Who here is agnostic?

[Tigra00]

 

Ghost, you're making such open ended interpretations of those pieces of the scripture that they could mean just about anything. Using them "as signs of Biblical knowledge" by taking distinct sections grossly out of context and having an interpration is conjecture, nothing more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since you're apparently a Biblical scholar, please explain to me how those verses in context would mean something else. Let's start with the one that mentions the "winds blowing south then turning north." What, with you expertise in Biblical studies, do you suppose that means in context?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@BlueLancer: Of course it's an assumption that it was insight from God. I figured that was obvious since not everyone believes in God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It could mean anything. There are thousands of metaphores in the Bible and even a Christian would say there is, and now all of a sudden, something fits your "point" and it's spoken in direct, unquestionable science-terms. Ooookie dokie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bible says lots of things. Most of it is completely reprehensible morally, to anyone, or it's just plain violent. But no no, you don't teach the children THAT stuff. Only that Jesus loves them and they won't burn for eternity if they love him back!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If children were being taught what the Bible ACTUALLY said, there would be a couple billion psychopaths killing everyone for the littlest things we see as "nothing" today. What's that, Johnny? Your friend is a homo? Kill him then! Jesus loves you! <3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Give me a break. It's all a sham to steal your friggin' money. If there were truely a God with a heart as great as the stories say, he wouldn't allow most Christians to even live, because they're smearing his good name.

[Guest GhostRanger]

It could mean anything. There are thousands of metaphores in the Bible and even a Christian would say there is, and now all of a sudden, something fits your "point" and it's spoken in direct, unquestionable science-terms. Ooookie dokie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since you seem to know so much about the Bible and how it can properly interpreted, please explain to me what the passage would mean. Be sure to give all your reasons why that show your understanding of not only the language it was written in and the context that it would have been in. Unless you have actual reasoning to reject it's literal translation (which many theologians could) you're just making something up.

[Tigra00]

 

It could mean anything. There are thousands of metaphores in the Bible and even a Christian would say there is, and now all of a sudden, something fits your "point" and it's spoken in direct, unquestionable science-terms. Ooookie dokie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since you seem to know so much about the Bible and how it can properly interpreted, please explain to me what the passage would mean. Be sure to give all your reasons why that show your understanding of not only the language it was written in and the context that it would have been in. Unless you have actual reasoning to reject it's literal translation (which many theologians could) you're just making something up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're using Pseudo-Science to prove that God somehow gave this information, via prophets, to the world. And I'M making stuff up? Okay, bud.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting how "God" mentions only things humans could have known themselves at the time in the Bible. Nothing about Dinosaurs...Nothing about the Universe...Well, except that he apparently "made it" 6,000 years ago...*Cough*....Nothing about anything that humans couldn't have possibley known themselves. Could that be because the Bible was written by humans, who wrote what THEY thought down? Remember, the Bible does, afterall, say it's okay to have slaves, and to beat them, and that killing a whole mass of people for whatever reason is perfectly A-Okay. Yea, sounds like a human's idealogy to me, and if it weren't, your God is a 'tard. Why follow an ignorant God?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I'll go read those passages, in the context they're in, when I get the chance today. I'll get back to you, I'm sure I could make up a whole story around them and make it seem like it says something completely different!

[Barihawk]

That makes you agnostic, not pagan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And really, "heathen" is one of those words that fundamentalist religious people like to use when describing anyone not of the same faith as them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am fundamentalist. If someone is not Christian, I just refer to them as a person.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think this is the 14th time I have had to post to warn people from making generalized statements about Fundamentalists.

[BlueTear]

 

 

 

Since you're apparently a Biblical scholar, please explain to me how those verses in context would mean something else. Let's start with the one that mentions the "winds blowing south then turning north." What, with you expertise in Biblical studies, do you suppose that means in context?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 'Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[Guest GhostRanger]

I'll be honest - I don't quite understand the point you made with that post. Especially since your original post spoke of having to read in context, yet you gave no context.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In any event - my point was not that science is proven by the Bible or anything of the sort - but it is my belief that there are parts in the Bible that show of some form of insight others didn't have. Sure, it could be a metaphor that was written without meaning what it looks like to me - which is why I said I'm not trying to show it as scientific proof, but from a Christian perspective - of one who believes science and Christianity go hand in hand - it looks apparent to me that Christianity has always aligned with science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe if you clarified your "understanding context without talking about context" point I would understand a little better. I think you might be trying to prove a point that I don't disagree with, though.

[BlueTear]

I'll be honest - I don't quite understand the point you made with that post. Especially since your original post spoke of having to read in context, yet you gave no context.

 

 

 

Additional verses to show that if that verse is to be taken literally, the previous verse - taken literally - speaks complete nonsense is not context?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, okay. In a really short version: You cannot pick a random verse in the Bible and use it's literal meaning as scientific evidence because you will find verses with literal meanings that are completely nonsensical - in my opinion, the one with the stars fullfilled that criteria on it's own, as did the one with the ends of the earth.

[warri0r45]

context

the key word

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the more i read the latter stages of this post, the more it becomes evident how the writings of the bible dont allign with present times.

[Nadril]

 

context

the key word

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the more i read the latter stages of this post, the more it becomes evident how the writings of the bible dont allign with present times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well obviously it doesn't, as it was written quite a while ago...

[mad4beanies]

i'm in a simalar situation. Not sure about the christian fiath, that i can follow it when it's such and organised and manufactured religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm looking towards Neo-paganism since it seems much more beleive able, I don't know that much about it yet.. time to do some reading..

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While I disagree with the point that religion is here to explain the natural phenomena around us... it is interesting to note the head start Christianity seemed to have over science in a few areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see that the person you have quoted has a bit of selective reading going on, not to mention a few things are factually incorrect. Blood was identified as being an important part of maintaining health, as one of the four humours; which was developed by the Greeks around 400 BC. In order to maintain balance between the four humours, blood letting was a common practice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be so sure that they thought air was weightless. Air was one of the 5 classical elements and was designated as an octagonal particle by Plato. It wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make much sense that such physical particles would be weightless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually this is answered below, but IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll state it here. In the bible Darkness was considered a form of light (lesser light). This passage isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t so much about travelling light as it is about where greater light comes from and where does lesser light go in the presence of greater light. I think the reader is interpreting something that they want, rather then whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s actually written.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even IF scientists thought that wind blew in straight lines (I guess they didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see whirlwinds much), which I guess was derived from the knowledge of trade winds; you can still produce a circular flow by straight lines. If you keep walking in a straight line you will eventually get back to where you started from, due to the curvature of the Earth straight line motion will form a circle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another big no-no is the myth that people believed that the Earth was flat; certainly some people held that belief at some point in time, however this belief ended much earlier then people commonly expect (around the medieval times). Eratosthenes even calculated the circumference of the Earth hundreds of years before Christ.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How did Jeremiah know that the number of stars was closer to a billion? It states that the stars of the sky can not be counted, however there is nothing physically stopping us from counting stars.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s my interpretation of the scientific thinking, adopted in the first bit of the bible. Genesis 1:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God created a large celestial sphere which separates water from outside of the sphere with from the water on Earth. Sometimes when the windows are opened on the sphere water flows through them and causes the rain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Light required for plant life? Not in GodÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The lights in the heavens are used for signs, a glowing endorsement of astrology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wait night is lesser light? Failure to comprehend that night is a lack of light.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He put stars in the sphere to give us light, not even God could suspend the stars in the sky.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have dominion over apex predators like sharks and grizzly bears?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think I would like to use poisonous plants for meat, something tells me that it wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t end too well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

 

 

 

All animals were herbivores? I wonder what the mosquito had before it settled for a tasty meal of blood.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So the whole ecosystem with the death, pain and suffering; predators/prey, parasites and disease was good? Ok... Not to mention this was all done in a record breaking 6 days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There you have it Genesis 1 in all its scientific glory, some head start. Seriously why did you make that post? All it really shows is how willing you are to eat up whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s been told to you. A bit of research would show how poor the arguments the quoted source put forth. Better to be completely ignorant I guess.

[Barihawk]

i'm in a simalar situation. Not sure about the christian fiath, that i can follow it when it's such and organised and manufactured religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm looking towards Neo-paganism since it seems much more beleive able, I don't know that much about it yet.. time to do some reading..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remember that Faith doesn't come from a brochure alone :P. Do lots and lots of research before you commit yourself to anything. Including Christianity (since all they seem to be teaching converts these days is "Jesus" and that's it. :()

[Guest GhostRanger]

It's hard for me to respond to your post Death because your section of Genesis is misquoted out of context. I do have one question for you, because I trust you as a scientific source on things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How did Jeremiah know that the number of stars was closer to a billion? It states that the stars of the sky can not be counted, however there is nothing physically stopping us from counting stars.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have been taught in my very secular astronomy class that the universe is infinite in space, but finite in time. If it's infinite in space, how could we ever count all of the stars?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would ask you to respond to the Bible verses...possibly by quoting the chapter in its entirety - so you don't leave out little facts like how light was created before you try to suggest it was.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I'm not going to argue with your interpretation of the Bible verses. That's perfectly fine with me. There are plenty of theologians who can't even agree about whether or not the earth was created in 6 literal days or 6 figurative days. That's your prerogative - and so is the rest of the interpretation. But you blatantly misinterpret things like "darkness is a lesser form of light" because the Bible clearly says they are different things. At night, however, if you look up and see stars - are those not less light than the sun? Interesting how you left out things like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm going to be done with this discussion now because it's going to lead to both of us "conveniently" leaving out things we don't want to discuss and I don't want to do that.

[BlueTear]

It's hard for me to respond to your post Death because your section of Genesis is misquoted out of context. I do have one question for you, because I trust you as a scientific source on things.

 

 

 

Where as the originial quotes you posted were oh-so-taken in their own context? He's showing you the same thing I did; You can't take the verses liteally because for everyone you manage to make literal sense of, there'll be three nonsensical ones. The fact that you argue it by saying pretty much what I said to you is just amusing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have been taught in my very secular astronomy class that the universe is infinite in space, but finite in time. If it's infinite in space, how could we ever count all of the stars?

 

 

 

Space-time. It can't be infinite without really bending the theory of relativity into a pretzel. Ask your physics teacher instead, 'cause that astronomy teacher seems suspect.

[Tigra00]

It's hard for me to respond to your post Death because your section of Genesis is misquoted out of context.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How convenient. Someone out-smarts you and proves you wrong and you say they're quoting out of context. Please, do tell how he's quoting out of context, and how you're magically always quoting IN context.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if he were taking it out of context, he's still got you. He's proved that you can make the Bible say anything you wish.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Oh, I'm sorry guys. I thought it was obvious. He starts the entire quote leaving out the first verses, so when he says things like this,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Light required for plant life? Not in GodÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's leaving out that light was in fact already created.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And when he says things like this,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wait night is lesser light? Failure to comprehend that night is a lack of light.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's leaving out that the difference between light and dark has already been explained as darkness being the absence of light.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is out of context. I thought I explained that/thought some of it was obvious, sorry about that.

[Tigra00]

Sooo...Two of his nine quotes may have been taken slightly out of context.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Point still stands.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Not slightly, entirely. But here you go:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Just a personal interpretation - there is no reason to assume the belief death suggested was accurate or inaccurate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Already responded to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Who cares if it endorses astrology? For thousands of years people did use the stars as signs for navigation and other things - that was very helpful. Before technological advancement - they were used to track dates and times and such - why is that wrong? That point doesn't even make sense to me. Not even mentioning that the sun, which causes us to rotate around it, and is surely effected by everything else in the galaxy and the universe by the force of gravity - affects seasons. So what's your point?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Never says night is the lack of light - just that there is less light in the night. What can we see during the night? Stars and the sun reflecting off of the moon. Those lights are less than seeing the sun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Don't even understand what the point of that is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. Seems apparent to me that we do. We have the ability to reason and such, and we might not be physically stronger than them - we overcome them with our ability to design through reason - much like the image of our God who designs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. You're forgetting the context of the creation. Everything in the beginning was perfect - it is the belief that sin - the rejection of God - caused all the problems that we now see in the world. At the beginning, where everything is perfect - it is possible that we weren't susceptible to poisonous plants like we are now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. You should know that the food cycle is all dependent on producers - which are plants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. Sure - why would it not be good? There are plenty of people who see the cycle of life as good. Not to mention that "pain" and "suffering" wouldn't have existed in the original context of a perfect habitat. You're also leaving out the context that many theologians believe in (not all) that remembers that Hebrew tradition is very strong on storytelling and symbolic use of words - meaning six days doesn't have to mean a literal six days. For some people who believe that it was done in six days - if you believe in an all-powerful God than that is perfectly possible. Context of what it is written in is clutch.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry Tigra- I didn't think you wanted to read every response - but there you go.

[incognito]

Not slightly, entirely. But here you go:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Just a personal interpretation - there is no reason to assume the belief death suggested was accurate or inaccurate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Already responded to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Who cares if it endorses astrology? For thousands of years people did use the stars as signs for navigation and other things - that was very helpful. Before technological advancement - they were used to track dates and times and such - why is that wrong? That point doesn't even make sense to me. Not even mentioning that the sun, which causes us to rotate around it, and is surely effected by everything else in the galaxy and the universe by the force of gravity - affects seasons. So what's your point?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Never says night is the lack of light - just that there is less light in the night. What can we see during the night? Stars and the sun reflecting off of the moon. Those lights are less than seeing the sun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Don't even understand what the point of that is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. Seems apparent to me that we do. We have the ability to reason and such, and we might not be physically stronger than them - we overcome them with our ability to design through reason - much like the image of our God who designs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. You're forgetting the context of the creation. Everything in the beginning was perfect - it is the belief that sin - the rejection of God - caused all the problems that we now see in the world. At the beginning, where everything is perfect - it is possible that we weren't susceptible to poisonous plants like we are now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. You should know that the food cycle is all dependent on producers - which are plants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. Sure - why would it not be good? There are plenty of people who see the cycle of life as good. Not to mention that "pain" and "suffering" wouldn't have existed in the original context of a perfect habitat. You're also leaving out the context that many theologians believe in (not all) that remembers that Hebrew tradition is very strong on storytelling and symbolic use of words - meaning six days doesn't have to mean a literal six days. For some people who believe that it was done in six days - if you believe in an all-powerful God than that is perfectly possible. Context of what it is written in is clutch.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry Tigra- I didn't think you wanted to read every response - but there you go.

I'm sorry you took the time to do that ghost. Obviosly if he trys to ignore the fact that light was created before plants he isn't looking at all the facts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good job though, I wanted to say the same thing but I didn't want to take the time.

[Tigra00]

Of course I wanted all of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And like I said, the point still stands - You can make the Bible say anything you want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: And on and on with the Hebrews storytelling and record keeping. The Egyptians kept records JUST AS WELL, if not better than the Jews, and their records say nothing of any plagues or 'nuttin.

[Death_By_Pod]

Oh, I'm sorry guys. I thought it was obvious. He starts the entire quote leaving out the first verses, so when he says things like this,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is out of context. I thought I explained that/thought some of it was obvious, sorry about that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is what your original post said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

While I disagree with the point that religion is here to explain the natural phenomena around us... it is interesting to note the head start Christianity seemed to have over science in a few areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point is that you had not provided any passages which are simple, literal scientific predictions (something like ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅThe universe expandedÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ