It seems to me that if science (and logic) were applied to the biblical picture of God then the conclusion would clearly be that the Bible was not written (or inspiried) by any supposedly all-wise, all-intelligent being.

The way that science works is pretty straight-forward. You come up with hypotheses and then you test them.

Well, with the Bible we have two very clear hypotheses. One is that the Bible was written (or inspired) by the creator of this universe. The other obvious hypothesis is that it was written by mortal men who had an agenda to control the masses via the fear of retribution by an all-powerful God?

If you read the Bible and take those two hypotheses as your tests by the time you get through the book you will have overwhelmingly concluded that the book was written by men who had an agenda and not by any all-wise, all-powerful creator.

There's no question about this whatsoever. Anyone who did this with unbiased would be forced to come to this conclusion. It's just blatantly apparent.

Think about it.

The Bible says that God created Adam, and then as an afterthought he created a helpmate for Adam.

Ask the question?

Why would Adam need a helpmate? What was his purpose? As a man he couldn't even procreate!

Why would woman, who can procreate be the afterthought?

When viewed from the point of view of an all-wise supreme being this makes absolutely no sense at all.

Now view it from the point of view of mortal men making up the story. It makes perfect sense! Men are trying to make out like women are their helpmates and secondary to them in God's eyes!

It's the beginnings of a patriarchal rule.

Why should God be patriarchal?

Later the women is blamed for luring the man into sin. Well, one could argue that this would fit either hypotheses, however, in science previous observations are often considered to be quite convincing. Since the previous observation is that God would be highly unlikely to place women in a secondary position and then men would be very likely to try to put them in a secondary position, then it follows that having Eve lure Adam into sin is just more of the same. Women have already caused enough problem in the garden of Eden, they had better learn to shut up and ask their hubbys FIRST!

The Bible just continues all through with this male-chuavinistic attitude. It's extremely unlikely that any divine creator designed this to be the case. It make much more sense that mortal men wrote it up for the purpose of putting women in a secondary role.

And this sort of thing can be used all through out the Bible.

Would an all-wise and all-powerful creator ask people to judge each other and stone sinners to death?

Of course not!

Why should an all-powerful God do such a thing? If he knows all and can intervene at will then he would know absolutely who deserves to die and who doesn't. If this is the same God who can presumably perform miracles to cure cancer, etc., then surely he can strike down sinners with heart attacks or whatever.

No all-wise all-powerful God would have any need to ask people to do his judging and killing for him.

However, if we look at the Bible as having been written by men who are trying to control the masses this sort of thing makes PERFECT SENSE!

The authors of the Bible had to have the masses murdering off anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with the rules they set forth in their book. This was absolutely necessary because the authors could not be there to know who these disobedient people are and to murder them! So they had no choice but to ask their readers to do their dirty work for them.

This just goes on and on, the whole way through the Bible.

When you read it just ask yourself,... "Would an all-wise all-powerful God do these things? Or does it only make sense that mortal men would ask people to do these things?"

If you go through the whole Bible comparing these two hypotheses when you reach the end of the book you will have ample reasons to believe that the book was written by patriarchal mortal men, and that no divine all-powerful God would have ever done any of these things.

So if you look at the Bible with the scientific eye of reason you'd have to put back on the shelf next to Humpty Dumpty.

It's not even close to reflecting what any divine all-wise all-powerful God could be like. The things that the authors of the Bible wrote simply aren't all-wise nor do they represent the actions of a being that would truly be all-powerful.

So by scientific reasoning the Bible would have to be rejected as the writings of mortal men who had clear agendas that were far from divine.

So no, from my point of view the Bible is not compatible with scientific thinking (or even reason) at all.

The Bible is totally unreasonable an far from divine.

Because James, we females are merely the "vessels" for your divine splooge. Isn’t it perfectly clear?

it seem most a helpmate be one that check anothers logic, and be the voice of a friend, that help to see more than just what eye's of one can see?

if any mortal man, see a women as the cause of his pain or lack of forethought, then he give up his own power, saying all things others are creating, and self has no part in what is created?

if any women, look at the man, as the sole reason for any pain or lack of forethought, then would not the women do the same?

seems most it was just a way to force all things in to equality when all things were done being created?

to take something, divide it in half, and keep most good from being able to be created, without the balance of both halves together, force either half to come toegther, to create more sight, more logic, more good reasoning, more good wisdom, more happiness, more bliss?

seems like a good way to create good things such a greater intelligence or knowing by putting in natural desire for each other?

it is only when one of anything say another, it is the fault of all things not good, that most good understanding is not yet possible, and create a temporary impass, and a true picture of how much good "true eqaulity" in all things can create?

just my dumb ideas of why some greater intelligence would do such a dumb act, lol......

I agree with you here. This was clearly not the word of any divine being but that of agenda driven men. They knew exactly what they were doing.

Are you asking whether or not the religious can use science to keep there flock satisfied, or are you suggesting that science become the religion for these people?

The first has been done since man has been able to work out the nature of anything.

The second is not possible, science is built on the empirical, and advances through falsification. Religion is built on ignorance and fear, and is advanced with the right of might.

____________________________________
Edit after reading the article:

Sounds like an inability to think for ones self. Seems common place among the religious . . and yet read below . . .




Seems like he is basically saying god is nature . . . .

Well my follow up question would have been, if god is nature, is god only nature, or more then nature?

If god is nature, what of miracles? If god is nature then what of heaven? If god is nature then what of satan?

I am sorry, but Science will never suggest that any sort of a supernatural being exists. The scientific community overwhelmingly supports evolution (95%), it's scientific FACT.

Nowhere in evolution does "creationism" fit in; creationism negates the entire purpose of evolution. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Faith is an antonym for Science.

Actually I think you are preaching to the choir. I dont even think Boo2u ment to suggest creationism was accurate in any kind of way, just that this particular theist in the article accepts evolution and thus maybe there is hope for our country. Correct me if I am wrong boo2u.

Cheers.

just as you do Krisma, but you are still inspired by "god" or your heart each day......

if text be read with the knowing "god" only be the "truth of the heart", of humans as all and each being the same, none greater, none lessor, and "god" NOT a supreme diety of one in the sky, then the WHY of all as peoples from the beginning of human learning, can be seen from the same words, and what was once a "negative", is then turned to "positive".........

the mind or text tell an observation, the heart, equalling itself to all others, complete the logic.......

the other half, or greater definition of text meaning, lay within the heart of each, not from the "book".......

"So if one wants to control men, one canonizes the ape nature of men. One makes one's cause the protection of apishness, or, as men would say, Liberty! Let every ape be as apelike as he wants! Civil liberties means liberty for each ape to do as he pleases, and civility be hanged. As for the enemy, one provides men with the best enemy possible, an enemy so different it cannot be absorbed, so necessary it cannot be totally destroyed, and enough weaker than the alpha ape that she is easy to steal from, to disrespect, and to abuse." - Sheri Tepper, in "Gibbon's Decline and Fall"

Isnt she that hardcore Feminazi? I just meant that as a joke with Abra, Kerry.

No, she is a sci-fi author, and though some of her books had a feminist backstory going on in them, I don't think she was all that hardcore. I was kinda joking, too, but then humor often has a ring of truth in _its_ backstory, too, doesn't it?

-Kerry O.