out who Betty Malone is! :D
I thought you’d know her from Snook, sorry Dawn. Betty is a loving, liberal-minded Christian homeschool mom in Indiana. Here’s a link to her new blog, to give you a sense of her poetic non-literalist heart.
I’ve been spotty in my blog reading lately. Oops. I’m off to read her now!
Dawn, I don’t think it’s the non-believers who have trouble seeing the same myths repeated over and over again from one culture to the next over time. It’s the believers who believe their version is somehow true and the others aren’t. One of the reasons to doubt the biblical truth is any truer than any other truth is the repetition of the same stories through time. It may be your book of choice but it isn’t anything particularly new. You get that but it wouldn’t be the non-believers who would disagree with you.
Nance
Thanks for your thoughtful responses, Dawn. It seems odd to me that one word, “Christianity,” can describe such completely different belief systems.
Thanks also for the metaphor: the Bible as an IKEA Manual :)
1. Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
2. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
3. A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.
Rest assured that those of us who have tried to assemble IKEA furniture over the years have a brand new appreciation for Noah, the poor dear. Now I understand why it took him 100 years to build the darn thing :)
It also sounds like you’re not coming after me with your new gun (whew). XOXO :D
Nance – Well, sort of. But my point wasn’t that non-believers single it out as special truth. What happens, I find anyway, is that some single it out for special contempt. While other myths and ancient documents are viewed as valuable the Bible is dismissed.
It’s like what some Christians do – except the exact opposite.
Some kind of comparative literature approach might be as useful in challenging that as it is challenging the assumption that the Bible is the only truth. Something that set it in a cultural context rather then a religious one so that we could get a good look at the book (or more properly, library of books) that helped shape the western world.
Well, I have to say I haven’t come across that, Dawn — non-believers in a Judeo-Christian god pointing to some other myth as if it were true or valuable while simultaneously seeing no value in the Bible.
All of these stories have value. More or less. One just isn’t uniquely valuable based on being about the “real” god.
Perhaps you are running into the real life outcome of “familiarity breeds contempt.” We are, after all, surrounded by all sorts of Christian images and hardly anyone suggesting we should take Zeus seriously. :)
Nance
“Well, I have to say I haven’t come across that, Dawn — non-believers in a Judeo-Christian god pointing to some other myth as if it were true or valuable while simultaneously seeing no value in the Bible.”
If you mean true in the sense of containing human truth but not literal fact I’ve seen it. But I used to park my butt at atheist discussion forums (honestly, the BEST place to go for classical and biblical scholars!) and I’d see them there. But then that’s the kind of place with an extremely high concentration of non-believers so of course I might have an exagerrated sense of the problem. Regardless, I think you’re exactly right on why – familiarity. You can be more critical of the things you know.
BTW Lynn…This most be one of the longest comment threads you’ve had. If not by number of posts then by numbers of words! :D
Like Nance, I don’t know why a non-Christian would dismiss the Bible while discussing “stories about the human experience” — *unless* supernatural claims are also being made. Generally, if one is going to talk about the Bible as an academic exercise in textual criticism, then claim to know anything about “God” or the “divinity of Jesus” by citing the same book, yes, there’s going to be pushback.
Coming for Sunday’s NYT magazine cover: The Evolution of God
But my religious studies have spanned decades and I may have hit a ceiling of understanding. So I’m waiting for his next book, all about something I still intend to steep myself in for years to come!
His book “How Pleasure Works” will be published next year.
;-)
NYT link didn’t quite work. Try this.
One more correction – looks like it’s the Book Review cover story, not the Sunday Magazine. Maybe I should’ve waited until it got here Saturday night and I could see it in cold, hard reality instead of taking it on faith? [tongue sticking out icon]
Thanks for the article link, JJ. I love it when authors talk about the positive progression of religion from poly-theism to mono-theism because the obvious next step in our evolution is, yes, a-theism :)
Now, back to the article…
Except I’ve been wondering lately if polytheism wouldn’t suit me better? I have much thumbed books on the philosophy of Star Wars, Pooh, the Simpsons, Harry Potter, etc etc. All have useful ideas and truths I appreciate . . .
;-)
OH! — and we saw Disney Pixar’s 3-D “Up” this afternoon, wonderful! FavD actually wept through half of it (I had to give her my buttered popcorn napkins for her blubbering) amd the laughed through the rest. I didn’t literally cry but I haven’t been so moved by Story in a while. More than Milk and Doubt even. This is TRUTH and not just for kids!
lol – that’s some pretty serious blubbering, when you get to the point of wiping melted butter on your face! :P
Now, I’ll have to check out “Up.” Coincidentally, we plan to watch “Doubt” tonight for the first time. I wonder if it’ll become one of my “favorite movies that I can’t bear to watch too often,” like “Brokeback Mountain,” “Schindler’s List” – or “Milk.”
Yes. Exactly.
re: “philosophy of Star Wars, Pooh, the Simpsons, Harry Potter…”
Funny, this thread has had me wondering where academic study and philosophy end – and where religion begins.
I think that’s what I object most to about “intelligent design” appropriating those words. I worship at the altar of human intelligence!
While over at the NYTimes, I found Weekend Competition: Define “Faith” – which also got me thinking about the idea of “combining faith and reason” (also from earlier in this thread). At risk of sounding like a close-minded atheist-fundamentalist (groan), I liked: “Faith is the suspension of reason for a dream.”
Mine (a take-off on another entry): “Faith is trust broken.” The desperate, plaintive prayers offered up to the empty sky… the feelings of abandonment and rejection that follow (when serendipity wasn’t on your side) are to be fought off with… still more empty prayers… ugh… what a cruel joke… don’t get me started… :(
You’re in a perfect mood to see Doubt!