The bible - fact or fiction???

[duane1969]

Have you asked them why they don't?

I don't need to. The Bible clearly explains it.

“But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” II Peter 3: 8

For short periods of time, belief in new scientific discoveries is required but science always keeps moving forward. You only have to look at the advancements in medicine to see science at work.

Religion's track record from day one has been to dominate and persecute women and non-believers.

Faith in a concept that is thousands of years old yet still provides no FACTUAL evidence of it's existence is foolish. A logical person would choose to be non-commital to the concept until proof is provided.

So science is infallible and religion is a hoax? You need to spend a little time reading up on your proven science. Science is largely based on theories supported by other theories. Science is nothing more than theories and opinions followed up by a valiant attempt to prove those theories and opinions. All you have to do to find the weakness in science is Google the terms piltdown man or Archaeoraptor to see just how flawed science is. Even recent events concerning scientist getting caught fudging global warming reports is proof enough that science is hardly fact over fiction.

Look at science's major positions...

Big Bang Theory - absolutely NOTHING to support it, yet it is widely accepted as fact in the scientific community.
Evolution - full of holes and hoaxes yet it is the only explaination that science has for our existence.

Take a look back through history at some of the great scientific positions...the Earth is flat, static universe, phrenology, expanding earth, spontaneous generation...all proven wrong.

So much for the factual science being more reliable than the made-up Bible.

I disagree. When are we going to see the first female Pope. Why is it God created Man first and then created woman "for" man afterwards? If that isn't the "Old Boys Network", I do not know what is.

As most people with a basic knowledge of the Bible do, you are misinterpreting it. It says that God created animals to be a companion for man but man was still unhappy, so God created woman from man as a COMPANION to man, not as property.

How about right here?

Exodus 20:17 lists the last of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ™™™, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

Sure looks like a piece of property to me.

And how many times is irrelevant. It is after all God's words and to treat women as property ONCE is once too many times.

I am sure it does seeing as you are being as biased as you possibly can be and looking at it from your own agenda's point of view. Nowhere does it say that man owns his wife. That is simply your interpretation which is blatantly biased.

[Star_Cards]

Not to speak for Habs, but I don't think he ever said that science is infallible. I myself don;t think this. I know there are flaws with science, but that's how things are found out. Coming up with an idea and testing it to see if it's plausible. It's a trial and error type of thing.

As far as the big bang theory goes... I have no idea if it is the way it happened. Could be could not be. I guess for me the answer really isn't that important. It would be great if one day we could say 100% how it all happened, but it will always be a mystery. However, I'm certainly not basing my system of beliefs off of it or speaking of it like it is known fact like people do with the bible. It's a theory, plain and simple. I look at Creationism as a theory as well. For me, it's much less plausible that man was magically created by a single being in the heavens.

I think for me science is completely different from religion, because science seems to be more open minded and is willing to admit that they are theories and new facts could be brought into play that will update thoughts and ideas. Science is not as personal to people as religion is. Your example about the earth being flat is perfect. Once it was proven that it was in fact round, things were revised to include this new knowledge. To me most science has a basis in fact and logical thinking to create theories or even answer questions no matter if they have flaws in the thinking or not.

[habsheaven]

I don't need to. The Bible clearly explains it.

“But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” II Peter 3: 8

This CLEARLY explains what? That 1 day = 1,000 years? Perhaps the CLEAR explanation is that it is a FABLE? Can you now give me the conversion rate for someone living to be over 900 years old? I am sure your explanation of that is just as crystal clear.

So science is infallible and religion is a hoax? You need to spend a little time reading up on your proven science. Science is largely based on theories supported by other theories. Science is nothing more than theories and opinions followed up by a valiant attempt to prove those theories and opinions. All you have to do to find the weakness in science is Google the terms piltdown man or Archaeoraptor to see just how flawed science is. Even recent events concerning scientist getting caught fudging global warming reports is proof enough that science is hardly fact over fiction.

Look at science's major positions...

Big Bang Theory - absolutely NOTHING to support it, yet it is widely accepted as fact in the scientific community.
Evolution - full of holes and hoaxes yet it is the only explaination that science has for our existence.

Take a look back through history at some of the great scientific positions...the Earth is flat, static universe, phrenology, expanding earth, spontaneous generation...all proven wrong.

So much for the factual science being more reliable than the made-up Bible.

I never said science was infallible. And how do you supposed we proved all these "scientific positions" wrong? That's right, further advances in SCIENCE. I don't recall God sending anyone a vision pointing out the Earth was round.

As most people with a basic knowledge of the Bible do, you are misinterpreting it. It says that God created animals to be a companion for man but man was still unhappy, so God created woman from man as a COMPANION to man, not as property.

Read what you just wrote. First He created animals to be a companion to man, then He created woman to be a companion to man. Do you not see the problem with that terminology. It doesn't take a biased opinion to see the implication of this. It takes a biased opinion to ignore it. If He meant it to represent women as being different from animals, He would have said so.

I am sure it does seeing as you are being as biased as you possibly can be and looking at it from your own agenda's point of view. Nowhere does it say that man owns his wife. That is simply your interpretation which is blatantly biased.

The commandment CLEARLY groups his wife in with a bunch of his other possessions. Are you telling me that it doesn't state he owns his ox or his donkey too? 500 years ago, we would not be having this discussion. We would both be interpreting it the same way. Only society's distaste for it now leads many to shy away from the true meaning.

[WilyWestbrook0]

I did read it. Your second paragraph is directed at SanFran22, not me. And with reference to that, saying the "Word of God" spans a great period of time does not answer my question. Yes or No, would have answered my question.

You sure do nit-pick, don't you? I was agreeing with sanfran22 because he replied to you about that also and agreed it was the Word of God. It's on the same topic. It was a simple reply. It was one sentence.

Anyway, since you are going to continue to be ridiculous about this and act as though one sentence is not simple enough, I think now is a good time to bow out of the topic. I have plenty of other agnostic friends who don't expect me to be a monosyllabic plastic doll.

[habsheaven]

You sure do nit-pick, don't you? I was agreeing with sanfran22 because he replied to you about that also and agreed it was the Word of God. It's on the same topic. It was a simple reply. It was one sentence.

Anyway, since you are going to continue to be ridiculous about this and act as though one sentence is not simple enough, I think now is a good time to bow out of the topic. I have plenty of other agnostic friends who don't expect me to be a monosyllabic plastic doll.

It's not nit-picking. It's asking for a clear concise answer. Saying the "word of God" spans many years was a nice way of avoiding a direct answer. Please bow out of the topic, your answers are anything but answers anyway.

[AUTaxMan]

Read what you just wrote. First He created animals to be a companion to man, then He created woman to be a companion to man. Do you not see the problem with that terminology. It doesn't take a biased opinion to see the implication of this. It takes a biased opinion to ignore it. If He meant it to represent women as being different from animals, He would have said so.

Habs, this is asinine. You may want to read the Bible as somehow treating women like animals to prove your point, but you are simply wrong. There are many of stories in the Bible about the greatness of women and how women are to be loved and respect by men.

The fact that you choose to ignore these in order to prove your point indicates that you are no longer willing to engage in rational, reasoned debate.

[duane1969]

Read what you just wrote. First He created animals to be a companion to man, then He created woman to be a companion to man. Do you not see the problem with that terminology. It doesn't take a biased opinion to see the implication of this. It takes a biased opinion to ignore it. If He meant it to represent women as being different from animals, He would have said so.

I didn't realize that calling someone a companion meant that you owned them and they were subservient to you. My honest opinion is that you are nit-picking and have diverted away from logical conversation.

I am unaware of any Christian religion that teaches that women are property or owned. I think you have your religions mixed up. It is Islam that considers women to be little more than cattle.

[duane1969]

Not to speak for Habs, but I don't think he ever said that science is infallible. I myself don;t think this. I know there are flaws with science, but that's how things are found out. Coming up with an idea and testing it to see if it's plausible. It's a trial and error type of thing.

As far as the big bang theory goes... I have no idea if it is the way it happened. Could be could not be. I guess for me the answer really isn't that important. It would be great if one day we could say 100% how it all happened, but it will always be a mystery. However, I'm certainly not basing my system of beliefs off of it or speaking of it like it is known fact like people do with the bible. It's a theory, plain and simple. I look at Creationism as a theory as well. For me, it's much less plausible that man was magically created by a single being in the heavens.

I think for me science is completely different from religion, because science seems to be more open minded and is willing to admit that they are theories and new facts could be brought into play that will update thoughts and ideas. Science is not as personal to people as religion is. Your example about the earth being flat is perfect. Once it was proven that it was in fact round, things were revised to include this new knowledge. To me most science has a basis in fact and logical thinking to create theories or even answer questions no matter if they have flaws in the thinking or not.

I used the term infallible loosely. The point was that science (which habs clearly bases his positions on) is not perfect and using science to discount religion is a weak position to take since science is not all that "infallible" itself.

I too see religion and science as entirely different things but some people feel the need to argue that one is wrong based on the beliefs, theories or findings of the other. I see that as faulty.

[habsheaven]

Habs, this is asinine. You may want to read the Bible as somehow treating women like animals to prove your point, but you are simply wrong. There are many of stories in the Bible about the greatness of women and how women are to be loved and respect by men.

The fact that you choose to ignore these in order to prove your point indicates that you are no longer willing to engage in rational, reasoned debate.

I am not saying the Bible is treating women like animals. I am saying there are many places in religious texts that CLEARLY do not give women the same standing as man. Loving and respecting a woman is a far cry from considering her an equal.

Please address the commandment. Thou shalt not covet. Why is the commandment directed at the husband? Why is the term "spouse" (or something similar) not used? That is hardly an assinine question.

[habsheaven]

I used the term infallible loosely. The point was that science (which habs clearly bases his positions on) is not perfect and using science to discount religion is a weak position to take since science is not all that "infallible" itself.

I too see religion and science as entirely different things but some people feel the need to argue that one is wrong based on the beliefs, theories or findings of the other. I see that as faulty.

I do not have a POSITION. I clearly stated that earlier.