Denying science in the classroom

[Ratt Mhule]

No, we don't "know" anything about the Bible. If parts of it aren't what they say they are, which parts are what they say they are?

A whole religion is based off this one book, and now you're saying the book isn't even necessary? Wha?

1. What do those parts say that they are? You said that RedDenver answered correctly in stating that the Bible doesn't say that it is literal truth and doesn't say that it isn't.

2. The religion is based off of Jesus of Nazareth. Not off a collection of books.

You know very well what they say. Why ask me?

So the Jesus of Nazareth parts are true. All others, or just some, or only the Jesus stuff? Which is it?

As far as I know, I am unaware of any parts of the Bible giving any kind of instruction or clarity as to their respective genres, or proper hermeneutics that should be used in reading them. Whatever the Bible does say about itself, I do not think warrants extending the logic as far as you're taking it, so, I'm asking you because I'm confused what you're actually referencing when you say that parts of it are saying something about what they are.

The Jesus of Nazareth parts might be exactly historically accurate. They might be embellished to X degree. They might be true in the sense that they were recorded as God intended, but still contain 'error' when looking at them the same way we look at history textbooks, because they weren't concerned with such things. They might involve elements of myth passed down through oral tradition before they were penned. They might be the result of thousands of years of the telephone game. They might be a lot of things.

What I think they are is useful regardless. What they aren't is the foundation of my faith. The Bible doesn't define Christianity - experience with God does. If the Bible ceased to exist tomorrow I'd still be batting on the same team and Jesus would still be as real as He's ever been.

What do you mean the Bible does not define Christianity? The Bible IS Christianity. Without the Bible people wouldnt even know who Jesus is or that he is the savior of the world(unless he decided to make an appearance every so often) Isnt that what the religion is all about?

 

[Landlord]

What do you mean the Bible does not define Christianity? The Bible IS Christianity. Without the Bible people wouldnt even know who Jesus is or that he is the savior of the world. Isnt that what the religion is all about?

Tens, probably hundreds of thousands of Christians were Christians and followed Jesus before there was ever such thing as a Bible.

 

[Ratt Mhule]

What do you mean the Bible does not define Christianity? The Bible IS Christianity. Without the Bible people wouldnt even know who Jesus is or that he is the savior of the world. Isnt that what the religion is all about?

Tens, probably hundreds of thousands of Christians were Christians and followed Jesus before there was ever such thing as a Bible.

And you think that would continue 2,017 years later? There sure wouldnt be the following there is now, I can guarantee you that.

 

[Making Chimichangas]

RedDenver said: You're also claiming that the bible has no validity. That's where I disagree. And maybe this is simply a matter of semantics in what you meant. I took you to mean that the bible has no value, which is why I argued that fiction can have value and meaning even though it is not literally true.

​Yes fiction can have value and meaning, as long as: 1) everyone is clear that it is fiction, and 2) it is used, like a parable, to convey some truth. For example, the parable of the scorpion and the frog.

However, what we're seeing in America is large numbers of Republican legislators, at both the state and national level, use the bible as justification for discrimination against sections of the American populace.

Bible thumpers love, LOVE to cite Leviticus 20:13 as "justification" for all their anti-LBGTQIA rhetoric and bigotry.

But you what else is an "abomination" according to god?

• Eating pork, rabbit, shrimp, lobster, mussels, clams
• Wearing mixed fabric clothing
• Tattoos
• Mixing one type of seed in your field with another (farming)
• Shaving around the side of your head
• Trimming your beard
• Cursing your father or mother (put to death as punishment)
• A woman's period and menstrual cycle
• Stealing, lying, dealing falsely with your neighbor

And on and on and on...

But you literally hear no one who supports anti-LBGTQIA laws mentioning any of those things.

Christian bakers won't sell a cake to a gay couple because it violates their "religious freedom" but they have no issues selling a wedding cake to someone who's:

been married 3-4 times

has committed adultery

cheated on taxes

eaten pork, shrimp, etc

My point in all of this is: Using religion to try and live a good and moral life, terrific. Using religion as a weapon, especially since none of it has ever been proven, is dangerous, misguided, and wrong. And that's where most religious republicans go wrong: they take a work of fiction, or something that hasn't been proven, and turn it into a weapon.

So in this case, the fiction in the bible is dangerous because of the actions people take based off of their beliefs in said fiction.

 

[Landlord]

What do you mean the Bible does not define Christianity? The Bible IS Christianity. Without the Bible people wouldnt even know who Jesus is or that he is the savior of the world. Isnt that what the religion is all about?

Tens, probably hundreds of thousands of Christians were Christians and followed Jesus before there was ever such thing as a Bible.

And you think that would continue 2,017 years later? There sure wouldnt be the following there is now, I can guarantee you that.

First of all, I've never made any claim that the Bible is worthless or without value. I think it's incredibly valuable to Christianity and has had a massive influence on the faith.

Second, I'm not sure if it would have continued without a Bible. It's possible. The Israelites followed God for thousands of years based on nothing other than oral tradition before the book of Genesis was ever written.

 

[Mierin]

Jesus is pretty important to Islam.

 

[Making Chimichangas]

Jesus is pretty important to Islam.

If I am not wrong, Muslims consider Jesus a prophet, not the "Son of God."

 

[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.

1. I'm not trying to change your and anyone else's beliefs. Those are all decisions we make after much investigation and thought.

2. Agreed that Creationism does not try to scientifically prove anything.

The Bible is not nor should it be called a math, physics or science textbook. It won't tell us the speed of the expanding universe. By the same token science hasn't told us the whys and hows of the intelligent design in DNA. I really think science and religion are climbing two different sides of the same mountain and there will be a day that both sides get to the top at the same time.

 

[funhusker]

Jesus is pretty important to Islam.

If I am not wrong, Muslims consider Jesus a prophet, not the "Son of God."

Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and others yes. Still important though.

 

[Ratt Mhule]

Okay, Ill change my quote. People wouldnt know Jesus is God in the flesh without the Bible. Is that better?

 

[Ratt Mhule]

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.

That will be the day of the second coming of Christ (sarcasm)

 

[knapplc]

You're claiming that the bible cannot be taken as literally true. I agree.

No. I'm not claiming anything. I'm saying that if any of it is literally true, anything not specifically stated as allegory must also be taken as literally true.

You're also claiming that the bible has no validity. That's where I disagree. And maybe this is simply a matter of semantics in what you meant. I took you to mean that the bible has no value, which is why I argued that fiction can have value and meaning even though it is not literally true.

No. I'm saying that if any of the stated "true" parts are understood as "not true," it casts the entire thing into doubt. Because you're then playing a thousands-of-years-long game of Telephone with something that people are living their lives today - and in the context of this thread, other peoples' lives - as literate and true.

Everyone seems to agree with me that not all parts of the Bible are strictly factual. I'm willing to walk away from this tangent with that, because I know where the end-game of that conversation goes, and I'm not interested in proselytizing to anyone.

It's interesting to me that there's a similarity to Trump defense and Bible/Christianity defense. It doesn't have to be logical or make sense, I just believe in it. Odd how some folks are on different sides of that coin.

 

[RedDenver]

You're claiming that the bible cannot be taken as literally true. I agree.

No. I'm not claiming anything. I'm saying that if any of it is literally true, anything not specifically stated as allegory must also be taken as literally true.

You're also claiming that the bible has no validity. That's where I disagree. And maybe this is simply a matter of semantics in what you meant. I took you to mean that the bible has no value, which is why I argued that fiction can have value and meaning even though it is not literally true.

No. I'm saying that if any of the stated "true" parts are understood as "not true," it casts the entire thing into doubt. Because you're then playing a thousands-of-years-long game of Telephone with something that people are living their lives today - and in the context of this thread, other peoples' lives - as literate and true.

Everyone seems to agree with me that not all parts of the Bible are strictly factual. I'm willing to walk away from this tangent with that, because I know where the end-game of that conversation goes, and I'm not interested in proselytizing to anyone.

It's interesting to me that there's a similarity to Trump defense and Bible/Christianity defense. It doesn't have to be logical or make sense, I just believe in it. Odd how some folks are on different sides of that coin.

Well, you're jumping to some conclusions here because I don't just believe in the bible. Somebody mentioned Aesop's fables earlier, and that's how I view the bible - there's wisdom in there but you have to get through some nonsense to get to the nuggets of truth. Maybe a better way to describe my position is that I feel like you're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[knapplc]

I'm merely pointing out the difficulties of basing a religion on the Christian Bible. My apologies if I jumped to any conclusions about anyone's beliefs.

 

[Mierin]

It's interesting to me that there's a similarity to Trump defense and Bible/Christianity defense. It doesn't have to be logical or make sense, I just believe in it. Odd how some folks are on different sides of that coin.

It's not odd, because they're hardly similar.
With Trump, something could happen that all of us saw happening, and the next day he would say it didn't happen and to not believe what we witnessed. With Trump, there could be years of research by top scientists showing how something is, and he'll say they're wrong. There is proof for all of this.

With the Bible, some stuff happened a couple thousand years ago and was written down a couple thousand years ago by several individual witnesses (either to the events or God telling them). These authors all have different styles and what they wrote has been translated. Believing or not is based on faith and in some cases personal experiences. We can't time travel back to the supposed events. It's not really possible to prove it wrong, nor is it possible to prove it right to other people. Nobody saw any of it happening and anyone who experiences a burning bush episode can only tell other people about it.

The only way these two things are similar would be if Trump created state run media and killed or otherwise silenced all other news sources. Then we would only see what he allowed us to be shown.