The Bible

[bleeding heart]

This conversation goes beyond your comprehension, since you have no idea what I'm talking about. But kimmy probably does.

You could well be right. I was referring to a recent post, and hadn't considered that another one might be under discussion.

Edited June 27, 2012 by bleeding heart

[betsy]

I understand the idea, but wouldn't you have to conclude that, so far at least, this has been a failure?

People have turned away from faith because of science more than for any other single reason, I believe. (It's not the only reason, but probably the primary one.)

There are also those who came to God because of science. Some prominent ones who not only recanted atheism and converted to Christianity - but gone on to write books about it. Check out the thread Rejoice On This Day.

I doubt that science is the primary one why former Christians turned away from Christianity.

[betsy]

Genesis is nowhere near that old. -k

If you say Genesis is nowhere that old....how old is do you say is the Book of Genesis?

Cite your reference(s).

Edited June 27, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

I'll repost this fascinating video that invites you to to consider how reliable the "oral history" of the Israelites really is and how much it might have been altered over the years.

-k

I won't bother because that doesn't matter.

This topic is showing that at least, with these listed facts, their oral tradition is evidently reliable. According to science.

[Moonlight Graham]

New Catholic rule proposal:

Before the Confirmation ceremony, people should be required to take some courses on the history of the Bible so they aren't living in la-la land. Also, Confirmation should be done at age 30 at a minimum, instead of being done at age 12 (when people I knew from a Catholic school board had theirs & their classmates done). 12 years old, how convenient...get them in just before the ages people start to think for themselves!

[bleeding heart]

There are also those who came to God because of science. Some prominent ones who not only recanted atheism and converted to Christianity - but gone on to write books about it. Check out the thread Rejoice On This Day.

Sure, but they seem to be the exceptions, rather than the rule.

I doubt that science is the primary one why former Christians turned away from Christianity.

Well, I can't say for sure, no; but it seems to me to have had a big influence, not least Evolutionary theory (which doesn't dismiss religion...only some of the traditional Creation stories, as factual, in the way we understand the word).

At any rate, I would guess that science has influenced more people away from religion than towards it.

[betsy]

New Catholic rule proposal:

Before the Confirmation ceremony, people should be required to take some courses on the history of the Bible so they aren't living in la-la land. Also, Confirmation should be done at age 30 at a minimum, instead of being done at age 12 (when people I knew from a Catholic school board had theirs & their classmates done). 12 years old, how convenient...get them in just before the ages people start to think for themselves!

Atheists and most leftists really want to take away the rights of parents.

The Bible should be taught in school - alongside the theory of evolution.

Parents should have the right to teach their values to their own children. 2 year old or 12 year old, that doesn't matter. When the child reaches adulthood, he can then decide if he wants to leave his religion. A lot of information and disinformation everywhere enough to confuse them later on that a lot of them do. A lot of them eventually return to this same religion, too.

[guyser]

Atheists and most leftists really want to take away the rights of parents.

The Bible should be taught in school - alongside the theory of evolution.

The last thing I want my kids taught is the bible. Any parent can teach that on their own time.

By any chance do you read what you post?

Parents should have the right to teach their values to their own children.

Um they do.

Care to show us one case where that can not be done?

Just one thanks

[bleeding heart]

The Bible should be taught in school - alongside the theory of evolution.

An insane idea.

Parents should have the right to teach their values to their own children.

That doesn't mean that no one else is allowed to express ideas (or knowledge) that might conflict with what the parents are saying.

[betsy]

Sure, but they seem to be the exceptions, rather than the rule.

Well, I can't say for sure, no; but it seems to me to have had a big influence, not least Evolutionary theory (which doesn't dismiss religion...only some of the traditional Creation stories, as factual, in the way we understand the word).

At any rate, I would guess that science has influenced more people away from religion than towards it.

The most common reason I hear - from some of the ex-Christians here - is their disillusionment with the hypocrisy of men.

A co-worker used her alcoholic Catholic father as the reason who beat the daylights out of them as children whenever he came home drunk. A lot of anger in her when we talk about God or religion.

Among the younger set, if you dig deeper and peel away, you'd find that the root of their rejection of religion is having to follow rules. Let's face it.....Christian laws are not that easy to follow. It means basically giving up most, if not all wordly pleasures. They are the ones that usually welcome the likes of Dawkins.

[BubberMiley]

Let's face it.....Christian laws are not that easy to follow. It means basically giving up most, if not all wordly pleasures. They are the ones that usually welcome the likes of Dawkins.

Nah, it's super easy. Unless you have a hard time having just one god, not stealing, lying, coveting your neighbour's ass, killing others, or disrespecting your parents. These aren't exactly wordly pleasures. Jesus didn't mention masturbating to porn, playing video games, eating pie, or watching Jersey Shore, which are apparently the only pleasures people are interested in these days.

[guyser]

Let's face it.....Christian laws are not that easy to follow. It means basically giving up most, if not all wordly pleasures.

Really?

The priests sure dont follow.

All wordly pleasures huh?

Then nobody, save for Monks, is following the religion.

[cybercoma]

I won't bother because that doesn't matter.

You're infuriatingly obtuse. You ask her how old Genesis is and cite references, which she does via the video that was posted. In response you say you won't bother because it doesn't matter.

Are you actually interested in having a discussion or are you just here to proselytize?

[cybercoma]

Parents should have the right to teach their values to their own children.

Sure. Most of the time. As long as those values aren't something like racial hatred or some other antisocial thing. The courts are clear on this. So I think, amazingly we agree....

The Bible should be taught in school - alongside the theory of evolution.

Wait. What!? I thought you said parents should have the right to teach their values to their own children. Why the hell should the school be teaching a single value system to the exclusion of all others? Get the hell out of here.

[Guest American Woman]

The Bible should be taught in school - alongside the theory of evolution.

Alongside the Qur'an, the Tripitaka, the Tanakh, et al. - A religion class is what you're advocating, right?

[kimmy]

If you say Genesis is nowhere that old....how old is do you say is the Book of Genesis?

Cite your reference(s).

In reviewing these recent developments it should be noted that by different routes quite a lot of scholars are coming to support more or less the same alternative to the older source-critical view. The developments outlined in the last four sections are increasingly merging into what is in effect the same understanding of the origin of the Pentateuch. This holds that:

1. The first major comprehensive Pentateuchal narrative was composed either late in pre-exilic times or in the Babylonian exile (7th or 6th cent. BCE), rather than in the early monarchy. Some prefer to speak of a late Yahwist' (Schmid, Van Seters), some of a Deuteronomistic narrative (Johnstone, Blum), but they are largely talking about the same thing and using the same arguments. (...)

-The Oxford Bible Commentary.

I won't bother because that doesn't matter.

This topic is showing that at least, with these listed facts, their oral tradition is evidently reliable. According to science.

You have no way of knowing how much the stories originally passed down changed by the time they were eventually written down. There's good reason to think they changed *a lot*.

You keep claiming these vague similarities ("It says god spread out the heavens! It's obviously talking about the Big Bang!") are proof that the Bible was inspired by divine knowledge.

But what about the stuff they got *wrong*?

I mean, Genesis tells us that god created plants before he created the sun and stars. You know that's wrong and that there's no way to reconcile that with science. So... if the people who wrote Genesis had "divine knowledge" on their side, how did they make such a gigantic screw-up?

-k

[kimmy]

Bible vs YouTube video.

It hardly seems fair, does it. After all, the video has the benefit the knowledge of scholars and archeologists who have evidence that the guys who wrote the Bible made a lot of stuff up.

Hey I thought you said your Dad was a "Hatfield", or something.

uh, honestly I have no idea where you got that impression.

In another thread I did mention that I could take on the alias of "Calamity Kim McCoy" if I joined the antique firearms shooting sports society. And I asked Derek "be ye a Hatfield or a McCoy?" later. Beyond that, I can't imagine what you might be thinking of. My comment that I would keep my musket loaded as long as there were still Hatfields prowling these hills was an allusion.

A savvy reader might suspect that I recently watched the "Hatfields & McCoys" TV series, and they'd be correct. Perhaps next week I'll be using sports references in my messages instead, but for now you'll have to suffer through my black-powder phase.

-k

[cybercoma]

kimmy, serious question. How much time do you spend reading up on this stuff? You seem to reference a variety of sources and have a very thorough understanding of these issues. I read some of these things as I come across them, but it seems that you've read just a crapload of material on this subject.

[Moonlight Graham]

An insane idea.

The Bible should be taught in school because it's a very important historical and philosophical text, and has great influence in the world. More than Shakespeare or Marx obviously. But it shouldn't be in science classes, well, not equally...wouldn't hurt to do a lesson or 2 of alternative theories from religions etc.

[jbg]

That's right. The Bible was written before there was even writing.

Sort of like Abraham Lincoln being born in a log cabin he build with his own hands?

[kimmy]

kimmy, serious question. How much time do you spend reading up on this stuff? You seem to reference a variety of sources and have a very thorough understanding of these issues. I read some of these things as I come across them, but it seems that you've read just a crapload of material on this subject.

Not really. I certainly don't claim to be any sort of serious student of this subject (or any other, for that matter).

When I do have questions, I tend to look for answers; I had the Oxford Bible Commentary on my e-book shelf from just such an occasion. I haven't read much of it, and I doubt I ever will-- it's daunting to say the least. I read blogs regularly, both atheist and Christian; I often glance through The Christian Post as well as some belief-oriented sections of other major news sites. I often glance through the atheism section at Reddit: while a lot of it is low-brow comedy, it often makes me wonder things that make me go off and do some reading. ("hmm. Why DID god get in a snit over the tower of Babel, anyway?")

I'm pretty busy, but I tend to spend my down time reading things that are interesting to me instead of Facebooking or watching TV.

The Bible should be taught in school because it's a very important historical and philosophical text, and has great influence in the world. More than Shakespeare or Marx obviously. But it shouldn't be in science classes, well, not equally...wouldn't hurt to do a lesson or 2 of alternative theories from religions etc.

That terrible Dr Dawkins makes the same argument. The Bible has cultural significance that makes it important to a full appreciation of English literature. (I suspect he also believes that more people would question the Bible's "holiness" if they actually read the bloody thing.)

-k

[betsy]

The last thing I want my kids taught is the bible. Any parent can teach that on their own time.

By any chance do you read what you post?

Um they do.

By any chance did you read why I posted that?

Care to show us one case where that can not be done?

Just one thanks

Umm....Christian values?

Edited July 4, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Alongside the Qur'an, the Tripitaka, the Tanakh, et al. - A religion class is what you're advocating, right?

BIBLE class. CHRISTIAN class. To be specific.

The Judeo/Christian God is the one and only true God. After all, we're talking origin, aren't we?

Edited July 4, 2012 by betsy

[Melanie_]

Atheists and most leftists really want to take away the rights of parents.

The Bible should be taught in school - alongside the theory of evolution.

Parents should have the right to teach their values to their own children. 2 year old or 12 year old, that doesn't matter. When the child reaches adulthood, he can then decide if he wants to leave his religion. A lot of information and disinformation everywhere enough to confuse them later on that a lot of them do. A lot of them eventually return to this same religion, too.

Parents do have the right to teach their values to their own children. They can do so in their homes, or in the church/synagogue/mosque/temple of their choice. Offloading it to the school system is lazy parenting.

[betsy]

-The Oxford Bible Commentary.

You have no way of knowing how much the stories originally passed down changed by the time they were eventually written down. There's good reason to think they changed *a lot*.

Whether they changed *a lot* or not doesn't matter! What's eventually written in the Bible - that's what matters. And the listed facts are all in there.

You keep claiming these vague similarities ("It says god spread out the heavens! It's obviously talking about the Big Bang!") are proof that the Bible was inspired by divine knowledge.

That "God stretches the Heaven...." - you call that "vague similarities?" Will you backtrack again and check those out. There are I think at least 3 co-related facts just on that phrase alone that was written 11 times (I think) throughout the Bible! The fact too science emphasized that the "stretching" is the precise description of what's happening.

But what about the stuff they got *wrong*?

*wrong* that perhaps they were not supposed to be taken literally? That they were allegories?

Not *wrong* because some are still in dispute?

Not *wrong* because evidences have not been unearthed....yet? Just like one of the archeological facts listed where-in a Christian archeologist was finally vindicated years after they thought he got it wrong?

I mean, Genesis tells us that god created plants before he created the sun and stars. You know that's wrong and that there's no way to reconcile that with science. So... if the people who wrote Genesis had "divine knowledge" on their side, how did they make such a gigantic screw-up?

-k

Some scientists say the Bible is bang on! Who has more credibility ? Scientists or you - who has this revulsion towards anything or anyone religious?

Anyway, so what if God created the plants first? They're also fully grown and fruit-bearing since He wants to make sure the first man and woman do not starve to death! He is God! He can make it anyway He wants to....He doesn't have to follow the laws of nature! He created the laws!

You're focusing on such minor details.....you'll probably even bring up how old Earth is!