[dieadderalls]

Deepwater6, on 10 May 2011 - 05:20 PM, said:

So if we are to make science and the Bible jive we must conclude that the garden of eden was in southern Africa correct? Geneticists have confirmed that modern mans roots started there. I'm curious to know how you're book addresses that issue. There is also the issue of modern man getting started a few hundred thousand years ago and the age of the earth being much older. If they were created near the same time how does you're book mesh these items?

A physical location for the Garden of Eden is missing the point! Sure the location can be inferred, and Southern Africa is the cradle of civilisation, so we have an interesting correlation that requires further exploration. Maybe you should read some Terence Mckenna and his "Stoned Ape Theory", although I am sure there was more to it than simply ingesting mushrooms and tripping balls, it is very interesting to consider.

But reading the Bible as a non-fiction text is like reading LOTR as a non-fiction text, or Harry Potter, or Twilight. If someone started the church of Harry Potter would you not call them a retard? However it cannot be said that there are no moral ideas put forth in those texts, no philosophical and theological ideas asserted (although I haven't read Twilight I know that HP puts a lot of emphasis on the concept of love, and its power in magic). It would be to interpret such a text as true, they are intended to inform people on how to live. The Bible taught methods of plant propagation (Moshe commanded that plants should be left for three years after they are planted to enable a greater harvest later), the problems with large, industrialized society (When Moshe tries to free the Jews from the clutches of Pharaoh).

The Bible was just how you taught basic hygiene to a bunch of dumb people, because if you didn't they'd all die from disease and malnutrition. Tradition keeps people from fucking up too badly. Unfortunately it also doesn't, and idk how to reach a real solution.

[Moontanman]

dieadderalls, on 09 July 2011 - 09:32 PM, said:

But reading the Bible as a non-fiction text is like reading LOTR as a non-fiction text, or Harry Potter, or Twilight. If someone started the church of Harry Potter would you not call them a retard? However it cannot be said that there are no moral ideas put forth in those texts, no philosophical and theological ideas asserted (although I haven't read Twilight I know that HP puts a lot of emphasis on the concept of love, and its power in magic). It would be to interpret such a text as true, they are intended to inform people on how to live. The Bible taught methods of plant propagation (Moshe commanded that plants should be left for three years after they are planted to enable a greater harvest later), the problems with large, industrialized society (When Moshe tries to free the Jews from the clutches of Pharaoh).

So one instance of mentioning plants in the bible and it was inspired by god? The people of the time were completely capable of figuring this out on their own.

Quote

The Bible was just how you taught basic hygiene to a bunch of dumb people, because if you didn't they'd all die from disease and malnutrition. Tradition keeps people from fucking up too badly. Unfortunately it also doesn't, and idk how to reach a real solution.

Basic hygiene? Where? Most of the bible has to do with killing everyone who disagrees with god, genocide, slavery, murder, bigotry, rape, yes a quite good guide on how to be a better human for sure but hygiene? Where exactly?

[dieadderalls]

Moontanman, on 10 July 2011 - 01:27 PM, said:

So one instance of mentioning plants in the bible and it was inspired by god? The people of the time were completely capable of figuring this out on their own.



Basic hygiene? Where? Most of the bible has to do with killing everyone who disagrees with god, genocide, slavery, murder, bigotry, rape, yes a quite good guide on how to be a better human for sure but hygiene? Where exactly?

People are dumb, they would have eaten it just because they felt like it one day without the "wrath of G-d" to keep them away. This is an infantile assertion that the bible makes, but it is still one that kind of holds true; people are pretty stupid (just look at the economic system), and they will just keep taking unless they think there is the threat of a greater power. Even though in reality that power is just nature, embodying it in the form of "G-d" gives people an ability to grasp the immensity of it, and the mind-numbing power it possesses.

And in response to the hygiene claim I meant in the customs that it promoted; not eating pork (which was prone to disease at the time) and circumcision - which stopped infection and all that shit - are just two examples. I guess they could have just had a shower, so that part of my argument is p. invalid.

However I do kind of see it as a "moral guide", but only because of the concept of via negativa; any "act of G-d" in the bible, is not truly an act of G-d, because G-d is immutable and inconceivable. That whole idea (that you can't actually understand what it even is) is one of the foundations of higher theology, it simply isn't taught to those who wouldn't understand it (or at least those who the rabbis and priests do not think would understand it). If all those acts do not take place because of the will of G-d, then we can assume poetic license on the part of the author, and that the author is trying to teach us a lesson.

Take for example Sodom and Gomorrah. In these current times it is pretty much a-okay (due to the level of technological development) to be polyamorous. However when the bible was written there was no contraception and no protective devices that could stop you from getting pretty nasty infections if you banged the wrong person. So teaching people not to just have sex with everybody was a really good thing, as it would prevent disease (this kind of adds to the hygiene claim/theory). To add further credibility, G-d smites them, an act he would be "incapable" of if he was beyond conception, since all of his acts would be beyond understanding as well.

Also you ignored my point about the whole fictitious/literary bent of this whole bible thang.

[sigurdV]

Hi Aireal!

Is there anything special about the bible, or do you accept all standard religious texts as candidates in the field of reconciliation of faith and science?

There is a need for a wide and solid approach, even skeptics must use one action of faith in forming their view...

Also I expect scientists have faith in the scientific method...

[Moontanman]

dieadderalls, on 10 July 2011 - 11:10 PM, said:

However I do kind of see it as a "moral guide", but only because of the concept of via negativa; any "act of G-d" in the bible, is not truly an act of G-d, because G-d is immutable and inconceivable. That whole idea (that you can't actually understand what it even is) is one of the foundations of higher theology, it simply isn't taught to those who wouldn't understand it (or at least those who the rabbis and priests do not think would understand it). If all those acts do not take place because of the will of G-d, then we can assume poetic license on the part of the author, and that the author is trying to teach us a lesson.

Take for example Sodom and Gomorrah. In these current times it is pretty much a-okay (due to the level of technological development) to be polyamorous. However when the bible was written there was no contraception and no protective devices that could stop you from getting pretty nasty infections if you banged the wrong person. So teaching people not to just have sex with everybody was a really good thing, as it would prevent disease (this kind of adds to the hygiene claim/theory). To add further credibility, G-d smites them, an act he would be "incapable" of if he was beyond conception, since all of his acts would be beyond understanding as well.

Also you ignored my point about the whole fictitious/literary bent of this whole bible thang.

It's difficult to imagine a worse moral guide than the bible, from genocide, murder, slavery, child rape, human sacrifice, I mean really, a moral guide? As for sex, killing anyone who had sex outside of marriage, killing homosexuals, even killing untruly children, the bible is any thing but a guide to moral behavior. And if you go by the idea of prohibition on sex protecting from VD then why did all the other civilizations do quite well with out killing anyone who had sex out side marriage, the bible fails in every way and has no basis in reality what so ever. All it actually does is give a few people enormous power over others with lies. On yeah, in Sodom and Gomorrah the main character offered his virgin daughter to the crowd and told them to do with them as they liked, yeah moral values for sure...

[Rade]

dduckwessel, on 10 May 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

You probably want to know how that story fits with evolution and other things? 1) Gen. 2:7 calls it man, then I discovered this creature wasn't a man (human being) at all, the translation is soul, which means, 'the animal principle only (which had to have been an early monkey). This creature had evolved through natural processes on earth.

OK, let us look at this claim. Your explanation does not match what Gen. 2:7 says, it reaches a false conclusion.

Your first error is that Gen. 2:7 uses the word "man" as a prior entity and states that the "man" was formed by God during a design action of the dust of the ground. Then, God took a second design action, God "breathed into his [man] nostrils the breath of life"; AND "man" became a living "soul". So we read that the process of designing the first human (Adam) was a two stage process, so clearly God took his time and did not rush the event trying to do too much at one time, a good design technique.

So, we read in Gen. 2:7 that "man" formed by God from earth dust during design stage #1 WAS NOT ALIVE, the life process does not occur until the second design stage, when God breathed life into the "man", and, most importantly to your claim, we read that it is ONLY after design stage #2 that the "man" becomes a living "soul".

So you see, it is very much impossible your claim that the Hebrew word "man" as first used in Gen. 2:7 would be translated into the word "soul", for the simple reason that the word "soul" is used in the same sentence as "man" in Gen 2:7 to indicate a completely new human concept, the concept of the "man alive". Thus, it is untrue that "man" = "soul", this is not what God tells us. The two Hebrew words MUST logically be translated into two completely different English words, two completely differ concepts of the human.

Finally, it becomes clear how your hypothesis that the "man" formed during the design stage #1 was some sort creature that evolved is logically impossible. It is impossible because God tells us that the "man" from design stage #1 [before it became a soul] was not alive. I am not aware of any version of evolution (and there are many) that allows a non-living form [basically dust of the earth gathered together) to evolve.