Poll: Evolution

[_Andy]

You are taking that scripture out of context ..

In my experience, no one has ever read any biblical text out of its intended context in the service of rhetoric, Andy.

I don't understand you're meaning ..? Were you being sarcastic ? Sometimes it is impossible to tell with text .

[_cksalmon]

I don't understand you're meaning ..? Were you being sarcastic ? Sometimes it is impossible to tell with text .

I'd like to think it was something other than sarcasm, Andy. But, yes, now you're catching on.

Here are my bona fides.

[_GR33N]

An excellent suggestion. One I took upon myself before I began discussing Psalms 137.

The context of this chapter (all nine verses) is that of the Israelites lamenting the Babylonian exile, and their loss of Jerusalem. The closing two verses have devolved from lamentation to a violent vengeful fantasy, telling the women of Babylon how happy the Israelites will be to take Babylonian babies and smash them on the rocks.

My point is simple: those who make the claim that the Bible can be considered a good source for civilized morality and ethics is very probably not familiar with the Bible.

God is not recommending the smashing of babies' heads.

God was not instructing them what to do, He was telling Israel what would happen.

The happiness referred to in this verse is not true happiness. The Bible tells us of many who are happy and even by all appearances blessed, though their actions are evil. Some of those who are temporarily happy will face their judgement among the wicked.

[_Andy]

An excellent suggestion. One I took upon myself before I began discussing Psalms 137.

The context of this chapter (all nine verses) is that of the Israelites lamenting the Babylonian exile, and their loss of Jerusalem. The closing two verses have devolved from lamentation to a violent vengeful fantasy, telling the women of Babylon how happy the Israelites will be to take Babylonian babies and smash them on the rocks.

My point is simple: those who make the claim that the Bible can be considered a good source for civilized morality and ethics is very probably not familiar with the Bible.

God is not recommending the smashing of babies' heads.

God was not instructing them what to do, He was telling Israel what would happen.

The happiness referred to in this verse is not true happiness. The Bible tells us of many who are happy and even by all appearances blessed, though their actions are evil. Some of those who are temporarily happy will face their judgement among the wicked.

Exactly .Well Said

[_Tarski]

I'd be very interested in what makes the list for both Tarski's and EA's top 5 pop science books.

Your Inner Fish–Neil Shubin
Godel, Escher, Bach, – Douglas Hoftstadter
QED, –Feynman
Consciousness Explained -Daniel Denett (read twice with open mind)
“The Road to Reality” by Roger Penrose (Kinda hard)
Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point, Huw Price (Kinda hard)
The Language Instinct, Steven Pinker
Darwin's Dangerous Idea -Dennett
The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins
Deep Down Things by Bruce Shumm
Feynmann Lectures on Physics (3 vols)
A Journey into Gravity and Spacetime by John Archibald Wheeler
The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins
The Labyrinth of Time -M. Lockwood
‘The ABC of Relativity’ by Bertrand Russell
Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction by Samir Okasha
Endless Forms most Beautiful – Sean Carroll
A Short History of Nearly Everything – Bill Bryson
Chaos – Jame Gleick
Peter Woit’s “Not Even Wrong”
Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics -Feynman
Six not so easy pieces-Feynman (Relativity and quantum physis}
The Discoverers by Daniel J. Boorstin
Dr. Euler's Fabulous Formula: Cures Many Mathematical Ills by Paul J. Nahin
The Elegant Universe by Briane Greene

[_beefcalf]

An excellent suggestion. One I took upon myself before I began discussing Psalms 137.

The context of this chapter (all nine verses) is that of the Israelites lamenting the Babylonian exile, and their loss of Jerusalem. The closing two verses have devolved from lamentation to a violent vengeful fantasy, telling the women of Babylon how happy the Israelites will be to take Babylonian babies and smash them on the rocks.

My point is simple: those who make the claim that the Bible can be considered a good source for civilized morality and ethics is very probably not familiar with the Bible.

God is not recommending the smashing of babies' heads.

God was not instructing them what to do, He was telling Israel what would happen.

The happiness referred to in this verse is not true happiness. The Bible tells us of many who are happy and even by all appearances blessed, though their actions are evil. Some of those who are temporarily happy will face their judgement among the wicked.

According to whom? From what authority do you make these claims? What book Trump's the Bible?

The fact remains: Many believers make the claim that the Bible is somehow a source for a proper and good morality. It is not.

Any Christian could grab the infant daughter of an outspoken atheist (or anti-theist) and smash that child against the ground, killing her, and make the perfectly reasonable claim that the Bible sanctions the morality of such an action.

The problem is the picking and choosing. Selecting all the warm and fuzzy stuff which doesn't grate too harshly against your modern sensibilities is easy. What about all the other stuff? There are Wiccans in western societies today who practice openly. Yet the biblical admonition to not suffer witches to live has not been rendered obsolete as far as I am aware. Why do you not seek out these Wiccans wherever you may find them, and burn them at the stake? That is what the Bible demands of you. Yet (and I am completely guessing about this) you are content to ignore that part of the Bible. Why?

What barometer does one use when accepting or discarding various examples of biblical morality?

[_GR33N]

God is not recommending the smashing of babies' heads.

God was not instructing them what to do, He was telling Israel what would happen.

The happiness referred to in this verse is not true happiness. The Bible tells us of many who are happy and even by all appearances blessed, though their actions are evil. Some of those who are temporarily happy will face their judgement among the wicked.

According to whom? From what authority do you make these claims? What book Trump's the Bible?

The fact remains: Many believers make the claim that the Bible is somehow a source for a proper and good morality. It is not.

Any Christian could grab the infant daughter of an outspoken atheist (or anti-theist) and smash that child against the ground, killing her, and make the perfectly reasonable claim that the Bible sanctions the morality of such an action.

The problem is the picking and choosing. Selecting all the warm and fuzzy stuff which doesn't grate too harshly against your modern sensibilities is easy. What about all the other stuff? There are Wiccans in western societies today who practice openly. Yet the biblical admonition to not suffer witches to live has not been rendered obsolete as far as I am aware. Why do you not seek out these Wiccans wherever you may find them, and burn them at the stake? That is what the Bible demands of you. Yet (and I am completely guessing about this) you are content to ignore that part of the Bible. Why?

What barometer does one use when accepting or discarding various examples of biblical morality?

Of course any Christian who justifies killing (infant daughter or otherwise) based on Psalms 137 would be breaking the 6th commandment. There would be no justification and therefore not perfectly reasonable.

Since the verses according to your "interpretation" in Psalms 137 conflict with #6 of the Ten Commandments is it possible that your interpretation is wrong? You can't possibly be representing yourself as a biblical expert?

If you would ever take the time and do some research for other possible interpretations of Bible verses including the one you refer to concerning witches (which is Exodus 22:18) you may find a different perspective other than to assume the worst in every scenario. Some say the biblical definition of a witch is someone who commits murder using poisons. That seems to me that it may refer to capital punishment (death penalty).

The Bible is a source for proper and good morality. Your "interpretation" of some of the scriptures may make them to not appear that way but those scriptures, you'll have to agree, are very few in number compared to the many guidelines that do encourage good and proper morality. Does that make the Bible worthless? Do you throw the baby out with the bathwater because you have decided that the bath water is slightly contaminated? Don't you follow for the most part #'s 6-10 of the 10 commandments? Wouldn't you agree that society in general is better off when it follows those same commandments?

[_beefcalf]

Of course any Christian who justifies killing (infant daughter or otherwise) based on Psalms 137 would be breaking the 6th commandment. There would be no justification and therefore not perfectly reasonable.

Since the verses according to your "interpretation" in Psalms 137 conflict with #6 of the Ten Commandments is it possible that your interpretation is wrong? You can't possibly be representing yourself as a biblical expert?

GR33N,

Thanks for your reply.

I will assume from your response that you believe the original 10 commandments Trump's all other lesser commandments in the Bible. That may be the case. I do not know of any specific facts which might argue for or against this position. The 10 commandments are most certainly among the most well-known of YHWH's communications with his chosen people.

But let's consider what else we find ensconced within those same ten commandments:

Exodus 20:17:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

Deuteronomy 5:21:

Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

As you can see, both accounts of the 10th commandment correspond very closely. Look at the bolded parts in both. Although the term in the King James version proffers the word 'servant', the original Hebrew word was the English equivalent of 'slave'. To Yahweh, it is so clearly and so obviously not a problem to hold a slave, that He implicitly condones slavery in his 10th commandment.

Let us revise my previous hypothetical: Any Christian could abduct an outspoken atheist (or anti-theist) and hold her in slavery for the rest of her life, and make the perfectly reasonable claim that the Bible sanctions the morality of such an action.

The God of the Bible clearly has no problem with slavery. God clearly commanded his 'chosen people' to kill and enslave their enemies. And when he gave his people the ten most important rules they must live by, he made it clear that slavery was a-ok with Him.

No, I do not present myself as an expert in Biblical knowledge. But I can read. And I am able to detect contradictions when I see them. And the Bible is chock-full of contradictions, in addition to all the barbarity and genocides and unjust murder. I hope it is not your position that the true meaning of biblical writings cannot be fathomed without advanced degrees in theology and biblical studies.

If you would ever take the time and do some research for other possible interpretations of Bible verses including the one you refer to concerning witches (which is Exodus 22:18) you may find a different perspective other than to assume the worst in every scenario. Some say the biblical definition of a witch is someone who commits murder using poisons. That seems to me that it may refer to capital punishment (death penalty).

Yes, it is quite comforting to interpret the Bible in such a way that what might have been repulsive and reprehensible becomes acceptable and civil. Yet, it is an interpretation. And interpretations do not carry weight unless you're preaching to the choir. If some tyrant somewhere wants to kill the babies of his enemies, he can simply point to Psalms 137 and declare that his actions have a precedence in God's Book. And since everyone can do this, the Bible becomes a justification for all kinds of terrible behavior.

The Bible is a source for proper and good morality. Your "interpretation" of some of the scriptures may make them to not appear that way but those scriptures, you'll have to agree, are very few in number compared to the many guidelines that do encourage good and proper morality. Does that make the Bible worthless? Do you throw the baby out with the bathwater because you have decided that the bath water is slightly contaminated? Don't you follow for the most part #'s 6-10 of the 10 commandments? Wouldn't you agree that society in general is better off when it follows those same commandments?

I do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. When Jesus said to treat others as you would have them treat you, I hear wise words that act as a guide to my behavior in every hour and in every aspect of my life. My realization that Jesus wasn't divine and that he can't 'save' me doesn't impede my ability to measure his teachings and accept them or discard them based on their own merit. I simply recognize that in placing the Good-Housekeeping Seal of God's Approval on a book, declaring it to be THE WORD OF GOD, you ought to be pretty sure your book is devoid of immoral and uncivilized teachings.

I say: keep that which is good from the Bible. Use it's wisdom, what there is, to make yourself a better person. But do not make the mistake of fooling yourself that the Bible is the word of god, because once you've done that, you've opened the door to terrible abuses, with ready-made justifications for all manner of barbaric and cruel behavior. Of course, hindsight is 20-20, but there is no reason to keep perpetuating the unsupportable claim that the Old-Testament is anything other than what it really is: the writings of a bronze-age desert tribe who didn't understand how the world worked, and made up a bunch of crap to try and make sense of it.

[_GR33N]

GR33N,

Thanks for your reply.

I will assume from your response that you believe the original 10 commandments Trump's all other lesser commandments in the Bible. That may be the case. I do not know of any specific facts which might argue for or against this position. The 10 commandments are most certainly among the most well-known of YHWH's communications with his chosen people.

I didn't say anything about the 10 commandments trumping scripture. What I said was you should consider other interpretations that don't conflict with the 10 commandments and other scriptures verses. I only see your personal "interpretations" conflicting with each other.

But let's consider what else we find ensconced within those same ten commandments:

Exodus 20:17:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

Deuteronomy 5:21:

Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

As you can see, both accounts of the 10th commandment correspond very closely. Look at the bolded parts in both. Although the term in the King James version proffers the word 'servant', the original Hebrew word was the English equivalent of 'slave'. To Yahweh, it is so clearly and so obviously not a problem to hold a slave, that He implicitly condones slavery in his 10th commandment.

Let us revise my previous hypothetical: Any Christian could abduct an outspoken atheist (or anti-theist) and hold her in slavery for the rest of her life, and make the perfectly reasonable claim that the Bible sanctions the morality of such an action.

The God of the Bible clearly has no problem with slavery. God clearly commanded his 'chosen people' to kill and enslave their enemies. And when he gave his people the ten most important rules they must live by, he made it clear that slavery was a-ok with Him.

Let's clarify your statement a little bit further. What you meant was: Clearly the God of the Bible has no problem with slavery according to your definition and 21st century understanding of the term slavery. Is it possible that slaves referred to in the Bible were more like indentured servants? Or maybe another possible interpretation : http://reformedinquisitor.wordpress.com/category/biblical-law-2/

No, I do not present myself as an expert in Biblical knowledge. But I can read. And I am able to detect contradictions when I see them. And the Bible is chock-full of contradictions, in addition to all the barbarity and genocides and unjust murder. I hope it is not your position that the true meaning of biblical writings cannot be fathomed without advanced degrees in theology and biblical studies.

It is my position that true meanings in the Bible cannot be fathomed without research, study, pondering, prayer, and personal revelation.

Yes, it is quite comforting to interpret the Bible in such a way that what might have been repulsive and reprehensible becomes acceptable and civil. Yet, it is an interpretation. And interpretations do not carry weight unless you're preaching to the choir. If some tyrant somewhere wants to kill the babies of his enemies, he can simply point to Psalms 137 and declare that his actions have a precedence in God's Book. And since everyone can do this, the Bible becomes a justification for all kinds of terrible behavior.

I think we covered this already. But I'll repeat it again. If anyone (even a tyrant) claims justification for killing based on Psalms 137 they would be guilty of misinterpreting the scripture and of course murder. And again, I only see your personal "interpretations" conflicting with each other.

It must be equally comforting to interpret the Bible in your own personal way. A way that let's you justify an atheistic anti-mormon point of view. Obviously discrediting the Bible is as easy as logging onto mormonthink or evilbible and filling your head with all kinds one sided points of view.

I do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. When Jesus said to treat others as you would have them treat you, I hear wise words that act as a guide to my behavior in every hour and in every aspect of my life. My realization that Jesus wasn't divine and that he can't 'save' me doesn't impede my ability to measure his teachings and accept them or discard them based on their own merit. I simply recognize that in placing the Good-Housekeeping Seal of God's Approval on a book, declaring it to be THE WORD OF GOD, you ought to be pretty sure your book is devoid of immoral and uncivilized teachings.

According to your 21st century perceptions of the scriptures the Bible is flawed and since God hasn't catered His book to your expectations then somehow He has ceased to be God?

I say: keep that which is good from the Bible. Use it's wisdom, what there is, to make yourself a better person. But do not make the mistake of fooling yourself that the Bible is the word of god, because once you've done that, you've opened the door to terrible abuses, with ready-made justifications for all manner of barbaric and cruel behavior. Of course, hindsight is 20-20, but there is no reason to keep perpetuating the unsupportable claim that the Old-Testament is anything other than what it really is: the writings of a bronze-age desert tribe who didn't understand how the world worked, and made up a bunch of crap to try and make sense of it.

I agree: "I say: keep that which is good from the Bible. Use it's wisdom, what there is, to make yourself a better person." But don't make the mistake of fooling yourself that every word in the Bible has the same meaning today as it did when it was originally translated into the English language. And be aware that there maybe some mistakes of men in it as well from the multiple translations over the years. Is it perfect, no. Does it contain the word of God, YES. Does it contain the Gospel of Jesus Christ, YES. Does it contain the history of a people who descended from Adam, YES!

[_Hobble Creek]

I see that only about 10% of those who voted are complete idiots on this subject. Gives one a little hope (but not much) for the intelligence of the human race. Wonder how that compares to the US population in general.