Topic: Why we Shouldnt have Faith In Science | |
---|---|
I may have been wrong on the rabbit thing, may still be considered unclean, not important enough for me to read up on it very much. |
|
|
|
This one caught my eye because I raise rabbits.
long ago people thought that rabbits or hares chewd the cud, it is now known they do not making the cotton tail rabbit anyway, a clean food.Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. This description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do not bring anything up and chew on it.There is no "cheweth of the cud" taking place here at all. 1)God did not know that rabbits do not chew their cud, or 2)That particular passage of the bible was not "inspired by god" - which gives rise to the question: What else in the bible was not inspired by god? [edit: Or 3) That god did inspire that passage but decided to lie for some reason - which gives rise to the same basic question: What else might he have lied about?] Oh, whats the point of being "divinely inspired" then? Arent you supposed to know what god knows in those moments and that is why you are writing this stuff down? So in fact most all of these writings are what men's perceptions were at the time and not actually anything to do with god? Oh. Why is it called the bible then and so much fuss made over it? |
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Tue 09/30/08 12:30 AM
|
|
The rabbit issue is not really the point Sharp. That is just plain stupid but for whatever reason, the writer of that particular passage had some pretty interesting takes on animals. If you scroll up, I think Belushi illustrated some more "misunderstandings" such as melting snails and bats equated with birds. I think the point being made (yes sometimes I make points) is that if the bible can be this ridiculous yet it is supposed to be the word of god in some respect or at least written by men who were inspired by him in some ambiguous capacity, then shouldn't these accounts of the beasts be just a little more accurate seeing as god designed and created them?
|
|
|
|
I may have been wrong on the rabbit thing, may still be considered unclean, not important enough for me to read up on it very much. |
|
|
|
well krimsa, either you believe in God or you don't, you believe in the bible or you don't, either way it is ones own personal choice, there is no middle ground really.
The bible contains a lot of figures of speech, metaphors and parables, every single word is not always a literal meaning. It basically says not to eat scavenger animals, that's about it. but since you don't believe any of it, I can't see that it really matters. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Tue 09/30/08 12:35 AM
|
|
well krimsa, either you believe in God or you don't, you believe in the bible or you don't, either way it is ones own personal choice, there is no middle ground really. The bible contains a lot of figures of speech, metaphors and parables, every single word is not always a literal meaning. It basically says not to eat scavenger animals, that's about it. but since you don't believe any of it, I can't see that it really matters. Well what I believe in doesn't really matter now does it? If I believed in the validity of the bible as being the word of god in written format then wouldn't I have even more interest in determining why these erroneous statements were made? As it stands now they are just being pointed out as clearly ludicrous assertions. I dont think you can just say "well it was those crazy old school Jews" and wash your hands of it. The OT was clearly included in the bible for a reason, namely that these authors were felt to be "divinely inspired". |
|
|
|
well krimsa, either you believe in God or you don't, you believe in the bible or you don't, either way it is ones own personal choice, there is no middle ground really. The bible contains a lot of figures of speech, metaphors and parables, every single word is not always a literal meaning. It basically says not to eat scavenger animals, that's about it. but since you don't believe any of it, I can't see that it really matters. Well what I believe in doesn't really matter now does it? If I believed in the validity of the bible as being the word of god in written format then wouldn't I have even more interest in determining why these erroneous statements were made? As it stands now they are just being pointed out as clearly ludicrous assertions. I dont think you can just say "well it was those crazy old school Jews" and wash your hands of it. The OT was clearly included in the bible for a reason, namely that these authors were felt to be "divinely inspired". |
|
|
|
Edited by
SharpShooter10
on
Tue 09/30/08 12:59 AM
|
|
well krimsa, either you believe in God or you don't, you believe in the bible or you don't, either way it is ones own personal choice, there is no middle ground really. The bible contains a lot of figures of speech, metaphors and parables, every single word is not always a literal meaning. It basically says not to eat scavenger animals, that's about it. but since you don't believe any of it, I can't see that it really matters. Well what I believe in doesn't really matter now does it? If I believed in the validity of the bible as being the word of god in written format then wouldn't I have even more interest in determining why these erroneous statements were made? As it stands now they are just being pointed out as clearly ludicrous assertions. I dont think you can just say "well it was those crazy old school Jews" and wash your hands of it. The OT was clearly included in the bible for a reason, namely that these authors were felt to be "divinely inspired". |
|
|
|
well krimsa, either you believe in God or you don't, you believe in the bible or you don't, either way it is ones own personal choice, there is no middle ground really. The bible contains a lot of figures of speech, metaphors and parables, every single word is not always a literal meaning. It basically says not to eat scavenger animals, that's about it. but since you don't believe any of it, I can't see that it really matters. Well what I believe in doesn't really matter now does it? If I believed in the validity of the bible as being the word of god in written format then wouldn't I have even more interest in determining why these erroneous statements were made? As it stands now they are just being pointed out as clearly ludicrous assertions. I dont think you can just say "well it was those crazy old school Jews" and wash your hands of it. The OT was clearly included in the bible for a reason, namely that these authors were felt to be "divinely inspired". |
|
|
|
well krimsa, either you believe in God or you don't, you believe in the bible or you don't, either way it is ones own personal choice, there is no middle ground really. The bible contains a lot of figures of speech, metaphors and parables, every single word is not always a literal meaning. It basically says not to eat scavenger animals, that's about it. but since you don't believe any of it, I can't see that it really matters. Well what I believe in doesn't really matter now does it? If I believed in the validity of the bible as being the word of god in written format then wouldn't I have even more interest in determining why these erroneous statements were made? As it stands now they are just being pointed out as clearly ludicrous assertions. I dont think you can just say "well it was those crazy old school Jews" and wash your hands of it. The OT was clearly included in the bible for a reason, namely that these authors were felt to be "divinely inspired". Sharp what I and many of us who have pointed out these assertions are attempting to demonstrate is that the bible is chock full of tremendous heaps of nonsensical and erroneous claims. I dont think a simple misinterpretation of a few words here is to blame. If that were the case, you would have already demonstrated to us where our mistakes and lack of understanding lie exactly.Thus far it appears to me to be a happy mish-mashed messed-up hodgepodgey cocktail of myths and folklore and revisionist propaganda and who's-your-daddy reproaches intermixed with lovely stories of redemption and hope and oh yes sin and hellfire and death. It is so full of colorful holes that I cant even post them all over a six month period. Why would it require me to believe in anything or have faith in order that I have a better comprehension of these works? Is that so I can properly misunderstand them? Yes I am an analytical person by nature and I tend to take things at face value. Im not sure if that is necessarily a defect of character as you seem to be implying. Wouldn't god expect that people do in fact open their eyes and question? Whos sleeping here exactly? |
|
|
|
Oh well, I tried!
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Tue 09/30/08 01:23 AM
|
|
well krimsa, either you believe in God or you don't, you believe in the bible or you don't, either way it is ones own personal choice, there is no middle ground really. The bible contains a lot of figures of speech, metaphors and parables, every single word is not always a literal meaning. It basically says not to eat scavenger animals, that's about it. but since you don't believe any of it, I can't see that it really matters. Well what I believe in doesn't really matter now does it? If I believed in the validity of the bible as being the word of god in written format then wouldn't I have even more interest in determining why these erroneous statements were made? As it stands now they are just being pointed out as clearly ludicrous assertions. I dont think you can just say "well it was those crazy old school Jews" and wash your hands of it. The OT was clearly included in the bible for a reason, namely that these authors were felt to be "divinely inspired". Oh you mean my "Yes" or "No" reply to your other thread didnt cover it? |
|
|
|
well krimsa, either you believe in God or you don't, you believe in the bible or you don't, either way it is ones own personal choice, there is no middle ground really. The bible contains a lot of figures of speech, metaphors and parables, every single word is not always a literal meaning. It basically says not to eat scavenger animals, that's about it. but since you don't believe any of it, I can't see that it really matters. Well what I believe in doesn't really matter now does it? If I believed in the validity of the bible as being the word of god in written format then wouldn't I have even more interest in determining why these erroneous statements were made? As it stands now they are just being pointed out as clearly ludicrous assertions. I dont think you can just say "well it was those crazy old school Jews" and wash your hands of it. The OT was clearly included in the bible for a reason, namely that these authors were felt to be "divinely inspired". Oh you mean my "Yes" or "No" reply to your other thread didnt cover it? |
|
|
|
well krimsa, either you believe in God or you don't, you believe in the bible or you don't, either way it is ones own personal choice, there is no middle ground really. The bible contains a lot of figures of speech, metaphors and parables, every single word is not always a literal meaning. It basically says not to eat scavenger animals, that's about it. but since you don't believe any of it, I can't see that it really matters. Well what I believe in doesn't really matter now does it? If I believed in the validity of the bible as being the word of god in written format then wouldn't I have even more interest in determining why these erroneous statements were made? As it stands now they are just being pointed out as clearly ludicrous assertions. I dont think you can just say "well it was those crazy old school Jews" and wash your hands of it. The OT was clearly included in the bible for a reason, namely that these authors were felt to be "divinely inspired". Oh you mean my "Yes" or "No" reply to your other thread didnt cover it? What are you going on about now? The Theory of Evolution? What does human anthropogenesis have to do with "how we should live"? I dont think the scientific community has any vested interest in how you choose to misinterpret the scripture or live your life. Dont you have a moral compass of your own to help you negotiate your behavior and distinguish between right and wrong? |
|
|
|
never mind
|
|
|
|
never mind Yes that seems to be your pat answer when you cant seem to establish a coherent train of thought. How many beers did you have? |
|
|
|
better to do nothing in the face of denial
|
|
|
|
better to do nothing in the face of denial And who would be doing the denying and protesting and who would be asking for clarification in this instance? |
|
|
|
no bite
|
|
|
|
I didnt imagine you wanted to touch that question. Moment of clarity?
|
|
|