Who was Jesus talking to when he said...

[Fraggle Rocker]

. . . . the bible does say test all things and hold onto what is good . . . . that does include our spritual leaders.

But apparently it does not include the Bible itself.

We have become very good at testing assertions in the last 500 years. The scientific method is arguably mankind's greatest achievement, and the Rule of Laplace, one of the cornerstones of the scientific method, instructs us as follows: An extraordinary assertion must be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat it with respect.

There can be no more extraordinary assertion than the existence of supernatural creatures who whimsically perturb the behavior of the natural universe, because this assertion contradicts the fundamental premise of science itself, which is supported by half a millennium of evidence: The natural universe is (in layman's language) a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior.

We have tested the Bible and found no respectable evidence for its many extraordinary assertions, much less extraordinary evidence. Therefore we have found the Bible not to be good, and we have dutifully discarded it.

Don't let the door swat you on the butt on your way out of this place of science and scholarship.

 

[NMSquirrel]

But apparently it does not include the Bible itself.

We have tested the Bible and found no respectable evidence for its many extraordinary assertions, much less extraordinary evidence. Therefore we have found the Bible not to be good, and we have dutifully discarded it.

ok..there is so much generic statements in you text..

as to your first point..yes test all things applies to the bible..

but the bible is not just one book..it is a compendium of others..there is an arguement my pastor teaches, he says when jesus came he created a new covenant with humanity, that the old covenant is no longer valid..

ie, the new testament replaced the old testament..he says if you are living you life according to old testament rules and not the new testament rule, you are missing the point..and i agree to a point..(the point where it becomes a battle between old and new..)

so i often wonder when ppl argue your last statement, how much of that is based on old testament things and how much is based on new testament things..

to me the old testament ends up being 'do as your told'. the new testament is more how to 'think for yourselves'..

of course the majority of spiritual leaders are more lined up with old testament teaching..i mean..wait a sec..um..

just for balance sake..think about what it is like from the spiritual leaders point of view..you are put in a position where everyone expects you to be perfect, everyone comes to you to get a sense of god,they expect you to be more than human (see past comments about humans being messed up), you as a pastor are not allowed to make mistakes, to do so would mean you are not right with god. but he is just as human as the rest of us..
couple that with the human nature of the ppl who attend, most that i have met tend to be of the 'do as your told' variety..wich is the easiest of attitudes to adopt,( if i screw it up, ill just blame the person who told me to do it.i cant take responsibility for my own choices if i have no choice but to do as i am told...)
so naturally a pastors focus ends up being a 'do as your told' because it works!..
would you respect a pastor who answered your every question "i dont know" or "figure it out for yourselves"..no..we expect for him to answer our questions as if god himself was speaking through them. god may be talking to him but it is still subjective to his own humanity which interprets what god is saying to him and then translate it to something others can understand..it is through this translation process that our own humanity can screw it up..

so in defense of my own arguements, i can see why the majority of churches tend to be the 'do as your told' type..(still dont like it,wont join it..)

my question becomes how do we see a 'think for yourself' religion?

 

[TheVisitor]

There can be no more extraordinary assertion than the existence of supernatural creatures... because this contradicts...science itself, which is supported by half a millennium of evidence...

What evidence? You can't "prove" a negative with a negative. That equals a positive. Your first clue something's wrong.
Science has to change it's understanding of reality with every monthly publication of "Scientific American".
You might as well throw last month's issue in the trash, let alone last year's.

The natural universe is (in layman's language) a closed system...

That's right and so are the secrets locked in the Bible. It was written by the same Author.
"Hidden from the wise and prudent...and revealed unto babes."
All the so-called contradictions are only misinterpretation. It's wisdom is timeless.

We have tested the Bible and found no respectable evidence for its many extraordinary assertions....

They haven't "tested" the Bible. They only have proven the fallacy of their own misinterpretations.
God is able to make Himself so small He can hide Himself in the simplicity of that natural universe you're taking about.
Can you see the wind? Prove to me "love" exists. Put a nickels worth in a bottle if you can.
You can only prove God to yourself, alone in the quiet somewhere. He challenges us to do it. One on one.

-The scientific method is arguably mankind's greatest achievement...
-Don't let the door swat you on the butt on your way out of this place of science and scholarship...

That's amusing. While your busy laughing think about this...
You can't take what religion or science says when the one misinterprets and the other claims to prove those misinterpretations wrong.
They are just another closed system. Two different horns on the same beast. They are hiding something mentioned in all the ancient texts.
Now once you can see that...

You'll realize this world is something straight out of "The Planet of the Apes".
Your true history's been hidden and all the official Ministers of Science are also Chief Defenders of the Faith. Why?
There must be "guardians of the terrible secret". The truth of your past is far stranger than any fiction.
Perhaps like Dr. Zaius, I should warn you now...

"Don't look for it Fraggle Rocker... You may not like what you find."

 

[roger_pearse]

But apparently it does not include the Bible itself.

I don't see why we should not evaluate the bible.

The problem is not evaluating the bible -- we get told to do that every day. The problem is that people do not evaluate the default choices that they make, specifically if they don't sign up to some explicit system such as Christianity, but just "default". But surely that default -- in every age -- is to conform to some subset of the values current in the society and period of history in which we happen to be born? Such a default never gets examined, in my experience. Living by convenience is the main alternative to some explicit system, surely?

We have become very good at testing assertions in the last 500 years. The scientific method is arguably mankind's greatest achievement, and the Rule of Laplace, one of the cornerstones of the scientific method, instructs us as follows: An extraordinary assertion must be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat it with respect.

We need to be sceptical here. I hold a hard science degree from one of the top universities in the world, and I can tell you that I never heard of any "Rule of Laplace" along these lines. In fact this "rule" sounds like bunk to me, straight out of the box.

Let's just think about the claim made here for a moment. "Extraordinary assertions" must be treated in some special way. Um. But isn't "extraordinary" just a state of mind, an attitude? How is this different, in any practical way, from saying "anything I don't want to believe must have more evidence than that which I do?" I don't see how this demand is anything but an excuse for prejudice. And that is the opposite of applying the scientific method.

The hell with such rubbish. Never mind what the assertion is, whether we like it or not; if it falls within the range of the testable, stick it in a test-tube and test it; if it does not, it is not something with which science has anything to do. Our attitudes are irrelevant.

Let us be clear, by the way, that the majority of things in life, including history, economics, life, love and happiness, are not amenable to the scientific method. Science is limited to what it can evaluate. It can tell us nothing as to whether Julius Caesar invaded Britain, for instance.

There can be no more extraordinary assertion than the existence of supernatural creatures who ...<snip pseudo-scientific claims>

Should the author of this claim believe that he is able to prove such a claim, using a test-tube, then he is certainly free to try. But otherwise surely this is merely religious beliefs pretending to an objectivity they do not deserve, in order to claim a medieval-style authority? I dislike the prostitution of science in the service of atheism. I would dislike it just as much in the service of Christianity.

We have tested the Bible and found no respectable evidence for its many extraordinary assertions...

But we cannot "test the bible" using a test tube, any more than we can test the works of Karl Marx or the plays of Shakespeare. To make this appeal in these terms suggests someone who has never actually pursued any scientific research. But ...

None of this is original. I have seen this "argument" many times before. It is stock atheist invective; a supserstitious chant of "science, science" without any scientific content or even critical attitude to it. It is, in short, a rationalisation of the pursuit of convenience.

Don't let the door swat you on the butt on your way out of this place of science and scholarship.

Rather an unfortunate comment, in the circumstances.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[(Q)]

but the bible is not just one book..it is a compendium of others..there is an arguement my pastor teaches, he says when jesus came he created a new covenant with humanity, that the old covenant is no longer valid..

ie, the new testament replaced the old testament..he says if you are living you life according to old testament rules and not the new testament rule, you are missing the point..and i agree to a point..(the point where it becomes a battle between old and new..)

So, the original "WORD OF GOD" was deemed invalid by the son of god. So, can we expect the new "WORD OF GOD" to be replaced with a newer "WORD OF GOD"?

 

[roger_pearse]

So, the original "WORD OF GOD" was deemed invalid by the son of god. So, can we expect the new "WORD OF GOD" to be replaced with a newer "WORD OF GOD"?

Quite right. Just stick with convenience, and you'll be fine.

 

[NMSquirrel]

actually i often wonder what it would be like if there was a newer testament written..

i mean using the catholics father,son and holy spirit
the first was about god..the second the son..so where is the holy spirit testament..?

and i wouldnt say invalidate..
think of it as you have rules when you are growing up..then you grow up and there are differant rules, i think that is akin to old and new testament..

 

[(Q)]

actually i often wonder what it would be like if there was a newer testament written..

It doesn't really matter. The fact that there exists a new version supplanting the old demonstrates your god is not omniscient.

and i wouldnt say invalidate..
think of it as you have rules when you are growing up..then you grow up and there are differant rules, i think that is akin to old and new testament..

Nonsense, your analogy is meaningless and irrelevant to the point. Who is growing up here? From what stage of growth to what other stage of growth?

Wasn't the Old Testament the "WORD OF GOD?"
Do theists turn to the reason of the bible being the word of their god only when it suits their purposes? Hello???

 

[NMSquirrel]

It doesn't really matter. The fact that there exists a new version supplanting the old demonstrates your god is not omniscient.



Nonsense, your analogy is meaningless and irrelevant to the point. Who is growing up here? From what stage of growth to what other stage of growth?

Wasn't the Old Testament the "WORD OF GOD?"
Do theists turn to the reason of the bible being the word of their god only when it suits their purposes? Hello???

as usual Q you have no interest in having an intelligent discussion,your only interest is to flame..and i was so hoping that you have grown up since the last time i spoke with you..

 

[NMSquirrel]

Wasn't the Old Testament the "WORD OF GOD?"
Do theists turn to the reason of the bible being the word of their god only when it suits their purposes? Hello???

if you were understanding the conversation at all, you would see that your statement is already answered..

 

[TheVisitor]

"A planet where apes evolved from men, there's got to be an answer."

And you thought it was the other way around?
Wrong again, you bunch of stinking primates.

TheVisitor

 

[John99]

I dont think that was the premise. Although it is left to interpretation because they certainly didint come out and tell you that.

 

[John99]

However, there does appear to be some evolving of the apes. In my mind it was mostly due to humans playing them. Why would an ape need to tke on the physical demeanor of a human.? For what purpose would that serve wehn they can get around just fine, and some would argue better due to not being restricted to teh ground. Alltghough they can talk, could this have been from cumulative discoveries over time?

 

[John99]

For example:

The ape needs to communicate to the other ape to go get a stick so he decides on a universal sound (word). Does this seem possible?

 

[TheVisitor]

Have you ever seen the movie....I mean the Heston version from 1968?

In it he says; "A planet where apes evolved from men, there's got to be an answer."


I was referring to what I posted earlier...

You can't take what religion or science says when the one misinterprets and the other claims to prove those misinterpretations wrong.
They are just another closed system. Two different horns on the same beast. They are hiding something mentioned in all the ancient texts.
Now once you can see that...

You'll realize this world is something straight out of "The Planet of the Apes".
Your true history's been hidden and all the official Ministers of Science are also Chief Defenders of the Faith. Why?
There must be "guardians of the terrible secret". The truth of your past is far stranger than any fiction.
Perhaps like Dr. Zaius, I should warn you now...

"Don't look for it Fraggle Rocker... You may not like what you find."

Man devolved from a higher life form, not evolved from a lower.
That makes this a real life planet of the apes.
Get it now?

I wasn't joking.

What's left of your ancient home world is now called the Asteroid Belt.
The caves they say you crawled out of in the so-called "Stone Age" were bomb shelters.
You have been and are currently being lied to about almost everything you believe to be true.

 

[John99]

Have you ever seen the movie....I mean the Hesston version from 1968?

One of my all time favorite movies.

In it he says; "A planet where apes evolved from men, there's got to be an answer."

Yes but the thing is that he was making a guess...allbeit an educated guess.

I was referrong to what I posted earlier...

Man devoled from a higher life form, not evoled from a lower.
That makes this a real life planet of the apes.
Get it now?

I wasn't joking.

Except there is absolutely no evidence of this.

 

[TheVisitor]

Except there is absolutely no evidence of this.

Nuclear weapons tend to do that.
Natural history societies like the Smithsonian destroyed most of what was left that isn't at the bottom of the ocean or under two miles of ice.
They conveniently "lost" every piece of your evidence as soon as it was found and turned in.

Guardians of the "terrible secret" they are...

You won't read this in a book by Graham Hancock either.
Even though I argued with him about it many years ago.
I think he'd rather live to spend the money from his books.
In a way I guess I don't blame him.

 

[John99]

Nuclear weapons tend to do that.
Natural history societies like the Smithsonian destroyed most of what was left that isn't at the bottom of the ocean or under two miles of ice..
They conveniently "lost" every little piece as soon as it was found and turned in.

Guardians of the "terrible secret" they are...

You won't read this in a book by Graham Hancock.
Even though I argued with him years ago about it.
I think he'd rather live to spend the money from his books than tell you the truth.
In a way I guess I don't blame him.

Excuse me but that is not possible. Consider that humans have a long recorded history and still there was never any shred of evidence that supports this. Getting back to the movie, i always considered the apes a separate species and didnt see the evolutionary aspect of it.

What else, form all the original movies, indicate evolution?

 

[TheVisitor]

Excuse me but that is not possible. Consider that humans have a long recorded history and still there was never any shred of evidence that supports this.

That's alright John, just forget I mentioned it.

Getting back to the movie, i always considered the apes a separate species and didn't see the evolutionary aspect of it.

What else, from all the original movies, indicate evolution?

The originals had a virus that wiped out all the dogs and cats but left simians alone. They took apes as pets and selectively bred them to be smarter and used as servants. Then they interbred with an talking ape (Caesar) from the future making them smarter still.
(No direct evolution here, but the Apes did take over the planet after Man had "created" them as slaves and then later destroyed themselves.)
Think about the parallel with the Sumerian stories here.

In the 2001 Mark Walburg version, the apes were genetically altered with human DNA to increase their intelligence and use them for test pilots.
Remember project Mercury in the 1950's...
Who was the first "official" test pilot to orbit the earth, according to public record?
It was an American Chimp, not a human.

That's just about right...

 

[John99]

The originals had a virus that wiped out all the dogs and cats but left simians alone. They took apes as pets and selectively bred them to be smarter and used as servants. Then they interbred with an talking ape (Caesar) from the future making them smarter still.
(No direct evolution here, but the Apes did take over the planet after Man had "created" them as slaves and then later destroyed themselves.)
Think about the parallel with the Sumerian stories here.

In the 2001 Mark Walburg version, the apes were genetically altered with human DNA to increase their intelligence and use them for test pilots. (think project mercury in the 1950's...)

Interesting. First i am hearing of that. Is that from the Monkey Planet - Pierre Boulle book? and did this first come to light in the sequels?

http://www.impossiblefunky.com/arch...=10&Headline=Return to the Planet of the Apes