Draginol Draginol

Noah's Y chromosome

▼

Noah's Y chromosome

Steven Den Beste's essay

from JoeUser Forums

Steven Den Beste's site seems to be down but I had a copy fo an article he wrote some time ago that talks about the reason why Noah's Arc is a fairy tale.  There are many many reasons why Noah's Arc is fiction but this is one of the better arguments I've seen.

Steven's site is located here.

I just had the distinct displeasure of encountering someone who is a Biblical literalist (and who actually believes that all evidence supports the fairy tale of Noah's Ark). Let's review the story, briefly:

God decides that the human race is sinful and wants to destroy it. But Noah is virtuous and God warns him about the upcoming catastrophe and tells him to build an Ark (a big ship) and to load it with breeding stock of animals, so as to repopulate the earth. Noah does this, and with his wife and three sons and their wives embarks on the ship. God then covers the earth with water for 40 days and 40 nights, drowning all animals. (It's not completely clear how this would harm whales and seals, but let that go.) Then the water begins to recede and Noah's Ark grounds on Mount Ararat. He releases his animals and the world is repopulated.

This is ecological nonsense. If the whole flora of the world was released from a single point, most of it wouldn't survive and they sure wouldn't be found where they are today.

It's also genetic nonsense. There are a lot of ways of showing this, but one is particularly unambiguous: human Y chromosomes. Nearly all the genetic information each of us carries comes from both our parents. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and one of each comes from our mothers and one from our fathers. One pair controls the sex of the child. One of these is normal sized and the other is extremely small (relatively speaking), and they're called "X" and "Y" respectively. (But the Y chromosome still carries millions of codons.)

In mammals, XX is female and XY is male. (This is not universal. In birds, XX is male and XY is female. In some insect species, females are diploid and males are haploid. And when you look at plants, sex isn't determined by genetics at all.)

Each human parent contributes 23 chromosomes to the baby, in egg and sperm. The egg always has an X chromosome and the sperm may have an X or a Y (unless there's an abnormality, about which more in a moment). If the sperm has an X then the resulting fertilized egg is XX, thus female. If the sperm has a Y then the fertilized egg is XY, male.

So the sperm cell determines the sex of the child (in mammals). But sometimes when the egg or sperm are formed there's a mistake, and they get more or less than 23 chromosomes. This can happen with any of the chromosomes. When it happens with the sex chromosomes you get individuals who may have three or one instead of the normal two.

If the egg forms wrong and has no X, and if the sperm cell has a Y, then you get a fertilized egg with a Y chromosome but no X chromosome. This egg isn't viable. The X chromosome contains genetic information without which a baby can't develop; the result is a miscarriage (so early, in fact, that the mother may not realize she's been pregnant).

The other three abnormal situations all result in children. If there's only one X chromosome ("Turner's syndrome") then the person looks female. XXY ("Kleinfelter's syndrome") is male. XYY (sometimes called the "supermale") is also male.

The development of male features is controlled by the presence of testosterone in the baby in the womb. This in turn is stimulated by the presence of the Y chromosome. There is, however, an extremely rare condition where the genes which describe the testosterone receptors are damaged, and in such an individual testosterone will be ignored even if it is present. The genes describing those receptors are not on the sex chromosomes but it's possible for them to be present in a person who has a Y chromosome, and if this happens the resulting person will look female. However, such a person will also be sterile, because no ovaries form.

The point is this: if a person is fertile and has a Y chromosome, then that person will be male.

I am male. I have a mother and a father. I got my X chromosome from my mother and my Y chromosome from my father.

Each of them also had two parents, so I have two grandfathers. My father's father gave his Y chromosome to my father. My mother's father gave his X chromosome to my mother.

I got my Y chromosome from my father and he got it from his father. I carry my paternal grandfather's Y chromosome. He got it from his father, and from his paternal grandfather, etc.

My mother got one of her two X chromosomes from her father and one from her mother. There's a 50% chance that the X chromosome I carry came from my maternal grandfather, but no chance whatever that I carry his Y chromosome. (He gave his Y chromosome to my mother's brother, but I'm not descended from my uncle.)

I have many male ancestors but my Y chromosome only came from one of them. I have many male ancestors but only one by strict patrilineal descent. They're the same person. That doesn't mean I have no genetic information from any of my other male ancestors; there are 22 other chromosomes to talk about and I may have gotten some of them from other men way back when. But the Y chromosome itself can only have come from one place, and it is from my strict patrilineal ancestor. My lineage from all my other male ancestors includes at least one intervening woman, and at that step their Y chromosomes were not passed on.

If any two men have the same strict patrilineal ancestor, no matter how far back, then those two men will have the same Y chromosome.

Which brings us back to Noah. According to the story, the ark carried 8 people: Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives. Genetically only five are important, because the three sons carried no genetic information not present in Noah and his wife.

So if the story is true then the entire human race is descended from just five individuals. And four of them were women; Noah is the only man among the five. 10 sex chromosomes, and nine of them are X. Of the ten, only one was a Y. Noah carried it and passed it on to his three sons.

And they passed it on to their sons, and their grandsons, and great grandsons, and ultimately to all living men. So if the Noah story is true then every existing Y chromosome in men should be identical because they'll all be copies of the one carried by Noah.

And they aren't. Human Y chromosomes have been tested many times and they are not all the same. There is enormous variety among them. It is impossible for all human men to have the same strict patrilineal ancestor.

Therefore the Noah story is not true.

 

28,045 views 128 replies
Reply #101 from JoeUser Forums Top
Otherwise it's just a personal dogma speaking


Prove Love.

Oh wait, you can't. Must just be personal dogma.
Reply #102 from JoeUser Forums Top
Tova: Paul admits that some things he says are of his own opinion, not the mandate of God. If that is the case, can you really say that everything in the Bible is the word of God? Look at, say the Song of Solomon which begins " The song of songs, which is Solomon's." Or Proverbs, which begins: "The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel;"

The Bible itself acknoledges that some of it are the words of men, and some pretty important parts, too, given that Paul is most often the basis for our American conservative Christian doctrine. If Paul, himself, can say:

"But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that."

Then you have to understand that Paul was giving his opinions to these churches on how they should be run, and more than once says that things should be a particular way, but in terms of God or the religion "We have no such custom". IF that is the case, how many other mandates given out by Moses, or by David, or Solomon were their opinion and not the mandate of God?

The fact is several hundred years ago some folks tried to put together what they THOUGHT was the most likely of the material they had to be directly INSPIRED by God. I think that it is the height of danger to unquestioningly believe that a book printed by men is the voice of God talking to you.

That said, those are my beliefs, and yours may vary as you please. I just want everyone to accept that the Bible isn't a book that someone carried down from God's mountain, rather it is something that most Christians believe was written BY MEN under the direct inspiration of God. That may well be true, but it is a matter of belief, not fact.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #103 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well said BakerStreet.
Reply #104 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bakerstreet: Exactly. I once saw a sticker on a truck that says this: "Big book says it, I believe it. No argument. This settles it." That is a example of extreme dogma. I have wondered how many times bible has been changed since it's original writing. What doesn't help is translations, which may change the meaning of some words.

Prove Love.

Oh wait, you can't. Must just be personal dogma.


Love is just a set of human emotions. It's not a "fact" per se, therefore not provable. Besides, I didn't talk about love at all. You're trying to dodge my point, but you actually gave me yet another example of blanket argument.
Reply #105 from JoeUser Forums Top
Baker...because God said what His disciples bound on earth would be bound in heaven.

He gave them the authority to give their opinions and the churches to accept them as binding because He knew they'd be directed by the Holy Spirit.

Baker...for me personally, it is an issue of loyalty and an issue of will. I will not be disloyal to a mighty God by not believing He can control the contents of His book. Second, it is an act of my will to believe things I do not always understand. If I err, I choose to err on the side of God.

And last. When I apply these principles to my life, nothing but good comes from it. If I want to believe God created the world in 6 days, who does it hurt? Not me. Not you. Not anyone. And when I step out in faith, by an act of my will, God blesses me.

Why is it do you think in a court of law a person can get up and give their testimony about seeing something, or experiencing something, and it is considered evidence? Yet when it comes to faith, this sort of witness is scoffed? I can't speak about God in anyone else's life but my own.

As for David....God Himself says David was a man after His own heart. How could applying the things David says to my life displease God?

And Solomon. He was the wisest man to ever live up to that point. I search the proverbs and can't find one that is not full truth. How can a mere man do that on his own?

I don't know if I am a "literalist" because I am unsure how it is being used. But I do believe scripture is in the inerrant word of God.

For arguments sake, lets say some of its wrong.

Ok. How does believing its wrong and doubting an almighty God bring Him glory or me any good? I love Jesus. I enjoy my walk with Him. I see, feel, and hear Him whenever I reach for Him and often when I don't.

Someone on here talked about her journey. Well my journey led me to Christ. He wasn't my first pick, or my second, and honestly not even my third, but He is home to me now.

And because I believe He is all knowing, all powerful, I know I can trust Him to protect His word.

So far, it has done nothing but benefited my life. Why should I doubt Him now?

I just want everyone to accept that the Bible isn't a book that someone carried down from God's mountain, rather it is something that most Christians believe was written BY MEN under the direct inspiration of God. That may well be true, but it is a matter of belief, not fact.


I know the Bible was written by the hands of men. But I believe Jesus was standing right over their shoulder breathing the words into their ears.
Reply #106 from JoeUser Forums Top
You're trying to dodge my point, but you actually gave me yet another example of blanket argument.


Your point to me was

Sorry, I don't take stories as proof.


Well ok...but is that just in matters of faith?

So you don't believe someone when they tell you a story about their marriage, their job, their kids?

A court of law considers the testimony of an eyewitness proof.

So maybe you should tell me what constitutes proof of the unprovable.
Reply #107 from JoeUser Forums Top
I could give you proof after proof and you still wouldn't believe. But here's a few quotes to get you thinking cuz I'm ever the optimist.

William F. Albright, archaelogist said:

There can be no doubt that archaelogy has confirmed the substantial historicity of OT tradition. The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the 18th and 19th centuries certain phases of which still appear periodically has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognititon to the value of the Bible as a source of history."

Miller Burrows of Yale...."Archaeology has in ,many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has shown in a number of instances that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artificial schemes of historical development. The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural. On the whole, however archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archaelogist has found his respect for the bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine."

Sir William Ramsay regarded as one of the greatest archaelogists ever. He was a student in the German historical school of the mid 19th Century. As a result he believed that the Book of Acts was a product of the mid second century AD. He was firmly convinced of this. In his research to make a topographical study of Asia Minor he was compelled to consider the writings of Luke. As a result he was forced to do a comple reversal of his beliefs due to the overwhelming evidence uncovered in his research. He said.

"I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it; for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topgraphy antiquites and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations."

After 30 yrs of study Ramsey concluded that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy....this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." "The Bearing of Recent Discovery of the Trustworthiness of the New Testament." 1953

There is so much out there I can't even begin to tell you that has been dug up that proves that the Bible is reliable. So the question is.... do you not believe because of careful evaluation of the data or is it a belief handed down to you because of what you've been taught by someone else?

Hitler said that if you tell a lie enough times after a while it becomes true.

Reply #108 from JoeUser Forums Top
Love is not an emotion. Love is an action word. It's a commitment. You may have love and lust mixed up there.

Those who believe that Love is an emotion are the ones in divorce court a few years later when their "love" has waned. Those who believe love is more than that are the ones in it for the long haul long after the twitter bugs go away.

It was Mother Teresa who said...."Don't just stand there.....love with your hands." Love is action.

"There is no greater love than this, one who is willing to give up his life for another." That's why God is love.
Reply #109 from JoeUser Forums Top

Wow. So many circular references, so little time.

The bible is a fact. Why? Because the bible says it's a fact.

St. Paul, incidentally wrote most of the New Testament never met Jesus and interjected plenty of his own personal opinions into the documents. 

Reply #110 from JoeUser Forums Top
St. Paul, incidentally wrote most of the New Testament never met Jesus


Yes he did on the road to Damascus.

And there were eyewitnesses, the men who traveled with him. And the other disciples accepted him, so even if his meeting of Jesus didn't happen, because God gave the disciples the authority, Paul became a disciple. With all the rights and responsibilities of setting up the new church.
Reply #111 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes Paul did write most of the NT but not all of it. Peter wrote 2 books, John 5, Luke 2, Jude 1, etc.

But Paul did say this. "He was seen by Peter, then by the twelve. After that he was seen by over 500 witnesseses at once of whom the greater part remain to the present but some have fallen asleep. After that he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. The last of all He was seen by me also as one born out of due time. Luke said in Acts. "And we are witnesses of all things which He did...." Acts 10:39

But I understand this means nothing to you since you don't believe in the book to begin with. So then you have to go outside of scripture and read from the 1st century writers.

While I agree that Christians are guilty of circular reasoning they don't have to. Instead of assuming the Bible is the Word of God we can begin by demonstrating that the Scriptures are basically reliable and trustworthy historical documents. This is confirmed by applying the ordinary test of historical criticism to the scriptures. Test it. It will hold up to the scrunity you put it thru.

I don't believe by giving you an example, of one with preconceived notions about the bible and then learning about his error to be fully convinced in his own mind, is that of circular reasoning.

A question that begs an answer. What made this group of men who scattered with fear when their Lord was arrested, change so drastically that they were willing to follow him to the death? All but one were later martyred. And on top of that.....what about all the ones thru the centuries who also have been martyred for not obeying the laws against worshipping him or spreading his word? They too were convinced that to live for Him meant dying for him if need be.



Reply #112 from JoeUser Forums Top
Tova: You make my point exactly. It WOULDN'T effect the validity of your religion or belief if the Bible isn't perfect. That's why it bothers me when I see Christians say things akin to "If one word is false it would all fall apart". No it wouldn't.

On the other hand, if it isn't perfect, and people insist on it being perfect no matter how counter to your instinct it seems, are you worshipping God, or are you worshipping a book? If you believe in evil, what would serve evil more than people constantly arguing over a book that that can be interpretted a million ways instead of being good to their fellow man?

Solomon was wise, sure. He also had just short of 1000 gals in his harem and was NOT the kind of guy God had much respect for. David murdered a man to get his wife. Most of these figures had their tragic flaws.

The strange part is, and this is something you should consider Tova.. when those books refer to the word of God, they aren't referring to the King James Bible. The King James Bible, or the Christian canon, for that matter, didn't exist then. As a book it can't refer to itself, because it is diverse documents put together more than a thousand years after the latest was written.

Believe what you want. Your beliefs don't harm me, and mine don't harm you. I just think that any belief system that you stake your soul on should weather any scrutiny or possibility. If there is any true religion, you should be able to question it tirelessly and it will stand. To me, the Bible doesn't live up to that, and making it somehow divine is making an idol of it. Anything made my man should not be held up as having the authority of God.
Reply #113 from JoeUser Forums Top
They too were convinced that to live for Him meant dying for him if need be.


People have done the same for Allah and David Koresh.

Back on topic, I think Mr. Den Beste is a man who knows a lot about a lot of things. If you take what he is saying word for word, it can be disproven. The Y chromosomes wouldn't be the "same". What about his point about the story being ecological nonsense? Could all the plants and animals on the planet be released at one place (Mount Ararat) and survive?

The thing is with both arguments, from a purely scientific point of view you could come up with point after point to disprove and if you come from a christian standpoint you can argue that anything with God is possible. If the bible could be proven then faith wouldn't be an issue.
Reply #114 from JoeUser Forums Top
To me, the Bible doesn't live up to that, and making it somehow divine is making an idol of it.


Hmmmm...that is interesting Baker.

I consider the definition of an idol, anything that comes between me and God. The Bible doesn't do that. It helps me draw nearer to him.

You make a compelling argument.

You know Baker I like you because I love the way your mind works. Even in this case.

I will think about what you've said. I can't say it will change my belief, but you have certainly given me food for thought.

Thanks.
Reply #115 from JoeUser Forums Top
KFC: Some of the odder stories have been indeed shown as true, but what of it? Bible is mostly a mishmash of historical stories and fantasy stories.

What gets me is that so many ways, people read it, and assume that everything inside it is true without any arguments. (Remember that car sticker I talked about in last post?)

Even worse is people who listen to preacher and don't even read a single word inside the bible. Think critically, people!

Bakerstreet, you have a extremely strong point: bible do have flaws. It doesn't mean that it have value (to me in least...) as a possibly true history, excluding all fantasy stories. I suspect that it used to be basically a permanent "work on progress" kind of book, IE: you update it with recent major events and changes in beliefs. Hence the sometimes conflicting statements inside the bible. IE: changes has been made, but older parts weren't updated.

I do recall something about 2 separate lineages for jesus. I don't recall the details.

One of interesting parts of bible is stories during the nomad era. They were basically savages. I remember all kinds of stories about wars, etc. Not the current christdom that I know of, that's for sure. If bible has that, does it mean the christians must live like that? No. It's just oral history written into a paper, which eventually become what christians call bible.
Reply #116 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don' t believe the stories in scripture are fantasy by any stretch. Why? Because I've read them and studied into this. Like I've said many times....I'm a very big skeptic about alot of things.. But the more I read the bible the more I can see the truth in this book. It's unlike any book I've ever read. I do assume everything in scripture is true.....not because I've left my mind at the door but because I used it. God said to love him with our whole hearts, souls and minds.

I agree with your assessment of those that sit and church and don't read for themselves. Some do, some don't. If they don't.....it's their loss. I always say....."don't take my word for it." Read it yourself. I'm glad just to see them listen to the preacher tho Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. .In the church I go to, just about everyone is walking in the door with a bible in their hand and when the preacher says open to such and such....they are. We are a bible believing church.

As far as the two different lineages. That's true. One is Mary's side of the family and the other Joseph's. If you look carefully you will see Nathan the son of David in one and Solomon the other brother in another. They couldn't both be in the same line.
This is one of those "contradictions" people use to disprove scripture.

I've found over the years if it seems as though a contradiction is there....it's usually the fault of our understanding. Not the scriptures themselves. I've actually encouraged people on JU to give me a contradiction so I can show them it's not. One person brought up the lineage already.

I'm not sure what you mean about savages as scripture does not alude to this unless maybe you're talking the heathen nations?. The Jews wandered in the wilderness for 40 years but there was an orderly fashion to it.

I still will challange any to find me just one contradiction in scripture. I'm afraid it's just something that has passed around so that after awhile it begins to sound true. But it's not.

This is as old as the story (true) in the garden when Satan said to Eve....'Did God really say?" He's been putting doubts in people's minds since day 1. He's having a hayday right now. It's not for nought that he's called the "deceiver."

So I do believe that Noah's story is indeed true.
Reply #117 from JoeUser Forums Top
I still will challange any to find me just one contradiction in scripture.


Here's a site that has a whole web page devoted to contradictions

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

but you probably figure you have all the explainations to any contradictions perceived by others. I'm sure they aren't anything you haven't heard before and I am sure your explainations aren't anything that those of us who see contradictions haven't heard before. That is where the futile debate resides. If you come from a place of faith you will see something different from someone who sees from a place of doubt. No matter what one shows the other, it isn't going to make a difference. Each has to come to their own conclusions with their own methods.

It is a wonderful thing for you to feel so squared away with your beliefs. Others have come to different conclusions yet feel equally fulfilled. You don't have to accept that but you should respect it. As with the rest of the bible, you can believe the story of Noah to be true and perceive the "obvious truths" but you can't prove it. Like BlueDev has said before "proof would negate faith".
Reply #118 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is a wonderful thing for you to feel so squared away with your beliefs. Others have come to different conclusions yet feel equally fulfilled. You don't have to accept that but you should respect it. As with the rest of the bible, you can believe the story of Noah to be true and perceive the "obvious truths" but you can't prove it. Like BlueDev has said before "proof would negate faith".


A very true comment. However, more often than not the catalyst for these types of discussions on JoeUser is when some attacks or attempts to poke holes in Christian faith. So I question who should respect whom....
Reply #119 from JoeUser Forums Top
So I question who should respect whom


Both sides should be respected. How often do the hole poking attempts happen because the nonchristian is getting preached to and told they only feel the way they do because they don't know any better? It's a two way street. Both sides should be able to state how they feel, what they believe without being told they are wrong.

It is one thing to say you can't prove something. It is another to say you are wrong in what you believe. Noone knows exactly what happened when something came out of nothing. No religion and no scientist can prove anything at that point. That is where faith comes in. If you just state that my faith tells me so, noone can debate what you "feel". It is only when you claim you can prove you are right and someone else is wrong that you get into trouble.

For instance, KFC said she believes the story of Noah to be true. Noone can debate that. Noone can totally disprove it because if you have faith, you can explain anything through God. If God created everything, he could do things any way he saw fit whether it makes sense in scientific terms now or not. Without faith in God (christian God more specifically)however, there is no proof.
Reply #120 from JoeUser Forums Top
Both sides should be respected. How often do the hole poking attempts happen because the nonchristian is getting preached to and told they only feel the way they do because they don't know any better? It's a two way street. Both sides should be able to state how they feel, what they believe without being told they are wrong.


I agree, but for the most part, on JoeUser, I usually see initial blogs that call into question various aspects of the Judeo-Christian faiths far more than I see the "repent or burn in hell" preaching type of blogs. Even when the discussion comes up it is typically laced with innuendo that the "believer" is a uneducated, fairy tale believing fool whose faith is on the same level as star trek fanatics and other types. I certainly am not offended by it but the inference that Christians should be fair and respect non-Christian believes came up and I felt I had to call it like I see it.

Thanks
Reply #121 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks Sgsmitty...I agree.

And Jill I agree with you about the respect for both sides. I don't feel I've got that from you. If you're referring to my question....What if you're wrong? It wasn't meant to be disrespectful only a challenge. I ask that alot in person and have never had a problem with another in my asking that. Maybe it's because there is no eye contact, body language, facial expression or tone of voice here on JU........ who knows? I didn't flat out say you were wrong....I asked what if? Meaning.....are you prepared for that? That's all.

You may want to check out this site as well...... www.carm.org I actually found this a year or so ago from another blogger somewhere in the great blogging world. It's one of my favorite sites now. This guy's done his HW. I've checked out thoroughly and find this guy to be trustworthy and honest. I especially like his "questions that Atheists most commonly ask" section. I think it was 20. You may as well.







Reply #122 from JoeUser Forums Top

Oh please KFC.  You obviously have no idea how haughty you come across.  Jill's hardly anti-religious.

Few people, at least in the United States, start out as unbelievers.  Most of us are presented with the Christian faith.  Some of us have had it shoved down our throats. 

For many of us non-believers, we started out as believers and then gradually lost our faith as we started looking objectively at the evidence as we saw it.  You talk about "preconceived" notions that others have without realizing how brainwashed you come across to those of us who see Christianity as just another mythology club that got out of control.

It doesn't matter to me what you believe. It doesn't hurt me.  But don't sit there and act like you're somehow open minded.  You ask for contradictions, you're given an entire site full of examples (heck, if I recall, the first page of the bible has a big one -- light before the sun and stars).  Did you look at them? I doubt it.  You arne't open to other points of view because you are so certain that you have no need to even look at other sources of evidence.

Reply #124 from JoeUser Forums Top
You don't have to be anti-religion to doubt the literal perfection of the Bible. Many, many Christians consider the Bible a guide, and even consider it to be inspired, without granting it literal, supreme accuracy. One of my teachers in college was a minister, taught the religion courses at my school, and would *grill* you if you posed the Bible as the infallible word of God.

That didn't make him less of a Christian, imho, only skeptical enough not to let ink and paper guide him more than his own relationship with God. How many people, given dubious interpretations of the Bible, have been led against their concience and done the wrong thing? We have a thousand years of brutality that people excused with their own interpretation of the book.

In my opinion, you can hear the words of God come from people, but no person is perfect. Untold numbers of people are between God and the book you read when you read the bible, over thousands of years. Some of it doesn't even claim to be the word of God. That doesn't mean you can't find the "still, small voice" there, it just means that no material object can be a perfect ideal.

That said, I don't want to discourage anyone from their beliefs, only explain mine. I have just too often seen the Bible used as a bludgeoning tool, seen words twisted to mean hateful things, and seen people who would trust a book instead of their own concience in dealing with their fellow men. I can't accept the idea that such an abused item can be perfect.
Reply #125 from JoeUser Forums Top
That said, I don't want to discourage anyone from their beliefs, only explain mine. I have just too often seen the Bible used as a bludgeoning tool, seen words twisted to mean hateful things, and seen people who would trust a book instead of their own concience in dealing with their fellow men. I can't accept the idea that such an abused item can be perfect.


So very well said BakerStreet!

I don't feel I've got that from you.
KFC, you just seem to be one of those people who doesn't see any wrong doing in themselves. Many people have asked "what if you're wrong?" You asked "Have you ever been wrong?" I said "Yes, have you?" to which I got no answer. I have never meant you any disrespect and certainly have nothing against christians. You seem to wear your christian status as some sort of chip on your shoulder. You've stated that you think your screen name is offensive to many. I don't find anything offensive about Christ or his followers. I judge people on their own merits.

I feel I am respectful, you don't. We will have to agree to disagree. I have nothing against you personally because I don't even know you. You keep trying to prove something with me and it just isn't going to happen. I've even stuck up for your stance here on this thread yet all you ever do is leave comments for me that might start with "I agree on____" but then you get straight to the criticism.

I have nothing wrong with people who live according to their convictions. You have the right to draw conclusions according to the experiences you have along the path of your own life. My problem is when others try to prove their way is the right way. I have never suggested anyone give up their faith or that they are wrong in having it. I just have no interest in being preached to.

Science can draw plenty of legitimate questions about the things that happened in the bible. If you have already accepted it as the word of God though, you can explain anything that happened because an almighty creator could have done anything in any manner he chose. No tools that we have today can prove or disprove that.