Lord of the Rings is the second best selling book :D
thats after the IKEA catalogue!
still no explanation forthcoming regarding the poor dolphins i see... :(
plankton will die also... as will reindeer and marmosets...
although the upside is that pigeons and seagulls will cease to exist :cool:
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
still no explanation forthcoming regarding the poor dolphins i see... :(
plankton will die also... as will reindeer and marmosets...
although the upside is that pigeons and seagulls will cease to exist :cool:
We're talking about books that were bought!!! :D Though the bible seems to be at the top because all the hotels buy it to put in the drawer in each room! Petition to do the same with Lord of the Rings (and the IKEA catalogue!).
I know... poor dolphins.... no one can offer any arguement as to why these lovely creatures should be exterminated! Though, on the bright side, cockaroaches will cease to exist as well.... or... will they??
We're talking about books that were bought!!! :D Though the bible seems to be at the top because all the hotels buy it to put in the drawer in each room! Petition to do the same with Lord of the Rings (and the IKEA catalogue!).
I know... poor dolphins.... no one can offer any arguement as to why these lovely creatures should be exterminated! Though, on the bright side, cockaroaches will cease to exist as well.... or... will they??
yes cockroaches will die... there will be no air and no land to speak of, just molten lava... no life will exist (except micro-organisms and maybe the odd amoeba)
I watched it on Discovery channel so it must be true!
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
yes cockroaches will die... there will be no air and no land to speak of, just molten lava... no life will exist (except micro-organisms and maybe the odd amoeba)
I watched it on Discovery channel so it must be true!
It's science... Cool... no more cockroaches! But... no more nothing... oh well... at least we god rid of those horrid things!
one of my goals is to read the WHOLE bible... I'm doing it Bible book by secular book... i don't try to read it straight to finish, i have to let each book sink in, because each Bible book is a book in its own right. Anyway, it's really enlightening, maybe not in the religious sense, but it puts a lot of things in context.
just because it's a best-selling work of fiction doesn't mean that it's an interesting work of fiction.
oh but it is... it's really mostly oral poetry so there are a lot of imagery, especially in the old testament... i'mn speaking from a literary point of view
oh but it is... it's really mostly oral poetry so there are a lot of imagery, especially in the old testament... i'mn speaking from a literary point of view
It is an interesting work of fiction. Lots of myths and mythology and yes.. lots of imagery. It is a good read.. from a literary point of view... a bit like reading about the heroes of greek mythology or even the legend of King Arthur.... good stories....
I have read the Bible. I don't understand most of it.
And here is the problem that I... personally... have with it...
It was written by Man.
It was in the hands of the Church for a long, long time.
Gutenberg's printing press allowed for its mass production, allowing the common people to have their own copies... but Gutenberg's Bible was 1455. And it was expensive, so only rich people could buy them. It wouldn't be until the 1500s that the Bible makes its way into commoner's homes.
Prior to that, the Bible remained in the custody of the Church. Monks hand copied them.
And who decided when the Bible was a complete work? Who decided which books were included and which ones omitted? And were the books included in their entireties... or were they edited to keep certain things from the public at large? Maybe the parts that appear in the Bible are true, but are we getting the whole picture?
have you read or heard of the Jerusalem Bible? it's supposed to be DIRECTLY translated from the original text to Modern English... meaning less is lost in translation. at least that's what my copy of the Jerusalem Bible says. But really, the footnotes in my bible are kind of secular in nature so i guess it's really a direct translation, or else the footnotes would just say "believe what it says or go to hell" or there wouldn't be footnotes at all. i say it's secular because it notes whether a word (yes, even a single word) has been lost in the greek or other languages' translation, plus the orig. hebrew word for it.
And I don't think people are down on Jesus Christ... if anything, we disrespect Him by disobeying Him.
Although... I have to say that I stand in awe of the was the Amish have handled this tragedy in their community and we should ALL take a page from their book. THAT IS the teaching of Christ. Not justice tempered with anger and revenge... but, forgiveness and acceptance. Not exclusion, but inclusion. Maybe they got it right and te rest of us are the ones left out in the cold.
right! wasn't Jesus rather radical for his time? considering the circumstances he was in?
Anyway... I don't need religion or church doctrine to talk to God for me. And all I can do is read what the Bible says Jesus said and go with that.
But, just because I feel this way, I don't expect everyone else to. You have your own row to hoe. If you find comfort and faith and hope in your religion and your church, that is the path you should take. I believe that faith is personal and that you should concern yourself with your own journey. When you achieve the same status as Jesus... then, come see me and I will follow. Until then... have a safe trip... but, I'm taking this other road.
oh, man, same for me, it gets really impersonal with all the public rituals without applying what these religious rituals really symbolize.
The problem is, they ARE NOT facts. There are as many scientists that back up the "young Earth" theory as those that back up an older Earth theory. Stuff like this is moot and its where faith takes over to me.
The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (plant roots, burrow marks, etc.) at the upper surface of the various strata (showing that the stratum did not lay there for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited).
...
The rock record screaming “Noah’s Flood” and “young earth.” The secular geologists can’t hear or see the message because of their academic indoctrination in anti-biblical, naturalistic, uniformitarian assumptions. The reason that most Christian geologists can’t see it is the same, plus the fact that they have believed the scientific establishment more than the Bible that they claim to believe is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. There are also thoroughly researched scientific refutations of skeptical objections to Noah’s Ark and the Flood here, which strengthen one’s faith in the biblical account of the Flood.
Dear Reader,
You are cordially invited to investigate a wide variety of arguments for a young earth, a number of arguments against the radiocarbon dating method, several arguments disputing the authority of the geologic column, and some points of general interest. Our course will closely follow the section of Dr. Hovind's Creation Seminar Notebook entitled "Facts from Science that Demonstrate the Universe is Not 'Billions of Years Old'" and will be amplified by material from his video presentations. Unfortunately, Dr. Hovind's "'proofs' of a young earth" are either brief assertions or outline headings which I have had to flesh out based on my knowledge of young-earth creationism. Dr. Hovind's assertions (paraphrased according to my best understanding of them) are followed by my rebuttals which are labeled for easy reference.
Preface and Acknowledgments
"Scientific" creationists boldly proclaim that, contrary to 200 years of scientific opinion, the physical evidence favors an age of the earth in the neighborhood of 6000 years. No miracles are needed, they say, to arrive at this biblically inspired figure. If the number of popular books written, lectures delivered, and debates staged conferred any degree of truth to an idea, "scientific" creationism would be taught today in every science classroom in America!
The scientific debate, of course, was settled long ago in favor of an old earth. Nevertheless, a belligerent crusade is kept alive in the public forum by the "scientific" creationists. I use quotations here because real scientists look at the data first and then determine if their hypotheses will fit in. The "Scientific" creationists, however, begin with their interpretation of the Bible which may not be questioned. They look at the data and decide whether or not the data will fit in. Supporting data are collected; contradictory data are assumed to be incomplete or erroneous. That is not science!
The scandalous truth, which is unknown to much of the public, is that the arguments of "scientific" creationism are not only bad but shockingly bad. Some of their most popular arguments have rested solely upon obsolete data! Misrepresentation of the data are commonplace. Discrepant data are routinely ignored! In short, there is a wholesale lack of professional scientific integrity among the "scientific" creationists. (It is usually a case of creationists copying from each other or indulging in wishful thinking rather than outright dishonesty.) This wholesale lack of integrity, resulting in bastardized science, has no place in our public classrooms!
This exposé was initially written for the May 1994 Babinski-Hovind debate on the age of the earth; it examined Dr. Kent Hovind's list of 30 young-earth "proofs," which are so typical of those offered by young-earth creationists over the last few decades. Other topics were also examined, and some additional material has since been added.
I wish to thank Edward T. Babinski for proofreading this manuscript as well as offering some good arguments and sound advice. Ed, formerly the editor of the Theistic Evolutionists' Forum, an activist for common sense with irons in various fires, will likely be heard from more and more as the years go by.
I wish also to thank Dr. Alan Hayward, Dr. Stephen Brush, Dr. Arthur Strahler, Daniel Wonderly, Dr. Eugenie Scott of The National Center for Science Education, Dr. Laurie Godfrey, the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Stanford University Press, and Kalmbach Publishing Company (the publisher of Astronomy and other fine magazines) for permitting extensive use of their material.
Isn't the Talk.Origins Archive just some website that has no particular credibility? Those FAQs and essays aren't peer-reviewed, and many are written by interested laymen rather than specialists, so they can be ignored, right?
We encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature and evaluate the evidence. While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive. Most of our materials provide links and/or bibliographic references to enable the reader to evaluate the evidence for themselves. While anyone can decide to ignore our materials, the Archive has been recognized as a valuable online resource by many well-known groups, magazines, and individuals. Further, a number of college courses have chosen to use materials from the Archive in their coursework. See: Awards, Honors, and Favorable Notices for The Talk.Origins Archive.
It is an interesting work of fiction. Lots of myths and mythology and yes.. lots of imagery. It is a good read.. from a literary point of view... a bit like reading about the heroes of greek mythology or even the legend of King Arthur.... good stories....
You have issues with organized religion and the religion that stems from the Bible, but not the Bible?
If it's the first, then yes, I can understand that.
If it's the second, I have no clue how you can have issues with Christianity and not with the Bible. That's a chicken vs. egg question, and neither one is mutually exclusive, so if it's the second one, I hope you can clarify.
And if it's not the second one, well--nevermind, then
i don't have a problem with the bible b/c it has many great things to say. however, i don't think you can base a religion off of it. it gets too tricky. i don't think you can pick just certain parts out of it for you religion to follow. but you can't follow it all either. it just wouldn't work. so my problem is with the way some people use the bible as a tool. i think i said this already but it really irritates me when people say they oppose gay marriage b/c the bible says it's bad. these same people oppose slavery, something that was okay in the bible.
i don't have a problem with the bible b/c it has many great things to say. however, i don't think you can base a religion off of it. it gets too tricky. i don't think you can pick just certain parts out of it for you religion to follow. but you can't follow it all either. it just wouldn't work. so my problem is with the way some people use the bible as a tool. i think i said this already but it really irritates me when people say they oppose gay marriage b/c the bible says it's bad. these same people oppose slavery, something that was okay in the bible.
I agree. I don't have a problem with the bible any more than I have a problem with any other book. I have a problem with PEOPLE who try to tell me that the bible is the divine word of god and a manual for how I should live my life. The bible is written in such a way that it can be interpreted to say almost anything you'd like it to say, making it pretty much useless as a guide. It seems to me that if god had wanted to give us the definitive instructions, he'd have provided something more ... well ... definitive! If I want my kids to behave in a certain way, I make it abundantly clear exactly what it is that I want them to do. I don't give them riddles and then punish them for not figuring them out correctly.
I do think it's a must-read, simply because it's been so influential to western culture. Without a good bit of biblical knowledge, it's impossible to fully understand western art or literature.
I also don't mind if someone wants to pick and choose bits of the bible that are relevant to them and live their lives accordingly, or even if they want to swallow the whole thing as the literal truth. As soon as they tell ME that I have to do the same, that's where the problems begin. Such busybodies are all over the place, although I don't think there are any on this board.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I can understand the wish for there being a great eye in the sky who sees your good deeds, and will reward you even if noone else does. That there is fundamentally justice at the end of the journey. I see no need for there to be, and focus on the life we have, and what we can do to make justice right here right now. A belief in an after-life can make people far too accepting of injustice in real life.
Is it alright if I point out that some of the major movers in seeking to right social injustice in the world are Christians, or Christian organizations (e.g. the Methodists, Compassion International, etc.)?
A belief in an after-life is not meant to make us accepting of injustice in the present. It's meant to motivate us to do our best to reach out to others in the present and stand accountable for it in the after.
Matthew 25:31-40
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
Secondly, the apocryphal "gospels" not being canonized had nothing to do with them not being able to 'verify' them. The canonical scriptures - those deemed acceptable by the early church fathers - were themselves unverifiable. The reason that the apocryphal books were deemed heretical is simply because they preached direct access to, and experience of, God, without the meduim of the preisthood and the church. Put simply, it came down to power politics.
Edit: My attitude has always been 'fuck the church!' As far as I'm concerned the church has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ, and that it is just a racket, like Ford motors, Shell, or Haliburton.
there's plenty of evidence, evidence that points to the authenticity of the gospels. one to mention, the book of josephus..
many times there is more historical evidence pointing to the existence of Jesus than other highly regarded historical figures that we just take for fact and learn about in school.
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
Jagshesmash. I have read Bible. I like. It is nice.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
I despise most organized religion as well, it gives God a bad name.
Honestly? Im not angry or anything like that, actually I understand peoples disdain. I just get :( sometimes at how lost people are in the message of peace and love that Jesus taught because of the bad name that greedy and bloodthirsty churches have given him down through time.
It has always been humans who distorted and bastardized the message of love and peace brought forth by Jesus. I find most Christians haven't a clue as to Jesus' message. Nor do many really care to learn or consider his message.
Jews wrote their book, so of course the jews are considered "God's People" in the book of the Jews.
Same with Muslims and everyone else.
It's all just so convienant that all these people's books annoint them "God's Favorite People".
Sometimes I get the feeling god's favorites living beings are in fact.........Dog.
Not many humans can achieve or top the humility, modesty, loyalty and love of a dog......for his god (Owner).
Secondly, the apocryphal "gospels" not being canonized had nothing to do with them not being able to 'verify' them. The canonical scriptures - those deemed acceptable by the early church fathers - were themselves unverifiable. The reason that the apocryphal books were deemed heretical is simply because they preached direct access to, and experience of, God, without the meduim of the preisthood and the church. Put simply, it came down to power politics.
Sure--if you want to look at it from that point of view and discredit all other views.
Edit: My attitude has always been 'fuck the church!'
Historical/archeological/scientific research are proving 'facts' of the bible not to be accurate or even completely wrong (timelines not matching, scientific explanations and timings for 'miracles'.. etc.)
Can't be bothered researching details but science explained the parting of the seas, the destruction of sodom & gomorrah, Lazarus & more. If you wish to look into things, the bible speaks of historical figures/events that, following archeological discoveries, are 'out of synch'. If I had the time I would get the details, but it seems that some people are not interested in facts and would rather see the bible as an all knowing, all sacred book, etc..... "Avoiding these facts, ignoring them, or denying them only hurts the cause of Christianity among people who wonder if Christianity is relevant for today." These are facts that Christians must acknowledge and deal with if they do want to stay credible.
Can't be bothered researching details but science explained the parting of the seas, the destruction of sodom & gomorrah, Lazarus & more. If you wish to look into things, the bible speaks of historical figures/events that, following archeological discoveries, are 'out of synch'. If I had the time I would get the details, but it seems that some people are not interested in facts and would rather see the bible as an all knowing, all sacred book, etc..... "Avoiding these facts, ignoring them, or denying them only hurts the cause of Christianity among people who wonder if Christianity is relevant for today." These are facts that Christians must acknowledge and deal with if they do want to stay credible.
You can't be bothered to research details, and you're trying to lecture us on what Christians must acknowledge and deal with to stay credible? The very reason I asked is not borne out of a view of the Bible as some "all knowing all sacred book etc." It's to see with more detail where you're coming from.
"For nearly a century, there has been speculation that the Red Sea mentioned in Exodus is not the huge 100-mile-wide expanse as it is known today, but the western 'finger' of the Red Sea--which is now called the Gulf of Suez--that extends to the border areas of Egypt. This notion stems from the fact that the original Hebrew phrase for Red Sea was 'yam suph,' which actually means 'Reed Sea.' This phrase most aptly describes the lake region north of the Gulf of Suez, including the Bitter Lakes and Lake Timsah. According to the account in Exodus of Moses's feat, enough water was present initially to block the fleeing Israelites, and then later to drown the pursuing Egyptians. "Assuming all of that is true, researchers believe that a logical location for the biblical Red Sea is modern-day Lake Sirbonis. According to a 'Bulletin Of The American Meteorological Society' account, computer calculations indicate that because of the peculiar geography of the northern end of the Red Sea, a moderate wind blowing constantly for about 10 hours could have caused the sea to recede about a mile and the water level to drop 10 ft., leaving dry land for a period of time before crashing back when the winds died down."
- Mike Fillon, "Science Solves the Ancient Mysteries of the Bible", Popular Mechanics, Dec. 1996
You can't be bothered to research details, and you're trying to lecture us on what Christians must acknowledge and deal with to stay credible? The very reason I asked is not borne out of a view of the Bible as some "all knowing all sacred book etc." It's to see with more detail where you're coming from.
Not lecturing anyone.... scientific evidence is there, and has been there for quite a while. Even the pope has acknowledged some of these. I can't be bothered to do the research because I would have to go through a number of my books and notes....or google. Looks like you can google, anyone can do that.... google your little heart out.... I'm sure there will be loads of sites that will either acknowledge the science, completely ignore it, sites that will debunk the bible and others that will confirm all writings as fact..... Each one can find what he wants. I studied the bible over many years, I heard many arguments from a very wide range of people. Doesn't make me an expert, doesn't make me want to lecture or ram my thoughts on this book down people's throat. I just stated a fact without going deeper into it. That's all.. do what you want with it.
Comments
Lord of the Rings is the second best selling book
thats after the IKEA catalogue!
still no explanation forthcoming regarding the poor dolphins i see... :(
plankton will die also... as will reindeer and marmosets...
although the upside is that pigeons and seagulls will cease to exist :cool:
We're talking about books that were bought!!!
I know... poor dolphins.... no one can offer any arguement as to why these lovely creatures should be exterminated! Though, on the bright side, cockaroaches will cease to exist as well.... or... will they??
yes cockroaches will die... there will be no air and no land to speak of, just molten lava... no life will exist (except micro-organisms and maybe the odd amoeba)
I watched it on Discovery channel so it must be true!
It's science... Cool... no more cockroaches! But... no more nothing... oh well... at least we god rid of those horrid things!
It is an interesting work of fiction. Lots of myths and mythology and yes.. lots of imagery. It is a good read.. from a literary point of view... a bit like reading about the heroes of greek mythology or even the legend of King Arthur.... good stories....
have you read or heard of the Jerusalem Bible? it's supposed to be DIRECTLY translated from the original text to Modern English... meaning less is lost in translation. at least that's what my copy of the Jerusalem Bible says. But really, the footnotes in my bible are kind of secular in nature so i guess it's really a direct translation, or else the footnotes would just say "believe what it says or go to hell" or there wouldn't be footnotes at all. i say it's secular because it notes whether a word (yes, even a single word) has been lost in the greek or other languages' translation, plus the orig. hebrew word for it.
right! wasn't Jesus rather radical for his time? considering the circumstances he was in?
oh, man, same for me, it gets really impersonal with all the public rituals without applying what these religious rituals really symbolize.
How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims
by Dave E. Matson
Copyright © 1994-2002
Dear Reader,
You are cordially invited to investigate a wide variety of arguments for a young earth, a number of arguments against the radiocarbon dating method, several arguments disputing the authority of the geologic column, and some points of general interest. Our course will closely follow the section of Dr. Hovind's Creation Seminar Notebook entitled "Facts from Science that Demonstrate the Universe is Not 'Billions of Years Old'" and will be amplified by material from his video presentations. Unfortunately, Dr. Hovind's "'proofs' of a young earth" are either brief assertions or outline headings which I have had to flesh out based on my knowledge of young-earth creationism. Dr. Hovind's assertions (paraphrased according to my best understanding of them) are followed by my rebuttals which are labeled for easy reference.
Preface and Acknowledgments
"Scientific" creationists boldly proclaim that, contrary to 200 years of scientific opinion, the physical evidence favors an age of the earth in the neighborhood of 6000 years. No miracles are needed, they say, to arrive at this biblically inspired figure. If the number of popular books written, lectures delivered, and debates staged conferred any degree of truth to an idea, "scientific" creationism would be taught today in every science classroom in America!
The scientific debate, of course, was settled long ago in favor of an old earth. Nevertheless, a belligerent crusade is kept alive in the public forum by the "scientific" creationists. I use quotations here because real scientists look at the data first and then determine if their hypotheses will fit in. The "Scientific" creationists, however, begin with their interpretation of the Bible which may not be questioned. They look at the data and decide whether or not the data will fit in. Supporting data are collected; contradictory data are assumed to be incomplete or erroneous. That is not science!
The scandalous truth, which is unknown to much of the public, is that the arguments of "scientific" creationism are not only bad but shockingly bad. Some of their most popular arguments have rested solely upon obsolete data! Misrepresentation of the data are commonplace. Discrepant data are routinely ignored! In short, there is a wholesale lack of professional scientific integrity among the "scientific" creationists. (It is usually a case of creationists copying from each other or indulging in wishful thinking rather than outright dishonesty.) This wholesale lack of integrity, resulting in bastardized science, has no place in our public classrooms!
This exposé was initially written for the May 1994 Babinski-Hovind debate on the age of the earth; it examined Dr. Kent Hovind's list of 30 young-earth "proofs," which are so typical of those offered by young-earth creationists over the last few decades. Other topics were also examined, and some additional material has since been added.
I wish to thank Edward T. Babinski for proofreading this manuscript as well as offering some good arguments and sound advice. Ed, formerly the editor of the Theistic Evolutionists' Forum, an activist for common sense with irons in various fires, will likely be heard from more and more as the years go by.
I wish also to thank Dr. Alan Hayward, Dr. Stephen Brush, Dr. Arthur Strahler, Daniel Wonderly, Dr. Eugenie Scott of The National Center for Science Education, Dr. Laurie Godfrey, the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Stanford University Press, and Kalmbach Publishing Company (the publisher of Astronomy and other fine magazines) for permitting extensive use of their material.
source:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-dr.html
If you follow the link you can find responses to the claims you quoted from Young Earth "scientists."
If you are truly interested take a look at this too:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creadate
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html (a whole list of articles that are worth reading)
Isn't the Talk.Origins Archive just some website that has no particular credibility? Those FAQs and essays aren't peer-reviewed, and many are written by interested laymen rather than specialists, so they can be ignored, right?
We encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature and evaluate the evidence. While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive. Most of our materials provide links and/or bibliographic references to enable the reader to evaluate the evidence for themselves. While anyone can decide to ignore our materials, the Archive has been recognized as a valuable online resource by many well-known groups, magazines, and individuals. Further, a number of college courses have chosen to use materials from the Archive in their coursework. See: Awards, Honors, and Favorable Notices for The Talk.Origins Archive.
naděje umírá poslední
i don't have a problem with the bible b/c it has many great things to say. however, i don't think you can base a religion off of it. it gets too tricky. i don't think you can pick just certain parts out of it for you religion to follow. but you can't follow it all either. it just wouldn't work. so my problem is with the way some people use the bible as a tool. i think i said this already but it really irritates me when people say they oppose gay marriage b/c the bible says it's bad. these same people oppose slavery, something that was okay in the bible.
I do think it's a must-read, simply because it's been so influential to western culture. Without a good bit of biblical knowledge, it's impossible to fully understand western art or literature.
I also don't mind if someone wants to pick and choose bits of the bible that are relevant to them and live their lives accordingly, or even if they want to swallow the whole thing as the literal truth. As soon as they tell ME that I have to do the same, that's where the problems begin. Such busybodies are all over the place, although I don't think there are any on this board.
Is it alright if I point out that some of the major movers in seeking to right social injustice in the world are Christians, or Christian organizations (e.g. the Methodists, Compassion International, etc.)?
A belief in an after-life is not meant to make us accepting of injustice in the present. It's meant to motivate us to do our best to reach out to others in the present and stand accountable for it in the after.
Why not reach out to others in the present and stand accountable for it in the present??? Much better...
there's plenty of evidence, evidence that points to the authenticity of the gospels. one to mention, the book of josephus..
many times there is more historical evidence pointing to the existence of Jesus than other highly regarded historical figures that we just take for fact and learn about in school.
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
It has always been humans who distorted and bastardized the message of love and peace brought forth by Jesus. I find most Christians haven't a clue as to Jesus' message. Nor do many really care to learn or consider his message.
Jews wrote their book, so of course the jews are considered "God's People" in the book of the Jews.
Same with Muslims and everyone else.
It's all just so convienant that all these people's books annoint them "God's Favorite People".
Sometimes I get the feeling god's favorites living beings are in fact.........Dog.
Not many humans can achieve or top the humility, modesty, loyalty and love of a dog......for his god (Owner).
7-6-2006 Las Vegas. 7-20-2006 Portland. 7-22-2006 Gorge. 9-21-2009 Seattle. 9-22-2009 Seattle. 9-26-2009 Ridgefield. 9-25-2011 Vancouver.
11-29-2013 Portland. 10-16-2014 Detroit. 8-8-2018 Seattle. 8-10-2018 Seattle. 8-13-2018 Missoula. 5-10-2024 Portland. 5-30-2024 Seattle.
Sure--if you want to look at it from that point of view and discredit all other views.
Yes, that is rather evident.
Heresy!!!! :eek:
FUCK RELIGION:)
i dont wanna be saved:)
Documented, historical facts on how the bible was put together is enough. No need for 'point of view' etc. Facts....
Can't be bothered researching details but science explained the parting of the seas, the destruction of sodom & gomorrah, Lazarus & more. If you wish to look into things, the bible speaks of historical figures/events that, following archeological discoveries, are 'out of synch'. If I had the time I would get the details, but it seems that some people are not interested in facts and would rather see the bible as an all knowing, all sacred book, etc..... "Avoiding these facts, ignoring them, or denying them only hurts the cause of Christianity among people who wonder if Christianity is relevant for today." These are facts that Christians must acknowledge and deal with if they do want to stay credible.
Biblical plagues and parting of Red Sea 'caused by volcano'
That's one.
Is there any evidence for the Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction by fire and brimstone (sulfur)?
Two.
Not lecturing anyone.... scientific evidence is there, and has been there for quite a while. Even the pope has acknowledged some of these. I can't be bothered to do the research because I would have to go through a number of my books and notes....or google. Looks like you can google, anyone can do that.... google your little heart out.... I'm sure there will be loads of sites that will either acknowledge the science, completely ignore it, sites that will debunk the bible and others that will confirm all writings as fact..... Each one can find what he wants. I studied the bible over many years, I heard many arguments from a very wide range of people. Doesn't make me an expert, doesn't make me want to lecture or ram my thoughts on this book down people's throat. I just stated a fact without going deeper into it. That's all.. do what you want with it.