Denying science in the classroom

[Moiraine]

 

It's irrelevant whether anyone takes it seriously. People can believe it or not. They can interpret any part of it however they want. They can decide which books belong in it and which don't. At one point it was decided which books belong. A human decided that, and people trusted that God spoke to him/her (probably him).

 

All we have is text and how we interpret it. Most Christians decide to trust some other human to tell them how to interpret it.

 

There's a reason there are dozens (hundreds?) of different denominations that claim to be Christian. They all intepret the Bible differently and they all put more importance on different parts of it. What are the chances one of them is right on everything? Pretty slim. But if God isn't a complete jerk he's not going to care.

 

I would say that to anyone living their life by the tenets in a book, it is absolutely relevant whether people take all or parts of it seriously. The interpretation of the Bible is the problem, and to directly wrap it into the topic of this thread, when we're under threat of science being denied in the classroom in favor of teachings from the Bible, it's not only relevant, but crucial that we understand exactly what the Bible is.

 

As a scientist posting in this of all threads, I don't understand your answer.

How do you not understand it? Religion is not science. It should not be taught in any classroom except one that teaches about many religions. The fact that I'm a scientist isn't relevant in the discussion either.

 

None of any of that is relevant in the discussion we don't need to understand the Bible or even ever look at it. It doesn't matter which parts of the Bible people believe or if they're even Christian. Creation shouldn't be taught in school except in a religion class.

 

As someone who doesn't think it should be taught in the classroom, I don't understand your response saying it's super important everyone understand what the Bible is. We know it's a religious text. That's enough.

 

 

Now, to the people who live their lives by the Bible, it shouldn't matter to them who takes it seriously. Anyone telling them how to inerpret the Bible is a fallible being. It's up to each person to decide.

[Making Chimichangas]

If you're telling me the Bible is just a bunch of stories with good moral values, I'm cool with that.

 

If you're telling me the Bible is useful as the foundation of a religion, that doesn't make sense.

If you're relying on the bible to give you moral guidance, you'd be better served by just ignoring what you read.

 

The bible literally condones: slavery, rape, incest, murder/genocide, and subjugation of women--and a bunch of other equally awful things.

 

Slavery:

​Leviticus 25: 44-46

Leviticus 27: 1-7 (here "god" even tells you the value of your slave, in case you don't know what the Shekel to Dollar conversion rate is)

​Rape:

Deuteronomy 22: 27-28

Deuteronomy 21: 10-13

​Incest

​Genesis 19: 33-34

 

Murder/Genocide:

Joshua 6: 21

God killing all Egypt's 1st born

Noah and the flood wiping out humanity

 

Subjugation of women:

1 Timothy 2: 11-14,

Deuteronomy 22: 13-21

​All these passages were taken from New King James Version

[The Dude]

It's the small victories . . .

 

[Moiraine]

Also, knapp, you keep talking about people being uncomfortable and avoiding answering you. Maybe I missed it but I don't think anyone has said they're uncomfortable. I think you're projecting based on how you felt when trying to convince yourself to keep being Christian.

 

The question you're asking isn't uncomfortable for me because humans wrote the Bible, then humans decided which books belonged together, and then different religious branches (made up of humans) decided how to interpret it. A pastor is likely to know some Hebrew and has read the Bible more than I have so their opinion is important but it's still an opinion.

 

We don't even have one universal translation of the Bible, even within single branches of Christianity.

[knapplc]

 

 

It's irrelevant whether anyone takes it seriously. People can believe it or not. They can interpret any part of it however they want. They can decide which books belong in it and which don't. At one point it was decided which books belong. A human decided that, and people trusted that God spoke to him/her (probably him).

 

All we have is text and how we interpret it. Most Christians decide to trust some other human to tell them how to interpret it.

 

There's a reason there are dozens (hundreds?) of different denominations that claim to be Christian. They all intepret the Bible differently and they all put more importance on different parts of it. What are the chances one of them is right on everything? Pretty slim. But if God isn't a complete jerk he's not going to care.

I would say that to anyone living their life by the tenets in a book, it is absolutely relevant whether people take all or parts of it seriously. The interpretation of the Bible is the problem, and to directly wrap it into the topic of this thread, when we're under threat of science being denied in the classroom in favor of teachings from the Bible, it's not only relevant, but crucial that we understand exactly what the Bible is.

 

As a scientist posting in this of all threads, I don't understand your answer.

 

How do you not understand it? Religion is not science. It should not be taught in any classroom except one that teaches about many religions. The fact that I'm a scientist isn't relevant in the discussion either.

 

None of any of that is relevant in the discussion we don't need to understand the Bible or even ever look at it. It doesn't matter which parts of the Bible people believe or if they're even Christian. Creation shouldn't be taught in school except in a religion class.

 

As someone who doesn't think it should be taught in the classroom, I don't understand your response saying it's super important everyone understand what the Bible is. We know it's a religious text. That's enough.

 

 

Now, to the people who live their lives by the Bible, it shouldn't matter to them who takes it seriously. Anyone telling them how to inerpret the Bible is a fallible being. It's up to each person to decide.

 

No, we don't "know" anything about the Bible. If parts of it aren't what they say they are, which parts are what they say they are?

 

A whole religion is based off this one book, and now you're saying the book isn't even necessary? Wha?

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

It's irrelevant whether anyone takes it seriously. People can believe it or not. They can interpret any part of it however they want. They can decide which books belong in it and which don't. At one point it was decided which books belong. A human decided that, and people trusted that God spoke to him/her (probably him).

 

All we have is text and how we interpret it. Most Christians decide to trust some other human to tell them how to interpret it.

 

There's a reason there are dozens (hundreds?) of different denominations that claim to be Christian. They all intepret the Bible differently and they all put more importance on different parts of it. What are the chances one of them is right on everything? Pretty slim. But if God isn't a complete jerk he's not going to care.

I would say that to anyone living their life by the tenets in a book, it is absolutely relevant whether people take all or parts of it seriously. The interpretation of the Bible is the problem, and to directly wrap it into the topic of this thread, when we're under threat of science being denied in the classroom in favor of teachings from the Bible, it's not only relevant, but crucial that we understand exactly what the Bible is.

 

As a scientist posting in this of all threads, I don't understand your answer.

How do you not understand it? Religion is not science. It should not be taught in any classroom except one that teaches about many religions. The fact that I'm a scientist isn't relevant in the discussion either.

 

None of any of that is relevant in the discussion we don't need to understand the Bible or even ever look at it. It doesn't matter which parts of the Bible people believe or if they're even Christian. Creation shouldn't be taught in school except in a religion class.

 

As someone who doesn't think it should be taught in the classroom, I don't understand your response saying it's super important everyone understand what the Bible is. We know it's a religious text. That's enough.

 

 

Now, to the people who live their lives by the Bible, it shouldn't matter to them who takes it seriously. Anyone telling them how to inerpret the Bible is a fallible being. It's up to each person to decide.

No, we don't "know" anything about the Bible. If parts of it aren't what they say they are, which parts are what they say they are?

 

A whole religion is based off this one book, and now you're saying the book isn't even necessary? Wha?

?

 

In your reply you were talking about denying science in the classroom.

 

In the context of teaching Creation in a science class, people don't need to read the Bible to make their decision on whether that's appropriate. All they need to know is that the text was written by 1 human and there is no relevant data within the text that would prove it correct. (I suppose if they've been living under a rock their entire life they could read through Genesis and then see the lack of data).

 

Therefore it doesn't belong in a science class. It belongs in a religion or mythology class.

 

(Note - by "text" I mean the "God created the heavens and the earth" stuff)

[knapplc]

 

 

 

 

It's irrelevant whether anyone takes it seriously. People can believe it or not. They can interpret any part of it however they want. They can decide which books belong in it and which don't. At one point it was decided which books belong. A human decided that, and people trusted that God spoke to him/her (probably him).

 

All we have is text and how we interpret it. Most Christians decide to trust some other human to tell them how to interpret it.

 

There's a reason there are dozens (hundreds?) of different denominations that claim to be Christian. They all intepret the Bible differently and they all put more importance on different parts of it. What are the chances one of them is right on everything? Pretty slim. But if God isn't a complete jerk he's not going to care.

I would say that to anyone living their life by the tenets in a book, it is absolutely relevant whether people take all or parts of it seriously. The interpretation of the Bible is the problem, and to directly wrap it into the topic of this thread, when we're under threat of science being denied in the classroom in favor of teachings from the Bible, it's not only relevant, but crucial that we understand exactly what the Bible is.

 

As a scientist posting in this of all threads, I don't understand your answer.

How do you not understand it? Religion is not science. It should not be taught in any classroom except one that teaches about many religions. The fact that I'm a scientist isn't relevant in the discussion either.

 

None of any of that is relevant in the discussion we don't need to understand the Bible or even ever look at it. It doesn't matter which parts of the Bible people believe or if they're even Christian. Creation shouldn't be taught in school except in a religion class.

 

As someone who doesn't think it should be taught in the classroom, I don't understand your response saying it's super important everyone understand what the Bible is. We know it's a religious text. That's enough.

 

 

Now, to the people who live their lives by the Bible, it shouldn't matter to them who takes it seriously. Anyone telling them how to inerpret the Bible is a fallible being. It's up to each person to decide.

No, we don't "know" anything about the Bible. If parts of it aren't what they say they are, which parts are what they say they are?

 

A whole religion is based off this one book, and now you're saying the book isn't even necessary? Wha?

?

 

In your reply you were talking about denying science in the classroom.

 

In the context of teaching Creation in a science class, people don't need to read the Bible to make their decision on whether that's appropriate. All they need to know is that the text was written by 1 human and there is no relevant data within the text that would prove it correct. (I suppose if they've been living under a rock their entire life they could read through Genesis and then see the lack of data).

 

Therefore it doesn't belong in a science class. It belongs in a religion or mythology class.

 

(Note - by "text" I mean the "God created the heavens and the earth" stuff)

 

 

Now we're just talking in circles.

[Landlord]

No, we don't "know" anything about the Bible. If parts of it aren't what they say they are, which parts are what they say they are?

 

A whole religion is based off this one book, and now you're saying the book isn't even necessary? Wha?

 

 

1. What do those parts say that they are? You said that RedDenver answered correctly in stating that the Bible doesn't say that it is literal truth and doesn't say that it isn't.

 

2. The religion is based off of Jesus of Nazareth. Not off a collection of books.

[knapplc]

 

No, we don't "know" anything about the Bible. If parts of it aren't what they say they are, which parts are what they say they are?

 

A whole religion is based off this one book, and now you're saying the book isn't even necessary? Wha?

 

 

1. What do those parts say that they are? You said that RedDenver answered correctly in stating that the Bible doesn't say that it is literal truth and doesn't say that it isn't.

 

2. The religion is based off of Jesus of Nazareth. Not off a collection of books.

 

 

You know very well what they say. Why ask me?

 

So the Jesus of Nazareth parts are true. All others, or just some, or only the Jesus stuff? Which is it?

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's irrelevant whether anyone takes it seriously. People can believe it or not. They can interpret any part of it however they want. They can decide which books belong in it and which don't. At one point it was decided which books belong. A human decided that, and people trusted that God spoke to him/her (probably him).

 

All we have is text and how we interpret it. Most Christians decide to trust some other human to tell them how to interpret it.

 

There's a reason there are dozens (hundreds?) of different denominations that claim to be Christian. They all intepret the Bible differently and they all put more importance on different parts of it. What are the chances one of them is right on everything? Pretty slim. But if God isn't a complete jerk he's not going to care.

I would say that to anyone living their life by the tenets in a book, it is absolutely relevant whether people take all or parts of it seriously. The interpretation of the Bible is the problem, and to directly wrap it into the topic of this thread, when we're under threat of science being denied in the classroom in favor of teachings from the Bible, it's not only relevant, but crucial that we understand exactly what the Bible is.

 

As a scientist posting in this of all threads, I don't understand your answer.

How do you not understand it? Religion is not science. It should not be taught in any classroom except one that teaches about many religions. The fact that I'm a scientist isn't relevant in the discussion either.

 

None of any of that is relevant in the discussion we don't need to understand the Bible or even ever look at it. It doesn't matter which parts of the Bible people believe or if they're even Christian. Creation shouldn't be taught in school except in a religion class.

 

As someone who doesn't think it should be taught in the classroom, I don't understand your response saying it's super important everyone understand what the Bible is. We know it's a religious text. That's enough.

 

 

Now, to the people who live their lives by the Bible, it shouldn't matter to them who takes it seriously. Anyone telling them how to inerpret the Bible is a fallible being. It's up to each person to decide.

No, we don't "know" anything about the Bible. If parts of it aren't what they say they are, which parts are what they say they are?

 

A whole religion is based off this one book, and now you're saying the book isn't even necessary? Wha?

?

 

In your reply you were talking about denying science in the classroom.

 

In the context of teaching Creation in a science class, people don't need to read the Bible to make their decision on whether that's appropriate. All they need to know is that the text was written by 1 human and there is no relevant data within the text that would prove it correct. (I suppose if they've been living under a rock their entire life they could read through Genesis and then see the lack of data).

 

Therefore it doesn't belong in a science class. It belongs in a religion or mythology class.

 

(Note - by "text" I mean the "God created the heavens and the earth" stuff)

Now we're just talking in circles.

Here's why we're talking in circles.

 

I was talking about Christianity itself and the Bible. We had been discussing what's literal and what's not and whether it matters. You replied that it matters because science denying people want it in the classroom.

 

I then said the text of the Bible is not relevant. I thought I made it obvious in my post I was talking about it in the context of its classroom use, since that's what I was replying to.

 

Then you replied implying I was saying the Bible isn't relevant to Christianity.

 

The only reason we're talking in circles is because you replied to my post about Bible interpretation by talking about it being taught in the classroom and then when I responded about teaching it in the classroom you replied implying I think the Bible is irrelevant to Christiamity. Previously in the conversation people (including you) had been talking about Bible interpretation in general.

[knapplc]

Previously in the conversation people (including you) had been talking about Bible interpretation in general.

This is what I thought you were talking about the whole time. I didn't notice you switch tracks.

[Moiraine]

 

Previously in the conversation people (including you) had been talking about Bible interpretation in general.

This is what I thought you were talking about the whole time. I didn't notice you switch tracks.

Well, ignoring my lack of a . between the first 2 sentences...

 

None of any of that is relevant in the discussion we don't need to understand the Bible or even ever look at it. It doesn't matter which parts of the Bible people believe or if they're even Christian. Creation shouldn't be taught in school except in a religion class.

 

I thought it was clear

[Landlord]

 

 

No, we don't "know" anything about the Bible. If parts of it aren't what they say they are, which parts are what they say they are?

 

A whole religion is based off this one book, and now you're saying the book isn't even necessary? Wha?

 

 

1. What do those parts say that they are? You said that RedDenver answered correctly in stating that the Bible doesn't say that it is literal truth and doesn't say that it isn't.

 

2. The religion is based off of Jesus of Nazareth. Not off a collection of books.

 

 

You know very well what they say. Why ask me?

 

So the Jesus of Nazareth parts are true. All others, or just some, or only the Jesus stuff? Which is it?

 

 

 

 

As far as I know, I am unaware of any parts of the Bible giving any kind of instruction or clarity as to their respective genres, or proper hermeneutics that should be used in reading them. Whatever the Bible does say about itself, I do not think warrants extending the logic as far as you're taking it, so, I'm asking you because I'm confused what you're actually referencing when you say that parts of it are saying something about what they are.

 

The Jesus of Nazareth parts might be exactly historically accurate. They might be embellished to X degree. They might be true in the sense that they were recorded as God intended, but still contain 'error' when looking at them the same way we look at history textbooks, because they weren't concerned with such things. They might involve elements of myth passed down through oral tradition before they were penned. They might be the result of thousands of years of the telephone game. They might be a lot of things.

 

What I think they are is useful regardless. What they aren't is the foundation of my faith. The Bible doesn't define Christianity - experience with God does. If the Bible ceased to exist tomorrow I'd still be batting on the same team and Jesus would still be as real as He's ever been.

[RedDenver]

 

 

Since my statement is a "gross over-generalization," please cite which part(s) of the Bible tell us that these stories are NOT to be taken as true:

 

Creation in six days

Noah's Ark

Job

Ruth/Esther

Elijah and the prophets of Baal

Balaam's Ass

Jesus' virgin birth

The tongues of fire at pentecost

Peter & the sheet of food

Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus

 

Please don't answer if you're not going to go through these one-by-one, because that is the crux of the question. Everyone wants to keep dancing around the answer, and believe me I know why it makes people uncomfortable to try and answer this, but it has to be answered if we're going to take a religion based off the Bible seriously.

Let me start off by answering your question. There is no place in the bible that says explicitly that any of your examples are literally true, and there is also no place in the bible that says your examples are literally false.

 

It seems like we're talking passed each other, so instead of me trying to making my points, let me ask: so what? What conclusion are you driving to with these examples?

 

 

I'm not going to rehash the conversation we've had the previous two pages that led to why I asked that question. It's back there if you want to read it.

 

I appreciate the honest answer. It is the correct answer, as you well know.

 

Let me attempt to summarize and see if that makes things a bit more clear.

 

You're claiming that the bible cannot be taken as literally true. I agree.

 

You're also claiming that the bible has no validity. That's where I disagree. And maybe this is simply a matter of semantics in what you meant. I took you to mean that the bible has no value, which is why I argued that fiction can have value and meaning even though it is not literally true.

[Ratt Mhule]

 

 

 

No, we don't "know" anything about the Bible. If parts of it aren't what they say they are, which parts are what they say they are?

 

A whole religion is based off this one book, and now you're saying the book isn't even necessary? Wha?

 

 

1. What do those parts say that they are? You said that RedDenver answered correctly in stating that the Bible doesn't say that it is literal truth and doesn't say that it isn't.

 

2. The religion is based off of Jesus of Nazareth. Not off a collection of books.

You know very well what they say. Why ask me?

 

So the Jesus of Nazareth parts are true. All others, or just some, or only the Jesus stuff? Which is it?

 

 

As far as I know, I am unaware of any parts of the Bible giving any kind of instruction or clarity as to their respective genres, or proper hermeneutics that should be used in reading them. Whatever the Bible does say about itself, I do not think warrants extending the logic as far as you're taking it, so, I'm asking you because I'm confused what you're actually referencing when you say that parts of it are saying something about what they are.

 

The Jesus of Nazareth parts might be exactly historically accurate. They might be embellished to X degree. They might be true in the sense that they were recorded as God intended, but still contain 'error' when looking at them the same way we look at history textbooks, because they weren't concerned with such things. They might involve elements of myth passed down through oral tradition before they were penned. They might be the result of thousands of years of the telephone game. They might be a lot of things.

 

What I think they are is useful regardless. What they aren't is the foundation of my faith. The Bible doesn't define Christianity - experience with God does. If the Bible ceased to exist tomorrow I'd still be batting on the same team and Jesus would still be as real as He's ever been.

What do you mean the Bible does not define Christianity? The Bible IS Christianity. Without the Bible people wouldnt even know who Jesus is or that he is the savior of the world(unless he decided to make an appearance every so often) Isnt that what the religion is all about?