how should i read the bible?

[Bones]

No, I think it is quite the opposite.

Definition:  Science: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
Definition:  Faith    : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

No one KNOWS the world is millions of year old, they BELIEVE it.  
No one KNOWS that the world was created by a big bang, they BELIEVE it.
No one KNOWS that there isnt life after death, they BELIEVE it.

Are you seeing a trend here yet Dr. Chimps?  I think I understand the word science much better than you do.  Science is facts based on study and observation.  You cannot observe the creation of the world, you can only GUESS on how it was created.  That is FAITH, NOT SCIENCE.  

So, again, we are left with two sides of a coin.

1.  In the beginning DIRT
or
2.  In the beginning GOD

Both are religious, both based on FAITH
One is ridiculous, one has merit.  To believe we all came from dirt which came from nothing is ridiculous.  To believe there is a God who exists outside of time, space, and matter because He created these three things seems more logical.

  Well said.                   

[Topskin69]

Um. I don't think you have the slightest idea how science works.  

You tell me that Stephen Gould does not have a RELIGIOUS like take on evolution?

For many Scienice is simply a humanism redefined. Their faith is in their own understanding, which ironicaly is constantly mutating, and shifting, based on new input, and ideas, but it never settles.

In the end one must take a "leap of faith," regardless of what philosopical/scientific/metaphysical take on the world they wish to confrom to, only the fool deines the esoteric/supernatural.

" A  little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."
Francis Bacon

[gordiano]

No, I think it is quite the opposite.

Definition:  Science: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
Definition:  Faith    : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

No one KNOWS the world is millions of year old, they BELIEVE it.  
No one KNOWS that the world was created by a big bang, they BELIEVE it.
No one KNOWS that there isnt life after death, they BELIEVE it.

Are you seeing a trend here yet Dr. Chimps?  I think I understand the word science much better than you do.  Science is facts based on study and observation.  You cannot observe the creation of the world, you can only GUESS on how it was created.  That is FAITH, NOT SCIENCE.  

So, again, we are left with two sides of a coin.

1.  In the beginning DIRT
or
2.  In the beginning GOD

Both are religious, both based on FAITH
One is ridiculous, one has merit.  To believe we all came from dirt which came from nothing is ridiculous.  To believe there is a God who exists outside of time, space, and matter because He created these three things seems more logical.

LOL. The irony. This has to be a gimmick.

[haider]

There's probably a condensed version some where that you could access.. cuz thats a LONG book.

also from what i understand, mark mathew, and luke from the new testament are basically the same.. so its probably good enough to read just one.

[Topskin69]

LOL. The irony. This has to be a gimmick.

Instead of simply mocking him, why dont you offer a sound and logical refutation. Or would that be agaisnt the spirit of Getbig? 

[dr.chimps]

No, I think it is quite the opposite.

Definition:  Science: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
Definition:  Faith    : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Still wrong. Science is not some definition to be totted out like you're talking to your friends over beers. It is an investigative process. I'll also guess that your grasp of science is limited -ie. you think the 'theory' in Einstein's Theory of Relativity means speculation or conjecture.  

[Mr Nobody]

Sir Isaac had a few ideas

[dr.chimps]

You tell me that Stephen Gould does not have a RELIGIOUS like take on evolution?

For many Scienice is simply a humanism redefined. There faith is in their own understanding, which ironicaly is constantly mutating, and shifting, based on new input, and ideas, but it never settles.

In the end one must take a "leap of faith," regardless of what philosopical/scientific/metaphysical take on the world they wish to confrom to, only the fool deines the esoteric/supernatural.

" A  little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."
Francis Bacon

Mr. Gould, now dead, might have been willing to post such philosophical musings in his numerous essays and books, but you can be damn sure he would not be submitting them to any peer-reviewed publications. Oh brother.

[Topskin69]

Mr. Gould, now dead, might have been willing to post such philosophical musings in his numerous essays and books, but you can be damn sure he would not be submitting them to any peer-reviewed publications. Oh brother.

I can buy that. However I'm not sure if you understand that philosophically speaking, that Science should  be the investigation of the "How," rather then the "Why."

So to negate any metaphysics, and to a lesser degree, any Sociology, psychology, or similar disciplines, from one's overall take on life, is ill advised at best, and foolish at worst.

[che]

If God exist , he is an asshole .

[dr.chimps]

I can buy that. However I'm not sure if you understand that philosophically speaking, that Science should  be the investigation of the "How," rather then the "Why."

So to negate any metaphysics, and to a lesser degree, any Sociology, psychology, or similar disciplines, from one's overall take on life, is ill advised at best, and foolish at worst.

I see what your saying, but I think your conflating a general questioning with the actual process of how something is investigated. But I'm referring to the 'hard' sciences, the empirical ones. The soft sciences like the ones you mentioned are, well, they vary their investigative parameters as they involve a hell of a lot of subjectivity.   

[Topskin69]

I see what your saying, but I think your conflating a general questioning with the actual process of how something is investigated. But I'm referring to the 'hard' sciences, the empirical ones. The soft sciences like the ones you mentioned are, well, they vary their investigative parameters as they involve a hell of a lot of subjectivity.  

I have to leave now...but when I return I will try to write on this in more detail. To put it very simply... each science has the need to take things on faith, and or subjective reasoning, all to varying degrees, depending on what scientific discipline we are talking about. I will try and take the time to expound on this when I return.

[big L dawg]

come on bible thumpers get out your bible take a half hour break from spewing your bullshit and follow along with these vids...then report specifically what points wear made that were inacurate or what you may agree with....please don't comment if you only watched 5 minutes or skiped around...

when penn & teller can kick your ass regarding the bible you cant say shit....

[che]

  To believe we all came from dirt which came from nothing is ridiculous.

Who created God , Did he come from nothing?

                                                                                     PS : If god  exist he is an asshole.

[io856]

simplyhuge is so dumb its funny 

[burn2live]

simplyhuge is so dumb its funny 

He appears confused and is just spewing imo. I'm just going to let him get on with it. lol

[dr.chimps]

hmmm, so you're saying that the big bang theory is proven science?  like the law of gravity? 

I cant test the law of gravity, I can observe the law of gravity.

Can you test your big bang theory?  Can you observe your big bang theory?  Can you explain where the matter came from to condense into a dot for your big bang theory?  Can you tell me where the energy came from to spin that dot for your big bang theory?  Can you tell me why the planets, moons, and even galaxies spin different directions and violate the law of angular momentum? 

I know your answers to all of the above is "no I cannot."  So I will say it again.  Big bang, evolution, etc are based on FAITH.  It is your belief, and you are entitled to it, but do not try to suggest that your belief is science when it is just as much religion as believing in God is.

You're embarrassing yourself.

[burn2live]

i was valedictorian of my highschool.  I also have a bachelors in Industrial Engineering and graduated in the top of my class.  Not that education should matter when it comes to discussing issues that just require a little logic and common sense.  

Thanks for aiding the discussion with your "brilliant" comment though.  I'm sure your credentials are impecable.

That's all mediocre by getbig standards

[Ted Maul]

Luke.16

[19] There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
[20] And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
[21] And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
[22] And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
[23] And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
[24] And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
[25] But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
[26] And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
[27] Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
[28] For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
[29] Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
[30] And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
[31] And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


Notice verse 31.  If a person is not willing to believe the Bible (Moses and hte prophets), then they wouldn't believe even if they had seen Jesus rise from the dead.  That means there were some at the time of Jesus, and even here reading this, that if they were to see Jesus literally die, and then three days later He was raised from the dead....they would still NOT believe.  They would claim it was a trick, gimmick, some sort of illusion.  



John.20

[25] The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
[26] And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
[27] Then saith he to Thomas, reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

Pics or it didn't happen  

[che]

I've answered this already, but I will try to explain it here again.

Three things are needed for something to exist in OUR world.  

1  Time
2  Space
3  Matter

You can't have Matter if you don't have Space to put it in.  You can't put matter somewhere in space without saying When you put it there, so there has to be time, space, and matter.  

So how did we get time, space, and matter?

Genesis 1:1  
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Time:    Beginning
Space:   Heaven
Matter:   Earth

God created all three in the very first verse of the Bible.  In order for him to have CREATED time, space, and matter...He must have existed outside of time, space, and matter.  

We exist in time, and so does our world...so the inevitable question is always asked "Who created God?"  What they really mean though is "WHEN did God come into existance?"  If God created TIME, then he does not have a beginning or an end.  God just IS.  Now for us who exist in a world of time, it is hard to swallow that something does not have a beginning.  To our brains it is almost incomprehensible because our brains scream "But everything has a beginning!"  Not so with God.  The creator of time does not need a beginning.

Let's look at the alternative though for a reality check.  If God is not real, then something along the lines of the big bang theory must be true.   Would you agree?  If so, then you have the same questions to ask yourself about YOUR religion.  How did the energy, matter, etc. get here?  Does dirt create itself?  Does dirt and dust exist outside of time?  Where did the energy come from?  


An atheist refuses to believe in God, but happily believes in a theory which is ridiculous like the big bang...even though he cant answer the simple question he asks those that believe in God.  Where did it all come from?

Both are religious, but believing in God is more logical and less ridiculous than believing in dust that got here from nothing and magically spins and condenses and explodes all from nothing.  

I don't believe in God .
I don't consider myself an Atheist either .
I don't  Know  where we come from and I really  don't care.

                                                                                     PS :Your explanation at how God was created is absurd .

[haider]

Newton was highly intelligent, but he had some batshit crazy beliefs too  

[io856]

i was valedictorian of my highschool.  I also have a bachelors in Industrial Engineering and graduated in the top of my class.  Not that education should matter when it comes to discussing issues that just require a little logic and common sense.  

Thanks for aiding the discussion with your "brilliant" comment though.  I'm sure your credentials are impecable.

LOL

[The Freakshow]

Here is a Daily Bible Reading Plan from Biblegateway.com:

http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/readingplans/
Here are a few links to some excellent Daily Devotionals:

Greg Laurie       http://harvest.org/devotional/
Bob Coy           http://www.activeword.org/dailydevotion.cfm
Charles Stanley http://www.intouch.org/site/c.cnKBIPNuEoG/b.5710199/k.291/January_2010_Devotionals/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp
Family Life (For Couples) http://www.familylife.com/site/c.dnJHKLNnFoG/b.3930045/#

[phyxsius]

I don't believe in God .
I don't consider myself an Atheist either .
I don't  Know  where we come from and I really  don't care.

                                                                                     PS :Your explanation at how God was created is absurd .

what do you believe in che?

[wavelength]

No, I think it is quite the opposite.

Definition:  Science: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
Definition:  Faith    : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

No one KNOWS the world is millions of year old, they BELIEVE it.  
No one KNOWS that the world was created by a big bang, they BELIEVE it.
No one KNOWS that there isnt life after death, they BELIEVE it.

Are you seeing a trend here yet Dr. Chimps?  I think I understand the word science much better than you do.  Science is facts based on study and observation.  You cannot observe the creation of the world, you can only GUESS on how it was created.  That is FAITH, NOT SCIENCE.  

So, again, we are left with two sides of a coin.

1.  In the beginning DIRT
or
2.  In the beginning GOD

Both are religious, both based on FAITH
One is ridiculous, one has merit.  To believe we all came from dirt which came from nothing is ridiculous.  To believe there is a God who exists outside of time, space, and matter because He created these three things seems more logical.

IMO your definition of "science" as far as if it refers to "natural science" is somewhat misleading. Science does not produce "knowledge" as in absolute truth, it produces scientific theories about scientific aspects of the world. There are scientific theories about the age of the world and the big bang. There is no room for belief or faith in science at all, there are just currently accepted scientific theories. No pure scientist will ever tell you he "knows" for certain that the universe was created in a big bang. And as soon as evidence comes along which falsifies the big-bang theory, every pure scientist must immediately let go of this theory without hesitation.

However, the theory of the big bang, which is a theory on how the scientific aspects of the world were created, does in no way compete with spiritual scripture, which deals with the world in a holistic sense.

I also think that the definition of faith as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" is wrong. True faith is pure knowledge, otherwise it's mere ideology or bigotry.

hmmm, so you're saying that the big bang theory is proven science?  like the law of gravity?  

I cant test the law of gravity, I can observe the law of gravity.

Can you test your big bang theory?  Can you observe your big bang theory?  Can you explain where the matter came from to condense into a dot for your big bang theory?  Can you tell me where the energy came from to spin that dot for your big bang theory?  Can you tell me why the planets, moons, and even galaxies spin different directions and violate the law of angular momentum?  

I know your answers to all of the above is "no I cannot."  So I will say it again.  Big bang, evolution, etc are based on FAITH.  It is your belief, and you are entitled to it, but do not try to suggest that your belief is science when it is just as much religion as believing in God is.

There really is no qualitative difference between the scientific law of gravity and the scientific theory of the big bang. There is a quantitative difference concerning the amount of evidence we have for gravity, but theoretically speaking, that is all subject to change in the future.