MAHDOOD on Nostr: I disagree that it is accurate. All religious texts are subject to interpretation, ...

I disagree that it is accurate. All religious texts are subject to interpretation, that's why they all have gatekeepers (e.g. priests, sheikhs, rabbis, monks). Most religions have enacted violence on people that interpret the texts differently. Look at the conflicts between sunni and shia muslims or the conflict between catholics and protestants in the dark ages. The protestant movement was literally a result of differing interpretations of the same text. Well if a text is subject to interpretation, then it isn't objective. That nullifies the existence of scientific accuracy. Religious texts cannot be scientifically accurate. It doesn't even make sense. Science is a process where you develop a hypothesis and repeatedly conduct experiments in order to test the hypothesis. You can't test these stories. You can't conduct a double blind placebo controlled experiment on the book of John. The people that shill religion and say that it is proven by science are either ignorant or dishonest. What they claim to be science is merely a coincidental correlation. For example, this ancient text says that if the people fornicate then they will be damned and their society will crumble. If the society crumbles, then they claim the text is scientific. That is not how science works and that is not science. Most societies eventually change or collapse regardless of their religious beliefs. There are also cultures and tribes that do fornicate and have no issues. So what is the response that is given when the damnation never comes? They always say god is all knowing and we can't comprehend his wisdom and that they will receive their punishment in the afterlife. Do you see how this is not scientific at all? The rules are not bounded in reality. When they claim something will happen and it does they say rejoice in gods glory. But when it doesn't happen, they rejoice in gods wisdom.