Flametrooper Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 I think he's dodging. It's definitely relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 I think he's dodging. It's definitely relevant. Perhaps. If he thinks my way of attaining knowlege is flawed, I'd expect him to direct me to a better one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korskin Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 I think he's dodging. It's definitely relevant. Perhaps. If he thinks my way of attaining knowlege is flawed, I'd expect him to direct me to a better one. My point is: Me thinking the Bible is the truth is not very different from you thinking science is the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 I think he's dodging. It's definitely relevant. Perhaps. If he thinks my way of attaining knowlege is flawed, I'd expect him to direct me to a better one. My point is: Me thinking the Bible is the truth is not very different from you thinking science is the truth. Oh crap dude, you should not have gone there. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 I think he's dodging. It's definitely relevant. Perhaps. If he thinks my way of attaining knowlege is flawed, I'd expect him to direct me to a better one. My point is: Me thinking the Bible is the truth is not very different from you thinking science is the truth. Yes, you think the bible speaks the truth because of your faith. I have a pretty clear understanding that science is an objectively better way to attain knowlege becuase anyone can use thier inquiring, logical, empirical minds to see for themselves. Here's the thing. Science can change; it's fluid and accountable for mistakes. The bible is not. The bible is your source of knowlege and you didn't have to lift a finger to attain that knowlege, thus your knowlege is based on your faith. Scientists dedicate thier lives to attaining knowlege through countless experimentaion, analytical analysis and logic. Your source of knowlege makes the fatal assumption that humans were somehow guided to write it by an invisible diety, which many people on these boards and on this planet can't possibly compute in our inquiring, logical, empirical minds. If you go down your path of thinking, I'm assuming you take every last word of the bible as a literal fact, yes? Also, I'm assuming that you believe no word a scientists speaks to be the truth, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrOwez Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 The bible is your source of knowlege and you didn't have to lift a finger to attain that knowlege, thus your knowlege is based on your faith. Scientists dedicate thier lives to attaining knowlege through countless experimentaion, analytical analysis and logic. Your source of knowlege makes the fatal assumption that humans were somehow guided to write it by an invisible diety, which many people on these boards and on this planet can't possibly compute in our inquiring, logical, empirical minds. I assume, science textbooks are your source of knowledge and you didn't have to lift a finger to attain that knowledge, thus your knowledge is based on your faith. The writers in the bible, all the key people in the New Testament gave their lives for their believes, preaching and work. Your sense of knowledge makes the fatal assumption that humans were somehow evolved from a micro cell over hundreds of millions of years I assume? A friend to all is a friend to none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korskin Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 I think he's dodging. It's definitely relevant. Perhaps. If he thinks my way of attaining knowlege is flawed, I'd expect him to direct me to a better one. My point is: Me thinking the Bible is the truth is not very different from you thinking science is the truth. Yes, you think the bible speaks the truth because of your faith. I have a pretty clear understanding that science is an objectively better way to attain knowlege becuase anyone can use thier inquiring, logical, empirical minds to see for themselves. Here's the thing. Science can change; it's fluid and accountable for mistakes. The bible is not. The bible is your source of knowlege and you didn't have to lift a finger to attain that knowlege, thus your knowlege is based on your faith. Scientists dedicate thier lives to attaining knowlege through countless experimentaion, analytical analysis and logic. Your source of knowlege makes the fatal assumption that humans were somehow guided to write it by an invisible diety, which many people on these boards and on this planet can't possibly compute in our inquiring, logical, empirical minds. If you go down your path of thinking, I'm assuming you take every last word of the bible as a literal fact, yes? Also, I'm assuming that you believe no word a scientists speaks to be the truth, correct? I believe in absolute truth that is unchanging. So if science always can change. I don't believe it's the truth. However, there are many good scientific theories and evidence which corresponds with the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 The bible is your source of knowlege and you didn't have to lift a finger to attain that knowlege, thus your knowlege is based on your faith. Scientists dedicate thier lives to attaining knowlege through countless experimentaion, analytical analysis and logic. Your source of knowlege makes the fatal assumption that humans were somehow guided to write it by an invisible diety, which many people on these boards and on this planet can't possibly compute in our inquiring, logical, empirical minds. I assume, science textbooks are your source of knowledge and you didn't have to lift a finger to attain that knowledge, thus your knowledge is based on your faith. The writers in the bible, all the key people in the New Testament gave their lives for their believes, preaching and work. Your sense of knowledge makes the fatal assumption that humans were somehow evolved from a micro cell over hundreds of millions of years I assume? Firstly, you are wrong. I have done numerous experimentation for myself and came to my own conclusions. Science has nothing to do with faith, as I have said numerous times before. All the writers of the bible gave thier lives for a belief. There's a huge difference between a belief and a logical deducement of the natural world through objective and replicatable or demonstatable means. Lastly, I said nothing about evolution, but you brought it up why? It has nothing to do with the basis of how I and other scientifically minded people attain thier knowlege. And by the way, it's overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. The only doubters are people such as yourself who have thier idea of truth set in stone from thier mothers and fathers. My views of truth (note that I'm not saying that truth changes with sciences view on it) and the source of knowlege are accountable. They can change. Yours can not. And @ Korskin, let me get this clear (a yes or no for each and a sidenote explanation would suffice). You believe that the bible is the truth and contains only literal fact, correct? Also, becuase the bible entails the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you have no need to listen to any science whatsoever, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korskin Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 The bible is your source of knowlege and you didn't have to lift a finger to attain that knowlege, thus your knowlege is based on your faith. Scientists dedicate thier lives to attaining knowlege through countless experimentaion, analytical analysis and logic. Your source of knowlege makes the fatal assumption that humans were somehow guided to write it by an invisible diety, which many people on these boards and on this planet can't possibly compute in our inquiring, logical, empirical minds. I assume, science textbooks are your source of knowledge and you didn't have to lift a finger to attain that knowledge, thus your knowledge is based on your faith. The writers in the bible, all the key people in the New Testament gave their lives for their believes, preaching and work. Your sense of knowledge makes the fatal assumption that humans were somehow evolved from a micro cell over hundreds of millions of years I assume? Firstly, you are wrong. I have done numerous experimentation for myself and came to my own conclusions. Science has nothing to do with faith, as I have said numerous times before. All the writers of the bible gave thier lives for a belief. There's a huge difference between a belief and a logical deducement of the natural world. Lastly, I said nothing about evolution, but you brought it up why? It has nothing to do with the basis of how I and other scientifically minded people attain thier knowlege. And by the way, it's overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. The only doubters are people such as yourself who have thier idea of truth set in stone from thier mothers and fathers. My views of truth and the source of knowlege are accountable. They can change. Yours can not. And @ Korskin, let me get this clear. You believe that the bible is the truth and contains only literal fact, correct? Also, becuase the bible entails the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you have no need to listen to any science whatsoever, correct? I take the words of the Bible as facts. However, I need to know the context and have the right interpretation of what God is saying. I don't need to listen to science. God is the only thing I need to listen to. However, science is an attempt to explain the created world, which sometimes is correct and sometimes isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 The bible is your source of knowlege and you didn't have to lift a finger to attain that knowlege, thus your knowlege is based on your faith. Scientists dedicate thier lives to attaining knowlege through countless experimentaion, analytical analysis and logic. Your source of knowlege makes the fatal assumption that humans were somehow guided to write it by an invisible diety, which many people on these boards and on this planet can't possibly compute in our inquiring, logical, empirical minds. I assume, science textbooks are your source of knowledge and you didn't have to lift a finger to attain that knowledge, thus your knowledge is based on your faith. The writers in the bible, all the key people in the New Testament gave their lives for their believes, preaching and work. Your sense of knowledge makes the fatal assumption that humans were somehow evolved from a micro cell over hundreds of millions of years I assume? Firstly, you are wrong. I have done numerous experimentation for myself and came to my own conclusions. Science has nothing to do with faith, as I have said numerous times before. All the writers of the bible gave thier lives for a belief. There's a huge difference between a belief and a logical deducement of the natural world. Lastly, I said nothing about evolution, but you brought it up why? It has nothing to do with the basis of how I and other scientifically minded people attain thier knowlege. And by the way, it's overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. The only doubters are people such as yourself who have thier idea of truth set in stone from thier mothers and fathers. My views of truth and the source of knowlege are accountable. They can change. Yours can not. And @ Korskin, let me get this clear. You believe that the bible is the truth and contains only literal fact, correct? Also, becuase the bible entails the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you have no need to listen to any science whatsoever, correct? I take the words of the Bible as facts. However, I need to know the context and have the right interpretation of what God is saying. How about the second point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korskin Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 The bible is your source of knowlege and you didn't have to lift a finger to attain that knowlege, thus your knowlege is based on your faith. Scientists dedicate thier lives to attaining knowlege through countless experimentaion, analytical analysis and logic. Your source of knowlege makes the fatal assumption that humans were somehow guided to write it by an invisible diety, which many people on these boards and on this planet can't possibly compute in our inquiring, logical, empirical minds. I assume, science textbooks are your source of knowledge and you didn't have to lift a finger to attain that knowledge, thus your knowledge is based on your faith. The writers in the bible, all the key people in the New Testament gave their lives for their believes, preaching and work. Your sense of knowledge makes the fatal assumption that humans were somehow evolved from a micro cell over hundreds of millions of years I assume? Firstly, you are wrong. I have done numerous experimentation for myself and came to my own conclusions. Science has nothing to do with faith, as I have said numerous times before. All the writers of the bible gave thier lives for a belief. There's a huge difference between a belief and a logical deducement of the natural world. Lastly, I said nothing about evolution, but you brought it up why? It has nothing to do with the basis of how I and other scientifically minded people attain thier knowlege. And by the way, it's overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. The only doubters are people such as yourself who have thier idea of truth set in stone from thier mothers and fathers. My views of truth and the source of knowlege are accountable. They can change. Yours can not. And @ Korskin, let me get this clear. You believe that the bible is the truth and contains only literal fact, correct? Also, becuase the bible entails the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you have no need to listen to any science whatsoever, correct? I take the words of the Bible as facts. However, I need to know the context and have the right interpretation of what God is saying. How about the second point? Edited my last post, sorry if I'm being lazy and not answering everything all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Sometimes incorrect and sometimes correct? Of course, but it will never always remain incorrect. Here's some food for thought: each day that evolutionary theory goes unaltered, it becomes closer to being absolute truth (according to science). The situation is this: as you believe that the bible is the source of truth and subsequently have no need for science, I can't argue with you regarding science. I'm pretty sure you will not waver in the slightest from your belief. There's nothing wrong with that, but just realise that just because you believe it's the truth dosent mean that it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viktorkrum77 Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 I'm now hoping they did. Me doing staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 I'm now hoping they did. I was watching National Geographic a few days ago when I saw an ad for a new "Jesus' Tomb" documentary that'll be shown sometime soon. I'm officially getting freaked out o_O. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errdoth Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Did the bones on "jesus'" body have holes in them, cause, after all, he was nailed to a stick of wood and left to die. Last.fm Signature Overlays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flametrooper Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 I thought crucifixion they didn't nail through the bone, but managed to avoid it somehow (because it would be hard, wouldn't it, driving a nail through solid bone?) If it is done that way, though, and the bones do, then there's another bit of evidence pointing towards it being Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 I thought crucifixion they didn't nail through the bone, but managed to avoid it somehow (because it would be hard, wouldn't it, driving a nail through solid bone?) If it is done that way, though, and the bones do, then there's another bit of evidence pointing towards it being Jesus. I don't know about the nails through the feet, but during crucifixion, nails would generally go between the two bones in your arm near where they join to your hand at your wrist. Through your palm and it would just rip free after time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 I thought crucifixion they didn't nail through the bone, but managed to avoid it somehow (because it would be hard, wouldn't it, driving a nail through solid bone?) If it is done that way, though, and the bones do, then there's another bit of evidence pointing towards it being Jesus. I don't know about the nails through the feet, but during crucifixion, nails would generally go between the two bones in your arm near where they join to your hand at your wrist. Through your palm and it would just rip free after time. Hm... warri0r45... "Expert on How to Torture People". I like the sound of that. The Romans were decent at it, but the Japanese and Chinese do the job much better :-k . [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 I thought crucifixion they didn't nail through the bone, but managed to avoid it somehow (because it would be hard, wouldn't it, driving a nail through solid bone?) If it is done that way, though, and the bones do, then there's another bit of evidence pointing towards it being Jesus. I don't know about the nails through the feet, but during crucifixion, nails would generally go between the two bones in your arm near where they join to your hand at your wrist. Through your palm and it would just rip free after time. Hm... warri0r45... "Expert on How to Torture People". I like the sound of that. The Romans were decent at it, but the Japanese and Chinese do the job much better :-k . :twisted: :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted March 4, 2007 Author Share Posted March 4, 2007 It's on tonight, by the way. At 9PM, 8 Central I think...Discovery Channel. ...Which SUCKS because "The Dark Ages" is also on at the same time on the History Channel. Boooo. :P The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will H Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Here's some food for thought: each day that evolutionary theory goes unaltered, it becomes closer to being absolute truth (according to science). Really? How exactly can something become 'closer' to being the truth? Does truthfulness ferment and become stronger over time? Anyway, based on that theory, the bible has been unaltered for thousands of years, a lot longer than the theory of evolution, so does it therefore make it more truthful than evolution? It doesn't really hold. Also, I am a Christian, but I beleive science can prove what it wants. And when something is completely proven to be true, then I will accept it as absolute truth, alongside the Bible. I will not hail a lack of remains in the 'Jesus' tomb as evidence for the bible, and neither will I dismiss it a coincidence if remains are found, especially if there are what I like to call 'crucifixion marks' in the hands and feet, because either way, it neither proves nor disproves anything. Also, about this evolution arguement, some parts of the bible were meant to be allegories, especially the chapter of genesis. The earth is millions of years old, evolution is probably true, but it doesn't affect the Bible as an allegory, and I was quite surprised when some people took it as literal truth. Evil came into this earth, and this was because of mankind, the basis is still the same, but the whole thing is impossible to describe in literate terms so it has to be written as an allegory. Also, I never read in the Bible that the earth is actually only a few thousand years old. Can someone quote me to this? ~ W ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Here's some food for thought: each day that evolutionary theory goes unaltered, it becomes closer to being absolute truth (according to science). Really? How exactly can something become 'closer' to being the truth? Does truthfulness ferment and become stronger over time? Anyway, based on that theory, the bible has been unaltered for thousands of years, a lot longer than the theory of evolution, so does it therefore make it more truthful than evolution? It doesn't really hold. It may have been a bad wording, but I'm pretty sure he was saying that, in human perspective, the more evidence something has for being true the more likely it is that it's part of the Truth, or absolute truth. The Bible on the other hand has had much of it proved contradictory and illogical, and thus has not gained anywhere close to as much bearing and evidence as evolution has. Also, I am a Christian, but I beleive science can prove what it wants. And when something is completely proven to be true, then I will accept it as absolute truth, alongside the Bible. I will not hail a lack of remains in the 'Jesus' tomb as evidence for the bible, and neither will I dismiss it a coincidence if remains are found, especially if there are what I like to call 'crucifixion marks' in the hands and feet, because either way, it neither proves nor disproves anything. I'm no expert, but I don't think anything can be "completely proven to be true" in science, though theories often go beyond a human even trying to doubt them. And I dunno.. maybe your right and we'll never understand the supernatural aspects of the tales of the Bible, but it's up for debate. Also, about this evolution arguement, some parts of the bible were meant to be allegories, especially the chapter of genesis. The earth is millions of years old, evolution is probably true, but it doesn't affect the Bible as an allegory, and I was quite surprised when some people took it as literal truth. Evil came into this earth, and this was because of mankind, the basis is still the same, but the whole thing is impossible to describe in literate terms so it has to be written as an allegory. Also, I never read in the Bible that the earth is actually only a few thousand years old. Can someone quote me to this? Billions (though I have heard some doubts). And I believe you are correct in that the Bible never mentions that length of the Earth's existence, that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, and that extreme fundamentalists are crazy :-w . [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziv Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 All the names mentioned on these tombs were quite common in the time period. In the Bible alone, there are several Josephs, at least 3 Marys, and at least 3 Jesuses, depending on which translation you have. It is very unlikely that this Jesus is Jesus Christ. (Aside from the fact that Jesus is still very much alive, of course) :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted March 4, 2007 Author Share Posted March 4, 2007 All the names mentioned on these tombs were quite common in the time period. In the Bible alone, there are several Josephs, at least 3 Marys, and at least 3 Jesuses, depending on which translation you have. It is very unlikely that this Jesus is Jesus Christ. (Aside from the fact that Jesus is still very much alive, of course) :) Jesus is alive now? Sheesh. He went from run-of-the-mill Messiah to God himself to actually physically alive? How about no. Even if he does exist as the deity he's claimed to be (which isn't God himself), he isn't "alive". :P The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Here's some food for thought: each day that evolutionary theory goes unaltered, it becomes closer to being absolute truth (according to science). Really? How exactly can something become 'closer' to being the truth? Does truthfulness ferment and become stronger over time? Anyway, based on that theory, the bible has been unaltered for thousands of years, a lot longer than the theory of evolution, so does it therefore make it more truthful than evolution? It doesn't really hold. Also, I am a Christian, but I beleive science can prove what it wants. And when something is completely proven to be true, then I will accept it as absolute truth, alongside the Bible. I will not hail a lack of remains in the 'Jesus' tomb as evidence for the bible, and neither will I dismiss it a coincidence if remains are found, especially if there are what I like to call 'crucifixion marks' in the hands and feet, because either way, it neither proves nor disproves anything. Also, about this evolution arguement, some parts of the bible were meant to be allegories, especially the chapter of genesis. The earth is millions of years old, evolution is probably true, but it doesn't affect the Bible as an allegory, and I was quite surprised when some people took it as literal truth. Evil came into this earth, and this was because of mankind, the basis is still the same, but the whole thing is impossible to describe in literate terms so it has to be written as an allegory. Also, I never read in the Bible that the earth is actually only a few thousand years old. Can someone quote me to this? I probably didn't word that perfectly. Let's call it scientific weight instead of being 'more truthful.' Truth does not change, but each day the theory is strengthened, it gains more weight and is thought to be one step closer to being what 'truth' is, according to science. As for the bible having scientific weight, sure, parts of it which are consistant with science can, yet much of it is (in my opinion) not supposed to be scientifically based (rather metaphorical) and is not supposed to carry scientific weight. I'd bet that god didn't make it to be a scientific journal. See what I'm saing? In reference to you not picking up on the bible suggesting that the earth was created 6000 years ago, good, keep it that way because not only is it bad science, I believe it is just missing the point of genesis entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now