Is the Bible 100% truth?

[pstarr]

What would be the nature of this no-thing?

 

[searcher]

Your statements are the reason I said I did not want to get into this argument. I stated what I believe and did not attack what you believe. I live by a certain set of beliefs. If you don't like it that is fine, but don't attack me or what I believe.

 

[Ray]

So, in other words, you think a bunch of Bronze Age semi-literate pig farmers that owned slaves, had multiple wives, and believed the earth was flat had more insight into cosmological history than modern-day physicists.

Uh huh. Sure.

Intellectualism at its best, no doubt.

These same Bronze Aged people survived, reproduced and some might have indirectly contributed genetic material to you.

 

[searcher]

These same Bronze Aged people survived, reproduced and some might have indirectly contributed genetic material to you.

This is very unfortunate for the rest of us.

 

[elder999]

What would be the nature of this no-thing?

Well, that's one of those metaphysical things, isn't it? If it's not a thing, it doesn't have any "nature," does it?

 

[pstarr]

No, not necessarily. Rather like wuji.

 

[Makalakumu]

IMHO, the Big Bang is probably wrong, but what the heck. Here is how I understand the question of what was outside of the infinitely small, infinitely dense point in which our universe was compressed.

Our concepts of space and time are irrellevent when one is discussion things outside of the universe. It's like asking what is north of the North Pole. To say that "nothing" or "void" was outside of the universe still implies these concepts.

A better explanation is that "outside of the universe" does not exist. You can't ever get to the edge of the universe because this is, seriously, all there is.

upnorthkyosa

ps - unless one wants to talk about "the bulk" and the "big splat."

 

[heretic888]

Your statements are the reason I said I did not want to get into this argument.

This then begs the obvious question:

If you don't want to discuss the subject, then why did you bother posting??

I stated what I believe and did not attack what you believe. I live by a certain set of beliefs. If you don't like it that is fine, but don't attack me or what I believe.

The fantasy that your statements are somehow immune to criticism or cross-examination on a public discussion forum is just that: a fantasy.

By the way, I didn't "attack" you, as there was nothing remotely personal in my criticisms. I didn't even really attack your beliefs per se, as much as I did the logic underlying them (example: "it's true because I say God did it").

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Intellectualism at its best, no doubt.

These same Bronze Aged people survived, reproduced and some might have indirectly contributed genetic material to you.

Most probably.

However, that is completely irrelevant to what I actually said in the aforementioned post. That these people may have been my ancestors does not magically mean they have secret insight into the workings of the universe. All it means is they lived a long time ago and probably held to a number of ideas that would seem backwards to the modern mind (such as the earth being flat).

The sad truth is that the Bible was written by and to people who believed women were second-class citizens, who probably owned slaves, who believed the world was flat and when it rained it was because the Almighty was angry, who believed mental illness was caused by "demonic possession", and who probably read at an elementary school level (if even that).

That they contributed genetic material to you or me is irrelevant, as this has nothing to do with genetics in the first place. It has to do with historical and cultural context (something that absolutists have trouble wrapping their minds around).

Laterz.

 

[Ray]

The sad truth is that the Bible was written by and to people who believed women were second-class citizens, who probably owned slaves, who believed the world was flat..

It was known to the Greeks that the earth was round---in fact the circumference was calculated (although not absolutely precise).

It has to do with historical and cultural context (something that absolutists have trouble wrapping their minds around).

As an educated person you must have learned about ethnocentrism. You shouldn't judge other peoples and cultures by your culture.

So what if some ancient people "believed" that women were second class citizens? No, wait. They WERE second class citizens -- of course not of the United States (which didn't exist) but in a different time and culture in which women were second class citizens.

You equate the ancient: owning of slaves, second class citizenry of women, the raising of swine, polygamy and the lack of opportunity to learn to read as some kind of evidence of something, I'm not sure what. Perhaps that these practices make a person less of an astronomer than others who don't share these practices?

However, since you identify "absolutist" as something less than desirable, perhaps you practice relativism? In which case you have no firm foundation on which to base any of your "good/bad" categories. All you need do is rationalize any behavior: perhaps it makes you more likely to reproduce and therefore your line will be more successful; in turn leading to the next evolutionary development.

I will go on record as being against slavery, for first class citizenry of women in the US, against polygamy (as well as homosexual marriages). However, I fully support the right of individuals, small farmers and large corporations to raise (and consume) swine and other animals I also support 100% literacy (and not just so people can read your awesome posts, but that's part of it).

Fine, you don't like people who have religious beliefs because they cannot adequately defend their beliefs against your model of how everyone should evaluate ideas and facts. That doesn't mean you have to call them the spawn of "semi-literate pig farmers who owned slaves and practiced polygamy."

analogy: Take a look at the good protections that have been introduced in modern medicine and contrast it with Edward Jenner's development of the smallpox vaccine. You can't judge Jenner by today's standard.

 

[heretic888]

It was known to the Greeks that the earth was round---in fact the circumference was calculated (although not absolutely precise).

The Greeks did not write the Bible.

As an educated person you must have learned about ethnocentrism. You shouldn't judge other peoples and cultures by your culture.

I'm not judging their "culture" by the standards of my "culture".

I am judging their "science" by the standards of logic and science, as that is what is being discussed here. We have no reason to believe these individuals were knowledgable about the laws of physics or cosmological history or any such subject matter.

You equate the ancient: owning of slaves, second class citizenry of women, the raising of swine, polygamy and the lack of opportunity to learn to read as some kind of evidence of something, I'm not sure what. Perhaps that these practices make a person less of an astronomer than others who don't share these practices?

Yeah, I'd say the ability to read is probably pretty important in learning astronomy (or any science, for that matter).

However, the fact is these people didn't have the means to study astronomy the way we do today. It is fanciful wishing to think otherwise.

However, since you identify "absolutist" as something less than desirable, perhaps you practice relativism?

Given that relativism is just a thinly-veiled form of absolutism, I think not.

I will go on record as being against slavery, for first class citizenry of women in the US, against polygamy (as well as homosexual marriages). However, I fully support the right of individuals, small farmers and large corporations to raise (and consume) swine and other animals I also support 100% literacy (and not just so people can read your awesome posts, but that's part of it).

Um... good for you??

Fine, you don't like people who have religious beliefs because they cannot adequately defend their beliefs against your model of how everyone should evaluate ideas and facts. That doesn't mean you have to call them the spawn of "semi-literate pig farmers who owned slaves and practiced polygamy."

Wow. You couldn't have possibly have twisted my words any more there.

First off, I never said I didn't like or dislike any person for holding certain beliefs. This isn't personal at all, and attempts to make it so are a sign of a desperate argument.

Secondly, I never claimed religious people were the spawn of "semi-literate pig farmers". I said the religious text was authored by such individuals.

I would suggest you actually bother to read my posts if you desire to know my position on this subject.

analogy: Take a look at the good protections that have been introduced in modern medicine and contrast it with Edward Jenner's development of the smallpox vaccine. You can't judge Jenner by today's standard.

I don't intend to.

Laterz.

 

[Ray]

The Greeks did not write the Bible.

The knowledge of a round earth was known at the time the Bible was written.

I'm not judging their "culture" by the standards of my "culture".

I am judging their "science" by the standards of logic and science, as that is what is being discussed here.

Their science is not being discussed here; it is a question about what people believe about the bible.

We have no reason to believe these individuals were knowledgable about the laws of physics or cosmological history or any such subject matter.

We also have no reason to believe that they weren't "state of the art" for their time and place.

Yeah, I'd say the ability to read is probably pretty important in learning astronomy (or any science, for that matter).

Certainly today literacy is very important when learning a science. Probably less so important during the time period in question.

However, the fact is these people didn't have the means to study astronomy the way we do today. It is fanciful wishing to think otherwise.

That is a fact of which I agree with you on.

Wow. You couldn't have possibly have twisted my words any more there.

First off, I never said I didn't like or dislike any person for holding certain beliefs. This isn't personal at all, and attempts to make it so are a sign of a desperate argument.

Secondly, I never claimed religious people were the spawn of "semi-literate pig farmers". I said the religious text was authored by such individuals.

Am I twisting your words or are you trying to twist out? "Hey man, that religious book that you revere so much was written by 'semi literate pig farmers' " No, that's not a minimization of the beliefs of Christians and Jews (esp those Jews who keep Kosher).

I would suggest you actually bother to read my posts if you desire to know my position on this subject.

I have, have you? Have you read them from the POV of your intended audience? Maybe us followers of the writings semi-literate pig farmers just can't understand your sophisticated use of the language.

 

[heretic888]

The knowledge of a round earth was known at the time the Bible was written.

Yes, but was it known to the people that wrote the Bible??

I seem to recall reading that the earth is described as a "circle" (not a "sphere") somewhere in the Old Testament, but I might be wrong. . .

Then again, a lot of information and understanding was effectively lost or diluted during the Dark Ages.

Their science is not being discussed here; it is a question about what people believe about the bible.

Actually, we are discussing their science here. The topic of this thread pertains to whether all of the descriptions in the Bible are 100% factual. If we assume a literal reading of the text, then the science of the individuals definitely comes into play here.

We also have no reason to believe that they weren't "state of the art" for their time and place.

Sure, but it doesn't change the fact they were wrong.

Sigmund Freud was also very "state of the art" in terms of describing psychological development for his time and place, but he was (mostly) wrong, too.

Certainly today literacy is very important when learning a science. Probably less so important during the time period in question.

No, literacy is prerequisite for learning a discipline that involves the transmission of a large body of information and abstract formulations that deny easily being memorized. One could only calculate the relative location of certain heavenly bodies and such by recording them in a written manner, and one could only formulate their relationship with one another by using abstract calculations that also require being written out to some extent.

That is a fact of which I agree with you on.

Yay!

Am I twisting your words or are you trying to twist out?

You're twisting my words. I never "attacked" anybody nor did I claim anybody was the "spawn" of anything. Context, context, context.

"Hey man, that religious book that you revere so much was written by 'semi literate pig farmers' " No, that's not a minimization of the beliefs of Christians and Jews (esp those Jews who keep Kosher).

If you consider it a "minimization" to point out that the beliefs in question are not timeless eternal truths, but are social constructions that reflect the time and place they come from, then guilty as charged.

This also isn't to say that there are not certain things in the Bible (or other premodern religious literature) that are not relevant to people living today. But, these sorts of things tend to be of a strictly moral (as opposed to ethical) and mystical (as opposed to dogmatic) nature. Approximating the geological history of the earth is not one of them.

In fact, trying to approximate from the Bible any truths concerning the natural sciences is pretty archaic. These people had neither the information nor the means to study these sciences in the way we do today, so it is futile to look to them for insight about subjects like physics, biology, or geology.

As I have said at least a dozen times on this thread so far, the Bible is a book of religious literature. Any value it has is solely as religious literature. It is not a book of science, not a book of history, not even a book of good governance. That should always be kept in mind.

I have, have you? Have you read them from the POV of your intended audience? Maybe us followers of the writings semi-literate pig farmers just can't understand your sophisticated use of the language.

To be perfectly blunt, that's not my problem.

Laterz.

 

[Ray]

Then again, a lot of information and understanding was effectively lost or diluted during the Dark Ages.

Another point that you and I agree on.

Actually, we are discussing their science here. The topic of this thread pertains to whether all of the descriptions in the Bible are 100% factual. If we assume a literal reading of the text, then the science of the individuals definitely comes into play here.

Is the Bible True and Correct in your opinion?
Yes, I believe all of the Bible is true and correct, even in symbolism
No, the Bible contains skewed opinions and is filled with fabrications
Not sure

Maybe the topic of the thread is whether everything in the bible is 100% factual, maybe the topic isn't. Maybe it is about the science of the writers, maybe it isn't. When Nathan told David the parable of the rich man who took the poor man's sheep, it was a parable and probably not a true accounting of a rich man who took a poor man's sheep. But was there really a Nathan and a David; or was it also a parable.

You're twisting my words. I never "attacked" anybody nor did I claim anybody was the "spawn" of anything. Context, context, context.

Your words were thatt the bible was written by semi-literate pig farmers who owned slaves and treated women badly.
And that meant what to the people who believe that many of its precepts are good? That they are following the teachings of semi-literate pig farmers who owned slaves and treated women badly... hmmm. Let me try applying your way of connecting the dots to something in my life: "if my father was an alcoholic womanizer then anything I learned from him about music is suspect?"

If you consider it a "minimization" to point out that the beliefs in question are not timeless eternal truths, but are social constructions that reflect the time and place they come from, then guilty as charged.

Nope: I'm not charging you with saying "beliefs in question are not timeless eternal truths, but are social constructions that reflect the time and place they come from" I'm charging you with stating that: the writings of pig farmers are incorrect because they are pig farmers; the scientific understanding of a people depend on the status of women in their pastoral society; and so on. I have no problem with your ideas about the bible.

To be perfectly blunt, that's not my problem.

If you want to be understood in the way you intend to be, then it certainly is your problem.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

Mod. Note.
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Jim Hummel
-MT Senior Moderator-

 

[Seeking Zen]

There is no absolute "truth". To think so defies reality. One "Truth" simply leads to another, which is part of a bigger cycle, reality, or "truth", of which it is only a cosmic spec of dust in the picture of everthing, which is only the first of an infinite number of steps towards....and repeat.

See the point....

 

[terryl965]

It has to be true man wrote it

 

[qi-tah]

It has to be true man wrote it

Ha! totally. Not to mention it's being translated about half a million times.

 

[Freestyler777]

I absolutely believe that the bible is 100% fact, not fiction.

And I agree that religion should be an all or nothing game. Don't rationalize the happenings recorded in the bible.

One eastern yogi said, "The first three letters of the word rationalist spell R-A-T, Ganesha (wisdom) must ride upon this rat."

I know that is harsh, but picking and choosing what you believe is not so good as having deep faith. I especially like solomon's books (Proverbs, Song of songs, and Ecclesiastes).

 

[Andrew Green]

I know that is harsh, but picking and choosing what you believe is not so good as having deep faith. I especially like solomon's books (Proverbs, Song of songs, and Ecclesiastes).

Why? It almost sounds like you are saying that faith is better then critical thinking?