1 2 7 8 9 10 11 13 15
Topic: Is the Bible historically accurate?
Kleisto's photo
Wed 07/13/11 04:51 PM







there is no great enlightenment in store

neither one where everyone will BELIEVE, or where everyone will STOP BELIEVING

there is just too much there that is logical and makes sense and CAN be historically validated(in some sense) to throw out the Bible


If it was so logical, I think we wouldn't even be having this discussion. That we are speaks to the illogicalness of it, that many people recognize.

The simple fact is, there are things in the Bible that you simply cannot justify unless you have to justify it. On their own merits, they are unjustifiable.



thats like saying if the world was so 'good' we wouldnt be having discussions about the 'bad' things

or adversely

if the world is so 'bad' we couldnt discuss the 'good' things

you cant throw out all the good because of the bad, you cant ignore the good is there because of the bad


likewise, you cant discredit thousands of pages of information because you find a dozen or a hundred which have (at best) inconsistency


If it's supposed to be infallible, than there should not be any inconsistencies. If you wanna say it has some truths within it, that's fine, cause even amongst the bad parts there is a little bit to be found. But if you're gonna try and claim it's the infallible word of God, that is to say without error, it damn well better back up the claim. If it doesn't, than it's already discredited as such a thing by default.



but it cant be proven to be fallible amongst those who believe in it,, thats my point


Well of course it can't, because they won't accept any proof! If they believe it to be infallible than naturally anything showing it to be infallible will be rejected by them. Not that hard to figure out.


its the logic of the person INTERPRETING it that is fallible...


I've said it before and I will say it again, this is EXACTLY the problem with the Bible and those that defend it. You are arguing it from a position that it's already true by default, and nothing is gonna make it false. That does not a true discussion make. How can you truly discuss the validity of something, if you already have a bias to prove it true, rather than be open to the truth no matter where it takes you? You can't.




well, you just need to have common 'truth' amongst those having the discussion

if you go by there being no ABSOLUTE truth, and everything being open to review and reconsideration, than even the 'truth' provided by science to some is not ABSOLUTE,, yet those who follow it will discuss thier views as if it is

there is a human tendency to view 'truth' as (by default) infallible,,, wherever the source of that truth comes from


There's a word for that. Pride.

I never said there is no absolute truth either, there is some that exists. But if you're gonna claim it as absolute truth you better be able to back it up, otherwise you're a liar. The Bible fails that test.

no photo
Wed 07/13/11 04:51 PM

Pot calling the kettle black.......Pot calling the kettle black.


laugh

I've never done that, you are projecting.

laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh

Kleisto's photo
Wed 07/13/11 04:51 PM


Pot calling the kettle black.......Pot calling the kettle black.


laugh

I've never done that, you are projecting.

laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh


You more or less defined your own religion in your statement......so yeah you just did.

no photo
Wed 07/13/11 04:52 PM



Pot calling the kettle black.......Pot calling the kettle black.


laugh

I've never done that, you are projecting.

laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh


You more or less defined your own religion in your statement......so yeah you just did.


laugh

RIF

msharmony's photo
Wed 07/13/11 07:25 PM








there is no great enlightenment in store

neither one where everyone will BELIEVE, or where everyone will STOP BELIEVING

there is just too much there that is logical and makes sense and CAN be historically validated(in some sense) to throw out the Bible


If it was so logical, I think we wouldn't even be having this discussion. That we are speaks to the illogicalness of it, that many people recognize.

The simple fact is, there are things in the Bible that you simply cannot justify unless you have to justify it. On their own merits, they are unjustifiable.



thats like saying if the world was so 'good' we wouldnt be having discussions about the 'bad' things

or adversely

if the world is so 'bad' we couldnt discuss the 'good' things

you cant throw out all the good because of the bad, you cant ignore the good is there because of the bad


likewise, you cant discredit thousands of pages of information because you find a dozen or a hundred which have (at best) inconsistency


If it's supposed to be infallible, than there should not be any inconsistencies. If you wanna say it has some truths within it, that's fine, cause even amongst the bad parts there is a little bit to be found. But if you're gonna try and claim it's the infallible word of God, that is to say without error, it damn well better back up the claim. If it doesn't, than it's already discredited as such a thing by default.



but it cant be proven to be fallible amongst those who believe in it,, thats my point


Well of course it can't, because they won't accept any proof! If they believe it to be infallible than naturally anything showing it to be infallible will be rejected by them. Not that hard to figure out.


its the logic of the person INTERPRETING it that is fallible...


I've said it before and I will say it again, this is EXACTLY the problem with the Bible and those that defend it. You are arguing it from a position that it's already true by default, and nothing is gonna make it false. That does not a true discussion make. How can you truly discuss the validity of something, if you already have a bias to prove it true, rather than be open to the truth no matter where it takes you? You can't.




well, you just need to have common 'truth' amongst those having the discussion

if you go by there being no ABSOLUTE truth, and everything being open to review and reconsideration, than even the 'truth' provided by science to some is not ABSOLUTE,, yet those who follow it will discuss thier views as if it is

there is a human tendency to view 'truth' as (by default) infallible,,, wherever the source of that truth comes from


There's a word for that. Pride.

I never said there is no absolute truth either, there is some that exists. But if you're gonna claim it as absolute truth you better be able to back it up, otherwise you're a liar. The Bible fails that test.



not really, there is plenty of 'science' that I have not seen for myself, but I take at face values what claims are written by scientists,, with the belief that it can change

I can say science 'fails' so long as I have not personally been shown what it claims,, but at some point I have to trust the references and the consistency

I do the same with the bible, it cant be discredited in my eyes, we can only continue to learn more and understand more about it,, just like science

Kleisto's photo
Wed 07/13/11 07:30 PM









there is no great enlightenment in store

neither one where everyone will BELIEVE, or where everyone will STOP BELIEVING

there is just too much there that is logical and makes sense and CAN be historically validated(in some sense) to throw out the Bible


If it was so logical, I think we wouldn't even be having this discussion. That we are speaks to the illogicalness of it, that many people recognize.

The simple fact is, there are things in the Bible that you simply cannot justify unless you have to justify it. On their own merits, they are unjustifiable.



thats like saying if the world was so 'good' we wouldnt be having discussions about the 'bad' things

or adversely

if the world is so 'bad' we couldnt discuss the 'good' things

you cant throw out all the good because of the bad, you cant ignore the good is there because of the bad


likewise, you cant discredit thousands of pages of information because you find a dozen or a hundred which have (at best) inconsistency


If it's supposed to be infallible, than there should not be any inconsistencies. If you wanna say it has some truths within it, that's fine, cause even amongst the bad parts there is a little bit to be found. But if you're gonna try and claim it's the infallible word of God, that is to say without error, it damn well better back up the claim. If it doesn't, than it's already discredited as such a thing by default.



but it cant be proven to be fallible amongst those who believe in it,, thats my point


Well of course it can't, because they won't accept any proof! If they believe it to be infallible than naturally anything showing it to be infallible will be rejected by them. Not that hard to figure out.


its the logic of the person INTERPRETING it that is fallible...


I've said it before and I will say it again, this is EXACTLY the problem with the Bible and those that defend it. You are arguing it from a position that it's already true by default, and nothing is gonna make it false. That does not a true discussion make. How can you truly discuss the validity of something, if you already have a bias to prove it true, rather than be open to the truth no matter where it takes you? You can't.




well, you just need to have common 'truth' amongst those having the discussion

if you go by there being no ABSOLUTE truth, and everything being open to review and reconsideration, than even the 'truth' provided by science to some is not ABSOLUTE,, yet those who follow it will discuss thier views as if it is

there is a human tendency to view 'truth' as (by default) infallible,,, wherever the source of that truth comes from


There's a word for that. Pride.

I never said there is no absolute truth either, there is some that exists. But if you're gonna claim it as absolute truth you better be able to back it up, otherwise you're a liar. The Bible fails that test.



not really, there is plenty of 'science' that I have not seen for myself, but I take at face values what claims are written by scientists,, with the belief that it can change

I can say science 'fails' so long as I have not personally been shown what it claims,, but at some point I have to trust the references and the consistency

I do the same with the bible, it cant be discredited in my eyes


And what you say right there is exactly my point. No proof will ever be good enough for you because you have it set in your mind that it's true and nothing will make you change that. That's the definition of a closed mind.

Dragoness's photo
Wed 07/13/11 07:30 PM
LOL, I guess I am really advanced then in my thoughts. I have deciphered the bible, gleaned what is to be learned and moved on to bigger and better things.

It is just a book of fables, thoughts and stories of men from thousands of years ago. How hard can it be to learn all there is to learn from that?slaphead

Since there is no way it can be the word of god. It is obvious of that fact.

msharmony's photo
Wed 07/13/11 07:35 PM
Edited by msharmony on Wed 07/13/11 07:38 PM










there is no great enlightenment in store

neither one where everyone will BELIEVE, or where everyone will STOP BELIEVING

there is just too much there that is logical and makes sense and CAN be historically validated(in some sense) to throw out the Bible


If it was so logical, I think we wouldn't even be having this discussion. That we are speaks to the illogicalness of it, that many people recognize.

The simple fact is, there are things in the Bible that you simply cannot justify unless you have to justify it. On their own merits, they are unjustifiable.



thats like saying if the world was so 'good' we wouldnt be having discussions about the 'bad' things

or adversely

if the world is so 'bad' we couldnt discuss the 'good' things

you cant throw out all the good because of the bad, you cant ignore the good is there because of the bad


likewise, you cant discredit thousands of pages of information because you find a dozen or a hundred which have (at best) inconsistency


If it's supposed to be infallible, than there should not be any inconsistencies. If you wanna say it has some truths within it, that's fine, cause even amongst the bad parts there is a little bit to be found. But if you're gonna try and claim it's the infallible word of God, that is to say without error, it damn well better back up the claim. If it doesn't, than it's already discredited as such a thing by default.



but it cant be proven to be fallible amongst those who believe in it,, thats my point


Well of course it can't, because they won't accept any proof! If they believe it to be infallible than naturally anything showing it to be infallible will be rejected by them. Not that hard to figure out.


its the logic of the person INTERPRETING it that is fallible...


I've said it before and I will say it again, this is EXACTLY the problem with the Bible and those that defend it. You are arguing it from a position that it's already true by default, and nothing is gonna make it false. That does not a true discussion make. How can you truly discuss the validity of something, if you already have a bias to prove it true, rather than be open to the truth no matter where it takes you? You can't.




well, you just need to have common 'truth' amongst those having the discussion

if you go by there being no ABSOLUTE truth, and everything being open to review and reconsideration, than even the 'truth' provided by science to some is not ABSOLUTE,, yet those who follow it will discuss thier views as if it is

there is a human tendency to view 'truth' as (by default) infallible,,, wherever the source of that truth comes from


There's a word for that. Pride.

I never said there is no absolute truth either, there is some that exists. But if you're gonna claim it as absolute truth you better be able to back it up, otherwise you're a liar. The Bible fails that test.



not really, there is plenty of 'science' that I have not seen for myself, but I take at face values what claims are written by scientists,, with the belief that it can change

I can say science 'fails' so long as I have not personally been shown what it claims,, but at some point I have to trust the references and the consistency

I do the same with the bible, it cant be discredited in my eyes


And what you say right there is exactly my point. No proof will ever be good enough for you because you have it set in your mind that it's true and nothing will make you change that. That's the definition of a closed mind.



or one who has the answer they need, and possibly just one who has gotten it right already,,,

so many possibilities..flowerforyou


truly, to discredit it as the word of God, would be as impossible to do as to 'disprove' that I or you ever said something

what would people think if I ever said 'I can prove that kleisto didnt say,,,,,,,'

its not something that can be actually proven beyond Kleisto claiming he didnt say it , and even then it might not fit any standard for 'proof' because Kleisto could make a false claim himself,,

terribly difficult to prove a negative , especially a historical one,,,,

Kleisto's photo
Wed 07/13/11 07:41 PM
Edited by Kleisto on Wed 07/13/11 07:42 PM











there is no great enlightenment in store

neither one where everyone will BELIEVE, or where everyone will STOP BELIEVING

there is just too much there that is logical and makes sense and CAN be historically validated(in some sense) to throw out the Bible


If it was so logical, I think we wouldn't even be having this discussion. That we are speaks to the illogicalness of it, that many people recognize.

The simple fact is, there are things in the Bible that you simply cannot justify unless you have to justify it. On their own merits, they are unjustifiable.



thats like saying if the world was so 'good' we wouldnt be having discussions about the 'bad' things

or adversely

if the world is so 'bad' we couldnt discuss the 'good' things

you cant throw out all the good because of the bad, you cant ignore the good is there because of the bad


likewise, you cant discredit thousands of pages of information because you find a dozen or a hundred which have (at best) inconsistency


If it's supposed to be infallible, than there should not be any inconsistencies. If you wanna say it has some truths within it, that's fine, cause even amongst the bad parts there is a little bit to be found. But if you're gonna try and claim it's the infallible word of God, that is to say without error, it damn well better back up the claim. If it doesn't, than it's already discredited as such a thing by default.



but it cant be proven to be fallible amongst those who believe in it,, thats my point


Well of course it can't, because they won't accept any proof! If they believe it to be infallible than naturally anything showing it to be infallible will be rejected by them. Not that hard to figure out.


its the logic of the person INTERPRETING it that is fallible...


I've said it before and I will say it again, this is EXACTLY the problem with the Bible and those that defend it. You are arguing it from a position that it's already true by default, and nothing is gonna make it false. That does not a true discussion make. How can you truly discuss the validity of something, if you already have a bias to prove it true, rather than be open to the truth no matter where it takes you? You can't.




well, you just need to have common 'truth' amongst those having the discussion

if you go by there being no ABSOLUTE truth, and everything being open to review and reconsideration, than even the 'truth' provided by science to some is not ABSOLUTE,, yet those who follow it will discuss thier views as if it is

there is a human tendency to view 'truth' as (by default) infallible,,, wherever the source of that truth comes from


There's a word for that. Pride.

I never said there is no absolute truth either, there is some that exists. But if you're gonna claim it as absolute truth you better be able to back it up, otherwise you're a liar. The Bible fails that test.



not really, there is plenty of 'science' that I have not seen for myself, but I take at face values what claims are written by scientists,, with the belief that it can change

I can say science 'fails' so long as I have not personally been shown what it claims,, but at some point I have to trust the references and the consistency

I do the same with the bible, it cant be discredited in my eyes


And what you say right there is exactly my point. No proof will ever be good enough for you because you have it set in your mind that it's true and nothing will make you change that. That's the definition of a closed mind.



or one who has the answer they need, and possibly just one who has gotten it right already,,,

so many possibilities..flowerforyou


truly, to discredit it as the word of God, would be as impossible to do as to 'disprove' that I or you ever said something


No not really, it's only impossible because you refuse to accept the idea that maybe just maybe what you've been taught is wrong. If you open yourself to that possibility, the truth becomes easily apparent. I know it did for me and others like me.

Let me ask you something, if this was really God's word, then why is it so hard to interpret? Shouldn't it be obvious to all what it says? That it's not either says the God of the Bible really isn't so great and perfect if He can't make it completely obvious without one single doubt what His truth is, or that the whole claim is just simply false.

msharmony's photo
Wed 07/13/11 07:45 PM
Edited by msharmony on Wed 07/13/11 07:46 PM












there is no great enlightenment in store

neither one where everyone will BELIEVE, or where everyone will STOP BELIEVING

there is just too much there that is logical and makes sense and CAN be historically validated(in some sense) to throw out the Bible


If it was so logical, I think we wouldn't even be having this discussion. That we are speaks to the illogicalness of it, that many people recognize.

The simple fact is, there are things in the Bible that you simply cannot justify unless you have to justify it. On their own merits, they are unjustifiable.



thats like saying if the world was so 'good' we wouldnt be having discussions about the 'bad' things

or adversely

if the world is so 'bad' we couldnt discuss the 'good' things

you cant throw out all the good because of the bad, you cant ignore the good is there because of the bad


likewise, you cant discredit thousands of pages of information because you find a dozen or a hundred which have (at best) inconsistency


If it's supposed to be infallible, than there should not be any inconsistencies. If you wanna say it has some truths within it, that's fine, cause even amongst the bad parts there is a little bit to be found. But if you're gonna try and claim it's the infallible word of God, that is to say without error, it damn well better back up the claim. If it doesn't, than it's already discredited as such a thing by default.



but it cant be proven to be fallible amongst those who believe in it,, thats my point


Well of course it can't, because they won't accept any proof! If they believe it to be infallible than naturally anything showing it to be infallible will be rejected by them. Not that hard to figure out.


its the logic of the person INTERPRETING it that is fallible...


I've said it before and I will say it again, this is EXACTLY the problem with the Bible and those that defend it. You are arguing it from a position that it's already true by default, and nothing is gonna make it false. That does not a true discussion make. How can you truly discuss the validity of something, if you already have a bias to prove it true, rather than be open to the truth no matter where it takes you? You can't.




well, you just need to have common 'truth' amongst those having the discussion

if you go by there being no ABSOLUTE truth, and everything being open to review and reconsideration, than even the 'truth' provided by science to some is not ABSOLUTE,, yet those who follow it will discuss thier views as if it is

there is a human tendency to view 'truth' as (by default) infallible,,, wherever the source of that truth comes from


There's a word for that. Pride.

I never said there is no absolute truth either, there is some that exists. But if you're gonna claim it as absolute truth you better be able to back it up, otherwise you're a liar. The Bible fails that test.



not really, there is plenty of 'science' that I have not seen for myself, but I take at face values what claims are written by scientists,, with the belief that it can change

I can say science 'fails' so long as I have not personally been shown what it claims,, but at some point I have to trust the references and the consistency

I do the same with the bible, it cant be discredited in my eyes


And what you say right there is exactly my point. No proof will ever be good enough for you because you have it set in your mind that it's true and nothing will make you change that. That's the definition of a closed mind.



or one who has the answer they need, and possibly just one who has gotten it right already,,,

so many possibilities..flowerforyou


truly, to discredit it as the word of God, would be as impossible to do as to 'disprove' that I or you ever said something


No not really, it's only impossible because you refuse to accept the idea that maybe just maybe what you've been taught is wrong. If you open yourself to that possibility, the truth becomes easily apparent. I know it did for me and others like me.

Let me ask you something, if this was really God's word, then why is it so hard to interpret? Shouldn't it be obvious to all what it says? That it's not either says the God of the Bible really isn't so great and perfect if He can't make it completely obvious without one single doubt what His truth is, or that the whole claim is just simply false.



possibly because it was written thousands of years ago,, many things written that long ago , in a different language, IM sure are 'hard' to interpret (especially a language that has fallen out of use)

it was written by people in a different time and culture and language and then interpreted by others to be read by yet others who have to interpret,,,,I dont imagine thats gonna be simple,,,

I dont know why he didnt make it 'simple' and I dont really care, but I imagine there was as much value in causing me to put 'effort' into understanding it,, as there was for my parents to teach me to put 'efforts' into other area of my life

working hard, learning everying isnt simple or meant to be, are good ways to be a stronger individual in our mortal life,, perhaps its a good preperation for our immortal life as well?

Dragoness's photo
Wed 07/13/11 07:49 PM
All you have to do IS read the bible to know it not the work of a god. Nor the work of very smart men even.

The manipulations to the books by King James making it into what we know today might have cleaned it up a bit but you can still tell you are reading the work of men from 2000 years ago who didn't know that much yet.

We have outgrown the philosophy of the book so all it is good for now is retrospection. Kinda like Shakespeare, although Shakespeare is much better.

Kleisto's photo
Wed 07/13/11 08:02 PM
Edited by Kleisto on Wed 07/13/11 08:03 PM

I dont know why he didnt make it 'simple' and I dont really care, but I imagine there was as much value in causing me to put 'effort' into understanding it,, as there was for my parents to teach me to put 'efforts' into other area of my life

working hard, learning everying isnt simple or meant to be, are good ways to be a stronger individual in our mortal life,, perhaps its a good preperation for our immortal life as well?


You ought to care, because if He's God He can do anything right? And if He wants people to know the truth, why do you have to jump so many hoops to get there? It doesn't seem like the work of a divine being.

You don't need to place certain morals on those qualities you mention though do you?

msharmony's photo
Wed 07/13/11 11:09 PM


I dont know why he didnt make it 'simple' and I dont really care, but I imagine there was as much value in causing me to put 'effort' into understanding it,, as there was for my parents to teach me to put 'efforts' into other area of my life

working hard, learning everying isnt simple or meant to be, are good ways to be a stronger individual in our mortal life,, perhaps its a good preperation for our immortal life as well?


You ought to care, because if He's God He can do anything right? And if He wants people to know the truth, why do you have to jump so many hoops to get there? It doesn't seem like the work of a divine being.

You don't need to place certain morals on those qualities you mention though do you?



I try not to dwell on why things arent 'simple' in life,, it does little to help me figure them out ,,,,,,or , in other words, to help me LEARN,, which is one of the great points of life

if its 'simple' , what do we learn?

I dont feel I have to jump hoops to 'get there'.. anymore than I had to jump hoops to get to college, or jump hoops to put together a bike,, I just have to be willing to put forth the necessary effort,,,,


the greater the destination, the more effort its worth to me

Kleisto's photo
Thu 07/14/11 12:08 AM
Edited by Kleisto on Thu 07/14/11 12:10 AM



I dont know why he didnt make it 'simple' and I dont really care, but I imagine there was as much value in causing me to put 'effort' into understanding it,, as there was for my parents to teach me to put 'efforts' into other area of my life

working hard, learning everying isnt simple or meant to be, are good ways to be a stronger individual in our mortal life,, perhaps its a good preperation for our immortal life as well?


You ought to care, because if He's God He can do anything right? And if He wants people to know the truth, why do you have to jump so many hoops to get there? It doesn't seem like the work of a divine being.

You don't need to place certain morals on those qualities you mention though do you?



I try not to dwell on why things arent 'simple' in life,, it does little to help me figure them out ,,,,,,or , in other words, to help me LEARN,, which is one of the great points of life

if its 'simple' , what do we learn?


There is much to learn and experience, you don't need an afterlife promise to teach you things. If there's anything I've learned in the last year, it's that you never really stop learning. The problem comes when you assume there is nothing new to know, which religion more or less teaches. The idea that this is the truth, and there is no others type of thing, it stunts your growth and ability to learn new ideas because you refuse to accept them if they clash with what you've been taught.

msharmony's photo
Thu 07/14/11 06:58 AM




I dont know why he didnt make it 'simple' and I dont really care, but I imagine there was as much value in causing me to put 'effort' into understanding it,, as there was for my parents to teach me to put 'efforts' into other area of my life

working hard, learning everying isnt simple or meant to be, are good ways to be a stronger individual in our mortal life,, perhaps its a good preperation for our immortal life as well?


You ought to care, because if He's God He can do anything right? And if He wants people to know the truth, why do you have to jump so many hoops to get there? It doesn't seem like the work of a divine being.

You don't need to place certain morals on those qualities you mention though do you?



I try not to dwell on why things arent 'simple' in life,, it does little to help me figure them out ,,,,,,or , in other words, to help me LEARN,, which is one of the great points of life

if its 'simple' , what do we learn?


There is much to learn and experience, you don't need an afterlife promise to teach you things. If there's anything I've learned in the last year, it's that you never really stop learning. The problem comes when you assume there is nothing new to know, which religion more or less teaches. The idea that this is the truth, and there is no others type of thing, it stunts your growth and ability to learn new ideas because you refuse to accept them if they clash with what you've been taught.

msharmony's photo
Thu 07/14/11 06:58 AM
Edited by msharmony on Thu 07/14/11 07:02 AM




I dont know why he didnt make it 'simple' and I dont really care, but I imagine there was as much value in causing me to put 'effort' into understanding it,, as there was for my parents to teach me to put 'efforts' into other area of my life

working hard, learning everying isnt simple or meant to be, are good ways to be a stronger individual in our mortal life,, perhaps its a good preperation for our immortal life as well?


You ought to care, because if He's God He can do anything right? And if He wants people to know the truth, why do you have to jump so many hoops to get there? It doesn't seem like the work of a divine being.

You don't need to place certain morals on those qualities you mention though do you?



I try not to dwell on why things arent 'simple' in life,, it does little to help me figure them out ,,,,,,or , in other words, to help me LEARN,, which is one of the great points of life

if its 'simple' , what do we learn?


There is much to learn and experience, you don't need an afterlife promise to teach you things. If there's anything I've learned in the last year, it's that you never really stop learning. The problem comes when you assume there is nothing new to know, which religion more or less teaches. The idea that this is the truth, and there is no others type of thing, it stunts your growth and ability to learn new ideas because you refuse to accept them if they clash with what you've been taught.



there is nothing new to know? also not something I remember reading in my Bible

the Bible hasnt stunted my growth or ability to learn new ideas in the least, anymore than math books, or history books, or any other learning resource I have used,,,,,that I 'accept' as a foundational truth to living in the world

in fact, Id say the Bible has reaffirmed my personal values and what is already present in my 'conscience' about living life in a healthy fashion

meanwhile, I have done exceedingly well in 'learning' academics,, so there hasnt been such a conflict at all,,,,for me anyhow

no photo
Thu 07/14/11 11:59 AM

It has been my experience that some Christians feel that the Bible has the answer to every question you could possibly have. (Ridiculi.)

But if a person actually believes that, they are convinced that they don't need to crack the pages of any other book.

The Religious leaders would love that, because other books might have information in them that would cause people to come to their senses and actually start thinking about other possibilities.



no photo
Thu 07/14/11 12:04 PM


It has been my experience that some Christians feel that the Bible has the answer to every question you could possibly have. (Ridiculi.)


If you haven't read it or didn't understand it, how would you know if it did or not?


But if a person actually believes that, they are convinced that they don't need to crack the pages of any other book.


The "uneducated Christian" canard, how delightful.


The Religious leaders would love that, because other books might have information in them that would cause people to come to their senses and actually start thinking about other possibilities.


Because they are space lizard men? If only Buck Rodgers would come along and turn the AC on high, we could rid the world of space lizard men.

no photo
Thu 07/14/11 12:29 PM
Edited by Jeanniebean on Thu 07/14/11 12:41 PM
Spider I think you must be a lizard man.

You should seriously think about becoming a stand up comic cause you are really funny with your sarcasm. Do you always respond to reason and logic with sarcasm and ridicule? Those are the tools of the lizard men you know. Ridicule is a powerful tool and is used by the illuminati and the lizard men constantly.

But I spot that tactic right away.

I know them by their deeds and their M.O.


no photo
Thu 07/14/11 12:40 PM

Spider I think you must be a lizard man.

You should seriously think about becoming a stand up comic cause you are really funny with your sarcasm. Do you always respond to reason and logic with sarcasm and ridicule? Those are the tools of the lizard men you know.


I would love to be a lizardman (Iksar as they like to be called). They have enhanced regeneration, have tough skin, infra-vision, +50 to Forage, +100 to swimming, +5 to Fire resists, but a -10 to cold resist.

That's why I said about turning up the AC, that would chill the lizardmen out to the point they would go to sleep.

As to why I use a space heater and a snuggie in my cubical at work during the summer...no comment.

1 2 7 8 9 10 11 13 15