true motives

[Egeides]

The search for truth brings questions, but your questions may lead you to believe in God. But the problem is that some stop asking themselves questions saying they already know what they were searching for. In fact, they were only searching for a cushion to lay on, which doesn't make them bad persons but it is not as efficient as to always try to get better and closer to a complete understanding. But not everyone is zealot enough to continue searching when they think they have enough...

One thing besides: don't you think that now many preachers are simply the preachers of the "new truth"? Science and so on... If religion would come back in strenght, I'd hope they would separate religion from science and accept to take each one in its own field.

[Miles]

The search for truth brings questions, but your questions may lead you to believe in God. But the problem is that some stop asking themselves questions saying they already know what they were searching for. In fact, they were only searching for a cushion to lay on, which doesn't make them bad persons but it is not as efficient as to always try to get better and closer to a complete understanding. But not everyone is zealot enough to continue searching when they think they have enough...

I agree and I think that it is a shame that many people take the comfortable, easy way out.

One thing besides: don't you think that now many preachers are simply the preachers of the "new truth"? Science and so on... If religion would come back in strenght, I'd hope they would separate religion from science and accept to take each one in its own field.

I don't think that many can seperate science from religion. If a scientific discovery threatens the "truth" of their holy book, then they run for the cover of their security blanket. This is why religion will always limit the search for truth.

[Egeides]

This is because people believe the Bible gives a scientific knowledge while it is as true as to say that you'll find scientific knowledge in the telephone booth. It never was meant for that.

[sneezer3]

This is because people believe the Bible gives a scientific knowledge while it is as true as to say that you'll find scientific knowledge in the telephone booth. It never was meant for that.

The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate.

the Bible has given lots of scientific knowlege. Science once told us the earth was flat but the Bible remained to say otherwise in Isaiah 40:22.

I ran across a web-page one time with loads of stuff the Bible predicted about science. go to www.clarifyingchristianity.com

[Acriku]

Miles, holy crap, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Sneezer, don't be so naive. Science did not say the earth was flat. Scientists (and rather primitive ones) said it was, not to mention the Catholic Church. Now that we have the knowledge, some of us look towards the bible for any similarity, no matter how vague, with our knowledge and claim that bible is scientifically accurate.

[TMA_1]

The catholic church believed that the earth was round, as well as most of the scientific community. Those who didnt were usually looked upon as ignorant and unlearned by the intelligent community. They understood the round earth because of the greeks who understood thsi way back during the classical ages.

[Acriku]

At what time TMA? Because, as I remember from countless of times, the Catholic church at one time told the people that the earth was flat, and believed it, and sent the heretic who said it was round to death (or was it exile?).

[SurlyPIG]

...Miles is such a smart guy...I agree with literally everything he's said in this thread.

TMA, I don't know what time period you're talking about but in the dark ages and the middle ages it was believed with vehemonence that the Earth was flat...

[Egeides]

I think there is a little special case here... In my history courses (I'm in history), I got a teacher saying they were thinking it was round another mentioning the opposite. I believe it depends on who you call "they". If you mean the top elite, which may be 0,x% of the population, ok then since they study Greek litterature. Otherwise, the other believed all sorts of things the Church thaught were silly and pagan.

[TMA_1]

actually that is propaganda. The catholic church by the time when they discovered the greek writings from the muslims, understood the idea of a round earth. they believed thsi because they held the classical writers in such high regard, and that is what the greeks believed.

[Acriku]

Anything to support your claim tma?

[Warlord Ripskar]

It's all shades of grey Acriku. Take any cause you like, within the group that claims to support that cause you will find some who go for a word for word interpretation and some who have absolutely nothing to do with the cause.

The best interpretation of religeon in general that I've read (ie, the one which best fits what I have observed) is the "sleeping sheep - world view".

You seem to be on some sort of crusade to convert the masses to athieism resorting to dogma at every opportunity. In essence you are the Fire and Brimstone preacher, or rather his mirror image.

Those who believe in a god see this being as one of the principle elements of their world, without it their world view won't make sence. They are litterally incapable of believing in a world without god.

To rip god from them will dislocate them from the world and could cause them to go insane. They will instictivly react violently if you push them in this manner in self defence of their own sanity.

It's like trying to tell someone that the sky is pink, no matter how much you tell them or what evidence you present them with they are hideously unlikely to believe you.

Religeon is an illogical concept from the start, logical arguments have absolutely no effect on a believer.

[Miles]

Whether or not the Catholics new the Earth was a sphere or not is really irrelevant. The point was made that the Bible predicted this. In the passage most often cited for this "proof" it says that the Earth was a circle. Maybe this means spherical, maybe not, the point is that it proves nothing.

the Bible has given lots of scientific knowlege. Science once told us the earth was flat but the Bible remained to say otherwise in Isaiah 40:22.

I ran across a web-page one time with loads of stuff the Bible predicted about science. go to www.clarifyingchristianity.com

Yes, I have debated this topic many times. The "evidence" that is put forth boils down to either gross manipulation of Biblical writings or vague statements claimed to prove specific scientific facts. It is amazing how far Christians will go to attempt to validate these claims.

One of my favorites is the prediction of the seed in women. At the time the Bible was written up until fairly recently it was believed that during sex the sperm would go to the womb and turn into a baby on it's own. The only purpose of the woman was to house this process. However the Bible speaks to the "seed" of woman in Genesis 3:15

"...and I shall put enmity between you and the woman, and between her seed and your seed; He shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel."

This is shown by Christians to prove the Bible's knowldedge of the woman's seed or ovum.

However, the only thing this accomplishes is to show how far Christians will stretch interperetation to fit their fanatical belief. Let me give you two translations and you can judge for yourself who is right.

"...and I shall put enmity(hatred) between you(the serpent) and the woman (eve), and between her ovum and your sperm; he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel."

or

"...and I shall put enmity(hatred) between you(the serpent) and the woman(eve), and between your offspring and your offspring; he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel."

After debating this topic for several posts, I presented the idiocy of her position. For some reason, ;) she did not respond.

[sneezer3]

Whether or not the Catholics new the Earth was a sphere or not is really irrelevant. The point was made that the Bible predicted this. In the passage most often cited for this "proof" it says that the Earth was a circle. Maybe this means spherical, maybe not, the point is that it proves nothing.

Yes, I have debated this topic many times. The "evidence" that is put forth boils down to either gross manipulation of Biblical writings or vague statements claimed to prove specific scientific facts. It is amazing how far Christians will go to attempt to validate these claims.

You have negitivey towards religion and have just proven it. you din't even look at those, if you did you'd be point at the ones that are very slightly vague.

I think you can understand why i don't debate much anymore. Call me when you've broken off your negitivety and an answer will be suiffent enough.(aside from makeing the Sky turn Green.)

One of my favorites is the prediction of the seed in women. At the time the Bible was written up until fairly recently it was believed that during sex the sperm would go to the womb and turn into a baby on it's own. The only purpose of the woman was to house this process. However the Bible speaks to the "seed" of woman in Genesis 3:15

"...and I shall put enmity between you and the woman, and between her seed and your seed; He shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel."

This is shown by Christians to prove the Bible's knowldedge of the woman's seed or ovum.

However, the only thing this accomplishes is to show how far Christians will stretch interperetation to fit their fanatical belief. Let me give you two translations and you can judge for yourself who is right.

"...and I shall put enmity(hatred) between you(the serpent) and the woman (eve), and between her ovum and your sperm; he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel."

or

"...and I shall put enmity(hatred) between you(the serpent) and the woman(eve), and between your offspring and your offspring; he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel."

After debating this topic for several posts, I presented the idiocy of her position. For some reason, ;) she did not respond.

That passege isn't talking about what you think it is, i'd have to look at the context to give you exactly what its talking about.(not sure if it comes from the greek & hebrew or what now)

[Miles]

You have negitivey towards religion and have just proven it. you din't even look at those, if you did you'd be point at the ones that are very slightly vague.

Yes, I do have a negativity toward religion for the reasons that I posted already. I think I did point out one that was slightly vague below, but you refused to respond to it. Another would be the value of blood for life, and another would be the shape of the Earth, and yet, another would be Dinosaurs as Leviathans, and another would be the water cycle on Earth. Here are a few for you to chew on.

I think you can understand why i don't debate much anymore. Call me when you've broken off your negitivety and an answer will be suiffent enough.(aside from makeing the Sky turn Green.)

Yeah, I think I can understand why-- You don't have a case. Go debate with some people that have a "positivity" towards religion. I think you would fair a little better.

That passege isn't talking about what you think it is, i'd have to look at the context to give you exactly what its talking about.(not sure if it comes from the greek & hebrew or what now)

This passage is talking exactly what I think it is. God is speaking to the serpent after encouraging Adam to take the apple from the tree of knowledge. He is explaining the punishment to the serpent. My point is that it is brought up as evidence that the Bible predicts the "seed" of woman being the ovum as has been argued by many Christians. I used it as an example of how Christians will manipulate the meaning of passages to fit their desire to reconsile it with scientific discovery. It is pathetic and a little bit funny ;D

[Egeides]

sneezer: I don't think Jesus or the prophets would have come on Earth to give scientific knowledge to man. When Jesus came, when did he talk about "bringing Civilisation" or "bringing education"? Education is not what makes people good or bad, even if it may help some. Moral does.