|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why should religion get a free pass? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
You should read the information on the sites you link to before you post, there's some howlers on this one.
Look at the date given for the writing of the Bible. The Bible is estimated to have been written between 1450 A.D. and 95 A.D. The moron cannot even get the dates correct. Then he claims that the wonderful Bible informed us that: The Earth is round Then claims that science discovered that the Earth was round in the 15th century, but science has never discovered that the Earth is round because it isn't round. Scientific proof that the Bible was inspired by God? No. Scientific proof that the author of this webpage you linked to is a moron? Yes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
The Bible is estimated to have been written between 1450 A.D. and 95 A.D. I suspect most of the majority texts were written between 95 AD and 1450 AD if not for Erasdamus taking these 5000 + manuscripts you would not of had the akjv being written in 1611 including the old testament into English. William Tyndale work too found its way into the King James Version that was written in 1611 in English. My akjv bible was written in 1996 but agree that the new testament is special due to those manuscripts written between 1450 AD and 95 AD that Erasamus used in writting the textus receptus in the early 15th century. =============================================================== Much of Tyndale's work eventually found its way into the King James Version (or "Authorised Version") of the Bible, published in 1611, which, as the work of 54 independent scholars revising the existing English versions, drew significantly on Tyndale's translations. William Tyndale - Wikipedia
Then he claims that the wonderful Bible informed us that: The Earth is round Then claims that science discovered that the Earth was round in the 15th century, but science has never discovered that the Earth is round because it isn't round. This scientific principle that you could sit a satellight on the circle of the earth without it falling back to the earth comes from the bible. Columbus believed you could circle around the earth because this scientific fact was expressed in Isaiah. P.S. Even if the earth would be slightly pear shaped its round cause you can go round it. At least the Magellan GPS manufacturers give credit to Magellan for proving the earth round. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Buzz.
Buzsaw writes: Many religions expect and get a free pass from their advocates. However that is not the case with Biblical fundamentalism which corroborates the Biblical record with actual archaeological, prophetical fulfillment, sociological, historical and other observational evidence such as complex design. The Book of Mormon/Mormonism, the Koran/Islam, Zen Buddism, RC Hierarchal Vaticanism, Shintoism, Hinduism etc are some examples coming to mind which expect and get a free pass from their adherents. You know my ego wouldn't just let this one slide. How is biblical fundamentalism any less expectant of a free pass than any of these other religious groups you've named? Here’s how Larni defined “free pass” in the OP:
Larni writes: When I say 'free pass' I mean letting a statement of faith go unchallenged because it is somehow 'off limits' to such challenges.
Parenthetical statements omitted from the above quote without ellipses As I understand it, the requirement of accepting the Bible as 100% truth, even when snakes and donkeys start talking and when water turns to blood, is demanding a “free pass.” If you refuse to provide evidence for your claim, you are demanding a “free pass.” I’m not even going to attempt to explain (nor pretend to understand) how Christ’s Atonement actually accomplishes what it does, and I have never been given a satisfactory answer from anyone, including God. This, to me, constitutes a “free pass”: my leaders and my God have basically told me that they are not going to explain it to me, but that they expect me to believe it and apply it to my life anyway. They often expect me to believe when a prophet makes the claim that he has seen an angel, and members share their testimonies, in which they claim to have witnessed a miracle, when in fact they did not even consider the possibility that the event was easily explanable by non-miracles. In terms of this sort of doctrinal issue, you’re absolutely right: the Mormon religion asks us to believe something that it will not even attempt to prove. But, if you seriously believe that your religion is different, you are either deluding yourself or indoctrinating your congregation (probably both). ----- But, for other claims, such as the historicity of the Book of Mormon, my church has never demanded me to accept it without question. In fact, the Mormon Church funded archaeological expeditions in Mesoamerica in the 1970's to entertain questions about the Book of Mormon’s authenticity. They were a flop, and the Church kind of tried to prevent it from becoming a big deal, but some people still can’t let go, and claim to have found all sorts of Book of Mormon artifacts in Mesoamerica. More recently, a Mormon researcher named Rodney Meldrum released a video presentation about the Hopewell hypothesis for the Book of Mormon's geography. I personally like much of Meldrum’s conclusions, but we don't have definitive proof yet, nor can I defend it without using the Book of Mormon, which I can’t prove is actually an artifact from that civilization (though I, of course, believe it is). ----- Look, Mormons use the scientific method! We used to think the Book of Mormon took place in Central America (only God knows why we were so stupid, though: Joseph Smith allegedly found the Golden Plates in frickin’ New York!), so we set out to test our hypothesis by looking for artifacts that supported the Book of Mormon version of Mesoamerican history. When that failed, we looked to another hypothesis, and this one looks a lot better than the last one (though it's still admittedly weak). Granted, it's still based on apologetics, but it's not a "free pass" by any stretch of the imagination. Our Church is even willing to admit when we made mistakes: the Book of Mormon’s wording has been changed in several instances to reflect a better understanding of the material than the original writer or translator. (We won’t be this open-minded in relation to the big, fundamental issues though, I’m afraid). Of course, I must admit to you that not all Mormons think in this fashion, and probably the majority are just brain-dead, blind-faith automatons. I suspect, based on my dealings with people from several religions, that this is the case for other churches, as well. But, in this case, the "free pass" is what the individual gives, not what the church demands. I suspect that neither your church nor mine demands on any significant scale that the membership not question what is taught to them. But, you surely have to admit that a lot of people in your congregation give your sermons and the Bible a “free pass” anyway. Why do you think they do that? -Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Actually the chart shows an attempt to relate the Bible to science not the other way around typical creationist BS
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
P.S. Scientists are not all athiests and those that are not know full well the only reason the theory of evolution is given a free pass is that your rock has created separation from church and state by those liberal judges that are redefining the constitution not upholding the constitution. McCain Pallin elect so conservative federal judges are appointed that will uphold the constitution instead of redefining the constitution taking away evolutions free pass within our educational system. Where has the Constitution been redefined? Edited by bluescat48, : typo There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Where has the Constitution been redefined? The created lemon test in essenses is an abridgment of the freedom of speech rights and prohibiting the free exercise and disrespecting religious beliefs. The founding fathers goal was not to have the government to make laws disrespecting established religion which is what they have done by making laws that respect atheistic evolution. Atheism is considered a religion and by taking God out of evolution the Supreme Court are not upholding the constitution but redefining the constitution by making laws respecting the establishment of the atheists religion. ============================================================= Bill of RightsAmendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. United States Constitution main page annotations The purpose of the Lemon test is to determine when a law has the effect of establishing religion. The test has served as the foundation for many of the Court's post-1971 establishment clause rulings http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/eclause2.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------------------LAW OF THE LAND Court rules atheism a religion Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group Posted: August 20, 20051:00 am Eastern © 2008 WorldNetDaily.com A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion. Page not found - WND Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Atheism is considered a religion and by taking God out of evolution the Supreme Court are not upholding the constitution but redefining the constitution by making laws respecting the establishment of the atheists religion. Atheism is NOT a religion. There is no atheistic dogma. Whats more evolution is not an atheistic theory. Your source,http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/eclause2.htm, has nothing to do with atheism. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
I suspect most of the majority texts were written between 95 AD and 1450 AD... I think it is simply a typo, the author must have meant 1450 BC - 95 AD. You always start with the earliest date (you do this yourself in your reply), thus 1450 AD - 95 AD does not make sense. I would also say that all of the OT books were written a good bit before 95 AD, even the oldest extant, the Dead Sea Scrolls, were almost all written before this time. Plus, we do not have any complete NT texts dated 95 AD.
P.S. Even if the earth would be slightly pear shaped its round cause you can go round it. You can go round any shape at all, you can go round a square if you wish. But Isaiah was specifically talking of the Earth being a circle, and in keeping with the flat Earth promotion in the Bible, this circle would have been flat, like a CD or DVD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi JohnFolton,
Unless you're going to address the topic, please stop posting to this thread. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I thought I might bump this as hooah212002's Message 44 reminded me of it.
The thread got borked after Message 74. I wonder what the newer members might think.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I wonder what the newer members might think. I think the thread ended because it lost all of its entertainment value once the asylum inmates stopped posting. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You never replied to my reply to your OP
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
New member here: yes, religion does get a free pass.
It's a legacy trait - we unthinkingly allow people to talk about souls and heaven and such as though their existence was undisputed and that it's sane to do so. In Radio 4's case, there is even a 10 minute slot called 'Thought for the Day' which is a religious piece normally populated by a clergy of some kind and normally pure drivel that has me screaming at the radio. I'm pretty sure John Humphreys is embarrassed by it but there's no hope of dumping it. Edited by Tangle, : typoLife, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Tangle writes: in Radio 4's case, there is even a 10 minute slot called 'Thought for the Day' which is a religious piece normally populated by a clergy of some kind and normally pure drivel that has me screaming at the radio. It's the title that gets me. It implies that there's been some thinking going on, but this is never supported by the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
When I say 'free pass' I mean (what I think Dawkins means) letting a statement of faith (such as that Jesus returned from death, humans are reincarnated or there is a non material realm that can be accessed through prayer or meditation for example) go unchallenged because it is somehow 'off limits' to such challenges. How is the treatment that religion gets any different from the treatment that faux science/history gets? Why didn't people mount campaigns to get 'In Search of' removed from the air, when Leonard Nimoy was talking about Big Foot, ESP, and other crap? Do we go out of our way to ridicule our co-workers who believe in ghosts or von Daniken conspiracy theories, or do we largely just leave them alone as long as they don't leave their work for us to do? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024