< 1 2
 
   
 

A public forum that establishes the Scientific Study of the Bible

 
Mike78
 
Avatar
 
 
Mike78
Total Posts:  1741
Joined  05-06-2012
 
 
 
23 October 2012 22:44
 
srd44 - 23 October 2012 05:11 PM
Mike78 - 23 October 2012 04:34 PM

Your whole position, the entire notion to focus on the bible as having anything definitive to say about either “the afterlife” or morality shows exactly why my point is dead on.  The bible is a stumbling block that prevents people from getting very far in a genuine discussion of these types of topics because it tends to monopolize the field with its particular brand of bullshit.  You’re proposing deepening into that vortex.

Mike, You’re way off kilter here. I don’t care if your disagree with my position or not; what I find shocking is your lack of understanding, and now continued misrepresentation of what’s going on. Your comment above “The bible is…” clearly presents your own preconceived notions of what the Bible is. Second you totally, and regrettably,  fail to understand scientific method. I think that the biggest miscommunication here, and presupposition on your part, is between 3,000-2,000 year old historical documents that represent the beliefs, worldviews, and ideologies of cultures and peoples long gone (my field of study) and the Bible as concocted by modernity, and to which apparently you subscribe.

A notion of an afterlife absolultely is not an invention of the bible.  That you would even suggest this is completely ridiculous.  There are ritualized burials that predate the bible by scary numbers of thousands of years.  What thoughts and ideas do you imagine coupled those practices if not some kind of afterlife?  Why bury your dead relative with pots, clothes, tools and weapons?  Why ritualize the skeleton of a bear if not under some notion that the performance of such deeds contacts an otherworldly source for the next hunt’s bounty?  Any biblical retread of this existence-long question offers us nothing more than what was told by the earliest peoples.  So yes, I maintain what the bible has to say on the subject of whether there’s an afterlife is pretty much irrelevant.

Who says the notion of the afterlife is the invention of the Bible? Again, you’re not even able to listen to what I’m saying because of your preconceived notions. I’m saying studying literature in its historical context enables us to see clearly how, when, and why MAN invented, created new religious ideas, one of which is the afterlife. If you’re, we’re, not talking about this in its historical context, with understanding, then we’re just spouting drivel, as the debate was that I referenced above.

Second, by your own admission, all your questions above are irrelevant! How absurd. How can someone sincerely be against the pursuit of knowledge, historical context, and proper understanding of the evolution of human ideas, authoritative traditions, etc. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not against these things, but like many fundamentalist, you’re just being hypocritical. Or, your own ignorance of the field of study has caused you to have violent prejudicial and preconditioned reactions to said field.

Really, I’m shocked.

Of course the moral systems of the bible are man-made, if they can honestly be called “moral” at all.  Who needs to waste time grappling with that notion?  Are we to believe that human beings existed on this planet for millenia completely without any morality in practice?  Are we to believe that every society in which judeo-christian ethics holds no footing are inherently immoral? That’s laugh-out-loud stupid.  Craig’s rhetorical pose on this subject is calculated.  He takes a position that the existence of god provides a basis for objective morality that would not exist otherwise.  If morality is not purely objective, god is irrelevant, and so is Criag’s argument.  Furthermore, Craig cannot bridge the gap between the existence of god as the basis for objective morality and the content of biblical morality, in part, because he cannot establish the biblical god as god.

Craig’s drivel is just that, theologizing bs—- glad we can come to an agreement on that. I’m saying that the whole position that the Bible supports an objective divinely-originating morality is based on layers and layers of biblical interpretive traditions that have nothing to do with, and are antithetical to, what the 7th c. Deuteronomist wrote, to whom he wrote, and why, to the 6th c. BC Aaronid priest, who contrary to the claims of the Deuteronomist a century earlier, has his god, Yahweh, proclaim a completely different ethical law code. What the Bible says, is not some objective thing, as you seem to suggest above, but the words, ideas, and ideologies of real peoples and culture’s writing to address historical circumstances.

No need to resort to bibles, crystal balls, or any other crutches.  If the direction is forward, we have to move away from the junk.

Yep, therefor based on this line of thinking, no reason to resort to the Constitution, no need to resort to judicial precedent, no reason to invoke history, the ideas and shape of ideas that mankind has crafted, no need to wallow in any type of learning of the past, burn the great books, the perennial questions they grapple with, who cares. You sound like a wall-street guy. Just living for now, no concern about education, or human development.

Calm down professor pointless.  I’m not pulling your funding just yet, so you don’t have to warp your perspective to make the silly case that your work is super important.  I can literally think of zero circumstances where I might utter “the only person who can help us solve this problem is a biblical historian applying the scientific method.”  Do you have a phone booth outside your office in case you quickly have to change into a tweed jacket to leap into action?

First, if the question posed is whether there is an afterlife, what possible help do you think a granular understanding of the life and times of people living 3000 years ago—in a state of relative complete ignorance—who authored the text and traditions of the bible can offer to answering the question?  I’ll help you so you don’t panic again.  None.  What people believed 3000 years ago and why the believed it supplies absolutely nothing to answering that question.  I mean not shit.

Second, you said the notion of an afterlife appears first in a biblical context.  I think that’s so obviously incorrect that your credentials as a historian must now be in doubt.  No matter, because as I said above, great detail about the concocting of a biblical afterlife means nothing.  It is pointless drivel wearing horn rimmed glasses and drinking undeserved sherry.

My questions concerning ritual burial are irrelevant to the question of whether there really is an afterlife.  It seems you might be catching the drift.  But I asserted them to reveal the absurdity of your sanctimony in your first very revealing example.

We agree Craig’s formulation is crap.  I don’t need to listen to your recitation of the internal workings of the authors and audience of Deuteronomy to get there.  All religions are man made, and thus inherently culturally moored in some particular time and place.  The only thing needed to combat Craig’s bankrupt notion of morality is amply, amply supported skepticism of the very foundation of his advocasy—whether there’s a god of any tradition that can be shown to exist.

Who said anything about scrapping the constitution or judicial precedent or even history.  I said don’t waste your time on “biblical history,” which serves no function for any area of legitimate human concern.  Only the religious resort to bible tales as a “historical” or authoritative source of anything.  To the extent your work is devoted to telling people they’re misplacing their reliance, you’re wasting your breath.  Fact does not exist in that dojo.  Humans riding dinosaurs do.  Giddy-up.

 
srd44
 
Avatar
 
 
srd44
Total Posts:  129
Joined  29-04-2012
 
 
 
23 October 2012 23:52
 

Mike-O

We’re still having basic misunderstandings, not necessarily extreme views.

Most theists belief that the afterlife is real on a ontological and metaphysical plane. Furthermore most theist believe, and affirm, that this is what the Bible claims. You and I both know they’re wrong. But I—- actually the Bible itself is my point—- can demonstrate the error in their thinking, and show them that what they think or were taught what the Bible is and says is actually inaccurate. There is only one text, the latest text, in the OT that mentions an afterlife. The idea simply did not exist prior to the mid 2nd c. BC—- and I am aware that other cultures had afterlives silly boy. I’m merely talking about the Judeo-Christian tradition. Their god did not even think about the f*cking idea until the 2nd c. BC! You don’t think that would have some legs? The whole debate that I witnessed on this subject was pathetic; a win-win for the theists again. In almost every debate where an atheists debates a theist, the theist always has the advantage because it is on his terms, and presuppositions, that the debate is launched and within which atheists also formulate their responses. Bullshit. The atheist needs to argue from data.

As a historian I am interested in knowing why and how the idea of resurrection emerged in the mid 2nd c. BC. What were the historical circumstances that produced it, that produced the Constitution, or our electorate, or anything for that matter. You don’t think these are valuable questions? If a 2,000 year old culture created an idea from its historical and political world—and perhaps I can even understand how and why that idea was created—- is that idea still valid for the 21st century man? Of course not. A proper scientific study would reveal this. If I believed the earth was flat because the tradition I inherited from antiquity validated such a view. How would you pursued me otherwise? By babbling on some theoretical hodgepodge, our showing my the scientific data?

If a set of texts that were written 3,000 to 2,000 years ago, and which can ONLY tell us about the beliefs, worldviews, ideologies, of the people who wrote these texts and the audiences they addressed them to, were being hailed to support a bunch, any bunch, of ridiculous ideas in the 21st c. AD, you don’t think that clarifying the historical circumstances that created these ideas in the first place might do some good? Might actually demonstrate the error in these beliefs? You might be able to argue that ALL moral systems are man-made, but can you demonstrate to theists that the Bible itself leads one to this very conclusion?

Historical accuracy is what I’m after, and honesty. Your choice of words also indicates that, again, there are misconceptions that you are harboring. By “biblical history” you seem to refer to the history-like narrative of the bible. I haven’t yet started down that path. I’m thinking about the historical circumstances that 1) produced these variant and contradictory texts; 2) from which the proper meaning of these texts must and can only be sought.

To put my cards on the table: these are conflicting historical texts that belong in the archaic past. They inform us about societies and worldviews long-gone. These texts tell us about ourselves so far as we as a culture have assumed, erroneously, an identity with them.

Don’t you see, I am trying to eradicate the very presuppositions, misuse, and hypocrisy that have asserted these texts as representative of modernity in ANY aspect.

 
 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
24 October 2012 00:29
 

‘Calm down professor pointless.  I’m not pulling your funding just yet, so you don’t have to warp your perspective to make the silly case that your work is super important.  I can literally think of zero circumstances where I might utter “the only person who can help us solve this problem is a biblical historian applying the scientific method.”  Do you have a phone booth outside your office in case you quickly have to change into a tweed jacket to leap into action?’

Mike, I understand you are a serious person, but I just wanted to say that sometimes you really make me chuckle like a fat man being tickled by a feather! Thanks for that one man.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17605
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
24 October 2012 01:37
 

srd44, I’m interested, if you write a book I’ll put it on my reading list.

 
 
Mike78
 
Avatar
 
 
Mike78
Total Posts:  1741
Joined  05-06-2012
 
 
 
24 October 2012 13:02
 
srd44 - 23 October 2012 09:52 PM

Mike-O

We’re still having basic misunderstandings, not necessarily extreme views.

Most theists belief that the afterlife is real on a ontological and metaphysical plane. Furthermore most theist believe, and affirm, that this is what the Bible claims. You and I both know they’re wrong. But I—- actually the Bible itself is my point—- can demonstrate the error in their thinking, and show them that what they think or were taught what the Bible is and says is actually inaccurate. There is only one text, the latest text, in the OT that mentions an afterlife. The idea simply did not exist prior to the mid 2nd c. BC—- and I am aware that other cultures had afterlives silly boy. I’m merely talking about the Judeo-Christian tradition. Their god did not even think about the f*cking idea until the 2nd c. BC! You don’t think that would have some legs? The whole debate that I witnessed on this subject was pathetic; a win-win for the theists again. In almost every debate where an atheists debates a theist, the theist always has the advantage because it is on his terms, and presuppositions, that the debate is launched and within which atheists also formulate their responses. Bullshit. The atheist needs to argue from data.

As a historian I am interested in knowing why and how the idea of resurrection emerged in the mid 2nd c. BC. What were the historical circumstances that produced it, that produced the Constitution, or our electorate, or anything for that matter. You don’t think these are valuable questions? If a 2,000 year old culture created an idea from its historical and political world—and perhaps I can even understand how and why that idea was created—- is that idea still valid for the 21st century man? Of course not. A proper scientific study would reveal this. If I believed the earth was flat because the tradition I inherited from antiquity validated such a view. How would you pursued me otherwise? By babbling on some theoretical hodgepodge, our showing my the scientific data?

If a set of texts that were written 3,000 to 2,000 years ago, and which can ONLY tell us about the beliefs, worldviews, ideologies, of the people who wrote these texts and the audiences they addressed them to, were being hailed to support a bunch, any bunch, of ridiculous ideas in the 21st c. AD, you don’t think that clarifying the historical circumstances that created these ideas in the first place might do some good? Might actually demonstrate the error in these beliefs? You might be able to argue that ALL moral systems are man-made, but can you demonstrate to theists that the Bible itself leads one to this very conclusion?

Historical accuracy is what I’m after, and honesty. Your choice of words also indicates that, again, there are misconceptions that you are harboring. By “biblical history” you seem to refer to the history-like narrative of the bible. I haven’t yet started down that path. I’m thinking about the historical circumstances that 1) produced these variant and contradictory texts; 2) from which the proper meaning of these texts must and can only be sought.

To put my cards on the table: these are conflicting historical texts that belong in the archaic past. They inform us about societies and worldviews long-gone. These texts tell us about ourselves so far as we as a culture have assumed, erroneously, an identity with them.

Don’t you see, I am trying to eradicate the very presuppositions, misuse, and hypocrisy that have asserted these texts as representative of modernity in ANY aspect.


Sigh.  I’m not saying you can’t make arguments against foolishness in the way you’ve suggested.  I’m saying that we have a very serious problem if we have to model a historically accurate picture of the thoughts and feelings of civilians in 2 B.C. to establish that resurrection isn’t real.  Why can’t we just note that all, every single one, of those dead people from 2 B.C. (and every year thereafter) remains very thoroughly dead?  Why is it not enough to note that nobody’s relative, friend, or distant acquaintance ever returns from the dead no matter how faithful and pious they have been during their lives?  People aren’t crops.  You don’t plant them in the ground and find them sprouting anew in the spring.  Humanity and civilization, however, do live on, revive, and depend on the deaths and births of populations for their existence and growth.  Oops!  Agriculture + hieratic city state = monotheism’s variety of resurrection myths.  Add some rewards and punishments, and bang an opiate of the credulous masses may be put to effective use in concentrating power in particular groups and individuals.  The ultimate ponzi scheme to make Madoff blush. 

The collateral problem of your approach is that it remains entrenched in the peculiarities of the bible.  The camera, if you will, focuses closer on bible text and bible context.  It doesn’t pan out to reveal a wider landscape in which the “authority” of the bible quickly becomes diluted in comparison to other approaches to understanding that are monumentally better.  How do we know the bible’s version of events is not real?  Not one aspect of its mythology has even a remote echo in any observable fact of our world.  If our youth weren’t inculcated with this rubbish from their very early days, a biblical religion would be disbelieved by every human being with a normally functioning brain.  Nobody has to gather nervously in little groups to sing songs about gravity for that concept to gain hold in the very first lesson.

 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
24 October 2012 15:27
 

Not so sure. I think Gravity could be God. Perhaps I’ll start a new religion, for nobody can prove that it is not.

I’ll be working on my own Kenosis Hymn to support such a notion next.

I’d appreciate a little patience however, as I am not very artistic.

 
 
srd44
 
Avatar
 
 
srd44
Total Posts:  129
Joined  29-04-2012
 
 
 
24 October 2012 17:47
 
Mike78 - 24 October 2012 11:02 AM
srd44 - 23 October 2012 09:52 PM

Mike-O

We’re still having basic misunderstandings, not necessarily extreme views.

Most theists belief that the afterlife is real on a ontological and metaphysical plane. Furthermore most theist believe, and affirm, that this is what the Bible claims. You and I both know they’re wrong. But I—- actually the Bible itself is my point—- can demonstrate the error in their thinking, and show them that what they think or were taught what the Bible is and says is actually inaccurate. There is only one text, the latest text, in the OT that mentions an afterlife. The idea simply did not exist prior to the mid 2nd c. BC—- and I am aware that other cultures had afterlives silly boy. I’m merely talking about the Judeo-Christian tradition. Their god did not even think about the f*cking idea until the 2nd c. BC! You don’t think that would have some legs? The whole debate that I witnessed on this subject was pathetic; a win-win for the theists again. In almost every debate where an atheists debates a theist, the theist always has the advantage because it is on his terms, and presuppositions, that the debate is launched and within which atheists also formulate their responses. Bullshit. The atheist needs to argue from data.

As a historian I am interested in knowing why and how the idea of resurrection emerged in the mid 2nd c. BC. What were the historical circumstances that produced it, that produced the Constitution, or our electorate, or anything for that matter. You don’t think these are valuable questions? If a 2,000 year old culture created an idea from its historical and political world—and perhaps I can even understand how and why that idea was created—- is that idea still valid for the 21st century man? Of course not. A proper scientific study would reveal this. If I believed the earth was flat because the tradition I inherited from antiquity validated such a view. How would you pursued me otherwise? By babbling on some theoretical hodgepodge, our showing my the scientific data?

If a set of texts that were written 3,000 to 2,000 years ago, and which can ONLY tell us about the beliefs, worldviews, ideologies, of the people who wrote these texts and the audiences they addressed them to, were being hailed to support a bunch, any bunch, of ridiculous ideas in the 21st c. AD, you don’t think that clarifying the historical circumstances that created these ideas in the first place might do some good? Might actually demonstrate the error in these beliefs? You might be able to argue that ALL moral systems are man-made, but can you demonstrate to theists that the Bible itself leads one to this very conclusion?

Historical accuracy is what I’m after, and honesty. Your choice of words also indicates that, again, there are misconceptions that you are harboring. By “biblical history” you seem to refer to the history-like narrative of the bible. I haven’t yet started down that path. I’m thinking about the historical circumstances that 1) produced these variant and contradictory texts; 2) from which the proper meaning of these texts must and can only be sought.

To put my cards on the table: these are conflicting historical texts that belong in the archaic past. They inform us about societies and worldviews long-gone. These texts tell us about ourselves so far as we as a culture have assumed, erroneously, an identity with them.

Don’t you see, I am trying to eradicate the very presuppositions, misuse, and hypocrisy that have asserted these texts as representative of modernity in ANY aspect.


Sigh.  I’m not saying you can’t make arguments against foolishness in the way you’ve suggested.  I’m saying that we have a very serious problem if we have to model a historically accurate picture of the thoughts and feelings of civilians in 2 B.C. to establish that resurrection isn’t real.  Why can’t we just note that all, every single one, of those dead people from 2 B.C. (and every year thereafter) remains very thoroughly dead?  Why is it not enough to note that nobody’s relative, friend, or distant acquaintance ever returns from the dead no matter how faithful and pious they have been during their lives?  People aren’t crops.  You don’t plant them in the ground and find them sprouting anew in the spring.  Humanity and civilization, however, do live on, revive, and depend on the deaths and births of populations for their existence and growth.  Oops!  Agriculture + hieratic city state = monotheism’s variety of resurrection myths.  Add some rewards and punishments, and bang an opiate of the credulous masses may be put to effective use in concentrating power in particular groups and individuals.  The ultimate ponzi scheme to make Madoff blush.

 

Agreed. But unfortunately, since the delusion claims to be founded on biblical “truth” than the Bible is the best means to debunk there hypocrisy—- theoretically.

The collateral problem of your approach is that it remains entrenched in the peculiarities of the bible.  The camera, if you will, focuses closer on bible text and bible context.  It doesn’t pan out to reveal a wider landscape in which the “authority” of the bible quickly becomes diluted in comparison to other approaches to understanding that are monumentally better.  How do we know the bible’s version of events is not real?  Not one aspect of its mythology has even a remote echo in any observable fact of our world.  If our youth weren’t inculcated with this rubbish from their very early days, a biblical religion would be disbelieved by every human being with a normally functioning brain.  Nobody has to gather nervously in little groups to sing songs about gravity for that concept to gain hold in the very first lesson.

No. That is my point. The textual data alone from the varied, conflicting, and contradictory 70+ different texts and authors, written over a 1,000 year period in vastly different worldviews, beliefs, and ideologies, convincingly demonstrates that these narratives are not historical. Add to that data, other textual data from texts written in the ancient Near East, AND the archaeological data, which also alone refutes the historicity of these texts,—- all of these is that data that would rationally lead one to conclude that the Bible is NOT what people today assume it is. Correction: there are in fact numerous real historical data (dates of kings, Pharaoh Sisank’s invasion, Sennacirreb’s invasion, the Babylonian invasion, etc.) in the biblical texts, but the narratives themselves are fictionalized or theologized accounts. See, that is pretty much my conviction: having the biblical texts themselves pronounce that they are not historically real…

 
 
brent4088
 
Avatar
 
 
brent4088
Total Posts:  6
Joined  26-10-2012
 
 
 
09 December 2012 01:01
 
Epaminondas - 23 October 2012 03:27 PM

I don’t really see how the Bible can be studied scientifically or even historically either, but this is what Richard Carrier is currently attempting to do with the historicity of Jesus issue. He has a PHD in ancient history and is well versed in scientific methodologies as well, so in his upcoming volume 2 we’ll see if Bayes Theorem can shed any light on this subject.

After reading his volume 1, and seeing his axioms and rules, I don’t really see making much headway, but…..we’ll see.

Using empirical methodologies to try and set probabilities for truth from ancient mythologies, folk tales and some possible facts, seems like a stretch to me, but i’ll wait and judge after the experts confer on this.

Hello Epaminondas and hello to all other contributors to this thread.

Epaminondas, as you said, using empirical study and methodology to point out the contradictions and flaws in religion is not a good way to change the mind of believers. There are two goals that secularists must meet in order to do this, and neither include delving into the details of historic, secular facts.

I list below these two goals in order of their importance and urgency.

1. Secularists must establish a set of morals based on reason in order to become culturally relevant and show the superiority of those morals by example, i.e. charity work, donations, community service and the like.
Until we bridge the moral gap, there will continue to be a distance between the scientifically-minded and the religiously-minded.
Establishing a clear set of moral truths based on reason might wind up being overly simplistic for many people, but this is the best way for secular morality to be popularized.

2. In order to expose the error of religious texts, doctrine, dogmas and/or teachings we must meet the religiously-minded where they are in there thinking and use their very own religious texts, doctrines, dogmas and/or teachings to challenge the claims and promises found therein.
The difficulty here is the wide variety of denominations and belief sets found among believers. These large number of belief sets can be addressed by profiling each one and challenging them on their various beliefs. This, coupled with being a moral example, will help religious people see that morality does not depend on a deity or belief in a deity.

If secularists want to see society move away from deity-based morality, secularists must first do their best to understand the beliefs of the religious and then gently challenge the claims and promises found among their beliefs all the while being a strong moral example.

I recognize I’m young and green, so any feedback, whether in agreement or against what I have said, will be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.

 
cunjevoi
 
Avatar
 
 
cunjevoi
Total Posts:  720
Joined  31-08-2011
 
 
 
09 December 2012 04:40
 
brentsimpson - 09 December 2012 12:01 AM

...gently challenge the claims and promises found among their beliefs all the while being a strong moral example.

Yes - agreed; and nicely worded Brent.

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
09 December 2012 13:32
 

SRD44 (I don’t like using these weird labels, can I call you “Harry”... or would it be “Harriet”?),

I understand what you are trying to do.  Unfortunately only 25% of the population can think critically by adulthood (This is not a made up statistic).  Study groups, discussion groups, and books are not as effective as electronic mass media.  What is needed is a multibillion annual budget (funded by ?), to be used to pay for daily television commercials, infomercials, radio spots, billboards (non electronic), and Web adds, on all major TV/Radio channels (FOX news included) and major internet addresses pointing out:

1. that fertilized human Eggs and fetuses are not persons;
2. Giving reasons why Human Eggs and fetuses are not persons
3. that Separation of church and state guarantees freedom of religion. 
4. what separation of church and state means (explaining why we avoid putting religious symbols on public property).
5. why and how morals are defined by people not supernatural imaginary beings (who ironically are also defined by people)
6. the books that may be helpful in understanding life such as Shermers “Why Darwin Matters”, Hitchens “God is not Great”, Dawkins “The greatest Show on Earth”, Sagan’s “The Demon Haunted World”, etc…. note these are just examples.  This post was not meant to mimic the question posed by HG Wells “Time Machine” as to which 5 books to take to the future.

Us humanists are at a disadvantage becasue we don’t have large organizations (also known as churches) which collect ungodly sums of money from their flock to fund such undertakings.  Also, it seems to me that the religous rich are more willingly to fund advertising promoting their world view than the non-religous.


Jeff

 
Dennis Campbell
 
Avatar
 
 
Dennis Campbell
Total Posts:  19830
Joined  20-07-2007
 
 
 
09 December 2012 22:42
 

44,

Have just scanned this OP and am not a biblical scholar.  If my initial impressions are accurate, go for it.  Like it or not, the Bible is q major, perhaps the major, influencer of human belief systems re god.  It therefore seems a worthy subject of examination as to its origins and multiple claims. 

I’ll scan this thread, but it is way outside of my areas of expertise so will likely not make any detailed posts on it. You will get a lot of heat here, but persist.  They’re some here not quite so passionate about “pro” or “con” what the Bible says, but what it is in terms of historical facts might be of some interest.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8627
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
11 December 2012 17:27
 

There’s the scientific study of the Bible, and the scientific study of a message printed on the inside of a chocolate bar wrapper.  Here is the chocolate bar message:

THE RAIN FOREST

The Earth’s Lungs

Absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen into the atmosphere, rainforests have been described as the lungs of our planet.  In fact, the Amazon Rainforest alone provides more than 20% of the world’s oxygen supply.  Carbon absorption by rainforests helps reduce the amount of CO2 that could otherwise be released into the Earth’s atmosphere and contribute to global warming.

Treasures to Be Found

These forests cover only 6% of the earth’s surface, yet they are home to over half the plant and animal species in the world.  As many as 30 million species live in this lush habitat, including many valuable medicinal plants (25% of pharmaceuticals are derived from rainforest ingredients).  The U.S. National Cancer Institute has identified 3,000 plants that are active against cancer cells.  70% of these plants are found in the rainforest.

The Time for Action is Now

To meet demands for timber and cropland use, an area of rainforest the size of a football field is being destroyed every second.  When these forests are cut down, the plants and animals that live in them are destroyed, and many species are at risk of becoming extinct.  We are in danger of losing Earth’s greatest biological treasure if measures are not taken immediately to protect and restore lush rainforest.”  (end chocolate bar quote)

As we speak, religious scholars are studying the Bible.  This Sunday, a million sermons will be based on Bible passages, while millions of Christian ears listen attentively - contemplating their reunion with loved ones after they die. 

During a 30-minute Bible sermon, almost two thousand football fields of rain forest will disappear.  What does that matter?  It’s belief in Jesus and glory to God that matters.

[ Edited: 11 December 2012 17:29 by unsmoked]
 
 
 < 1 2