:o

Do you have any scientific data to back it up or this is just how you feel/believe?
Yep , someone should come up with something less creationist lol

You're missing the point.

Ironic, that's what our priest taught me.

He must not be a follower of Martin Luther.

Many religions created doctrines connected to events in the bible that must be taken literally, instead of changing doctrines, they'll hold these events took place regardless of scientfic or historical evidence otherwise.

Like the head scientist at the creation museum stating he believes in science as long as it supports the bible, if not, he admits science is discarded and faith is used.

Catholic. But very liberal. He did baptised a bastard. :arrgh!:

Never went into a litteral interpretation of the Bible. He regarded it as a moral signpost and a history lesson. But catholics here were focused on the new testament.

There is however a rather large amount of compelling evidence that supports the big bang, and a growing amount that supports that the big bang was not the beginning, and that a vastly different state of physical reality existed before it, and gave rise to it.

But it is important to remain sceptical about these things to a degree. Sometimes big ideas get overturned. With something like the big bang it is reasonable to suggest that under further analysis it may yet prove to be a big crunch, or a big bounce, or something else entirely.

Here we go again...
Some cherry picks again.
Actually there is so much theology , philosophy and ethic based on bible.
Whole volumes of books that deal with ethics and humanism .
No one actually takes bible (old testament)literally besides ignorant atheist who try to prove some points and faithful ignorant morons.

The point I didn't miss was that you advocate the bible as a moral educator, so I simply point out that as a moral educator containing such moral lessons like being willing to murder your own child might be very confusing to someone trying to educate themselves 'morally'

There are a great many other examples, I just picked on one of the worst. Do you wish me to do some digging?

It is probably the best theory so far to explain HOW things unfolded SINCE there has been the Bang!. It does not explain WHY there was a Bang!. That does not mean that it will not see corrections, attachments, deletions, and maybe finally complete replacement.

Attempts like the pulsating/expanding-contracting universe that state that after a Bang! the universe grows, collapses again, and when it collapses into just one single point, it Bangs! again, just try to eternally delay the need to explain the Why by moving the point of time when the WHY became an important variable towards an infinite past. "It has always gone like this. Bang!-Grow-Collapse. Bang!-Grow-Collapse. It's just how it is."

WHY there are things, in the end is an object of philosophical speculation. We call it metaphysics, and we better never forget that metaphysics are always speculation for sure. We cannot know for sure, our nature and essence as the being that we are define the way we function, perceive, think and know. And with that definition stands and falls what we are not, and cannot perceive like, and cannot think out. In other words: the limited cannot embrace the unlimited. But we can know that we cannot know. That's at least something. :)

But for question about the HOW, science is the best thing we have for analysis and examination. But of course, our theories are OUR theories, however well-founded they are. They are our artificial orders by which we try to make sense of things as best as we currently can.

To me the great mystery and miracle of existence is the question why there are things at all, and mind to reflect on them. Why isn't there simply nothing instead? We cannot know that. That inability is a challenge to us, a dilemma, that we either grow by, or that burns us out and makes us falling into existential despair. That choice is ours. Or not?

What I wanted to say is, I agree with what you said. :haha:

Sorry would you like me to paraphrase the entire chapter?

No :salute:

I didn't advocate anything. I only said that the bible and other religious texts make a lot more sense if you look at them as a collection of stories with a moral than as a history book.

You're the one trying to assign a literal meaning to them and in that you are just like the Creationists.

Post edited for shamefully poor reading comprehension on my part. :P

I'm not assigning a literal meaning - it is all fiction to me and thus has no literal meaning - it is a fantasy. I'm asking how such stories can be considered good moral teaching when they contain such abhorrent, downright blasphemous stories like the one I mentioned. [edit] I'm also saying I think that the morals of many of the stories are suspect, to say the least.

How am I like creationists?