The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

[St. Clown]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

God is able and willing, but the actions in the Garden of Eden destroyed the perfect relationship between God and Man, and sin was born. Fortunately God promised and delivered us a Savior from sin.

And clearly an omnipotent being such as God couldn't simply undo the creation of sin? Would that just be too inconvenient, or is He the cartoon judge who permits all violation of laws and procedures within His court simply to see how the endgame plays out? That seems a bit more like a sadist than loving god and yet it's exactly what you described.

 

[aparch]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

God just wants to watch the world burn?

<IMG width=400 SRC=http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/7/6454/6a00d8341bfa1853ef010535d2dc55970b-800wi.jpg>

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Great. Let's make a deal: we people who like to use science, logic, and math to explain the workings of the world will agree to stop using them to point out contradictions and errors in religion the moment that pastors and theologians stop using pseudo-science, logical fallacies, and anecdotes as proof of anything.

I completely agree.

 

[Timothy A]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Timothy, since you take a literal interpretation of the Bible, what actions in the Garden destroyed the perfect relationship between God and Man?

And once that question is out of the way, what really caused the water bottle fight?

Two equally important and vexing questions.

Question 1: Adam and Eve ate from the tree in the middle of the garden when God forbade it. See Genesis Ch 3 for the detailed version.
Question 2: Cary Eades looked very hot, tired and thirsty, so out of the goodness of his heart, John Newberry tried to hydrate him. Apparently Newberry had done it once already prior that game and Eades was fine with it, so why he went nuts after the second event is a little puzzling.

 

[geezer]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I propose a different deal. Religion has now held office for roughly 3000 years. Let's let reason hold it for the next 3000, and see where we stand.

Nothing need change from how it's always been: science is a great tool for explaining and manipulating the observable universe. Religion is the way to find peace, purpose, and even gratitude with the eternal and unknowable. I do both.

It's just as irksome for people to apply human moral tests to the creator of all things as it is for knuckleheads to use the Bible to explain age of the earth in years, or the ocean tides, or whatever.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Nothing need change from how it's always been: science is a great tool for explaining and manipulating the observable universe. Religion is the way to find peace, purpose, and even gratitude with the eternal and unknowable. I do both.

A view the majority of Americans share...

 

[geezer]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

A view the majority of Americans share...

Perhaps the thread should ask: "The Bible: Planet Earth User Manual, or Collection of Religious Documents?" to clarify the question

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Nothing need change from how it's always been: science is a great tool for explaining and manipulating the observable universe. Religion is the way to find peace, purpose, and even gratitude with the eternal and unknowable. I do both.

It's just as irksome for people to apply human moral tests to the creator of all things as it is for knuckleheads to use the Bible to explain age of the earth in years, or the ocean tides, or whatever.

I didn't say "science," I said "reason." Reason is the far broader category (c.f., rationalism vs empiricism).

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

**** reason.

 

[geezer]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I didn't say "science," I said "reason." Reason is the far broader category (c.f., rationalism vs empiricism).

I know, that's why I corrected you. It's not outside the realm of reason to pursue faith, hope, and love. It's outside science.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I know, that's why I corrected you. It's not outside the realm of reason to pursue faith, hope, and love. It's outside science.

You just made absolutely zero sense. Faith, hope and love all exist within the reality that you have inside your head (reason) without being an empirical reality you can gain independent observation of (science).

Theology, in contrast, points to something it purports to exist outside the natural world entirely. If it was real, which it aint, it would have the same relationship to reason as reason has to material reality.

 

[geezer]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

You just made absolutely zero sense. Faith, hope and love all exist within the reality that you have inside your head (reason) without being an empirical reality you can gain independent observation of (science).

I thought that's the same thing I just said. Religion can't oppose reason if it exists inside of it. But it doesn't interfere with "science", it's a separate realm.
Perhaps it's a confusion of terms. My point was that, again, logic doesn't apply to religion.

In a way I almost envy the comfortable self-assuredness of people in your position, but I hope I never get there. To me it seems psychologically limiting, at the least, to be so confined.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Moderates don't see faith and science as competing but complementary just as with any other teammate situation.

Quite a few scientists believe in God (including Einstein, IIRC), especially cosmologists.

Science explains how the material world works, religion / philosophy / ethics explain how the moral world works.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

My point was that, again, logic doesn't apply to religion.

And thus is born the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

In a way I almost envy the comfortable self-assuredness of people in your position, but I hope I never get there. To me it seems psychologically limiting, at the least, to be so confined.

So you would say you are psychologically limited for not believing in Russell's teapot?

Remember, gods only matter if you believe in gods. There are an infinite number of things theists don't believe in, including (for monotheists) all the competing gods. All rejecting supernaturalism does is extend that set to one more. But in return, all the actual mysteries of the world open to us, which the theist has snapped shut in a chest called "Divine Mystery."

If you really are concerned about psychological limitations, I'm afraid that on balance it is believers who lead the unexamined life.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

And thus is born the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I object strenuously. Pastafarian scripture demonstrates the logical necessity of FSM by referring to the inarguable axioms of Pastafarian scripture.

Aha, you say, but from whence comes the certainty in the inerrancy of Pastafarian scripture?

That would be a valid objection, were it not that Pastafarian scripture demonstrates the logical necessity of the inerrancy of Pastafarian scripture by referring to the inarguable axioms of Pastafarian scripture.

QED

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Quite a few scientists believe in God (including Einstein, IIRC), especially cosmologists.

Science explains how the material world works, religion / philosophy / ethics explain how the moral world works.

If you read his writings, Einstein was best described as a pantheist which is very far from the "masses" description of a deity.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

If you read his writings, Einstein was best described as a pantheist which is very far from the "masses" description of a deity.

Fish's lie comes from the same righty websites that gleefully claim Sagan had a deathbed conversion.

For people who believe in an "almighty" deity, they sure get their panties in a twist about the few folks who know the emperor has no clothes. You'd think they'd just chill and wait for Magic Day.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Reason is powerful when applied correctly and is an evaluative tool in this case (and differs from the subjects faith and science). I believe the purpose of reason tool as is proposed here is to qualify or even defeat religion. So how does it do? It can't prove a failure to exist. It can highlight inconsistencies...but it could do the same with pretty much any human functioning entity or individual ever. So I agree with geeze, I neither see it as possible or frankly don't see a need to try to apply it here.

Quite a few scientists believe in God (including Einstein, IIRC), especially cosmologists.

Science explains how the material world works, religion / philosophy / ethics explain how the moral world works.

Sounds reasonable.

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Fish's lie comes from the same righty websites that gleefully claim Sagan had a deathbed conversion.

For people who believe in an "almighty" deity, they sure get their panties in a twist about the few folks who know the emperor has no clothes. You'd think they'd just chill and wait for Magic Day.

I also have never understood why a death bed conversion would matter. Sagan has a lifetime of work that would directly oppose something that may or may not have happened when his faculties were significantly impaired.

Demon Haunted World is an excellent read if anyone has yet to read it