Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 87
Thanks Tree31Thanks

Thread: The right to believe what one wants

  1. #51
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    58,036
    Thanks
    10573

    From
    By the wall
    Creation science is about proving or disproving the points in the Bible.

    The scientists, many non-Christians, have looked for proof of the Flood for instance, that is creation science.

    They pour through Genesis mostly trying to see if any of it can be proven.

    Its done by religious and non-religious folks. Remember that the Bible is basically (supposedly) a giant history book so scientists look at it from all angles.

    It doesn't mean they necessarily believe it.

  2. #52
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,175
    Thanks
    17059

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Creation science is about proving or disproving the points in the Bible.

    The scientists, many non-Christians, have looked for proof of the Flood for instance, that is creation science.

    They pour through Genesis mostly trying to see if any of it can be proven.

    Its done by religious and non-religious folks. Remember that the Bible is basically (supposedly) a giant history book so scientists look at it from all angles.

    It doesn't mean they necessarily believe it.
    Well, as pointed out by the description I found, real scientists say you're full of shit.

  3. #53
    Established Member NeoVsMatrix's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,690
    Thanks
    5639

    From
    NY
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    No, they shouldn't teach it but they should let kids know its a theory, not dismiss it and it should be something they should explore if they are interested in it.

    They should also let them know that it can't be disproven as real.

    There is not a single thing in the Bible that contradicts science.
    walking on water ?

    splitting the red sea for dry passage ?

    water to wine ?

    burning talking bush ?

    feeding frenzy on 2 fish ?

    healing bodily injuries and sickness miraculously ?


    I never read the book, but that's what comes to mind right away.. all of it defeated by science.

  4. #54
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    58,036
    Thanks
    10573

    From
    By the wall
    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    walking on water ?

    splitting the red sea for dry passage ?

    water to wine ?

    burning talking bush ?

    feeding frenzy on 2 fish ?

    healing bodily injuries and sickness miraculously ?


    I never read the book, but that's what comes to mind right away.. all of it defeated by science.
    You're assuming all of those are literal.

    What if they aren't?

    As for thinks like the Red Sea, the discovery channel I believe did a documentary on it. It came to the conclusion they were actually talking about a marsh, not the actual Sea and the water wasn't split, they just found a way through it while their pursuers got weighed down in mud.

  5. #55
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    49,225
    Thanks
    23188

    From
    Vulcan
    Creation Science = Creationism = Intelligent Design = religion.

    Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)

    Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) (The Wikipedia page is not itself the full opinion, of course, but it is a sound overview. I believe there is a link there to a PDF of the court's rather lengthy opinion and analysis of the evidence. There is also mention of a documentary about the case, which is an hour or two long as I recall - i.e., I watched it but do not remember the length.)

  6. #56
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,175
    Thanks
    17059

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    You're assuming all of those are literal.

    What if they aren't?

    As for thinks like the Red Sea, the discovery channel I believe did a documentary on it. It came to the conclusion they were actually talking about a marsh, not the actual Sea and the water wasn't split, they just found a way through it while their pursuers got weighed down in mud.
    Really? So, now it is your contention that Jesus never actually did the things that the writers of the Gospel say he did? Then how do we know that he actually got back up, after three days? How do you know that wasn't just allegorical?

    Last edited by Czernobog; 2nd October 2017 at 10:27 AM.
    Thanks from Isalexi

  7. #57
    Established Member NeoVsMatrix's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,690
    Thanks
    5639

    From
    NY
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    You're assuming all of those are literal.

    What if they aren't?

    As for thinks like the Red Sea, the discovery channel I believe did a documentary on it. It came to the conclusion they were actually talking about a marsh, not the actual Sea and the water wasn't split, they just found a way through it while their pursuers got weighed down in mud.
    If that part of the bible is not to be taken literally, which parts ARE ?
    And who decides that ?
    What good a book and guide is it, if i can't rely on it, but need some self-declared human expert entity to explain to me which parts are literally, and to be followed by all means, and which ones are just for dramatic effect ?

  8. #58
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    49,225
    Thanks
    23188

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    If that part of the bible is not to be taken literally, which parts ARE? And who decides that?
    Judaism has an oral Torah, received at the same time as the written one, that was never intended to be written down (though it eventually was, in order to protect it from being lost). That oral tradition has always been the context for the written Torah.

    Of course, Biblical literalists do not have access to such a thing, notwithstanding that Xianity has its own oral tradition.

  9. #59
    Established Member NeoVsMatrix's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,690
    Thanks
    5639

    From
    NY
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Judaism has an oral Torah, received at the same time as the written one, that was never intended to be written down (though it eventually was, in order to protect it from being lost). That oral tradition has always been the context for the written Torah.

    Of course, Biblical literalists do not have access to such a thing, notwithstanding that Xianity has its own oral tradition.
    If I understand you correctly, the written Torah, has an oral version as well, which is used to put the written version in context.
    In order to ensure that it does not get diverted through multiple oral repetitions, it was then still written down at some point.

    Now, everyone who ever engaged in that silly game "telephone", where one whispers a sentence in another's ear, who repeats that to the next person etc.. and in the end, something completely different comes out, than what was initially said. which is apparently one of the reasons why it was decided to write down the content of the oral Torah at some point as well.
    Now, what happened UNTIL that point, how this initial oral Torah would have already been mixed up through various people and generations.. is everyone's guess, is it not ?
    Thanks from Isalexi

  10. #60
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    49,225
    Thanks
    23188

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    If I understand you correctly, the written Torah, has an oral version as well, which is used to put the written version in context.
    True as far as it goes - but the oral Torah is not an oral version of the written Torah. It is, rather, oral law that was taught and passed down through the generations.

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    In order to ensure that it does not get diverted through multiple oral repetitions, it was then still written down at some point.
    That is not why it was written down. Rather, it was to prevent it from being lost through multiple diaspora and separation of the scholars who knew it.

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    Now, everyone who ever engaged in that silly game "telephone", where one whispers a sentence in another's ear, who repeats that to the next person etc.. and in the end, something completely different comes out, than what was initially said. which is apparently one of the reasons why it was decided to write down the content of the oral Torah at some point as well.

    Now, what happened UNTIL that point, how this initial oral Torah would have already been mixed up through various people and generations.. is everyone's guess, is it not ?
    It was not taught in so simple a manner as telephone.



    The teaching was always in groups of at least two, and was always rigorously discussed and challenged. The Talmud records these discussions, debates and disagreements in order to not merely say what the law is, but to present the nature of the disputes so that future halachic questions can be answered as well. A student had to not merely know the law, but had to be able to analyze every last detail, and a quick game of telephone will not give you that.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. do you belive that god exists ?
    By hauke in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 11th February 2015, 03:10 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed