Debunking Dangerously Deceitful Dogma

**Oglethorpe** · 08-12-2009, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Ryan82

So how is it possible then to say that this part is made up (or a metaphor) but that part is the literal and unquestionable truth? You can't be a believer but not believe at the same time

This is exactly what Catholics do. They accept that the creation story is just that: a story. Many old testament chapters are the same way. They are fables used more importantly as teachings on certain things rather than as historical events.

**fccexpert** · 08-12-2009, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Ryan82

I usually don't tread on these grounds, but here it is.......

It is impossible to seperate creationism and religion, or, more specifically in this case, Christianity. All religions, or cultures for that matter, have their own creation myths, and the Christian faith is no different. The problem comes when those myths are debunked.

I'm positive a rational person, as we here at SRP all are, can agree that the world ISN'T 6000 years old, there were NO talking snakes, women WEREN'T created by a spare rib (from Adam, of course), and people NEVER lived for 800 years and so forth. When these facts are admitted, either publicly or privately, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. How is it possible that the bible, heralded as god's (spelling correct) ultimate truth could be so wrong? You either believe all of it or none of it; there can be no middle ground.

This is were the con artists and charlatans come in, trying to convince you that, while the first part of the "good book" might be a bit sketchy, the rest of it is gospel truth. Ever heard a religious apologetic try to explain dinosaurs? It's absolutely pathetic.

I've always believed that the underlying themes of religion, that of tolerance and love, are admirable, so don't get me wrong. But you can also hear these themes just as easily in a Beatles or John Lennon song.

The problem with your statement is, some parts of the bible are based on real events. They may not be portrayed with historical accuracy, and the interpretations and meanings assigned to them are subject to debate and even disagreement. But then, the same can be said for much that passes as science as well (e.g. the role of human activity in the current global warming trend). The bible is not a history text, but it is not a total fabrication either.

**Ryan82** · 08-13-2009, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by Pete_S

Yeah, you can, even William Jennings Bryant admitted that he believed parts of the bible were metaphor under the questioning of Clarence Darrow during the Scopes monkey trial.

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

This is exactly what Catholics do. They accept that the creation story is just that: a story. Many old testament chapters are the same way. They are fables used more importantly as teachings on certain things rather than as historical events.

The problem with the above posts is that, while they admit that "some" biblical elements are metaphor (read fabricated), they do not address my original point; how can a person accept that some parts are false but whole-heartedly believe the other parts? It's simple, you can't.

True religious people would say you can't just pick and choose the parts you want to believe and discard the rest; that's called fanaticism. Look at what's going on in the Muslim world, fanatics blowing themselves up (and many innocent bystanders as well) all in the name of their "branch" of Islam. Top Islamic clerics agree that the koran does not condone such behaviour, yet it still happens. Manipulation by religious clerics is not a new concept by any means, and has been practiced since the beginning of time, whether you pray to god, allah, zues or ra the sun god. I believe this type of manipulation was part of X-Man's original thread: dangerous dogma.

Originally Posted by fccexpert

The problem with your statement is, some parts of the bible are based on real events. They may not be portrayed with historical accuracy, and the interpretations and meanings assigned to them are subject to debate and even disagreement. But then, the same can be said for much that passes as science as well (e.g. the role of human activity in the current global warming trend). The bible is not a history text, but it is not a total fabrication either.

The problem with your statement sir is that, while it is true that the bible takes place in historical times and references real events and places, there is no real proof that described biblical stories actually took place. The real historical events/places are merely in the periphery. In any event, whether or not the historical backdrop is accurate or not is entirely irrellevant. Just because a story is set in Rome doesn't mean it actually happened in Rome. Like I said before, you either believe all of it or none of it.

**xman** · 08-13-2009, 01:32 AM

Originally Posted by Ryan82

...True religious people would say you can't just pick and choose the parts you want to believe and discard the rest; ...

This, however is exactly what even the most literal fundamentalist does whether they admit it or not.

YouTube - The West Wing - bible

**Pete_S** · 08-13-2009, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by Ryan82

The problem with the above posts is that, while they admit that "some" biblical elements are metaphor (read fabricated), they do not address my original point; how can a person accept that some parts are false but whole-heartedly believe the other parts? It's simple, you can't...

Never said it was rational. My example merely cited that one of the leading religious leaders of that time considered parts of the bible to be metaphor. However, I think the Bryant was prolly of a higher caliber then the charlatans that we have today.

The fact of the matter is a person really can't take all thats written in the bible as literal truth which has to be obeyed, otherwise you have to advocate slavery, not let women speak w/o permission, exile women from the city "when they are unclean" (have their periods), drink poison and handle snakes, and all kinds of stuff like that. Even if you dismiss all the old testament stuff, Christians would still have to be pacifists, though they try to get out of that with the "render onto Ceaser" stuff, which clearly is a contradiction of Jesus' message as a whole. Its interesting that different sects of Judaism and Christianity obey some of these rules literally (like snake handlers and Hasidic Jews) but ignore others.

As far as the fanatic thing goes, it seems to me that they really aren't ignoring parts of their religion any more than anyone else, its just that they are emphasizing the parts that are less socially acceptable, and ignoring the parts that are more socially acceptable. In past societies, many people that are considered fanatics today would likely have been seen as normal, in my opinion.

**Kees** · 08-13-2009, 08:26 AM

With all due respect: does it really matter what someone else believes when it comes to the history of the universe and mankind?

Why can't we just respect what someone else thinks/believes etc.? Many wars started just because one group wanted to force their opinion on another group.

**xman** · 08-13-2009, 04:02 PM

I think the answer is that anybody can privately believe anything they like in the comfort of their own home, but whoever seeks to impose their false brand of reality on anybody else whether it be in science class of through legislation becomes a danger to society. Likewise, an argument can be made for those who home school creationism to their children being culpable for the stupefaction of society at least. When, "I'll teach my kids what I want them to learn" becomes accepted in blatant contradiction with reality as observed by everyone, then again we're in dangerous territory IMO.

Evolution, for example is not a matter of opinion. It is a widely (can you say understatement?) supported scientific theory that is used daily to enrich all our lives. If that comes down to 'he said, she said' then we all suffer immeasurably.

**Oglethorpe** · 08-13-2009, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by xman

whoever seeks to impose their false brand of reality on anybody else whether it be in science class of through legislation becomes a danger to society.

"History is the memory of states."
~Henry Kissinger

**bbshriver** · 08-13-2009, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by xman

Evolution, for example is not a matter of opinion. It is a widely (can you say understatement?) supported scientific theory that is used daily to enrich all our lives. If that comes down to 'he said, she said' then we all suffer immeasurably.

I'm still not sure where you're getting this from?? In all of high school, and six years of college (Kettering University which is 80% engineering majors and graduates more mechanical engineers than any other school in the country, at least as of 2003 or so) never heard anyone (student, teacher, professor) who whole-heartedly believed evolution. This includes physicists, chemists, engineers, mathemeticians, etc... The general concensus was something along the lines of "it's the currently accepted theory, but it still has a lot of holes with no real explination". And I just graduated in December 2008, so this is relatively recent, not from the 50's or anything.

Speaking of which I came across this today. Never heard of this author before, but I hardly think Time magazine counts as Christian propoganda
Q&A: What Came Before the Big Bang? - TIME

**xman** · 08-13-2009, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by bbshriver

I'm still not sure where you're getting this from?? ...

Because you haven't reviewed the videos at the start of this thread. We get this from observation. Mountains of biological and paleontological evidence bears out the facts of evolution. There can be no question of its veracity, only of one's comfort with the facts. Please review Potholer54's Made Easy videos on Evolution and Human Evolution, #'s 7 & 8. Please also simply type "evolution" into Wikipedia for direct explanations, plenty of sited sources and further links.

Unfortunately, you have exposed that your primary sources are sadly misinformed or at least uncomfortable with believing in reality, and I find it particularly sad that these people are educators (not biologists though thankfully). To debunk many myths associated with evolution please review the links on this page: An Index to Creationist Claims

As for the Time magazine article (which is completely unrelated to evolutionary theory BTW, but is often challenged in the same breath by creationists because both refute the biblical creation myth), it is not directly creationist propaganda, but when edited by people who think as your teachers have, it's easy to understand how a scientist's possibly valid work (I haven't read the book so I can't comment on it) can be ridiculously misrepresented. The Time article is moronic. It may be that the title is there to attract readers, but it is misleading as I think is the title The Selfish Gene. It implies that there is a gene for selfishness and that naturally we are selfish creatures, which is not the point of that book as I understand it. The title of the book in the Time article is even more misleading though. What Came Before the Big Bang is an impossible question. It ask about something before space/time. There is no before time and there is no thing outside of space. Indeed as cosmologists look further and further back in time (which is equal to further away from us) there comes point where space/time breaks down and there is a wall of evenly distributed background radiation. It is theorised that at this point which were the earliest few seconds (perhaps microseconds) of the universe, the fundamental forces at work in our universe were operating together as one force. The nature of reality would be completely different than the one we now know. Space/time was a radically different place. This is almost a 'before' for time, but probably not quite. Before that? Not a valid option. Simply put, there is no chance for a 'before' without time. There is no chance for anything to exist without a place for it to exist either. If that idea addles you mind as much as it should (it does mine) then you are better able to appreciate the awesome genius of people who dabble in such cosmological mysteries.

Thread: Debunking Dangerously Deceitful Dogma

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

The Following User Says Thank You to Pete_S For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to Kees For This Useful Post:

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to xman For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to bbshriver For This Useful Post:

Posting Permissions