(from BBC text service)

"The oldest crocodile eggs known to science have been discovered in the cliffs of western Portugal.

They are so well preserved that they give an insight into the 'mother croc' that laid them 153 million years ago.

The prehistoric crocodile ancestor would have spanned two metres, based on the size of the larger eggs, say palaeontologists.

Crocodiles arose some 200 million years ago, when they prowled the land with early dinosaurs".

What I want to know is, how the hell did man coexist with these prehistoric creatures. Remember, if it flies in the sky, or swims in the rivers or oceans, it lays eggs and date back a loooooooong time. Mammals - with very few exceptions - don't, and they appear to be much more recent. Amazing when you think about it! Unriddle me that one, creationists?

(picture above is not 200 million years ago, just to be clear).

.

So much for cute babies. lol

fortuneandserendipity said:

(from BBC text service)

"The oldest crocodile eggs known to science have been discovered in the cliffs of western Portugal.

They are so well preserved that they give an insight into the 'mother croc' that laid them 153 million years ago.

The prehistoric crocodile ancestor would have spanned two metres, based on the size of the larger eggs, say palaeontologists.

Crocodiles arose some 200 million years ago, when they prowled the land with early dinosaurs".

What I want to know is, how the hell did man coexist with these prehistoric creatures. Remember, if it flies in the sky, or swims in the rivers or oceans, it lays eggs and date back a loooooooong time. Mammals - with very few exceptions - don't, and they appear to be much more recent. Amazing when you think about it! Unriddle me that one, creationists?

(picture above is not 200 million years ago, just to be clear).

.

Being a creationist doesn't necessarily mean that you believe the Earth is only thousands of years
old as opposed to billions of years as your post appears to imply. You can be a creationist who
accepts the purported truths of paleontology while also claiming all that has existed and does now
was divined by God as there are different understandings and expressions of creationism altoge-
ther.

Dasein said:

Being a creationist doesn't necessarily mean that you believe the Earth is only thousands of years
old as opposed to billions of years as your post appears to imply. You can be a creationist who
accepts the purported truths of paleontology while also claiming all that has existed and does now
was divined by God as there are different understandings and expressions of creationism altoge-
ther.

Granted, but someone I know purports to believe in 'scientific truths' in the Bible, while also claiming there were 600 independent witnesses of Jesus' resurrection. Right then I could have asked him to 'name them' but 2 words to wrongfoot him just seemed too easy

Wrong forum, moving to P&R.

fortuneandserendipity said:

Dasein said:

Being a creationist doesn't necessarily mean that you believe the Earth is only thousands of years
old as opposed to billions of years as your post appears to imply. You can be a creationist who
accepts the purported truths of paleontology while also claiming all that has existed and does now
was divined by God as there are different understandings and expressions of creationism altoge-
ther.

Granted, but someone I know purports to believe in 'scientific truths' in the Bible, while also claiming there were 600 independent witnesses of Jesus' resurrection. Right then I could have asked him to 'name them' but 2 words to wrongfoot him just seemed too easy

There are no scientific truths in the Bible, which is a Jewish book of theological and spiritual
claims. And the Bible never presents itself as anything other than a Jewish book of theological
and spiritual claims. So, when Genesis begins by tellling us God created the heavens and
the earth, it is not the result of some type of scientific method but solely the result of either
revelation or belief. I wish people would stop reading the Bible after approaching it as any-
thing other than a book about what Israel claims was revealed to her via faith.

Your friend is probably well intentioned, but a dolt; and judging from this thread and your re-
sponses in another thread, your argument against the Bible is only half-formed too.

Dasein said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Granted, but someone I know purports to believe in 'scientific truths' in the Bible, while also claiming there were 600 independent witnesses of Jesus' resurrection. Right then I could have asked him to 'name them' but 2 words to wrongfoot him just seemed too easy

There are no scientific truths in the Bible, which is a Jewish book of theological and spiritual
claims. And the Bible never presents itself as anything other than a Jewish book of theological
and spiritual claims. So, when Genesis begins by tellling us God created the heavens and
the earth, it is not the result of some type of scientific method but solely the result of either
revelation or belief. I wish people would stop reading the Bible after approaching it as any-
thing other than a book about what Israel claims was revealed to her via faith.

Your friend is probably well intentioned, but a dolt; and judging from this thread and your re-
sponses in another thread, your argument against the Bible is only half-formed too.

You can't have your cake and eat it. You're either a believer that the Bible is the word of god, or you're not.

fortuneandserendipity said:

Dasein said:

There are no scientific truths in the Bible, which is a Jewish book of theological and spiritual
claims. And the Bible never presents itself as anything other than a Jewish book of theological
and spiritual claims. So, when Genesis begins by tellling us God created the heavens and
the earth, it is not the result of some type of scientific method but solely the result of either
revelation or belief. I wish people would stop reading the Bible after approaching it as any-
thing other than a book about what Israel claims was revealed to her via faith.

Your friend is probably well intentioned, but a dolt; and judging from this thread and your re-
sponses in another thread, your argument against the Bible is only half-formed too.

You can't have your cake and eat it. You're either a believer that the Bible is the word of god, or you're not.

This either/or context only applies if you stupidly approach the Bible as a science book as opposed
to it being a theological book chiefly.

One can claim "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" while also acknowledging
the purported truths of natural science. Science is filled with believers as even the scientist who first
suggested or popularized the "big bang theory" was a priest.

Dasein said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

You can't have your cake and eat it. You're either a believer that the Bible is the word of god, or you're not.

This either/or context only applies if you stupidly approach the Bible as a science book as opposed
to it being a theological book chiefly.

One can claim "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" while also acknowledging
the purported truths of natural science. Science is filled with believers as even the scientist who first
suggested or popularized the "big bang theory" was a priest.

Is the Bible the word of god in your opinion or not? I can't debate you further until you answer that question. After all, let's face it, the Bible categorically states the exact order in which the 'heavens and the earth' were created. There's no getting around that, whether we're talking 7 true days in the process, or 7 lengthy phases.

fortuneandserendipity said:

Dasein said:

This either/or context only applies if you stupidly approach the Bible as a science book as opposed
to it being a theological book chiefly.

One can claim "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" while also acknowledging
the purported truths of natural science. Science is filled with believers as even the scientist who first
suggested or popularized the "big bang theory" was a priest.

Is the Bible the word of god in your opinion or not? I can't debate you further until you answer that question. After all, let's face it, the Bible categorically states the exact order in which the 'heavens and the earth' were created. There's no getting around that, whether we're talking 7 true days in the process, or 7 lengthy phases.

You can't determine if the Bible is truly the "word of God" the way that we can other things. So,
instead of approaching the Bible, as you are doing, and in error, as a scientifically sound cosmologi-
cal text book where each claim is asserted as being the result of some objective method, you would
do well to read each and every single verse in it with this preface:

"We, the Jews and Christians, believe . . . "

The Bible is not a freakin' text book, so even if it "categorically states the exact order in which"
anything was formed, it is mostly a collection of faith-based claims via revelation and not as the
results of a scientific method; you're faulting the Bible for not being scientifically accurate when
Bible never offers itself as being scientifically accurate! And if you read the Bible as being
written in total accord with 21st century scientific knowledge, you're fucking stupid or choosing to
treat the Bible as such merely to further a biased excoriation against it, which is what it seems
you are doing.

XxAxX said:

Baby crocodile is ADORABLE!!!!! Want

*checks your temperture*

morningsong said:

XxAxX said:

Baby crocodile is ADORABLE!!!!! Want

*checks your temperture*

come on now, just look at that little sweetie. teensy grin and shiny eyes

Dasein said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Is the Bible the word of god in your opinion or not? I can't debate you further until you answer that question. After all, let's face it, the Bible categorically states the exact order in which the 'heavens and the earth' were created. There's no getting around that, whether we're talking 7 true days in the process, or 7 lengthy phases.

You can't determine if the Bible is truly the "word of God" the way that we can other things. So,
instead of approaching the Bible, as you are doing, and in error, as a scientifically sound cosmologi-
cal text book where each claim is asserted as being the result of some objective method, you would
do well to read each and every single verse in it with this preface:

"We, the Jews and Christians, believe . . . "

The Bible is not a freakin' text book, so even if it "categorically states the exact order in which"
anything was formed, it is mostly a collection of faith-based claims via revelation and not as the
results of a scientific method; you're faulting the Bible for not being scientifically accurate when
Bible never offers itself as being scientifically accurate! And if you read the Bible as being
written in total accord with 21st century scientific knowledge, you're fucking stupid or choosing to
treat the Bible as such merely to further a biased excoriation against it, which is what it seems
you are doing.

Fine obscurantism there. It's not a text book but it is a moral and behavioural guide for living

But we can agree that the Bible shouldn't be interpreted literally, only figuratively? Bc there's a helluva lot wrong with just the first chapter. It even gives very bad dietary advice.

I'm not even going to mention God's dementia issue with the light/darkness polarity. Or the rain falling from a height greater than the sky. If it's all metaphorical then we may as well include a game of Quidditch up there as God's favourite sport. After all, it must get pretty boring for him with only angels singing for entertainment

fortuneandserendipity said:

Dasein said:

You can't determine if the Bible is truly the "word of God" the way that we can other things. So,
instead of approaching the Bible, as you are doing, and in error, as a scientifically sound cosmologi-
cal text book where each claim is asserted as being the result of some objective method, you would
do well to read each and every single verse in it with this preface:

"We, the Jews and Christians, believe . . . "

The Bible is not a freakin' text book, so even if it "categorically states the exact order in which"
anything was formed, it is mostly a collection of faith-based claims via revelation and not as the
results of a scientific method; you're faulting the Bible for not being scientifically accurate when
Bible never offers itself as being scientifically accurate! And if you read the Bible as being
written in total accord with 21st century scientific knowledge, you're fucking stupid or choosing to
treat the Bible as such merely to further a biased excoriation against it, which is what it seems
you are doing.

Fine obscurantism there. It's not a text book but it is a moral and behavioural guide for living

But we can agree that the Bible shouldn't be interpreted literally, only figuratively? Bc there's a helluva lot wrong with just the first chapter. It even gives very bad dietary advice.

I'm not even going to mention God's dementia issue with the light/darkness polarity. Or the rain falling from a height greater than the sky. If it's all metaphorical then we may as well include a game of Quidditch up there as God's favourite sport. After all, it must get pretty boring for him with only angels singing for entertainment

I beg your pardon, but there is no obscurantism here, dude. Yes, the Bible is not a cosmological text-
book; it's a religious book, (and there is no attempt here on my part to occlude the truth by use of
sophistry). So, stop assessing its cosmological claims via faith as cosmological claims via the scientific
method - that's just fucking ridiculous!

The Bible giving "very bad dietary advice" has nothing to do with whether or not you take its claims
as actually occurring within history/spacetime or as mostly the work of spiritual poetry or spiritually
influenced intellectual claims about the divine (theology). With that being said, I do not read the
Bible as accurately reflecting what humanly transpired within history/spacetime in accord with how
we record what humanly transpires within history/spacetime in 2017.

Finally, let's say that I grant your argument the veracity that it asks for when you make no distinction
between Harry Potter and the Bible. There is a big fucking difference between the two, but for the
purpose of this conversation, let's assume there isn't. Here's my question to you: the truth of Harry
Potter, that ultimately good will prevail over evil, does it lose its ethical value in the wake of the
Harry Potter universe being the product of JK Rowling's imagination? Or, just because a truth is
presented in literary form, even in the guise of a metaphor, does that mean then that the truth value
of the claim is lost because it never actually occurred with history/spacetime?

Fucking of course not! So, why do you debase biblical truth claims presented as metaphors?

Dasein said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Fine obscurantism there. It's not a text book but it is a moral and behavioural guide for living

But we can agree that the Bible shouldn't be interpreted literally, only figuratively? Bc there's a helluva lot wrong with just the first chapter. It even gives very bad dietary advice.

I'm not even going to mention God's dementia issue with the light/darkness polarity. Or the rain falling from a height greater than the sky. If it's all metaphorical then we may as well include a game of Quidditch up there as God's favourite sport. After all, it must get pretty boring for him with only angels singing for entertainment

I beg your pardon, but there is no obscurantism here, dude. Yes, the Bible is not a cosmological text-
book; it's a religious book, (and there is no attempt here on my part to occlude the truth by use of
sophistry). So, stop assessing its cosmological claims via faith as cosmological claims via the scientific
method - that's just fucking ridiculous!

The Bible giving "very bad dietary advice" has nothing to do with whether or not you take its claims
as actually occurring within history/spacetime or as mostly the work of spiritual poetry or spiritually
influenced intellectual claims about the divine (theology). With that being said, I do not read the
Bible as accurately reflecting what humanly transpired within history/spacetime in accord with how
we record what humanly transpires within history/spacetime in 2017.

Finally, let's say that I grant your argument the veracity that it asks for when you make no distinction
between Harry Potter and the Bible. There is a big fucking difference between the two, but for the
purpose of this conversation, let's assume there isn't. Here's my question to you: the truth of Harry
Potter, that ultimately good will prevail over evil, does it lose its ethical value in the wake of the
Harry Potter universe being the product of JK Rowling's imagination? Or, just because a truth is
presented in literary form, even in the guise of a metaphor, does that mean then that the truth value
of the claim is lost because it never actually occurred with history/spacetime?

Fucking of course not! So, why do you debase biblical truth claims presented as metaphors?

No you see, I don't believe in that distinction between Harry Potter and the Bible.

For the simple reason that to me they're both products of the imagination.

Whatever's alluded to in the Bible that's historically accurate, I'm fine with.

Any claims, on the other hand, of supernatural events are another matter-

and that's where the theology part comes in.

Because the overall claim - and this is somewhat specious - is that for these laws to be immutable

they must come from God.

Otherwise, they're purely man-made laws and therefore intrinsically not theology! You see the distinction there?

And that for me is the imagination part, without question.

You're either a believer in the Bible as theology, in which case you're lacking the justifiable evidence and so have to go off faith.

Or you're an unconvinced sceptic, who has problems with the lack of evidence.

I also believe that the Bible was added to over long periods of time (there's much evidence for this, not least of all carbon dating)

with some edits applied so that not only was a lot adjoined but also much withdrawn from the evolving text.

Therein an overall theme(s) is constituted so as to remove as many contradictions as possible. Take for instance, the text referring to reincarnation. Or the alternative gospels, many of which were later omitted.

The stories that develop as the Bible takes form also have to fit in with the context of their time or recent time period.

'Pay back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to him'.

Easier to say and include in the text if it's talking from hindsight! After the fact!

(Caesar was not overthrown by Jews or Christians).

Metaphors of course don't equal fact.

Historians adhere to facts based on language, document and archaeology retrieval in the same way scientists base their formulas on the laws of the universe.

It has to be provable by not being falsifiable.

To go back to your main point, it's often argued that science has to do with questions of how things have occurred, and religion, with questions of why things have occurred.

The problem with religion, is its framing of the 'why' question presupposing there's a definitive answer.

Example, Q: Why did Jesus die to save others. A: Because it's the only way to be saved from sin and to enter heaven.

So it's presupposing Jesus is God or has special relation to him, that his soul is above ours, that there is life after death, that sin is inevitable, that we need to be saved from sin, that God exists, always has done and always will do.

And that is a lot of presuppositions emanating from one question, which in all honestly merely requires faith-based evidence, not fact-based.

Whichever way you try to spin it. The problem with faith based evidence is it's not really evidence at all.

fortuneandserendipity said:

No you see, I don't believe in that distinction between Harry Potter and the Bible.

For the simple reason that to me they're both products of the imagination.

This part of your post is confusing as I didn't make a distinction between the Bible and Harry Potter
even though one can be made. Instead, I granted to you that each are creative works of fiction that
offer up classical truths about humankind's place in the world, yet the Bible's truths appear to be ones
that are often excoriated more harshly.

Whatever's alluded to in the Bible that's historically accurate, I'm fine with.

Any claims, on the other hand, of supernatural events are another matter-and that's where the theology part comes in.

Well, I would argue that even the historical claims in the Bible do not easily avail themselves to
the structures of history as we perceive it today. Again: the Bible is not offering itself as a history
book - it. is. a. spiritual. and/or. religious. book.

Because the overall claim - and this is somewhat specious - is that for these laws to be immutable

they must come from God.

Otherwise, they're purely man-made laws and therefore intrinsically not theology! You see the distinction there?

Where are you getting this idea that the "overall claim" of the Bible and Biblical theology is that "for
these laws to be immutable they must come from God"? What "laws"? What are you even talking
about - are you still speaking about biblical cosmology here?! Gawd, I hope not! I thought we settled
that! And no, I don't see no damn distinction here - I've no freakin' idea what you're saying!

And that for me is the imagination part, without question.

You're either a believer in the Bible as theology, in which case you're lacking the justifiable evidence and so have to go off faith.

Or you're an unconvinced sceptic, who has problems with the lack of evidence.

. . . and what's up with this either/or context you've created here? I don't see how it follows from
your claim that "And that for me is the imagination part" from those claims preceding it. But, it still
looks like you are asking the Bible to give "justifiable evidence" for its spiritual claims - this is fucking
impossible. Science cannot tell us how to live a good, meaningful, existentially rich and significant
life, which is essentially the Bible's chief concern. And the cosmological claims in the Bible are borne
out of faith, not science - duh.

I also believe that the Bible was added to over long periods of time (there's much evidence for this, not least of all carbon dating)

with some edits applied so that not only was a lot adjoined but also much withdrawn from the evolving text.

Therein an overall theme(s) is constituted so as to remove as many contradictions as possible. Take for instance, the text referring to reincarnation. Or the alternative gospels, many of which were later omitted.

The stories that develop as the Bible takes form also have to fit in with the context of their time or recent time period.

'Pay back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to him'.

Easier to say and include in the text if it's talking from hindsight! After the fact!

(Caesar was not overthrown by Jews or Christians).

You should PM an Orger by the name of Toejam to see how he would respond to this.

Metaphors of course don't equal fact.

Historians adhere to facts based on language, document and archaeology retrieval in the same way scientists base their formulas on the laws of the universe.

It has to be provable by not being falsifiable.

To go back to your main point, it's often argued that science has to do with questions of how things have occurred, and religion, with questions of why things have occurred.

The problem with religion, is its framing of the 'why' question presupposing there's a definitive answer.

Example, Q: Why did Jesus die to save others. A: Because it's the only way to be saved from sin and to enter heaven.

So it's presupposing Jesus is God or has special relation to him, that his soul is above ours, that there is life after death, that sin is inevitable, that we need to be saved from sin, that God exists, always has done and always will do.

And that is a lot of presuppositions emanating from one question, which in all honestly merely requires faith-based evidence, not fact-based.

Whichever way you try to spin it. The problem with faith based evidence is it's not really evidence at all.

My friend, science presupposes much before even embarking upon a method to prove something by
showing that it is unfalsifiable!

Ultimately, 153 million years old crocodile eggs does not disprove biblical cosmology. And there are
creationists who sleep comfortably at night acknowledging the Earth is older than two thousand years
(clinging to science) while also maintaining belief that God is the author of all that ever was and is
now (clinging to Genesis).

fortuneandserendipity said:

No you see, I don't believe in that distinction between Harry Potter and the Bible.

For the simple reason that to me they're both products of the imagination.

This part of your post is confusing as I didn't make a distinction between the Bible and Harry Potter
even though one can be made. Instead, I granted to you that each are creative works of fiction that
offer up classical truths about humankind's place in the world, yet the Bible's truths appear to be ones
that are often excoriated more harshly.

Ya did I'm afraid, you need to check back what you've written, or remember better what you previously said. You tried to set up a straw man argument.

Remember, just like any novelist, J K Rowling never claims divine origin or inspiration. By contrast, the Bible is attempting the complete opposite of a work of fiction. It’s claiming divine truth, tantamount to proof about God’s message to mankind. Existentially the case, with regard to Old/New Testament- for Jews and Christians- because there are no other books. Your point about the Bible’s truths being excoriated more harshly is plain laughable!

Whatever's alluded to in the Bible that's historically accurate, I'm fine with.

Any claims, on the other hand, of supernatural events are another matter-and that's where the theology part comes in.

Well, I would argue that even the historical claims in the Bible do not easily avail themselves to
the structures of history as we perceive it today. Again: the Bible is not offering itself as a history
book - it. is. a. spiritual. and/or. religious. book.

Wrong again. The ‘Writings’ part of the Old Testament are considered by the Jewish people to be their history. (Literal history as much as anything spiritual), The book of Psalms being a lengthy pithy example. Loved the verse “By the waters of Babylon they sat down and wept...” –almost emotive! J (For that matter other OT books contain history as well, but that’s beside the point). History comprises part of the Bible, there’s no avoiding that. If you start saying as a Jew or Christian, the ‘talking snake’, ‘burning bush’, or ‘parting of the red sea’ episodes never happened, then you’re essentially dismissing it as historical narrative. The argument it could only be ‘allegorical, analogous, allusory’. Well then why remain so steadfast in your faith if you’re only going to half-chew the material? Chiselling on the side within context of religion is a bit of a cop-out.

Because the overall claim - and this is somewhat specious - is that for these laws to be immutable

they must come from God.

Otherwise, they're purely man-made laws and therefore intrinsically not theology! You see the distinction there?

Where are you getting this idea that the "overall claim" of the Bible and Biblical theology is that "for
these laws to be immutable they must come from God"? What "laws"? What are you even talking
about - are you still speaking about biblical cosmology here?! Gawd, I hope not! I thought we settled
that! And no, I don't see no damn distinction here - I've no freakin' idea what you're saying!

First 5 books of the Bible are the ‘law’ or Torah, coming from Moses. So you need to do your homework. God’s laws are considered to be immutable, and I’ m sure the practicing Jewish community would assuredly profess that belief. THE WHOLE BIBLE- TO ITS BELIEVERS – IS THE WORD OF GOD. (man-made laws are never immutable in case that had escaped your attention)

And that for me is the imagination part, without question.

You're either a believer in the Bible as theology, in which case you're lacking the justifiable evidence and so have to go off faith.

Or you're an unconvinced sceptic, who has problems with the lack of evidence.

. . . and what's up with this either/or context you've created here? I don't see how it follows from
your claim that "And that for me is the imagination part" from those claims preceding it. But, it still
looks like you are asking the Bible to give "justifiable evidence" for its spiritual claims - this is fucking
impossible. Science cannot tell us how to live a good, meaningful, existentially rich and significant
life, which is essentially the Bible's chief concern. And the cosmological claims in the Bible are borne
out of faith, not science - duh.

You answered your own questions here. I’m sure there are many people like me who believe that the stories comprising the Bible are figments of some people’s imagination, masquerading as theology/theological truth. Sorry

I also believe that the Bible was added to over long periods of time (there's much evidence for this, not least of all carbon dating)

with some edits applied so that not only was a lot adjoined but also much withdrawn from the evolving text.

Therein an overall theme(s) is constituted so as to remove as many contradictions as possible. Take for instance, the text referring to reincarnation. Or the alternative gospels, many of which were later omitted.

The stories that develop as the Bible takes form also have to fit in with the context of their time or recent time period.

'Pay back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to him'.

Easier to say and include in the text if it's talking from hindsight! After the fact!

(Caesar was not overthrown by Jews or Christians).

You should PM an Orger by the name of Toejam to see how he would respond to this.

Judging by your previous replies, I don't think I'll bother if he's as thick-headed as you.

Metaphors of course don't equal fact.

Historians adhere to facts based on language, document and archaeology retrieval in the same way scientists base their formulas on the laws of the universe.

It has to be provable by not being falsifiable.

To go back to your main point, it's often argued that science has to do with questions of how things have occurred, and religion, with questions of why things have occurred.

The problem with religion, is its framing of the 'why' question presupposing there's a definitive answer.

Example, Q: Why did Jesus die to save others. A: Because it's the only way to be saved from sin and to enter heaven.

So it's presupposing Jesus is God or has special relation to him, that his soul is above ours, that there is life after death, that sin is inevitable, that we need to be saved from sin, that God exists, always has done and always will do.

And that is a lot of presuppositions emanating from one question, which in all honestly merely requires faith-based evidence, not fact-based.

Whichever way you try to spin it. The problem with faith based evidence is it's not really evidence at all.

My friend, science presupposes much before even embarking upon a method to prove something by
showing that it is unfalsifiable!

Ultimately, 153 million years old crocodile eggs does not disprove biblical cosmology. And there are
creationists who sleep comfortably at night acknowledging the Earth is older than two thousand years
(clinging to science) while also maintaining belief that God is the author of all that ever was and is
now (clinging to Genesis).

Science does NOT presuppose facts. That's your misconception, or straw man argument. It hypothesizes theories and then conducts experiments to prove or disprove those theories. Something religion does not do. Religion assumes its theories as fact. It never provides certifiable evidence.

It appears likely you would have difficulty working your way through history books, esp. the biographical variety. They can be very dense, and scrupulous to a fault in their dissection of first/second hand source material, their working methods laborious and exhausting- not to mention the reader's patience. Other history books, though easier to read, still have to elicit source material in the notes/references/bibliography. THAT'S WHY MANY HISTORIANS HAVE HUGE PROBLEMS WITH THE VERACITY OF RELIGIOUS TEXTS. Think about that for a second. I mean, historian accounts are not for the meek or intellectually challenged. Or people who want easy answers.

XxAxX said:

Ya did I'm afraid, you need to check back what you've written, or remember better what you previously said. You tried to set up a straw man argument.

Remember, just like any novelist, J K Rowling never claims divine origin or inspiration. By contrast, the Bible is attempting the complete opposite of a work of fiction. It’s claiming divine truth, tantamount to proof about God’s message to mankind. Existentially the case, with regard to Old/New Testament- for Jews and Christians- because there are no other books. Your point about the Bible’s truths being excoriated more harshly is plain laughable!

Wrong again. The ‘Writings’ part of the Old Testament are considered by the Jewish people to be their history. (Literal history as much as anything spiritual), The book of Psalms being a lengthy pithy example. Loved the verse “By the waters of Babylon they sat down and wept...” –almost emotive! J (For that matter other OT books contain history as well, but that’s beside the point). History comprises part of the Bible, there’s no avoiding that. If you start saying as a Jew or Christian, the ‘talking snake’, ‘burning bush’, or ‘parting of the red sea’ episodes never happened, then you’re essentially dismissing it as historical narrative. The argument it could only be ‘allegorical, analogous, allusory’. Well then why remain so steadfast in your faith if you’re only going to half-chew the material? Chiselling on the side within context of religion is a bit of a cop-out.

Science does NOT presuppose facts. That's your misconception, or straw man argument. It hypothesizes theories and then conducts experiments to prove or disprove those theories. Something religion does not do. Religion assumes its theories as fact. It never provides certifiable evidence.

It appears likely you would have difficulty working your way through history books, esp. the biographical variety. They can be very dense, and scrupulous to a fault in their dissection of first/second hand source material, their working methods laborious and exhausting- not to mention the reader's patience. Other history books, though easier to read, still have to elicit source material in the notes/references/bibliography. THAT'S WHY MANY HISTORIANS HAVE HUGE PROBLEMS WITH THE VERACITY OF RELIGIOUS TEXTS. Think about that for a second. I mean, historian accounts are not for the meek or intellectually challenged. Or people who want easy answers.

No strawman arguments were made in my posts: it appears to be the case that many Orgers
like to use that phrase without really knowing what a strawman argument is! I compared the
Bible to Harry Potter as both being ultimately works of fiction that present what is mostly true
for many cultures: good will triumph over evil after YOU mentioned quidditch. The comparison
is not a strawman argument - stop using phrases and terms you don't know how to apply
appropriately.

When it comes to how the Jews perceived history, you've misunderstood my argument here again:
I never challenged what was considered historical in the Bible. I simply stated that how the Jews
perceived history whilst writing the Bible and documenting it as such is not the same way we perceive
the same in 2017. In the year 2017 BCE, the strictures of a science of history were not as they
are in the year 2017 CE, savvy? And you like creating these either/or contexts when it comes to
Christianity that are uninformed: one can accept the allegorical presentation of certain Biblical pas-
sages without discarding the spiritual/theological truth they hold. So, for example, asking a Christian
(I am not a Christian, by the way) to abandon their faith because Jesus didn't physically perform New
Testament miracles within the context of history and spacetime is fucking stupid: what do the miracles
say about God? What are the authors of the miracle passages from the New Testament saying about
God? How do any Biblical passage/scripture essentially function for those who adhere to its truth
claim(s)? There is more than one way to approach the Gospels/God, i.e., one doesn't have to either
accept all of the Bible or none of it - this is your ridiculous binary approach here that hasn't been
shown to be necessary. For one can acknowledge that the Bible offers spiritual/theological/religious
truths that perdure for thousands of years despite being presented in a literary fashion that is very
much beholden to the time in which it was written.

I didn't say science presupposes facts - stop putting words in my mouth. I said science presupposes
much:

1) there are natural, not supernatural, causes for events that occur in the world

2) evidence taken from the natural world then can be used to understand and learn about those
causes

3) these causes operate consistently in the natural world (they are predictable)

4) our senses are sufficient for learning about these natural causes

5) the world is real

and my favorite is:

6) science presupposes science! How do we prove/disprove any claim made within science? Yep,
by appealing to science! Round and round we go . . .

Finally, I think you're making shit up and I'm going to call you out: who are these historians who
have huge problems with the veracity of religious texts? I want names and titles of books/articles/
lectures "these historians" have authored as I still think you are missing the point that to read the
Bible as accurately and perfectly capturing real events that occurred within the context of history and
under the confine of spacetime and not as something else is to be a fucking moron or a little naive
or both! So, I doubt there is any 21st century historian who approaches the Bible as being an expert
authority on anything other than offering religious and spiritual truths. Essentially, your argument is:

"The Bible says God created the heavens and Earth two thousand years ago but science tells us the
Earth is older than that, so everything in the Bible is wrong. Therefore, religious systems based on
the Bible are stoopid!"

This is a dumb argument for reasons I've already explained.

^

I should have written that I simply disagree with approaching the Bible as to be read as accurately
and perfectly capturing what has literally occurred within history and spacetime as opposed to calling
that person who does so a dummy or naive or both.

Dasein said:

No strawman arguments were made in my posts: it appears to be the case that many Orgers
like to use that phrase without really knowing what a strawman argument is! I compared the
Bible to Harry Potter as both being ultimately works of fiction that present what is mostly true
for many cultures: good will triumph over evil after YOU mentioned quidditch. The comparison
is not a strawman argument - stop using phrases and terms you don't know how to apply
appropriately.

When it comes to how the Jews perceived history, you've misunderstood my argument here again:
I never challenged what was considered historical in the Bible. I simply stated that how the Jews
perceived history whilst writing the Bible and documenting it as such is not the same way we perceive
the same in 2017. In the year 2017 BCE, the strictures of a science of history were not as they
are in the year 2017 CE, savvy? And you like creating these either/or contexts when it comes to
Christianity that are uninformed: one can accept the allegorical presentation of certain Biblical pas-
sages without discarding the spiritual/theological truth they hold. So, for example, asking a Christian
(I am not a Christian, by the way) to abandon their faith because Jesus didn't physically perform New
Testament miracles within the context of history and spacetime is fucking stupid: what do the miracles
say about God? What are the authors of the miracle passages from the New Testament saying about
God? How do any Biblical passage/scripture essentially function for those who adhere to its truth
claim(s)? There is more than one way to approach the Gospels/God, i.e., one doesn't have to either
accept all of the Bible or none of it - this is your ridiculous binary approach here that hasn't been
shown to be necessary. For one can acknowledge that the Bible offers spiritual/theological/religious
truths that perdure for thousands of years despite being presented in a literary fashion that is very
much beholden to the time in which it was written.

I didn't say science presupposes facts - stop putting words in my mouth. I said science presupposes
much:

1) there are natural, not supernatural, causes for events that occur in the world

2) evidence taken from the natural world then can be used to understand and learn about those
causes

3) these causes operate consistently in the natural world (they are predictable)

4) our senses are sufficient for learning about these natural causes

5) the world is real

and my favorite is:

6) science presupposes science! How do we prove/disprove any claim made within science? Yep,
by appealing to science! Round and round we go . . .

Finally, I think you're making shit up and I'm going to call you out: who are these historians who
have huge problems with the veracity of religious texts? I want names and titles of books/articles/
lectures "these historians" have authored as I still think you are missing the point that to read the
Bible as accurately and perfectly capturing real events that occurred within the context of history and
under the confine of spacetime and not as something else is to be a fucking moron or a little naive
or both! So, I doubt there is any 21st century historian who approaches the Bible as being an expert
authority on anything other than offering religious and spiritual truths. Essentially, your argument is:

"The Bible says God created the heavens and Earth two thousand years ago but science tells us the
Earth is older than that, so everything in the Bible is wrong. Therefore, religious systems based on
the Bible are stoopid!"

This is a dumb argument for reasons I've already explained.

It seems as though you’re the one who doesn’t know the true meaning of a straw man argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You indeed were positing an argument based entirely on straw man when you falsely conflated the veracity of the ethical qualities of Harry Potter series with the veracity of the ethical qualities within the Bible. You framed that argument, not me. Harry Potter is not an attempt at seeking perfect moral truth, nor is it supposing any theological truth (proof). The Bible claims both, it’s very moralizing and it definitely seeks authority from divine truth.

You keep on referring to 'truths' again. Do you know how subjective you're making that word sound? .... almost as though these Biblical sayings have already been verified and accepted as self-evidently true.

(The Bible presumes axioms - doesn't mean they actually are axioms).

And you’re giving Jews entire license to create stories based on their experience and say ‘well that’s ok, they can embellish facts, or come up with some make-believe anecdotes to suit their narrative’. Sorry mate, but religion right there doesn’t hold water. You say you’re not a believer yourself, but many ‘cultural Christians’ can come across quite ambivalent with some weak belief in Jesus as God’s son. But it definitely seems you’re a person sympathetic to a believer's cause (however weird that position sounds).

What if I told you that there is no theological 'truth' to any religious books. Just because their respective followers believe their texts to be divinely originated doesn't make that so.

If you're not talking about historical truths - which I find staggering bc the entire Bible falls down without accepting said veracity (the historical fact of God presenting Moses with 10 commandments; the historical fact of Jesus' resurrection) - then presumably you're referring to moral truths, which is an entirely different argument. Personally I don't think people should be stoned to death for adultery. And I don't support capital punishment in any form. But there are religious followers of these books who do - or at least did - because they are literalists. Granted, many Jewish and Christian followers

don't follow these teachings, but they're picking and choosing to suit their circumstances. They're not orthodox - but definitely reformers. Really, it’s impossible to imagine how anyone can be an 'orthodox' christian while ignoring reams of verses in the OT mandating punishment for many crimes by death. And therein lies the problem. The texts lose their theological strength however much you may try to sugarcoat it.

Science doesn’t ‘presuppose’ in the way you’re thinking. I don’t know if you’re trying to be evasive with semantics but there’s a big difference between ‘presuppose’ and hypothesize’ in the scientific world. If a scientist can’t establish proof, then the theory isn’t widely accepted as truth. Religion doesn’t require proof of course.

There are many books written on the perceived fallacies of the Bible. You really need to do a lot of searching. I remember reading a couple in the library in my early 20s. One was concerned with disproving historical narrative of the Bible from archaeological point of view, focusing on the OT, events not happening as depicted. The other concerned with linking Jesus’ virgin birth, miracles and resurrection to earlier stories told very similarly in other religious faiths, including Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. Plagiarism basically. Scholarly criticism of the Bible has long been around, a lot of it dating to 20^th century but also prior to that. And now Islam is being subjected to the same rigor.

There’s a lot that’s wrong in the Bible mate, a helluva lot of ‘stoopid’ as you would refer to it. I can quote verses to you if you like?

fortuneandserendipity said:

It seems as though you’re the one who doesn’t know the true meaning of a straw man argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You indeed were positing an argument based entirely on straw man when you falsely conflated the veracity of the ethical qualities of Harry Potter series with the veracity of the ethical qualities within the Bible. You framed that argument, not me. Harry Potter is not an attempt at seeking perfect moral truth, nor is it supposing any theological truth (proof). The Bible claims both, it’s very moralizing and it definitely seeks authority from divine truth.

You keep on referring to 'truths' again. Do you know how subjective you're making that word sound? .... almost as though these Biblical sayings have already been verified and accepted as self-evidently true.

(The Bible presumes axioms - doesn't mean they actually are axioms).

And you’re giving Jews entire license to create stories based on their experience and say ‘well that’s ok, they can embellish facts, or come up with some make-believe anecdotes to suit their narrative’. Sorry mate, but religion right there doesn’t hold water. You say you’re not a believer yourself, but many ‘cultural Christians’ can come across quite ambivalent with some weak belief in Jesus as God’s son. But it definitely seems you’re a person sympathetic to a believer's cause (however weird that position sounds).

What if I told you that there is no theological 'truth' to any religious books. Just because their respective followers believe their texts to be divinely originated doesn't make that so.

If you're not talking about historical truths - which I find staggering bc the entire Bible falls down without accepting said veracity (the historical fact of God presenting Moses with 10 commandments; the historical fact of Jesus' resurrection) - then presumably you're referring to moral truths, which is an entirely different argument. Personally I don't think people should be stoned to death for adultery. And I don't support capital punishment in any form. But there are religious followers of these books who do - or at least did - because they are literalists. Granted, many Jewish and Christian followers

don't follow these teachings, but they're picking and choosing to suit their circumstances. They're not orthodox - but definitely reformers. Really, it’s impossible to imagine how anyone can be an 'orthodox' christian while ignoring reams of verses in the OT mandating punishment for many crimes by death. And therein lies the problem. The texts lose their theological strength however much you may try to sugarcoat it.

Science doesn’t ‘presuppose’ in the way you’re thinking. I don’t know if you’re trying to be evasive with semantics but there’s a big difference between ‘presuppose’ and hypothesize’ in the scientific world. If a scientist can’t establish proof, then the theory isn’t widely accepted as truth. Religion doesn’t require proof of course.

There are many books written on the perceived fallacies of the Bible. You really need to do a lot of searching. I remember reading a couple in the library in my early 20s. One was concerned with disproving historical narrative of the Bible from archaeological point of view, focusing on the OT, events not happening as depicted. The other concerned with linking Jesus’ virgin birth, miracles and resurrection to earlier stories told very similarly in other religious faiths, including Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. Plagiarism basically. Scholarly criticism of the Bible has long been around, a lot of it dating to 20^th century but also prior to that. And now Islam is being subjected to the same rigor.

There’s a lot that’s wrong in the Bible mate, a helluva lot of ‘stoopid’ as you would refer to it. I can quote verses to you if you like?

Nope! You keep misapplying the notion of a strawman argument to my post because you don't
understand the comparison I was making! I absolutely did not "conflate the veracity of the ethical
qualities of Harry Potter series with the veracity of the ethical qualities within the Bible" when I sug-
gested that both are works of fiction that proclaim the hopefulness of good triumphing over evil.
In that comparison, I did not purposefully misrepresent or exaggerate your own argument in order
for me to show the quality of your argument as being unsound - so, my comparison is not a straw
man. Further, in that comparison I made, I never offer any attempt to evaluate the veracity of JK
Rowling or the Bible's ethical claims; instead, I (crudely) summarized them. What you're doing here
is trying to be too deep but getting lost in your own hogwash, so your arguments are on the brink
of being incoherent as a result.

Yes - I am purposefully using the word "truth" as opposed to "facts" when talking about the nature
of biblical claims. There is no way for us to substantiate John 3:16 the same way we would be able
to substantiate cosmological claims, for example. Therefore, biblical claims are mostly within the
realm of subjectivity, not objectivity. You don't prove the validity of subjective truths the way you
go about proving the validity of objective facts. And you are pulling statements like this:

". . . almost as though these Biblical sayings have already been verified and accepted as self-evidently
true."

. . . squarely out of your butthole. The Bible never tells its reader that its claims are "self-evident."
Instead, in the New Testament, you find its authors claiming it is inspired by God or the Holy Spirit.
You are taking a stereotype about fundamentalists who are said to interpret the Bible literally and
appeal to the Bible as a final authority expert on all matters known to humanity (including the natural
sciences) and then attributing these charactertistics to the Bible as a whole. But the Bible never asks
its readers to:

1) read it literally
2) use it as an authority expert on all matters known to humanity (including the natural sciences)

I'm not letting you off the hook: who are these historians you claim who doubt the veracity of the pur-
ported historical occurrences found in the Bible? Please provide names and details as I want to know
who these idiotic historians are who think the Bible ought to be considered a reliable text that aptly
and sufficiently recorded historical events. I doubt there is any credible historian in the academy who
thinks the Bible is to be taken seriously as a history book that accurately documented what transpired
in the Levant two thousand years ago.

Speaking of theological truths, I had a thread on evaluating and assessing theological truths about
two months ago. I'll look for it and give you the link where this was debated. Here it is.

You're wrong about what science assumes or presumes before embarking upon a method to establish
or secure knowledge.

There's nothing wrong with the Bible in and of itself apart from how it is interpreted and reified. Like
I said: it is a religious book that is the product of the time in which it was written, so you have the
condoning of stoning adulterers. Your problem with the Bible is that you're reading it wrong and your
argument smacks of a new atheist tyro who doesn't understand how the Bible functions and what it
presents itself as. Yet, you persist upon reading it incorrectly because you imagine it strengthens
your criticisms of it, if you can show that it isn't aligned properly with what we know about the natural
world. Your half-baked original criticism: "Hey, Biblical cosmology is discordant with 21st century
cosmology and paleontology so the entirety of the Bible is folly" only works if you read the Bible as
being an expert natural science textbook, which it most clearly is not.

You can rest assure that I'll read your response if given, but I've said my piece.

Dasein said:

Nope! You keep misapplying the notion of a strawman argument to my post because you don't
understand the comparison I was making! I absolutely did not "conflate the veracity of the ethical
qualities of Harry Potter series with the veracity of the ethical qualities within the Bible" when I sug-
gested that both are works of fiction that proclaim the hopefulness of good triumphing over evil.
In that comparison, I did not purposefully misrepresent or exaggerate your own argument in order
for me to show the quality of your argument as being unsound - so, my comparison is not a straw
man. Further, in that comparison I made, I never offer any attempt to evaluate the veracity of JK
Rowling or the Bible's ethical claims; instead, I (crudely) summarized them. What you're doing here
is trying to be too deep but getting lost in your own hogwash, so your arguments are on the brink
of being incoherent as a result.

Yes - I am purposefully using the word "truth" as opposed to "facts" when talking about the nature
of biblical claims. There is no way for us to substantiate John 3:16 the same way we would be able
to substantiate cosmological claims, for example. Therefore, biblical claims are mostly within the
realm of subjectivity, not objectivity. You don't prove the validity of subjective truths the way you
go about proving the validity of objective facts. And you are pulling statements like this:

". . . almost as though these Biblical sayings have already been verified and accepted as self-evidently
true."

. . . squarely out of your butthole. The Bible never tells its reader that its claims are "self-evident."
Instead, in the New Testament, you find its authors claiming it is inspired by God or the Holy Spirit.
You are taking a stereotype about fundamentalists who are said to interpret the Bible literally and
appeal to the Bible as a final authority expert on all matters known to humanity (including the natural
sciences) and then attributing these charactertistics to the Bible as a whole. But the Bible never asks
its readers to:

1) read it literally
2) use it as an authority expert on all matters known to humanity (including the natural sciences)

I'm not letting you off the hook: who are these historians you claim who doubt the veracity of the pur-
ported historical occurrences found in the Bible? Please provide names and details as I want to know
who these idiotic historians are who think the Bible ought to be considered a reliable text that aptly
and sufficiently recorded historical events. I doubt there is any credible historian in the academy who
thinks the Bible is to be taken seriously as a history book that accurately documented what transpired
in the Levant two thousand years ago.

Speaking of theological truths, I had a thread on evaluating and assessing theological truths about
two months ago. I'll look for it and give you the link where this was debated. Here it is.

You're wrong about what science assumes or presumes before embarking upon a method to establish
or secure knowledge.

There's nothing wrong with the Bible in and of itself apart from how it is interpreted and reified. Like
I said: it is a religious book that is the product of the time in which it was written, so you have the
condoning of stoning adulterers. Your problem with the Bible is that you're reading it wrong and your
argument smacks of a new atheist tyro who doesn't understand how the Bible functions and what it
presents itself as. Yet, you persist upon reading it incorrectly because you imagine it strengthens
your criticisms of it, if you can show that it isn't aligned properly with what we know about the natural
world. Your half-baked original criticism: "Hey, Biblical cosmology is discordant with 21st century
cosmology and paleontology so the entirety of the Bible is folly" only works if you read the Bible as
being an expert natural science textbook, which it most clearly is not.

You can rest assure that I'll read your response if given, but I've said my piece.

Read through the previous posts again. You absolutely were comparing the ethical qualities between Harry Potter and the Bible. It was a straw man argument bc the purpose behind J K Rowling's books is not to morally educate the reader, or provide a moral truth - which I said before but you chose to deflect. There is alleged veracity to the Bible - which to its believers is not in doubt, but never is such a thing attributed to a work of fiction. That's the distinction you don't like, so you resort to false equivalence between the two, by claiming both to be fiction. Totally straw man.

The right thing to do is assess religious scriptures from a historical perspective so they stand up to scrutiny. One method would be carbon dating. Another would be checking for archaeological verfication for purported events. You shouldn't have a problem with these. On the other thread whose link you give, you asked the question "what is accurate theology?". A question I've been consistently asking here.


There are 3 main issues I consider worth analysing within theology frame of reference. (I'm sure you'll have a problem with these but bear with me).

One, do the events portrayed marry up within context of space, time? Something you clearly have a problem with, despite the fact that the burden of proof lies with the believers (or the literalists to be more precise). For example, are there archaeological finds to verify two of every animal species arriving to board a boat to avoid a flood. A couple of polar bears and penguins might have washed up somewhere. (I doubt I could get even 2 dogs and 2 cats on a boat but ya know with god's help?) If you're not a literalist this isn't important, I acknowledge. But this cherry picking is what ultimately puts me off any religion. I'm loathe to refer to this yet again. But this chiselling on the side is a deal breaker. And it should be for any honest person. Which brings me on to...

Second, analysing the content in terms of consistency and contradiction. This is mainly a literary skill, but methodology also employed by historians. This would also include the factor of subsequent editing and reforming of texts carried out by the early Roman church. And do the alternative, omitted texts concur with the officially accepted material?

Thirdly, the moral truth argument. Are the laws prescribed and proscribed in the Bible valid and sane. I would argue otherwise, as would most people. There's moral absolutism in the Bible, and I can't believe you dismissed such laws being in the Bible. (Still, this has nothing to do with science or history, lest it need be said).

And I'm sorry, but if you believe The Bible never tells its reader that its claims are "self-evident" or words to that effect, then clearly you haven't paid much attention to the Bible. The Old Testament is full of such content.

And for the last time, science doesn't assume facts the way religion does. This doesn't require a deep philosophical discussion. Religion can never prove anything. Science is a completely different ball game.

I love the fact you missed the point of my original post which was really trolling...

I used Quidditch as a passing reference, but you got so hung up on it you decided the joke had serious resonance and that I was making an intellectual connection between Harry Potter and the Bible. Which I guess made it even funnier

More techno-babble?


I'm still working on the time freezing bubble so you can keep and love your baby crocodile forever.

Snoogums!

XxAxX said:

Wtf happened to this thread about crocodiles????