Political Crossfire Forums

[eynon]

adrenalinejunkie wrote: name wrote: The sexist reference from the New Testament.
1 Timothy 2:9-15
2:9 In the same way,
that women also adorn themselves in decent clothing,
with modesty and propriety; not just with braided hair, gold, pearls, or expensive clothing;
2:10 but (which becomes women professing godliness) with good works.
2:11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.
2:12 But I don't permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man,
but to be in quietness.
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14 Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience;
2:15 but she will be saved through her child-bearing,
if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety.

A similar one is in I Corinthians 14. He says there as well that women were to be silent, yet in chapter 11 of the same book he told them how they should be dressed when they spoke. So it requires a bit of study and cultural context to see what he was meaning by all of this.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible talked about the issue this way:
It is evident from the context that the apostle refers here to asking questions, and what we call dictating in the assemblies. It was permitted to any man to ask questions, to object, altercate, attempt to refute, etc., in the synagogue; but this liberty was not allowed to any woman. St. Paul confirms this in reference also to the Christian Church; he orders them to keep silence; and, if they wished to learn any thing, let them inquire of their husbands at home; because it was perfectly indecorous for women to be contending with men in public assemblies, on points of doctrine, cases of conscience, etc. But this by no means intimated that when a woman received any particular influence from God to enable her to teach, that she was not to obey that influence; on the contrary, she was to obey it, and the apostle lays down directions in chap. 11 for regulating her personal appearance when thus employed. All that the apostle opposes here is their questioning, finding fault, disputing, etc., in the Christian Church, as the Jewish men were permitted to do in their synagogues; together with the attempts to usurp any authority over the man, by setting up their judgment in opposition to them;

It's a looong discussion to get into, but my personal view is that understanding this properly forces us to look at the cultural context of the day, and I personally believe the principles are:
1. Men were to exercise authority in the Church in teaching, preaching, instructing in matters of religious doctrine and discipline.
2. Women were to show respect for that, and working in the church in other leadership capacities is fine.
3. Men were to show love and devotion to their wives in complete selflessness.
4. God uses women throughout the Church and in many ways, and -when men do not take leadership of spiritual things, God may call a woman to take that role as well. He did in the Bible at other times.

Just my view.

:tu: a better response then the one I was writing..... :)

to support what you say I believe that Paul was specifically addressing the culture and context of the time, which was quite patriarcial.......but as to the thoughts on how this should relate to our own time, well I'll say it plainly: in the modern church there is no reason that women should not have the same positions as men. The bible is full of accounts of women leading and teaching......this along with the spirit should be our guide.

before G-d women and men are equal

[SaintLucifer]

As a firm believer in fascist ideology, it is my belief that we should all endeavour to put an end to religion. It is morally represensible and it seeks to cause disorder. I do believe for a society to thrive, order must be maintained at all times. Look at the number of wars which have occurred throughout the ages all in the name of a particular God. It is my contention people need not die for the sake of a mythical being. As Humanity advances, we should dispose of the ridiculous concept of religion.

I find it ironic that many followers of religion have seen fit to quote the following passage 'Thou shalt not worship false Gods' or something along those lines. Are they not in fact breaking their own commandment since there is no such thing as God? HE is a fantasy, created by the ignorance of a species frightened of their own shadow because of things they did not understand. Today, our technology is so advanced GOD is but a thing of the past. We no longer need this construct you all call GOD. We need to move on after wiping religion off the face of this earth and out of the consciousness of Humanity. This is the 21st century, not the Dark Ages.

[Headrattle]

adrenalinejunkie wrote: Yet the timelie for the supposed Exodus is tenuous, and how many times have we changed timelines. Shoot, we've changed the age of the universe 1.4 billion years since we began mapping the size of it. So it's zero evidence or ALL the evidence in this case all depending on our date for the Exodus. Sooooo.... no matter what you conclude, it's still a rational argument over real archaeology. That's all I'm saying.

That doesn't mean that God wrote it. You are stating that because the bible vaguely discribes actual events, that it is rational that God wrote the Bible. That is false. It is rational that humans wrote the bible. Why? Because there is significant error. And we know for a fact that stories handed down like that will create significant error. What is more... You are wrong on Egypt collapsing during the supposed time of exodus. Egypt doesn't even mention a massive slave revolt or even slaves leaving. Sure you can say that the Egyptions never mentioned defeat, but that doesn't mean that it happened. It doesn't mean that it didn't either, however. It is simply a belief. The Bible is full or irrational stories. The Bible, at it's core is irrational.

I am not saying that God didn't write or influance the Bible. I am saying that it is irrational to believe that God did. It is irrational because there is no evidence for or against it. That is why it is irrational. You believe that there is evidence, and then you present the very reason why you don't have any evidence. All you have is belief.

The belief that God wrote or influanced the bible is just that. Belief. Based upon Faith. And faith is irrational. Don't pretend that your belief in the Bible is anything BUT faith.

[eynon]

Headrattle wrote: adrenalinejunkie wrote: Yet the timelie for the supposed Exodus is tenuous, and how many times have we changed timelines. Shoot, we've changed the age of the universe 1.4 billion years since we began mapping the size of it. So it's zero evidence or ALL the evidence in this case all depending on our date for the Exodus. Sooooo.... no matter what you conclude, it's still a rational argument over real archaeology. That's all I'm saying.

That doesn't mean that God wrote it. You are stating that because the bible vaguely discribes actual events, that it is rational that God wrote the Bible. That is false. It is rational that humans wrote the bible. Why? Because there is significant error. And we know for a fact that stories handed down like that will create significant error. What is more... You are wrong on Egypt collapsing during the supposed time of exodus. Egypt doesn't even mention a massive slave revolt or even slaves leaving. Sure you can say that the Egyptions never mentioned defeat, but that doesn't mean that it happened. It doesn't mean that it didn't either, however. It is simply a belief. The Bible is full or irrational stories. The Bible, at it's core is irrational.

I am not saying that God didn't write or influance the Bible. I am saying that it is irrational to believe that God did. It is irrational because there is no evidence for or against it. That is why it is irrational. You believe that there is evidence, and then you present the very reason why you don't have any evidence. All you have is belief.

The belief that God wrote or influanced the bible is just that. Belief. Based upon Faith. And faith is irrational. Don't pretend that your belief in the Bible is anything BUT faith.

ah.....I see where you're going, yes even if there is come evidence to support events in the OT is does not mean that G-d wrote the book.....personally I believe that divinley inspired humans wrote both the OT and NT.....and yes, sometimes humans make mistakes. Doesn't mean you throw the book out though.

Personally I don't believe the bible to be literal or inerrent.....I believe that both those factors fly in the face of biblical teachings.

[SaintLucifer]

Eynon81 wrote: Headrattle wrote: adrenalinejunkie wrote: Yet the timelie for the supposed Exodus is tenuous, and how many times have we changed timelines. Shoot, we've changed the age of the universe 1.4 billion years since we began mapping the size of it. So it's zero evidence or ALL the evidence in this case all depending on our date for the Exodus. Sooooo.... no matter what you conclude, it's still a rational argument over real archaeology. That's all I'm saying.

That doesn't mean that God wrote it. You are stating that because the bible vaguely discribes actual events, that it is rational that God wrote the Bible. That is false. It is rational that humans wrote the bible. Why? Because there is significant error. And we know for a fact that stories handed down like that will create significant error. What is more... You are wrong on Egypt collapsing during the supposed time of exodus. Egypt doesn't even mention a massive slave revolt or even slaves leaving. Sure you can say that the Egyptions never mentioned defeat, but that doesn't mean that it happened. It doesn't mean that it didn't either, however. It is simply a belief. The Bible is full or irrational stories. The Bible, at it's core is irrational.

I am not saying that God didn't write or influance the Bible. I am saying that it is irrational to believe that God did. It is irrational because there is no evidence for or against it. That is why it is irrational. You believe that there is evidence, and then you present the very reason why you don't have any evidence. All you have is belief.

The belief that God wrote or influanced the bible is just that. Belief. Based upon Faith. And faith is irrational. Don't pretend that your belief in the Bible is anything BUT faith.

ah.....I see where you're going, yes even if there is come evidence to support events in the OT is does not mean that G-d wrote the book.....personally I believe that divinley inspired humans wrote both the OT and NT.....and yes, sometimes humans make mistakes. Doesn't mean you throw the book out though.

Personally I don't believe the bible to be literal or inerrent.....I believe that both those factors fly in the face of biblical teachings.

The Holy Bible was created as a form of control. What better way to keep people in line than to set up a text full of Holy laws?? In the U.S.A., it is called the U.S. Constitution. As such, the Holy Bible is antiquated and needs to be removed from the human conscience. Religion must be banned from society once and for all. Disorder should not be advanced with the ridiculous notion of an all-powerful being.

[Headrattle]

Eynon81 wrote: ah.....I see where you're going, yes even if there is come evidence to support events in the OT is does not mean that G-d wrote the book.....personally I believe that divinley inspired humans wrote both the OT and NT.....and yes, sometimes humans make mistakes. Doesn't mean you throw the book out though.

Personally I don't believe the bible to be literal or inerrent.....I believe that both those factors fly in the face of biblical teachings.

I am not saying that you should throw out the book. I believe quite the opposite. However, I believe that pretending that the Bible isn't built upon faith is incorrect. Pretending that your belief in the Bible is rational is dangerous and completely goes against the idea of "faith." It isn't rational. It is faith. There is a significant difference.

Faith is important. But so is rationality. You should have faith about the things you can't prove (your religion) and rationality about the things that you can (Science.)

[eynon]

Headrattle wrote: Eynon81 wrote: ah.....I see where you're going, yes even if there is come evidence to support events in the OT is does not mean that G-d wrote the book.....personally I believe that divinley inspired humans wrote both the OT and NT.....and yes, sometimes humans make mistakes. Doesn't mean you throw the book out though.

Personally I don't believe the bible to be literal or inerrent.....I believe that both those factors fly in the face of biblical teachings.

I am not saying that you should throw out the book. I believe quite the opposite. However, I believe that pretending that the Bible isn't built upon faith is incorrect. Pretending that your belief in the Bible is rational is dangerous and completely goes against the idea of "faith." It isn't rational. It is faith. There is a significant difference.

Faith is important. But so is rationality. You should have faith about the things you can't prove (your religion) and rationality about the things that you can (Science.)

I agree.....

[LetsGetReal]

Headrattle wrote: Eynon81 wrote: ah.....I see where you're going, yes even if there is come evidence to support events in the OT is does not mean that G-d wrote the book.....personally I believe that divinely inspired humans wrote both the OT and NT.....and yes, sometimes humans make mistakes. Doesn't mean you throw the book out though.

Personally I don't believe the bible to be literal or inerrent.....I believe that both those factors fly in the face of biblical teachings.

I am not saying that you should throw out the book. I believe quite the opposite. However, I believe that pretending that the Bible isn't built upon faith is incorrect. Pretending that your belief in the Bible is rational is dangerous and completely goes against the idea of "faith." It isn't rational. It is faith. There is a significant difference.

Faith is important. But so is rationality. You should have faith about the things you can't prove (your religion) and rationality about the things that you can (Science.)

Well what do you have faith in then or rationality? Do you have faith or rationality in evolution? How about the beginning of the universe? There are many things people claim to take rational means in deciding, which are later proved to be wrong. So did those people follow their rationality or did they follow it by faith? Is what we know now so correct that it will always be true, I think not. To claim our rationality is out of order because we can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt is preposterous. I would state the same claim for science as a whole, there are very few laws, and mostly theories. Please don't try to make science out to be a absolute fact, because it is inherently not.

I know you mean well with your comments but it side skirts the legitimate facts out there/history. Just don't make the same mistake because I'll punch through your arguments like paper.

[Headrattle]

LetsGetReal wrote: Well what do you have faith in then or rationality? Do you have faith or rationality in evolution? How about the beginning of the universe? There are many things people claim to take rational means in deciding, which are later proved to be wrong. So did those people follow their rationality or did they follow it by faith? Is what we know now so correct that it will always be true, I think not. To claim our rationality is out of order because we can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt is preposterous.
You can prove nothing beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, you can go with the evidence. You can prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. You can go with what you can scientifically prove. You can't prove faith. You be rational about God, because you can't prove the existence of God, or even find any evidence of God. You believe that you can, but you have no evidence to back up that belief. Evolution, Big Bang, Gravity, Geology, Archeology, those things have evidence. Your faith has none. Your faith has only belief.

Quote: I would state the same claim for science as a whole, there are very few laws, and mostly theories. Please don't try to make science out to be a absolute fact, because it is inherently not.
You seem to have a poor understanding of scientific laws and scientific theories. A Scientific Theory can not turn into a Scientific Law. They are different concepts. And Laws can be proved wrong just like theories. Scientific Theories are more then the laymen theories. Scientific Theories have significant evidence to back it up.

Quote: I know you mean well with your comments but it side skirts the legitimate facts out there/history. Just don't make the same mistake because I'll punch through your arguments like paper.
What? You seem to be low on facts. Religion is based upon belief and faith. The Bible/Torah/Koran is based upon the belief that it was written by God. There are few if any facts, and no facts or evidences to rationally, logically or scientifically prove a God exists. Rather it is based upon Belief and faith. As such, it is irrational.

There isn't anything wrong with it. However, it isn't rational. You can't prove God.

I faith FAITH in God. I have EVIDENCE of science.
I have no EVIDENCE of God. I have no FAITH in science.

[LetsGetReal]

Well I would claim I have evidence to prove God's existence but would you believe? I can give you statements, figures, and even polls would you believe it then? Evidence is only evidence when someone believes it to be true.

Haha, I don't know very much about science thanks for making that assumption :roll:. I know the difference between laws and theories. You proved my point in your own argument, things will be proven wrong later even tho prior evidence proved it to be right. Now why is it rational to believe that it is correct now when it might be proven wrong later?

There are many proofs of God's existence here is some: Cartesian Doubt, Mere Christianity, St. Thomas Aquinas proofs, etc... I can give you more if you want..

Wikipedia.org wrote: Theories as "models"
Humans construct theories in order to explain, predict and master phenomena (e.g. inanimate things, events, or the behaviour of animals). In many instances we are constructing models of reality. A theory makes generalizations about observations and consists of an interrelated, coherent set of ideas and models.

According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."

Please don't try to argue semantics it's stupid...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Theories_as_.22models.22

Wikipedia.org wrote: A physical law, scientific law, or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. They are typically conclusions based on the confirmation of hypotheses through repeated scientific experiments over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. However, there are no strict guidelines as to how or when a scientific hypothesis becomes a scientific law.

The production of a summary description of nature in the form of such laws is the fundamental aim of science. Laws of nature are distinct from the law, either religious or civil, and should not be confused with the concept of natural law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

If you can see there is very little if any difference...Maybe the time the theory has been around you can argue but very little else...

[Headrattle]

LetsGetReal wrote: Well I would claim I have evidence to prove God's existence but would you believe? I can give you statements, figures, and even polls would you believe it then? Evidence is only evidence when someone believes it to be true.
You have no scientific evidence. Sorry. None. It isn’t that I don’t believe it. It is that it doesn’t exist. If you would like to present it, fine. I will look at it, and research it and find if it is proof. I have an open mind on the subject, and will not discount science out of hand.
Keep in mind that statements, figures and polls are NOT scientific evidence and they are NOT proof of God.

Quote: Haha, I don't know very much about science thanks for making that assumption I know the difference between laws and theories. You proved my point in your own argument, things will be proven wrong later even tho prior evidence proved it to be right. Now why is it rational to believe that it is correct now when it might be proven wrong later?

Because it is rational to go with the available evidence. That is the nature of science. If more evidence is found that changes or negates a theory, then that is the new science. According to your logic, nothing is rational. That said, there are some things that continue to strengthen the more evidence it collects. Evolution, Gravity, Big Bang, Geology are all examples of this. You can’t just invalidate science because you don’t like it. You can’t just pretend that the evidence doesn’t exist or that a theory is invalid because it “might change.”

Quote: There are many proofs of God's existence here is some: Cartesian Doubt, Mere Christianity, St. Thomas Aquinas proofs, etc... I can give you more if you want..
Those aren’t proofs of God’s existence. Those are philosophical arguments. They are far from proofs. They are nothing resembling scientific proofs. To say that they do, is false.

Quote: If you can see there is very little if any difference...Maybe the time the theory has been around you can argue but very little else...
If that is true, why did you say what you did?

To claim our rationality is out of order because we can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt is preposterous. I would state the same claim for science as a whole, there are very few laws, and mostly theories.

As I said, a Theory does not become a Law. What is what you seemed to imply. If that isn’t what you meant, I am sorry. However, the reason I made that assumption is because it is a common misconception of science Perhaps you should elaborate on what you truly meant.

[adrenalinejunkie]

Headrattle wrote:
That doesn't mean that God wrote it. You are stating that because the bible vaguely discribes actual events, that it is rational that God wrote the Bible. That is false. It is rational that humans wrote the bible. Why? Because there is significant error. And we know for a fact that stories handed down like that will create significant error.

There is significant error? Here is where I'm supposed to say, "name one" and we launch into an unending debate about this case or that. Every single case has been argued thoroughly by very intelligent people on both sides. Hasn't the inerrancy debate been going on for centuries? Just because you have concluded the Bible is full of error, does not mean anyone who disagrees with you is irrational. Why? Because the debates are all over the actual evidences. Those are rational debates, and those rational debates lead us to the question of....

....whether God wrote it. That question goes to the evidence of the existence of God, the source of creation, the prophetic evidence of the Scripture itself which requires analyzing history as well as the present time, etc... Look you can disagree with me, but it's all a rational, evidence based argument. At least for most of the debate.

You know, just musing about it if I can, maybe there's a point, different for each person I imagine, where you come to a decision to believe, based on all the evidence you've considered, that the Bible really did come from God -or not. At that point, I think either way, it's a conclusion that cannot necessarily be proved. No way to dip an NIV Bible in acidic solution to see if the Holy Spirit appears around it or anything. Very difficult to prove God doesn't exist as well. You just have decide whenever you reach that point. There's some faith at that point I think. I'm not making a claim, just musing here. But for me at least, it's a decision based on a lot of other things where I feel the Scriptures were proven true and accurate beyond human explanation. That's just me.

You know, for instance "we know for a fact stories handed down like that will create significant error" as you said would lead me to conclude, "then the fact the Bible has no significant errors is evidence of a supernatural origin." Wouldn't it? The debate never ends though. I wasn't trying to start a huge post. I just don't see why we have to marginalize people who have different opinions. Who cares? That's all I was saying.

Headrattle wrote:
What is more... You are wrong on Egypt collapsing during the supposed time of exodus. Egypt doesn't even mention a massive slave revolt or even slaves leaving. Sure you can say that the Egyptions never mentioned defeat, but that doesn't mean that it happened. It doesn't mean that it didn't either, however. It is simply a belief. The Bible is full or irrational stories. The Bible, at it's core is irrational.

Oh.. now. I never said Egypt collapsed during the supposed time of the Exodus. I said the time of the "supposed Exodus" did not match up with the collapse of the Old Kingdom. Or I meant to at least. And yet in the time period when the Old Kingdom collapsed, Jericho was defeated, Ai was destroyed and a large nomadic group of people were in the northern Sinai.... I think our "supposed time" is wrong because the other is too big a coincidence and because of some further study I don't want to get into. It would take to long.

Regardless, that's my point. We are arguing over real archaeology. It's not an irrational argument. It's not a simple belief based on nothing. It's based on the Bible proving itself or not. I think it has. You think it hasn't. Neither of us are irrational, we simply disagree on the evidence. An irrational belief cannot be changed. My belief CAN be changed. For instance, if the nation of Israel is wiped off the map by Iran tomorrow. I'll be an atheist by Friday because it would absolutely disprove the Bible.

And the stories aren't irrational if God exists. I'm personally convinced by the evidence of the physical universe that God does exist. Among other things.

[adrenalinejunkie]

SaintLucifer wrote:
The Holy Bible was created as a form of control. What better way to keep people in line than to set up a text full of Holy laws?? In the U.S.A., it is called the U.S. Constitution. As such, the Holy Bible is antiquated and needs to be removed from the human conscience. Religion must be banned from society once and for all. Disorder should not be advanced with the ridiculous notion of an all-powerful being.

You know, someone needs to throw you down and tickle you for half an hour. Preferably a girl of course.

I'm just sayin....

[adrenalinejunkie]

Headrattle wrote:
Faith is important. But so is rationality. You should have faith about the things you can't prove (your religion) and rationality about the things that you can (Science.)

By that logic, molecular biologists and physicists should condemn geologists and paleontologists since the latter two can't prove 50% of what they theorize (which is why the theories change every time we learn something new) while the former two are "hard sciences" based on figures and theories that can actually be tested in a lab. I doubt the paleontologists would appreciate being called irrational when theorizing what color a T-Rex might have been.

[adrenalinejunkie]

Eynon...

I want to have this discussion again in about 6 years. I should have a graduate degree in physics by then. Just started down that road as a working 38 year old because, why not? I love science!

But my background in the Bible, mixed with physics is going to be quite interesting I think! lol

[SaintLucifer]

adrenalinejunkie wrote: SaintLucifer wrote:
The Holy Bible was created as a form of control. What better way to keep people in line than to set up a text full of Holy laws?? In the U.S.A., it is called the U.S. Constitution. As such, the Holy Bible is antiquated and needs to be removed from the human conscience. Religion must be banned from society once and for all. Disorder should not be advanced with the ridiculous notion of an all-powerful being.

You know, someone needs to throw you down and tickle you for half an hour. Preferably a girl of course.

I'm just sayin....

Oh look!! That beam of light!! It must be your God prepared to speak unto you!! Oh wait! Never mind. It's a helicopter with a searchlight.

HOLY BIBLE = FAIRY TALE

The Jewish people were as skilled at propaganda as Goebbels was for the Nazis.

[Æ]

SaintLucifer wrote: As a firm believer in fascist ideology, it is my belief that we should all endeavour to put an end to religion. It is morally represensible and it seeks to cause disorder. I do believe for a society to thrive, order must be maintained at all times. Look at the number of wars which have occurred throughout the ages all in the name of a particular God. It is my contention people need not die for the sake of a mythical being. As Humanity advances, we should dispose of the ridiculous concept of religion.

I find it ironic that many followers of religion have seen fit to quote the following passage 'Thou shalt not worship false Gods' or something along those lines. Are they not in fact breaking their own commandment since there is no such thing as God? HE is a fantasy, created by the ignorance of a species frightened of their own shadow because of things they did not understand. Today, our technology is so advanced GOD is but a thing of the past. We no longer need this construct you all call GOD. We need to move on after wiping religion off the face of this earth and out of the consciousness of Humanity. This is the 21st century, not the Dark Ages.
Should I even bother? :roll:

[SaintLucifer]

aLienaTeD wrote: SaintLucifer wrote: As a firm believer in fascist ideology, it is my belief that we should all endeavour to put an end to religion. It is morally represensible and it seeks to cause disorder. I do believe for a society to thrive, order must be maintained at all times. Look at the number of wars which have occurred throughout the ages all in the name of a particular God. It is my contention people need not die for the sake of a mythical being. As Humanity advances, we should dispose of the ridiculous concept of religion.

I find it ironic that many followers of religion have seen fit to quote the following passage 'Thou shalt not worship false Gods' or something along those lines. Are they not in fact breaking their own commandment since there is no such thing as God? HE is a fantasy, created by the ignorance of a species frightened of their own shadow because of things they did not understand. Today, our technology is so advanced GOD is but a thing of the past. We no longer need this construct you all call GOD. We need to move on after wiping religion off the face of this earth and out of the consciousness of Humanity. This is the 21st century, not the Dark Ages.
Should I even bother? :roll:

I rather doubt it. I think religions are a joke and as such should be completely obliterated. All churches, temples, synagogues and mosques should be burned to the ground. Let us adopt my fascist laws and seek to end conflict over a non-existent figment of everyone's imagination!! Let us face REALITY for once! I guarantee this would be for the better. There never has been a bloody parting of the Red Sea nor shall there ever be. The only thing I want to see parted is my mullet.

[Headrattle]

adrenalinejunkie wrote: There is significant error? Here is where I'm supposed to say, "name one" and we launch into an unending debate about this case or that. Every single case has been argued thoroughly by very intelligent people on both sides. Hasn't the inerrancy debate been going on for centuries? Just because you have concluded the Bible is full of error, does not mean anyone who disagrees with you is irrational. Why? Because the debates are all over the actual evidences. Those are rational debates, and those rational debates lead us to the question of....

You don't seem to understand. I said that it irrational to believe that God wrote the Bible. I have not concluded that the Bible is filled with error. However there are significant errors in the bible. To believe that it was written by God is irrational because there is no evidence to support it.

It really is that simple.

Quote: ....whether God wrote it. That question goes to the evidence of the existence of God, the source of creation, the prophetic evidence of the Scripture itself which requires analyzing history as well as the present time, etc... Look you can disagree with me, but it's all a rational, evidence based argument. At least for most of the debate.
Except you are making up the evidence. The more we delve into history the more we know that stuff in the bible simply did not happen as it was written. Take the Global Flood. No evidence of it. None. I would call that a significant error. What about saying that Insects have four legs? Or Rabbits chew their cud? Those are significant errors.

For you, it might seem ration. But that is the problem. For the objective observer it is very irrational. Thus, it is, as a whole irrational, because rationality requires objectivity.

Quote: Very difficult to prove God doesn't exist as well. You just have decide whenever you reach that point. There's some faith at that point I think. I'm not making a claim, just musing here. But for me at least, it's a decision based on a lot of other things where I feel the Scriptures were proven true and accurate beyond human explanation. That's just me.
That is my point. It is equally irrational to state that God doesn't exist. It is irrational to say that God wrote the Bible and irrational to say that God didn't write the bible. The belief in God is a powerful thing, but it is irrational at it's core. Why? Because it isn't based upon Evidence or is it objective. Something can't be "rational" only for you.

Quote: You know, for instance "we know for a fact stories handed down like that will create significant error" as you said would lead me to conclude, "then the fact the Bible has no significant errors is evidence of a supernatural origin." Wouldn't it? The debate never ends though. I wasn't trying to start a huge post. I just don't see why we have to marginalize people who have different opinions. Who cares? That's all I was saying.
But the Bible does have significant errors if taken literally. That doesn't mean that it wasn't written by God, but it doesn't mean that it was.

Quote: Oh.. now. I never said Egypt collapsed during the supposed time of the Exodus. I said the time of the "supposed Exodus" did not match up with the collapse of the Old Kingdom. Or I meant to at least. And yet in the time period when the Old Kingdom collapsed, Jericho was defeated, Ai was destroyed and a large nomadic group of people were in the northern Sinai.... I think our "supposed time" is wrong because the other is too big a coincidence and because of some further study I don't want to get into. It would take to long.
Doesn't matter. It is not proof that God wrote or influenced the writing of the Bible. No more then any history book. No more then any fiction book. No more then any fiction book based in history.

Quote: Regardless, that's my point. We are arguing over real archaeology. It's not an irrational argument. It's not a simple belief based on nothing. It's based on the Bible proving itself or not. I think it has. You think it hasn't. Neither of us are irrational, we simply disagree on the evidence. An irrational belief cannot be changed. My belief CAN be changed. For instance, if the nation of Israel is wiped off the map by Iran tomorrow. I'll be an atheist by Friday because it would absolutely disprove the Bible.
You are arguing archeology and yet it disproved a literal bible for the last 200 years. And it isn't even my point...

Quote: And the stories aren't irrational if God exists. I'm personally convinced by the evidence of the physical universe that God does exist. Among other things.

And the belief that God exists is, at it's core irrational. Of course the belief that God doesn't, is equally irrational. There is no evidence for or against God. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

[Headrattle]

adrenalinejunkie wrote: Headrattle wrote:
Faith is important. But so is rationality. You should have faith about the things you can't prove (your religion) and rationality about the things that you can (Science.)

By that logic, molecular biologists and physicists should condemn geologists and paleontologists since the latter two can't prove 50% of what they theorize (which is why the theories change every time we learn something new) while the former two are "hard sciences" based on figures and theories that can actually be tested in a lab. I doubt the paleontologists would appreciate being called irrational when theorizing what color a T-Rex might have been.

You are attacking for no reason here, and exaggerating what I said. More specifically, prove beyond a reasonable doubt given the evidence. I am simply pointing out the differences in religion and science and why the two are separate and should remain so in order for either of them to work. Science is based upon facts, evidence, theories, and logical conclusions. Religion is based upon belief, faith and things that you don't have evidence for.

Stay on target!

By the way, Quantum Physics and the workings of much of Molecular Biology aren't fully explained and also have theories in them. Your examples are poor.