MarcAC said:
Can you expound upon this statement? What exactly do you mean by religious concepts in favour of sience?
Floods. Creation. Stars being halted from orbiting their planets. Seas being parted to allow cult followers to pass. Whales swallowing people whole only to spit them out again later. Etc, etc.
MarcAC said:
In that there can be no error.
So the "blood of christ" shared was really Jesus' blood? The bread the broke was really his body? If not, was the author in err? Was the author in err when he claimed that the "sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day?" Particularly when the sun does not orbit the Earth? Particularly when there is no geologic evidence to support that the planet stopped rotating suddenly then, just as suddenly, began again?
MarcAC said:
How do you justify such a statement? You forget the third option: it may be filled with fact and metaphorical myth
Indeed. I gladly revise my position to accept this possibility. I would suggest that there are many facts in the bible. Perhaps as many present in Moby Dick or Huck Finn. Yet they are still fiction. In fact, Homer is readily accepted to be literature and myth, yet we also generally accept that Calvert and Schleimann discovered Troy, the city described in it.
MarcAC said:
So it isn't very factual? What exactly does that mean?
The core tenents are without merit when we look at the claims it presents. The philosophical tenents are fine and admirable when we look at the teachings of Christ, but claims of Virgin Birth, resurrection, the "stopping" of stars, flooding of planets, etc. are bunk. They are no more factual than the myths of other religions and cultures throughout history.
MarcAC said:
But science is based on human imagination and perspective - i.e. the ability to conceptualise that which may not be immediately apparent. You, of course, then test for it on the basis of your faithful assumptions.
Hey, faith is fine for that which can be observed. If I observe that rain is always occompanied by clouds but clouds don't always occompany rain, I can have faith that it will not rain on a day that remains sunny. If I observe that the moon's appearance changes regularly with time, I can have faith that I'll see two quarters in roughly a month.
But when you speak of faith in words written by early historic humans about supernatural, unobserved and untestable claims.... only the fool accepts them at face-value.
MarcAC said:
But certainly a person with your knowledge will know of the evidence for an enormous flood that produced the Black Sea from glacial melt after the most recent ice age?
Of course. I even wrote
a paper about it. But the flooding of the Black Sea hardly qualifies as a global flood. It may very well be the source of some of the local mythology that surrounds this flood, but I rather believe that the Deluge myth was the result of a flooding of the Tigris & Euphrates, which may have carried a merchant to the gulf. His survival then took on legendary proportions, underwent many revisions as oral traditions do, received some embellishments, and was then borrowed by the Jewish cults that were constructing a new, monotheistic cult for their people to follow.
MarcAC said:
But did the bible state that there were no rainbows before the flood or did it state that it would be used as a sign after the flood? The version most immediately available to me (CEV) states nothing about existence of the rainbow.
What is written or not written in the bible regarding rainbows is irrelevent. There exists no evidence to support his claim.
MarcAC said:
But religion is also a "process"; you either follow it or you don't. What's the point?
Surely you aren't so daft as to imply that because they're both "processes" that they're the same? If so, then masturbation is also a process. Does that mean that scientists and clerics are merely jacking off? Its fascinating to watch cult followers attempt to justify their cults by accusing those that don't believe their drivel as being "religious too." Strawman nonsense.
MarcAC said:
But that may also be said of a typical atheist. Again, what's the point?
It
could be said, but I doubt it could be quantified. My point is clear: science is based upon empiricism and what can be observed; religion is based upon faith and what is hoped. One is tangible, measurable and generally quantifiable. The other is intangible, immeasurable, and quantified only by the number of cult followers that can be deceived to believe.
MarcAC said:
But why the or? Can it not be a compilation of both? That question appears rather strange to me.
Sure. It can be both. But if we could get religion to accept that, we might actually begin some progress as a society. Instead, we have fundamentalists claiming that creation should be taught as fact in public schools and cults convincing that their doctrines dictate that they not use birth control or that women are second class to men or that people should dress a certain way, etc.
angelic being said:
after all your lengthy explanations, then you go ahead and ask a stupid question which just proves my point.
You know nothing about Christianity - otherwise you woul not ahve asked that stupid question.
And yet, the question goes unanswered. I contend that my knowledge of christianity is more complete than your own. You see the question as stupid, but I think its fair. I'm open to being educated by you and allowing you to demonstrate that I truly know nothing of christianity, but simply saying the question is "stupid" without qualifying your statement is truly ignorant.
angelic being said:
Advice: try to solve first all the scientific mysteries and puzzles that you believe in, before you want to try to solve what you consider Christian 'mythology'.
Heh.. the mythology question is largely solved. Humanity has demonstrated it's tendency to seek patterns and engage in beliefs. The scientific mysteries that puzzle me, however, include you and your contemporaries that attempt to proslytize heathens in science boards. I'm also fascinated by the belief engine of religious nutters and the UFO/paranormal woo-woos that find their way into science forums in, what appears to be, their attempts to justify their beliefs. Or perhaps some simply attempt to sharpen their debate 'swords' for use elsewhere.
I have an answer to the question I posed. I've no doubt that the bible's value is symbolic. I have no problem classing it with the Popol Vuh, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Illiad, etc.
angelic being said:
Lesson: all of our scientific knowledge as humans are nothing compared to Biblical knowledge.
Bullshit. Prove it. The bible cannot provide us with cures for disease, technology for transportation, answers for the evolution of life, or even the proper order of the solar system -to name but a very, very few things. Indeed, the "knowledge" of the bible is extremely limiting when compared to other, more complete and accurate texts of Mesopotamia and Egypt. There are probably less facts within the bible than are present in Huck Finn.
angelic being said:
is it not possible? The description stated is as given by someone from that time - surely the earth's spin could have been stopped, so that the other side of the planet would have had a longer night. Why is this not possible to you?
Who says that laws of physics and interplanetary motion cant be tempered with? you have to be a dunce to think so.
No. It isn't possible. And you'd have to be a true dumb-ass to think it is. Ordinarily, I wouldn't refer to others I have discussions with as "dumb-ass," but your liberal use of the word "dunce" and your overly ignorant statements about "who says the laws of physics..." deserve such language. The geoloic record is clear. Such a traumatic event never took place.
Get a real education and take your nonsense to the religious boards where you can get a pat on the back. Tell them all how ignorant we are of the bible and christianity and how we are arrogant and ride high horses.... that's why you're here, right? To get a few war stories to take back to your cult forums? to share with your fellow cult believers in some cult gathering on Wednesday nights?
This is a science board. Either put up or shut up. Your nonsense is not only far-fetched, but it gives true christians a bad name.