What’s “Day Zero” entain?
Once sexbots actually exist men will. And even if they don’t invest, the women will.
I often believe 90% of each sex would be happier in a sexually apartheid world if given equality. IOW men and their fembots live in a separate parallel existence from all the women & their dudebots. They shop in the same grocery stores and work in the same offices and factories but otherwise avoid one another like oil & water.
Not me, but most people.
Assuming you meant “what does ‘Day Zero’ mean?”
Day zero is the origin date of homo sapiens.
IOW: Religion: fucking things up since the very beginning.
My apologies. I meant “entail”. As in, We’d have to wait for some language formed, right? I understand we buried people with symbols and keepsakes, but that wasn’t exactly “religion”, was it?
I disagree it’d be that much, and I’m sure many would return after a few months… (at least the men). But a lot of gender roles are not inherently as exclusive as we were taught. I suppose a lot of it would depend on upbringing, too… if we were going into it being equal, I feel most would be acclimated to shared power?? I don’t know.
Depends on your definition of “religion”, doesn’t it? Christian-influenced definitions will often focus on faith, but it’s not difficult to come up with defensible definitions of “religion” that focus on practice, ritual, etc.
(But semantic arguments are ultimately boring.)
I believe that things like this are primarily commentary on what things were like in that time and place, not that it’s right (or wrong).
As for the six-day earth creation story? The original Greek word actually means “age” more than it does “day”, so it could have happened over any length of time.
But theology makes firm affirmations about “who” and “how”. If someone gave me a guidebook that was wrong 50% of the time, I would toss it.
The book of Genesis was written in Hebrew. Not Greek.
Nitpick: the original word was a Hebrew word. I am not qualified to say what it meant.
But, regardless of what language it was in, it clearly meant something other that what we conventionally mean by “day”, since the sun isn’t created until the fourth “day”.
The tension between “science” and “biblical literalism” that we are familiar with, and that this thread explores can’t exist until you have both science and biblical literalism as we know them (and in fact both emerge at about the same time in history). You don’t experience this tension unless you try to read scripture as if it were, say, a dispassionate objective report of a scientific experiment or observation, and you can’t make that attempt unless you know about, and accept the values and assumptions that underlie, dispassionate objective reports of a scientific experiments.
Scripture not having been written in this way, and not lending itself to being read in this way, isn’t a problem unless you privilege that particular genre of writing as perfect, and take it as a given that God couldn’t inspire texts in any other, necessarily imperfect, genre. But of course you can’t hold that view unless you are familiar with that genre of writing. Pre-moderns didn’t — couldn’t — hold that view because the genre didn’t exist. Hence they were unfazed by the thought that “day” in Genesis 1 didn’t mean a day, and they weren’t unduly fussed about what it did mean; they didn’t think that was the point of the text.
The scientists in this particular debate reject scripture because it can’t be read like a scientific account of events without producing absurd results, but this is objection has no force unless you start from the presumption that it has to be read as a scientific account of events. The biblical literalists reject science because they do in fact start from that presumption, and they do read scripture that way, and in order to preserve their faith in that assumption and in the inerrancy of scripture they must reject any evidence that reality does not accord with that reading.
As I understand it, the word yom literally means “day”, but it can also mean almost any length of time, because Biblical Hebrew doesn’t have many words to describe periods of time, and various passages in the OT use it to mean anything from a literal day to an entire lifetime (e.g. for the rest of his days) or even longer.
What exactly it means in Genesis 1 is probably one of those matters rabbis have been arguing over for centuries.
Oops, sorry!
Genesis 1:3-25 KJV And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
That’s really stretching the word, “how”. Be it holy or not, the Bible isn’t much of a science book. LOL
As far as I know, bible fundamentalists don’t consider it a historical document with old-fashioned descriptions of social mores of the time, they consider it the literal Word of God.
Though come to think of it, a long time ago I used to work with a guy who was a bible fundamentalist. I asked him why Christians don’t follow Old Testament practices like Kosher eating guidelines, since it’s in the bible. He said that Christ crated a new covenant between God and Christians that superseded or invalidated the old covenant between God and the Jewish people. So I guess that’s how Christian fundamentalists can justify ignoring the crazier parts of the OT while cherry-picking the parts of it they still like.
This. I think it might be possible to argue with a biblical literalist along these lines. But they represent a tiny subset of the people who rely on the Bible as part of their religious heritage. And all the rest of those people will just think you are an asshole who is missing the point.
(The biblical literalist will also think you are an asshole, but might possibly be troubled enough by your arguments to decide you must be wrong about some scientific facts.)
Agreed. @UDS1 gave a great answer and @puzzlegal’s conclusions drawn from it are spot-on. Either way, entering into this argument with a believer labels you (any you) an ass.
Your singular vague example doesn’t really cause me to “LOL” much. This page has a small list of scientific inaccuracies in the Bible, and there are certainly more: Scientific inaccuracies in the Bible - Religions Wiki
Moderating
Since this involves a lot of opinions and interpretation rather than actual facts, lets move this to IMHO (from FQ).
That raises the question, if it’s the same god, then did he get the covenants wrong in the OT? Why didn’t he get it right in the first place? Is he that inept?
Also, according to Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” So the OT still applies.
I found it funny in the light of the right wing mandate to “teach creationism” because there is literally no content to teach. One would have to be pretty far gone to think there is.
Or, just to bring it back around to religion, ask him to explain why a world with plenty of Protestants is also still home to plenty of Catholics — and, if he hesitates, say “and Jews.”