Denying science in the classroom

[Mierin]

I think the point is; if the bible itself says it is to be taken literally, but it's stories don't jive with the real world it's foundation as an infallible religious text is built on sand. If one subject xan be questioned, then all of them are in question.

That would certainly be true if the bible said to take it literally, but to the best of my knowledge, the bible doesn't say that.

Knap provided verses earlier from the old and new testaments; do not add and do not take away. So the text is as it is. If it's not meant to be taken literally and we get to pick and choose what value does it have other than bed time stories?

One of them was in Revelation and spoke of "the prophecies in this book."It's clear as muddy water that the "book" is Revelation. Not The Bible.

That book is a part of the bible though. So only that book can not be amended?

Dunno. Probably the whole Bible. But humans decided which books to put together to form the Bible. We're supposed to have faith they got it right. But... did the Catholics add or did the Protestants take away?

Isn't that faith in God, not humans? God putting the thoughts into humans' heads on which books to put there, divinely inspired, all that stuff. Because if it truly is a work of man, where does God fit in?

We put faith in them getting it right and God guiding the men who decided on the books to include. But if we assume Christianity is the one true religion... even big groups of Christians got the books wrong.

 

[Landlord]

Again, even when we are talking about "taking the Bible literally", what are we talking about? Did God have a literal anthromorphized mouth and utter literal Hebrew when God created the cosmos? is God the Father literally male? Did Job and his friends literally converse in poetry all the time? Were there literally cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to prevent Adam and Eve from entering the garden?

No, I don't think so. That does a disservice to the entire point of the book of Genesis, I think. It also presupposes the book to essentially exist in a culture-exempt vacuum wherein the writers perceived the world through very modern, scientific, factual, rational perspectives, and ignores the backdrop of the Israelites competing against other gods, other people groups, other creation myths, and contrasting their experience of Yahweh entering into history and creation and saw him/it at work.

I'm telling you guys, the Bible becomes an endlessly fascinating book, even to non-theists, when you give it the proper attention within the contexts it was created in.

 

[Redux]

 

[knapplc]

I'm telling you guys, the Bible becomes an endlessly fascinating book, even to non-theists, when you give it the proper attention within the contexts it was created in.

Or it becomes a rather absurd collection of fantastic tales passed down from stone age man to today filled with logical fallacies, inaccuracies and misconceptions. Interpretations differ.

 

[Redux]

I'm telling you guys, the Bible becomes an endlessly fascinating book, even to non-theists, when you give it the proper attention within the contexts it was created in.

Or it becomes a rather absurd collection of fantastic tales passed down from stone age man to today filled with logical fallacies, inaccuracies and misconceptions. Interpretations differ.

Can't it be both?

 

[Landlord]

Be that as it may, there's no dichotomy between the two. Learning about the contexts of the ancient Near East, and the fundamentally different ways in which they saw all of the world, creation, ideas about God and so forth is, or should be, quite fascinating for anyone interested in history. I guess that's not everyone's cup of tea, though. I don't know why it would be considered absurd unless you're viewing it with a good amount of chronological snobbery.

Logical fallacies definitely make sense in ancient texts, though, since logic is a human invention that only existed in it's most rudimentary, undeveloped forms since about 300 B.C.

 

[knapplc]

Be that as it may, there's no dichotomy between the two. Learning about the contexts of the ancient Near East, and the fundamentally different ways in which they saw all of the world, creation, ideas about God and so forth is, or should be, quite fascinating for anyone interested in history. I guess that's not everyone's cup of tea, though. I don't know why it would be considered absurd unless you're viewing it with a good amount of chronological snobbery.

Logical fallacies definitely make sense in ancient texts, though, since logic is a human invention that only existed in it's most rudimentary, undeveloped forms since about 300 B.C.

If we're looking at it solely as a literary work, or collection of works, there's no issue. But that's not the Bible's intended purpose.

 

[Mierin]

36:2.19 World Number Six is dedicated to the correlation of mind with spirit as they are associated with living forms and organisms. This world and its six tributaries embrace the schools of creature co-ordination, wherein teachers from both the central universe and the superuniverse collaborate with the Nebadon instructors in presenting the highest levels of creature attainment in time and space.

36:2.20 The Seventh Sphere of the Life Carriers is dedicated to the unrevealed domains of evolutionary creature life as it is related to the cosmic philosophy of the expanding factualization of the Supreme Being.

 

[Landlord]

Be that as it may, there's no dichotomy between the two. Learning about the contexts of the ancient Near East, and the fundamentally different ways in which they saw all of the world, creation, ideas about God and so forth is, or should be, quite fascinating for anyone interested in history. I guess that's not everyone's cup of tea, though. I don't know why it would be considered absurd unless you're viewing it with a good amount of chronological snobbery.

Logical fallacies definitely make sense in ancient texts, though, since logic is a human invention that only existed in it's most rudimentary, undeveloped forms since about 300 B.C.

If we're looking at it solely as a literary work, or collection of works, there's no issue. But that's not the Bible's intended purpose.

I don't think the Bible is a singularly-focused monolith. I don't think the Bible has an intended purpose, other than whatever purpose a reader gives it as they approach the texts. I'm fine with pretty much any kind of exegesis or intention or goal people want to approach reading the Bible with as long as it doesn't contribute to suffering.

The Bible is AT LEAST a collection of books and writings assembled by the Church that chronicle a people group's experiences with, and understanding of, God over thousands of years. EVEN IF that is a comprehensive definition of the Bible, study of scripture is warranted to understand our culture and the way in which people come to know God.

Edit: To the post below, of course! Even in the best possible scenario in defense of the Bible, where it is God's perfect, inspired, inerrant, incorruptible Word, the best it can ever hope to be is a simple metaphorical understanding of the natural forces that created and sustain the Universe as experienced via a psychosocial model in human brains that naturally emerges from innate biases, which we happen to call God.

 

[knapplc]

Can the Bible be whatever a person wants it to be and still have validity?

 

[JJ Husker]

Can the Bible be whatever a person wants it to be and still have validity?

I think the word "wants" presupposes some preconceived notion or ulterior motive.

How about phrasing it this way; Can the Bible be whatever a person perceives it to be and still have validity?

I think the answer to that one is yes.

 

[Redux]

Can the Bible be whatever a person wants it to be and still have validity?

If the message is simply a faith built message and or a scare tactic to live your life as kindly as you can, yes.

The stories told in the Bible are a combination of retelling stories and some grandiose made up ones. Its validity isn't really the issue to me, it's the way people choose to interpret it for personal gain and or to justify hate.

 

[knapplc]

Edit: To the post below, of course! Even in the best possible scenario in defense of the Bible, where it is God's perfect, inspired, inerrant, incorruptible Word, the best it can ever hope to be is a simple metaphorical understanding of the natural forces that created and sustain the Universe as experienced via a psychosocial model in human brains that naturally emerges from innate biases, which we happen to call God.

So the Bible can be anything anyone perceives it to be (better, JJ?), and I'm understanding the quote here to mean that God is/can be different in different peoples' brains?

 

[knapplc]

Can the Bible be whatever a person wants it to be and still have validity?

If the message is simply a faith built message and or a scare tactic to live your life as kindly as you can, yes.

The stories told in the Bible are a combination of retelling stories and some grandiose made up ones. Its validity isn't really the issue to me, it's the way people choose to interpret it for personal gain and or to justify hate.

I think I know the answer to this, but I'll ask so I don't presume: Are you Christian, Redux?

 

[Redux]

Can the Bible be whatever a person wants it to be and still have validity?

If the message is simply a faith built message and or a scare tactic to live your life as kindly as you can, yes.

The stories told in the Bible are a combination of retelling stories and some grandiose made up ones. Its validity isn't really the issue to me, it's the way people choose to interpret it for personal gain and or to justify hate.

I think I know the answer to this, but I'll ask so I don't presume: Are you Christian, Redux?

I mostly learned Methodist teachings as a child but it was only from daycare, nothing was ever forced on me. I'm agnostic.