Comments on: Bill Barnwell http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/12/02/bill-barnwell-3/ Interviews of foreign policy experts, writers and activists. Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:56:04 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Jet http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/12/02/bill-barnwell-3/comment-page-1/#comment-3348 Jet Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:26:37 +0000 http://antiwar.com/radio/?p=1990#comment-3348 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/program.html A look into the beginnings of the Hebrew bible, worth the watch, I think. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/program.html

A look into the beginnings of the Hebrew bible, worth the watch, I think.

]]> By: Bob Hayes http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/12/02/bill-barnwell-3/comment-page-1/#comment-3347 Bob Hayes Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:20:05 +0000 http://antiwar.com/radio/?p=1990#comment-3347 Thank you for having Rev. Birdwell on your program. He has a very deep understanding Biblical interpretation in respect to the Book Of Revealation. Over the years this book has been called the "happy hunting ground of every kook in Christendom". You deserved kudos for having someone who can discuss this objectively and authoratively. Thank you for having Rev. Birdwell on your program. He has a very deep
understanding Biblical interpretation in respect to the Book Of Revealation.
Over the years this book has been called the “happy hunting ground of
every kook in Christendom”. You deserved kudos for having someone
who can discuss this objectively and authoratively.

]]> By: Carolyn Boyce http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/12/02/bill-barnwell-3/comment-page-1/#comment-3344 Carolyn Boyce Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:12:57 +0000 http://antiwar.com/radio/?p=1990#comment-3344 Scott's question to this "Christian" guest asking whether the modern day US Empire isn't closer to the Roman Empire, that decimated the original followers of Christ, was spot on. Scott’s question to this “Christian” guest asking whether the modern day US Empire isn’t closer to the Roman Empire, that decimated the original followers of Christ, was spot on.

]]> By: Michael Cecil http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/12/02/bill-barnwell-3/comment-page-1/#comment-3342 Michael Cecil Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:31:31 +0000 http://antiwar.com/radio/?p=1990#comment-3342 As Bill Barnwell stated, "Maybe these passages don't mean what we 'think' they mean." BINGO. The problem with the whole perspective presented here--that is, both sides of this issue--is something that is referred to in science as "naive realism". The "naive realism" perspective here is the assumption that prophets *only* have knowledge about future *events*, that they have no knowledge of truth, that they have no knowledge of the specific aspects of relationship between man and God, and that their only concern is not in conveying any particular Doctrinal teaching; but merely saying in symbols what is going to happen in the future. Prophets are reduced to being nothing more than 'journalists' of the future. This perspective of the monotheistic religions is *sharply* different from the perspective of the Eastern religions, where religious authorities are looked upon as being "wise", with a deep understanding of human interactions and human psychology, however that is defined. And there are, of course, political ramifications to such "naive realism", as well as the rejection of such "naive realism", as is explained in more detail on both the website linked to my name and my other website at: http://science-of-consciousness.blogspot.com/ Michael Cecil As Bill Barnwell stated, “Maybe these passages don’t mean what we ‘think’ they mean.”

BINGO.

The problem with the whole perspective presented here–that is, both sides of this issue–is something that is referred to in science as “naive realism”.

The “naive realism” perspective here is the assumption that prophets *only* have knowledge about future *events*, that they have no knowledge of truth, that they have no knowledge of the specific aspects of relationship between man and God, and that their only concern is not in conveying any particular Doctrinal teaching; but merely saying in symbols what is going to happen in the future. Prophets are reduced to being nothing more than ‘journalists’ of the future.

This perspective of the monotheistic religions is *sharply* different from the perspective of the Eastern religions, where religious authorities are looked upon as being “wise”, with a deep understanding of human interactions and human psychology, however that is defined.

And there are, of course, political ramifications to such “naive realism”, as well as the rejection of such “naive realism”, as is explained in more detail on both the website linked to my name and my other website at:

http://science-of-consciousness.blogspot.com/

Michael Cecil

]]>