Kilre

Polkster
I like how everyone here is arguing on the presumption that Bible = fact.

How about, "No, Obama is not the antichrist because that's a perfectly ridiculous notion." Anyone wanna give that one a shot?

You have to admit it's an interesting myth, if only in the grand scheme of things. At the least, it's good for a few laughs at someone's expense.

Is Joe Biden the white whale that Herman Melville prophesied?

kyupol

Kristen Gudsnuk

kyupol
People like Rahm Emmanuel

omg this guy's going to be my commencement speaker! (I wish we had Conan O'Brien) who IS he?? kyupol makes him sound evil, but hey, it's kyupol after all ;o

Get to know this Rahm Emanuel.

Rahm Emanuel on the opportunities of crisis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mzcbXi1Tkk
"The crisis provides us the opportunity to do things we cannot do before..."

Rahm Emanuel wants to grab your guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vp7f1QKYmg
"There's no right to own a gun if you are in the no fly list". Wtf. Millions of people are wrongly on the no fly list.
Even children. [google.ca]

Rahm Emanuel wants a draft.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtDSwyCPEsQ

He is a police state enabler. He is a demon from hell. Just look at his eyes. This guy is a demon from the deepest pits of hell.

I like how everyone here is arguing on the presumption that Bible = fact.

The bible has scientific accuracies:
http://www.carm.org/christianity/bible/scientific-accuracies-bible [carm.org]

The bible also talks about the chakras and other spiritual concepts that aren't really much talked about in church.
The bible on the chakras.

Revelation 1:20
20The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

The bible on ascension.

2 Kings 2:11
11And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

The bible on the 3rd eye.

Matthew 6:22
22The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

The bible is fact. However, I also do not deny that it was used as a method of control by the elites. And I do not deny the wrongdoings of religious institutions like the inquisition and the crusades that atheists mention in order to back up their argument that religion causes death and destruction.

I apologize to church-goers here but I really think that the most effective way to understand the bible is by reading it yourself and not relying on a middle man. I'm not saying your pastor is bad and is DELIBERATELY out to mislead you. I'm only trying to say that there are things that you might notice but your pastor failed to see by virtue of human error. Your pastor is just human and is prone to error.

Alice in Wonderland discusses elements of logic that are prevalent in the modern world, does that make it fact? No. The Bible was written by human beings, and therefore will undoubtedly contain some amount of human knowledge.

Fact is, not only is the Bible full of egregious scientific errors but there's absolutely no historical evidence for any of its contents. Save maybe some of the wars described in the Old Testament and maybe some elements in its description of Roman and Judaic power structure. But that's like saying Oliver Twist captured the environment of industrial England, it does not verify it as fact.

Kilre

ozoneocean

Kilre
It's no more fact than any other work of fiction...

That's just as inaccurate as Kyupol's statement. It's not a primary source for anything but itself, but it's not " a work of fiction" either. There are a lot of historical occurrences recorded in the books of the bible alongside the traditional religious mythology, and it's an extremely important document for the history and development of Western culture.

I will grant that, but there are many "historical events" that are skewed so far as to make them not historical at all, but fiction. For example, the reason Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem is contrived as a way to get the character of Jesus into line with the ancient prophecies.

I will amend my earlier statement to that of "historical fiction", considering all the glaring inaccuracies.

But I will not disagree with your last statement; it was indeed important to the founding of Christendom as we know it.

ozoneocean
Not to mention how useful it is as a window on the practices of the peoples, events, and some of the personalities during periods more contemporary to the time of its own creation.

Frankly, the characters scare me in their zealousness.

Fascinating article:
http://www.atheists.org/Did_Jesus_Exist%3F [atheists.org]

And before you claim it to be biased--everything is biased--note that identifying bias does not contradict the validity of a source. You can dispute its points (which I think seem excellent) but you can't write it off completely because the author's view point is different from your own.

Polkster
And before you claim it to be biased--everything is biased--note that identifying bias does not contradict the validity of a source. You can dispute its points (which I think seem excellent) but you can't write it off completely because the author's view point is different from your own.

Thank you! At last someone around here realizes that!

Anyway, it's all already been said that Revelation was about Nero etc, so it is not in some future event. Jesus said some of those listening to him would see the end of days. Unless Casca the Eternal Mercenary or the Wandering Jew was in that audience, sorry. (Unless he was referring to the end of Jerusalem which did occur in their lifetimes and was one of those things that many could see coming. )

You do know that 28 years ago everything said about Obama beign the anti-christ was said about someone else. There was even a credible 666 connection. Ronald Wilson Reagan. He survived an assassination attempt too! And his rabid Christian Fundamentalist followers? What better followers of a false prophet! We're still here. (What about Hal Lindsey and the Late Great Planet Earth craze? We weren't supposed to see the 21st century)

I also have a copy of the prophecies of Nostradamus from the late 1970s. The so-called third anti-christ after Napoleon and Hitler? You might as well be expecting Khan Noonian Singh. (The Khan of Star Trek: the Wrath of Khan )

But it's so entertaining to keep track of these things.

Okay guys, this is not about whether or not Jesus existed or the scientific validity of the Bible. I know it's a silly topic, but we still have to remain on topic.

Hawk
Okay guys, this is not about whether or not Jesus existed or the scientific validity of the Bible. I know it's a silly topic, but we still have to remain on topic.

The original topic is a pretty shallow one, I think it may as well just lead into the more interesting discussion.

copied from a website:

Given the fact that, according to the Bible, Adam was created on the sixth day of our planet’s existence, we can determine a biblically-based, approximate age for the earth by looking at the chronological details of the human race. This assumes that the Genesis account is accurate, that the six days of creation described in Genesis were literal 24-hour periods, and that there were no ambiguous chronological gaps.

The genealogies listed in Genesis chapters 5 and 11 provide the age at which Adam and his descendants each fathered the next generation in a successive ancestral line from Adam to Abraham. By determining where Abraham fits into history chronologically and by adding up the ages provided in Genesis 5 and 11, it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6,000 years old, give or take a few hundred years.

but heck, don't ask me about religion; I'm an atheist through and through.

For everyone's sake, here is the source website of this:
http://www.gotquestions.org/earth-age.html [gotquestions.org]

The same source also says:
"Ultimately, the age of the earth cannot be proven. Whether 6,000 years or 4.6 billion years, both viewpoints (and everything in between) rest on faith and assumptions."

I wonder though if its a literal six days of creation. You see, the bible shouldn't always be taken literally.


Some evidence of dinosaurs in the bible.
- Job 40:15-24

15 Look at the behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength he has in his loins,
what power in the muscles of his belly!
17 His tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron.
19 He ranks first among the works of God,
yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.
20 The hills bring him their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants he lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround him.
23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed;
he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.
24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes,
or trap him and pierce his nose?

What kind of animal has a tail that sways like a cedar?
Cedar tree:
http://images.google.ca/images?gbv=2&hl=en&sa=1&q=cedar+tree&aq=f&oq= [images.google.ca]

This is your behemoth



The bible has evidence of ancient high technology.

2 Kings 2:11-12
11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. 12 Elisha saw this and cried out, "My father! My father! The chariots and horsemen of Israel!" And Elisha saw him no more. Then he took hold of his own clothes and tore them apart.

What exactly is a chariot of fire? How did Elijah go up in a whirlwind?

Anyway, the point is that the bible should NOT be dismissed as a book of fairy tales.

kyupol
What exactly is a chariot of fire? How did Elijah go up in a whirlwind?

Anyway, the point is that the bible should NOT be dismissed as a book of fairy tales.

Contention: The Bible references behemoths with cedar-like tails
Contention: Some dinosaurs have cedar-like tails

Resolution: Some dinosaurs have cedar-like tails, therefore some things with cedar-like tails are dinosaurs. Therefore the Bible references dinosaurs.

(Contention: I have a red thing sitting on my desk
Contention: Some apples are red

Resolution: Some apples are red, therefore some red things are apples. Therefore the red thing sitting on my desk is an apple.)

Contention: The Bible references inexplicable chariots of fire in the sky
Contention: ???

Resolution: ???

Because the Bible references dinosaurs and ??? it should not be considered to be a simple fairy tale.

Edit: I'm sorry, I just realized I misrepresented your claim:

Contention: The Bible references inexplicable chariots of fire
Contention: If there were ancient high technology it would resemble chariots of fire

Resolution: Ancient high technology resembles chariots of fire, therefore chariots of fire resemble ancient high technology. Therefore the Bible references ancient high technology.

Putting aside the fact that you pulled that second contention clean out of your ass:

Contention: Mrs. Pennyworth looks just like my mother
Contention: My siblings and I resemble my mother

My siblings resemble my mother, therefore people who resemble my mother are my siblings. Therefore Mrs. Pennyworth is my sibling.

Polkster
The original topic is a pretty shallow one, I think it may as well just lead into the more interesting discussion.

I totally agree with you. It's like asking if Neil Patrick Harris is the reincarnation of Ghandi. The topic makes the general assumption that we already ascribe to a certain belief.

But believe me, where this topic is going we've been to before. And it goes nowhere. I think we should avoid frivolous, circular arguments.

Hawk

Polkster
The original topic is a pretty shallow one, I think it may as well just lead into the more interesting discussion.

I totally agree with you. It's like asking if Neil Patrick Harris is the reincarnation of Ghandi. The topic makes the general assumption that we already ascribe to a certain belief.

But believe me, where this topic is going we've been to before. And it goes nowhere. I think we should avoid frivolous, circular arguments.

Fair enough.

Though... just to be argumentative, most of the arguments on this board are pretty frivolous and circular.

Polkster
Though... just to be argumentative, most of the arguments on the internet are pretty frivolous and circular.

i'm gonna assume that was a typo, so i fixed it.

The bible supports quantum physics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVhxL9AoF_w

Also, Jesus Christ knew how to manipulate things on a subatomic level. Thats how he transformed water into wine and his other "miracles". Jesus Christ did that by using his spiritual force / chi / vibration / energy as a method to manipulate matter.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to get at is the fact that there is only one truth and you are bound to arrive at it regardless of how you approach it.

Therefore there is no conflict between science and spirituality. And both fields have EQUAL credibility.

umbledijum
So far the general concensus on this topic is (scratch that, the absolute concensus) is no.

At first i thought i would get mostly a few hell no's at at least one calling me an idiot for even bringing up the subject. But so far, this has been a interesting and stimulating discussion.

To be honest, I really want to see where this all goes. Thanks guys.

Most discussion that start that way on the duck tend to end up like that. Someone posts something silly with a "hur hur" attitude and it turns into a battle of minds.

Polkster

Hawk
Okay guys, this is not about whether or not Jesus existed or the scientific validity of the Bible. I know it's a silly topic, but we still have to remain on topic.

The original topic is a pretty shallow one, I think it may as well just lead into the more interesting discussion.

trust me, i had no intention of being shallow. Nor do I think I am being shallow. I decided to strike up a debate about something that had been going around. If I knew how to double quote, i would quote what Product Placement said before me. I agree with him on that.

Hawk
Okay guys, this is not about whether or not Jesus existed or the scientific validity of the Bible. I know it's a silly topic, but we still have to remain on topic.

Yes and no...You're right that this topic has nothing to do with if Jesus existed or not nor does it have to do with the scientific validity of the Bible. However, given that that the term "anti-christ" is being used to describe a being/person mentioned in the Book of Revelations, in some ways the Bible does need to be discussed.

Product Placement
That title alone makes me dizzy. How can anyone make such a ludicrous claim? Like it's already been stated, you fail to provide us with any support of your "claim". you tell us that he has the "telltale signs" but don't even tell us what they are. What are the signs of the anti Christ? That he's charismatic? That he wants people to follow him? Encourages people to doubt their faith? If you start pointing fingers at everyone who can move people with a clever speech then I'd think that your list of suspects might end up a bit longer then you think.

I'm not sure if this was directed at me or not...but if it were, I not only stated I don't believe he is, but I gave two other rather specific occurrences which must take place for him to be the anti-christ.






Oh and Kyupol is actually right...the Bible makes several references to extremely scientific issues, such as quantum physics and even cloning (creating a female from the rib tissue of a male organism is actually pretty effective). Hell, science says "Nothing, something, water, sea creatures, plants, land creatures, man". The Bible stated the same thing long before they came to this consenus. Additionally, science said a long time ago the Earth's atmosphere held much more water than it does now and it all eventually rained down on the Earth, flooding it. Sounds awfully familiar...

As far as the "only six thousand years old" thing, historians aren't even in agreement with when certain situations occurred in Egypt and refuse to change their theoretical dates for anyone, including other historians. So, them saying, "Oh, Abraham happened here exactly!!!!" doesn't mean much to me.

Don't worry there Croi Dhubh. That remark was directed at the creator of this discussion. As I mentioned. The title alone is enough to make my blood boil. I'm the type that's kinda annoyed at literal bible interpreters and pointing a finger at someone, claiming that he's the incarnation of Evil itself as depicted by a book written by man, thousands of years ago is nothing short of idiotic.

Well, I can mostly agree with you on that. The points I disagree are moot, so I won't even bother :)

kyupol
The bible supports quantum physics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVhxL9AoF_w

Also, Jesus Christ knew how to manipulate things on a subatomic level. Thats how he transformed water into wine and his other "miracles". Jesus Christ did that by using his spiritual force / chi / vibration / energy as a method to manipulate matter.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to get at is the fact that there is only one truth and you are bound to arrive at it regardless of how you approach it.

Therefore there is no conflict between science and spirituality. And both fields have EQUAL credibility.

Oh I see, you're trolling.

Anyone want to refute my assertion that Alice in Wonderland also references science, in fact far more accurately and in less abstruse (i.e. bullshit) terms than the Bible, therefore it too is truth, and by this standard a more valid truth.

Granted, we know its author, but I reason that Lewis Carrol was an instrument of divinity, a 'prophet' if you will.

Polkster
Fascinating article:
http://www.atheists.org/Did_Jesus_Exist%3F [atheists.org]

And before you claim it to be biased--everything is biased--note that identifying bias does not contradict the validity of a source. You can dispute its points (which I think seem excellent) but you can't write it off completely because the author's view point is different from your own.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make by quoting me, considering I'm of the same viewpoint as you.

Polkster
Fact is, not only is the Bible full of egregious scientific errors but there's absolutely no historical evidence for any of its contents. Save maybe some of the wars described in the Old Testament and maybe some elements in its description of Roman and Judaic power structure. But that's like saying Oliver Twist captured the environment of industrial England, it does not verify it as fact.

This is a ridiculous point. Kyupol's allegation of "fact" stems from the same place as his belief in lizard aliens, the Illuninati, and "The New World Order". He's a different sort of person...
But comparing the bible to a work of literary fiction is plain silly. You take any historical religious work from ancient times, even actual scientific ones and hold them to those frankly irrelevant modern standards (in this case) and they'll ALL look like made up works of fantasy literature. lol!

Kilre

Polkster
Fascinating article:
http://www.atheists.org/Did_Jesus_Exist%3F [atheists.org]

And before you claim it to be biased--everything is biased--note that identifying bias does not contradict the validity of a source. You can dispute its points (which I think seem excellent) but you can't write it off completely because the author's view point is different from your own.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make by quoting me, considering I'm of the same viewpoint as you.

Not every discussion has to be an argument.

ozoneocean

Polkster
Fact is, not only is the Bible full of egregious scientific errors but there's absolutely no historical evidence for any of its contents. Save maybe some of the wars described in the Old Testament and maybe some elements in its description of Roman and Judaic power structure. But that's like saying Oliver Twist captured the environment of industrial England, it does not verify it as fact.

This is a ridiculous point. Kyupol's allegation of "fact" stems from the same place as his belief in lizard aliens, the Illuninati, and "The New World Order". He's a different sort of person...
But comparing the bible to a work of literary fiction is plain silly. You take any historical religious work from ancient times, even actual scientific ones and hold them to those frankly irrelevant modern standards (in this case) and they'll ALL look like made up works of fantasy literature. lol!

I don't understand your point. Just because they're all wrong doesn't invalidate the claim that one is wrong. I don't see how modern standards are irrelevant when that other user is arguing the Bible references quantum mechanics and is therefore a legitimate text of spiritual origin. Modern standards are necessary because we ARE discussing this in a modern context.

Furthermore, older and ancient scientific works can't be interpreted in together as 'historical fiction' in your hypothetical example because they reflect a quest to pursue the mysteries of reality, not impose arbitrary institutions. Even ancient Babylonian medical experiments--like when they hung meat on hooks around the city to determine where to build hospitals (based on where the meat would rot the least after a given period of time)--are based in some sort of pursuit of the objective, not the imposition of an idea onto the masses. This is the birth of the scientific method, a notion totally divorced from the Bible.

In my opinion, the Bible is a collection of civil laws and religious laws, the religious laws often justified through fable because the concept of the 'treatise' wasn't all too prevalent. In the same tradition, the gospels may very well be a work of dissent against the prevailing Judaic power structure; a call for personal spirituality over ritualism, and, in a best-you-could-do-at-the-time sort of way, a separation of government from religion (but not necessarily religion from government).

You CAN combine posts into a single post you know and selectively quote the points you adress. Such huge quoting and double and triple posts are very bad form.

Polkster
Furthermore, older and ancient scientific works can't be interpreted in together as 'historical fiction'

Of course they can, if you apply the same standards to them. Contributors to all those texts were attempting to understand the world around them in various ways. Indeed, in religious writings we have one of the oldest recorded forms of scientific enquiry. A lot of theoretical physics proves untrue upon testing now, that doesn't make it silly fantasy. The writers of those early texts didn't just invent that stuff out of thin air, and certainly didn't write it in order to "fool" people. the recorded stories and traditions were honestly what was believed by people about their world.

And of course your modern standards ARE irrelevant in this case. Naively so. It's just foolish and inane. Like evaluating a children's afternoon TV show to an adult standard... Oh wait, they did that with the Tellitubies and hilarity ensued. Which one was the gay one again? I forgot. :(

We're not haveing a discussion about the "science of the bible" in any modern or sensible fashion. Simply, a suggestible person made a rather "individual" yet characteristic statement and others felt the need to "educate" him while making some of their own silly statements.
I'll tell you this though: you don't have a chance in hell of convincing him of anything. Calling the bible "fact" is mild for Kyupol.

Polkster
In my opinion...

And a very interesting one it is too, but it only addresses certain aspects of the texts.

Yes, they DID invent their mythology out of thin air.

Building a hospital in a location where meat would rot the least has a practical value to it; it's investigative. Saying that some divine entity created the world in seven days, made man first, woman out of his rib, and then expelled them both from paradise for consuming his sacred fruit, is NOT INVESTIGATIVE. There is no objective way anyone could have come to that conclusion other than pulling it out of their ass. To suggest that the Bible, that religious writing, is somehow comparable to scientific text reflects the very same sort of attitude that's poisoning America today.

Science is not religion; theoretical physics, even if it is wrong, is formulated in an attempt to explain very real, measurable phenomenon. Does religion attempt to do the same? Yes, often; but once a scientific theory is proven inadequate, once contrary evidence is presented, that theory is either modified or abandoned. Religion is not. I can sit here all day and list where and how the Bible is completely false in its assertions--look at that link I showed earlier where the gospels even fail at portraying Middle Eastern geography correctly--but none of you will abandon it because you're glued to it via irrationality.

Do no compare physics to religion, do not compare religion to science. Some religious works may have some slivers of scientific observation in them, just as Moby Dick has slivers of information on how I may pursue a career as a whale hunter. It was written by human beings, and those human beings were intellectually inseparable from the general body of knowledge that dominated discourse during their respective time periods.

We've had Isaac Newton and Tesla and Edison and Einstein and Jenner and Lister and Galileo and Kepler--we've had so many people do so many remarkable things, yet some abstruse reference to light possibly maybe, if you squint and stand upside down until the blood rushes to your head, and maybe if you sniff some whiteout, being the base structure of all things is proof of some sort of scientific marvel for some of you. Oh my wow, Bible invented quantum mechanics (that's not even what quantum mechanics is, but nevertheless...)! Hear that Faraday and Planck and Kirchoff and Boltzman and Born? The Bible already did all the work for you!

Stop spouting delusion and take a goddamn science class.


Edit: Also you think it's unfair for me to judge this ancient text by modern standards. Here, let me make the distinction you're not:

Saying a man living in 200 AD is an idiot for believing the Bible is complete truth is unfair. Science in general was nowhere near as developed then, nor as ubiquitous, as it is today and the vast vast vast majority of people were uneducated. It's simply a cultural reality. In fact, the writer's of the Bible were not idiots, they were no dumber than the average person in the society in which they lived.

Saying a man living in 2000 AD is an idiot for believing the Bible is complete truth IS fair.

It's like an adult learning math from Sesame Street. There, I made your analogy relevant.

What's at the bottom of all this circular and frivilous reasoning? Faith and belief versus evidence.

Genesis is a collection of condensed pre-existing Babylonian stories. Abraham was from Sumer after all so his stories would have been those of Sumer. Genesis follows those myths closely with certain Egptian elements. Since Sumer pre-existed Egypt by several millenia and the two traded, guess what? The similarities were probably because one influenced the other. Then the Hebrews adapted the prevailing culture that surrounded them.

Modern "literal" interpretation isn't even close to original Christianity's interpretationo of it let alone the Hebrews. Even most of the history has been proven to be propaganda and wishful thinking, not literal historical truth unless you believe in it.

Faith means that evidence doesn't matter, so the minds cannot be changed unless they realize that the Bible doens't stand up to empircal scrutiny. Then it's as true where its truth is not literal but spiritual and mythical. But then you have to throw out a few books that espouse slavery and the death sentence for several hunderd offences that modern culture doesn't see as big a deal as a semi-nomadic/semi-urban people living in the deserts of Judea.

That's evidence versus belief. Overcome the belief and the most fundamentalist Chirstian can become an atheist and secular humanist.

If the Angels of the Lord's firey Chariots were scientific creations who were the Angels of the Lord? Space travelers? "Those who came from above"? The Nefelim or as written in the original Sumerian: the Annunaki?

And if Jesus did all those miracles what about all the so-called false prophets who all did the exact same things? Even down to your virgin birth, water into wine, feeding the multitudes, lots of prophecy. Belief that Jesus is the true Son of God as opposed to all of his competitors as opposed to the evidence that he was merely one among many and that his followers were better at selling his story than the others?

Evidence over belief.

^^^
Speculation over speculation ;)

Croi Dhubh
^^^
Speculation over speculation ;)

Stop equating science to religion. Stop ignoring the fucking points I've been making.

bravo11102, we need to be friends.

Just because something isn't literal doesn't make it bogus. Take, for example, if i said to someone that they smelled like two pigs crapped in a bowl and then died next to it. They probably don't smell anywhere near that bad, but that doesn't mean they smell like a vase of roses either. It's all about what you make of it.

What i'm saying here is, just like in any other book, the bible has subtext.

umbledijum
Just because something isn't literal doesn't make it bogus. Take, for example, if i said to someone that they smelled like two pigs crapped in a bowl and then died next to it. They probably don't smell anywhere near that bad, but that doesn't mean they smell like a vase of roses either. It's all about what you make of it.

What i'm saying here is, just like in any other book, the bible has subtext.

"Subtext" is arbitrary. Just like a Rorschach test, you can apply any sort of metaphorical "subtext" you want on any sort of narrative text.