Is religious writing a suitable subject for discussion at scienceforums?

[pgrmdave]

In response to the original question, yes, religion is obviously a topic to discuss here, or we wouldn't even have this topic. The problems only arise when people use only the bible, or only one religious text, or only one poem, or only one novel, or only one scientific paper to support all their views. There is no one book/text/poem/novel/paper/journal/person/philosophy that is correct and complete.

[alexander]

Notice the references to 'circle' which reveals the earth is round.

sorry i am extremely pessimistic about that claim, because since very, very early in evolution of society man has considered earth to be circular, and the bible merely points it out, it does not say sphere, it says circle.... sorry that i'm not screaming in excitement...

 

The root word 'yara' in the Psalms verse means 'to be broken up (with any violent action)'. The same word from Isaiah (both passages) means 'something crumbling' or 'a thin cloth' (dark matter is thin) and the root word means 'crush, crumble, break into pieces or collapse'. I now believe that the collapse is referring to the big rip that some astronomers are now theorizing.

well to start off, the big rip is thought to be more along the lines of sound waves then any violent explosion, but aside from that, you can not posibly base your thought on a meaning of the word, meanings change and writers use words in creative ways to paint a picture. "****" used to mean "to strike or penetrate", so you would **** the chicken with lemon juice so does that mean that "**** you" is vulgular, according to your beleif in meanings of words it is not, so are you going to start telling girls to protect their purses from ****ing? (perhaps not the best of word to choose, but it illustrates my point well enough)

In any case, if we will start taking meanings of phrases literally, then we will start having serious problems with interpreting anything. On that note, here is an example, one of Shakespeare's famous metaphors: "All the world's a stage". Lets deeply look into the meaning of the word stage, well its a theatrical platform on which artist perform plays, goody, what else, aah, in his time most popular stages were circular, so what he is saying is that earth is flat and circular like a stage and we play on it. Great, Shakespeare must have a connection to god....

Wait hold on, also let me incorporate the repitition thing into this, check it out:

"All the world is a stage" - As you like it, Act 2 Scene VII

"let this world no longer be a stage to feed" - King Henry the VII, Part 2 Act 1 Scene I

"a kingdom for a stage" - Henry the V - Prologue

"convenient order about the stage" - Henry the VIII, Act 2, Scene IV

"this great stage of fools" - King Lear, Act 4, Scene VI

"and pass over the stage" - Macbeth, Act 1, Scene VII

"as the world, gratiano;a stage where every man must play a part" - Merchant of Venice, Act 1, Scene I

"this green plot shall be our stage" - Midsummer Nights Dream, Act 3, Scene I

"of men,after a well-graced actor leaves the stage" - Richard II, Act 5, Scene II

"and on this stage,where we're offenders now" - Winter's Tale, Act 5, Scene I

"my part is youth, and beats these from the stage" - The Rape of Lucrece

 

As you can see, there is a lot of repitition in his works too, and most, not all, althoug I may make it seem so, refer to world being a stage. Information can be manipulated to tell you what you want to hear (or read in our case), that is its down side...

[alexander]

and the word blurred out out of content there is f u c k, I'ma go have a chat with mods on how i told them that we will need it one of these days....

[Boerseun]

"It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth...that stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in." (Isaiah 40:22) Notice the references to 'circle' which reveals the earth is round.

Before we jump to any conclusions here, we also have to keep in mind the context in which what is written, was written.

 

Back in those days, nobody had the faintest idea that the Earth was round. The text you're referring to, is equally able to describe a flat disk, which was the popular view. The text describes 'a circle', not a 'sphere' - and seen in the context of what the folks believed back then, the most likely meaning.

[cwes99_03]

I agree. I've recently done some reading on the laws mentioned by duck, and I can't help but think that they misread the bible texts in support of this law of witnesses. The context of the scriptures used as a basis for the "law of witnesses" says that a man should not be accused unless there are at least two witnesses. It does not say that if two witnesses make a claim that it must be true. Otherwise, any two people could make all the claims they wanted and as long as two others didn't say the opposite it would have to be taken as truth.

The context tells us that in order for something to be believed it must have at least two witnesses. This Law of Witnesses, instead says that if there are two or three texts that say the same thing, then it must be true, and it must be divine. I don't see any basis either in the language, or the words to support this idea.

[cwes99_03]

Well, I don't think the moderators would like it being posted on this site, but feel free to send it to me in a PM. I'll discuss your views. I only wanted to point out that the "law of witnesses" is not a law found in the Bible as it is presented on many websites. Those websites say that if there are two or three examples then it must be true.

 

http://www.bibleman.net/Two_or_three_witnesses.htm

http://www.cometozarahemla.org/law-of-witnesses/law-of-witnesses.html

[cwes99_03]

I believe you are correct as to the Mormons. One of those pages, or perhaps another I looked at refered to the Three Witnesses, who apparently around 1830 were given some sort of vision, thus leading to the Book of Mormon.

 

I know what you mean by repetition in the Bible. Repetition simply brings about emphasis. However, what you are saying is that we should test the bible for accuracy (contradictions) by comparing repetitious verses, and I gather that if something isn't repeted at least a couple of times in the Bible, then you are saying that there is no basis for belief in it because it wasn't repeated. If I am wrong here, perhaps you can post a thread explaining in great detail your "Law of Witnesses" and we as a scientific community can help you revise it if needed.

 

Assuming, as I do, there is a supernatural all-powerful God, his personality dictates that He 'would not' have written words that could be misconstrued, knowing the trouble that would cause. Many different kinds of people, many different interpretations but there's only 'one' book!!! 'If God did not give a method for interpretation He would only be setting humanity up for failure as they fight over which intepretation is the correct one. Humanity itself would be doomed to fight a losing battle as inconsistencies in doctrine continuously causes discord.

 

From my understanding of the Bible, it provides for there to be people who would twist the words, those who would misunderstand them because they wanted to believe something that wasn't true, and other reasons that the Bible would not be understood by all. Even Jesus told his disciples that some things he was teaching would not be understood by them until a later time.(Acts 1:6-14) Also, refresh yourself on the scripture where Jesus made a comment about needing to eat of his flesh and several of his followers left him because they did not understand John 6:60-65.

 

The only other thing I can say as for your approach to the Bible with ny understanding of your law of witnesses, is that science alone is not supposed to bring understanding of Bible scriptures. Otherwise, what is the point of God's holy spirit in the scripture there at Acts.

[cwes99_03]

No doubt many have mis-interpreted the bible, but unfortunately, I don't believe one can gain total understanding of the bible simply by reading it over and over and attempting to understand it through their own interpretation.

 

But I digress, this is no longer scientific comments on whether religious writing is suitable for discussion. I believe discussion like this is the reason that the forum admins don't want religious discussion on their site. They feel that it will result only in proselitizing.

[alexander]

I suspected that if I presented a condensed view of my research, it would be insufficient. However, what if I have 100 instances where I could find 'repeating' information in the Bible, sometimes uniquely rephrased, would that be sufficient evidence?

Hey, my Shakesperian theory must be correct then...

 

But the physical universe can be explained scientifically and the Bible is the words of the person who made the universe, so why would a scientific explanation not work? Obviously God is scientifically minded? And what if all this time the religious explanation has been wrong???

 

First, beleive what you will, but in the scientiffic world the universe is not created by God, which i should mention you have failed to provide any evidence for, nor is the bible written by God, which you also have not even logically proven to be possible (without using bible as reference). Aside from that, where does it say that God is scientiffically minded? he/she/it created adam from dirt, how is that exactly scientiffic, god just created heaven, poof, how is that exactly scientiffic, there was no mention of a planet, or anything, where did the heaven reside then? and none of that omnipitent/omniscent nonsense will do here either, if god can do anything, how can he make 2+2=7? (Please speculate on how it would possibly be possible for that to take place, and he just can is not an answer that would quite quench my thurst for the answer?)

 

Let me give an example not Biblibally related; 'Jane ran to the store.' The confirming verse would say something like, 'Jane ran to the store with Peter,' (thus providing the additional information about Peter). 'However', another verse (there is often much more than 2, and you just might find this one first) will say, 'At two o'clock Jane left the house and went to get Peter'.

And ofcourse everybody knows that all the events in the Bible have happened the same day... so she must have run out of the house to get Peter and go to the store with him, but could not have run out after a random friend one day, had to run out and get bread the other, and went to get Peter 3 years down the road to fix her fireplace...

provides for there to be people who would twist the words, those who would misunderstand them because they wanted to believe something that wasn't true, and other reasons that the Bible would not be understood by all. Even Jesus told his disciples that some things he was teaching would not be understood by them until a later time.

Have you read the writings of Nostradamus and twisted the words? its cool, because you can see just about anything you want in them, events that happen today, after a gazillion years after the volumes were written, WWI, WWII, tanks, nuclear bomb, twin towers, you name it, he must also have been connected to god, maybe it was god writing through him when he locked up in his room for months to do the writing, right...?

And as to that Jesus stuff, Jesus taught a great many things, and whats funny is that Christianity only follows teaching that they feel like following, not what Jesus taught, infact it couldnt be farther away then what he taught, well i guess you could say that paganistic religions are farther in some ways, or you could be Buddhaist, but hey, christianity is quite intertwined with paganism, and for a while was considered an atheistic religion, after all, the person who has made so many countless decisions for Christian faith was a Roman emperor...

[Boerseun]

Sorry, dduck -

 

Once again, I can't agree with you. Anybody's words being a 'double-edged sword' is described as such in a purely metaphorical way. It doesn't mean anything, and the original Hebrew text probably referred to some other similar metaphor, and in translation came down to a 'double-edged sword' in English, seeing as that was the most suitable metaphor.

 

This doesn't mean or prove anything at all, apart from what you want it to prove, in this case, the 'Law of Witnesses'. And anything that has exceptions cannot be a 'law', it must hold true in all cases, for it to indeed be a law.

[alexander]

The Bible says Adam was created from the 'dust' of the earth. Hebrew interprets dust as powdered or gray, hense clay, earth, mud, ashes, dust, earth, ground, mortor. These are vague, however, I think that Adam evolved from the ground as all life did. No where in the Bible does it say that God just suddenly made a human body. Evolution is more likely.

evolution out of dust? interesting....

Not even close.

If Bible defines the law of repetition, as you have, then my theory, my evidence is there, repetition is present, theory true according to your methods...

You didn't read all of the evidence yet!

Thats because YOU havent provided any viable evidence for me to consider!

I am not speaking about Christianity Alex. What I present challenges all present Bible-based teaching.

no cwes was!

and lastly, like my point, and now remade by Boerseun (although i wont argue who made the point first, B, doesnt matter...)

Anybody's words being a 'double-edged sword' is described as such in a purely metaphorical way. It doesn't mean anything, and the original Hebrew text probably referred to some other similar metaphor, and in translation came down to a 'double-edged sword' in English, seeing as that was the most suitable metaphor.

 

This doesn't mean or prove anything at all, apart from what you want it to prove, in this case, the 'Law of Witnesses'. And anything that has exceptions cannot be a 'law', it must hold true in all cases, for it to indeed be a law.

[cwes99_03]

Wow, I've missed some things so I'll try to catch up. I'm typing with one thumb today btw, so bear with me, I'll try to catch my typing mistakes. The following is a discussion of a text used as basis for religious beliefs. This is a discussion of such text as a literary work.

 

First and foremost the Law of Witnesses. This should perhaps be a thread in it's own right(oops it is, strange claims forum, but then this is a scientific discussion). I dislike it when threads evolve into something else. Super long threads that constantly change topic are hard to follow. As for the claims made by duck, I have to say a couple of things.

1) The Bible does say twice if not more that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Think of muses whatever you want, it means that they simply wrote down what was dictated to them (how it was dictated I believe I could show you but I won't do it here because it is off topic and probably against hypography rules.) As such, it says that all scripture, which means that all of it coming from a perfect being would have purpose, and be true, as He is incapable of lieing according to the Bible.

2) The reason why some scriptures are repeated in nearly identical fashion to a scripture from the OT is that Jesus and the Pharisees were regular readers and studiers of the OT. They knew, or were supposed to know, what it said, and therefore cited the scriptures to give evidence to what the OT had said. Did the people back then have any other witness that what they were quoting had actually been said? No. But then they didn't need it, because they knew in their hearts that what was written was divinely inspired and beyond suspect. Can we say the same thing about it today? Can we say that all books claiming to be divinely inspired actually were? No. What was done is similar in what you recommend for testing books claiming to be Biblical. They looked at all the books, read them through and through, looked for errors in logic, contradictions, etc. They also considered archaelogical evidence about where those books were found, how old the writings were. Whether they were found in a group, in which case all the books in the group were considered together, and after having gone through this quite exhaustive effort, the cannonizers decided which books to use.

3)The sharp two edged sword lends itself clearly to a warriors experience. Ask a military person what the significance of fighting with double edged weapons is. They'll tell you that they are much more powerful because they can cut in multiple directions. The Bible is saying the same thing. It is saying that the scriptures, words that issued from the mouth, are so very powerful that they cut between the tuth and lies, and anyone following the lies, hasn't done their part in searching for the truth. Furthermore, the bible numerous times calls Jesus the son of God, and he himself says I come from the father. To understand how the word of God can come out of his mouth, think about the son of a man. After living his life for 20 years with his father, the son has learned a great deal about him. In fact, if their relationship was really good, he probably is a lot like his father, speaking, teaching, and doing what his father taught him. How long does the Bible say Jesus was with God in heaven? How good was their relationsihp? Why was Jesus called the word of God? Everything he spoke to people on earth was what his father wanted him to speak, after all he said he came to do the will of his father.

The Bible 'must' interpret itself because if human beings are capable of doing that - then you could also say 'what's so special about the words then?'

While this is written in a confusing way, I think you are saying that if only certain people could interpret it then what's so special about those certain people. According to the Bible? They have received Holy Spirit allowing them to understand. Their hearts have been read by God and he has determined their value in his eyes. It's all there in the Bible.

 

Whether or not you take the Bible as something to formulate and base your belief in God is your decision. But we should be able to discuss the literature itself as to what it says in a scientific way. There are obviously some parts in the book that can't neccessarily be understood purely scientifically.

 

As for whether the Bible supports evolution, the Bible says that God created these things. Exactly how it was created isn't told in the Bible. But it does say that he created man specifically in his image, not meaning literally that God has a body like that of a man, but that He created man with the ability to reason, live with free will, and think, things he did not give animals according to the Bible. Therefore, mans evolution from an ape that does not have these abilities would seem to be eliminated.

 

By the way, your law of witnesses doesn't support your strange claim that birds evolved from the water.

 

I would agree to the idea that Nostradomus among others made strange vague claims that could be interpretted so many ways that some people could use them as predictions for the things mentioned. However, the Bible uses some clean and clear methods of interpretation and enumerates them. He often gave visions to his prophets, and then had them interpreted for those prophets, so they could not be misunderstood. He also gave many specific prophecies dealing with time date location and person who would fulfill those prophecies. Are these easily mistranslated? Did Cyrus not damn the waters of the Euphrates and trudge through the drying river bed, enter through an ungaurded unlocked gate of Babylon and kill its king who up until less than a century ago was believed never to have existed (archaeologists only recently discovered that the man referred to as king the night of Medo-Persias raid of Babylon was a real person, found his name (and he was referred to as the ruler) on a stone cylinder in the ruins. For these reasons, I believe in the Bible.

Yes, this is what I'm saying but it not only tests the information for accuracy, but according to the Bible when something is repeated, it then becomes set in stone.

I for one have not seen any such law saying that only those things repeated in the bible, are set in stone. I think this is someones attempt to bring science and religion together by telling religious thinkers that some of what they believe isn't supported because the Bible doesn't repeat it. Instead, maybe that person should focus on what the Bible doesnt support because it doesn't say it at all, like certain pagan holidays being celebrated totally against the teachings of Jesus and the Bible (but then some would say that that is just my belief and that people should be free to worship however they want.) Sure, so long as they have reasons for it, otherwise I would no longer define it as religion but philosophy see my thread on that subject. religion vs. philosophy

[alexander]

Ok, to answer the original question of this thread;

this is exactly why i dont think that presenting biblical scriptures up for discussion is not something we should do. Look at what this thread turned into... yeah, people presenting Bible as evidence, in order to prove that Bible's word is true, how scientiffic, its like a recursive function, or better yet a recursive law eg "You do only what i tell you to do, if you dont agree, read this sentence again...". I think that religious writing should not be discussed here, in the theology section, but somewhere in a literature corner or something, most certainly religious scriptures as read by most religious people are basically proven to not be considered scientiffic because of their missuse...

[Boerseun]

I agree with you completely, Alex.

 

The only reason I support the discussion of theologically-based threads here, is because religion (like it or not) had and still has a major shaping force in civilization.

 

But what I intended to discuss is, for instance, what Shintoism contributed to modern Japanese society, with all its oddities, etc. What religion had to do with people willing to lay down their lives for senseless causes, etc. You see my point? I don't want to limit it to Bible-based discussion where people actually use the Bible for evidence. But you're right - all discussions here tend to devolve to that one single point. So maybe what I've got in mind can be accommodated somewhere in a 'history' forum, and we can close this sucker.

 

What do you say?

[cwes99_03]

Do as you like. I believe the one reason that the discussions have devolved to a discussion of the Bible is two fold.

1) People worshipping in other religions don't have the same convictions that there is a truth (which science is always in search for, therefore logically scientists would have to belong to a religion that purports to have found the truth)

2) The members of this forum are predominantly atheist or christian.

Look at what this thread turned into... yeah, people presenting Bible as evidence, in order to prove that Bible's word is true, how scientiffic, its like a recursive function, or better yet a recursive law eg "You do only what i tell you to do, if you dont agree, read this sentence again...".

 

How many people went back to the beginning of that command and read it again. If you did, then you were following the first command and not disagreeing, so why were you going back to the beginning in the first place? I do though understand your point, and challenge it with this one.

 

Is there any evidence in the Bible, since that seems to be the text of choice in this thread, supported by science today that was not at first supported? Is there historical fact found in the Bible to add credance to the rest of the Bible? Is there in fact excessive amounts of this, not just a little bit? Are there still things in this world not fully explained by science in biology, cosmology, physics, etc. that may be explained through other ways? Have any of you critics actually sat down and studied the Bible, in its entirety, so as to have a basis for scientific denunciation of its teachings, or have you simply taken someone else's word for it, and a topical examination of the worlds religions, and decided it must be just a moral story?

 

Science is the study of a thing, or an action, so as to determine the truth behind what it is and how it works. Have you ever scientifically studied these religions? When you study some new phenomena in the world do you not formulate your own opionions and then use some sounding board for testing those beliefs, and then have a colleague who differs in opionion also test your assumptions and results?

 

These answers that you just found explain why you allowed this forum to find it's niche on a science website.

[C1ay]

IMO, religion is an important variable in both sociology and philosophy, both valid branches of science. Science should examine all variables at work in the honest work of science itself. Even the areligious amoung us relaize that religion effects all of us.

[Boerseun]

IMO, religion is an important variable in both sociology and philosophy, both valid branches of science. Science should examine all variables at work in the honest work of science itself. Even the areligious amoung us relaize that religion effects all of us.

My point exactly. And that's why we should keep it here. But subscribers and posters here should understand that this forum isn't intended as a tool to do missionary work with.