06-15-2021, 01:37 PM
(06-15-2021, 01:10 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I would never refer to you as a peasant, nor anyone that works in a field that requires manual labor. My husband owns and operates a greenhouse and has done so for many years. He does manual work on a daily basis.
As to certain aspects of the Bible that I find egregious and abhorrent, I never stated that it was the majority content, only that it was prevalent and extremely problematic in my view. The fact that we can find passages in a holy book that are truly wicked should provide pause and serious examination before insisting that it should be taken more literally, which was your initial assertion.
As to the notion of sin and atonement, I find that concept entirely nonsensical and somewhat maniacal. Any concept that states that you or I should be held responsible for the actions of those that came before us, for which we had zero involvement, is unjust by it's very nature. Should my descendants be imprisoned for crimes that I committed? Of course, that leads to the offer of forgiveness [by way of sacrificial atonement]. The idea that if you subjugate yourself to a certain criterion, you can be pardoned because your sentence has already been served by someone else prior to the crime ever being committed is not at all a system that relies on fairness or equitableness. Instead, is seems more the case to be a concept derived from ancient people creating loopholes for strict doctrine and impositions that proceeded the NT and the introduction of a pathway to salvation.
I certainly don't worship science; nor do I worship anything. I do however, have confidence in the scientific method, as it has proven to be the best and most reliable means of investigating, exploring and providing explanations for the reality that we live in. We benefit from science every single day and in almost every aspect of our lives.
You are correct when stating that science is not perfect and has made mistakes. That's part of the process. However, when science does make a mistake, do you know how said mistake is rectified? By way of the scientific method. Science is necessarily self-correcting, in that the goal is to always come closer to the most factual and reliable approximations / understandings / explanations. In that sense, science is constantly bottlenecking; striving to get closer and closer to the most accurate answers or models. There has never been a case where science was wrong about something and it the remedy was found in any religious book. The mistakes of science have always been rectified by using the scientific method to identify the mistake, what led to the mistake and finding a solution to fix the mistake.
I find it interesting that you stated the second book [NT] supersedes the first [OT]. Both books are asserted to be inspired by the same God. The same God who offers a path to salvation is the second book also gave instructions on how to own other human beings in the first book. The God who often speaks in peaceful platitudes in the second book also orders genocides in the first. Moreover, it is stated very clearly in the NT that Jesus did not some to destroy the law of the Prophets, but to fulfill them. Take slavery for example. The NT never instructs people to not own their fellow humans as property. Instead, the instruction is "be good to your masters".
Two books. One God. Did God's character, morality or "unchanging" nature suddenly change between books? Is there not a conflict there? How does one explain the chaotic, bi-polar, mistake-laden and rather capricious tendencies of this God; a God that is supposed to be perfect?
Right, a scientific fact is only a fact until disproven. But that happens all the time, so scientific facts are only what we believe to be true at the point in time. I'm not a science denier by any means, but I am skeptical of all things. And by it's nature, true science requires that.
Nope, no conflict. Two words. Jesus Christ who died on the cross for all our sins.
