Denying science in the classroom

knapplc said:
The question I asked is the most fundamental and relevant question in this thread. Landlord's question is actually irrelevant if my question is answered in the only way it can be answered.
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll be the guinea pig. I believe half those stories are literally true and the other half are merely representative of some idea or lesson. Now please explain how that invalidates the whole Bible.

 
I thought anyone reading my posts would understand that I think that's a simplistic, lazy approach to the Bible.

So, to answer your question - none of those stories should be read literally in the way that you are asking, because you're asking the wrong question.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
I have always believed, based on Biblical theology, that god is god. But apparently some believe that is not the case.
Click to expand...
So you were referring to people out there not discussing this topic?

You haven't confirmed I was right on the question you're referrring to. If I am right, I've already answered it.

It doesn't matter if all of them should be taken literally or half of them or 1/4 of them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
El Diaco said:
knapplc said:
The question I asked is the most fundamental and relevant question in this thread. Landlord's question is actually irrelevant if my question is answered in the only way it can be answered.
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll be the guinea pig. I believe half those stories are literally true and the other half are merely representative of some idea or lesson. Now please explain how that invalidates the whole Bible.
Click to expand...
Have you not actually read anything I've posted in this thread? Really?

 
Moiraine said:
knapplc said:
I have always believed, based on Biblical theology, that god is god. But apparently some believe that is not the case.
Click to expand...
So you were referring to people out there not discussing this topic?

You haven't confirmed I was right on the question you're referrring to. If I am right, I've already answered it.

It doesn't matter if all of them should be taken literally or half of them or 1/4 of them.
Click to expand...


Is this really more important than the foundation of a major world religion? Why are you so focused on this?

Take whatever worst-case scenario you're hinting at here and I'll cop to it. I'm doing whatever the worst bad thing you're on about. OK? Good.

Now that I've admitted to my crimes, can we get back to discussing how the Bible is a farce? Or do you need to focus on me more?

 
knapplc said:
Moiraine said:
knapplc said:
I have always believed, based on Biblical theology, that god is god. But apparently some believe that is not the case.
Click to expand...
So you were referring to people out there not discussing this topic?

You haven't confirmed I was right on the question you're referrring to. If I am right, I've already answered it.

It doesn't matter if all of them should be taken literally or half of them or 1/4 of them.
Click to expand...

Is this really more important than the foundation of a major world religion? Why are you so focused on this?

Take whatever worst-case scenario you're hinting at here and I'll cop to it. I'm doing whatever the worst bad thing you're on about. OK? Good.

Now that I've admitted to my crimes, can we get back to discussing how the Bible is a farce? Or do you need to focus on me more?
Click to expand...
Can you stop with this bad guy schtick?

LOMs and I were in the middle of a discussion with you about the Bible, more specifically about what God is. We both made it obvious when we were talking about God and when we were talking about human interpretations of God.

You then said "I have always believed that god is god. But apparently some believe that is not the case."

We then both asked you who you were referring to and for some reason you wouldn't give a simple reply.

This segue doesn't bother me in the slightest but you have no one to blame but yourself if it bothers you that we've gotten off track.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That answer, in context, was perfectly obvious. The intent, the meaning, the focus. Everything was obvious.

Every time you continue to post about this, and not about the subject of the thread, further confirms why you're on this tangent.

Shall we go on? Are you done?

 
Now that said... (very slightly paraphrased because I'm on a phone and deleting 10 paragraphs of text is hard)

El Diaco: "So, you're claiming that it all has to be taken literally or none of it can be true?"

knapp: "Absolutely I'm saying that."

This response makes me confused as to why you asked El Diaco if he's not read any of your posts in the topic. I took your response to mean you think the Bible is invalidated if it's not all literal. I think that's how most people thought you felt this entire time (?)

 
knapplc said:
That answer, in context, was perfectly obvious. The intent, the meaning, the focus. Everything was obvious.

Every time you continue to post about this, and not about the subject of the thread, further confirms why you're on this tangent.

Shall we go on? Are you done?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you're talking about in the first paragraph. I only know you said that apparently some believe god isn't god and I still don't know if you were referring to people in this topic or people outside this topic.

 
So you were accusing me of believing something that I very clearly, at your request, clarified myself as not believing in? Or you weren't? I'm pretty damn confused now. You just said you weren't saying that, but then you said you've admitted to the crime that we have in our heads. Or is that like when people say, "I'm sorry if I hurt you", where they haven't actually apologized for anything?

It's pretty damn difficult and frustrating trying to discuss the validity of the Bible with you, knapp. You refuse to give even a centimeter of courtesy in engaging with the ideas that other people want to explore, or even in explaining things you say that people don't understand, even when they are directly related to the questions you're asking or the claims you're making, but still expect everyone to engage with your restrictive and pidgeonholing questions. Like, I've spent dozens of posts trying to articulate the nuances and the complexities of how I think (through a lot of research) the Bible should be approached, and all you can focus on is, "yeah but you haven't answered my question about how many of the stories I listed are literal or aren't literal because if you answer that any of them aren't then the Bible is ridiculous caveman nonsense."

If you already have the answer, you're convinced it's the only answer, and you can only frame the questions in a way that leave no room to do anything other than to arrive at your answer, then what's the point of even asking?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Making Chimichangas said:
knapplc said:
Religion isn't a thing that can be blamed for human actions. Religion is a human construct. It is no more to blame for bad actions than sport, nationalism, politics, love, money, or anything else humans create to explain their existence.

Religion is not inherently bad. Like a spoon or a pillow, it can be misused for bad things. But by its nature it is not bad.

Blaming religion for anything is a copout. It's humans who are to blame. Every time.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Blaming religion, and the people who commit violent acts in their religion's name, is warranted.
For example, Let's say I am not religious at all but I am searching for meaning. I pick up a New King James Bible, the Quran, or some other similar holy book. Further, had never really thought of, or considered, that being gay was "wrong." I always thought, meh, it's not for me but if someone is, that's their orientation. In addition, I've never thought that anyone who believes differently than I do is necessarily wrong. Then religion gets ahold of me. Suddenly, anyone who doesn't believe what I do, is "going to hell" or they are a sinner and need to repent to "their god." (Because everyone else's god is the wrong one.)

Religion, just took someone who was formerly not a bigot and twisted them into one. So yes, you can absolutely blame religion.

And yes, I am talking almost exclusively about the religious crazies who take their religion too far.
Click to expand...
Tell me which religion, as a base core tenet is promoting bigotry and hatred. Not some perverted offshoot or some band of crazies like Westbrook but an actual religion that pushes this. I bet if you consider it completely you will find that people are the real problem. I might be open to revising my thoughts if you can convince me this bigotry and hatred only manifests from religion and is not found in any other source.

 
Back
Top