FAITH in a RELIGION for those who REFUSE FACTS.

I have noticed that when debating such things as Evolution and how much of the Old Testament details the writings and shallow understandings of ancient man as he tried to make sense of his reality....those of Faith and those who are Highly Religious tend to get very upset when I simply post FACTS.

After all I am just posting FACTS and have stated many times if anyone can provide PROOF that my statements are in error to please do so.

The problem is when such Highly Religious people of Faith provide what they think is proof...it is usually in the form of BIBLICAL TEXT.

As an example...if I were to post that the Universe is over 13 Billion years old and the Earth is over 4.5 Billion years old and they were to come back with a post saying..."GOD created the Earth in 6 days and the Earth is no more than 6000 years old."

Then I would ask them for PROOF....and in reply I would get them posting back to me the first page of GENESIS in the Old Testament.

The objecting of my post and the providing of such PROOF is a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT....as it is impossible to state something is a fact because it is written in the Bible and then when asked to provide proof of this religious persons statement that person provides this so called proof by POSTING A QUOTE OUT OF THE BIBLE! LOL!

I would just love for someone to post some proof to their religious ideology that is based in Science and Fact not just post what amounts to....BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAY'S SO!

AboveAlpha

 

One of the main points of contention of Creationists is when I might posts that Human Beings share a common ancestor with Great Apes.

Now this does not mean that Humans evolved from Monkeys or Apes as I have seen many an angry rely sent my way...rather all it means is both Humans and Great Apes evolved from a common ancestor whom which this ancestor both Human and Apes came from.

Now we know this to be a fact not only from Fossil Records but from comparing the Genomes of Humans and all species of Great Apes such as Gorillas, Orangutans and Chimps.

In fact Humans, Gorillas, Orangutans and Chimps are all classified as Hominid. From WIKI

The Hominidae (/hɒˈmɪnɨdiː/; also known as great apes[notes 1]) form a taxonomic family of primates, including four extant genera:
chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan);[notes 2]
gorillas (Gorilla) - 2 species;
humans (Homo); and
orangutans (Pongo) - 2 species.[1]
The term "hominid" is also used in the more restricted sense as hominins or "humans and relatives of humans closer than chimpanzees".[2] In this usage, all hominid species other than Homo sapiens are extinct. A number of known extinct genera are grouped with humans in the Homininae subfamily, others with orangutans in the Ponginae subfamily. The most recent common ancestor of the Hominidae lived roughly 14 million years ago,[3] when the ancestors of the orangutans speciated from the ancestors of the other three genera.[4] The ancestors of the Hominidae family had already speciated from those of the Hylobatidae family, perhaps 15 million to 20 million years ago.[4][5]

AboveAlpha

 

I always like when we deal with historical events where cultures kept records say Exodus my favorite one the Egyptians had one major rival at the time The Hittites, traded with regional nations and with the all had writing and NONE mentioned the fall of mighty Egypt or a huge tribe of Hebrews moving around. Its funny the war and peace treaty were known and the devastation of Egypt wasn't?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian-hittite_peace_treaty

 

There is a big difference between Biblical History and ACTUAL History.

It is well known that the New Testament and the lessons and stories within it is specific to the actions of the Roman Empire and it's persecution of Christians.

This can been seen in many aspects of the Bible as the Roman Empire and the Roman Emperor himself is often portrayed as Satan.

Many stories are actually designed in a way to critique Rome in a manner that does where Rome is not directly written but rather is pointed to using analogies and Biblical characters.

AboveAlpha

 

I am highly religious and I have not got the slightest problems with facts, in fact I remember that I had to draw your attention to some historical facts recently that you were then forced to ackowledge (I tip my hat to you for doing that by the way, few people on this forum are man enough to admit that they were wrong in something).

Just like me most religious people will happily agree that life on earth developed via evolution and that the universe is about 13 Billion years old. "Theistic Evolutionism is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries, and it is the official position of the Catholic church". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution). Most Muslims don#t seem to have a problem with it either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution. So maybe you should define more closely what kind of highly religious person you are talking about here.

 

Yes...I should specify.

I am talking about those of Faith who cannot seem to accept anything less than a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I was actually taken back and surprised to find people who were members here that either did not believe in Evolution or were fighting with me tooth and nail when I stated that it is IMPOSSIBLE for two people such as Adam and Eve to have enough Genetic diversity to populate the planet...a few would not admit that it is impossible to either build a boat large enough and complex enough to hold two of every species of animal life on it as well it would take a 1000 years or more and a crew of a 100,000 just to locate two of every species and get them on some 25 mile long by 5 mile wide boat! LOL!

As well the Great Flood was most likely due to the land mass collapse between the Black sea and the Aegean sea and it is not possible to completely cover all the land masses upon Earth as you would need 3 times all the water liquid and frozen that exists on Earth.

I could go on but you get the idea.

AboveAlpha

 

The bible is a mystic text that it should not be taken literally , it provides zero scientific evidence because this is not it's purpose , god isn't a simpleton and his word has to be decoded .

There i explained the views of 300m orthodox christians

 

I do love your name [MENTION=62877]AboveAlpha[/MENTION], do you believe you're above God?

Well, people are mistaken with the Book of Genesis. The original text talks not of days, but of time periods. I need to find it, but I listened to a rabbi give a sermon on divine time vs human time, and the problem with mistranslations of the Old Testament.

I'm also not a literalist though. I'm pretty strong Christian, but with gnostic leanings.

 

Well...First of all since I am an Agnostic I have not seen any definitive PROOF that any GOD exists.

So your question would not apply.

Secondly...GENESIS as it is written in the Old Testament was ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY written to be taken LITERALLY.

This is the writing of ANCIENT MAN....as well what is in the current Bible as well as the Torah I believe is somewhat different from the original text as it has been translated and re-translated many, many times and these continual ongoing translations over the centuries have changed the actual meaning to an extent.

Regardless of that....it was written by ancient man to be taken literally and anyone trying to claim that it should not be interpreted in a certain way or was not meant literally is full of it.

AboveAlpha

 

Except it has been mistranslated.

Exactly.

It seems you want to pin it as literal so you can damn people.

 

I'm sure the people who wrote it meant it to be taken literally. From a Christian's point of view, it was God who meant it figuratively.

 

What the HELL does this above sentence mean? LOL!

I want to DAMN PEOPLE?!!?? LOL!

Damn them to what?

THIS is EXACTLY what I mean as far as some people of Faith not being able to handle certain facts and realities.

You read my posts and in your VERY FIRST POST to me....an insult...which I actually found hilarious...and then you attempted to explain how Biblical Text may say one thing but it actually means another thing....without providing a shred of proof to your statements.

Now if you could provide a link detailing proof or at the very least a line of logic that is based on something other than opinion or a persons need to find a way to adapt the Biblical Text to fit known scientific realities....then I would be more than happy and interested to read it.

But if all you have is a story about some Rabbi attempting to adopt a modern translation of Biblical text in his own decided fashion...well....I would have to label such an attempt as...crap.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

Yes...those who wrote it meant it to be understood...LITERALLY.

As far as what some GOD wanted or meant...that has yet to be proven as well so is such a GOD's existence.

AboveAlpha

 

Earth to Alpha-A: Faith--by definition (do you understand what that means?)--has nothing to do with “facts”, science or the Scientific Method.

LOOK AT YOUR TITLE!!!!!!

”FAITH in a RELIGION ...”

Do you realize that what you’ve done? The entirety of religion, every bit of it, relies on FAITH!!! That includes the faith in the TEXTS!!

A PERSON’S FAITH OPERATES IN THE ABSENCE OF SCIENCE BY DEFINITION!

OM-bleepin-G!

 

Yes...and what exactly is your point as far as it pertaining to the name of this topic?

The topics title is... FAITH in a RELIGION for those who REFUSE FACTS.

Which is specific in meaning to how people will state....I BELIEVE THIS NONSENSICAL, NON-SCIENTIFIC, COMPLETELY UNPROVABLE, CONTRARY TO LOGIC and AKIN TO FANTASY religious text that was written by ancient man thousands of years ago because......I HAVE FAITH!

What you just have posted IS EXACTLY what this topic is about and how it details how in the complete absence of logic and when confronted by facts and reality....those people of FAITH will retreat and hide behind that word...FAITH.

Now I can accept a persons belief in a GOD. I can even accept a persons belief in what the lessons of the Bible has been designed to teach us.

But what I have a problem with is how some people cannot come to term with or even face up to the simple facts that there are many things written in the Old Testament that SHOULD ABSOLUTELY NEVER BE TAKEN LITERALLY....as they are simply the uneducated ancient explanations of the World and Man's reality created by men who were barely out of the Stone Age.

You have proved my point better than I could ever have hoped to do.

Thanks.

AboveAlpha

 

Well when given other opinions, you said that Genesis must be taken as literal. You want it to be taken literal so you have a group to condemn (maybe damn was the wrong word). If they don't take it literal then you cannot condemn them like you do in your OP.

 

Your ignorance on this is stunning. Commentary has been in place since the earliest days of Judaism. In fact it is said the God gave the entire oral law to Moses at Sinai So no it has always been poetry.

 

The texts are not at all ancient , specially 1st century parts of the bible were not written in an era shrouded by mystery but a well recorded period . As far as i know the "current bible" is written in a language i can read without the need of a translation and from what i have seen from pieces translated to English accuracy is not an issue since translators were well versed in Greek of the era.
Yes it is true that some of the apostles did not spoke Aramaic and some of their texts appear funny , for example the guy who wrote the first evangelion (Matthew ?)relied heavily on translations and did mistakes.

 

It seems to me somewhat silly to believe that a book, written and then translated hundreds of times, edited and changed multiple times, and then interpreted over and over again by imperfect and corrupted men might somehow be the original "Word of God". Yet when confronted with this obvious reality a few of the most devout and faithful feel that pointing out this simple reality is somehow attacking the faith, instead of expressing opinion based on established truth.
This is not a debate about the religion, per se...but more a discussion about the ability to use rational thought when observing the world and universe we live in. It makes little difference to most agnostic/atheists that others believe in something beyond the scope of reality....but when confronted by those adamant the religion is based on fact, there will either be a reaction or the individual will be dismissed as no longer worthy of the effort of debate.

 

AboveAlpha wrote: “Well...First of all since I am an Agnostic I have not seen any definitive PROOF that any GOD exists.”

You ought to disabuse yourself of the idea that there is any other kind of PROOF. In a courtroom, there are types of evidence that may, individually or collectively, adduce toward some conclusion: Proof is, by definition conclusive.

Are you Agnostic by default? (unprincipled)

Hmm.

 

I'm sorry, where is the persecution of christians by Rome in the bible?

 

The universe is 13.82 billion years old, the Earth is about 4.5 Billion years old and 1.5 million years ago [some of] our ancestors started to use fire.

The christian religion is not an ideology. Explain me something else: Why do you think the christian religion is a kind of cosmological ideology?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onBLru8SfOk

 

So when Genesis talked of "days" it mean "time periods"....but when Jonah speaks of being inside a "great fish" for three "days"....that DOESN'T mean "time periods" but 24 hour days?

 

So can we take OTHER parts of the Bible as meant to be taken figuratively...not literally?

Like the Resurrection?

 

Then I'm a silly man in your eyes - although I would not say everything is word of god in the bible beause in this case we had no choice - and we have a choice.

Stop. I'm for example agnostic and a Catholic and not an Atheist. Agnosticism says only that we are not able to know wether god exists or doesn't exist. Someone who is an agnostics has to do a decision what to believe - otherwise he's confusing his own logos. Atheism is only one of the two possible decisions. To believe in god is the other completly normal decision.

Sorry - reality is everything what is able to produce a cause - whenever this will be. Without any doubt the faith in god is able to cause something. So you are not able to say the faith in god has nothing to do with our daily reality. But even in quantum mechanics - where's existing another definiton of reality - it's often a great difference what happens if someone (or somehting) views at some things or not. The result can be completly in another way - depending on the interaction "take a view" or "let it be to take a view".

What a luck that I'm silly so I had not to understand this sentence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddLd0QRf7Vg

 

That's the problem. What was mistranslated and what wasn't.