|
Post by pim on Apr 6, 2013 2:29:08 GMT 10
Slarti are you referring to the Bible? Or for that matter to the sacred text that embodies the core beliefs of any given religion?
Do you honestly think that your statement:
a book with such blatant stupidity in it just cannot be believed unless you are gullible to (sic) the extreme!
... would apply to such people as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr, Bishop Desmond Tutu, the Rev Martin Niemöller, Jimmy Carter, Kristina Kenneally, Mary Mackillop and Mother Theresa?
Agree with them, disagree with them - whatever floats your boat! But somehow to characterise them as "stupid" or "gullible" doesn't quite cut it. And yet this "book with such blatant stupidity" was/is at the very core of their moral universe and informs their activism. Feel free to disagree with them by all means, but if you dismiss them as "gullible" then it seems to me there's something pretty fundamental that you're just not getting.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Apr 6, 2013 6:54:22 GMT 10
Dear Pim,
If there really is a God and he/she really is omnipotent, would that not logically mean that he would not allow MAN to write a book about HIM that contains so many factual inaccuracies? HE also would have forseen that future generations would interpret these statements as being stupid and not allowed them to be made The Bible may well be historically "important", but is just filled with too many "stupid" statements. I will start a separate topic for all the "stupidities", you can try to disprove them if you want.
But they are all there, in black and white.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 6, 2013 7:07:22 GMT 10
Dear Pim, If there really is a God and he/she really is omnipotent, would that not logically mean that he would not allow MAN to write a book about HIM that contains so many factual inaccuracies? . Circular logic--since your conclusion is included in your premise.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Apr 6, 2013 7:30:01 GMT 10
Disprove it then.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 6, 2013 14:50:39 GMT 10
Don't need to. Burden of proof lies with the claimant.
Study the text in it's original language, before you try to refute it in English, in your modern cultural context. --Then you might find out the only 'factual inaccuracies' were in your understanding of the text.
Look, Einstein.
Scholars have studied the scriptures for hundreds of years. If there were factual inaccuracies, they would have found them with their Ph.d's; Prior to your blog bigot typing them out with his Cheeto-encrusted fingertips, from the confines of his parent's basement. Do you believe everything on the internet, just because some idiot has bandwidth, and a couple of hours to obsess about what sucks in his life, everyday?
You claim to trust science for everything else, why does it suddenly stop when it comes to science involving historical data?
Just sayin'.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Apr 6, 2013 15:19:50 GMT 10
So explain rainbows.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 7, 2013 1:09:22 GMT 10
A rainbow is an optical and meteorological phenomenon that is caused by reflection of light in water droplets in the Earth's atmosphere, resulting in a spectrum of light appearing in the sky.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Apr 7, 2013 7:48:12 GMT 10
A rainbow is an optical and meteorological phenomenon that is caused by reflection of light in water droplets in the Earth's atmosphere, resulting in a spectrum of light appearing in the sky. I' m glad you know the facts but according your bible: GE 9:12-16 God first creates the rainbow. (Note: Apparently the laws having to do with refraction of light were null and void prior to this time.) Do we have to try to teach you one Bible untruth at a time? ;D
|
|
|
Post by fat on Apr 9, 2013 7:26:19 GMT 10
Nothing in there about it being the first rainbow Mr Slarti. It is just that from that time on the sight of a rainbow will be a reminder of the covenant.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 9, 2013 9:20:41 GMT 10
A rainbow is an optical and meteorological phenomenon that is caused by reflection of light in water droplets in the Earth's atmosphere, resulting in a spectrum of light appearing in the sky. I' m glad you know the facts but according your bible: GE 9:12-16 God first creates the rainbow. (Note: Apparently the laws having to do with refraction of light were null and void prior to this time.) Where is the discrepancy? The appearance of a rainbow through natural forces, and God (who is the Agent source of these natural laws), are two concepts that are not mutually exclusive. Apparently, since I am unaware of any "untruths" contained in the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Apr 9, 2013 18:55:20 GMT 10
Open your eyes then!
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 10, 2013 10:10:02 GMT 10
I have. Perhaps you ought to follow your own advice and start 'thinking for yourself', instead of doing your research on websites that tell you what to think.
-Just sayin'.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Apr 10, 2013 23:44:01 GMT 10
I have. Perhaps you ought to follow your own advice and start 'thinking for yourself', instead of doing your research on websites that tell you what to think. -Just sayin'. Oh dear, you have very little idea how much that made me laugh, Vicar. You just don't get Atheists at all, do you? We don't 'research' on websites, others write the websites and the information is freely available. What we don't do is rely on ONE BOOK to get all of our ideas from. We use ALL available information and work out by OURSELVES which information is relevant and which is not.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 12, 2013 9:45:13 GMT 10
We don't 'research' on websites Says the guy who opened his "Bible Criticism" thread with C&P from Infidels.org. Other's write resources for the Library, and that information is freely available. --Do libraries have research materials, Slarti? Neither do Christians. Are you naive enough to think Christians only read from one book, slarti? Do you think seminary Libraries only have a single book on the shelf? And if you think the Bible is only 1 book, then you haven't studied it long enough to criticize it. But when a theist does the same thing, and doesn't agree with your conclusions, they are wrong... Correct, 'freethinker'?
|
|