The bible - fact or fiction???

[AUTaxMan]

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 asinine question.

My understanding was that in society at the time, from a legal perspective, wives were generally viewed as the property of the husband, and that wives had no marital rights. Around the world, many women still do not have all of the legal rights as men, and they didn't in the U.S. until the 20th century.

[Star_Cards]

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'll still take science over faith.

[AUTaxMan]

I'll still take science over faith.

Does reliance on science not require faith? Either way, you are relying on faith. You are merely choosing faith in man over faith in God.

[sanfran22]

Does reliance on science not require faith? Either way, you are relying on faith. You are merely choosing faith in man over faith in God.

Exactly.......

[habsheaven]

My understanding was that in society at the time, from a legal perspective, wives were generally viewed as the property of the husband, and that wives had no marital rights. Around the world, many women still do not have all of the legal rights as men, and they didn't in the U.S. until the 20th century.

I agree. That is why I contend that the Bible is not the "word of God", it is the words of MEN.

[AUTaxMan]

I agree. That is why I contend that the Bible is not the "word of God", it is the words of MEN.

You contend that the Bible is not the word of God because it contains language that was applicable to society at the time?

[habsheaven]

Does reliance on science not require faith? Either way, you are relying on faith. You are merely choosing faith in man over faith in God.

Yes, with science you are relying on faith until further testing can prove your hypothesis. Whereas with religion, you are forever denying science so that you can continue to rely on your faith in God. There is a big difference in the two.

[habsheaven]

You contend that the Bible is not the word of God because it contains language that was applicable to society at the time?

No, it is not the word of God because it contains "attitudes" that were applicable to the time? Does not God transcend time and space? Are not his words the TRUTH? If so, they should not reflect attitudes of an imperfect society.

[Star_Cards]

Does reliance on science not require faith? Either way, you are relying on faith. You are merely choosing faith in man over faith in God.

Not all science is faith. If I let go of a ball as I sit at my computer it will drop to the ground. I don't trust that it will drop. I know that it will drop 100% of the time. It's not blind faith in a book that one thinks men wrote through a link to a creator.

Again, everyone is left to believe what they would like. My major issue with religion is that people want to use it to govern everyone regardless of belief.

[GiantsSB42Champs]

false no reason to even go further.