Most people think Bible stories literally true

[POed_Ex_Repub]

At least according to this polling website (Shows an ABC News Poll)

http://www.pollingreport.com/

I find the Noah and the Ark one especially astonishing. But that's just IMHO.

[Goldberg]

1. I believe them to be true...

but not literally. I do believe God created the world, but not in six days. I believe it took Him billions of years to create this planet.

Most of the Bible stories are metaphors, in my opinion.

[jsw_81]

2. We may be strong and wealthy

But we definitely aren't the best educated country in the world, that's for sure. And the constant GOP attacks on public education certainly aren't helping the situation.

[theorist]

3. They forgot to ask...

"Have you read these stories?"

I'll do a quick poll on this one using their methods:

1) go to freerepublic dot com
2) "Have you read Genesis?"
3) responses: "only libruls listen to that band", "i can't read", "it was red to me wunce", and "of course, i have; i'm a baptist preacher."

There you have it, American public. Only 25% of those who take the bible to be the literal word of God have actually read it for themselves.

[TheMightyFavog]

4. Then again....

After further review....

Fieldwork by ICR.


http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm

HAH! I knew my bullshit detector was going off rather loudly!

ICR, for those of you who do not know, is the Institute for Creation Research, a group of fundie "scienists" who are required upon joining to swear an oath never to publish anything that would go against the Bible.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

5. Ahhhh

Is that the culprit? When I saw ABC I was thinking it was more mainstream... Why would they use such a biased source?

[TheMightyFavog]

8. Maybe..

ABC had no idea who they were.

The ICR is only known by some fundies and those involved in the Evolution/Creation debate.

[TheMightyFavog]

23. I had the wrong ICR.

Apparently I was wrong.

The ICR this poll was referring to is International Communications Research out of of Media, Pa.

Bad, JC, bad, BAD! :spank:

[ArwenJade]

6. I read the bible...

Some of it bothered me. I'm Catholic, but I don't think I could believe in God if I took all of the bible literally. In many places God seems violent and cruel.

[jus_the_facts]

9. Welcome to DU ArwenJade.....

....glad to have you here!!!! :hi:


......I don't take any of it literally...religion is used to keep people ignorant...heh don't get me started....don't EVEN get me started!!! :eyes:

[POed_Ex_Repub]

10. Get started... get started!

:evilgrin:

Keep it civil, but go ahead. ;)

[jus_the_facts]

14. You musta missed my thread earlier today......

....where I said my parents went to a Southern Baptist Church "Restore The 10 Commandments" Rally...and Allen Keyes was the keynote speaker?! :puke: :puke: :puke:

on edit...here's the link to it....*SIGH* :evilfrown:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=766982&mesg_id=766982

[POed_Ex_Repub]

19. Just read your thread

Ouch! I'm a Deist married to a Catholic. We've been known to have "spirited" discussions on the matter of religion.

[jus_the_facts]

20. Oh I can just imagine.....

.....I'm burned out on the subject...pun *not* intended!! :evilgrin:

[TrogL]

84. There's a lot more than 10 commandments

[DustMolecule]

12. God is many things....

....just read Job..that's the whole point of it....he's much more than we can ever imagine/accept. We, people, have this horrible ego that wants to always put us in the 'center'....we aren't capable of being in the 'center'...only God is.

I heard something once, that, while I don't fully understand it, makes much sense: God is the dancer, we are only the dance. (In other words, there is no 'dance' w/o the dancer...we're only an expression of something soooooooo much larger and wonderful)

edit: corrected typo

[aquart]

13. That's him! That's my god!

Knew he was there somewhere.

[Ladyhawk]

46. The god of the bible IS violent and cruel.

[mvd]

47. The New Testament is milder, so..

That gives me hope.

[lazarus]

118. au contraire

The New Testament introduced damnation to Hell.

[Dogmudgeon]

131. I'll contraire your contraire and raise you a nay

Hell is used metaphorically in the New Testament, too.

The words for it were hades and gehena. Hades was a land of darkness, the mataphor for error and confusion. Gehenna was the large garbage dump on the outskirts of Jerusalem. It's still there and still called Gehenna, but now it's an olive farm.

"You're going to Hell" was once equivalent to saying "You're f**ked!" The concept of a hell of physical torment probably came from Indo-European paganism -- not even the pre-IE paganism which has been revived by the modern neo-P movement. The ancient Indo-Europeans spread their hell-raising ideas far and wide, with probable IE cultural contacts traced as far away as the Inuit in Greenland, into Tibet, and down the coasts of Africa.

This is an interesting topic, and there are many websites that explain such things, but unfortunately keying on the words "hell" and "gehe(n)na" will get you a list of 70,000 fundamentalist sites on Google.

--bkl
A Sinner in the Hands of an Angry BOB.

[lazarus]

139. well

If you think something like, "...Jesus Christ...died, and was buried, He descended into Hell. The third day, he rose again from the dead," was a metaphor for "Jesus was fucked," then okay.

But there were 162 references to Hell, specifically, in the New Testament. 70 of them by good ol' loving Jesus. He is quoted in the gospels as speaking more about Hell than on any other topic.

Not very loving or kind, imo. But he could have been taken out of context, I guess. Yeah, that's probably it.

[Dogmudgeon]

141. Jesus in Hell

Good points all; and not to be too argumentative, but I'll rant on a little longer.

I think that the idea was that while Jesus' body was dead, his spirit was bringing hope to the lost and confused, whether in physical form or not. It may assume an after-life existence, or may, itself, be a metaphor. It's one of those metaphysical stories that are pretty common in most religious traditions -- Buddha is said to have visited various realms of the afterlife, and the story of Mithra (in Zoroastrianism) is very close to that of Jesus. Resurrection is one of the Big Deals in religion.

Nearly all the instances (of which I'm aware) where Jesus spoke of hell were in parables or figures of speech. The entire Gospel, or evangelion, of Jesus was literally just that -- "Good news". Most religions were (and still are) based on superstition and fear-mongering. It seems that Jesus was opposed to that view of theology. Hence, it would come as good news to people scared senseless by their local religion dealers. To dirt-poor, uneducated, often starving, and highly superstitious people living under tyrants and psychopaths, both life and the afterlife alike probably resembled hell.

I believe that's why Christianity spread so rapidly before it became an institutionalized religion, which is when it seemed to re-absorb the old pagan superstition and clone the badass god of the ancient Hebrews. At least Christianity gave the sufferers and the fearful some hope that their agony would not last forever.

Very often, I've found the belief to be a reflection of the believer, since any time when dealing with religion, one of the big admissions that has to be made is "I don't know". My own embrace of Christianity extends to the "good news" of the release from fear and superstition, but that's about all. The hard-core bible-thumpers who try to sell the world on their vision of Biblical inerrancy come off as acting no different than ancient Vikings who lived in the hope of Valhallah and in fear of Helleh.

Virgin births and heavenly hosts and wise men and jealous kings make for nice drama, but the message of Jesus (IMVHO) is "Relax! Everything's gonna be all right!"

--bkl
Thus Spake BKL.

[lazarus]

142. Heh

"Virgin births and heavenly hosts and wise men and jealous kings make for nice drama, but the message of Jesus (IMVHO) is "Relax! Everything's gonna be all right!""

The alternate message is, "Believe in me, or go to hell." Which is a fairly radical change from the OT.

[DieboldMustDie]

7. Talking serpents?

Of course I believe in talking serpents. ;)

see http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com for myriad contradictions, absurdities, etc. in the Bible.

[theorist]

11. One of my favorites is where God says

women cannot be teachers. He also says they can't braid their hair because it means she's proud of her appearance. I love literal interpretations that have absolutely no historical context!

[aquart]

15. New or Old Testament?

And are you sure that was God?

St. Paul is frequently confused with God.

[jus_the_facts]

16. LMAO.....

:evilgrin:

[theorist]

18. Both are in 1 Timothy (Chapter 2) n/t

[JasonDeter]

17. God is a God of Love. God is a God of Judgement.

I believe the Bible is true as a historical document and is true as a moral document and is true as a testament to Christ and His work of the Cross and is true as regards the future.

[Rabrrrrrr]

27. True as to history?

If we take just basic historical facts - let's say, the time periods that the Kings of Israel reigned, the Bible is not true. I can't remember the king off hand, but there's king we're told reigned for, let's say, 18 years in the Book of Kings, and 16 years in the book of Chronicles.

Barring even all the outlandish stuff (floods, parting of the sea, conquest of Canaan, etc.), since we can neither prove nor disprove those, just in terms of basic, verifiable historic facts, the Bible is full of errors and contradictions.

I wouldn't take the Bible too literally. Take it generally, and metaphorically. That's how it's intended.

[JasonDeter]

30. To reject the God of the Bible and what He said in it

To reject the God of the Bible and what He said in it and believe in a secular interpretation of God takes more faith than the faith required to believe the literal truths of the Bible! One square foot of your back yard, looking through a telescope into one square foot of space, investigate the intricacies and what it takes for your eyeballs to see and your brain to interpret what they see is proof that God exists and therefore the truths of the Bible!

[Liberal Veteran]

32. Um, okay....

As an amateur astronomer, I have looked through my telescope many times.

Anyone who understand physics can understand that God did not create the universe in 6 days. Indeed, some objects viewed by the Hubble Space Telescope are objects which are being seen by the light they shined millions of years ago. In other words, it took literally millions of years for the light of those object to reach the cameras of the Hubble Space Telescope.

The Bible is a lot of things, but it's a really poor science book, since the earth is much much more than the 6-12 thousand years old as biblical literalists would have us believe.

[JasonDeter]

43. By His miracles God has proven

He can work outside the physics of the universe HE created. In fact He created water first, then light then earth. And He created it all by speaking it into existence! And when He finished His creation, stood on the earth and He looked at all he had created and said, "It was good." In fact the only reason man can see to the end of the universe is because He saw it first.

[Rabrrrrrr]

55. So you're saying that God is screwing with us?

Made a 6000 year old universe that just LOOKS to be at least 15 billion years old?

Why? As a test of our faith? Do you believe fossils were put there by Satan to tempt us? To deceive us? OR did God put them there to deceive and test us?

You seem to think that we either believe the BIble absolutely 100% literally, and contrive bizarre theories to make the contradictions and obvious errors to be neither contradictions nor errors, or else 100% rejects God and is a miserable failure.

I don't believe in your kind of fudnamentalistic thinking. Extreme either/or thinking, such as you propose, is the same kind of mentality that makes easy decisions to kill other people, do terrorist acts, or dehumanize The Other in rather creative, and appalling, and I would say ungodly, ways.

You can believe in the Bible, and believe in the obvious and verifiable truths of science. God created everything - not in 6 days, but apparently over a really long time.

JasonDeter, the Bible is not, and never has been, a science book.

And the usage of it as a science book is a relatively new phenomenon in the history of it's existence.

[TrogL]

86. Better double-check your Genesis

You've got a few things out of sequence. In fact, Genesis doesn't agree with itself on the sequence.

[DBoon]

137. But if God had told the truth

to pre-literate nomadic tribes, would they have understood much less believed it?

God had to speak in a language his audience understood. He could not have told his story in terms of mathematical physics, evolutionary biology, etc. and have expected the ancient Hebrews to have understood a word of it.

[Rabrrrrrr]

53. So what does that have to do with the verifiable errors in the Bible?

Or perhaps not errors, let's call them inconsistencies.

What you propose sounds like Bible worship.

Remember, I *AM* an unashamed Christian, and I believe in God.

But I am not willing to say that the Bible is without error, especially not witout historical error. Is the Bible true? Yes, I believe so, in terms of telling us the truth of peple's exerience and repsone to the Divine, and about God's redemptive love toward us. Is it factual? Is it historically true? No, quite often it isn't. It was written by people, as the spirit moved them, yes, but not as dictated to by God.

And to me, the dirt and the intracies in my backyard, or in a park, or in a field, do not prove God's existence. God's existence cannot be proven. It could be, we wouldn't have or need faith. What creation tells me is that the God in which I believe is wondrously creative, and works in incredbile and mysterious ways.

But there is no proof. And the Bible, though you might believe it, is not proof. I know the Bible *says* that everything in it is true, but Shrub also says he has integrity and isn't a liar.

There are verifiable and obvious falsities and mistakes in the Bible. To pertend otherwise is to be blind.

And you see, JasonDeter, you haven't addressed my post at all. I pointed out an obvious falsity in the Bible. You come back with some woundup contrived doctrine and accuse me of rejecting God, of rejecting the Bible.

I reject neither - I embrace them both. I have dedicated my life to God's service. But the truth is, the Bible has mistakes.

[JasonDeter]

60. So regarding the Bible

you may believe it some allagorical metaphysical transendental out of body not in real time sense but then ONLY if it agrees with your interpretation of the world? Yes God can fit on the head of a pin and wow, he fills the universe? Its such a boring book when you have all those blacked out sections isn't it? And mull this one over, "If absolute power corrupts absolutely, where does that leave God?"

[Rabrrrrrr]

62. Wow - you're consistently refusing to dialogue or answer the points

And it's slowly becoming quite obnoxious and uninteresting to me.

I never mentioned blackening anything out, so I don't know what you're talking about. I have blacked nothing out of my Bible, and find no reason ever to do so.

And you still haven't answered ANY of my points. Every post of yours in response to mine comes back with some contrived doctrinal non-answer that every time condemns me to hell, though in a way that is cleverly disguised and oblique. Why don't you try actually addressing the points? Or have you no answer for them?

I have never said the Bible is "some allagorical metaphysical transendental out of body not in real time sense but then ONLY if it agrees with your interpretation of the world". Though it's quite blatantly obvous in need of conforming with my interpretation with the world when it is PLAINLY in error, unless there's Godly magic that you know of that allows a king to serve one term as king, but to serve that term as two different time spans.

"If absolute power corrupts absolutely, where does that leave God?" -That's a saying from a human being, not a God-given truth. Can you verify it? Can you find in Scripture where it says that absolute power corrupts absolutely? No, you can't. No one can prove that. It's an idea. So you're sending a ridiculous and ignorant strawman that means nothing.

[JasonDeter]

71. Wow, thank you for changing your subject line

You hurt my feelings. I can agree to disagree with you without hurling invectives.

[Rabrrrrrr]

76. So you're not going to answer my points, then?

And I can call your behavior obnoxious if I feel that it is. That's part of being in a community - to say to another, "Your behavior is obnoxious/unhelpful/out of control/whatever."

[JasonDeter]

80. You know why the New Testament doesn't contradict the Old Testament?

BECAUSE THE ERRORS FOUND ARE NOT IMPORTANT!! I have read the NT more times than I can count and have yet to find the Lord Jesus say once, "Hey Pete, don't take the creation account literally K? The geneology in Matthew that takes My line back to David and the one in Luke that takes My lineage back to Adam, fake." No, the Lord Jesus never said any of that, Peter never contradicted the OT, the Apostle Paul never contradicted the OT. But what the Apostle said is, "Christians have the Mind of Christ." That is why we understand the Bible and unbelievers and nominal believers don't. Thats the sad fact. I'm sorry. Do unbelievers go to heaven? No. Do nominal believers go to heaven? If they believe God and accept the sacrifice Christ made on the Cross (the sacrifice depicted in Mel Gibsons movie). I'm sorry I upset you so much. It was not my intention. I hope this helps.

[Rabrrrrrr]

81. You only upset me with your refusal to answer questions

Of course Jesus could never talk about the lineage in the gospels, becasue they were written long after he died. But that's not the point, anyway.

The important thing here is that I and a few others have pointed out obvious and verifiable errors in the Bible. I did that because you claimed the Bible is historically true, among other claims you made.

So I pointed some stuff out, and you came back with doctrinal irrelevancies that totally ignored the quesstions and points being made.

But now, in your last post, you have finally admitted that there are errors in the Bible. I applaud you for that admission. And you're right - the errors are not important. I have never claimed otherwise, myself, because the important truth from the Bible is that God loves us, and forgives us. Doesn't matter if we believe that Jonah was actually swallowed by a fish and hung out under a flower later.

But I am glad that you are done with your sweeping claims that there is nothing of error in the Bible, whether theological or historical.

And while I say the creation story is wrong, because we can tell from science that the world was not created in six days, I would not call that an error. Because remember, JasonDeter, that the first chapter of Genesis is the day-by-day creation story, in which man and woman are created TOGETHER and EQUAL after everything else was created. The second chapter has the creation story that starts with Adam, then God makes all the flora and the animals, and then Eve shows up at the end. These are two entirely different stories, and for the most part, the best kind of scientific understanding of the people of the times - but more importantly, they are THEOLOGiCAL understandings of how God created everything. I would wager money that way back when these stories were written, the people didn't think of them as "actual" creation stories, but knew them to be mythological representations of creation. The inclusion of two entirely different stories tells me that, hey, don't worry about "how" it was done - the details are irrelevant, faith-wise. The inclusion of the two completely different stories tells me that the important thing is that God is not just the God of the Israelites, but is the God who created everything, the entire cosmos, and who gives life. But that, indeed, God created it all.

At the time of the Israelites, there were many gods in the world - by telling these stories the YHWH-followers are making the bold claim that all those other gods are nothing, because YHWH and only YHWH is the cosmos-creating God.

But I don't take either creation story literally, because they make no sense scientifically. They make total sense theologically.

You might think they are scientific stories and make scientific sense, and that's okay, so long as you aren't attempting to teach it as "science" in public schools.

But I'm glad to see that you are able to admit there are errors in the Bible, and that you weren't struck down by God for your sinful attitude (because it isn't a sinful attitude).

(p.s. - I'm glad you are getting better at answering and commenting on the point made by people, but please note that I never made the claim that the new testament contradicts the old testament; my only issue was the Bible has verifiable errors in terms of historical fact and internal inconsistencies in terms of history, and so your subject line really has nothing to do with anything I've been getting at)

[Az]

88. Ok, if you understand it so well simply explain one thing

Did god create man or animals first?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

65. Dear JasonDeter...

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear prescription glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

[JasonDeter]

91. So let me get this straight

Your complaining about something (God's Law) you have never or no intention of following? LOL! If you have questions ask God. He made the ears, He hears. He made the eyes, He sees. He made the mouth, He speaks. His is a still small voice though, so you have to listen closely.

[Az]

92. Intention

Most people that do not claim to believe in god do not intend to not follow him. It is truth they seek and they simply see no evidence that the words attributed to god are the truth.

As to that small still voice you are hearing. This is the result of a sell trained internalized conversation. As we develop we have to learn to distinguish self from the world around us. The portion of the brain that learns this process can be shorted out through meditation and and a host of other ways. When this portion of the brain freezes up the mind can no longer distiguish self as the source for the continued internal dialog. Thus it learns to apply a culturally learned identity to this stream of consciousness.

Tests at the University of California have shown that these "religious" experiences can be forced by electrically shorting out this part of the brain. Studies done on epyleptics (who experience far more religious phenomena) lead to this discovery. When shorted out the individuals report being in communion with an all present entity. This is simply their own mind bereft of the ability to differentiate itself.

As to the nature of this conversation. Please understand that we are all in this together. I personally do not think any less of you because you believe something different than I do. I trust the same is true for you. All the skeptics desire is some evidence. The small voice in your mind has suitably been explained by science. I do not accept it as evidence for god.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

93. If a small voice ever told me

to follow the Bible to the letter, INCLUDING Leviticus and Exodus, I'd say "Are you nuts?"

[Rabrrrrrr]

96. Ah, another dodged question, JasonDeter,

psuedo-answered by saying something not relevant to the issue at hand.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

98. You mean another EIGHT questions (nt)

[Rabrrrrrr]

99. LOL!

Perhaps we can await... ah, no, I'm not gonna be nasty.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

101. No, please, BE nasty! (nt)

[Rabrrrrrr]

112. Now, now. My door only swings one way, and it sn't that way

:spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

[The Zanti Regent]

127. Jason, please answer this question

Who did Cain and Abel have sex with?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

133. US$20 says this thread will die before he answers your question

Who's on?

Edit: spacing (thx Rabrrrrrr)

[Az]

68. Simple refutation of literalist bible interpretation

Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

This is simple error of fact. Hares do not chew cud. Its a minor point but clearly wrong. The bible is not perfect.

[TrogL]

85. So I take it you don't drive cars

or use anything else with wheels that don't have a chunk out of them.

You see, the Bible says that pi * 10 = 30 not 31. And no, you're not allowed to round. That would be an interpretation.

[jonnyblitz]

123. oh please.

who created God then? :crazy:

[Snow]

41. There's also a problem in that there's no external confirmation of

the Israeli exile to Egypt.

[absyntheNsugar]

109. I don't hold the Bible to be true, and I believe in Jesus and God

I beleive Jesus to be the son of God, etc....but the bible was put together by a very corrupt state trying to unite Rome under a state religion.

As it were, they banned the majority of Christian religions at the time (the Gnostics to name one) and chose a strain of Christianity which suited their purpose.

So I take any part of the bible (especially the writings of Paul, who never even MET Jesus) with a few grains of Dead Sea Salt.

However faith in Jesus, and God, is a very real thing in my life. Hard to explain, but if you felt it you'd know what I mean.

[ClintonTyree]

21. God was created..................

to explain things that are unexplainable. It's very convenient to say,'it's God's will, don't question it'. Every human wants to believe that there is an ultimate entity responsible for their lives. A 'father figure', that if we piss off will exile us to a place of eternal damnation, and if we please the 'father figure', we'll all be rewarded with heavenly blessings.
The poor are told, "the meek shall inherit the earth". What a convenient way of saying 'give up all hope here on earth while you're alive, you'll get your reward when you're dead'.
If one person who actually believes in the bible as a literal work has done a modicum of research into the origin and practices of the church, they'd come away with a completely different point of view.
Most people like to be given orders, like being told what to do, so that they don't have to take the ultimate responsibility of their lives. The bible often refers to it's believers as "sheep". I wonder why?
I suggest that people do some research into the bible and history of the church itself; it's motives and the way it's conducted itself during the first 2 millennium.
I'm willing to wager that most of those surveyed haven't done one iota of research into these paradoxes, but merely accept what they're told and that ends the discussion.
For everyone's information, I was a confirmed Lutheran (attended all of the catechism classes) and later in life, wanting to know the truth, delved 'religiously' into theology and history books and have drawn a totally different conclusion from the one I was force fed as a child.
Knowledge is power, which is why the church requires 'blind faith' as a requisite for proof of their religion. The first lesson of the bible, eve eating from the tree of knowledge and being exiled from the garden of eden should be a tip off to the entire context of the book. Knowledge is bad. Don't question anything. Stay ignorant of the facts. And don't forget to tithe!

[JasonDeter]

22. Reacting because He was 'pissed off' as you say

would mean God sinned. What God says He means. He holds His Word above all else. In fact God is so much a God of responsibility He has taken all responsibility for all the sin man has done In His Son Jesus. God's a great guy not deserving of any of the vitriol hurled at Him.

[Rabrrrrrr]

26. God destroyed humanity in the flood, except for Noah,

and then after seeing devestation, God repented and promised not to do it again.

While I don't take the flood story seriously, I don't discount that there WAS floodING in the area at one time that killed lots of people, and I find it quite interesting that we have a God who felt about all the killing afterward.

That implies to me, in some sense, that God might have thought to herself that he sinned.

I wouldn't get too literal with the Bible.

[radwriter0555]

24. I know! Isn't that cute?

All the fairy tales MUST be true!

[proud patriot]

25. I had to prove Women didn't have an extra rib to a fundy once

It was pretty funny . I randomly called
Doctors to ask if they had ever seen an extra
rib in women and had them talk to my friend .

I had no idea how this revelation would so
drastically shake the foundation of my friend .

She was trembling and scared .

Literal interpretation of creation , I had to talk her though
to understanding a day for god could be a million years .
and that God had to tell his story in a way mortals could
understand thousands of years ago ..

She's better now.

[put out]

78. When I went back to college

There were several students in my Anatomy class who were insisting that the female skeleton had one more rib than the male skeleton. They were told no. They were visibly upset and wanted to argue. A student felt it necessary to leave the classroom.

How very sad for all of us. They were college students. No, kids, females are not an afterthought, and you don't need to get all worked up about it.

[skip fox]

28. For anyone who feels the Bible the literal truth, just

tell him: "'Write these words upon your heart' (and help clean up the gene pool, buster)."

[bushisanidiot]

29. National Enquirer: "Man survives 3 days and 3 nights inside a WHALE!"

it's true cuz the bible sez so.

step right up ladies and gentlemen! see a man part the ocean, turn water to wine.. INSTANTLY!, cause the weather to change to raining FROGS!, it's amazing, it's true! step right up!


uhhh...

1000 years from now church leaders will be preaching the wise words of Mark Twain as gospel. The stories of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn will be declared true because they were written down. They will be backed up by facts such as: The mississippi river actually exists.. even today!, Missouri used to actually be a "state" in the former "united states of america", etc...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

64. And it'll stick better too

Because there aren't nearly as many physical impossibilities in it. (None that I can remember, actually)

[Kamika]

31. as a fundie myself I don't think they should be taken literally

like noahs ark. stuff like that.. as other have said.. they are often metaphors

[arwalden]

33. Like what kind of stuff would Noahs Ark be a metaphor for?

-- Allen

[POed_Ex_Repub]

34. I don't know if anyone else has seen it

But there was a nice investigation into Noah's ark on the discovery channel. Their conclusion was that the story was based on an ancient legend of localized flooding in Mesopotamia (a bad flood to be sure, but not covering the globe) Basically, in the original language the location mistakenly was translated to the entire earth, as the word they used had multiple meanings (one of them being Earth).

Anyone else see this?

[arwalden]

36. Yet the literal translation persists. Amazing isn't it?

[Kamika]

35. What poed says here below

Maybe there was a big flooding 200 years before it was written down.. and as it was passed down generation from generation the natural disaster became something God created etc etc

[arwalden]

37. But that's not really a metaphor for anything

that's a mistranslation or an exaggeration. Where's the metaphor?

[Rabrrrrrr]

111. There is the metaphor of the rainbow at the end of the story

But yeah, the ark story isn't so much metaphor as an attempt to look at what was, and we have a lot of historical evidence, a lot of flooding at a past point in history. Certainly never flooding of the whole world like Genesis says, but then, to the people of the time, a few tens of thousands of square miles WAS the whole world.

But after the flood story, we have the rainbow, which God offers as a sign of his/her repentance and of the covenant not to flood the world again. That can only be metaphor, not based on any factual incidence (or at least, not any provable incidence, other than the Biblical text. Could God have spoken to Noah about the rainbow? Sure, it could have happened, but we'll never ever be able to know, until we die and get to ask God him/herself, but I think we'll be so surprised by what actually happens after death, that we might not even care).

[Nikia]

38. Genesis is the reason for Jewish law

That is the thesis of Alan Dershowitz book The Genesis of Justice. In this book he goes through the various stories of Genesis and offers different interpretations. He ties it together with that thesis though. Basically, God in Genesis is still learning about what justice is and handles each situation differently and perhaps unfairly. This sets the stage for him giving the law to the Jewish people to both limit and give rules for people and God.
I don't remember the explanation about Noah and the Ark besides God overreacting and repenting. I found some of the other ones more interesting like the Forbidden Fruit and Abraham's sacrafice of Isaac. Overall, I found it to be an interesting book.

[absyntheNsugar]

110. Well then you are not a fundie

Fundies stand for Fundamentalist meaning they have a fundamental interpretation of the Bible, e.g. it is true, word for word.

Methinks you might be an Evangelical, which often get mistaken for fundies.

[Rabrrrrrr]

113. I agree with Absynthe, Kamika - you can't be a fundamentalist

You might be orthodox (small-o, not capital-O), which is the camp I'm in, but not fundamentalist. If you were fundamentalist, you probably would not be at DU (though you might), but you would definitely believe everything in the Bible to be literally, factually, historically, theologically, ontologically, and epistemologically true. Of course, if you were a fundamentalist, you wouldn't know what ontological or epistemological means, either.

And as Absynthe says, you might also be evangelical, but then all Christians are evangelical, it is our nature. But there is a difference between the evangelical that all Christians are called to be, and Evangelical (capital-E) that some of the right wing Christians are.

And getting into the discussion between the differences between the rightwing fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and Charismatics, and NON-rightwing Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and Charismatics, gets to be a really big discussion that is perhaps out of the bounds of this thread.

But if you'd like to pursue it, there's no reason we can't.

[Kamika]

119. hehe

Well I said it a bit ironicly, sice I've been called a fundie here more then once ;)


Thanks both of you though for your support

[Rabrrrrrr]

121. And your favoring of DS9 also shows you can't be fundamentalist

Since a fundamentalist would recognize that TOS still reigns supreme as the superior series. :-)

[Kamika]

124. actually DS9 is the most religious series of them all

While Vulcans are pretty religious and Spock clearly a follower of Surak, DS9 was VERY religious, and Sisko an emissary of the Bajoran Prophets

[Rabrrrrrr]

126. I've heard that, though I wasn't thinking of the religious content of

the series as a deciding factor. I was just broadly making the claim that TOS is the supreme series, the series that a TRUE Trekkie would latch onto. :-) Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, of course.

I do still plan to rent the DS9 DVDs so I can finally catch up and know what happened.

And when are we doing another trivia thread?

[Kamika]

128. when you've seen ds9 :D

from season1 to season 7

So I can ask ds9 questions

[Rabrrrrrr]

130. LOL! Fair enough!

[Kamika]

132. man, I can just imagine you watching it

Watching season 1

"wtf did kamika trick me into"

Probably go like that for most of season two aswell :D

But you still GOTTA see EVERYTHING to understand it all.

Then by the end of season seven you can say how grateful you are, that I insisted :D

[Rabrrrrrr]

134. Yes, and then I will undoubtedly shower you with riches

in gratitude for turning me on to DS9 and changing my life. :-)

What color do you prefer in your Porsches?

[Kamika]

138. black

Red is cool too

[Rabrrrrrr]

140. One of each, then

why not?

[Snow]

39. I believe a lot of myths.....

I don't take them quite literally, mind you, but I firmly believe there's something real behind all of them. Although the Korean foundation of the people myth is definitely weird (involves bestiality, sort of).

[Deja Q]

40. 2 of every animal

male and female, how did Noah know the difference for species that aren't dimorphic?! Did Noah ask God to change one of them? (Bill Cosby knows God would never do a thing like that... :D Who here DOESN'T know of Cosby's awesome Noah comedy routine?)

[Rabrrrrrr]

57. Ah, yes - but also remember this! And people who read the bible would

know of this extra Noah story -

Sadly, all we ever get is the Noah and one pair of every animal.

But, there are TWO Noah stories woven into that narrative in Genesis.

So, at one point, God tells Noah to get one pair of every animal.

At another point, God tells Noah to get 7 pairs of every clean animal, and 2 pair of every unclean animal. Which is especially interesting since there was NO SENSE of clean and unclean in Noah's time. There is no separation between clean and unclean until Moses, when God gives him the law. So obviously, the second version was written after Noah's time, and inserted into the original myth.

But you never hear that when the media does the Noah story, such as that old movie epic The Bible (and that movie also conflated the two creation stories).

Lest you think I am making this up:

Genesis 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. <20> Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Genesis 7:1-3 And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. <2> Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. <3> Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

[kodi]

42. the truths of religion are not the truths of science

but when those toads in my stomach start acting up, i reach for my bible.

[Nevernose]

44. Most people can't even DEFINE "literally"

n/t

[POed_Ex_Repub]

50. Scary thing is... in the poll, they define it!

"I'm going to ask about a few stories in the Bible. Do you think that's literally true, meaning it happened that way word-for-word; or do you think it's meant as a lesson, but not to be taken literally?"


http://www.pollingreport.com/religion

[mvd]

45. Well, there's one I feel guilty believing

It's the story of the virgin birth. This belief is despite my better judgment. :P

Being a liberal, non Church-going Catholic, I believe in many of the main ideas, but much of the Bible IMO uses images to get ideas across. The contradictions in the Bible have caused problems over the years because the fundies take everything literally. We are human, so there's bound to be pointless stuff in there. But it's very possible that there was divine inspiration involved.

[Az]

69. A way out

There are some that suggest the entire virgin birth story is simply a mistranslation. The word thought to be virgin translates to young maiden as well. If you really need to reconcile belief and reason this may be a means for you to do so.

Just trying to ease the stress.

[mvd]

94. Interesting thought

The Bible does refer to Mary as a "perpetual virgin," though. Christ is mentioned as having brothers, but looking at the Bible and all the mentions of brother, that certainly doesn't have to mean blood-brothers. It's always possible that Jesus was Son of God with Joseph and Mary both being the means of birth - so I can look at that.

[Rabrrrrrr]

97. I don't think the Bible does call her a perpetual virgin

But I'm saying that without surety - could be nextled in a letter somewhere.

Do you know for sure?

I think it's pretty well established that Jesus had blood-brothers, since they are mentioned a few times in Acts and elsewhere, so I couldn't imagine Mary being called perpetually a virgin; but on the other hand, just cuz it doesn't make sense, doesn't mean that someone like Paul might claim it anyway.

If I had a concordance handy I'd look it up, but I don't, so if you have a reference, that would be great. You've piqued my curiosity.

[Nikia]

100. She was only a virgin until after the birth

The Bible says that they did not come together (or something like that) until after Jesus was born. Perpetual virginity is a Catholic doctorine, but the Bible does not say that she was a virgin for life. The Bible does mention Jesus having brothers and sisters, which in context are probably blood siblings.

[Rabrrrrrr]

102. That would be my understanding

Though I'm not even convinced she was virgin to have Jesus - I think it ruins the coolness of God's work to think that God could only come to a virgin woman, as though sex were something so bad, even God doesn't want to know about it.

But I was thinking the perpetual virginity might be Catholic doctrine.

still, I have to admit my knowledge of the epistles and letters is not as great as it should be, so perhaps there is something in there.

So if someone has a verse reference, please let us know!

[mvd]

103. For one thing

Jesus put John in charge of taking care of Mary at the crucifixion, when you'd think another son would be put in charge. I'm not sure the Bible specifically states it - it was people like St. Jerome. Supposedly bretheren can mean cousins, too.

[Rabrrrrrr]

104. Okay, the issue up in the air

Alrighty - I did some web searching, and the issue is unclear. All the Catholics websites use Scripture to say that Mary was a virgin until death, and that the constnt usage of the term brother for James and some others doesn't mean real brother.

The protestant websites are on the side that Mary wasn't virgin until death (I agree with that), and that Jesus actually DID have brothers and sisters.

There is much debate on this issue, which I hadn't realized. I had no idea the Catholics actually believed that Jesus was an only child. A new learning for me today! Exciting!



So, I guess, if you're Catholic you have to believe that Jesus had no brothers or sisters, and that Mary remained a virgin until death.

If you're not Catholic, you're probably okay to go either way. Though if one is fundamentalist protestant, you better not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, but better believe in the virgin birth of Jesus.

If you're me, you find it most likely plausaible and sensible that Joseph and Mary would have other children, and you would agree with scripture that Jesus had brothers and sisters. And you would say that Jesus probably asked John to take care of his mother because John was the beloved disciple, and Jesus could trust him, and know he cuold put some responsibility on John's shoulder. But, just because Jesus said "take care of my mother" doesn't mean AT ALL that Jesus' brothers wouldn't also take care of her.

I'm thinking that, if I were dying, and I had a good friend near me, I would have said, "And take care of my mother" even knowing that my sister would have done so.

I don't you can read anything into Jesus asking John to take care of his mother.

[mvd]

105. Funny because that Jesus thing means the most to me

Interesting how the Bible can be interpreted differently. I'm only taking the Catholic side here despite the improbability because it's one of my favorite stories and not an obviously made-up story used to explain something.

[Rabrrrrrr]

106. "that Jesus thing"?

Just for clarification, which Jesus thing? The telling of John to take care of Mary? Or the possible brothers and/or sisters of Jesus? Or possibly the virgin until death aspect of Mary?

Not trying to pick a nit, I'm truly looking for clarification, since I can't tell from your post which of the "Jesus thing"s you mean.

[mvd]

107. Sorry for not being clearer

It meant his telling John to take care of Mary.

[Rabrrrrrr]

108. Gotcha, thanks!

having been protestant all my life, and growing up in a community that was sooooooo white that *Catholics* were considered 'ethnic', there is much I don't know. Hell, Italian food was considered REALLY FAR OUT in terms of 'different kind of food'.

:-)

So it's very interesting to me to know that someone - and/or some very large group of people - would consider Jesus telling John to take care of Mary to be of any real importance, theologically and doctrinally.

I'm glad we had/are having this discussion. If not, I never would have searched on Jesus' brothers and sisters and learned so much about the division within Christ's church (meaning, Catholic, Orthodoc, Protestant, and others all combined) on that subject, which to me, I always assumed wasn't anythign even worth discussion.

[TrogL]

89. "virgin" is a mistranslation

[GoddessOfGuinness]

48. The next time you see me, I'll be a pillar of salt.

Sorry, but I have a really hard time believing most people are that stupid. I'd like to see the poll; because fundy-types are very clever about ensuring that the answers to their polling questions require "interpretation".

[POed_Ex_Repub]

49. Want to see the poll?

Here it is... done by ABC News, with the exact wording of the questions..

http://www.pollingreport.com/religion

[Ladyhawk]

51. Unbelievable.

I was disgusted to learn recently that my music teacher is a creationist. How could anyone with any brains believe such a story? I was disconcerted to learn my ear, nose and throat specialist was also a creationist. I really didn't want him touching me after that, although people with advanced degrees who still believe fairy tales usually compartmentalize their knowledge.

Sorry, I've got the shudders. I was raised strict, right-wing, Southern Baptist fundy and I'm still pissed as hell about it.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

52. That's unbelievable...

Maybe it was fundied?

[maveric]

54. The Bible was written by MEN to control the idiot masses.

To put fear into the hearts and minds of those that may go against the interests of those who wish to CONTROL.

[Vernunft II]

58. Indeed

And the same goes for any other religious scripture throughout the history of mankind.

[Beaker]

75. Man created god in his own image-

NOT the other way around.

I wonder if the world will ever really see a truly enlightend society?

[jus_the_facts]

90. can't see how....it's too engrained....

...even usually logical thinkin' people tend to let this insanity that they were brainwashed with as young children override their logic....the fear of damnnation and the hope of an afterlife always seems to keep the masses comfortably ignorant to reality....that THIS life is the only life we have any proof of...to focus on the HERE AND NOW and what needs to be done to ensure there is a decent world for the ones who we leave behind when our time is up on it...that we are glorified animals and our actions and emotions are based on this not some perfect all knowing...all powerful being.....sigh x(

[The Zanti Regent]

56. Well, if the bible is literally true...

WHO DID CAIN AND ABEL HAVE SEX WITH????

That question shut my Assembly of God relatives up!

[Wapsie B]

59. And...........

who did Lott have sex with?

[Rabrrrrrr]

63. Lott?

By the time of Lott, there were tens of thousands, perhaps millions of people. Lott was a thousand years or more after Noah.

Unless you're wondering whether lot had sex with men? :shrug:

[Mobius]

61. So Adam actually lived to be 900 years old?

7 days to create the Earth?

[Az]

66. Once did the math for the rainfall for Noah's ark

Don't recall the details but considering it claims the earth was covered including the highest mountains it made for some interesting numbers. The rate of rainfall necissary for such a result in the time period given was 6" per minute. This is not rain. The pressure behind this rain would crush any wooden structure. The number of problems with the Ark story are beyond measure. Leaving aside the issue of whether each pair of animals (they weren't just pairs, there were also groups of seven of the clean animals) was representitive of kind or species and the notion of fitting that many animals on the ark the story just makes no sense.

Let us assume that magic made the trip possible. What happened after they landed? Some specific questions:

What did the carnivores eat? Each critter they eat destroys an entire species. Then there is the matter of them destroying their food supply quickly.

What did the herbivores eat? The earth was just flooded for the better part of a year. Nothing survived. There is no edible vegetation.

What about the fish? The Salinity change would destroy all seagoing life.

How did the 3 toed sloth get to South America? This is a question for all the species that managed to get to their individual continents. They somehow managed it in a very organized fashion. Maintaining the structure supported by evolution. How did all the Marsupials wind up in Australia?

There are of course other issues such as there being no record of the flood in any measurable sense. Particularly damning are the ice cores. Ice accumulates at a very steady pace at the north and south poles. Ice cores taken can show the steady passage of the seasons. Yet no core sample shows any evidence of the global disturbance that the flood would bring. It just did not happen.

The likely explanation for the flood story comes from far more local history (relative to the story). The Dead Sea shows evidence of having experienced a massive flood that appears to have wiped out a local community. A massive collapse of a mountainous land bridge brought tons of sea water into the fresh water environment and destroyed a city on its banks. This event may well have given rise to the the flood story as well as Atlantis and numerous other flood legends.

[Rabrrrrrr]

70. And Genesis says Noah brought either 1 pair or 7 pair of animals

depending on which of the two Noah stories one reads.

Was it one pair of all animals, or 7 pair of all clean animals, and two pair of unclean animals? And how would Noah know the difference, since the clean/unlcean laws didn't appear until Moses' time?

Here are the references:

Genesis 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. <20> Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Genesis 7:1-3 And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. <2> Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. <3> Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

[Beaker]

72. at the end of the last ice age, the ocean level rose 400 feet-

in a relatively short amount of time. there were a lot of large scale cataclysmic floods, especially in low-lying area near the oceans, where a lot of the civilization of the time was concentrated. low-lying inland areas were also inundated, and new seas created.
that's why almost every ancient culture has a flood myth way back in there somewhere.

[Az]

82. Flood myths are likely from a more recent event

Note that most early civilizations developed around flood plains. This was due to the aggricultural boost provided by seasonal flooding. Typically the flooding was relatively managable. But cyclically there would be a larger flood bringing destruction in its wake.

Add to this the discovery of the history of the Dead Sea. It was discovered recently that the Dead Sea is the result of a cataclysmic collapse of a mountainous land bridge seperating the former fresh water inland lake from the ocean. The subsequent torrent of water destroyed a coastal community and expanded the Dead See substantially. It is likely that many large flood stories such as Noah's and Atlantis originated from these.

[Beaker]

83. Gilgamesh begat Noah literature-wise...

and the dead sea flood could have been the inspiration for that...
BUT- flood myths are common to all cultures throughout the world, in many places where the Dead sea story wouldn't have been able to be an influence.

[Az]

87. Hence the first paragraph

Early civilizations depended on flooding for agriculture. Floods were a common occurrence. One would expect flood stories to be present in such cultures.

[Beaker]

95. there is also evidence for a fairly thriving civilization...

12,000 years or so ago, and if you look at how much of the ocean and seas are less than 400 ft. deep, you can see how much land was lost to what at the time would have been cataclysmic flooding.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

67. An hypothesis just popped in my head

Can it be that a great number of people did NOT believe, but said they did out of FEAR? After all, here is, in front of you, a human being who works for a large organization, knows your name and address, and s/he's inviting you to open up your religious belief (or lack thereof).

Me, I'd think twice before answering sincerely.

This kind of polling should be secret -- pollster hands pollee a paper and pen -- preferrably the paper would be disc shaped, with the answers in sectors. THEN we'd see how many skeptics there are.

[Beaker]

73. Noah's Ark was too big AND too small to be possible...

and yes- it's amazing how many adults take it as historical fact. it's one of the first question i ask of uber-religoids when i meet them and i'm feeling feisty.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/flood.html#ship

Noah's Ark: An Engineering Imposibility

It is too big, because before the invention of steel, the wooden ark of Noah simply could not have been structurally sound and was thus unseaworthy. The longest wooden ship ever built (i.e. historically verified) was the USS Wyoming. This vessel, which was, at 110 meters long, a full 50% shorter than Noah’s ark, was found to be so unstable that it could only be used for short coastal hauls to avoid rough conditions further out in the sea. The huge structural stresses that developed in the USS Wyoming made the ship sag and, well, it leaked. Water thus had to be pumped out continuously to prevent the ship from sinking. Now, here we have Noah’s ark, built with wood, before the invention of steel and hydraulic pumps, undergoing the turbulent conditions of the flood unscathed. It is simply an engineering impossibility.

It is too small, because there is simply not enough room for all the animals. There are extant today over 4,500 species of mammals, 6,000 species of reptiles, 8,600 species of birds and 3,000 species of amphibians. Each of these have many large members: elephants, camels, rhinoceros, hippopotamasus, giraffes, horses, donkeys, zebras, cattle, bison, tapirs, pigs, tigers, lions, jaguars, panthers, sea lions, walruses, crocodiles, alligators, giant turtles, Komodo dragon, snakes, ostriches, emus, falcons and giant salamanders. There are 23,000 species of fishes, many of which will not be able to survive the flood if not taken up into the ark. Each kilogram of fish require about a cubic meter of water to survive-this is simply to provide enough oxygen and provide space for swimming while sleeping and feeding. The volume of water required for the fishes alone would be larger than the ark.<4> And then there are the little creatures; there are about a million species of insects and 60,000 species of arachnids. How were these species stored in the ark?...

more-

[Kathy in Cambridge]

74. It's like Mythology and Fables-Allegories to teach us moral lessons

and that's about it.

[MrSlayer]

77. Well we all know what P.T. Barnum said.

[AlFrankenFan]

79. Sounds like my dad

'Oy' is all I have to say.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

114. Holy #$@#$! how is this thread STILL GOING???

It's like 3 days old! I can't believe what a monster I've created. I guess it's true what they say about politics and religion (and the heated discussions started by these things).

If anyone has been living in a cave for the past 3 days here's an updated link to the poll I referred to.

http://www.pollingreport.com/religion

It's been moved off of the front page (I tried to edit the original but the thread is too old)

[Rabrrrrrr]

116. It's because of two reasons:

One, you hit on something that is very important, and relevant to American life, because there is a significant portion of Anmerica who would prefer to legislate ignorance as a viable course of human futuring (that is, the Christian right, and other morans who think the Bible is the only viable methodology for forming government), and because this discussion is therefore incredbily important to the future of this country as to whether it will remain free and an example of true democracy that is respectful of all religious thought (within the bounds of the consitution, i.e., no human sacrifice), and because oddly enough, here at DU, there a few people (JasonDeter, though others, too) who feel that an absolutel literal reading of the Bible is the only true authoritative way to form government, in which, even though we are liberals, one must take the route that the a huge percentage of the world's people are already condemned to hell and thus not worth the spit they are able to form, assuming Christians (that is, the US) haven't so poisoned their water supply that they can't form spit any more.

[FDRrocks]

115. Well, rational people...

know that the bible is crap, generally, as a historical text. You can tell this b/c since it was written man has learned about the earth. The earth is millions of years older than the bible think. Man has explored space. Man has cloned animals.

It is by no means a historical text. It's useful as a set of moral guidelines, if not misconstrued like it is in the modern days. You shall not kill, but you can say that your tax money went towards a good cause by carpet bombing civilians in Afghanistan. Or killing anyone at all, as it has since the day I was born.

The only part I like about the entire texts of the bible is Jesus Christ and his message. Whoever wrote that book, in my opinion, was truely thinking of the history of mankind. However modern day christianity generally leans towards a fascistic, ignorant view (imo, not directed towards pacifist christians, which seems redundant b/c there shouldn't be any other type) that ultimately supports violence.

This poll mean, to me, that most of this majorly christian country neither cares about the teaching of christ, or about the intentions of the founding fathers.

This world makes me want to blow my head off.

[Rabrrrrrr]

117. kick because there a number of unanswered points in this thread

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

135. Wanna lose $20?

See post #133. By the way, did I use the proper English to invite people to a bet?

[Rabrrrrrr]

136. It was impeccable English,

except for the space you put between the $ and the 20.

But no betting for me.

[VOX]

120. "Biblical idolatry"

Philosopher Alan Watts once stated that the one of the best things that could happen to Western mankind would be to have all Holy Bibles buried for 200 years or so, just to let the information (and the staggering number of interpretations threeof) die out.

The Bible is a Bronze-Age document containing creation stories, myths and cautionary tales designed to hold the tribe together. The New Testament is very abstract, but is designed to further the mythology, and to comfort man's fear of illness and death.

I'll pass on ranting about how much damage has been inflicted on numerous world cultures because of particular intrepretations of this document.

But today, in a time when they should know better, those who literally believe Bible stories are guilty of biblical idolatry -- they are worshipping the scriptures, and missing their universal messages entirely.

Jesus was a mystic who was well aware of this very same problem in his time. He said, and very caustically, IMO, "You search the scriptures daily for you think you have life in them," pointing out a sad lack of inward life and critical thinking.

[jonnyblitz]

122. I find this truly scary as hell. n/t

[Ramsey]

125. That is so astonishing

I honestly think that is the best example of the pathetic state of our educational system that I can think of.

[arewethereyet]

129. the Arc thing is at least partially documented

I want to know why turning sticks into snakes can't be dont by magicians if it was such a common parlor trick in Moses' time

[slack]

143. perhaps you need a 30 years war

in germany was a war between 1612-1642. for 30 years, over 3/4 of the inhabitants died. it was a war between the reformation around luther and the catholic church. today, I think you find perhaps 0.1 oder 0.11% who believes every story in the bible are literally true.
it's no fortuity that the enlightenment starts after that war.