I really enjoy those of you so ready to condemn the Bible (at least Genesis) for it's scientific inaccuracies. Of course, it is scientifically inaccurate. But then It's just a story. And it's kind of close to the truth if you are somewhat flexible in you thinking. But you folks should go to a used book store sometime. Open some old Encyclopedias, or books on physics or astronomy from the 20' or so. Talk about 'inaccuracies'....Then project 50 years into the future. Maybe your great grandchildren will do the same. You know, Those books and things that are your scientific reality today, that you defend to the death as being truth and wisdom. Imagine them chuckling and saying to each other, " I can't believe great grandpa actually believed this stuff".
The bible like the koran, talmud, etc. are ancient writings partially based on historical fact but in large part based on inaccuracies written by those wishing to impose their will on the people. That's my opinion, any information gotten from these texts needs to be looked at with a severely jaundiced eye. Which explains how these kooks are off sawing peoples heads off because of how they're interpreting them.
How can you claim the Bible is kind of close to the truth when you're also pointing out that what we currently recognise as the truth could be demonstrated as completely wrong at some future point?
Anyone that understands the scientific method knows that scientific knowledge IS NOT written in stone. The general population understands that knowledge itself is always changing. Humans believed evil spirits caused disease and illness. People still believe today that God causes someone to have diseases because of their wickedness. Science only concerns itself with the actual real-world causes of that disease. Science leaves the spiritual reasoning up to others.
Was Jesus really "resurrected"....or is that "flexible"? Not being snarky....but can you see the problem? I'm sure the Literalists see it. If "Genesis" is "just a story"?.....why not the Gospels? It's why Literalists cling so tightly to trying to come up with ways to make "Genesis" "true and historic".....because if it's not? It opens up a lot of "grey area" on how true ANYTHING in the Bible is....and they don't like "grey area".
Those 'literalists' are few and further and further between. Why concern yourself with them? Why continue on with this war? The vast majority of 'spiritual folk' I know don't have a problem accepting science as being valid and real. I even know a fundamentalist preacher that is an avid fan of quantum mechanics and astrophysics. And yes, he is a true believer. The hardcore 'as it is written so it is' bunch permeates Christianity (in the 1st world) in about equal ratio to the 'steady state' folks in the physics/astrophysics community. (most everything has it's fringe element).
But how do you address my point? If "Genesis" is "just a story"....why couldn't the same be said for The Gospels and the Resurrection?
My opinion, of course. Gospels are stories, Fictions based on accepted truths, but fictions all the same. Resurrection? There would be no Christianity without the Resurrection. It would have died out within a few years probably. Deduce what you choose from that.
Yes, just like the story about Jesus, about God, and about Christianity as a whole is equally unreliable. This has been the central non-religious argument since the beginning. Spiderman is kind of close to the truth if you are flexible in your thinking. Frankly, I agree that the argument has taken a bit of a weird turn. The idea that the Bible had to be completely accurate was more or less made up in response to arguments that the Bible should be treated with the same reverence as the Qur'an or the Vedas. It would make much more sense to produce the actual reason why the Bible has its special place. However, the real reason appears (to me) to be that the Christians in question are being indoctrinated into it (slightly oversimplified), and even the Christians see that that's not a good reason.
And that's the problem. With enough flexibility in ones thinking the Bible can be said to say just about anything. The parts of the Bible that make any sense are offset by the many other passages that are nonsensical. But text books are subject to change with the development of new information... the Bible is not. Text books are the sum of humanities best knowledge at the time, the Bible is touted as the irrefutable word of God.
Then scientists are not very inquisitive, because spiritual causes are at least as real as any others.
Science improves with time, the bible is just a old book that got it wrong from the start and refuses to change
Sounds like cherry picking to me. But that is the status quo in Christianity as I know very few who take the Bible in its entirety as literal. I fail to understand how a rational mind can label part of the Bible as stories while labeling a germane part like the resurrection as literal.
I absolutely agree with your opening sentence. Scientific knowledge is not written in stone and cannot be written in stone, because the very basic tool of science (the scientific method) is based on assumptions that have never been proven to be true. That was a good point that you brought up TexMexChef.
Can you prove that the scientific method is not based on assumptions? Things that have not been proven to be true?
I agree. The Resurrection is VITAL to Christianity. The question is...if the Flood and Noah were myths or fictions....why couldn't the Resurrection? As for "died out years ago"...upto the past 2 centuries or so, people accepted ALL the Bible as historically true.....the Flood as much as the Resurrection. - - - Updated - - - yguy, do you believe in an "Ebola demon"? Is that what makes people sick and die?
Incorporeal, If I believed that computers do not operate on electricity....in fact, there is no such thing as electricity.....it is tiny little pixies running up and down inside of wires.... could you PROVE I am wrong? Once we go down your path of dismissing science...where does it end?
they said Jesus was trapped in his dead body for 3 days and finally on the 3rd day he was able to rise from it would a God seriously get stuck inside a dead body, not one that can do anything and everything.... heck, for that matter a God can not be killed.... .
What I meant was, Christianity would have never gotten the 'kick start' it needed to be launched into being a major religion. Paul, spreading the story which included the resurrection of Jesus peeked the interest.Early Christianity was comprised of small groups of people that were generally separate from each other that each had their own agenda.
In most traditions of Christianity, Jesus went to HELL for the 3 days....where supposedly he gave those who had died before his coming a chance at redemption. A more intriquing question is....given Jesus was immortal and eternal, was 4,5, 6 hours of torture on the Cross really that much of a "sacrifice" for an immortal, eternal being?
And again, agree. One of THE selling points of Christianity was the Resurrection. If Jesus had said "Be nice to each other"....been executed....end of story.....it wouldn't have "sold" as well as it did. The whole idea of "imitation of Christ" is that you are a nice person and even if you have a crappy life, you'll "come out to the good after you die". My point is simply that you see the appeal of Literalism. If Noah was a myth....then questions pop up about the veracity of the "virgin birth"...."water into wine"....and "the resurrection of the demi-god"........items as many of us know PRE-existed in myth before Jesus.
IF you made that claim, it would not be up to me to prove that you are wrong, but instead would be up to you to prove that you are right. Who is dismissing science? I certainly am not dismissing science. On the other hand, I don't go around making scientific claims which I cannot show proof of the claim. I work within the realm of electronics on a daily basis. Electronics being a part of the scientific community, therefore, I pretty much know the limits to which electronics can go with our current understanding of that branch of science. I also do my best to stay abreast of the latest findings of that section of science. I also recognize that there are a great number of PROFESSIONAL scientists out there in that community who will not suggest that science has any idea of how to either prove or disprove the existence of God or a spiritual realm... Why? Because the spiritual realm, as we understand it, has no material foundation upon which the scientific method can operate. I also am understanding that the scientific method is based upon assumptions, and until someone has proven those 3 basic assumptions to be true, then they will remain as assumptions (something taken for granted as being true but not having been proven to be true). Therein is the faith of the religion of science. Science is a method... it is not an absolute.... I have even seen some on this forum proclaim that one of the endeavors of science is to seek truth... yet in that other thread ("what is truth"), no-one on this forum has satisfied the inquiry of that OP.
A few times over and in many cultural settings. But these were days in which myth was all they had, for all intents and purposes. Myth had power..huge power. There was no TV or radio news, no books, no photos. The vast majority couldn't read and most cultures didn't have anything to read even if they could..no written language. So storytellers and prophets were it. They were the source. For a few thousand years BC and a thousand plus years AD. People can't go that long with nothing. It's not the nature of human beings. We require the dissemination of data. That data becomes ingrained, right wrong or indifferent.
Can not the same be said of Islam? Those who spread the story of Islam piqued the interest of people. Does this make the God of Islam as real as the God of Christianity... a religion that states that the only path to God is through Christ?
