Believers: How important is scripture to your faith?

[BurtWorm]

Do you believe scripture is divinely inspired? If so, what does that mean?

Christians: Are the Testaments equally "inspired," or is one moreso than the other?

[poverlay]

1. Good question. I know in the Catholic church they close every reading of their "Bible" with:

"The WORD of God", or "this is the WORD of the Lord" and the congregation replies: "Praise be to you O Lord". It's considered the ultimate end all, be all. That is, short of God himself showing up with a flaming shrubbery and slightly pudgy angels...

(Then the Catholics place a finger over his lips and say "Ssshhh,,, you had us at 'Kill the heathens.'".)O8)

[Dorian Gray]

32. That's exactly

how it is with us Catholics.

[The Blue Flower]

2. It's a library--has good stuff and bad stuff

The Bible is a collection of books of varied quality and purpose. Some are instructive, some are expressive, some are narrative. I have drawn comfort and inspiration from some of what I've read there. I've also been disgusted by some of what I've read there. I think every person has some divinity in them, and therefore everyone's story is divinely inspired and valuable. These are just the ones that made it into the book.

[zeemike]

3. That same could be turned around

And one could ask the atheist/agnostic "How important to your belief is the Origin of the Species"

But to answer your question is not so simple.
Did God inspire the Torah, (the first 5 books of the bible which were apparently dictated to Moses on the mount in the wilderness) The answer to that may well be yes in some interesting ways because of the strange mathematical sequences that have been found...but that is a whole different topic.
Did he inspire Leviticus, Kings, and the historical accounts and linage? Perhaps but they are just history after all.
Did he inspire The Songs of Solomon? Perhaps because music is often inspired by some muse, but they are most relevant to the time of Solomon and whatever meaning they had then no longer has deep meaning just because of the passage of time.
It would be obvious that he inspired the profits in the prophetical books but the books are just an account of that prophesies.
And in the New testament the first 5 books are an account of events and the only inspiration needed is that to be truthfully in there account.
The rest of the New testament is mostly letters between the early founders of the church and there followers except the prophetic book of Revelations which actually pulls together some of the prophesies of the OT.
So if any man tells you that "Every word in the bible is the divine word of God" run like hell from a fool and a charlatan and a false teacher.

[More Than A Feeling]

4. It wouldn't make any sense to ask atheists/agnostics/humanists that.

1. As you've been repeatedly reminded, its inappropriate to talk about atheists/agnostics/humanists as having an active belief in the non-existence of a god unless they have indicated that they are a "strong" atheist".

2. The Origin of Species is outdated in several ways, and PZ Myers, a biology professor, has said that he specifically shows his students where and how Darwin was wrong. It would not be outlandish to suppose that other biology professors do likewise. There is no need to have "faith" in the Origin of Species, Darwin, or evolution. Either evolution works as a theory or it does not. If it does not, if the predictions made by the model are proved to be false (they've been found to be true), we should discard it and get a new one. Noone would seriously suggest that the theory be upheld if a better one came along, the way the Bible has been in the face of 2000 years of progress.

[Evoman]

6. So true...I study evolution and taxonomy (phylogenetics) and

I've only ever read the On the Origin of Species ONCE, and then only because I thought I should and was curious. Studies in evolution are so passed Darwin...with molecular genetics taking a center stage, Darwin would be lost with all we know now. There is absolutely no way to compare reading the bible to reading the O of S....and anybody who says that is just plain ignorant about evolution. Most peoples religion is BASED on scripture....no scripture, no religion. If the bible hadn't been written or the early Christian cult had died off (say Paul drowned while he baptising people, and Constantine had adopted some other religion). It would be ridiculous to think that Christianity would be mainstream now...chances are it wouldn't. On the other hand, evolution is a theory that has superseded Darwin..if Darwin had drowned before he had written his book, somebody else would have written it anyways...because evolution is true, and bigger than a person or group. Hell, Wallace was in the process of writing about evolution and natural selection when Darwin wrote the book.

[zeemike]

10. "because evolution is true"

I think that says a lot.
Does it then logically follow that if evolution is true the bible is not?

[Evoman]

11. Lol...excuse me?

Says a lot about what?

"Does it then logically follow that if evolution is true the bible is not?"

Of course not. It has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is real and a fact. The bible may or may not be real...but seeing how there are enough contradictions and falsehoods in it, its really not worth reading to me (even though I have read it entirely ONCE...god, what an awful book).

If every copy, of every book was decimated, and humankind forgot everything they ever learned, my guess is that Jesus, and Satan and Yeshua would be lost forever. Nobody would ever re-write the bible...and that tells ME something. As to evolution...well, eventually we would come up with the theory again, and again, and again....because its a fact.

[zeemike]

12. Evolution has facts but is not one, it is a theory

Designed to interrupt the facts.
And evolution is not without contradictions and falsehoods ether. Remember the dinosaur fossil with feathers? and numerous contradictions in the evidence like oyster beds hundreds of feet thick that took according to estimates millions of years to lay down and the ones on the bottom were exactly like the ones on the top.
And if the theory were to be proven wrong who would miss it? How would it detract from our life in any way?
I do respect the fact that you did read the bible through once, but if I were a betting man I would make a big wager that you did not get the story. I say that because the bible has ben so mystified by this idea of "the divine word" that most people have no idea what they are reading. They could be reading a phone book and get as much out of it.
And it is so amazing to see that preachers themselves do not understand the story, they only understand which passages to refer to to make their point.

[cosmik debris]

14. Evolution is a fact. Evolution is NOT a theory.

Within the recent history of our species we have seen the evolution of practically every domesticated animal and many domesticated plants. Cows have evolved to give more milk or marbled beef. Poultry has evolved to have more white meat. Sheep have evolved to have more wool. Dogs have evolved, some to chase rabbits and some to chase deer. Evolution has occurred. Our species has witnessed it and been a part of it. To deny the fact of evolution is to say that thoroughbred horses and quarter horses are the same as Arabians. Even a cursory study of agriculture shows that cotton, soy beans, wheat, oats, and corn have all evolved to be more productive and nutritious. Evolution is a fact.

Now, of course, if you are talking about natural selection or survival of the fittest, the purported mechanisms of evolution, you may have a point. But there is overwhelming evidence to support those theories.

And I forgot to add the greatest contributor to evolution in our time: The AKC.

[zeemike]

16. Natural selection has been used for centuries

in animal husbandry and agriculture to develop just the things you have been talking about.
But no one has ever made a cow into an elephant or a cat into a dog or even a grain into a fruit tree.
You can make big dogs small dogs harry dogs and dogs without hair but they are still dogs. Selective breeding can't do it and so how would natural selection do it?

[cosmik debris]

20. Have you ever taken calculus

In the first week of my first calculus course I was faced with the rabbit problem. That is, if you start with two rabbits and a fixed reproduction rate and a fixed mortality rate, and a fixed sexual maturity rate, how long will it take for there to be a billion rabbits.

Now if you add in a fixed mutation rate and extinction rate, and extend the time period for 2 or 3 billion years, it is very easy to see how mutation an natural selection can create all the different species that we see on earth today. In fact, the math would indicate that we SHOULD see a vast number of species and a large variety of plant and animal life. Thats the way it would be predicted by the numbers. That is why natural selection is a reasonable and rational explanation for what we see today, because it is easily predictable based on the science that we KNOW.

The mistake that most people seem to make is that 2 or 3 billion year issue. If you don't believe that evolution has been happening for 3 billion years, then I see why you have problems with natural selection. But clearly, evolution has been going on for 3 billion years and as I explained it is still going on. It would be rather strange to me to expect anything else besides the diversity that we see around us.

[zeemike]

26. you don't need calculus to see that

Simple problems like compound interest would show that with a large multiplier of time.
And because you have that large multiplier of time anything is possible, but is it likely.
I am maintaining that because the change is so great, from one species to the other, that it is an unlikely explanation for the huge number of species on this earth.
To me it is more likely that new species are created all the time (not the life time of man) from the micro level of life...plakton in the sea and microbes on the land. Add that to your equation and the answer becomes easer to see.

[cosmik debris]

33. I'm sorry.

It is apparent that you know very little about genetics, or mathematics. I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to explain them.

It is equally obvious that your faith is so strong that facts will never interfere with your thought process. I should not have bothered to present such bothersome facts. Please forgive me.

[zeemike]

67. And I am sorry to offend you with something different.

That challenges you and your faith.
But there it is all ugly and ignorant for all to see.
Won't it be nice when someday ignorance is wiped from the face of the earth and only right thinking people are there to not offend one another.

[cosmik debris]

75. I'm not offended

I'm just sorry I wasted my time trying to show you another point of view that is based on science when all you want to know is opinion. Good luck with that.

[Evoman]

24. Bwahaha.

Damn...do you think this shit happens in a lifetime? Kill all dogs except chihuahuahs and great danes, and you would have two different species (since they can't mate...for...ahem..obvious reasons). Now let em continue to evolve and diverge for 10 millions years (i.e. yes...this takes awhile)...then get back to me about whether they are still all dogs.


"But no one has ever made a cow into an elephant or a cat into a dog or even a grain into a fruit tree."

:rofl: You better not be serious here....dear god man. Buy a fucking science textbook.

Here, I'll get you started: Great book by a great author. http://www.amazon.com/Denying-Evolution-Creationism-Scientism-Science/dp/0878936599/ref=sr_1_2/103-5029604-0800602?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173943014&sr=1-2

[zeemike]

25. you think my belief is due to lack of exposure to science?

Not so, I have had a life long interest in things scientific.

But your example of a chihuahuahs and a great dane is flawed. First the chihuahuah through time would evolve larger and the Dane smaller through natural selection for the simple reason that the optimum size for a dog is about the size of a wolf. With the small dog the larger would survive to mate and the smaller of the dane would be most likely to survive and feed it;s young. And then in a relative short time they would be close enough to breed among themselves and both of them would disappear and the wolf would reemerge because that is the most successful form of dog.

[Evoman]

39. Your making things up.

An organisms evolution is dependant on the evironment its in...you can't just guess about how they are going to evolve. What is an "optimum size for a dog"? If a chihuahua was in an evironment were being small was benificial, your scenario falls apart. I'm not saying that what you said would happen WOULDN't happen...hell, I don't know. But what your not getting is that even if that did happen, its still evolution at work. That same process, over millions of years, can have drastic effects...especially if you have some sort of vicariant event...say, for example, isolation of the same species on two different islands, or the introduction of an impenetrable mountain range.

Evolution is a fact, anyways. Things evolve.

[zeemike]

69. The optimum size for a dog is what we see in nature

If the dane and the taco dog were dumped in North America (without man) they both would probably not survive long. The Taco dog would become the prey of all sorts of animals like wild cats and birds like the eagle and owl and the Dane would not be able to hunt in pacts and have the stamina to chase down the elk and dear like the wolf does. Nor would he be agile enough to hunt the smaller game like the coyote does.
But in the end they are dogs and will stay dogs because to completely change the instincts and programing that is in every cell is just to great a task for any normal situation.
So the way I se it is there are two way it could happen to change a dog into a cat and the first is some gross and dramatic mutation that occurs suddenly and takes hold or many smaller ones over time. And science has not shown ether case to be true no matter how many fossils they have collected.

[Evoman]

71. You may have a point.

"If the dane and the taco dog were dumped in North America (without man) they both would probably not survive long. The Taco dog would become the prey of all sorts of animals like wild cats and birds like the eagle and owl and the Dane would not be able to hunt in pacts and have the stamina to chase down the elk and dear like the wolf does"

This is not a bad point on your part. This may very well be what happens (then again, maybe not). But thats the point...its natural selection at work. If the chihuahua did manage to survive long enough to adapt (get bigger, or faster, or smarter), it might have a chance. It might not. A big part of ther reason chihuahuas are the way they are IS because of breeding. Besides, by the time that chihuahuas and great Danes evolved into your "normal sized dogs" again, the genetic differences that accumulated in that time might keep them from breeding anyways, or make offspring non viable.

"But in the end they are dogs and will stay dogs because to completely change the instincts and programing that is in every cell is just to great a task for any normal situation."

These things are gradual...to expect dogs to diverge into other organisms that already exists (like cats) is asanine. Thats not how it works. Likewise, if you left the Earth alone, free of human intervention for another 100 millions years, do you think all the animals on it would be the same? Cats would be cats, and dogs would be dogs?\

"So the way I se it is there are two way it could happen to change a dog into a cat and the first is some gross and dramatic mutation that occurs suddenly and takes hold or many smaller ones over time."

There are no ways to CHANGE a dog into a cat. This kind of ignorant statement is almost bewildering. Dogs and cats did have a common ancestor some time in the past, but a modern dog did not metamorphisize from a modern cat.

"And science has not shown ether case to be true no matter how many fossils they have collected."

Thats because people like you expect there to be fossils for every single fucking step. You find one link, creationist find two gaps. Fossils are extremely rare...but that doesn't mean that we can't see the story. Not only that, but the genetic evidence is there as well. Here is some of the fossil evidence you may want to look at.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html

Evolution is a fact. Evolution is a theory.

Edited: because I thought I went to far.

[zeemike]

76. Remember that saying

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof? does that not apply to this science?
It seems an extraordinary to say one knows how the history of the earth from the beginning and ten present no real tangible evidence, but instead try to put together a picture with pieces of stone.
I mean like...
"A small, heavy dog like animal, intermediate between arctoids and bears. Still had slicing carnassials & all its premolars, but molars were becoming squarer. Later specimens of Ursavus became larger, with squarer, more bear-like, molars."
Can't you see how weak one could think that is?...it's teeth are getting squarer so it must be a bear....But I suppose if you put a whole bunch of those statements you could pass it off as overwhelming evidence.
I am sure that if i made an extraordinary claim like "reincarnation is a fact not just a theory and there is overwhelming proof that it is"
And then sit and listen while I gave you facts like "The case of Bridy Murphy" and volumes of other proof like it to support it as a fact that only the ignorant can ignore.
No you would claim the badge of critical thinker yet expect others to not claim it for what you believe.

And by the way nothing personal here I am sure by the way you write and express yourself you are an intelligent and fairminded person. My criticisms are generic and not one sided

[Dorian Gray]

35. The American Kennel Club?

:)

I agree with what Cosmic Debris says here. I do believe that there is proof of evolution in our everyday lives.

[MistressOverdone]

91. Anybody who ever owned or bred

bulldogs knows evolution is a proven fact.

One thing that is interesting about the creation myth in the Bible is how the order of the Lord creating the various things is pretty much what science tells us. Now, if Noah is said to have lived to be almost 1K years old, maybe 7 days isn't what we think of as seven days?

And really, I'm not looking for an argument about creation. I think evolution is the most elegant, miraculous concept that makes Adam and Eve look like a cheap tabloid story.

[BurtWorm]

15. "A theory designed to interrupt the facts?"

You are awesomely uninformed. Any scientific theory is designed to make researchers hunger for facts. Darwin's theory of natural selection is one of the most successful theories precisely because it has suggested so many questions that have enabled scientists to gather previously unknown facts.

You simply don't know what you're talking about and seem to me to be mistaking your own opinion for fact.

[zeemike]

17. I'm sorry but a theory is not a fact

And any dictionary will confirm that.
When you prove that theory then it will be called a fact.

[BurtWorm]

30. It is a fact that species evolve.

The theory of how they do that is called natural selection.

[zeemike]

78. It is a fact that they change

Get bigger or smaller, have different teeth and nails, longer and shorter hair, different coulors...that can be demonstrated as a fact.
But to involve into something else is not a fact but has a theory called natural selection.

[BurtWorm]

80. Evolution within a species has been observed within recent history

For example, a species of Galapagos finch has been observed to have evolved a beak to cope with a changing food supply within the last 30 years by a husband and wife team of ethologists, Peter and Rosemary Grant, whose work was written about in a book called The Beak of the Finch, by Jonathan Weiner. It's a fact that the description of the species has changed in thirty years because the shape of its beak has evolved. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is the best theory to explain how and why it happens. Like it or not.

[Evoman]

21. You are ignorant.

Maybe its about time you put down your bible at least temporarily and learn something useful.

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

"And evolution is not without contradictions and falsehoods ether "

Those "falsehoods" (which were discovered as falsehoods by other scientists, natch) don't detract at all from evolution as a theory. At all. If one of your friends lied that it snowed in his neighborhood last night, it would do nothing to disprove snow itself. Its snowed enough times for us to accept that it snows.

"And if the theory were to be proven wrong who would miss it?"

Lol...no worries there. It will never happen....its as good a theory (and fact) as they come.

"How would it detract from our life in any way?"

Aside from Biology as we know it crumbling before our very eyes? It probably wouldn't detract from your life in any way, lol...especially if you believe in ol' sky daddy. I could get all "sciency" on you if you'd like, and talk about the implications in how we understand bacterial evolution, or paleontology, or what have you, but I'm guessing you probably don't really care. Not that it matters...evolution is true, and will never be proven wrong....you really can't have a clue about the overwhelming evidence if your head is stuck in a book written 2000 years ago by primitives who thought the sky was a star-tarp, and that sicknesses were cause by *chuckle* demons.


"I do respect the fact that you did read the bible through once, but if I were a betting man I would make a big wager that you did not get the story"

I got the story just fine. I'm not stupid...I understand metaphors, and parables, and all that stuff. I just like to read something before I comment on it...be it the bible, The God Delusion, or On the Origin of Species.

"I say that because the bible has ben so mystified by this idea of "the divine word" that most people have no idea what they are reading"

Don't worry...I didn't read it as some divine word, nor did I really attempt to take things literally. It doesn't matter....most of the bible is a waste of time, the tales of morality irrelevant, and the world-view of the writers primitive and obsolete. Jesus says some nice things, but for the most part it was shit I learned in kindergarten.

"They could be reading a phone book and get as much out of it"

A lot of it reads like a phone book....thats why I'm never gonna read it again. I almost killed myself reading the first part of matthew....the names, the names...*shoots himself*

[zeemike]

27. And so the name calling begins

And so this probably means the end of civil conversation and the sharing of ideas.
But I will continue on just in case.

It is obvious from what you said that you did not get the story that the bible tells or you would have understood why Mathew listed the genealogy of Jesus. He was from the house of David and the saviour was predicted to com from that linage.
Did you get enough of the story to understand who David was or how Israel came to have a King in the first place? or how it survived without a King for the first 300 years of it's existence? Or why Israel came to it's destruction and how the Jews survived?
That is some of the story I am talking about. The metaphors and parables are not the story.

[cosmik debris]

37. Sharing ideas

You are sharing ideas? Spiderman is an idea, Superman is an idea, teenage mutant ninja turtles are an idea. Evolution is a fact.

[More Than A Feeling]

38. David was probably the chieftain of a little village in the middle of nowhere.

But, he was fortunate to be the ancestor of a King who really was important, King Josiah, who liked the thought of his ancestors being grand monarchs descended from the first humans. So David got a promotion when the Old Testament was cobbled together and written under Josiah.

[zeemike]

65. David was the son of Jessi citizen of Bethlehem

no kings in his background because he was a contemporary of the first king of Israel Saul.
The rest of the story of how he became king I will leave up to you to find.

[More Than A Feeling]

72. Please read what archaeologists have to say about the Kingdom of Judah in David's time

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869136/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-5593123-1899304?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174004978&sr=8-1

Read it. If you think the Bible is accurate history, you're in for a treat.

[zeemike]

77. Not much to read there unless you buy the book

And even at the reduced price I would not buy it because there are hundreds like it. In fact I think it is some kind of law that all palaeontologists must write at least one book disproving some point in the bible.
Would just bet that their evidence is just as weak as the bone box of Jesus.

[More Than A Feeling]

79. It's worth a trip to the library.

Disproving some point? How about altering your entire vision of the Old Testament? Does that sound like something you'd be interested in?

[MistressOverdone]

92. Didn't David write most of the psalms?

That in itself should secure a place in the Bible for him.

"he preparest a table for me in the presence of mine enemies."

I like that one. It's a real in-your-face concept considering life in the desert.

[Evoman]

40. Lol...I told you, I get it.

"It is obvious from what you said that you did not get the story that the bible tells or you would have understood why Mathew listed the genealogy of Jesus. He was from the house of David and the saviour was predicted to com from that linage"

I know this.

"Did you get enough of the story to understand who David was or how Israel came to have a King in the first place? or how it survived without a King for the first 300 years of it's existence? Or why Israel came to it's destruction and how the Jews survived?"

Yes.

One more thing...telling somebody that they are ignorant is not an insult if they are ignorant. I am ignorant about a great deal of things....the difference, is that I don't concoct an argument, and then use my ignorance to make a point that is completel wrong. I am not ignorant of religion...I just think its ridiculous.

[MistressOverdone]

90. Well, the Mormons rewrote the Bible

kind of.

[Dorian Gray]

34. I don't see what one has to do with the other

Personally, I believe that the Bible was written by humans, and it is a recording of local legend, history, and Jesus' words. I believe that it is shaded by the understanding of the culture responsible for creating it, though I do also bealieve that each story can teach us about the earthly community and God.

It's a living work, and it must be read in context of the times that it was written but also as a whole. The New Testament builds upon the Old.

Having said that, I don't believe that the Bible and theories of evolution are mutually exclusive. I believe that those who wrote the bible didn't have the scientific knowledge that we have now, and science and religion are not exclusive. There is room for both in our world, and I believe in both God and evolution.

[zeemike]

8. Oh no I have done it again

Changed the topic without intending to with a careless comment.
But if we compare the two different belief systems, the belief and non belief, then the Origin of the Species i guess would compare to Genesis.
That because both attempt to describe millions of years of history and explain how it happened. And of course both must fail because it ain't that easy.
But both Genesis and the Onegin of the Species may have sparked an interest in the rest of the story and so they had perhaps, equal influence in our belief or lack of it.
But the rest of the bible has to do ore with history than science. and the question becomes whether it is a true account of it or not.

[Evoman]

22. No.

Again you display your ignorance.

"But if we compare the two different belief systems, the belief and non belief, then the Origin of the Species i guess would compare to Genesis"

Not even close.

"That because both attempt to describe millions of years of history and explain how it happened. And of course both must fail because it ain't that easy."

No, one attempts to describe history using evidence, and observations. The other just makes shit up. I'll let you guess which one is which. But besides that, Darwins book does not have anywhere near the importance that Genesis has for believers. Yes, it was a defining work, and it had a huge impact (and it still reads great besides), but really...its been surpassed. Evolutionary theory has...dare I say...evolved...since Darwins time. Religion...still a stagnant pit of irrelevance.

"But the rest of the bible has to do more with history than science. and the question becomes whether it is a true account of it or not."

The bible has nothing to do with science, and its historical relevance is dubious at best. I will concede that it can tell us a great deal about the mind of the men that wrote it, and how an ancient people viewed there world. Thats the only way I find it at all important.

[zeemike]

28. If it were possible

I would show you how Genesis does not disagree with science but I am afraid the name calling would escalate as the points were sharpened. Is that not the natural progression of conversations here at R/T?

[Evoman]

42. Yes, genesis disagrees with science.

Completely. There is nothing of scientific relevance in it. I would trust a 60 year old obsolete text book over your bible. But people don't read the bible for scientific reasons, anyways. They read it for the incest.

Oh, and don't be afraid of name-calling. Post your points. Although I may use the word ignorance from time to time.

[Goblinmonger]

54. Can you explain

how Pi can possibly be 3.0 as the bible says? I've always wondered about that one. Did God need a better slide rule?

[Goblinmonger]

41. Inland, is that you? n/t

[BurtWorm]

60. Do you believe in reincarnation?

:scared:

[zeemike]

66. Apparently not

i have always ben Zeemike and have never used any other name.

[cosmik debris]

5. The Origin of Species has lots of corroboration for its main points

It is supported by tons of evidence. As such, it is only a small piece of the puzzle. Not particularly significant at all. And certainly not irreplaceable.

[zeemike]

9. And so does the bible have corroboration of it's main points

So what is your point?
And please don't say that it does not because there are volumes of literature from ancient and modern times that corroborate it's points.

[cosmik debris]

13. The point is that there is no need to depend on Darwin.

And there is no reason to endow The Origin Of Species with special attributes. It is just a book, nothing more. No one depends on the Origin of Species as the source of inspiration or the foundation of faith. It is fallible, it is just what it appears to be. It has no special power or significance.

Your question seemed to compare Darwin's work with the Bible, but there is no comparison.

[zeemike]

18. No, Darwin with Genesis the first book of the bible.

It is the only book that deals with the creation and then only in the first few paragraphs.
Outside of those first few paragraphs the rest of the bible is history not science.

[cosmik debris]

19. I don't think you have a very good grasp of Darwin's work

It has very little to do with creation. But my point was that his work is in no way sacred or holy or revered. That is why it is not comparable to the bible.

[Evoman]

23. Have you read Darwins book?

Cause I have a sneaking suspicion you haven't.....

[zeemike]

29. yes I have

But it was about 1958 and I remember Little of it. I think I was impressed more by the flowery language of the time than the content.

[BurtWorm]

31. Clearly.

;)


The content is a bit difficult, despite its reputation for being a readable science book.

PS: Despite being difficult, however, the language, far from being "flowery" is remarkably precise and modern. Darwin was a very careful and very thoughtful writer. It's one of the things I admire most about him.

[Evoman]

45. I found it especially difficult BECAUSE it wasn't in a style

that I'm used to reading when I read scientific papers. Its not "flowery" per se, but there can be a certain "poetry" to the writings of early scientists.

Edit: You should try getting through Linneaus's books on binomial nomenclature...lol...the guys downright perverted.

[Evoman]

50. Dude, you read that book 21 years before I was born.

You should think about giving it another shot...or maybe reading something a tad more updated.

[zeemike]

63. Don't remind me

But my interests have moved on to other things sense then.

[BurtWorm]

61. Genesis is science?

:o

Do you really believe that?

[zeemike]

62. in that it is a thumb nail sketch of creation yes n/t

[BurtWorm]

82. So according to you any creation myth is "science?"

Or just this one?

[Goblinmonger]

43. This should be good.

What, perchance, are the corraboative points of the bible? That a man and woman were created and all life came from them? That there was a flood over the entire globe and all animals resided in a single, small ship? That there was a guy named Jesus that created miracles? Please let me know. And I don't want "literature" that corroborates it, I would like some historical accounts/study, please. I think there is a great literature writer that sheds light on the life of Jesus. Who is that? Homer. The similarities between Jesus and other epic heros is fascinating. But Jesus was real and Odysseus was fake, right?

[Evoman]

51. A more interesting question:

Who would win in a race...Jesus or Odysseus?

[Goblinmonger]

53. Clearly Jesus

because Odysseus would have to stop multiple times along the way to boink the local goddesses. I mean sure, it would be the classic Tortoise and the Hare with Odysseus off to a quick start, but between booty calls and Odysseus proving how much of a man he was by beating up on the local monster, JC would pull it out in the end.

Sorry, I teach The Odyssey and my nerdiness came through.

[Evoman]

59. I suppose a better question would be:

Who would win in a cage match between Jesus and Hercules.

"In this corner the Son of God..weighing in at 5 foot 4 and 120 pounds...the unkilllable Jesssssssus Christ! In the other corner, the son of A god, bane of Hera...weighing in at 6 ft, 350 pounds....twelve tasks couldn't hold him back.....Herculllllesssss. Now prepare for a spectacular, fantacular, super duper, wrestling EXTRAVAGANZA. Fighters, to your corners. Say a little prayer to your daddies....and lets GET IT ON!!!!!"

[zeemike]

64. you set a trap

i am suppose to give the corroboration and then you say "but that is all nonsense created by some myth writer. It can't be true because it agrees with the bible account which is not true"
Right? is that not how it works?
But never the less let's take one or two points...The flood
It occurs in every oral and written history all around the world. Even among the native Americans like the Hopi which tell a story of them escaping the flood sealed in wooden tubes that floated on the sea and came to rest in the 4 corners of the US. And from there they were told to migrate in 4 directions as far as they could go and then turn right..And thus the symbol of the migration is the Swastika that has been around long before the Fascist used it in a profane way. This story is recorded on petroglyph on the Hopi reservation still today and is passed on to every generation by the Grandfathers.
But there corroboration has no value right?.
And then there is the story of St. Isis in Tibet that says the Jesus traveled there and spent time with them teaching and learning during his lost years from 13 to 33.And although several westerners have seen the manuscripts they cannot be believed because....
And on and on it goes. As long as I set them up you will knock them down with the same stick...it is all just a fake.

[jgraz]

68. Yes, the trap's called "critical thinking"

I'm sure you can avoid it, though.

[zeemike]

70. But it is only critical thinking if you are doing it

If I am doing it to evolution it is called ignorance.

[jgraz]

73. Some thinking is more critical than others

Using ancient writings and folk tales as geological evidence is not critical thinking, it's pseudoscience.

[JerseygirlCT]

7. "inspired" sure. Dictated, no.

I believe they are the work of human beings, not written by God.

I believe the scriptures are very useful to us as testaments of humanity's attempts at understanding and relating to God.

I believe those people were inspired by God, but I do not believe we have the *literal* word of God there. Jesus was the Word, not the book. A great many fundamentalists forget that.

I think, unfortunately, there's a great deal of Bible-worship masquerading as "true" Christianity these days. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

[Dorian Gray]

36. Agree

jerseygirl can speak for me anytime on this subject! :)

[Goblinmonger]

44. OK, I'll come out and say it.

If the Bible is not the word of god, then where is the basis for Christianity? What is there to go one. There is very little to no historical evidence that Jesus even existed outside of the bible and some forgeries that were created to sustantiate the bible. There is no other source of information about god other than some oral tradition and the literature that the bible spawned. If the bible is just a mythology, how is Christianity/Judaism/Islam any different than greek mythology?

[Evoman]

46. Um..dude...you need Faith.

Its all about faith.....

[Goblinmonger]

47. Who are you? This guy?

[Evoman]

48. Hey man.

Don't look at me...I didn't start the fire. Is been always burning since the worlds been turning.

[Goblinmonger]

49. Rabrrrrrr's Billy Joel joke posted in The Lounge

Billy Joel and an untalented vapid useless uncreative over-rated ignorant over-hyped irrelevant vomitous sack of maggoty worm-laden shit walk into a bar, and the bartender says, "Hey - twins!"

[Evoman]

52. BWAHAHAHAHAH

Rabrrrrrr is fucking hilarious. I may disagree with the dude sometimes, but damn is he funny.

[Rabrrrrrr]

55. Thanks! I'm glad you liked it!

I hate Billy Joel.

:grr:

[Evoman]

58. My roomate and I used to say

"Excuse me..I have to go drop Barry Manilow of at the pool" everytime we had to No. 2. I can easily see that replaced with Billy Joel.

[Rabrrrrrr]

56. I hope that one goes down in history as a classic joke.

Thanks for posting it!

:yourock:

[Goblinmonger]

57. Best. Billy Joel. Joke. Ever.

And true. So, so true.

[MistressOverdone]

93. There are more than one??

[Dorian Gray]

97. That's really funny....

My husband pretty much has said the same thing for years about Billy Joel. Hah! :)

[Dorian Gray]

96. I was thinking

more like George Michael.

[Dorian Gray]

95. I don't know if you are joking with this response or not...

but... yeah... pretty much. That's why it's called faith. LOL.

I'll be the first to admit that the Bible is NOT a scientific document, nor should it be looked as one. I do believe that science and religion are not mutually exclusive, as well.

[MistressOverdone]

94. You say

"if Jesus existed outside the Bible." And that's the issue. This was 2K years ago. Personally, the Gospels, flawed and incomplete as I am sure they are (and I'm including the Gnostics) are enough to make me stop and listen.

My opinion, there is myth in the Bible, because we as a species need myth (just look at the Thanksgiving story) but I think there had to be a kernel of some sort of history in there somewhere. But it is hard to get good info on this, because most of the writing in this area is by folks with their own agenda on one side or the other.

Regarding Greek mythology, do you think there might have been some kernel of history in some of the stories? Some local dude who did something interesting and after a few generations of story telling he has become more than the sum of his parts?

Perhaps (and I'm processing this as I write because I never thought of it before) the very thing that interests me about the Bible (as opposed to, say, the Book of Mormon or the Scientology writings) is their age, the antiquity. Understanding how others lived way back there is endlessly fascinating to me. The fact that the story of Jesus speaks to me personally is almost irrelevant.

[Dorian Gray]

98. Very true

Mistressoverdone.

I do think that the Bible is colored by the time that it was written, and it's compiled with stories of the oral tradition, some of it folklore.

[rasputin1952]

74. Depends on the message and consideration o the time and

circumstances under which it was written.

I believe in Peace, Understanding, Wisdom, Empathy, Forgiveness and a host of other "higher" principles
of humanity.

Thee are are some things that leave a little to be desired in the realm of humanity, such as vengeance instead Justice, and stoning a child that offends you.

I should note that the Bible is not the only place where I find wisdom as well as contradictions. There are many places to find wisdom, including within ourselves if we allow it to come forward.

The one thing that I find deplorable is hypocrisy, in any form, and it is rampant.

[Meshuga]

81. Very important

The scriptures are part of Jewish tradition part of Jewish history (I'm not saying that the torah or the tanakh are historical accounts but that they were created by our people and belong to our history), and a base for our teachings. Torah portions are read and discussed every week on the sabbath. The discussions do include questioning and higher criticism.

[nickols_k]

83. Wrongly translated

In my opinion all biblical scriptures were wrongly tramslated!

Be bless!

[scholarsOrAcademics]

84. no need for salvation when the gods argue

this opens a line of thought on the need for salvation, the faith that one has to meet the feeling of needing salvation.
from:The symbolism of evil,by Paul Ricouer
"If evil is coextensive with the origin of things, as primeval chaos and theogonic strife, then the elimination of evil and of the wicked must belong to (the creation act) as such. In this “type” there is no problem of salvation distinct from the problem of creation; there is no history of salvation distinct from the drama of creation." page 191
When the gods are arguing among themselves,the problem of who to listen to arises.
The question in my mind is how much of this reliance on a 'clean'Creation is behind religous violence.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

85. Scriptures

I have studied and continue to study all the scriptures from the various spiritual traditions. What is most interesting is the similarities between them. The outer appearances may be different, but the inner beauty comes from the same source.

[toddaa]

86. Are you a pantheist?

I think I've asked you this before and I know that Sufism is largely panentheistic, but I'm curious if you would call your beliefs pantheistic, rather than panenthiestic.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

87. Not sure of the meaning of

panenthiestic. But I see everything as being One, so that all paths are expression of the One.

[toddaa]

88. Panentheism

Pantheism posits God and the All are one. Panentheism views the All as a part of God, but that God transcends the All.

[MistressOverdone]

89. The OT is a wild and crazy place

and it's anyone's guess how much of it is history, myth, whatever. But without it, the NT doesn't make much sense, because Christ (to Christians) is the new covenant and negates the need for nasty stuff like animal sacrifices. It is all quite nicely tied up when you look at them together.

But the whole thing can be really interesting reading, and the OT is better than sleeping pills sometimes.