spin

One point is that when you were asked about the bible, you crapped on about what christians did. You were then asked twice, "Would you blame Beatle lyrics for what Charlie Manson and his cult did with them?" Twice you have refused to answer.

Books don't kill people. Other people do that.

Just as Beatles lyrics were used by Charlie Manson. You're too busy crapping on about the book, when your real problem involves the people.

The bible was used by people for example one group justified slavery with it, while another abolition. The book is all but superfluous.

Deep. You are still incapable of giving a straight answer:

Visionary7 was talking about the book. You are talking about the people and the religion. Would you blame Beatle lyrics for what Charlie Manson and his cult did with them?

Why don't you answer the question? This is the thitrd time I've asked you.

Fr. Gottisttot

This atheist believes that the Bible is a collection of poetry and campfire stories that have been messed up through countless translations, agendas, and the ignorance of the writers. It is an interesting read, but a very very flawed one too.

JCS

Where do the people get their inspiratation, from the book or the religion? Do we blame the gun the manufacturer or the guy who pulled the trigger? If Beatles did not write the lryics Charlie and friends would have found some other inspiration most likely, perhaps maybe even the Bible. But Charley and friends seem like such a poor comparison since their drug addled brains were so few in number compared to the numbers through history that have used the Bible as their inspiration to do harm.

Steve Weiss

Let me make it simple for you. Books convey ideas, and ideas determine how people act. That is why philosophy is important. Irrational ideas lead to irrational behavior. Got it yet?

JPOnion

Saying that it's only an error when seen with a modern mindset doesn't really help the case, here. The bible says bats are birds, yet they are not. I'll grant you that the people who were around at the time the bible was written may not understand the distinction, but I was under the impression the bible was the inerrant Word of God, the Truth. I would think God of all people (things?) would know the difference between a bat and a bird, and would pass that little bit of knowledge down to the human he had dictating for him. :Cheeky:

As for the rabbit thing, please look at the verse in the original language. The word used for cud does not, and cannot, mean dung. There's another word that could have been used in that case, if the author actually meant the rabbit chewed it's dung. The hebrew word, gerah (iirc), means chewed cud, berry or grain. This is, I believe, an example of the "modern mindset" actually in play. In our modern, english, usage of the word / interpretation of the sentance, we can see how it could mean the rabbit was really eating it's dung...but this sentance was not written recently, or in this language, so we need to look at it through the mindset of the time it was written, and with the set of rules governing the language it was written in.

Don't forget, the bible also lists locusts, beetles and grasshoppers as having four legs (c'mon, I was able to count their legs when I caught them on the elementry school playground...it's not that hard, God), says that snails melt, snakes eat dirt, etc. There are more animal errors, but that's enough for now.

These are just a few examples of many why I, in my original responce, said that it's a book written by men. Men, inspired not by God but the culture, morals and knowledge of the time, and passed that on when writing the bible.

Agemegos

Yes, but they don't chew cud.

Yes, but they aren't birds.

Yes, but locusts don't have four legs, they have six.

Steven Avery

Hi JP,

The very fact that you would actually belabor an issue such as this demonstrates that you really are fishing .. looking for a cause of offense .. where absolutely none exists.

Here are a fellow who discuss this in the context of scientific classifications.

http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/01/bats-are-birds.html
Reformed views of a nuclear physicist- David Heddle

One rebuttal of the argument that the Bible errs is stating that bats are birds is that, in the simpler taxonomy of the ancients, bats were simply classified as birds. They were under no obligation to adhere to twenty-first century taxonomy—a taxonomy that itself may someday be completely revamped. (And if that happens, it would not relegate the current scheme into the dustbin of scientific error.)

A taxonomy, for example, that has four broad categories: sea life, amphibians, land animals, and flying-things (lets call them birds) is not incorrect and is not scientific error. It’s just not the scheme we use today.

That you go on and one about this tells me more about your desire to disbelief the Bible than anything else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPOnion .. I was under the impression the bible was the inerrant Word of God, the Truth. I would think God of all people (things?) would know the difference between a bat and a bird, and would pass that little bit of knowledge down to the human he had dictating for him. :Cheeky:

And that the only problem here is your willful misunderstanding, with perhaps a bit of arrogance.

The other issues you raise could also be discussed. Are idioms involved ? Is the rabbit classification a problem? etc. However if someone really takes issue with a the listing of the bat as not to be eaten in contradistinction to the clean birds, because of 21th century taxonomy, substantive discussion is well neigh hopeless.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Godless Dave

You're making his case for him, praxeus. To the ancients - the people who wrote the Bible - bats were birds.

Steven Avery

I really am amazed that multiple skeptics/atheists actually see a problem here. That is the amazing thing about this discussion.

Perhaps there is a type of skeptic box-locking involved ?

spin

What does one have to do to get a straight answer out of you? I've asked the same question three times now and you've failed three times.

For centuries the book happily lay dormant on the shelves of abbeys and churches. It wasn't the done thing to read it. It's only post-Luther that bibles got popular amongst protestants. All the while the book lay dormant you had religious wars and crusades. You've just got a starry-eyed romantic approach to the effect of books.

Now answer my question, will you?

Visionary7 was talking about the book. You are talking about the people and the religion. Would you blame Beatle lyrics for what Charlie Manson and his cult did with them?

The only reason I can imagine for your resistance to answering is that you don't like the implications of the answer so you go through contortions to avoid it.