Welcome to Gaia! ::

So what's your argument exactly, the Bible is stupid because it contains common sense? You'd be surprised how many people a little common sense could help if they were willing. You've probably heard people say "life doesn't come with instructions". Well, yes, it kind of does. The Bible is just that -- basic guidelines for how to live your life well.

I understand the concept of "alcohol poisoning" but what I'm saying is it's a misconception that alcohol contains some level of actual "poison". Since it isn't poisonous you can't actually BE "poisoned" from drinking alcohol. A trained paramedic first brought this to my attention.

Regarding Lot's story, well first of all who says it was a single bottle of wine that he'd consumed? Second, given that it was indeed, how do you know the alcohol content of the actual wine and the capacity of the bottle? And furthermore how do you know he passed out? How ridiculous. Drunken people can have sex, I don't know what your problem is with that fact, I guess you just have to fight it because it's the only aspect of your argument left. That's okay. And once again, what exactly are you trying to prove anyway?

Well first, science declares itself that essentially "proving" something is fundamentally impossible. Not a single scientific theory (or "law") can actually be proven. So keep that in mind.

Second, you haven't disproved "spontaneous generation", and you also can't prove that matter can't be created or destroyed. One thing that I find extremely ridiculous about your argument is that you are trying to prove METAPHYSICS using PHYSICS that we have observed during our VERY short time here on Earth, and you think that because of these observations (not even your own, at that) you can disprove that the events of the Bible are accurate. Not too long ago it was science that dictated the Earth was flat, remember that? Science can not disprove anything but itself, as once evidence is found that contradicts science, it is possible that established theories are at fault rather than said evidence. You, and many others, commonly make the mistake that you can prove something IN ANOTHER DIMENSION with our relatively null scientific knowledge of THIS dimension. Furthermore, you aren't using complete logic -- if God is so powerful that He can single-handedly create ALL matter, then He can certainly be an exception to any and all laws of science. So you can just stop trying to win a vain battle.

And as a prime example, the theory of preservation of mass is very incomplete. It makes no attempt to explain where the material CAME from, as surely it came from SOMEWHERE. According to the theory it has always been there, which doesn't actually make logical sense. And just to save you the trouble, I know many scientists maintain that material came from gasses floating in space or some crap. This still doesn't explain where the gasses came from. And if they were somehow just the result of a chemical reaction, then the chemicals causing the reaction had to come from somewhere too, and chemical reaction itself had to come from somewhere as well. According to science there must be a Creator. It's just that its role is questionable.

I don't really care WHAT evidence you have that life developed slowly. You neglect to mention there's plenty that shows it didn't; which isn't at all relative to the discussion by the way. Nothing in the Bible actually says it DIDN'T. And I could even argue that the Bible and all other sources supporting it together make a vast amount of evidence. I wonder why you are so quick to judge a book called the Bible, while you believe without question everything you read in a book called Grade 10 Science. A book written by simple men, containing constantly-changing information that you can't even personally verify and thus nothing more than speculation. I mean what has a science textbook ever done for someone? Yet civilization was established on the book called the Bible. The Bible contains timeless wisdom, while today's science textbook will be considered worthless, except for its comedic value, by the year 3000. A pretty safe bet considering science but a few hundred years ago.

And as for Lot, dear God woman, I'm not even going to argue that any more. Nowhere does the text mention that Lot WAS unconscious, that's pure misleading speculation on your part. It CAN be factually accurate; and besides, even if it wasn't, that would prove nothing because of the simple fact of logic that God does not need to obey the scientific laws HE HIMSELF CREATED. You can't argue that God didn't grant him a boner just for the situation.

But people believed the world was flat. Really, all science is, is a compilation of theories based on common observations. Anyone who went out to sea believed if they strayed too far they would fall off the side of the Earth (lmao). This was an observation and so in my perspective it was science.

But I didn't say we MOCK the science of old. Persians were performing brain surgery before Christ's birth! The Christian astral projectionist Swedenborg invented dozens of things that are in common use today, but could never build them because of technological limits of his day! In fact he drew a working schematic of a machine-gun long before anyone else had ever planned the semi-automatic firearm. So by no means am I mocking science new or old. I'm simply saying that, for every accurate scientific theory, there are countless inaccurate theories. And more often than not, those theories can't be proven incorrect until years, if not centuries, after their conception. For example look how many different models of molecular structure we've passed as "accepted" before we came to the current one, which is probably ALSO inaccurate. My point is, the wisdom of the Bible is timeless and infinite, outliving any simple theory.

I never claimed to know how powerful God is, although it's my FIRM believe that His power is immeasurable. Belief aside, my point was not one of religion but of simple logic. Assuming that God is real, which you were, there is no logical reason He would have to follow the laws of science when He CREATED all matter in the first place. This is the primary reason science can not, and will not ever, be able to prove or disprove the existence of a God. Science is often considered the simple laws of nature, but I think it is more accurate to consider science the laws of men. We create science really, when we observe something and believe that it is an absolute and definite "law", when really there IS no "definite" and "absolute" if you consider. You can't actually PROVE that any of this was actually typed by a person, I mean according to laws such as the law of probability it is entirely possible that this post is somehow nothing but the result of some kind of electronic interference. It's not likely in the least, but then again the chances of it happening are still far greater than any scientific theory of "creation" (or whatever the name for "beginning of the universe" you guys use is). And you believe in that, I'm guessing, so logically you would have to believe that this message COULD be only the result of electronic interference for example. And if you believe that then you must believe that almost ANYTHING is possible, including the very real presence and existence of God exactly how He is described in the Bible.

I really think you are underrating "prejudice" and "inequality". I mean so much is entailed by those words. Not everyone deserves to be equal. To say that is to say that there should be no punishment and no emotion really. Sure, the Bible advocates inequality in a few places, but it NEVER advocates unfairness. We are all CREATED equal, but that says nothing of what we choose to BECOME. "Prejudice" is really just another word for "bias" which is really just another word for "opinion", so come on, you're prejudiced. Hell, I bet you're prejudiced against racists. I bet you're prejudiced against the worst most blasphemous of hypocrite Bible-abusers. I'm sure if I looked for a second I could point out some of your very evident prejudices just by those you have exercised right here. We all have opinions, so we all have prejudice. And we SHOULD all have prejudice. It's what prompts us to stand up for what we think is right, even if we don't have the spine to actually do it. I have prejudice against murderers and rapists, and I think they should not be treated equally among us. Is this because of the Bible? Mostly. But I don't think it's such a bad prejudice, and I don't think it's such a bad form of inequality either -- because it is inequality, and it is prejudice, but that doesn't stop it from being fair.

Okay well first the Roman Army did not have machine-guns... neutral

I mostly agree, other than that. Except for a few minor bits...

People can BLAME the Bible for whatever they want, but that doesn't mean there's anything actually wrong with the Bible. I could blame Oprah Winfrey for raping someone but that doesn't make her responsible.

Right, Adam ate the "forbidden fruit". That's why God punished Adam in the very next verse. In fact Adam's punishment spans a few verses. For some reason you chose to completely ignore that though.

As for gentiles, sure, they were allowed to be sold as bondmen. They were still created equal, and CHOSE to remain gentiles. So really the inequality is not one of unfairness, the choice is there.

O Jesus, your grandmother's a mormon, no wonder you have such a negative view on religion blaugh

As for Adam's punishment, yes, it's arguably lesser than that of Eve. But in your King James, it's a little different. In classical versions such as Douay, it is stated that sons of Adam are cursed to work in fields for their entire life (all men just to clarify). So I mean, while men are to have domain over women, they also have to do the tasking physical work. While Adam receives only one real condition, a life of labour is arguably just as bad as Eve's punishment of cramps, the pain of birth, and some degree of servitude to her husband. The rest of the verses really I suppose are not specific to Adam but rather all humans, but the point is that while working in the fields men will be subject to wounds from thorns and thistles since women were not assigned the same role.

Meh, minor details really.

Very misleading and a little inaccurate. You could say that the Bible's outdated because of things like this, but I disagree completely. It's not outdated just because our society functions differently; it's just... that -- different. I mean I agree it's outdated if your definition of "outdated" is "old and different". I mean you could also say that the works of Shakespeare are outdated, but yet people are performing them still today in the classical way and even in new creative ways. Just because we don't live in a medieval society does not make Shakespeare's works outdated.

And, I said misleading because, you claim that "most men don't work in fields any more". So what? MORE men work in fields than WOMEN, and that's all the passage is really attributed to. I myself have done much work in fields, growing up in the middle of a particularly wide one.

Another misleading statement is that womens' work in the Bible arguably exceeds that of men; yes, perhaps, but in the passage you mentioned it's talking about PHYSICAL work, farm labour and the like, which women generally didn't, and still don't, do.

As for inaccuracies, women are not "equally capable". I mean, well, arguably they are technically, but that is not to say that women and men share the same characteristics in ANY aspect. The woman's body is much different from the man's, I think no study is necessary to see that. The physically-strongest women are still leagues less-so than the strongest men. The woman's body deals with physical pain and work in a much different way, for example in childbirth. A man would generally be in considerably more pain than a woman if it were hypothetically possible for a man to give birth to a child. Yet who can't attest to the "whiny woman" in many situations that men may find in fact pretty enjoyable. For example during my good time in the Canadian Air Cadets I had the misfortune of this experience many times. During camps, in an undesireable climate, the women cadets would constantly complain about the weather conditions, dirty water, having to walk in mud, dealing with animals, etc. Yet the men generally found great entertainment in these same things. Similarly, men generally find some things very unpleasant that women might enjoy (you're a woman, do you really need examples of that). So men and women are physically equal, perhaps, but not the same by any means.

That, and this is really off-topic.

But the words of the prophets were not written only for their times. Nothing in the Bible no longer applies to us. The parable of the three pigs and the big bad wolf was written by men to teach a very basic lesson. One needs not study that tale because it is fundamentally very simple. It does not answer questions for us that nothing else can, it is but a single story meant for children to understand right away.

Of course both genders are similar... geez... but just as in my previous example, a woman's physique often limits her from some career choices such as fire-fighter, because (all "political correctness" aside) the fact is she is simply unable to do the job of lifting more than she weighs. And as for the Bible's example, I have yet to see a woman that actually does the work of farming with the efficiency of a man. These are not perspectives based in prejudice, they are simply realistic observations. You named preferences; of course both men and women can be like-minded on any subject. Physically, men and women differ.

Exceptions? I do not see your point... "exceptions" is just "weaknesses" really. If God has decreed a rule without exceptions then that is a rule without exceptions in my book.