Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/5/07 03:25 AM, afliXion wrote: It seems to me the reason you are saying this is because you think the Bible is out-dated and lost its authority.

Well he would have a point there. Out of curiosity, do you believe that sodomites should be put to death?

But quite the contrary the Bible stands up to science (and is true science)

Not really...if we're taking the Bible word for word, then the moon gives off light (Genesis 1:16) and in fact, the sun and moon are not what makes day light and night dark at all (Genesis 1:5). And hell, this is just from me looking at the very first page of my trusty KJV.

At 1/5/07 01:00 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 1/5/07 03:25 AM, afliXion wrote: The Bible is God's written word revealed to mankind.
It seems to me the reason you are saying this is because you think the Bible is out-dated and lost its authority. But quite the contrary the Bible stands up to science (and is true science) and is not limited to time, not one word of it will fail. (see my sig)
Like Solomon said, 'there is nothing new under the sun.'

Word for word. http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.ht m
It's a nice approximation, but perimeter/diameter = Pi, Pi being an irrational number. Claiming it is any limited value is wrong. Period.

the Bible has not and cannot lose its authority because it is meant to be interpretted not taken word for word. it tried to explain the world in the same way we do today but along with explaining simply how things came to be it tries to explain our connection with God and one another (i say try because each individual still has to find his own place). we may interpret all we want from every part of the Bible but where new science overlaps old science (the beliefs held by the ancients) what we know today is more complete because we can see more than the people who wrote Genesis. does that make Genesis outdated and useless? of course not, its still an integral part of Christianity as a way of teaching and it does not have to contradict science.

Yes it does make Genesis outdated and useless to base scientific facts from. If you need scientific knowledge to interpret it correctly, it's useless.

2+2= shableh. Yeah, it's correct, because shableh equals 4.
2+3= shableh. Yeah, it's correct, because apparently when shableh is preceded by 3=, it means 5 instead of 4. Praise the never failing word of Togukawa!

Thank God the time that religious morons were able to burn people alive for pointing out the Bible is wrong has long since passed. In 1992 pope even apologized for Galileo's treatment. It was all some misunderstanding.

When I want to know whether it is raining outside, do I start looking in the Bible for passages that might give me information? Hell no, I look outside and I SEE whether it's raining or not. If I want to know whether my apple will fall down if I stop holding on to it, I just do it and check whether it falls, instead of looking in the Bible, Illias or Koran.

Looking in the Bible for scientific facts about the world is as useful as asking the time to your cat. But then of course you have the nutcases that think that interpreting the cat's purr as "7 o clock" is just as valid as looking on your watch. "The watch is merely more complete than the cat's purr, the answer of the cat does not need to contradict the answer of the watch, you've just got to interpret it right".

A fork is for eating, not chopping trees down. The Bible is for religious issues, not answering scientific questions.

To end with my new favourite quote from Asimov:
"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

What would you call Genesis then? I hope you will agree that the earth IS round, and that it does revolve around the sun. Is the word of God in it's enteriety simply wrong?

I got news for you the belief that the world is flat as you put it is not a Christian nor a Hebrew belief it comes from Aristotle. Before you write off Christians with the wrong beliefs and theories understand where a false belief comes from. I will agree this was a believed by early Christians but by blind conceit. Unlike those who lived in the time of the Bible I actually read it. This was not true of early Christians because the world was not literate. I am an accomplished student and bilingual and would like if you people would quit assuming I am some blind believer in my parents faith. I will agree that my belief in God is irrational but it does not write me off as stupid like many of you folks in Newgrounds seem to assume.

I have liked some of your responses but picking someone beliefs because you hold a worldview that excludes irrational thinking is ridiculously shortsighted and narrow minded. I am a teacher of multiculturalism so I don't know where you get the idea I am narrow minded idiot. My worldview allows for the rational (science) and the irrational. I am sorry you do not see the world through my eyes but assuming people who hold to the bible are idiots and have low IQs is a foolish move for anyone. If you read the bible thoroughly you would understand that saying that parts of the bible are invalid and then saying you believe in God is in it self a life of a Hypocrite and that I am not.

I have the right as a human being to believe in what I want. Science it its self cannot explain miracles and a infinite God. It is just as limited as observation and inference based on that which is seen. So people believe in a God. Not everybody who believes is a moron.

Get over yourselfs , really.

Stop analysing every word of the bible that dosn't make sense " LOLZ EVE HAD TO FUCK HER SONS LOL " or " LOLZ JESUS CUNDT HAVE WALKED ON WATER ". Who cares if it dosn't make sense , the bible has been re-written so many times , and the original copy didn't have an accurate translation , therefore will probably not be anywere near as accurate as the original writing. Plus , every religion dosn't make logical sense , so shut up

zealot rant

At 1/5/07 04:12 PM, TurtleJuice wrote: Get over yourselfs , really.

Stop analysing every word of the bible that dosn't make sense " LOLZ EVE HAD TO FUCK HER SONS LOL " or " LOLZ JESUS CUNDT HAVE WALKED ON WATER ". Who cares if it dosn't make sense , the bible has been re-written so many times , and the original copy didn't have an accurate translation , therefore will probably not be anywere near as accurate as the original writing. Plus , every religion dosn't make logical sense , so shut up

zealot rant

We're not analyzing it word for word saying that the total Bible is wrong. We are pointing out to those that think the Bible is flawless that there are in fact flaws in its current writing. Were the original copies of the books of the Bible flawless? No one can say for sure. We're also pointing out to those that say that Science backs up the Bible and shows that it is a literal Bible the science does not fully support things that are in the Bible. The flood, young earth, people living hundreds and hundreds of years.

At 1/5/07 02:33 PM, TonioMiguel wrote:

What would you call Genesis then? I hope you will agree that the earth IS round, and that it does revolve around the sun. Is the word of God in it's enteriety simply wrong?

I got news for you the belief that the world is flat as you put it is not a Christian nor a Hebrew belief it comes from Aristotle. Before you write off Christians with the wrong beliefs and theories understand where a false belief comes from. I will agree this was a believed by early Christians but by blind conceit. Unlike those who lived in the time of the Bible I actually read it. This was not true of early Christians because the world was not literate. I am an accomplished student and bilingual and would like if you people would quit assuming I am some blind believer in my parents faith. I will agree that my belief in God is irrational but it does not write me off as stupid like many of you folks in Newgrounds seem to assume.

The Bible says on many occasions that the earth is "immovable and firm". If that doesn't contradict revolving around the sun, then I don't know what will. You're right of course that the notion of the earth being flat is not something the christians invented. People simply didn't know any better for a long time. But it was christianity that held scientists back, burned their books or the scientists themselves, for uttering heresy like the earth being round, or the earth revolving around the sun.

I don't think you're stupid, nor can anyone be blamed for believing in God. One can't prove or disprove the existence of God, it's a matter of belief. My argument is with using the Bible as a source for scientific information about the world, and treating things like creation, Noah's ark and the tower of Babel as facts.

I have liked some of your responses but picking someone beliefs because you hold a worldview that excludes irrational thinking is ridiculously shortsighted and narrow minded. I am a teacher of multiculturalism so I don't know where you get the idea I am narrow minded idiot. My worldview allows for the rational (science) and the irrational. I am sorry you do not see the world through my eyes but assuming people who hold to the bible are idiots and have low IQs is a foolish move for anyone. If you read the bible thoroughly you would understand that saying that parts of the bible are invalid and then saying you believe in God is in it self a life of a Hypocrite and that I am not.

I don't exclude rational thinking from my worldview. Human emotions are irrational, and they determine a hell of a lot of what happens in this world. I have no problem with people holding to the Bible, I just think that you shouldn't treat it as a litteral fact. Especially if you are wise enough to understand that the Bible has gone through a series of rewrites, retranslations, canonization and so on. If you know that the Bible isn't the original literal word of God, like you realize, then it seems strange that you defend the point of not being allowed to abandon some parts of it. Some parts of the Bible just are outdated and no longer relevant to this society. The earth does revolve around the sun, and stoning of adulterous women is not moral. No matter what the Bible says about those issues. Writing off certain passages as unnessecary does not void the Bible as a holy book. Either it has already been voided because of the many rewrites that you know have happened, or writing off certain passages that have now been proven to be outdated does not void it. I'm a supporter of the latter.

Even if what the Bible says about the origin of languages, or about the formation of the earth, is absolutely wrong, that in no way invalidates the central meaning: love your god, Jesus, and your fellow man.

I have the right as a human being to believe in what I want. Science it its self cannot explain miracles and a infinite God. It is just as limited as observation and inference based on that which is seen. So people believe in a God. Not everybody who believes is a moron.

You have every right to believe what you want. Science can't explain everything, we even know that many of the explanations we have now will later turn out to be false. There's nothing wrong with believing. Believing in a God is just as much believing as believing that there isn't a God.

But to consider the Bible, or any old scripture as a basis for how reality works just isn't smart. It's old knowledge, that hasn't evolved or changed with the 2000 years of experience that we have since gained.

As you said yourself, christianity didn't launch the idea of a flat earth. It's because people adhered strictly to the teachings of the ancient greeks, that progress was hampered. It was only when people started critizing them, checking facts and doing their own, new research, that it was discovered that the earth was round.

Holding on to the Bible for an explanation for natural phenomena doesn't make any more sense that holding on to the teachings of Democritus for an explanation matter. It has nothing to do with believing in God or not. The Bible simply is an imperfect account of the word of God, and hence contains factual errors.

At 1/2/07 11:06 AM, Denta wrote:

At 1/2/07 10:52 AM, Grammer wrote:

And about David and Goliath, how the fuck can you kill a giant with a little stone?

Who said anything about it being "little"? I imagine if you hurl a semi-heavy stone into one's face it could knock you out.

But how can you hurl one rock with a piece of leather and a rope and kill a giant? A semi-heavy stone would maybe make you unstable, but it won't kill you.

[satire turned off]

The old testimate [which has really more to do with judeaism then christianity] often takes some of it's stories from greek, egyptian, roman, and mesopotamian religous tales [ as the bible spans over much of eurasia and northern saharan africa]

For example, in the Illiad, paris kills ahkilles, a the strongest warrior in the greek army, by shooting him with an arrow in the heel. - Big man gets killed with a weak attack

Another example, hercules kills cerberus [not the dysney story, the REAL story] by throwing him off a cliff. Imagine, a full sized man, which is nothing... compaired to a huge 3 headed dog. [Fluffy from harry potter I sized]

Most of the old testamate stories are phables [metaphorical tales]

Plus, it is conceivable that a stone when shot into the mouth of a creature would choke the sed creature, and kill it. But of course that wasn't the case.

The moral of the king david story with goliath is that little people can acomplish big things.

At 1/5/07 08:28 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: The moral of the king david story with goliath is that little people can acomplish big things.

i think it has more to do with David having been anointed by God but thats not important so eh.

At 1/2/07 11:06 AM, Denta wrote:

At 1/2/07 10:52 AM, Grammer wrote:

And about David and Goliath, how the fuck can you kill a giant with a little stone?

Who said anything about it being "little"? I imagine if you hurl a semi-heavy stone into one's face it could knock you out.

But how can you hurl one rock with a piece of leather and a rope and kill a giant? A semi-heavy stone would maybe make you unstable, but it won't kill you.

Have you ever been hit by, or even used a traditional sling? even from a distance, as a weapon of inderect fire(that is, the stone goes through a polabora, and then rain's down on the target) they hurt like hell, and can still carry the power to kill, but evidence suggests that David was close enough to Goliath to use the sling as a weapon of direct fire(no polabora, just straight at his face), making it even more powerful. Besides, even if Goliath didn't die right out, david still cut his head off, so he died soon after, and may have appeared to die to the onlookers.

As a trio of fellow christians the brothers Me, Myself, and I would like to remind you that even though God is God, it doesn't mean that he doesn't like to play by the rules he set for us. for instance, it has been suggested that a volcanic eruption around the Grecian area may be, in part, responsible for the parting of the red sea. in point, we are simply saying that science and the Bible aren't oil and water.

David was a Halfling, so he god a racial bonus to sling weapons.

alot of the things in the bible lacks its biblical explanation.

At 1/6/07 07:50 PM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote: David was a Halfling, so he god a racial bonus to sling weapons.

case closed!

At 1/6/07 07:50 PM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote: David was a Halfling, so he god a racial bonus to sling weapons.

Damn hobbits. They stole my precious.

At 1/3/07 11:45 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/3/07 04:42 AM, fli wrote:

At 1/2/07 10:46 AM, Denta wrote: And the christianity is against gays and inbreeding, so how the hell could that be? The same thing occurs in Noah's ark.

Actually... inbreeding was okay.

There was no inbreeding, though

Were talking Noah though.

You know how he killed everyone else off but Noahs family.

Anyways, Incest at that time was still allowable under God, it wasn't untill Moses that it was illegall. I mean, Abraham married his sister.

At 1/6/07 07:50 PM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote: David was a Halfling, so he god a racial bonus to sling weapons.

Thread = won.

Everyone can go home now.

At 1/6/07 07:50 PM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote: David was a Halfling, so he god a racial bonus to sling weapons.

Lightfoot, strongheart, or ghostwise?

At 1/5/07 07:39 PM, Togukawa wrote: The Bible says on many occasions that the earth is "immovable and firm". If that doesn't contradict revolving around the sun, then I don't know what will.

The subject of those passages (many of them at least) is about the God establishing order in His creation. "Moving the earth" is just a old saying for "causing ultimate chaos," which the passaging is saying God would prevent from happening. It has nothing to do with the physical mobility of the planet..sheesh.

You're right of course that the notion of the earth being flat is not something the christians invented. People simply didn't know any better for a long time. But it was christianity that held scientists back, burned their books or the scientists themselves, for uttering heresy like the earth being round, or the earth revolving around the sun.

"Christianity" didn't do that nor did any of its mandates enable such actions. The Church did that, and might I remind you, it was eventually Christians that eliminated such institutions for their crimes and their stupidity. Saying some bad things have been done in the name of Christianity without examining whether or not those actions actually adhered to the religion to prove that it is flawed, well, is just plain bad logic.

I don't think you're stupid, nor can anyone be blamed for believing in God. One can't prove or disprove the existence of God, it's a matter of belief. My argument is with using the Bible as a source for scientific information about the world, and treating things like creation, Noah's ark and the tower of Babel as facts.

I fail to see what is unscientific about either of those events. God could certainly put a lot of water in one place, or confuse a group of people, without shaking the foundations of science.

I don't exclude rational thinking from my worldview. Human emotions are irrational, and they determine a hell of a lot of what happens in this world. I have no problem with people holding to the Bible, I just think that you shouldn't treat it as a litteral fact.

I think the best interpretation is the one that the writers intended for the Bible's readers to make of their work. It isn't always intended to be literal. The Bible contains poetry, parables, etc. and trying to exact meaning through literal interpretation is madness, pure and simple.

Especially if you are wise enough to understand that the Bible has gone through a series of rewrites, retranslations, canonization and so on. If you know that the Bible isn't the original literal word of God, like you realize, then it seems strange that you defend the point of not being allowed to abandon some parts of it. Some parts of the Bible just are outdated and no longer relevant to this society. The earth does revolve around the sun, and stoning of adulterous women is not moral. No matter what the Bible says about those issues. Writing off certain passages as unnessecary does not void the Bible as a holy book. Either it has already been voided because of the many rewrites that you know have happened, or writing off certain passages that have now been proven to be outdated does not void it. I'm a supporter of the latter.

Some passages kind of are outdated in a sense, but they can still teach us a lot. Why would God demand the stoning of adulterous women? Instead of pretending the passage doesnt exist, it's logical and useful to conclude from that passage that God sees adultery as morally wrong. In fact, most passages are useful in one way or another like that. You can't understand Jesus's death unless you understand the importance of atonement, which is revealed in other passages that you would probably want us to dismiss.

Even if what the Bible says about the origin of languages, or about the formation of the earth, is absolutely wrong, that in no way invalidates the central meaning: love your god, Jesus, and your fellow man.

The Bible doesnt say anything about the origin of languages. The Tower of Babel incident is not the origin of languages. All it says is that he made them unable to understand each other through speech, which doesnt contradict anything.

What's wrong about the Biblical description of the formation of the Earth? "God created the Earth." Nothing there contradicts any scientific theories that I am aware of. Elaborate on this one.

You have every right to believe what you want. Science can't explain everything, we even know that many of the explanations we have now will later turn out to be false. There's nothing wrong with believing. Believing in a God is just as much believing as believing that there isn't a God.

Agreed. Science is in a constant state of change and shouldn't be used to draw absolutes. But all of that is irrelevant, because science doesnt really contradict the Bible.

At 1/7/07 01:45 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 1/6/07 07:50 PM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote: David was a Halfling, so he god a racial bonus to sling weapons.

Thread = won.

Everyone can go home now.

thank GOD! I SO did not want to post anything intelligible in this bullshit thread!

Take THAT you fuckin Urukai!

At 1/9/07 01:52 AM, Altarus wrote:

At 1/5/07 07:39 PM, Togukawa wrote: The Bible says on many occasions that the earth is "immovable and firm". If that doesn't contradict revolving around the sun, then I don't know what will.

The subject of those passages (many of them at least) is about the God establishing order in His creation. "Moving the earth" is just a old saying for "causing ultimate chaos," which the passaging is saying God would prevent from happening. It has nothing to do with the physical mobility of the planet..sheesh.

That's the way we interpret it in this day and age. It hasn't always been interpreted like that. Jesus walking on water also means Jesus conquering evil and temptation, not physically walking on water. Many things have been interpreted in the wrong way.

"Christianity" didn't do that nor did any of its mandates enable such actions. The Church did that, and might I remind you, it was eventually Christians that eliminated such institutions for their crimes and their stupidity. Saying some bad things have been done in the name of Christianity without examining whether or not those actions actually adhered to the religion to prove that it is flawed, well, is just plain bad logic.

I identify christianity with the church. I.e. the abstract with its implementation.

I don't think you're stupid, nor can anyone be blamed for believing in God. One can't prove or disprove the existence of God, it's a matter of belief. My argument is with using the Bible as a source for scientific information about the world, and treating things like creation, Noah's ark and the tower of Babel as facts.

I fail to see what is unscientific about either of those events. God could certainly put a lot of water in one place, or confuse a group of people, without shaking the foundations of science.

That's because you're missing the implications.
problems

I don't exclude rational thinking from my worldview. Human emotions are irrational, and they determine a hell of a lot of what happens in this world. I have no problem with people holding to the Bible, I just think that you shouldn't treat it as a litteral fact.

I think the best interpretation is the one that the writers intended for the Bible's readers to make of their work. It isn't always intended to be literal. The Bible contains poetry, parables, etc. and trying to exact meaning through literal interpretation is madness, pure and simple.

That's my idea too. But plenty of people interpret the Bible literally and use it as a source for scientific facts. (Babel, creation, Noah, and so on)

Especially if you are wise enough to understand that the Bible has gone through a series of rewrites, retranslations, canonization and so on. If you know that the Bible isn't the original literal word of God, like you realize, then it seems strange that you defend the point of not being allowed to abandon some parts of it. Some parts of the Bible just are outdated and no longer relevant to this society. The earth does revolve around the sun, and stoning of adulterous women is not moral. No matter what the Bible says about those issues. Writing off certain passages as unnessecary does not void the Bible as a holy book. Either it has already been voided because of the many rewrites that you know have happened, or writing off certain passages that have now been proven to be outdated does not void it. I'm a supporter of the latter.

Some passages kind of are outdated in a sense, but they can still teach us a lot. Why would God demand the stoning of adulterous women? Instead of pretending the passage doesnt exist, it's logical and useful to conclude from that passage that God sees adultery as morally wrong. In fact, most passages are useful in one way or another like that. You can't understand Jesus's death unless you understand the importance of atonement, which is revealed in other passages that you would probably want us to dismiss.

Dismiss the literal interpretation. Jesus going to the temple and causing havoc with the merchants, sure, I'm willing to take that literally. But stoning adulterous women? No thanks.

Even if what the Bible says about the origin of languages, or about the formation of the earth, is absolutely wrong, that in no way invalidates the central meaning: love your god, Jesus, and your fellow man.

The Bible doesnt say anything about the origin of languages. The Tower of Babel incident is not the origin of languages. All it says is that he made them unable to understand each other through speech, which doesnt contradict anything.

That's your interpretation. Here's some else's. Babel: the origin of languages

What's wrong about the Biblical description of the formation of the Earth? "God created the Earth." Nothing there contradicts any scientific theories that I am aware of. Elaborate on this one.

I mean the static interpretation. God creates man, animals, plants, and puts them all on the earth. It contradicts evolution, and it contradicts the Big Bang. Furthermore it would mean humans and dinosaurs lived together. An earth of merely 6000 years old just doesn't fit with all the evidence we have.

You have every right to believe what you want. Science can't explain everything, we even know that many of the explanations we have now will later turn out to be false. There's nothing wrong with believing. Believing in a God is just as much believing as believing that there isn't a God.

Agreed. Science is in a constant state of change and shouldn't be used to draw absolutes. But all of that is irrelevant, because science doesnt really contradict the Bible.

Unless of course you interpret it literally, which is madness, but it does happen.

At 1/2/07 03:29 PM, NancyGrace wrote: I can't believe you idiots think this is true

It seems laughable to us, but to the religious their faith blindly consumes every facet of life. I wouldn't label that "stupid" per se, due to the fact religion has been pounded in their brains since a very young age (hampering free will and rational thought to anything they conceive as pertinent). What else do you expect?