Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Why do people believe the bible?


bigjim36

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

From your second link :

"Should creationism be taught in science lessons?

Yes...

* If science education ignores creationism, those who believe in it will ignore science

* It may strengthen the case for evolution to explain why creationism is not scientific

* A belief held by large numbers of people should not be dismissed out of hand

No...

* Presenting creationism alongside evolution gives it a false scientific credibility

* No one says evolution should feature in RE classes: why should this be any different?

* Science education should be decided by facts, not pressure from special interests"

Creationism is bunk. It should not be taught as a scientific/pseudo scientific  option on the origins of the universe. It can be discussed and dismissed. Quite in the same way Spontaneous Generation is treated. It's outdated and has no basis in the scientific world anymore.

As for the last "yes" answer, that's a strawman. Nobody is dismissing it out of hand. Creationism falls apart on it's own and has not been shown to be accurate in any way. That is why science is taught as opposed to religious bunk. Because many people believe something, does not equate to the standards of what a public school should have in it's curriculum. Teach the facts as we know and can prove. You want to teach kids alternative ideas, do it at home or a private school. 

Except, of course, life actually did arise from lifeless matter without a creator or creative impulse, spontaneously, according to scientific theory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Except, of course, life actually did arise from lifeless matter without a creator or creative impulse, spontaneously, according to scientific theory. 

Yes, but that's not the Spontaneous Generation I was referring to :

"Spontaneous generation refers to an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. The theory of spontaneous generation held that living creatures could arise from nonliving matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular. For instance, it was hypothesized that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh.[1]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

From your second link :

"Should creationism be taught in science lessons?

Yes...

* If science education ignores creationism, those who believe in it will ignore science

* It may strengthen the case for evolution to explain why creationism is not scientific

* A belief held by large numbers of people should not be dismissed out of hand

No...

* Presenting creationism alongside evolution gives it a false scientific credibility

* No one says evolution should feature in RE classes: why should this be any different?

* Science education should be decided by facts, not pressure from special interests"

Creationism is bunk. It should not be taught as a scientific/pseudo scientific  option on the origins of the universe. It can be discussed and dismissed. Quite in the same way Spontaneous Generation is treated. It's outdated and has no basis in the scientific world anymore.

As for the last "yes" answer, that's a strawman. Nobody is dismissing it out of hand. Creationism falls apart on it's own and has not been shown to be accurate in any way. That is why science is taught as opposed to religious bunk. Because many people believe something, does not equate to the standards of what a public school should have in it's curriculum. Teach the facts as we know and can prove. You want to teach kids alternative ideas, do it at home or a private school. 

Not sure if you got my point.

  I am an evolutionist who doesn't think creationism should  be taught in schools  as a factual subject like science or history 

In Australia it is banned in govt schools

The point of these articles was that, despite a secular education, more young people are becoming creationist, and a school can't ignore their beliefs.

Thus, schools  need to teach the science of evolution, while not causing young people  to turn against science, because of their beliefs.

A school or a govt simply doesn't have the right to try and impose a belief or indeed a disbelief on its citizens.  

A school that simply says,  "Your beliefs are rubbish"  will disengage young  people and never have a chance to win them over.  

A democratic govt, for better or worse, cannot teach that  a belief or faith is  bunk or rubbish, where many of its citizens hold a belief that it is not  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

It didn't?

There's evidence that a great flood happened in the Mediterranean. 

 

 

Where's is the evidences of the global flood? Local flooding happens all the time everywhere, no biggie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Habitat said:

As I say,  another grub to join a team of grubs, idly accusing me of lying. Guess on, grub.

Still better than a team of liars. 

That's the one your in with Walker will and your newest member 

If you lie you will be called out on it. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

lol it works the other way. Nothing a pope says can truly be held heretical because of papal infallibility,

try reading canon 331

Of course church politics enters  into this and some popes have been pressured into resignation, which is allowable.  However the r is nobody on earth  who has the authority to determine that a pope is "incapacitated" and must be removed  Almost no popes have been removed during office and those who were were removed by a secular power such as an emperor.  Three claimed to be pope but did not have the universal support of the church.  

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125351915

The second case was Angelo Correr, known as Gregory XII, who resigned in 1415 under pressure from the Council of Constance, a conference of bishops gathered to settle problems in church practices. At this particular meeting the bishops faced The Western Schism. Papal elections were often contested during the Middle Ages, but they were usually settled in a short time. During this schism, complications worsened and resulted in three men claiming a place as pope.

Once the council met it decided that the only solution to the schism — which had lasted 40 years at this point — was to wipe the slate clean and begin all over again with a new pope. Although the council persuaded Gregory to resign, the other two claimants refused and were formally deposed. The council elected a new pope, Martin V, who was universally accepted.

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/a-canonical-primer-on-popes-and-heresy/

To be sure, all admit that in talking about popes falling into heresy we are talking a very remote scenario. Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome I (1949) n. 340, “This sort of case, given the divine protection of the Church, is considered quite improbable.” Beste, Introductio (1961) 242, “In history no example of this can be found.” And the great Felix Cappello, Summa Iuris I (1949) n. 309, thought that the possibility of a pope falling into public heresy should be “entirely dismissed given the special love of God for the Church of Christ [lest] the Church fall into the greatest danger.”

 

Indeed i am not sure tha t ANY pope has ever been charged with heresy and forced to resign, and i doubt that, in practice, they really could be 

Shows how little you know about this topic Mister Walker. But anyways carry on in your world of ignorance, I'm done discussion's with you because your ignorance of the topic is staggering. Not only can you not provide one bit of primary source from Canon Law to support your claims, you don't understand the meaning of Canon Law. Do you read Latin?

The Pope isn't infallible. The infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. That's a Canon law too. Nor can he be God. 331 states he is the Vicar of Christ and has authority over the Church. Nothing more, not over God not over any extra ordinary. What do you think the term ordinary means in that law Mr Walker?

Off the top of my head here regarding Pope's resigning or ceaasing being Pope due to their heretical actions.

Marcellinus, Benedict XI ( he was Pope three times, he was elected, ejected, returned, abdicated, deposed, elected again, ejected again and eventually excommunicated.), Silverus, Celestine V, Gregory XII, Read up on the Synod of Sutri, Benedict V, John XVIII and probably more. There was to three Pope's who were ejected at the Synod of Sutri. Then one was elected, the Holy Roman Emperor had a massive say in who could be Pope and often if they didn't like that Pope, the Pope was ejected or forced to resign. But hey you knew all that didn't ye!

So if the Pope is forced to resign, you don't think someone has the power to make him resign? The College and Council, and in some cases the Holy Roman Emperor has had that power. You really are ignorant about this. Good Googling MrWalker, good Googling.

But anyways, when and what part of the Bible did any Pope literally re-write? Still haven't provided anything to support your claims. Nor have provided anything to support your claim that the Pope has absolute power but ordinary and extra ordinary.

 

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

"it was amazing that t i got more money from poor people than rich." is NOT comparing what i got, to what others collected.  I wouldn't have clue what they collected.  It was confidential

i was saying that i was amazed, as  a mid twenties person from a quite poor family background,  to discover that poorer people were more generous than richer people

You can say what you 'meant' all you like, your history of ostentatiousness is always going to follow you around, unfortunately for you. 

I don't believe anything you say about your person or personal life anymore, and I'm not the only one. So stick to the opinions and stop with the anecdotes. Or not I couldn't care less, the only ability you have is to off-topic every thread by adding extraordinary claims or unsupported anecdotal nonsense. You know that these claims elicit a certain response and you revel in these responses. Then cry foul when someone questions your delusions of grandeur.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

You can say what you 'meant' all you like, your history of ostentatiousness is always going to follow you around, unfortunately for you. 

I don't believe anything you say about your person or personal life anymore, and I'm not the only one. So stick to the opinions and stop with the anecdotes. Or not I couldn't care less, the only ability you have is to off-topic every thread by adding extraordinary claims or unsupported anecdotal nonsense. You know that these claims elicit a certain response and you revel in these responses. Then cry foul when someone questions your delusions of grandeur.

Still can't see you were blinded by your  previous judgements of him ? What he said was completely harmless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Still can't see you were blinded by your  previous judgements of him ? What he said was completely harmless.

Yeah of course my opinion is coloured by his past antics that's what everyone does, he has build a persona, built upon ostentatiousness, delusions of grandeur and waffling. Therefore everything he says has that tinge to me. 

Put this way, Habitat do you in your life know someone who is a liar? If said person, known to be a liar, told you a story would their history not colour your opinion of this story? Or would you just believe it without question? 

Would you go to the same car dealership that ripped you off, again to get another car? 

You might do, who knows, but you'd be a fool if you did. People do not change. Like my past comments colour your opinion of me and thus my future comments too,.

Edited by danydandan
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Yeah of course my opinion is coloured by his past antics that's what everyone does, he has build a persona, built upon ostentatiousness, delusions of grandeur and waffling. Therefore everything he says has that tinge to me. 

Put this way, Habitat do you in your life know someone who is a liar? If said person, known to be a liar, told you a story would their history not colour your opinion of this story? Or would you just believe it without question? 

Would you go to the same car dealership that ripped you off? 

You might do, who knows, but you'd be a fool if you did. People do not change.

I'm not sure what the "lies" you've catalogued are, but if you are that annoyed, you can always just ignore him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I'm not sure what the "lies" you've catalogued are, but if you are that annoyed, you can always just ignore him.

I'm not calling him a liar, I am asking you if a persons past comments colour your opinion of them?  If they do then they colour how you interpret their comments now and in the future. 

If no, then I can't help you.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, danydandan said:

I'm not calling him a liar, I asking you if a persons past comments colour your opinion of them? 

If I know I've been deceived, of course I don't have a good opinion ! But it isn't the end of the world, considering nothing of great importance is at stake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Habitat said:

If I know I've been deceived, of course I don't have a good opinion ! But it isn't the end of the world, considering nothing of great importance is at stake.

I agree nothing is at stake.

But do not agree that I'm entitled to my opinion based on past comments made by MrWalker? 

Specifically the grandiose claims of intellectual abilities? 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I agree nothing is at stake.

But do not agree that I'm entitled to my opinion based on past comments made by MrWalker? 

Specifically the grandiose claims of intellectual abilities? 

He does write pretty well, in a fashion that is generally easy to read, but I can't read long tracts I'm not really interested in. I am perplexed that people get upset about him, though, he seems benign enough to me, I must be missing the zingers hidden in those walls of text !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Habitat said:

He does write pretty well, in a fashion that is generally easy to read, but I can't read long tracts I'm not really interested in. I am perplexed that people get upset about him, though, he seems benign enough to me, I must be missing the zingers hidden in those walls of text !

He claims to be an English teacher once upon a time, he makes so many grammatical errors it erodes any plausibility of this claim. Of course secondary English teachers aren't infallible but the amount if errors speaks volumes. 

We once had a private debate on the definition of the word fact, I emailed Oxford English dictionary for their definition, he rejected it as it didn't agree with him. But anyways.

Getting upset about his claims or opinions is rather silly, but doesn't mean others, myself or you can't question them and ask for some sort of substantial evidence to justify his claim. He then gets upset (yeah the guy who claims not to feel negative emotions gets upset) when he can't produce any evidence and cries foul when he is called out on it or when is anecdotal evidence isn't universally accepted.

Edit: He might seem benign, but he isn't. This website is great for providing checks and balances to discussion. If everyone just ignored his claims all the time, I'd suspect he disappear. Generally I don't read his comments unless he is replying to me or someone else, as he is on the ole ignore list. If I see something that I feel needs addressing I'll comment on it. Like the ignorance he has on the topic of Catholicism Canon Law. 

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it does seem rather comical at times, the way he gets a rise out of people, and I don't think he has that intention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

Well, it does seem rather comical at times, the way he gets a rise out of people, and I don't think he has that intention.

He either is a complete idiot, or he knows what elicits a certain response and he posts comments to rise such responses. He has been here for ten years or more doing the same thing over and over again. Guess he doesn't learn.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, danydandan said:

He either is a complete idiot, or he knows what elicits a certain response and he posts comments to rise such responses. He has been here for ten years or more doing the same thing over and over again. Guess he doesn't learn.

Don't know, he isn't responsible for the reactions of others entirely, or even largely, but it continues to amuse that he has devout "anti-adherents" !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Habitat said:

As I say,  another grub to join a team of grubs, idly accusing me of lying. Guess on, grub.

No guessing about it. The posts asking you to prove otherwise are still there. 

So.... Still better ain't it old fella ;)

 

 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Don't know, he isn't responsible for the reactions of others entirely, or even largely, but it continues to amuse that he has devout "anti-adherents" !

That's true, more the fool us who respond in personal attacks. 

I'm at odds whether calling him ostentatious is a personal attack, considering he thinks being modest is abhorrent.

Edited by danydandan
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

The posts asking you to prove otherwise are still there.

Prove what ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Hey guys!? :st

 Despite my lurking, and my reading this thread, probably up to this point, a question just occurred to me. 

  Has the question been answered, why do people believe in the Bible? I can’t tell, and can’t remember, if the question was answered throughout this 65 page thread.

 Maybe, I might have remembered some people say they believe  parts of the Bible, and some believe all of it. The big question for me is, has anyone admitted to believing all of the Bible? 

And, how do they do that honestly? This question came to me from my memory of a couple books like the one where the Author lived biblically for a year.

 I had not read that book, but based on the synopsis it look like how the author proved how you really can’t do that honestly. So it makes me wonder, who does believe all of it and do they live it? And the ones who believe parts of it, how do they feel about believing And living in what they believe?

 This makes me think about that, as well as I read various posters thoughts and understanding of what the Bible says. And also makes me wonder, those who live what they believe, do they see the conundrum of it?

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Has the question been answered, why do people believe in the Bible?

Nope. It turned into a "my ego is bigger than yours" discussion.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

 Maybe, I might have remembered some people say they believe  parts of the Bible, and some believe all of it. The big question for me is, has anyone admitted to believing all of the Bible? 

Not yet, but we have one active poster who believes another book that "complements" the Bible.

27 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

 I had not read that book, but based on the synopsis it look like how the author proved how you really can’t do that honestly.

Actually, I haven't read that book etiher, but from your description of it, Paul was saying that almost 2000 years ago.

22 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Nope. It turned into a "my ego is bigger than yours" discussion.

We are apes. Size matters.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Only believe God.

He let's you know what's true in life, what's true that's written in books, what's true about what people tell you, and most importantly, what's true about how others and especially you live your life.

Only believe God.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.