Predict the 1st Banning for uncivil behavior in the new Religious Threads...

[ChristianPatriot]

I very much believe the Bible (New Testament) has some good messages about how live or how to treat one another, much like other childhood stories with a moral lesson.

Taking the Bible as a 100% factual history book is a bit far fetched.

There have been many many many archeological digs trying to disprove the authenticity of the Bible. Ever heard of one that succeeded?

 

[D-Ric902]

Historical/Scientific Evidence of Validity of Bible and Chrsitianity

SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE

Bible Evidences - Archeology

 

[Kutnupe14]

The Bible is a book of history. Written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. Everything was falsifiable at the time it was written. Everything written in the gospels for example could've easily been proven wrong at the times they were written because people were still alive who lived through it. If I said, Obama only served one term you'd say well that's not true, I was there, and you'd be right. All of that was possible when the 66 books of the Bible were written.

The Bible was written by eyewitnesses? You may want to not be so broad with that statement, as it implies the entirety.

 

[D-Ric902]

How Do You Know The Bible Is True?

Top 10 Reasons the Bible is True | The Essential Bible Blog

 

[PaulF]

It's not like the phone game. The NIV doesn't translate from the NKJV which translated from the KJV. We still have 6,000 manuscripts and portions of manuscripts that were written within a generation of the originals. We can still go back to the originals.

"Written within a generation of the originals" is most definitely not "the originals".

Even then, we have to face the issue of authority: I will assert it is a book written by a very primitive culture about god, not a book written by god intended to precipitate the pinnacle of culture.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

The Bible was written by eyewitnesses? You may want to not be so broad with that statement, as it implies the entirety.

You are right there. New Testament yes; Old Testament not always.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Not a blind faith as I think you're implying. Faith based on evidence: the Bible.

A book isn't evidence. Faith is the overriding principle in Christianity. It wasn't until very recently that the Bible became accessible to all, and many believers still were full of faith.

 

[mbills2223]

I very much believe the Bible (New Testament) has some good messages about how live or how to treat one another, much like other childhood stories with a moral lesson.

Taking the Bible as a 100% factual history book is a bit far fetched.

Even the Vatican has agreed that parts of the Bible are not historically correct or even meant to be. We are a misunderstood bunch but I'm a bit biased

 

[D-Ric902]

This is a religious discussion thread right?

has anybody bashed Shinto lately?

how about the Turtle holding the world up?

how do you feel about reincarnation?

any angel worshipers here?

 

[ChristianPatriot]

A book isn't evidence. Faith is the overriding principle in Christianity. It wasn't until very recently that the Bible became accessible to all, and many believers still were full of faith.

Falsifiable eyewitness account is evidence.

 

[PaulF]

This is a religious discussion thread right?

has anybody bashed Shinto lately?

how about the Turtle holding the world up?

how do you feel about reincarnation?

any angel worshipers here?

No, I 100% agree.

Man has created tens of thousands of problematic gods over the course of human history. Millions of us have died due to belief in these idols. We have managed to shed moloch, thule, thor and zeus...

If we could get rid of allah, jesus, yaweh, the dollar, and celebrity...the human race might just have a chance.

 

[CathyInBlue]

This is a religious discussion thread right?

has anybody bashed Shinto lately?

how about the Turtle holding the world up?

how do you feel about reincarnation?

any angel worshipers here?

I kinda took a swipe at the turtle thing with my divine meercat versus mongoose example. I could call devout Catholics "Mary worshippers" if it would make everyone feel better.

 

[PaulF]

I kinda took a swipe at the turtle thing with my divine meercat versus mongoose example. I could call devout Catholics "Mary worshippers" if it would make everyone feel better.

No, we don't resort to name calling, even in jest.

I can't really put my moderator hat on now, so I won't. But...that (name-calling) would be in poor taste, and counter-productive to the "experiment".

 

[Twangbanger]

The Bible is a book of history. Written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. Everything was falsifiable at the time it was written. Everything written in the gospels for example could've easily been proven wrong at the times they were written because people were still alive who lived through it. If I said, Obama only served one term you'd say well that's not true, I was there, and you'd be right. All of that was possible when the 66 books of the Bible were written.

Billions of people could have watched Obama being inaugurated a second time. But how many were in a position to actually see George Washington chop down a cherry tree? Both ideas are implanted in people's collective consciousness...but are both pieces of information of comparable historicity? This is not a theological issue, I am more interested in the reasoning method. In the case of events which were only known to a relative few, how could naysayers have "proved" them wrong, seriously?

And if the naysayers did dispute the information, how could you be sure that the "correct" account would be the one which makes it into the "history books?" The "Test of Time" standard discounts the possibility that maybe someone did dispute the record "back in the day," but their "minority report" simply did not prevail - either because of lack of popularity, politics, or other pragmatic reasons - and was covered up and forgotten in the ash bin of history.

I've seen this "good information always drives out bad" canard before, and I'm just really unimpressed with it. I simply do not have that much confidence in people's ability to "get it right." I'm constantly amazed by the amount of things people know, which to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "are't so." We could have all been handed a boat-load of scientifically-unverifiable crap knowledge by our ancestors, and how would we ever know? If you really believe good information will always drive out bad, then by this reasoning, how would anything false ever make it into a "historical record?" I can see somebody making the case that anything which "stands the test of time" must, therefore, be true. It seems to me like something tucked away in people's memory alongside a bunch of C.S. Lewis quotes, as "how to win an argument" talking-point material.

I am not anti-religious by any means, and I do not believe the world would be better off without it...so I'm really "on your side" here. But so often, I see people armed to the teeth with C.S. Lewis quotes, trying to craft that perfect, beautiful syllogism which will "prove" their point, and I wonder: what is so wrong with just saying, "What I believe is scientifically unverifiable, and you know what - I'm fine with that?" Because much of what humans believe is scientifically unverifiable.

 

[ATM]

I was asking about the theoretical/applied dichotomy. You gave an example of applied theology. Now, how about an example of theoretical theology.

It's known as philosophy.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Falsifiable eyewitness account is evidence.

And here's where I get to trot out my favourite religion vs. science dichotomy: epistemology. How do we know what we know?

There are three basic ways of knowing:

1. Someone told you (revelation)
2. You figured it out (cogitation)
3. You did it yourself (experimentation)

Those progress from the weakest to the strongest forms. Someone telling you about a phenomenon could be lying. You thinking something up could overlook a countervailing influence. But, if you set up an apparatus and it works, then it works, period.

Science places the lion's share of its emphasis on the latter, experimentation. It's the heart of the Scientific Method. Your science must make predictions which can be tested, and then tested again by someone else somewhere else.

Religion places the lion's share of its emphasis on the former, revelation. A prophet from long ago wrote this down (more likely said something that someone else wrote down long after the prophet's death), so we believe it, and so must you, unquestioningly.

To be sure, science relies on revelation as well. They're called text books. It's how the knowledge is passed on through the ages. The difference is, a devotee of science is expected to progress from the revelation of a textbook and lecture, through cogitation, and on to experimentation.

Religion frequently hinders or outright bans progressing too far in that vein. You are given the revelation and a restrictive set of rules for how to think about that revelation to prevent your lone cogitation from countering the revelation, and if you ever actually try to perform experimentations to (dis)prove the revelation, you're a heretic and are burned at the stake (or in a cage as the case may be).

Science uses strong forms of epistemology and explicitly expects to be proven wrong and adapts. Religion uses weak forms of epistemology and explicitly rejects change. They may both be ways of understanding the world, but they sit on opposite sides of a wall that can never be breached. Biblical Archeology is a science that studies the things the Bible writes of, but its goal is not to prove or disprove those events, merely to understand them. The attempts to prove them true is called Apologetics.

 

[CathyInBlue]

It's known as philosophy.

Philosophy is not religion, though religion may frequently rely on philosophy. It's like saying mechanics is just about changing spark plugs and has nothing to do with the massive suspension bridge the car drives over.

 

[Dead Duck]

No, we don't resort to name calling, even in jest.

I can't really put my moderator hat on now, so I won't. But...that (name-calling) would be in poor taste, and counter-productive to the "experiment".

Experiment?
Are you going to inject shampoo in my eyeball now...



I AM NOT A RAT!

 

[CathyInBlue]

No. You're a dead duck.

WTH kind of experiments can be performed on a dead duck?

Necropsy, anyone?

 

[Dead Duck]

No. You're a dead duck.

WTH kind of experiments can be performed on a dead duck?

Necropsy, anyone?

Just don't confuse that with Necrophilia.
I'm too delicate!

Dead Ducks have feelings too.













wait...