> why not? the bible is a dogmatic text. it was written with the intention of being timeless, not needing to change because it's perfect due to its divine origin. scientific texts on the other hand don't have the luxury of such permanence. this is because science is always evolving as old theories are disputed with new data and new theories are posited to account for that data. this fact alone excludes the bible from the 'scientific' category.  > faggotry is not allowed in the bible, even back then they saw what it would cause, aids, monkeypox, plagues of disease. a) normative claims are not in of themselves scientific. b) aids and monkeypox are not mentioned in the bible. c) although the bible is correct in saying that homosexuality would spread disease, this was based on simple observation, and it would be disingenuous to equate that with the rigorous observation conducted under experimental conditions. > show me an earlier text that acknowledged that humanity would fall from homosexuality. many texts have been lost to time. how can you be sure that not one of those lost texts mentioned homosexuality spreading disease? > i can't see any reason for someone like you to dislike the bible. it's long, repetitive, and boring. also the faggots that promote it here are obnoxious af.
Australia