The Bible is ALWAYS right, even when it isn't.

[Perpetual Change]

I'm making a topic to clarify a problem that comes up in debates quite a bit around here. Mainly, someone is talking about something the scientific method has told us about the world, and then someone pulls out Biblical knowledge on the subject, and suddenly it's the scientific method vs. god's apparently perfect word.

Why are the two at ends? I really do not get that at all. In fact, it's that literalness in regards to the Bible that originally turned me away from Christianity for a couple of years, which is bizarre because I've read people here dismissing those who've turned away from Christianity as never having taken a literal-enough approach to the Bible anyway.

I guess my question is: "If the Bible is 100 percent correct, why would God create the world to reflect an entirely different creation story?" For an example we had awhile back, if the stuff about 6,000 years is true, why wouldn't God have created a world that reflected that, rather than giving us the fossil record? For a more recent example, if God didn't want people to act on their homosexuality, why are so many people (beyond a shadow of a doubt we know genetically wired) to do so?

Futhermore, where in the Bible does it even say you should grant the Bible an unquestionably high level of authority? When does Jesus say, "Everything in the Bible is 100 percent literal truth, and God held the hands of the original authors while they wrote so it could be this way, so have a good time figuring out why it directly contradicts not only history but creation itself, suckers!" ? In other words, is their even a solid scriptural basis for the Bible to have obtained this level of authority that apparently can never be wrong or questioned?

Honestly, it seems to me that some Christians are using the Bible as a crutch when it comes to the really tough questions, just as others might use relativism or another doctrine. "How was the Earth created?" "I dunno, but I can discount people who've spent their lives researching the question and tell you what the Bible says!" The relativist would be equally dismissive, "I don't know, but it doesn't matter anyway!" Or, "Why are people born homosexual?" "I don't know, but God tells us it's a sin for them to act on it. Too bad!" 

[GuineaPig]

I don't even know why the Bible has to be literal (or even written accurately by its human writers).  Can't it function just as well (and without the doublethink) if it's just a series of people's reactions to Christ's ministry and death?

[Perpetual Change]

I don't even know why the Bible has to be literal (or even written accurately by its human writers).  Can't it function just as well (and without the doublethink) if it's just a series of people's reactions to Christ's ministry and death?

The entire Bible, to me, is a collection of people's reactions to GOD. I'd say that's not only true, but realizing it is and letting go of the small=print and hangups caused by it in order to follow the big idea are also at the core of Jesus' message. So yeah, the sect of Fundies/YoungEarth/etc is really baffling to me. They seem to loose hold of Jesus in all the finer-points surrounding him, which totally runs contrary to his message. So yeah, I agree, and it's this kind of view that's brought me at peace to the Bible. But, yeah, that sect of Christians who disagree do still mystify me.

[ehra]

Another thing I've noticed is people talking about how you need to take a literal approach to the bible, then when they explain what certain passages mean it's pretty clear that they themselves are not reading it literally (because to do otherwise would make no sense). If the Bible is meant to be taken literally then it was pretty dumb for the writers to fill it with so many metaphors.

[rumborak]

Another thing I've noticed is people talking about how you need to take a literal approach to the bible, then when they explain what certain passages mean it's pretty clear that they themselves are not reading it literally

That does happen a lot, yeah. A lot of passages somehow never mean what Jesus literally said, but need to be taken "into context" with completely unrelated OT passages.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

I'm making a topic to clarify a problem that comes up in debates quite a bit around here. Mainly, someone is talking about something the scientific method has told us about the world, and then someone pulls out Biblical knowledge on the subject, and suddenly it's the scientific method vs. god's apparently perfect word.

Can you give an example? I'm just not sure what you mean.

Why are the two at ends?

They're not.
 

I really do not get that at all. In fact, it's that literalness in regards to the Bible that originally turned me away from Christianity for a couple of years, which is bizarre because I've read people here dismissing those who've turned away from Christianity as never having taken a literal-enough approach to the Bible anyway.

I can appreciate your frustration. People should always consider the genre, context, author's intent, etc of a passage. It's not always appropriate to come to a conclusion based on the English translation. That goes both ways, however. You can't simply call something a metaphor because a passage appears to be in conflict with some other information. It may be more cultured and approved of in academia, but it's equally as flawed as the literalist approach.    

I guess my question is: "If the Bible is 100 percent correct, why would God create the world to reflect an entirely different creation story?" For an example we had awhile back, if the stuff about 6,000 years is true, why wouldn't God have created a world that reflected that, rather than giving us the fossil record?

I don't think that one's as difficult as you think. If you don't think the YEC view is correct and not reflected in the text, then don't worry about it. To be clear, however, nobody on either side of this issue argues that, "well, yeah, earth appears to be a certain age, but it's not that age because the Bible says..." Everybody argues, if they concerned about harmonizing the Bible with science, that whatever we observe in nature is not contradicted by the text.

 

For a more recent example, if God didn't want people to act on their homosexuality, why are so many people (beyond a shadow of a doubt we know genetically wired) to do so?

This is a whole other discussion, so I'll just say that I don't see this information as a problem for the Biblical view of homosexuality.

Futhermore, where in the Bible does it even say you should grant the Bible an unquestionably high level of authority?

There are verses I think you could deduce that from, [urlhttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A16&version=NIV]2 Timothy 3:16[/url], for example. But I think there's a difference between treating it as an authoritative text and believing that the Bible fell from Heaven one day, beautifully and completely intact.  

 

In other words, is their even a solid scriptural basis for the Bible to have obtained this level of authority that apparently can never be wrong or questioned?

No. But that expectation is a fundamentalist blunder.  

Honestly, it seems to me that some Christians are using the Bible as a crutch when it comes to the really tough questions...

Very true, sad too. Like I mentioned above, use it as it was intended. It's not a magical book, flawless in every way, nor is it meant to determine the best political party to vote for. It's a history book with a very important message. When difficulties do arise they have to be acknowledged and then addressed, which can usually be done. If we're talking about this, what do you think Biblical scholars have been doing for these years. Consequently, there's a vast amount of information about this topic that can help answer these questions.

[73109]

Orthodox Christians just use the Bible as a way to bend what they feel is threatening their modest Christian lifestyle. As a couple of you have said before, taking the Bible litteraly would be insane, and saying one should take it litteraly and then twist it to fit their image of a perfect religion. It's sad, but its true.

Another issue that arises that goes back to homosexuality is that in the Bible it talks about a Man and a Woman combining to make one. So, people incorrectly deduce that that means people are not wired to be gay.

What further upsets me, but it's a fact of life, is that God continues to morph into something he wasn't supposed to be back when he was first "around." I personally believe that Christians feel threatened by anything that seems to sprout up evidence of God's lack of existence, so they go ahead and change the book they felt is so sacred. Evolution? God did it! 6,000 year old earth? God made it to look that way...as a test! I don't want to offend anybody, but these are the things that I just don't get how people "get." It just makes absolutely no sense to me when I am being objective and is one of the reasons I've pretty much denounced all faith.

[William Wallace]

I ended up writing a little bit about this discussion. Check it out.

[ZBomber]

I don't understand how or why people take the Bible 100% literally. It always was apparent to me that the main purpose of the Bible is to teach lessons in forms of stories. I think the whole "God's word" thing refers to his commandments, and the important aspects that are at the core of Christianity. But not every single word in the damn book.

Obviously, everything in the Bible didn't happen. They are stories, trying to spread a message about one thing or another. And I think as that is, it is a good thing. But taking every word of the Bible literally and not using it as something to form your character around is bizarre to me. A lot of them are rehashed stories that were around forever. I don't know why people get so defensive when someone brings up contradictions and then try to find loopholes around loopholes.  

Hell, I went to Catholic school for 13 years and that's even what I was taught by Catholics... its not meant to be taken literally, because if you TRY and take everything literally, you will find yourself in a paradox where nothing makes any sense.   I don't see why that is such a problem to someone's faith, does it really change any of your core values if some stories in the Bible are parables and not historical fact?

[reo73]

First off WW brought up some very good points above.

I'm an orthodox Christian, as a lot of you know from forays on other threads, that does not believe the Bible to be a perfect document.  My view of the Bible is that it presents a clear theology (meaning it describes clearly God's plan for redemption of man) but it may not describe world history perfectly. My main reason for believing this is that the Bible is a man made creation and anything man has done, even if it was by the inspiration of God, is usually done imperfectly.  

In terms of the World's creation and the World's end for that matter (Book of Revelation) I believe these to be metaphorical and not a complete representation of actual events.  On the other hand I do believe the Bible does contain actual events of history recorded quite clearly and accurately such as a lot of the old testament past the 1st half of Genesis, the life and crucifixion of Christ, his resurrection, the ministry of the Apostles.

But my belief in these things is kinda a chicken and egg scenario because I believe them because I have a faith in God yet a lot of my faith stems from what I read in the Bible.  So they work hand in hand.

It should be noted though that I have never seen an argument from anyone that can scientifically explain away God, just like I have never seen an argument from a Christian that can theologically prove God.  I see evidences of both God and No God and I weigh them and have concluded for myself that there is a creator and the God the Bible presents the most legitimate and true reflection of this creator.

Ultimately though, I will agree that the Fundamental Evangelical church, especially here in the US, has done a lot to harm a good academic understanding and view of the Bible and has just kind of clung onto this "perfect in every way" mentality of the Bible.

[William Wallace]

First off WW brought up some very good points above.

I'm an orthodox Christian, as a lot of you know from forays on other threads, that does not believe the Bible to be a perfect document.  My view of the Bible is that it presents a clear theology (meaning it describes clearly God's plan for redemption of man) but it may not describe world history perfectly. My main reason for believing this is that the Bible is a man made creation and anything man has done, even if it was by the inspiration of God, is usually done imperfectly.  

In terms of the World's creation and the World's end for that matter (Book of Revelation) I believe these to be metaphorical and not a complete representation of actual events.  On the other hand I do believe the Bible does contain actual events of history recorded quite clearly and accurately such as a lot of the old testament past the 1st half of Genesis, the life and crucifixion of Christ, his resurrection, the ministry of the Apostles.

But my belief in these things is kinda a chicken and egg scenario because I believe them because I have a faith in God yet a lot of my faith stems from what I read in the Bible.  So they work hand in hand.

It should be noted though that I have never seen an argument from anyone that can scientifically explain away God, just like I have never seen an argument from a Christian that can theologically prove God.  I see evidences of both God and No God and I weigh them and have concluded for myself that there is a creator and the God the Bible presents the most legitimate and true reflection of this creator.

Ultimately though, I will agree that the Fundamental Evangelical church, especially here in the US, has done a lot to harm a good academic understanding and view of the Bible and has just kind of clung onto this "perfect in every way" mentality of the Bible.

Great post. I'll only add that having faith is justified by the available evidence, so I don't see a chicken and an egg problem. I also think that the idea of inspiration is unnecessary to defend the Bible's authority, and I'm glad to see you pointed that out.

[WildeSilas]

Futhermore, where in the Bible does it even say you should grant the Bible an unquestionably high level of authority? When does Jesus say, "Everything in the Bible is 100 percent literal truth, and God held the hands of the original authors while they wrote so it could be this way, so have a good time figuring out why it directly contradicts not only history but creation itself, suckers!" ? In other words, is their even a solid scriptural basis for the Bible to have obtained this level of authority that apparently can never be wrong or questioned?

This caught my eye but I can't be arsed to find the exact reference in Matthew. Jesus actually endorses the teachings of the Pharisees (basically: "Listen to their teachings because they inherited them from Moses, but don't do what they do because they are corrupt"). He essentially endorses their theology over that of the Saducees (which is what was up for debate in that passage IIRC). He said they "sit in Moses' seat," which is the highest endorsement he could have possibly given them, and they believed very firmly in a literal interpretation of the OT, especially the Torah. In fact, modern evangelical theology is pretty darn close to what the Pharisees believed in the first century.

[Quadrochosis]

I never took that passage to read that. I always just read that passage as Jesus saying, "Do what these people say, not what they do."

Not, "These peoples' scripture is infallible and there is no wrong in it."

[WildeSilas]

That's because you're not taking the context into account.

Jesus was essentially responding to an argument about whether the biblical interpretations of the Pharisees or the Saducees was the correct approach (or hermeunitic). Jesus in essence put his seal of approval on the Pharasaic method of interpretation (known today as the "plenary linear" method). The method has been passed down farily intact from the 1st century. You also have to read further back in the text to see that the controversy over whose interprative method Jesus endorsed was coming to a head, and it was resolved by him saying, "The Pharisees sit in Moses' seat." It may not seem that big of a deal to a 21st century, western thinking American, but to the 1st century Jew, that single phrase carried an immense amount of gravity.

[PowerSlave]

WildeSilas, could you go into more detail about the differences between the Pharisees and Saducees views? Or, point me towards some reading materials about the subject?

[Quadrochosis]

Pharisees-

-means "seperated ones"
-they believe the Torah, the Writings and the Prophets books to all be divinely inspired
-after the destruction of the temple, they remained the only group of jews with any power, since it wasn't derived from the temple, leading judaism into what became known as rabbinical judaism
-some of them believed in an afterlife

Saducees-

-were the priests of judaism
-ran the temple in Jerusalem, where they made a crap ton of money by selling animals for sacrifice, selling their sacrifice services, etc.
-only believe the 5 torah books to be divine
-most of them did not believe in an afterlife
-after the destruction of the temple they lost their power (which was derived from said temple and sacrifice)



that's a very brief overview with some of their differences

[PowerSlave]

Yeah, I knew the basics but, I was wondering if there might be some in-depth and very specific writing about their differences possibly.

[hefdaddy42]

Yeah, I knew the basics but, I was wondering if there might be some in-depth and very specific writing about their differences possibly.

I don't know what more there is to know, to be honest.  Since the Saducees pretty much came to power around the time of Roman annexation and pretty much became extinct after the first Jewish War, there just isn't much written about them.  Read the Gospels and Josephus, I suppose.

[Soldier777]

II figured I would add a comment. I believe that the Bible is God's word. Also, it is the written version of who Christ is and reveals his personality. "The word became flesh and dweled among us". Also, I don't entirely understand the Bible and I have been reading it off and on for 30+ years so I don't expect nonchristians, non religious or those aren't exposed to christianity to understand it either.

I know there are issued that people are hung up on like homosexuality, evolution, obeying the sabbath, etc. What it boils down to is there are facts, faith and feelings. The facts involve the promises of God as wrtten in the Bible, faith that involve trusting on God and keeping our feeling and oninions at bay.

Also, there are many religions and christian denominations out there. Every religion disagree with each other but there can only be one truth. All religions lead to one destination: the judgement seat of Christ. We are all going to be judged. God has made it clear that of we believe in Jesus and accept and obey him and  confess our sins then we will go to heaven. This is the only way. 

Another thing is that Christ died for each one of us. He shed his blood for your redemption. Just as money is used to purchase items, His blood was used to purchase your redemption. The offer has been made to all the human race and all one has to do is receive his gift of salvation.


We are all guilty of sin and the sentence we face is hell. God cannot absolve and legally appeal our case unless we have accepted Christ. Let me illustrate with an example. There is a ministry team online on the web called the Way of the Master that consist of Kirk Cameron (Growing Pains, Left Behind Movies and Fireproof) and Ray Comfort. They would go to the streets and ask them if they die would they go to heaven. Their responses would vary depending on the person.

Then they would ask a few questions based on the 10 commandments: have you ever told a lie, have you ever stolen anything, have you ever lusted after another person, have you ever hated anyone and have you ever blasphemed God’s name. The answer to some or all of these would be usually be yes. Kirk or Ray would also say that if you hated anyone thant you have committed murder on your heart and if you lusted after another person then you have committed adultry in your heart according to the words of Jesus.. Then Ray or kirk would say that by your own admission you are a lying thieving adultrous murderer blastphemer. IF God were to judge you how would he find you? The respondent would say guilty and would agree that they won’t make it to heaven.

Then they would illustrate that pretend that you were in court and you were charged with a crime like murder or theft and your were sentenced to go to prison. Then someone from the audience stood up and said that he will serve the accused sentence. That is exactly what Christ did for us. He took our guilt and sin ans shame and applied it to himself so we can have eternal life if we accept him and repent of our sins.

So basically I am trying to make it as simple as possible - Jesus demonstrated his love for us by dying on the cross and rose from the grave. So all of our question that we have means nothing because they all melt away at the presence of Jesus. I have heard of a preacher said once that when a person gets to haven they will have a load of questions. Then when they see Jesus face to face and he hugs that person and that person and sees his nail pearced hands and the scar on his brow and side those questions will melt away. Then that person will say when thay see the glory of heaven what did I do to deserve all of this. That is when Christ will say you didn’t deserve this but I did all of this for you.

Folks, don’t let your questions get in the way of receiving the greatest gift the world cannot give - salvation and eternity on heaven. The only way I can explain how much God loves you are children. I have 2 children and I love them dearly. That is a small glimpse of the deep love that God has for you.

[Quadrochosis]

there can only be one truth

I've never once found a reason in my entire life to believe this. It's entirely possible (and likely) that multiple religions/philosophies/ways of life/thought patterns can be true.

[j]

there can only be one truth

I've never once found a reason in my entire life to believe this. It's entirely possible (and likely) that multiple religions/philosophies/ways of life/thought patterns can be true.

Actually, if there is such a thing as absolute truth, he's technically correct.

But Soldier, just to let you know, we are all quite familiar with the message of Christianity on this board.  While I appreciate that your post was well-meaning, it's all very common knowledge to just about everyone at this point, and we tend to be fairly critical of simply ignoring important details in favor of an overall conclusion.

-J

[Ħ]

there can only be one truth

I've never once found a reason in my entire life to believe this. It's entirely possible (and likely) that multiple religions/philosophies/ways of life/thought patterns can be true.

Yep gotta disagree with you here.  It's not possible for both Allah and Yahweh to be God.

[Quadrochosis]

there can only be one truth

I've never once found a reason in my entire life to believe this. It's entirely possible (and likely) that multiple religions/philosophies/ways of life/thought patterns can be true.

Yep gotta disagree with you here.  It's not possible for both Allah and Yahweh to be God.

It is if they are the same thing.

[Heretic]

Religions all interpret something as "god", which is the "one truth" I feel he's pointing at-- no matter the name of God, the being is the same: an all-knowing, all-powerful creator, protector, and overseer.

I do believe that a good bit of the Bible wasn't meant to be taken literally, but in a figurative sense, i.e. in the vein of Jesus' parables. Another good portion of the Bible was positioned mainly towards the Jewish people as a whole, however-- a good portion of the Old Testament, in fact. Much of the Bible does what I feel it was meant to: teach morals, teach rules, and pave the pathway for belief and faith. Not every single word is meant to be taken literally, but meant to be interpreted, in order to further your own faiths and beliefs.

[DylanHomie256]

I guess I should introduce myself, but what better way than to dive right into some deep conversation?

I'm making a topic to clarify a problem that comes up in debates quite a bit around here. Mainly, someone is talking about something the scientific method has told us about the world, and then someone pulls out Biblical knowledge on the subject, and suddenly it's the scientific method vs. god's apparently perfect word.

I've yet to see the Bible contradict with 100% proven science. Fairly probable theories, however...

Why are the two at ends? I really do not get that at all. In fact, it's that literalness in regards to the Bible that originally turned me away from Christianity for a couple of years, which is bizarre because I've read people here dismissing those who've turned away from Christianity as never having taken a literal-enough approach to the Bible anyway.

Here's my view on the Word: it doesn't have to be literal, it has to be accurate. When God told Daniel that the shaggy goat would dominate the lop-sided ram He wasn't saying an actually shaggy goat would levitate on over to an actual ram and kick its ass. I've never found the Bible to contradict itself, when people point out these "contradictions" I whip out my iPad Study Bible and show them the literal meaning of the words and the context of the portion of the verse they chose.

I guess my question is: "If the Bible is 100 percent correct, why would God create the world to reflect an entirely different creation story?" For an example we had awhile back, if the stuff about 6,000 years is true, why wouldn't God have created a world that reflected that, rather than giving us the fossil record? For a more recent example, if God didn't want people to act on their homosexuality, why are so many people (beyond a shadow of a doubt we know genetically wired) to do so?

Don't quote me on this, but i recall hearing that scientists have yet to factor in the proven decrease in the speed of light. The fossil layer is the easy one though, unlike the typical children's view of the ark story where we have little cats and cute puppies, this was back before we had many types of canines and felines. It's pretty clear in places like Job that humans interacted with dinosaurs. That means the dinosaurs would've had to survive the flood, and while Noah took each in pairs, there must've been a ton of dinosaurs that didn't get on the ark and were almost instantly covered in water/mud. The Bible places a lot of emphasis on faith, and while we can see the proof in most things there are big things we do need faith to believe in.

And as for being born homosexual, I should point out my family has long lines of alcoholics. Yes, it can be genetic, or you can go get it. If I were to have a single drink I could potentially get hooked, which is also against God's Law. And though it can be genetic, it's entirely possible to "re-wire" your brain. That's how we get addictions (training their brain in negative ways) and why people play games like Brain Age (training your brain in good ways). If you want to act on it it's your call, it's not my role to condemn anyone. Famous gay-turned-christian singer Little Richie even admits he was not born gay, but it was contagious. I mean no disrespect to gay members, I'm just pointing out that in addition to being born gay you can physically turn gay like you can grow a physical addiction to caffeine or you can physically improve your brain.

Futhermore, where in the Bible does it even say you should grant the Bible an unquestionably high level of authority? When does Jesus say, "Everything in the Bible is 100 percent literal truth, and God held the hands of the original authors while they wrote so it could be this way, so have a good time figuring out why it directly contradicts not only history but creation itself, suckers!" ? In other words, is their even a solid scriptural basis for the Bible to have obtained this level of authority that apparently can never be wrong or questioned?

I don't know if the Bible says that it isn't the inerrant Word of God, but if it was wrong about one little thing then God isn't who He says He is. If God is sinless he cannot lie.

Honestly, it seems to me that some Christians are using the Bible as a crutch when it comes to the really tough questions, just as others might use relativism or another doctrine. "How was the Earth created?" "I dunno, but I can discount people who've spent their lives researching the question and tell you what the Bible says!" The relativist would be equally dismissive, "I don't know, but it doesn't matter anyway!" Or, "Why are people born homosexual?" "I don't know, but God tells us it's a sin for them to act on it. Too bad!" 

It can be a crutch for the ill-prepared, but a tool for those who know it. Like your "Why are people born homosexual?", I can ask "Why are people born as child prodigies?" or "Why are people born blind?". It's genetics, God knows what's been floating around in your heritage for the past few thousand years.


And with that long-winded post I've probably already overstayed my welcome.

[Ħ]

I've yet to see the Bible contradict with 100% proven science. Fairly probable theories, however...

I stopped reading here.  There is no such thing as "100% proven science".  All of science is made of theories.

[sonatafanica]

your definition of "theory" might be off a bit by these standards

[Adami]

there can only be one truth

I've never once found a reason in my entire life to believe this. It's entirely possible (and likely) that multiple religions/philosophies/ways of life/thought patterns can be true.

Yep gotta disagree with you here.  It's not possible for both Allah and Yahweh to be God.

If there is a one true god, it is by default Allah. Even if it's that word which you really shouldn't be typing out like that (especially considering it's wrong).

[El JoNNo]

I've yet to see the Bible contradict with 100% proven science. Fairly probable theories, however...

I stopped reading here.  There is no such thing as "100% proven science".  All of science is made of theories.

This type of thinking is why I'm considering buying a t-shirt that says "Evolution is a theory, just like gravity.".

[GuineaPig]

Except that he's right.  Nothing's "proven" outside of mathematics.

[El JoNNo]

Yes but to stop reading something because it is based off of theory is just silly. I do not dispute his statement.

[DylanHomie256]

I've yet to see the Bible contradict with 100% proven science. Fairly probable theories, however...

I stopped reading here.  There is no such thing as "100% proven science".  All of science is made of theories.

idk man, i was pretty sure we knew for a fact that the earth floated in space.
Job 26:7 — "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and  hangeth the earth upon nothing."

i also thought we knew that the moon was actually not a source of light, unlike many ancient peoples
Job 25:5 — "Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight."

prior to the discovery of bacteria doctors would use a basin of water to wash their hands, which would transmit the disease. for some reason the bible specifies running watter
Leviticus 15:13 — "And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean."

i also though we knew that we can deplete soil's minerals, which works pretty well with the year of jubilee

i guess blood cells haven't proven to do much to help us either?
Leviticus 17:11 — "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is  the blood that  maketh an atonement for the soul."

[Adami]

Yes, the jews were pretty damn smart eh?


Maybe if you guys had kept up with some of the cleanliness stuff, the black plague wouldn't have killed so many.

[Ħ]

Except that he's right.  Nothing's "proven" outside of mathematics.

Even that has assumptions, such as a=a

[Adami]

Except that he's right.  Nothing's "proven" outside of mathematics.

Even that has assumptions, such as a=a

Nothing is fact. Happy? Now can we move past that?