Quote:
Quote by: freefallife  What a lame answer. No explaination, no support, no evidence. What an interesting debate tactic
The two don't have to disprove each other to see that they are not on equal ground. Science can provide EVIDENCE for its CONCLUSIONS. Religion can provide NO EVIDENCE for its conclusions. Therefore, they are NOT equal. Your point fails.
There is more biblical support for the idea that the bible was not meant to be reinterpreted over and over. Furthermore, the bible was meant to be historicaly accurate. Take Genesis for example, a volume of the bible that many contend is not meant to be a literal account of the creation. If it was not literal, why are Genesis accounts quoted litleraly throughout the bible? The story of Cain and Able in Genesis 4 is litleraly quoted in Hebrews 11:4. The flood account in Genesis 7 is literally quoted in Matthew 24:39. There are other books that are literaly quoted as well. Jonah and the great fish in Jonah 2 is literaly quoted in Matthew 12:40. There is a lot of biblical support for a literal bible.
Now show YOUR support that the bible was meant to be endlessly reinterpreted.
Uh...I said REinterpret, genius.
I've shown biblical support for my so called rediculous conclusions. Now it's your turn.
I don't have the information on the makeup of those organizations, but they do have christian followers. This thread is about Christianity, so it is them that we are discussing. Whether there are non- christian followers in those organizations is irrelevant to this thread.
It was a simple rubuttal to one of the weakest arguments available. How did it contradict any of my claims? |
All biblical support is supposedly this or that, there is no proof that this or that happened. The descriptions aren't very fine are they, if you read between the lines you won't find much description other than measurements of the commandments boxes and stuff like that, but it might have been a hot day or a cold day, but never degrees fareheit of anything like that. That is the different ways and worlds we live in, the world we live in today is more defined and colourful than the world that was lived in in those days, with more knowledge widely spread too. The difference is people were not as afraid of death in those days and more ready to die for what they believed in, more valourous. It takes months and years to train soldiers to have the same zeal as a teenager back then, so maybe we are completely different to the people back then.
The stories have not changed though, they have been rewritten for ease of understanding, but they have been kept the same in terms that the writers could keep them meaning the same for the readers to recieve the same message, right? Now the problem is that what people found important back then was the box measurements that the commandments came in, not the amount of casualties on the battle field, as we have found, so the stories would have been shaped differently to what we would have shaped them. What we would have found very important would have been the stories Noah told to his family and not the amount of days God showed his power for, right? I mean a vulgar display of power is one thing, but the stories of a man to keep his family in touch with the caring side of the Lord are much more important.
The bible should be full of quotes of what the Lord said to people, not what He did. In this case words speak louder than actions, as ideas carry further than floods. There was a flood. No effect on us. There is a philosophy. Much to learn from it. The bible is structured incorrectly and we are rapidly finding there are many wrongs within. I am not saying that There were not Israelites in Egypt, but I am saying that the sea did not part for them to pass through, as that breaks the laws of nature.
Of course if the bible was full of qoutes of what the Lord had said there would be lots of false quotes of people trying to get their names in the good book and imagining that the Lord is speaking to them or down right lying to others, I mean, if people lie about miracles happeing that break the laws of nature, then surely people will lie about God speaking to them?
Do not use this book as the basis for your arguments, but rather the target, in my advice.