Denying science in the classroom

[Ratt Mhule]

I feel another woodshed fight thread that will most likely disappoint coming on

[Moiraine]

 

 

Knap provided verses earlier from the old and new testaments; do not add and do not take away. So the text is as it is. If it's not meant to be taken literally and we get to pick and choose what value does it have other than bed time stories?

 

I guess I'm not seeing the though progression from "do not add and do not take away" to "read this literally"?

 

If J.K. Rowling said that she was done writing Harry Potter books forever and would never give anyone the rights to modify or re-release or write more Harry Potter stories, does that mean we're supposed to believe those books are non-fiction and that magic is real? Maybe it's a stupid analogy, but I'm struggling to see the connection to literalism.

It can be argued that "taking away" is the same as "don't consider this literally."

 

For instance there's no way I think it was ever right to punish women for wearing men's clothes. So I guess in my mind I'm "taking it away." Or for mixing types of cloth. Thise verses were meant for a short period of time in history imo.

 

Anyhow, the not adding/subtracting stuff appears in 2 individual books of The Bible. So are they referring to those sections of text or to the whole Bible. Did Catholics get the right Bible or did Mormons or did someone else?

[knapplc]

People will most often see what they are comfortable seeing, whether that's in the Bible or interpreting someone else's intentions.

[ZRod]

I can't explain your perception, Moiraine. I can only explain my intention, which I did. If you took it another way, that's your fault.

Is it my fault I took it the same way they did, and I'm pretty much on "your side" of the argument?

 

Let's chalk this one up to message boards suck when trying to convey feelings and complete thoughts.

[Ratt Mhule]

 

 

Knap provided verses earlier from the old and new testaments; do not add and do not take away. So the text is as it is. If it's not meant to be taken literally and we get to pick and choose what value does it have other than bed time stories?

 

I guess I'm not seeing the though progression from "do not add and do not take away" to "read this literally"?

 

If J.K. Rowling said that she was done writing Harry Potter books forever and would never give anyone the rights to modify or re-release or write more Harry Potter stories, does that mean we're supposed to believe those books are non-fiction and that magic is real? Maybe it's a stupid analogy, but I'm struggling to see the connection to literalism.

It can be argued that "taking away" is the same as "don't consider this literally."

 

For instance there's no way I think it was ever right to punish women for wearing men's clothes. So I guess in my mind I'm "taking it away." Or for mixing types of cloth. Thise verses were meant for a short period of time in history imo.

 

Anyhow, the not adding/subtracting stuff appears in 2 individual books of The Bible. So are they referring to those sections of text or to the whole Bible. Did Catholics get the right Bible or did Mormons or did someone else?

 

 

When the authors wrote it, they followed these laws strictly, so yes, they wanted people to take it literally. They had no way of knowing that in 2,017 years people would look at these "laws" and laugh. So. imo, the authors of the bible wanted these laws to be followed and if they were not, the punishment that followed was just.

[knapplc]

 

I can't explain your perception, Moiraine. I can only explain my intention, which I did. If you took it another way, that's your fault.

Is it my fault I took it the same way they did, and I'm pretty much on "your side" of the argument?

 

Let's chalk this one up to message boards suck when trying to convey feelings and complete thoughts.

 

Yes.

[ZRod]

 

 

 

I think the point is; if the bible itself says it is to be taken literally, but it's stories don't jive with the real world it's foundation as an infallible religious text is built on sand. If one subject xan be questioned, then all of them are in question.

That would certainly be true if the bible said to take it literally, but to the best of my knowledge, the bible doesn't say that.

Knap provided verses earlier from the old and new testaments; do not add and do not take away. So the text is as it is. If it's not meant to be taken literally and we get to pick and choose what value does it have other than bed time stories?

One of them was in Revelation and spoke of "the prophecies in this book."

It's clear as muddy water that the "book" is Revelation. Not The Bible.

That book is a part of the bible though. So only that book can not be amended?

[ZRod]

 

 

I can't explain your perception, Moiraine. I can only explain my intention, which I did. If you took it another way, that's your fault.

Is it my fault I took it the same way they did, and I'm pretty much on "your side" of the argument?Let's chalk this one up to message boards suck when trying to convey feelings and complete thoughts.

Yes.

Not the way you presented it; brief, but not concise?

[knapplc]

 

 

 

I can't explain your perception, Moiraine. I can only explain my intention, which I did. If you took it another way, that's your fault.

Is it my fault I took it the same way they did, and I'm pretty much on "your side" of the argument?Let's chalk this one up to message boards suck when trying to convey feelings and complete thoughts.

 

Yes.

 

Not the way you presented it in a manner that was brief, but not concise?

 

I am completely blameless, innocent, and wholly without fault.

[ZRod]

 

Knap provided verses earlier from the old and new testaments; do not add and do not take away. So the text is as it is. If it's not meant to be taken literally and we get to pick and choose what value does it have other than bed time stories?

 

 

I guess I'm not seeing the though progression from "do not add and do not take away" to "read this literally"?

 

If J.K. Rowling said that she was done writing Harry Potter books forever and would never give anyone the rights to modify or re-release or write more Harry Potter stories, does that mean we're supposed to believe those books are non-fiction and that magic is real? Maybe it's a stupid analogy, but I'm struggling to see the connection to literalism.

I think we're at an impass. I fail to see how you can come to your conclusion, and you fail to see how I can come to mine. C'est la vie!

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

I think the point is; if the bible itself says it is to be taken literally, but it's stories don't jive with the real world it's foundation as an infallible religious text is built on sand. If one subject xan be questioned, then all of them are in question.

That would certainly be true if the bible said to take it literally, but to the best of my knowledge, the bible doesn't say that.

Knap provided verses earlier from the old and new testaments; do not add and do not take away. So the text is as it is. If it's not meant to be taken literally and we get to pick and choose what value does it have other than bed time stories?

One of them was in Revelation and spoke of "the prophecies in this book."

It's clear as muddy water that the "book" is Revelation. Not The Bible.

That book is a part of the bible though. So only that book can not be amended?

 

Dunno. Probably the whole Bible. But humans decided which books to put together to form the Bible. We're supposed to have faith they got it right. But... did the Catholics add or did the Protestants take away?

[ZRod]

 

 

 

 

 

I think the point is; if the bible itself says it is to be taken literally, but it's stories don't jive with the real world it's foundation as an infallible religious text is built on sand. If one subject xan be questioned, then all of them are in question.

That would certainly be true if the bible said to take it literally, but to the best of my knowledge, the bible doesn't say that.

Knap provided verses earlier from the old and new testaments; do not add and do not take away. So the text is as it is. If it's not meant to be taken literally and we get to pick and choose what value does it have other than bed time stories?

One of them was in Revelation and spoke of "the prophecies in this book."

It's clear as muddy water that the "book" is Revelation. Not The Bible.

That book is a part of the bible though. So only that book can not be amended?

Dunno. Probably the whole Bible. But humans decided which books to put together to form the Bible. We're supposed to have faith they got it right. But... did the Catholics add or did the Protestants take away?

Humans are nothing if not fallible; forgive me if I don't have faith they did their job...

[teachercd]

I denied math in the class...cause I sucked at it.

[knapplc]

 

 

 

 

 

I think the point is; if the bible itself says it is to be taken literally, but it's stories don't jive with the real world it's foundation as an infallible religious text is built on sand. If one subject xan be questioned, then all of them are in question.

That would certainly be true if the bible said to take it literally, but to the best of my knowledge, the bible doesn't say that.

 

Knap provided verses earlier from the old and new testaments; do not add and do not take away. So the text is as it is. If it's not meant to be taken literally and we get to pick and choose what value does it have other than bed time stories?

 

One of them was in Revelation and spoke of "the prophecies in this book."

It's clear as muddy water that the "book" is Revelation. Not The Bible.

 

That book is a part of the bible though. So only that book can not be amended?

 

 

Dunno. Probably the whole Bible. But humans decided which books to put together to form the Bible. We're supposed to have faith they got it right. But... did the Catholics add or did the Protestants take away?

 

Isn't that faith in God, not humans? God putting the thoughts into humans' heads on which books to put there, divinely inspired, all that stuff. Because if it truly is a work of man, where does God fit in?

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think the point is; if the bible itself says it is to be taken literally, but it's stories don't jive with the real world it's foundation as an infallible religious text is built on sand. If one subject xan be questioned, then all of them are in question.

That would certainly be true if the bible said to take it literally, but to the best of my knowledge, the bible doesn't say that.

Knap provided verses earlier from the old and new testaments; do not add and do not take away. So the text is as it is. If it's not meant to be taken literally and we get to pick and choose what value does it have other than bed time stories?

One of them was in Revelation and spoke of "the prophecies in this book."

It's clear as muddy water that the "book" is Revelation. Not The Bible.

That book is a part of the bible though. So only that book can not be amended?

Dunno. Probably the whole Bible. But humans decided which books to put together to form the Bible. We're supposed to have faith they got it right. But... did the Catholics add or did the Protestants take away?

Isn't that faith in God, not humans? God putting the thoughts into humans' heads on which books to put there, divinely inspired, all that stuff. Because if it truly is a work of man, where does God fit in?

 

We put faith in them getting it right and God guiding the men who decided on the books to include. But if we assume Christianity is the one true religion... even big groups of Christians got the books wrong.