The Big Bang? More Like The Big Who Gives A #.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
That is why I choose the Bible as my outside source for truth .Can't trust man and can't trust myself . a reply to: Krazysh0t

oh, the irony...

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
That is why I choose the Bible as my outside source for truth .Can't trust man and can't trust myself . a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yet you fail to recognize your self made conundrum. You can't trust yourself or any other man yet you are doing just that when you trust in the bible. You're trusting your interpretations of other men's written work, written over 2000 years +/- God didn't write the Bible and you're trusting the elite members of a Bronze Age culture who were vying for power and control of Judea/Israel/lLevant. As TzarChasm says

Oh the irony...

the irony is rather mind numbing in its level of cognitive disconnect for you to get to the point of convincing yourself that words Written by other men are somehow unimpeachable yet science, which can be tested, reproduced and verified is highly impeachable and subject to disbelief because it's easier to throw your hands in the air and say you can't understand something when you could easily take the time to educate yourself on the subjects in question. Why is due diligence just not an option for you?

It is not only the Bible I believe but I believe some science and scientist as well . Don't watch this vid if The Big Bang is crucial to your world view . a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yesterdays Science gets changed and old theory's that cant explain new observations so ,although yesterdays empirical claims turn out to be something other then empirical .Science text books have a history of change but I am very comfortable with the book I read and know that it shows little to no change at all . a reply to: peter vlar

a reply to: the2ofusr1

It doesn't change?! Have we been reading the same bible? The message of the NT is completely contrary to the message of the OT. In the OT god is a vengeful petty entity that slaughters whole cities, entire civilizations and at one point, allegedly the entire population of the earth. Whereas the NT has a message if peace, love,forgiveness and acceptance. And then we have to figure out how to reconcile the inconsistencies between the 4 gospels who contradict each other on numerous occasions and can't agree in some points. The book you read was codified and compiled to support a specific Roman agenda. At Nicea they decided on the nature if Christ's divinity. Later at the Council of Laodicea nearly 40 years after Nicea and excluded a great many books that were in use by many groups of Christians. The canonization was a twofold win for Constantine. It standardized all biblical text under one uniform bible and second it enabled him to recreate some Christian holidays and feast days based on current or prior roman holidays that were popular with the masses. It made it much easier to bring them into the fold when they were celebrating the same holidays even if under a new name. It was a no brainer to turn the festival of Sol Invictus into Christmas and consolidate his hold on Roman pagans and the Christians he had recently included when making Christianity the official state religion of Rome.

Your issue with science is that it recognized, addresses and corrects for errors when new data or evidence is discovered. Despite the way the bible was canonized under Constantine, you still find it to be unimpeachable even though it is entirely the work of man thus discounting even the possibility that it cod he wrong. It's particularly egregious in light if the multitude of contradictions presented in the NT alone. It just makes absolutely no sense to me that you find fault with science for acknowledging errors and addressing them when there are tons of errors in the NT yet nobody seems to want to address them let alone admit their existence. Here are just a few examples among multitudes.

Jesus said that John the Baptist was a prophet and Elijah. Mt.11:9; Mt.17:12,13. John said that he was not a prophet nor was he Elijah. Jn.1:21. Jesus said that he was meek and lowly. Mt.11:29. Jesus makes whips and drives the moneychangers out from the temple. Mt. 21:12; Mk.11:15,16; Jn.2:15. Jesus said, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees". Lk.12:1. Jesus said, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees". Mt.16:6,11. Jesus said, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod". Mk.8:15. Jesus founds his church on Peter. Mt.16:18. Jesus calls Peter "Satan" and a hindrance. Mt.16:23. The mother of James and John asks Jesus to favor her sons. Mt.20:20,21. They ask for themselves. Mk.10:35-37. Jesus responds that this favor is not his to give. Mt.20:23; Mk.10:40. Jesus said that all authority is given to him. Mt.28:18; Jn.3:35. Jesus heals two unnamed blind men. Mt.20:29,30. Jesus heals one named blind man. Mk.10:46-52. Jesus healed all that were sick. Mt.8:16; Lk.4:40. Jesus healed many that were sick - but not all. Mk.1:34. The council asks Jesus if he is the Son of God. Lk.22:70. The high priest asks Jesus if he is the Christ, the Son of God. Mt.26:63. The high priest asks Jesus if he is the Christ the Son of the Blessed. Mk.14:61. The high priest asks Jesus about his disciples and his doctrine. Jn.18:19. Jesus answers to the effect of “You said it, not me”. Mt.26:64; Lk.22:70. Jesus answers definitely, “I am”. Mk.14:62.

Your knowledge of the Bible is lacking . Prove to me that Constantine brought about the canon of scripture because it was recognized 100's of years before he was born . Best stick to your science because you can pick and choose what ever theory best pleases you . I will do the same . a reply to: peter vlar

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Your knowledge of the Bible is lacking .

Why? Because I disagree with your personal overview of the scripture? Because I can point out where the bible contradicts itself? Do you take a condescending attitude towards me be use you feel that I have offend you? Jesus wouldn't like that at all. Though I'm sure there is a contradicting passage that gives you free reign in that regard. Sorry to say but I know the bible quite well.

Prove to me that Constantine brought about the canon of scripture because it was recognized 100's of years before he was born .

en.m.wikipedia.org...
You are partially correct. I did err in regard to Constantine being behind the canonization at Laodicea. Constantine was dead by the time that counsel was formed. He only formed the counsel of Nicea which didn't even discuss canonization. It was more concerned with how to interpret the holy trinity. While most of the b ooks we currently see in the Christian bible were in use prior to the 4th century, there was no standardization and many Other books were used in addition to the current canon.

Best stick to your science because you can pick and choose what ever theory best pleases you . I will do the same

I don't pick and choose. I follow the evidence. It's really that simple. Whether I like particular information and whether or not it would confirm or deny things that have been accepted as truth is completely irrelevant. It's about having a better understanding of the world around us, where we came from and what makes us tick. Truth is Truth. It's not "my truth" used to fit in with or compliment a hypothesis or theory I'm partial to. When it comes to the frequent contradictions of the Christian bible, it essentially becomes a prerequisite to pick and choose which passages you want to accept as a result of the mass of contradictory passages.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

So now you are branching out into electric universe theory? Hitting all the pseudo-science topics aren't we? Why is it that you believe all the topics that start with a confirmation bias, but the one topic that starts with no givens is the most unlikely for you?

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Your knowledge of the Bible is lacking . Prove to me that Constantine brought about the canon of scripture because it was recognized 100's of years before he was born . Best stick to your science because you can pick and choose what ever theory best pleases you . I will do the same . a reply to: peter vlar

Let's make a deal. You don't nitpick or talk BS about science and we won't nitpick the bible and the hundreds of demonstrably wrong claims. That's fair right, since you don't know anything about science and believe we don't know the bible? Only difference is that I know A LOT about the bible as I grew up with it.

It's hilarious that you would say that we can pick and choose science. We see all scientific theories as equally valid. YOU are the one picking and choosing which theories you like and which ones you hate, and just because you do that, doesn't mean that we do. If the method is valid, then it applies to all scientific theories across the board. To claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Science is honest because if something ends up being wrong or a little bit off and the evidence shows that, the theory can get revised. When the bible makes wrong claims, there is no correction, there is stubbornness in believing known wrong things no matter what the evidence says. That's the big difference between science and religion. Science follows facts and amends theories accordingly. Religion states a bunch of false things as absolute fact and stays loyal to them despite them being proved wrong/impossible.