Excerpts from Tom Snyder’s Ten Modern Myth Conceptions, and my thoughts:
…at the same time the multicultural liberal “pluralist” says, “There’s really no one way to God,” he’s ordering everyone that they MUST believe and MUST follow his own ONE truth that there’s no one way to God, and, therefore, they SHOULD get rid of any idea that there is indeed only one way to God, especially any idea that the only way to God and eternal life is through Jesus Christ and His Gospel of repentance of sin, forgiveness of sin, deliverance from sin, salvation, redemption, and eternal life.
In response to these words:
The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”
(The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 834)
As a Catholic, I believe that the Bible is the best way to get to know God and that parts of God can also be found in other religions, too.
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.
(The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 847)
…science itself depends inherently on properly using the basic laws of logic.
I thought science depends on the scientific method:
Also: For what it’s worth: The definition of “Science”: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
And: What does “depends inherently” even mean?
And: What are the “basic laws of logic”? You never say what they are.
While good science is a very good way of determining truth, it’s not the only way, or even the best way.
Is there such a thing as “truth” in science since scientists are constantly discovering that what they once thought was true is no longer true?
For example: It was once “truth” that the Sun orbited around the Earth, but once scientists saw that the Earth orbited around the Sun that “truth” was discarded like a used tissue.
Thus: In science, a thing isn’t true always — it’s true as long as nothing is proven, using observation, calculation, and experimentation, to contradict it.
…if it is indeed the very Word of God or at least contains the very Word of God, including God’s message to all human beings, then studying the Bible is like studying the writings of the best scientific, historical and philosophical “experts.”
That’s a big if.
How do you determine if a scientific, historical, or philosophical “expert” is “the best”?*
For example: I could call Sigmund Freud “the best psychoanalyst” for no other reason than that he is the founder of psychoanalysis. Not bothering to find out if the conclusions he came to have merit.
Also: You say that reading the Bible is like reading the writings of the best scientific “experts.” Where are the passages about science in the Bible? Give me verses.
Since science is partly about testing, “scientific” is not the word I would use to describe belief in God:
You shall not put the lord your God to the test… (Deuteronomy 6:16)
In fact, it’s probably even better!!!
I don’t have time for probably. I want certainly.
And the use of three exclamation marks is very unprofessional.
The sixth myth conception is the statement, “Evolution, including human evolution, is a proven scientific fact.”
Then explain the human skull:
My point is: We have evidence that human beings have changed over time.
Evolution is a “proven scientific fact” because, using science, evolution has been proven to be true.
But: Scientists, being scientists, are always willing to say “What I believed to be true is no longer true” if, one day, they discover that some force other than evolution is what caused changes in human beings.
Also, after studying the theories and “evidence” of human evolution, I can say with certainty right now that there is no evidence whatsoever that humans, or homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens, including their art and religious beliefs, are in any way biologically and mentally related to the other “earlier” so-called “hominid” species paleontologists say they have found. In fact, as I proved in my book MYTH CONCEPTIONS (Baker Books, 1995), studies of the earliest religious beliefs on this planet shows that a belief in one benevolent, moral God was indeed the very first religious belief among humans. This historical evidence lends support to the ancient biblical story of God’s interaction with the first humans, Adam and Eve, and their [descendants], many of whom fell into idolatry, including animism, superstition, paganism, polytheism, and occultism.
Then why don’t you provide passages from your book, in order to back up what you say?
Saying, basically, “I’m right. Just trust me,” is as un-scientific, un-philosophical, and un-biblical as you can get:
- You say your book proves you right, but you don’t provide passages from your book. i.e., You don’t provide evidence to back up your claim. So: You’re not being scientific.
- You’re not being a philosopher: Did Aristotle ever say to his students “Just believe me”? Or did he encourage his students to use their brains?
- The Bible says this about testing the validity of a belief:
Test everything. Hold fast to what is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
Be as shrewd as serpents. (Matthew 10:16)
How am I supposed to test something if you don’t give me anything to test?
How am I supposed to be shrewd about something if you don’t give me anything to be shrewd about?
Tom Snyder: It sounds like what you want is for people to accept what you say is true even though you give them no evidence to base their acceptance on.
The Bible has something to say about that:
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. (Matthew 7:15)
…you’ll often hear secular liberals, leftists, atheists, or even libertarians exclaim, “You can’t legislate morality!”
Who, exactly, is saying “You can’t legislate morality!”? Give me names.
If you can’t give me names, than why should I believe you?
Ever since the insanity of radical liberalism and atheist humanism broke out in full bloom in the 1960s, we have been living in a Liberal/Secular Age of Stupidity. Liberals and secular humanists, including atheists and socialists, have been spreading many falsehoods, lies and myth conceptions ever since.
This article is intended to combat these myth conceptions, and help people be victorious in refuting them[.]
Way to be humble.
When I read these words, the first image that popped into my head was this:
*Tom Snyder: Why did you put experts in quotation marks?