Science Truth, and Religion

[Czernobog]

yes, people break the law. I would dispute your characterisation that it solely for pleasure, and it does nothing to dispute my point.

I suggest you look at sociopaths and their behavior before you make such an ignorant statement.

Do aberrations exist? How that contradicts my point, I don't understand. Sociopaths aren't "evil"; they're broken. Unless you submit that anyone who is broken is "evil"? Are schizophrenics "Evil"? How about Bi-Polar? Or OCD? I am not of the opinion that evil cannot exist; however to point to a person who is mentally broken, and call that evil seems a bit insensitive.

Not all sociopaths murder. The same is true for all psychological types. The evil comes in when they CHOOSE to do evil. And it is ultimately always a choice.

I think we might be whistling past each other. What you want to call "evil", I call unhealthy. But they are essentially the same thing - they are behaviours that are destructive. So, we're just dancing around each other, playing semantics.

No, we're not. What I am saying is there need not be religion for evil to exist. You all claim that religion is the root cause of all the bad stuff and that is simply ridiculous. MAN is the root cause. Your calling the murder of someone "unhealthy" is asinine. That person is pretty fuckin dead, and the asshole that did it, isn't "unwell", unwell is a bellyache, or a runny nose, murdering someone is evil, pure and simple.

Really? That dead guy was raping that "asshole's" daughter, at the tie he shot him. Is the "asshole" still evil? See? The world is almost never quite as black and white as we would like to pretend that it is.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Science and truth are anathema to religion.

 

[westwall]

I suggest you look at sociopaths and their behavior before you make such an ignorant statement.

Do aberrations exist? How that contradicts my point, I don't understand. Sociopaths aren't "evil"; they're broken. Unless you submit that anyone who is broken is "evil"? Are schizophrenics "Evil"? How about Bi-Polar? Or OCD? I am not of the opinion that evil cannot exist; however to point to a person who is mentally broken, and call that evil seems a bit insensitive.

Not all sociopaths murder. The same is true for all psychological types. The evil comes in when they CHOOSE to do evil. And it is ultimately always a choice.

I think we might be whistling past each other. What you want to call "evil", I call unhealthy. But they are essentially the same thing - they are behaviours that are destructive. So, we're just dancing around each other, playing semantics.

No, we're not. What I am saying is there need not be religion for evil to exist. You all claim that religion is the root cause of all the bad stuff and that is simply ridiculous. MAN is the root cause. Your calling the murder of someone "unhealthy" is asinine. That person is pretty fuckin dead, and the asshole that did it, isn't "unwell", unwell is a bellyache, or a runny nose, murdering someone is evil, pure and simple.

Really? That dead guy was raping that "asshole's" daughter, at the tie he shot him. Is the "asshole" still evil? See? The world is almost never quite as black and white as we would like to pretend that it is.

Ummmmm, dumbshit, that isn't called murder, that is called justifiable homicide. I suggest you try and at least learn SOMETHING about the laws you are trying to speak about.

 

[Czernobog]

Do aberrations exist? How that contradicts my point, I don't understand. Sociopaths aren't "evil"; they're broken. Unless you submit that anyone who is broken is "evil"? Are schizophrenics "Evil"? How about Bi-Polar? Or OCD? I am not of the opinion that evil cannot exist; however to point to a person who is mentally broken, and call that evil seems a bit insensitive.

Not all sociopaths murder. The same is true for all psychological types. The evil comes in when they CHOOSE to do evil. And it is ultimately always a choice.

I think we might be whistling past each other. What you want to call "evil", I call unhealthy. But they are essentially the same thing - they are behaviours that are destructive. So, we're just dancing around each other, playing semantics.

No, we're not. What I am saying is there need not be religion for evil to exist. You all claim that religion is the root cause of all the bad stuff and that is simply ridiculous. MAN is the root cause. Your calling the murder of someone "unhealthy" is asinine. That person is pretty fuckin dead, and the asshole that did it, isn't "unwell", unwell is a bellyache, or a runny nose, murdering someone is evil, pure and simple.

Really? That dead guy was raping that "asshole's" daughter, at the tie he shot him. Is the "asshole" still evil? See? The world is almost never quite as black and white as we would like to pretend that it is.

Ummmmm, dumbshit, that isn't called murder, that is called justifiable homicide. I suggest you try and at least learn SOMETHING about the laws you are trying to speak about.

And now we come to the crux of things...dumbshit. You are talking about people who break societal laws. I have been referring to personal moral codes. Why do you apologists for religion, and theism keep trying to conflate the two, and act as if they are interchangeable? Why is it so hard for you to conceive of a personal moral code that is separate from societal law?

 

[RodISHI]

In rational, intelligent human beings, when they learn a fact that is in direct conflict with a held belief, they reevaluate that belief and likely reject it as untrue. However, most religious people act as if they do not want to be bothered with facts. These are some of the most dangerous and psychologically unstable people on the planet. They’re willingly being controlled by a schizophrenic mind that allows both fact and fiction, truths and mythology to govern their actions. They knowingly let this unstable mind exist and use it to evaluate their friends and neighbors, other groups (religious or not) and other countries. Rather than seeking help for their condition, they seek others exhibiting these same characteristics and form groups with them. Then, once in groups, they ironically attack other groups of schizophrenic human beings who happen not to conform to their specific mental failings. Of course, these groups obviously also attack the remaining rational non-believers. Differing religious groups will go so far as to persecute, torture, murder and completely wipeout entire societies of human beings that will not conform to their schizophrenic views. Characterizing religions in this way is almost humorous, if it were not true! It is a flaw in the human design that has existed for all of recorded history. Religions provide answers to questions that do not yet have a scientific solution and many humans accept them. The table below lists some of the natural events that were not understood in the past. It lists the religious, untrue explanation often provided by the Church as well as the eventual scientific explanation that was discovered.Among atheists, the schizophrenic nature of the religious mind is among the most frustrating and baffling aspects of religion. How can believers continue to have faith in an explanation that has been proven time and time again to be false!?!? Why do human beings not reject organizations that continue to tell them lies!? These are dangerous human beings and more dangerous groups. They have committed horrendous atrocities throughout history in the name of their God. They have done this whenever they have attained a certain level of popularity or authority within their country either via the Church or government. Be afraid of these groups and never let down your guard of the separation between Church and State.



Scientific truths have continually shown the Bible to be a book of lies. Is it any wonder that Adam was forbidden to eat from the “tree of knowledge”?

They have? Please post up some scientific facts that have proven the bible to be false. I personally think the bible is a very accurate source for the history of the middle eastern areas from over 4,000 years ago. Archaeological work done in the region has shown the bible to be remarkably accurate. So, by all means plese tell us the scientific facts that you claim nullify actual archaeological work done in the area.

How about we start with an easy one: Joshua 10:13 - "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar."

Science has proven that for that to occur, would, literally, require the Earth to abruptly stop spinning on its axis, flinging everything - atmosphere, plants, animals, and us - into space. It is a scientific impossibility. A lie. And the Bible is full of such lies.

"Sun" meaning congregation of righteousness (hosts of heaven created to assist humans in overcoming). Whilst 'sun' is referring generally to illicit worship. "Moon", 'moon' is what old coinage/money/wealth again an un-righteous aspect and a righteous aspect. Do some homework.

And therein is the rub. By applying "interpretive meaning" to the bible, we get to have an ever-moving target, so that every time any part of the bible is proven to be impossible, rather than just consider that the bible may just be a collection of myths written by a bunch of desert dwellers, a couple thousand years ago, and no more relevant than the myths of Greece, we, instead, get to keep re-inventing the bible, and relegating whatever we need to to "allegory", and "metaphor" so we still get to say, "See? Your science didn't prove nuthin wrong!"

That's not how reason, and logic works.

You are the one stuck in a carnal mindset that cannot explain the spirit not me. Just because you do not understand it does not mean others are like you. Because you have no way to explain what other people see in a spiritual realm that is far beyond and above that of the carnal world you live in you remain in denial. That is a personal problem for you not me and others that I know. You are free to depend on your own concepts and precepts; if it bothers you that others do not and are not like you perhaps you should check out your own head a little more thoroughly.

 

[Czernobog]

In rational, intelligent human beings, when they learn a fact that is in direct conflict with a held belief, they reevaluate that belief and likely reject it as untrue. However, most religious people act as if they do not want to be bothered with facts. These are some of the most dangerous and psychologically unstable people on the planet. They’re willingly being controlled by a schizophrenic mind that allows both fact and fiction, truths and mythology to govern their actions. They knowingly let this unstable mind exist and use it to evaluate their friends and neighbors, other groups (religious or not) and other countries. Rather than seeking help for their condition, they seek others exhibiting these same characteristics and form groups with them. Then, once in groups, they ironically attack other groups of schizophrenic human beings who happen not to conform to their specific mental failings. Of course, these groups obviously also attack the remaining rational non-believers. Differing religious groups will go so far as to persecute, torture, murder and completely wipeout entire societies of human beings that will not conform to their schizophrenic views. Characterizing religions in this way is almost humorous, if it were not true! It is a flaw in the human design that has existed for all of recorded history. Religions provide answers to questions that do not yet have a scientific solution and many humans accept them. The table below lists some of the natural events that were not understood in the past. It lists the religious, untrue explanation often provided by the Church as well as the eventual scientific explanation that was discovered.Among atheists, the schizophrenic nature of the religious mind is among the most frustrating and baffling aspects of religion. How can believers continue to have faith in an explanation that has been proven time and time again to be false!?!? Why do human beings not reject organizations that continue to tell them lies!? These are dangerous human beings and more dangerous groups. They have committed horrendous atrocities throughout history in the name of their God. They have done this whenever they have attained a certain level of popularity or authority within their country either via the Church or government. Be afraid of these groups and never let down your guard of the separation between Church and State.



Scientific truths have continually shown the Bible to be a book of lies. Is it any wonder that Adam was forbidden to eat from the “tree of knowledge”?

They have? Please post up some scientific facts that have proven the bible to be false. I personally think the bible is a very accurate source for the history of the middle eastern areas from over 4,000 years ago. Archaeological work done in the region has shown the bible to be remarkably accurate. So, by all means plese tell us the scientific facts that you claim nullify actual archaeological work done in the area.

How about we start with an easy one: Joshua 10:13 - "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar."

Science has proven that for that to occur, would, literally, require the Earth to abruptly stop spinning on its axis, flinging everything - atmosphere, plants, animals, and us - into space. It is a scientific impossibility. A lie. And the Bible is full of such lies.

"Sun" meaning congregation of righteousness (hosts of heaven created to assist humans in overcoming). Whilst 'sun' is referring generally to illicit worship. "Moon", 'moon' is what old coinage/money/wealth again an un-righteous aspect and a righteous aspect. Do some homework.

And therein is the rub. By applying "interpretive meaning" to the bible, we get to have an ever-moving target, so that every time any part of the bible is proven to be impossible, rather than just consider that the bible may just be a collection of myths written by a bunch of desert dwellers, a couple thousand years ago, and no more relevant than the myths of Greece, we, instead, get to keep re-inventing the bible, and relegating whatever we need to to "allegory", and "metaphor" so we still get to say, "See? Your science didn't prove nuthin wrong!"

That's not how reason, and logic works.

You are the one stuck in a carnal mindset that cannot explain the spirit not me. Just because you do not understand it does not mean others are like you. Because you have no way to explain what other people see in a spiritual realm that is far beyond and above that of the carnal world you live in you remain in denial. That is a personal problem for you not me and others that I know. You are free to depend on your own concepts and precepts; if it bothers you that others do not and are not like you perhaps you should check out your own head a little more thoroughly.

Except "other people" don't see that, until such time as science proves that interpreting some part of the Bible literally requires believing that something happened that was scientifically impossible. Then, suddenly, it's, "Oh, that was ALWAYS figurative. How silly of you to think that anyone EVER took that part literally!"

Really??? Have you ever listened to Ken Hamm? You see, I'm sure that you will point out that He is a nutcake, and the "minority". The problem is, he wasn't the minority, until science proved that the Flood could not have happened the way the bible said it did. Then suddenly, a whole host of theories, from entirely figurative, to various versions of "it was a localised flood" came out, and Hamm's choice to continue to believe in the literal version of the bible became the minority. You constantly pretending that us poor unspiritual schlubs are just too ignorant to understand that the enlightened ones, like yourself, never took any of those portions of the bible literally, is as offensive as it is dishonest.

 

[RodISHI]

They have? Please post up some scientific facts that have proven the bible to be false. I personally think the bible is a very accurate source for the history of the middle eastern areas from over 4,000 years ago. Archaeological work done in the region has shown the bible to be remarkably accurate. So, by all means plese tell us the scientific facts that you claim nullify actual archaeological work done in the area.

How about we start with an easy one: Joshua 10:13 - "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar."

Science has proven that for that to occur, would, literally, require the Earth to abruptly stop spinning on its axis, flinging everything - atmosphere, plants, animals, and us - into space. It is a scientific impossibility. A lie. And the Bible is full of such lies.

"Sun" meaning congregation of righteousness (hosts of heaven created to assist humans in overcoming). Whilst 'sun' is referring generally to illicit worship. "Moon", 'moon' is what old coinage/money/wealth again an un-righteous aspect and a righteous aspect. Do some homework.

And therein is the rub. By applying "interpretive meaning" to the bible, we get to have an ever-moving target, so that every time any part of the bible is proven to be impossible, rather than just consider that the bible may just be a collection of myths written by a bunch of desert dwellers, a couple thousand years ago, and no more relevant than the myths of Greece, we, instead, get to keep re-inventing the bible, and relegating whatever we need to to "allegory", and "metaphor" so we still get to say, "See? Your science didn't prove nuthin wrong!"

That's not how reason, and logic works.

You are the one stuck in a carnal mindset that cannot explain the spirit not me. Just because you do not understand it does not mean others are like you. Because you have no way to explain what other people see in a spiritual realm that is far beyond and above that of the carnal world you live in you remain in denial. That is a personal problem for you not me and others that I know. You are free to depend on your own concepts and precepts; if it bothers you that others do not and are not like you perhaps you should check out your own head a little more thoroughly.

Except "other people" don't see that, until such time as science proves that interpreting some part of the Bible literally requires believing that something happened that was scientifically impossible. Then, suddenly, it's, "Oh, that was ALWAYS figurative. How silly of you to think that anyone EVER took that part literally!"

Really??? Have you ever listened to Ken Hamm? You see, I'm sure that you will point out that He is a nutcake, and the "minority". The problem is, he wasn't the minority, until science proved that the Flood could not have happened the way the bible said it did. Then suddenly, a whole host of theories, from entirely figurative, to various versions of "it was a localised flood" came out, and Hamm's choice to continue to believe in the literal version of the bible became the minority. You constantly pretending that us poor unspiritual schlubs are just too ignorant to understand that the enlightened ones, like yourself, never took any of those portions of the bible literally, is as offensive as it is dishonest.

I didn't concern myself with what I did not understand as a child in the Bible.I do know that for me I believed at a very young age and I called on God for help and an angel was sent. The Bible was secondary and came later for me to try to understand what all of the words meant. Now as a great grand I have taken the time to search it all out through and through and again for me I find what is written to be true. The deeper it is searched out the more is there that I find to confirm what I have seen and experienced in the world. If that bothers you again you will have to take that up within your own mind.

 

[Czernobog]

How about we start with an easy one: Joshua 10:13 - "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar."

Science has proven that for that to occur, would, literally, require the Earth to abruptly stop spinning on its axis, flinging everything - atmosphere, plants, animals, and us - into space. It is a scientific impossibility. A lie. And the Bible is full of such lies.

"Sun" meaning congregation of righteousness (hosts of heaven created to assist humans in overcoming). Whilst 'sun' is referring generally to illicit worship. "Moon", 'moon' is what old coinage/money/wealth again an un-righteous aspect and a righteous aspect. Do some homework.

And therein is the rub. By applying "interpretive meaning" to the bible, we get to have an ever-moving target, so that every time any part of the bible is proven to be impossible, rather than just consider that the bible may just be a collection of myths written by a bunch of desert dwellers, a couple thousand years ago, and no more relevant than the myths of Greece, we, instead, get to keep re-inventing the bible, and relegating whatever we need to to "allegory", and "metaphor" so we still get to say, "See? Your science didn't prove nuthin wrong!"

That's not how reason, and logic works.

You are the one stuck in a carnal mindset that cannot explain the spirit not me. Just because you do not understand it does not mean others are like you. Because you have no way to explain what other people see in a spiritual realm that is far beyond and above that of the carnal world you live in you remain in denial. That is a personal problem for you not me and others that I know. You are free to depend on your own concepts and precepts; if it bothers you that others do not and are not like you perhaps you should check out your own head a little more thoroughly.

Except "other people" don't see that, until such time as science proves that interpreting some part of the Bible literally requires believing that something happened that was scientifically impossible. Then, suddenly, it's, "Oh, that was ALWAYS figurative. How silly of you to think that anyone EVER took that part literally!"

Really??? Have you ever listened to Ken Hamm? You see, I'm sure that you will point out that He is a nutcake, and the "minority". The problem is, he wasn't the minority, until science proved that the Flood could not have happened the way the bible said it did. Then suddenly, a whole host of theories, from entirely figurative, to various versions of "it was a localised flood" came out, and Hamm's choice to continue to believe in the literal version of the bible became the minority. You constantly pretending that us poor unspiritual schlubs are just too ignorant to understand that the enlightened ones, like yourself, never took any of those portions of the bible literally, is as offensive as it is dishonest.

I didn't concern myself with what I did not understand as a child in the Bible.I do know that for me I believed at a very young age and I called on God for help and an angel was sent. The Bible was secondary and came later for me to try to understand what all of the words meant. Now as a great grand I have taken the time to search it all out through and through and again for me I find what is written to be true. The deeper it is searched out the more is there that I find to confirm what I have seen and experienced in the world. If that bothers you again you will have to take that up within your own mind.

What bothers me is your pretentious arrogance, and our pretence that anyone who doesn't agree with you is just an ignorant rube who needs to apply themselves better. That's what bothers me. Now, I admit that for you the bible can never be proven false, because not one thing recorded in the Bible actually happened, and, instead, the entire Bible is some secret codex with every word secretly meaning something other than what is actually written on the pages. So, any time the bible refers to something happening that science says is impossible, its okay, because the Bible never actually said what it says. For instance, God didn't impregnate a virgin. Rather he found a pure woman, one who had not been infected by the evil, and the cynicism of the day, and he imparted to her the "seed" - the understanding, and knowledge of his love - that she would impart to her son, so that he would be ready to save the world from itself.

 

[kjw47]

In rational, intelligent human beings, when they learn a fact that is in direct conflict with a held belief, they reevaluate that belief and likely reject it as untrue. However, most religious people act as if they do not want to be bothered with facts. These are some of the most dangerous and psychologically unstable people on the planet. They’re willingly being controlled by a schizophrenic mind that allows both fact and fiction, truths and mythology to govern their actions. They knowingly let this unstable mind exist and use it to evaluate their friends and neighbors, other groups (religious or not) and other countries. Rather than seeking help for their condition, they seek others exhibiting these same characteristics and form groups with them. Then, once in groups, they ironically attack other groups of schizophrenic human beings who happen not to conform to their specific mental failings. Of course, these groups obviously also attack the remaining rational non-believers. Differing religious groups will go so far as to persecute, torture, murder and completely wipeout entire societies of human beings that will not conform to their schizophrenic views. Characterizing religions in this way is almost humorous, if it were not true! It is a flaw in the human design that has existed for all of recorded history. Religions provide answers to questions that do not yet have a scientific solution and many humans accept them. The table below lists some of the natural events that were not understood in the past. It lists the religious, untrue explanation often provided by the Church as well as the eventual scientific explanation that was discovered.Among atheists, the schizophrenic nature of the religious mind is among the most frustrating and baffling aspects of religion. How can believers continue to have faith in an explanation that has been proven time and time again to be false!?!? Why do human beings not reject organizations that continue to tell them lies!? These are dangerous human beings and more dangerous groups. They have committed horrendous atrocities throughout history in the name of their God. They have done this whenever they have attained a certain level of popularity or authority within their country either via the Church or government. Be afraid of these groups and never let down your guard of the separation between Church and State.



Scientific truths have continually shown the Bible to be a book of lies. Is it any wonder that Adam was forbidden to eat from the “tree of knowledge”?

Archeologist dug many sights that prove some of the occurrances of the OT true.
Man has misused science and math so badly, they are destroying Gods earth. Things are starting to happen at an alarming rate. Weather havoc to the extremes all over the world. Because of the hole in the ozone--The air, land, water= all polluted, They are selling to us cancer. These are the men you put your trust into--I wouldn't walk that path.
Gods kingdom is mankinds only remaining hope. I believe its getting very close.

Sooo...we are "doing this" to the Earth contrary to God's Will? Or God wants the Earth to become uninhabitable? Because if it is the former, then we are powerful enough to thwart the Will of God?!?!? Really?!?!? And this is an "All-Powerful" God? Doesn't sound like it.

If it is the latter, then God is malevolent. Also, Archaeologists have found ruins that may (and that may is a very important qualifier) be of places mentioned in the Bible. We have found ruins of places spoken of in Arthurian Legends. Does than mean that King Arthur, and Merlin really lived? We know where 22b Baker Street is. Does that mean Sherlock Holmes was real?

God is all powerful. If he didn't allow the issues raised against him to be resolved once and for all time, the only other alternative was to kill the 3 rebels in Eden on the spot--No one ever born would have been born. Adam and Eve forced this system on all. Gods kingdom is the cure. The bible teaches the coming of Gods kingdom is good news.

 

[RodISHI]

"Sun" meaning congregation of righteousness (hosts of heaven created to assist humans in overcoming). Whilst 'sun' is referring generally to illicit worship. "Moon", 'moon' is what old coinage/money/wealth again an un-righteous aspect and a righteous aspect. Do some homework.

And therein is the rub. By applying "interpretive meaning" to the bible, we get to have an ever-moving target, so that every time any part of the bible is proven to be impossible, rather than just consider that the bible may just be a collection of myths written by a bunch of desert dwellers, a couple thousand years ago, and no more relevant than the myths of Greece, we, instead, get to keep re-inventing the bible, and relegating whatever we need to to "allegory", and "metaphor" so we still get to say, "See? Your science didn't prove nuthin wrong!"

That's not how reason, and logic works.

You are the one stuck in a carnal mindset that cannot explain the spirit not me. Just because you do not understand it does not mean others are like you. Because you have no way to explain what other people see in a spiritual realm that is far beyond and above that of the carnal world you live in you remain in denial. That is a personal problem for you not me and others that I know. You are free to depend on your own concepts and precepts; if it bothers you that others do not and are not like you perhaps you should check out your own head a little more thoroughly.

Except "other people" don't see that, until such time as science proves that interpreting some part of the Bible literally requires believing that something happened that was scientifically impossible. Then, suddenly, it's, "Oh, that was ALWAYS figurative. How silly of you to think that anyone EVER took that part literally!"

Really??? Have you ever listened to Ken Hamm? You see, I'm sure that you will point out that He is a nutcake, and the "minority". The problem is, he wasn't the minority, until science proved that the Flood could not have happened the way the bible said it did. Then suddenly, a whole host of theories, from entirely figurative, to various versions of "it was a localised flood" came out, and Hamm's choice to continue to believe in the literal version of the bible became the minority. You constantly pretending that us poor unspiritual schlubs are just too ignorant to understand that the enlightened ones, like yourself, never took any of those portions of the bible literally, is as offensive as it is dishonest.

I didn't concern myself with what I did not understand as a child in the Bible.I do know that for me I believed at a very young age and I called on God for help and an angel was sent. The Bible was secondary and came later for me to try to understand what all of the words meant. Now as a great grand I have taken the time to search it all out through and through and again for me I find what is written to be true. The deeper it is searched out the more is there that I find to confirm what I have seen and experienced in the world. If that bothers you again you will have to take that up within your own mind.

What bothers me is your pretentious arrogance, and our pretence that anyone who doesn't agree with you is just an ignorant rube who needs to apply themselves better. That's what bothers me. Now, I admit that for you the bible can never be proven false, because not one thing recorded in the Bible actually happened, and, instead, the entire Bible is some secret codex with every word secretly meaning something other than what is actually written on the pages. So, any time the bible refers to something happening that science says is impossible, its okay, because the Bible never actually said what it says. For instance, God didn't impregnate a virgin. Rather he found a pure woman, one who had not been infected by the evil, and the cynicism of the day, and he imparted to her the "seed" - the understanding, and knowledge of his love - that she would impart to her son, so that he would be ready to save the world from itself.

The whole beginning of adam which means human that is formed to till a garden didn't begin until after all of the hosts of heaven and earth were form. You called it arrogance because that is what you seem to desire to believe. take the time to learn the Hebrew if you want to know what all of the original words means. Not that it will do you any good if you remain in denial as if you don't beleieve in something it cannot exist for you.

 

[sakinago]

In rational, intelligent human beings, when they learn a fact that is in direct conflict with a held belief, they reevaluate that belief and likely reject it as untrue. However, most religious people act as if they do not want to be bothered with facts. These are some of the most dangerous and psychologically unstable people on the planet. They’re willingly being controlled by a schizophrenic mind that allows both fact and fiction, truths and mythology to govern their actions. They knowingly let this unstable mind exist and use it to evaluate their friends and neighbors, other groups (religious or not) and other countries. Rather than seeking help for their condition, they seek others exhibiting these same characteristics and form groups with them. Then, once in groups, they ironically attack other groups of schizophrenic human beings who happen not to conform to their specific mental failings. Of course, these groups obviously also attack the remaining rational non-believers. Differing religious groups will go so far as to persecute, torture, murder and completely wipeout entire societies of human beings that will not conform to their schizophrenic views. Characterizing religions in this way is almost humorous, if it were not true! It is a flaw in the human design that has existed for all of recorded history. Religions provide answers to questions that do not yet have a scientific solution and many humans accept them. The table below lists some of the natural events that were not understood in the past. It lists the religious, untrue explanation often provided by the Church as well as the eventual scientific explanation that was discovered.Among atheists, the schizophrenic nature of the religious mind is among the most frustrating and baffling aspects of religion. How can believers continue to have faith in an explanation that has been proven time and time again to be false!?!? Why do human beings not reject organizations that continue to tell them lies!? These are dangerous human beings and more dangerous groups. They have committed horrendous atrocities throughout history in the name of their God. They have done this whenever they have attained a certain level of popularity or authority within their country either via the Church or government. Be afraid of these groups and never let down your guard of the separation between Church and State.



Scientific truths have continually shown the Bible to be a book of lies. Is it any wonder that Adam was forbidden to eat from the “tree of knowledge”?

What’s even more schizophrenic than what you’re describing, is holding ancient peoples to the same high scientific standard that we have today. Now that’s lunacy. Further you ignore the 90% of good that religion has brought, particularly judeo-Christian religion, and pay attention to the bad 10%, and again holds these ancient peoples to the standards of today...when it was these very people who led to the standards we have today, while the world around them was bathed in what we consider evil, and blood of the innocent.

Religion has brought us science, free society, capitalism. You might want to claim that it was and has been counter to science. False, there was plenty of pushback of religion to science sure, but religion brought the enlightenment, the thought that god demands the search for truth. So was there unsuccessful pushback to science, yes, but there’s plenty of pushback to science in secular society, even today.

If you look at the first and last books of the Bible, through the lens of the authors, who were people who didn’t have a concept of what the sun was, the stars, the moon, how their body worked, how life worked, or even the vocabulary to describe these scientific concepts we take for granted today...well then in that lens, they got it pretty damn close. There was an empty void, then god said let there be light. Then the universe was formless, then the heavens and the earth were created. Then the earth was without form, then the land and sea formed, then the fish in the sea, then the animals of the land, then finally humans...considering science didn’t even exist at the time, and that this was mythology passed by word of mouth to relatively stupid generation to the next relatively stupid generation over and over until it was finally written down...they got it pretty damn close. It’s at the very least eyebrow raising. Especially considering every other creation story out there, none of them hold a candle to that one.

Now let’s go to the last book, revelation. Again through the lens of its author, another man with zero concept of science, didn’t even have the concepts or vocabulary to describe the wild future we have today. Yet he’s describing concepts we are starting to see today. Like the reinstatement of Israel...if you were to go to Vegas and get the odds to bet on the formation of Israel before it happened...they would’ve been astronomically unlikely. How about the concept of not being to buy and sell without the “mark of the beast.” What a crazy concept when currency was in its relative infancy, no banking, and trade and bartering ruled. No look at today, we are moving to a cashless society. That’s pretty interesting. How about swarms of armored clad locust with screaming hair, that spit fire...hmm I wonder how an ancient person would describe the type of swarm drone technology China is working on. Or things like metal chariots shooting fire, kind of sounds like tanks. Or an iron dome protecting Israel from attack. All of this is very eyebrow raising to say the least.

 

[Czernobog]

What’s even more schizophrenic than what you’re describing, is holding ancient peoples to the same high scientific standard that we have today. Now that’s lunacy. Further you ignore the 90% of good that religion has brought, particularly judeo-Christian religion, and pay attention to the bad 10%, and again holds these ancient peoples to the standards of today...when it was these very people who led to the standards we have today, while the world around them was bathed in what we consider evil, and blood of the innocent.

So, the bible can only be read in context of the time in which it was written? How then, can anyone claim that the bible is universal, and relevant to today's standards? You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that the bible is a "living document" relevant to today, when it is convenient to do so, and then insist, when the bible contains uncomfortable messages, that those are only relevant to the time they were written. I mean, you can do that, but when you do, rational people will recognise the inconsistency of the argument.

Religion has brought us science, free society, capitalism. You might want to claim that it was and has been counter to science. False, there was plenty of pushback of religion to science sure, but religion brought the enlightenment, the thought that god demands the search for truth. So was there unsuccessful pushback to science, yes, but there’s plenty of pushback to science in secular society, even today.

That is simply not true. Religion did not "bring" us science. Science developed independently of religion. By your own admission religion - particularly Christianity - sought to stop scientific advancement. You want to soften what it did by calling it "pushback", but let's call it what it was - and active attempt to subvert, and silence scientific study when it countered Religious teaching.

If you look at the first and last books of the Bible, through the lens of the authors, who were people who didn’t have a concept of what the sun was, the stars, the moon, how their body worked, how life worked, or even the vocabulary to describe these scientific concepts we take for granted today...well then in that lens, they got it pretty damn close. There was an empty void, then god said let there be light. Then the universe was formless, then the heavens and the earth were created. Then the earth was without form, then the land and sea formed, then the fish in the sea, then the animals of the land, then finally humans...considering science didn’t even exist at the time, and that this was mythology passed by word of mouth to relatively stupid generation to the next relatively stupid generation over and over until it was finally written down...they got it pretty damn close. It’s at the very least eyebrow raising. Especially considering every other creation story out there, none of them hold a candle to that one.

That's not eve a remotely accurate paraphrase of the first book of the bible. The first thing God did, after "creating" the heavens, was "create" light. From what? There was no source of light until, three days later, when he "created" the sun, and moon. So, from whence was this "light" coming? How were days, and nights measured, since there was no light source? He created the animals of the Earth a full two days before creating the plants of the earth. What were those animals eating? There were no plants. You have creatively rearranged the events of Genesis to make it appear as if Genesis got the sicence "pretty close", when, in reality, if one actually reads Genesis, it was even a little bit close. It was a jumbled mess of mythical bullshit.

Now let’s go to the last book, revelation. Again through the lens of its author, another man with zero concept of science, didn’t even have the concepts or vocabulary to describe the wild future we have today. Yet he’s describing concepts we are starting to see today. Like the reinstatement of Israel...if you were to go to Vegas and get the odds to bet on the formation of Israel before it happened...they would’ve been astronomically unlikely. How about the concept of not being to buy and sell without the “mark of the beast.” What a crazy concept when currency was in its relative infancy, no banking, and trade and bartering ruled. No look at today, we are moving to a cashless society. That’s pretty interesting. How about swarms of armored clad locust with screaming hair, that spit fire...hmm I wonder how an ancient person would describe the type of swarm drone technology China is working on. Or things like metal chariots shooting fire, kind of sounds like tanks. Or an iron dome protecting Israel from attack. All of this is very eyebrow raising to say the least.

Yeah...ya know. That's the beauty of the highly interpretive works of eschatology. It is highly speculative, and subjective. Every generation has insisted that the words written in revelation can be connected to the technology of their generation, and insisted that "the end is nigh", because Revelations was referring to "them". Guess what? Every one of those generations was wrong, and I have no doubt that this generation is just as wrong as the ones before it. Because the writings of revelation were the fevered dreams of a madman, and completely subjective, and will be able to be interpreted by every generation that follows us as being about "their" generation, just as we're so sure it's about ours.

 

[sakinago]

So, the bible can only be read in context of the time in which it was written? How then, can anyone claim that the bible is universal, and relevant to today's standards? You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that the bible is a "living document" relevant to today, when it is convenient to do so, and then insist, when the bible contains uncomfortable messages, that those are only relevant to the time they were written. I mean, you can do that, but when you do, rational people will recognise the inconsistency of the argument.

Theres ZERO inconsistency to that argument. That's exactly how historical documents are to be read, and the bible is religious history. If someone was writing about how to use a blunderbuss, you don't try those directions using a shotgun and then say, "well shit, this asshole didn't know what he was talking about." If you do not read this type of history within historical context in mind...youre not going to get very far. I've only heard the living document claim used in reference to the constitution, that it doesn't mean what it says, or better isnt up to date with what it says, and its fair game for interpretation. If you want to apply that to the bible OK, I don't really see another way to read it. That doesn't mean it lacks valuable lessons to be learned today. We extrapolate all types of lessons from mythology today, and use it quite often, even in the scientific realm. The boy who cried wolf, narcissi's, Oedipus, Prometheus, Icarus, Pandora, Platos cave just off the top of my head. All of these stories still have value, reference, and illustrate concepts we see, teach, and use today. Take for instance what you referenced in the garden of eden. Well, you could read that as God didn't want Adam and Eve to gain knowledge, and become evil because of that knowledge...and if that's what he really wanted, well for being an all powerful creator, he was pretty shitty at doing that since he was all powerful and omniscient, and somehow didn't foresee that making a tree with fruit granting that knowledge would be too much of a temptation. OR, you can read the story as it was probably intended, as really the first sort of recognition of the disparity of human intelligence and morals vs that of the beasts. Much like gravity up until Newton, that people were aware of, had a good understanding of the effects of it, but took it for granted and didn't really dive in to try to explain and apply that concept to world around them...well same sort of thing with the disparity of intelligence between beast and man. Man lived among nature, and in "harmony" with nature, ran around naked, didn't have a concept of murder, or right and wrong, or shame, only survival. They were ignorant and instinctual. But, there was a jump somewhere that created a divide between man and nature, they ate from the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil...then they experienced things like shame, shame of their nakedness, shame of their actions, tried to use things we don't see animals do outside of their instincts like lying and trickery. The point is non of the concepts could really be present without knowledge, humanity not only stepping into the age of reason over instincts, but the age of morality that came with it.

That is simply not true. Religion did not "bring" us science. Science developed independently of religion. By your own admission religion - particularly Christianity - sought to stop scientific advancement. You want to soften what it did by calling it "pushback", but let's call it what it was - and active attempt to subvert, and silence scientific study when it countered Religious teaching.

Yes it is. Sure maybe not 100% all thanks to religion, but the age of science was greatly influenced by religion, there is no arguably better influence to modern day science than religion. All starting with the 99 thesis by Martin Luther, which started the concept of "not only are we not actually reading and breaking down the concepts in the bible, and just listening to what the leaders say about it, but also the bible should be in more accessible languages than latin, so the knowledge in there wouldn't be horded by the priesthood, but accessed by everyone." This then lead to the concept that everyone should really learn to read, so they can read the bible for themselves, and try to get a better understanding of it, and search for TRUTH. Which then lead to the age of the enlightenment, where not only should we search for truth in the bible, but we should search for the truth in the world around us that is gods creation. And again the push back from SOME of the leaders of the church against science was unsuccessful, because the age of enlightenment got people to stop relying on the leaders around them to do their thinking for them. And the concept of having other people think for you was pretty much universal. Sure plenty of societies were on different spectrums of the amount of leaders doing the thinking for you and you just do what they say. But largely the world was made up of kings an nobility, and the uneducated masses were easier to control, not to mention hard to educate since many cared more about getting their next meal and staving off starvation. But enlightenment was the first time ' we saw this concept that everyone should really think for themselves, and use the "liberal arts" or better said the arts that set us free.

That's not eve a remotely accurate paraphrase of the first book of the bible. The first thing God did, after "creating" the heavens, was "create" light. From what? There was no source of light until, three days later, when he "created" the sun, and moon. So, from whence was this "light" coming? How were days, and nights measured, since there was no light source? He created the animals of the Earth a full two days before creating the plants of the earth. What were those animals eating? There were no plants. You have creatively rearranged the events of Genesis to make it appear as if Genesis got the sicence "pretty close", when, in reality, if one actually reads Genesis, it was even a little bit close. It was a jumbled mess of mythical bullshit.

Ok so going off of memory I got things wrongs. But its still damn close, closer than any other mythology by a longshot. especially considering these are people without science, or even the vocabulary to describe the universe as we know it. People with zero concept that the stars are just suns far away, and that earth isnt the only planet, in a geocentric world view. And they managed to pass this knowledge down through scientifically stupid people generation after generation, via word of mouth. This idea of chronological events and steps during epochs leading up to humans. So in that context, there were no stars in the very beginning of the universe, just a shit ton of radiation and space dust, ipso facto no light as we perceive was being given off by any stars...that take millions of years to form. So the universe was kind of devoid of light, wasn't it. And our star is a relatively young one, that wasn't around in the infancy of the universe. So explain that to a four year old who hasn't really been given any scientific knowledge, have him tell other 4 year olds, who then tell other 4 year olds, and see where the story winds up.

Yeah...ya know. That's the beauty of the highly interpretive works of eschatology. It is highly speculative, and subjective. Every generation has insisted that the words written in revelation can be connected to the technology of their generation, and insisted that "the end is nigh", because Revelations was referring to "them". Guess what? Every one of those generations was wrong, and I have no doubt that this generation is just as wrong as the ones before it. Because the writings of revelation were the fevered dreams of a madman, and completely subjective, and will be able to be interpreted by every generation that follows us as being about "their" generation, just as we're so sure it's about ours.

Some of these descriptions are pretty damn specific. Swarms of large armored locust with screaming hair that shoot fire terrorizing people...theres not many ways to interpret that, that's not really a highly generalized non specific Nostradamus like saying. Imagine going back and time and trying to describe our tech to someone from colonial America. Like a phone, oh yea we have smart phones...whats a phone, well you use them to talk to people across distances...oh ok...and they have touch screens that...well whats a screen? Pretty clear to see where that exercise goes. Or Concepts like not being able to buy or sell...would've sounded just as crazy as oversized armored locust at that time. Or the reinstatement of Israel, having a dome of protection...were watching that happen right before our eyes.

 

[daisiesRwild]

In rational, intelligent human beings, when they learn a fact that is in direct conflict with a held belief, they reevaluate that belief and likely reject it as untrue. However, most religious people act as if they do not want to be bothered with facts. These are some of the most dangerous and psychologically unstable people on the planet. They’re willingly being controlled by a schizophrenic mind that allows both fact and fiction, truths and mythology to govern their actions. They knowingly let this unstable mind exist and use it to evaluate their friends and neighbors, other groups (religious or not) and other countries. Rather than seeking help for their condition, they seek others exhibiting these same characteristics and form groups with them. Then, once in groups, they ironically attack other groups of schizophrenic human beings who happen not to conform to their specific mental failings. Of course, these groups obviously also attack the remaining rational non-believers. Differing religious groups will go so far as to persecute, torture, murder and completely wipeout entire societies of human beings that will not conform to their schizophrenic views. Characterizing religions in this way is almost humorous, if it were not true! It is a flaw in the human design that has existed for all of recorded history. Religions provide answers to questions that do not yet have a scientific solution and many humans accept them. The table below lists some of the natural events that were not understood in the past. It lists the religious, untrue explanation often provided by the Church as well as the eventual scientific explanation that was discovered.Among atheists, the schizophrenic nature of the religious mind is among the most frustrating and baffling aspects of religion. How can believers continue to have faith in an explanation that has been proven time and time again to be false!?!? Why do human beings not reject organizations that continue to tell them lies!? These are dangerous human beings and more dangerous groups. They have committed horrendous atrocities throughout history in the name of their God. They have done this whenever they have attained a certain level of popularity or authority within their country either via the Church or government. Be afraid of these groups and never let down your guard of the separation between Church and State.



Scientific truths have continually shown the Bible to be a book of lies. Is it any wonder that Adam was forbidden to eat from the “tree of knowledge”?

The same can be said for atheists and other non-believers - Jesus gave us simple instructions to find him and he would reveal himself yet none of you wantto try it so therefore your half equations are moot