More Stupid Religion Bollocks!

[germanos]

Oh, so it's the

Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up

that is crap? I was afraid I had lost my ability to think straight!

[Wezil]

Another point. The Bible tells us why we are here, it's not a scientific hand book in how we got here. The details given is not meant to be taken as scientific analysis or anything.

[germanos]

Another point. The Bible tells us why we are here, it's not a scientific hand book in how we got here. The details given is not meant to be taken as scientific analysis or anything.

Oh, but they are:

I don't have a problem with female priests, but you should check your facts. Those women you mention were not priests. They had positions within the church, but not as priests.

[Nikolai]

Oh, so it's the

Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up

that is crap? I was afraid I had lost my ability to think straight!

That is Genesis 2.5, which deals with Genesis 1 up to verse 26. I mentioned that earlier, but you must have missed it.

[Nikolai]

Yeah, I know some people take it 100% seriously scientificly, but it should be no surprise I don't support that view. I've made that clear previosuly.

[Nikolai]

Oh, but they are:

Wait, you consider the question of female priests as a scientific provable subject?

[MOBIUS]

Yeah, I know some people take it 100% seriously scientificly, but it should be no surprise I don't support that view. I've made that clear previosuly.

That just makes you slightly more evolved* than they are...






* See what I did there?

[Nikolai]

That just makes you slightly more evolved* than they are...






* See what I did there?

I have no problem with evolution. It's a theory, it might be wrong, but it fits well with what we know, doesn't it?

[germanos]

That is Genesis 2.5, which deals with Genesis 1 up to verse 26. I mentioned that earlier, but you must have missed it.

Yes i missed it. Remind me again: "Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up" (at the point in time when God created the male) = the creation of the earth with plants, fish, birds and land animals before God created male and female?

[Nikolai]

Read on. The male is created in verse 7.

[germanos]

Another point. The Bible tells us why we are here, it's not a scientific hand book in how we got here. The details given is not meant to be taken as scientific analysis or anything.

Wait, you consider the question of female priests as a scientific provable subject?

" or anything"

No, I don't consider the question of female priests as a scientific provable subject. It's you who does consider the answer to the question of (allowing) female priests to be a matter that is determinable through falsifiable study of words written in your scripture. It's not me that drags science and scientific methods into the debate, I merely argue logic and contradiction.

It's so typical that religious matters (thus matters of believe) are first and foremost argued on favour of through snippets of scripture, but when snippets of scripture are argued against on basis of inconsistency and contradiction they are whisked away saying that people can't read or understand or should read what has actually been written.

You can't have both ways.

[germanos]

Read on. The male is created in verse 7.

would you please stop 'ing me? It's annoying.

[Nikolai]

" or anything"

No, I don't consider the question of female priests as a scientific provable subject. It's you who does consider the answer to the question of (allowing) female priests to be a matter that is determinable through falsifiable study of words written in your scripture. It's not me that drags science and scientific methods into the debate, I merely argue logic and contradiction.

It's so typical that religious matters (thus matters of believe) are first and foremost argued on favour of through snippets of scripture, but when snippets of scripture are argued against on basis of inconsistency and contradiction they are whisked away saying that people can't read or understand or should read what has actually been written.

You can't have both ways.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Religious doctrine is by definition not a scientific work. Religious doctrinces can not be falsified scientifically. When you believe God has spoken, you don't argue with that kind of reason you're looking for. That does not mean a religious person is without reason, but he divide between what is religion and what is science. Religion is like the doctrine of female priests. (I never said I opposed it, btw, in case you wondered. ) Reason and science is not religion's area of expertise. Here f.ex. Genesis can give a clue to some parts, mainly the existential part of it. The rest is the domain of science.

[Nikolai]

would you please stop 'ing me? It's annoying.

Ooooookay? What is wrong with the single most used smilie on the forums?

[Kidlicious]

Yes, off course i did read them. What kind of question is that? I pitty you for your paranoia.

And they do contradict each other. Most notably in Genesis 1 humans (male and female at the same instance) are created after plants, fish, birds and land animals, while in Genesis 2 it starts with the male (the absence of plants and any other life is specifically mentioned) then he creates Eden (all other life) and then a female.
Contradiction.

The whole creation story is metaphorical.