This is about why it is meaningless to discuss the bible and it's contents as true.

For one, evolution. There is so much evidence that supports evolution that you could begin studying it now and not finish covering all the material by the time you die.

For another, the age of the Earth and universe. Starting centuries ago, estimates of the age of the Earth and universe had become increasingly accurate all the way up until todays best estimates. They are corroborated using numerous different methods and all agree that the Earth is around 4.54 billion years old plus or minus 1%. The universe is of course much older.

Finally, there is no reason to believe the bible is true. Sure, some events and historical figures may be true, but every good storyteller knows that the best deception is one which contains half-truths.

What reason or evidence is there that supports the bible? Mother mary on a piece of toast?

Interbane wrote:This is about why it is meaningless to discuss the bible and it's contents as true.

For one, evolution. There is so much evidence that supports evolution that you could begin studying it now and not finish covering all the material by the time you die.

For another, the age of the Earth and universe. Starting centuries ago, estimates of the age of the Earth and universe had become increasingly accurate all the way up until todays best estimates. They are corroborated using numerous different methods and all agree that the Earth is around 4.54 billion years old plus or minus 1%. The universe is of course much older.

Finally, there is no reason to believe the bible is true. Sure, some events and historical figures may be true, but every good storyteller knows that the best deception is one which contains half-truths.

What reason or evidence is there that supports the bible? Mother mary on a piece of toast?

Once again you have jumped to a conclusion. I have not asked that you discuss the Bible as true, I have merely asked that we discuss it book by book. It has amazed me how scared everyone seems to be to do that. You might argue that it isn't fear but if not I don't know what it is. You bray, lampoon, disparage, insult, misquote and belittle the Bible in post after ad nausium post so why not take it on head first?

And I am not into visual manifestations on walls or edible objects but I did once see Dr. Richard Dawkins face on a brownie.

We can discuss the Bible. I won't take offense if you think it is fiction though I don't need you to remind me of that every third line, and we both might learn something.

Thanks.

Oh, and BTW, Dr. Dawkins did not survive the encounter.

You bray, lampoon, disparage, insult, misquote and belittle the Bible in post after ad nausium post so why not take it on head first?

What do you mean "take it on"? You see, you're fundamentally misunderstanding my position. I'd just as much wish to take on "The sociology of cave dwelling goblins." There is nothing to take on. I post in most of the religious threads mainly as a sort of social experiment. I'm amazed at how someone who is of seemingly normal intelligence can be so perfectly blind to the world around him.

Interbane wrote:This is about why it is meaningless to discuss the bible and it's contents as true.

For one, evolution. There is so much evidence that supports evolution that you could begin studying it now and not finish covering all the material by the time you die.

For another, the age of the Earth and universe. Starting centuries ago, estimates of the age of the Earth and universe had become increasingly accurate all the way up until todays best estimates. They are corroborated using numerous different methods and all agree that the Earth is around 4.54 billion years old plus or minus 1%. The universe is of course much older.

Finally, there is no reason to believe the bible is true. Sure, some events and historical figures may be true, but every good storyteller knows that the best deception is one which contains half-truths.

What reason or evidence is there that supports the bible? Mother mary on a piece of toast?

History in the Bible is really moral storytelling. To me this is a neutral description, but of course for others, those are fighting words.

Religions display their ignorance every time it opens its wretched mouth and the lies spew forth. You would be better off trusting a rattlesnake at least you know the snake is going to bite you if you get to close where as religion will burn you at the stake or worse ask you for money....must be hell trying to satisfy some Gods that don't exist and then wonder why you get nothing in return.........

stahrwe wrote: Once again you have jumped to a conclusion. I have not asked that you discuss the Bible as true, I have merely asked that we discuss it book by book. It has amazed me how scared everyone seems to be to do that. You might argue that it isn't fear but if not I don't know what it is. You bray, lampoon, disparage, insult, misquote and belittle the Bible in post after ad nausium post so why not take it on head first?

No, you need to choose some controversy within your own world of Bible literalism or scholarship and find someone to debate you. Here is not a good hunting ground for that. I think you can't see that the gap is insuperable when it comes to the prospect for discussion.

No, you need to choose some controversy within your own world of Bible literalism or scholarship and find someone to debate you. Here is not a good hunting ground for that. I think you can't see that the gap is insuperable when it comes to the prospect for discussion.

I agree with you, Dwill. I do not think anyone is "scared" to discuss the Bible stahrwe. It is just seems that, and correct me if I'm wrong, when it comes to discussing the Bible with you it is not a discussion. Rather, it is you telling people how to interpret the Bible your way. Discussing any religious text is tricky because there are many, many people who still see it as religiously valid. There are many different discussions about how to interpret the text amongst the people who still see it as religiously valid. Then there are others who will see the text as pure myth equivalent to the Greek Gods. Sometimes it is almost impossible to find common ground. It gets exhausting because there are some arguments that have no end. At that point it just seems that you can keep arguing ad nauseam or you can agree to disagree and discuss other things.

Star Burst wrote:Religions display their ignorance every time it opens its wretched mouth and the lies spew forth. You would be better off trusting a rattlesnake at least you know the snake is going to bite you if you get to close where as religion will burn you at the stake or worse ask you for money....must be hell trying to satisfy some Gods that don't exist and then wonder why you get nothing in return.........

Or build a hospital for you
Or build a school for you
Or develop a written language for you
Or dig wells
Or feed you after a disaster
Or provide you with a place to sleep
Or take medical care to you for twenty years knowing that where you are going is dangerous

Asking for money is worse? How did you get so twisted?

Warning, in Star Burst's opinion something worse than a rattlesnake is ahead.

BY KATHY GANNON
Associated Press
KABUL, Afghanistan — They hiked for more than 10 hours over rugged mountains — unarmed and without security — to bring medical care to isolated Afghan villagers until their humanitarian mission took a tragic turn.

Ten members of the Christian medical team — six Americans, two Afghans, one German and a Briton — were gunned down in a gruesome slaughter that the Taliban said they carried out, alleging the volunteers were spying and trying to convert Muslims to Christianity. The gunmen spared an Afghan driver, who recited verses from the Islamic holy book Quran as he begged for his life.

Team members — doctors, nurses and logistics personnel — were attacked as they were returning to Kabul after their two-week mission in the remote Parun valley of Nuristan province about 160 miles north of Kabul. They had decided to veer northward into Badakhshan province because they thought that would be the safest route back to Kabul, said Dirk Frans, director of the International Assistance Mission, which organized the team.

The bullet-riddled bodies — including three women — were found Friday near three four-wheel drive vehicles in a wooded area just off the main road that snakes through a narrow valley in the Kuran Wa Munjan district of Badakhshan, provincial police chief Gen. Agha Noor Kemtuz told the Associated Press.

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid told the AP that they killed the foreigners because they were "spying for the Americans" and "preaching Christianity." In a Pashto language statement acquired by the AP, the Taliban also said the team was carrying Dari language Bibles and "spying gadgets."

Frans said the International Assistance Mission, or IAM, one of the longest serving non-governmental organizations operating in Afghanistan, is registered as a nonprofit Christian organization but does not proselytize.

Frans said the team had driven to Nuristan, left their vehicles and hiked for nearly a half day with pack horses over mountainous terrain to reach the Parun valley where they traveled from village to village on foot offering medical care for about two weeks.

Tom Little, one of the dead Americans, had spent about 30 years in Afghanistan, rearing three daughters and surviving both the Soviet invasion and bloody civil war of the 1990s that destroyed much of Kabul.

Little, an optometrist from Delmar, N.Y., spoke fluent Dari, one of the two main Afghan languages, Frans said. Little, along with employees from other Christian organizations, were expelled by the Taliban government in August 2001 after the arrest of eight Christian aid workers for allegedly trying to convert Afghans to Christianity.

He returned to Afghanistan after the Taliban government was toppled in November 2001 by U.S.-backed forces. Known in Kabul as "Mr. Tom," Little supervised a network of IAM eye hospitals and clinics around the country largely funded through private donations.

Little had been making such trips to Afghan villages for decades, offering vision care and surgical services in regions where medical services of any type are scarce.

Read more: http://www.kansas.com/2010/08/08/143803 ... z0wUxe6pur

Interbane wrote:

You bray, lampoon, disparage, insult, misquote and belittle the Bible in post after ad nausium post so why not take it on head first?

What do you mean "take it on"? You see, you're fundamentally misunderstanding my position. I'd just as much wish to take on "The sociology of cave dwelling goblins." There is nothing to take on. I post in most of the religious threads mainly as a sort of social experiment. I'm amazed at how someone who is of seemingly normal intelligence can be so perfectly blind to the world around him.

Might I sugges than that you refrain from:

Offering opinions about the Bible;
Commenting on Bible stories;
Commenting on Christian doctrine with a Biblical basis.

In what way are they blind to the world about them?

seespotrun2008 wrote:

No, you need to choose some controversy within your own world of Bible literalism or scholarship and find someone to debate you. Here is not a good hunting ground for that. I think you can't see that the gap is insuperable when it comes to the prospect for discussion.

I agree with you, Dwill. I do not think anyone is "scared" to discuss the Bible stahrwe. It is just seems that, and correct me if I'm wrong, when it comes to discussing the Bible with you it is not a discussion. Rather, it is you telling people how to interpret the Bible your way. Discussing any religious text is tricky because there are many, many people who still see it as religiously valid. There are many different discussions about how to interpret the text amongst the people who still see it as religiously valid. Then there are others who will see the text as pure myth equivalent to the Greek Gods. Sometimes it is almost impossible to find common ground. It gets exhausting because there are some arguments that have no end. At that point it just seems that you can keep arguing ad nauseam or you can agree to disagree and discuss other things.

Be honest with me, aren't the comments that BT members make in multiple posts just their 'telling me' how I should interpret the Bible? I don't have any problem in a Bible discussion with someone stating their position. I will disagree if necessary but don't make stuff up. The protracted discussion we got into about day 4 wasn't that I disagreed with anyone, or they with me, it was based on an intransigence whereby my theory was not considered. It goes on with RT mis-stating it. If we get to an impass I am perfectly happy agreeing to disagree.

Other than that, we argue all the time about the Bible, so why avoid reading it. If we had maintained the schedule we would be halfway through by now.