Think of it more of an encyclopedia rather than a novel and you'll see why the objections you raised there are incorrect.

 

...either way its far from being a reliable scource of 'truth' .

*sigh* You're clearly not understanding the point at all, so there's no point debating with you. You said that the OT/NT are all part of the same text, but the reality is that this text was compiled from over 60 different authors and books. Think of it more of an encyclopedia rather than a novel and you'll see why the objections you raised there are incorrect.

 

WRONG again... An encyclopaedia has VERIFIABLE FACT to it, and it is also got a thing called PEER REVIEWING.... And will constantly update itself in the form of new additions or addendums when more facts present themselves, people dont take any notice of Encyclopaedias that are 60 or 70 years old mate, BECAUSE THE WORLD HAS MOVED ON, why the fukk would you want to look at an encyclopaedia published last century or so; and the fact that new evidence presents itself which makes older editions totally irrelevant... So surely if what you're saying is actually correct, then the "Old Testament" should be COMPLETELY DISREGARDED by Christians, and the "New Testament" should be the new edition which rendered the OT obsolete like a new Atlas or Enyclopaedia would render the old Atlas or Encyclopaedia obsolete :rolleyes: , errr, but from what I remember of enforced Bible Study classes, the OT was anything BUT disregarded, so, sorry, cant get round it by saying that either, when it's clear that the OT is still being taught and disseminated in Christian churches.... The Enyclopaedia Britannica for example has had countless updates, new editions, etc, and has done since its inception.... You cant point to me really anywhere in the Bible or Koran where there is really a single verifiable FACT with regards to "God", "Jesus" or "Mohammed"..... I see The Bible or Koran as exactly the same as Homer's Odyssey or Aesop's Fables tbh.... These are FOLK TALES, little more.... The Bible may have had relevance over 2000 years ago, but now, I'm afraid, it really has very little, we know a LOT more about the world and the Universe, these are simply PAST THEIR SELL-BY-DATE theories....

 

I find it absolutely hilarious that you cant actually debate with me and Rob on this tbh... Both you and Katherine just cant seem to handle the FACTS here, and you simply cannot come up with any arguments whatsoever to try to persuade us of this "folk tale" nonsense.. Your theory of the world and its creation simply doesn't hold water..... Science doesn't claim to know all the answers, but it certainly is on the right path to maybe finding them because it's far more open to finding out the nature of the universe, but religion has this unwavering, bloody minded arrogance that somehow knows everything and that if we dont all capitulate to its dictats we'll all "burn in Hell" for eternity...... <_< Religion doesn't WANT us to find the answers, because then, it would lose all control over its puppets....

 

And you still haven't exactly explained the dinosaurs with any degree of credibility have you......? :rolleyes:

No, I won't debate on you on this because you ignore my main points and instead focus on something trivial. For example, just there you ignored the main point of my last two posts and instead decided to dissect the difference between an encyclopedia and a novel. FACE. PALM.

No, I won't debate on you on this because you ignore my main points and instead focus on something trivial. For example, just there you ignored the main point of my last two posts and instead decided to dissect the difference between an encyclopedia and a novel. FACE. PALM.

 

He explained a flaw in your logic which renders your whole post point-void. He doesn't need to focus on anything else.

Er, no he didn't. He dealt with a metaphor rather than what the metaphor represented.

 

My point was that you should view the Bible as more of an encyclopedia than a novel because it is compiled from various different authors dealing with a vast period of time, and rather than actually bothering to deal with the FACT of how the Bible was put together, he decided to spend his post talking about why the Bible isn't a literal encyclopedia, bringing up points regarding how an encyclopedia is compiled that I never even touched upon in the first place.

Er, no he didn't. He dealt with a metaphor rather than what the metaphor represented.

 

My point was that you should view the Bible as more of an encyclopedia than a novel because it is compiled from various different authors dealing with a vast period of time, and rather than actually bothering to deal with the FACT of how the Bible was put together, he decided to spend his post talking about why the Bible isn't a literal encyclopedia, bringing up points regarding how an encyclopedia is compiled that I never even touched upon in the first place.

 

sorry m8 but pmomc is right, YOU introduced the metaphore which doesnt equate to the point you are trying to make.

 

just what are the FACTS on how the bible was put together? differing authors over a vast period of time?... yep ... but doesnt that devalue what its supposed toi be saying? surely if this jc character was really the saviour of mankind there would be THOUSANDS of contemporary testimonies written at the time?...

 

a team of university students went through writings spanning 60 years and complied their own 'religion' based upon articals they picked out to 'prove' their point.... it was totally inaccurate of course but kinda proved just how unreliable the bible is.

Er, no he didn't. He dealt with a metaphor rather than what the metaphor represented.

 

My point was that you should view the Bible as more of an encyclopedia than a novel because it is compiled from various different authors dealing with a vast period of time, and rather than actually bothering to deal with the FACT of how the Bible was put together, he decided to spend his post talking about why the Bible isn't a literal encyclopedia, bringing up points regarding how an encyclopedia is compiled that I never even touched upon in the first place.

 

You brought up the metaphor Ags dont blame me for running with it and pointing out the obvious flaws in your logic.... :rolleyes: You still haven't adequately dealt with the very clear and obvious contradictions which are RIFE within the text, and it certainly isn't just a case of Old Testament/New Testament.... The contradictions PROVE that the whole thing overall is subjective, and are OPINION, and not solid historical EMPIRICAL DATA.....

 

You and your "religion" also still haven't explained "God" somehow neglecting to mention the gigantic REPTILES roaming the Earth for millions of years before man...... :P I mean, if Man is made in God's image, whose image, exactly, were the Dinosaurs made in.....? "God" surely MUST have created them as well, yes.....?

 

Actually, the question of whether God exists is almost irrelevant, even if he/she/it did, neither Christianity, nor Islam nor Judaism have got it anywhere NEAR right.....

I do believe in a higher being; whilst rejecting mass organised religion, using clear logical thinking.

I do believe in a higher being; whilst rejecting mass organised religion, using clear logical thinking.

 

any chance of you shareing your thought processes so we can understand?

I do believe in a higher being; whilst rejecting mass organised religion, using clear logical thinking.

 

But surely the "higher being" or "entity" (personally, I would favour the term "higher force") is nature and the universe itself is it not....? It's NATURE that gives life, and NATURE that takes it away... And the Universe itself is an all-encompassing force....

 

is that it then? are religious people so insular, unsure, scared, unconvinced of their opinions that they cannot enter into a serious enquirey and explain their reasons for their belief?...

 

im very disappointed.

actually there IS more evidence for the big bang theory then created by god out of nothing...

 

its all very complex but stephen hawking predicted the existance of black holes and that was proven correct in the early 70's. he also predicts that if black holes can suck matter in, it can reverse itself and spew matter out ala a big bang. the hadron collider may give us the evidence needed to support the big bang theory if it ever gets working!

 

the string theory brings together the otherwise contradicting theories of reletivity and quantum mechanics, work is being carried out as we speak by many of the worlds best scientific thinkers to produce 'the theory of everything', a theory that can be eventually proven by scientific method that will explain the workings of the universe from the tiniest partical of matter to the largest star.

 

this seriese of short films go some way to highlighting just how complex the universe is, and it makes religious teachings seem very very primitive

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

is that it then? are religious people so insular, unsure, scared, unconvinced of their opinions that they cannot enter into a serious enquirey and explain their reasons for their belief?...

 

im very disappointed.

 

Me too mate.... None of the Pro-religion lot can even argue against Big Bang, String Theory, Evolution, etc, whereas you and me can knock holes in the "theories" presented by so-called Holy Scriptures all day.....

 

At the end of the day, if Science finds a flaw, it works to correct it, or presents new findings, not just come away with some blustering, vague excuses for serious gaps in logic and consistency....