Where religion and science clash - the dinosaurs

[Moose]

Jesus never gave the Bible authority.

Oh....that's rich! I don't suppose you can tell me then why He specifically said, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' " Matthew 4:4?

Whether or not you like it, there are inconsistencies, but that is one consequence of combining sources from several different authors, and traditions. I don't think these are necessarily errors, but something they did in the spirit of preservation. In other words, less editing on their part.

Only people, (such as yourself) who read the Scriptures in bits and peices, (not as a whole) would belive this. We've had a thread about, "inconsistencies" and I was able to shoot every single one of them down in flames. People tend to use the Old Testament, compared to the New Testament to find these inconsistancies, when the TRUTH is the New Testament is actually a new COVENANT between man and God.

You are issuing a challenge to guys who will never rise to the occasion.

You got that RIGHT.....because no one CAN!

These holes do exist. Stem cell research anyone? When does life begin? When does life end?

Only God knows. Call it a cop out, but if He knows every hair folicle on your body, don't you think He'd know the rest of Man's deepests thoughts and questions? We, (the chosen) are simply not able to comprehend....yet.

The conflict between the two is a manufactured myth with a phony history.

Oh, I'm not worried, there will be a day when even yourself will know. Every knee will bow down, that is a promise.

[dunstable]

Oh....that's rich! I don't suppose you can tell me then why He specifically said, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' " Matthew 4:4?

 

Isn't it tautology for you to say the bible is true because it contains a verse stating it is true?

 

Only people, (such as yourself) who read the Scriptures in bits and peices, (not as a whole) would belive this. We've had a thread about, "inconsistencies" and I was able to shoot every single one of them down in flames. People tend to use the Old Testament, compared to the New Testament to find these inconsistancies, when the TRUTH is the New Testament is actually a new COVENANT between man and God.

 

I don't know how you can claim there are no inconsistencies in the bible and in the same breath remark that the OT and NT are very different! That's one inconsistency to which you admit.

[Moose]

Great points, Moai. I challenge all the religious folks to come up with an example of a hygiene/health law in the Bible that shows divine inspiration because it could not possibly have been known to the "average person walking around in Judea at that time" as you so very well put it.

"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.'" Matthew 15: 17-18

 

Scripture was written for our Spiritual Health. Not our body's health. Spiritual Health = Body's Health. It's even proven in today's day and age.

[Moose]

Isn't it tautology for you to say the bible is true because it contains a verse stating it is true?

Nope. Father, Son, Holy Ghost, all in one, one in all. If Christ said it, it is so.

I don't know how you can claim there are no inconsistencies in the bible and in the same breath remark that the OT and NT are very different! That's one inconsistency to which you admit.

Not very different, The OT was written for one generation, the NT for the new. The OT gave EVERY prophecy of the coming Lord and Saviour who would fulfill the Old Laws to bridge the gap between man and Maker.

 

There is NO reason to believe that following the laws in the Old Testament is what it takes to be righteous enough to enter God's Kingdom thanks to God's Sacrifice of His One and Only Begotten Son.

[Moose]

Did it occur to you that the act of atoning for that sin (slaughtering animals) is by far and away worse than the original act or thought?

 

Cheers,

D.

Precisely. That's why it isn't required anymore. Thanks for proving my point D.

 

Cheers

[dunstable]

"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.'" Matthew 15: 17-18

 

Scripture was written for our Spiritual Health. Not our body's health. Spiritual Health = Body's Health. It's even proven in today's day and age.

That hardly seems an adequate response to the challenge to come up with a hygiene law in the bible that shows divine inspiration because it contains knowledge that could not possibly have been known to the average man in Judea at the time. The first sentence you quote says something everyone knows and the second sentence doesn't make any obvious sense at all.

[FleshNBones]

Oh....that's rich! I don't suppose you can tell me then why He specifically said, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' " Matthew 4:4?

Out of context. That was in response to one of the temptations. Don't bother searching because it didn't exist during Jesus's lifetime. Why would he give authority to something that didn't exist? If he wrote it then he might give it authority, but that didn't happen. If it is not the sole authority, then it is no longer a weakness to exploit. The opposition can go back to what it does best (character assassination).

Only people, (such as yourself) who read the Scriptures in bits and peices, (not as a whole) would belive this. We've had a thread about, "inconsistencies" and I was able to shoot every single one of them down in flames. People tend to use the Old Testament, compared to the New Testament to find these inconsistancies, when the TRUTH is the New Testament is actually a new COVENANT between man and God.

This one reason why I will never pair up with a Baptist. The Bible is a good collection of writings, but it has its limitations. You won't find all of the answers in there.

You got that RIGHT.....because no one CAN!

They aren't rising to the occasion because they don't want to. I am not talking about redemption. I am talking about learning. Growing.

Only God knows. Call it a cop out, but if He knows every hair folicle on your body, don't you think He'd know the rest of Man's deepests thoughts and questions? We, (the chosen) are simply not able to comprehend....yet.

That was an example, not a cop out. I chose to side with the religious leadership (The pope) on this subject.

Oh, I'm not worried, there will be a day when even yourself will know. Every knee will bow down, that is a promise.

History has its losers.

[dunstable]

Father, Son, Holy Ghost, all in one, one in all.

Th arithmetical contortions the theologians had to go through to have three gods and only one god at the same time, i.e. to prove that 3 = 1!

If Christ said it, it is so.

Argument from authority,argumentum ad verecundiam. You won't win many converts with that argument. Why should we believe Christ rather than one of the hundreds of other alleged prophets? Did Christ even exist? If he did exist, how do we know he said it? Even if he said it, why should we believe it? It's no good arguing to people on the basis of theological doctrine that they don't accept.

[dunstable]

Precisely. That's why it isn't required anymore. Thanks for proving my point D.

So theologians have had to deviate from the divinely inspired and ever valid book? Why don't you admit, Moose, that the bible was written for people of a certain time and that it no longer has much relevance to contemporary society?

[dunstable]

...there will be a day when even yourself will know. Every knee will bow down, that is a promise.

Moose, many of us prefer to follow our own judgment and we won't be swayed by threats of divine punishment for deciding to disbelieve your chosen religion.

[Moose]

Yeah, I'd figure it would be about 1.5 inches above your head....did mine too.

 

"But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.'" Matthew 15:18

 

What do you think this passage means? That you can eat poison and live as long you speak as a follower? That anything goes?

 

Your physical health is directly reflective of your Spiritual health. Now I agree there are some instances where we may get sick, or have a fatal illness. That doesn't necessarily mean that the person's Spiritual health is lacking. It just means God's plan is being fulfilled.

 

When your are a follower and have the Holy Spirit within in, it's clear instantaneously and there is NO doubt what is good for your body or what is bad.

 

Another example that just came to my mind;

 

1 Corinthians 6: 19-20:

 

19.Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

20.you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

 

These verses pertain particularly to the sin of lustfulness. However, there are many others that I simply don't feel worth looking up because your mind is set and always will be. You'll find out in the long run that God gave you that choose for a reason.

[FleshNBones]

That hardly seems an adequate response to the challenge to come up with a hygiene law in the bible that shows divine inspiration because it contains knowledge that could not possibly have been known to the average man in Judea at the time. The first sentence you quote says something everyone knows and the second sentence doesn't make any obvious sense at all.

So you have no idea about who Jesus was, what his teachings were, or what he did. He didn't talk about hygene. He didn't stone people to death. He did something very pecular. He went around healing people, and forgiving sins. He taught a kind of ethic that didn't exist at that time. I am not making a sales pitch. You shouldn't badmouth someone you don't know.

[dunstable]

Moose, like I said, you can't prove things by quoting scripture to people who do not believe in that particular religion.

[Moose]

Moose, like I said, you can't prove things by quoting scripture to people who do not believe in that particular religion.

Understood. But that does bring a question to my mind....what are you even doing here?

 

Why don't you wander off somewhere else where maybe you can HELP this community instead of throwing spears at people not like yourself?

[dunstable]

So you have no idea about who Jesus was, what his teachings were, or what he did. He didn't talk about hygene. He didn't stone people to death. He did something very pecular. He went around healing people, and forgiving sins. He taught a kind of ethic that didn't exist at that time. I am not making a sales pitch. You shouldn't badmouth someone you don't know.

I wasn't talking about Jesus. Just pointing out that no one had yet responded in a convincing way to the challenge to show something in the bible (specifically a hygiene rule, but I don't mind if you broaden the challenge) that must have been divinely inspired because it could not have been known to the average man at the time. I think Moose was the only one to try to respond to the challenge, I was just pointing out why I thought he didn't succeed.

[dunstable]

Understood. But that does bring a question to my mind....what are you even doing here?

 

Why don't you wander off somewhere else where maybe you can HELP this community instead of throwing spears at people not like yourself?

Why am I here in this forum, Moose? Because I enjoy a good debate. I like my ideas to be constructively critiqued and I would hope that other people enjoy the same.

[Moose]

I wasn't talking about Jesus. Just pointing out that no one had yet responded in a convincing way to the challenge to show something in the bible (specifically a hygiene rule, but I don't mind if you broaden the challenge) that must have been divinely inspired because it could not have been known to the average man at the time. I think Moose was the only one to try to respond to the challenge, I was just pointing out why I thought he didn't succeed.

That makes sense. I apologize.

 

Do you agree that your state of mind, or soul directly affects your physical being?

 

If so, then I was successful. If not, it may as well do you some good to research it.

 

That was a BRAND new concept in that era, called "Salvation".

 

Do you sleep better knowing your bills are paid? I sure do...Just my .02...

[dunstable]

That makes sense. I apologize.

 

Do you agree that your state of mind, or soul directly affects your physical being?

 

If so, then I was successful. If not, it may as well do you some good to research it.

 

That was a BRAND new concept in that era, called "Salvation".

 

Do you sleep better knowing your bills are paid? I sure do...Just my .02...

Thanks for the generous apology! There's nothing like an apology for making people feel they are not so far apart after all.

 

Yes, I agree that state of mind directly affects physical well being. I have personally experienced that in a small way.

 

What is the reason you say "salvation" was a brand new concept in that era? I'm not saying it wasn't, just asking what is the basis for thinking so.

 

I do sleep better for knowing my bills are paid the analogy doesn't help me make any better sense of the Jesus story, which I assume is what you were alluding to. Without laboring the point, I don't see how I was in trouble with God for something that Adam and Eve did and how Jesus got me out of that trouble 2000 years before I was born. I don't in the least want to be rude, but the bible stories seem to me to be stories for primitive peoples and nowadays for those with a childlike belief in what they are told. If that's offensive, I'm sorry, but it's what I genuinely feel.

[NoIDidn't]

I sure have. It would be great if that phrase was in the Bible, but it isn't.

 

 

You will never admit that I have a point. You will just continue to push the issue over to something else. First it was the Japanese. Now its whether or not the people of that time knew any better.

 

Look. The phrase isn't in the Bible. You and I both know that I am talking about HOW the phrase came to be. You claim that the Bible doesn't have anything helpful like sanitation suggestions. I show that it does and you move the goalpost.

 

I'm wasting my time with you on this. I totally respect your knowledge and opinions about the things you actually willing to be objective about. But on this topic, you would rather state that religion has no benefits than ever admit that it does. Its a shame. I'm not interested in converting you.

 

Its a simple phrase. It comes from the many healthwise dictums listed in the Bible and other Holy books of other religions. It doesn't have to actually be in the Bible to be based on biblical concepts.

[NoIDidn't]

Why does the Bible forbid crop rotation, seeing as how it has been a boon to modern agriculture? (same verse}

 

The Bible doesn't forbid crop rotation. It calls for the land to be given a rest every three to seven years (the Year of Jubilee).

 

That allows for the same thing as a crop rotation, does it not? A crop rotation basically allows the ground to not use up all of particular nutrients that may be drained by certain crops by going to another item. Not doing any new planting for a year allows the land to replenish itself to a degree.

 

The Bible recommends it, but it doesn't appear that the Israelites or anyone in the Bible for that matter, ever honored this either.

[FleshNBones]

Why am I here in this forum, Moose? Because I enjoy a good debate. I like my ideas to be constructively critiqued and I would hope that other people enjoy the same.

I will side with NoIDidn't. You have yet to impress. If you want a real debate then you should respond to criticisms and rebuttals. If you lose on a point, fine, you will lose pieces in a chess match. There is nothing wrong with an opponent being correct. Shifting the topic not only stagnates the discussion, it is also an admission of defeat.

There is something comical about calling logical fallacies long after the real debate ended.

[dunstable]

I will side with NoIDidn't. You have yet to impress. If you want a real debate then you should respond to criticisms and rebuttals. If you lose on a point, fine, you will lose pieces in a chess match. There is nothing wrong with an opponent being correct. Shifting the topic not only stagnates the discussion, it is also an admission of defeat.

There is something comical about calling logical fallacies long after the real debate ended.

I think you are confusing me with someone else.

[disgracian]

We've had a thread about, "inconsistencies" and I was able to shoot every single one of them down in flames.

I remember that thread, probably a little better than you do. You steadfastly ignored my questions about the inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts of who visited Jesus' tomb during his resurrection, who got there first, the number of angels in attendance and soforth.

 

Cheers,

D.

[disgracian]

Precisely. That's why it isn't required anymore. Thanks for proving my point D.

So you admit that the "god" of the Bible got it wrong. Thanks for proving mine.

 

Cheers,

D.

[FleshNBones]

I think you are confusing me with someone else.

There is no mistake.