Denying science in the classroom

[Mierin]

The answer to the question (which is not "loaded," because it is asking for strict facts, and is not based on assumptions) is that the Bible treats every one of those stories with the same level of truth.

Believe me, I've been there, that guy who didn't want to answer that question. I understand why it's not something you want to answer.

The bolded part is a gross over-generalization at best. I think it's very clear that the parables are not meant to be literal accounts, so every part of the Bible does NOT have the same level of truth.
You keep coming back to the fact that some parts of the bible have been disproven, such as the ~6000 year old earth. I agree. But then you conclude that means everything is disproven. That's not a logical conclusion.

Let me give a more recent example. There are plenty of accounts that George Washington had wooden teeth, which turns out to be false. Does that mean everything else about Washington is false? No, just that one fact.

Since my statement is a "gross over-generalization," please cite which part(s) of the Bible tell us that these stories are NOT to be taken as true:

Creation in six days

Noah's Ark

Job

Ruth/Esther

Elijah and the prophets of Baal

Balaam's a$$

Jesus' virgin birth

The tongues of fire at pentecost

Peter & the sheet of food

Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus

Please don't answer if you're not going to go through these one-by-one, because that is the crux of the question. Everyone wants to keep dancing around the answer, and believe me I know why it makes people uncomfortable to try and answer this, but it has to be answered if we're going to take a religion based off the Bible seriously.

It's irrelevant whether anyone takes it seriously. People can believe it or not. They can interpret any part of it however they want. They can decide which books belong in it and which don't. At one point it was decided which books belong. A human decided that, and people trusted that God spoke to him/her (probably him).

All we have is text and how we interpret it. Most Christians decide to trust some other human to tell them how to interpret it.

There's a reason there are dozens (hundreds?) of different denominations that claim to be Christian. They all intepret the Bible differently and they all put more importance on different parts of it. What are the chances one of them is right on everything? Pretty slim. But if God isn't a complete jerk he's not going to care.

 

[TonyStalloni]

This movie is showing in Grand Island, Lincoln and Omaha this thursday Feb 23 for just one showing I believe. I think there is a bridge between Science and Religion that we haven't found yet. My hope is that this movie will open that door.

 

[huKSer]

In summary, there is no correct religion. Just live your life and don't be an a**hole.

Sorry not trying to derail the thread, just wanted to say this ^^ though. #Done

I would like to join the Church of Don't Be An A**hole.

 

[RedDenver]

Since my statement is a "gross over-generalization," please cite which part(s) of the Bible tell us that these stories are NOT to be taken as true:

Creation in six days

Noah's Ark

Job

Ruth/Esther

Elijah and the prophets of Baal

Balaam's a$$

Jesus' virgin birth

The tongues of fire at pentecost

Peter & the sheet of food

Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus

Please don't answer if you're not going to go through these one-by-one, because that is the crux of the question. Everyone wants to keep dancing around the answer, and believe me I know why it makes people uncomfortable to try and answer this, but it has to be answered if we're going to take a religion based off the Bible seriously.

Let me start off by answering your question. There is no place in the bible that says explicitly that any of your examples are literally true, and there is also no place in the bible that says your examples are literally false.

It seems like we're talking passed each other, so instead of me trying to making my points, let me ask: so what? What conclusion are you driving to with these examples?

 

[RedDenver]

In summary, there is no correct religion. Just live your life and don't be an a**hole.

Sorry not trying to derail the thread, just wanted to say this ^^ though. #Done

I would like to join the Church of Don't Be An A**hole.

I believe that's called Buddhism.

 

[NM11046]

We'd also welcome you in Humanism.

 

[Landlord]

This movie is showing in Grand Island, Lincoln and Omaha this thursday Feb 23 for just one showing I believe. I think there is a bridge between Science and Religion that we haven't found yet. My hope is that this movie will open that door.

So like, personally, I think creationism is super goofy and dumb. But. I also have absolutely no problem with people believing in it, even firmly, if that somehow helps them to love God and love people more.

However, there is a really, really important distinction that needs to be understood by everybody, and that is that creationism is not science. I'm not saying it's bad or evil or wrong even. It's just not scientific. Science asks a question, tests, builds models, and makes predictions to come to ever improving and ever expanding conclusions. Creationism works in reverse - it starts with the conclusion of, "The Bible says that God made the universe in six days and there is a direct recorded lineage of descendents all the way back to Adam", and then it tries to find and interpret data to fit or support the conclusion.

If people want to believe in creationism that's cool by me. If they want to claim that creationism is science, well, we're gonna have a problem.

 

[Landlord]

There's a reason there are dozens (hundreds?) of different denominations that claim to be Christian. They all intepret the Bible differently and they all put more importance on different parts of it. What are the chances one of them is right on everything? Pretty slim. But if God isn't a complete jerk he's not going to care.

 

[ZRod]

In summary, there is no correct religion. Just live your life and don't be an a**hole.

Sorry not trying to derail the thread, just wanted to say this ^^ though. #Done

I would like to join the Church of Don't Be An A**hole.

I believe that's called Buddhism.

Tiger Woods kinda screwed that one up.

 

[Mierin]

There's a reason there are dozens (hundreds?) of different denominations that claim to be Christian. They all intepret the Bible differently and they all put more importance on different parts of it. What are the chances one of them is right on everything? Pretty slim. But if God isn't a complete jerk he's not going to care.

I mean, did the people who followed the previous, unperfect branches all go to hell or is God less petty than that?

 

[JJ Husker]

In summary, there is no correct religion. Just live your life and don't be an a**hole.

Sorry not trying to derail the thread, just wanted to say this ^^ though. #Done

I would like to join the Church of Don't Be An A**hole.

We just reviewed your application.

Sorry, but membership was denied because, well, you know. ;-)

 

[huKSer]

In summary, there is no correct religion. Just live your life and don't be an a**hole.

Sorry not trying to derail the thread, just wanted to say this ^^ though. #Done

I would like to join the Church of Don't Be An A**hole.

We just reviewed your application.

Sorry, but membership was denied because, well, you know. ;-)

Select one of the following:

____ I have an a**hole

X I am an a**hole

Damn it, I checked the wrong line

 

[Ratt Mhule]

The answer to the question (which is not "loaded," because it is asking for strict facts, and is not based on assumptions) is that the Bible treats every one of those stories with the same level of truth.

Believe me, I've been there, that guy who didn't want to answer that question. I understand why it's not something you want to answer.

The bolded part is a gross over-generalization at best. I think it's very clear that the parables are not meant to be literal accounts, so every part of the Bible does NOT have the same level of truth.
You keep coming back to the fact that some parts of the bible have been disproven, such as the ~6000 year old earth. I agree. But then you conclude that means everything is disproven. That's not a logical conclusion.

Let me give a more recent example. There are plenty of accounts that George Washington had wooden teeth, which turns out to be false. Does that mean everything else about Washington is false? No, just that one fact.

Since my statement is a "gross over-generalization," please cite which part(s) of the Bible tell us that these stories are NOT to be taken as true:

Creation in six days

Noah's Ark

Job

Ruth/Esther

Elijah and the prophets of Baal

Balaam's a$$

Jesus' virgin birth

The tongues of fire at pentecost

Peter & the sheet of food

Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus

Please don't answer if you're not going to go through these one-by-one, because that is the crux of the question. Everyone wants to keep dancing around the answer, and believe me I know why it makes people uncomfortable to try and answer this, but it has to be answered if we're going to take a religion based off the Bible seriously.

It's irrelevant whether anyone takes it seriously. People can believe it or not. They can interpret any part of it however they want. They can decide which books belong in it and which don't. At one point it was decided which books belong. A human decided that, and people trusted that God spoke to him/her (probably him).

All we have is text and how we interpret it. Most Christians decide to trust some other human to tell them how to interpret it.

There's a reason there are dozens (hundreds?) of different denominations that claim to be Christian. They all intepret the Bible differently and they all put more importance on different parts of it. What are the chances one of them is right on everything? Pretty slim. But if God isn't a complete jerk he's not going to care.

The God portrayed in the Bible is a complete jerk though, so...

He killed many people. Everyone on Earth in fact at one point. But I guess if nobody takes the Bible literally then you can come to the conclusion he is not a jerk.

 

[knapplc]

Since my statement is a "gross over-generalization," please cite which part(s) of the Bible tell us that these stories are NOT to be taken as true:

Creation in six days

Noah's Ark

Job

Ruth/Esther

Elijah and the prophets of Baal

Balaam's a$$

Jesus' virgin birth

The tongues of fire at pentecost

Peter & the sheet of food

Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus

Please don't answer if you're not going to go through these one-by-one, because that is the crux of the question. Everyone wants to keep dancing around the answer, and believe me I know why it makes people uncomfortable to try and answer this, but it has to be answered if we're going to take a religion based off the Bible seriously.

Let me start off by answering your question. There is no place in the bible that says explicitly that any of your examples are literally true, and there is also no place in the bible that says your examples are literally false.

It seems like we're talking passed each other, so instead of me trying to making my points, let me ask: so what? What conclusion are you driving to with these examples?

I'm not going to rehash the conversation we've had the previous two pages that led to why I asked that question. It's back there if you want to read it.

I appreciate the honest answer. It is the correct answer, as you well know.

 

[knapplc]

The answer to the question (which is not "loaded," because it is asking for strict facts, and is not based on assumptions) is that the Bible treats every one of those stories with the same level of truth.

Believe me, I've been there, that guy who didn't want to answer that question. I understand why it's not something you want to answer.

The bolded part is a gross over-generalization at best. I think it's very clear that the parables are not meant to be literal accounts, so every part of the Bible does NOT have the same level of truth.
You keep coming back to the fact that some parts of the bible have been disproven, such as the ~6000 year old earth. I agree. But then you conclude that means everything is disproven. That's not a logical conclusion.

Let me give a more recent example. There are plenty of accounts that George Washington had wooden teeth, which turns out to be false. Does that mean everything else about Washington is false? No, just that one fact.

Since my statement is a "gross over-generalization," please cite which part(s) of the Bible tell us that these stories are NOT to be taken as true:

Creation in six days

Noah's Ark

Job

Ruth/Esther

Elijah and the prophets of Baal

Balaam's a$$

Jesus' virgin birth

The tongues of fire at pentecost

Peter & the sheet of food

Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus

Please don't answer if you're not going to go through these one-by-one, because that is the crux of the question. Everyone wants to keep dancing around the answer, and believe me I know why it makes people uncomfortable to try and answer this, but it has to be answered if we're going to take a religion based off the Bible seriously.

It's irrelevant whether anyone takes it seriously. People can believe it or not. They can interpret any part of it however they want. They can decide which books belong in it and which don't. At one point it was decided which books belong. A human decided that, and people trusted that God spoke to him/her (probably him).

All we have is text and how we interpret it. Most Christians decide to trust some other human to tell them how to interpret it.

There's a reason there are dozens (hundreds?) of different denominations that claim to be Christian. They all intepret the Bible differently and they all put more importance on different parts of it. What are the chances one of them is right on everything? Pretty slim. But if God isn't a complete jerk he's not going to care.

I would say that to anyone living their life by the tenets in a book, it is absolutely relevant whether people take all or parts of it seriously. The interpretation of the Bible is the problem, and to directly wrap it into the topic of this thread, when we're under threat of science being denied in the classroom in favor of teachings from the Bible, it's not only relevant, but crucial that we understand exactly what the Bible is.

As a scientist posting in this of all threads, I don't understand your answer.