So we Live in a Black Hole...

[Superdude]

The Bible was inpired by God. It is infallible because of that.


You can say that about anything... including evolutionary theory.

Uh... No. Evolutionists do not even believe in God.

The Catholic Church in the old times were many times ruled by a corrupt pope.
And besides, people aren't infallible, only God and his words are.

[Disch]

Evolutionists do not even believe in God.

.... More misconception about evolution.

Evolution and religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As has been previously mentioned in this thread... there are many Christian scientists who investigate these fields while having faith in a higher power.

See that youtube link I linked to on the last page.


My point is not that there is not God. I've never said that. My point is that belief systems like Christianity tend perpetuate ignorance by stifling people from educating themselves.

Your above statement proves my point. You feel you can't learn about evolution because it would mean you "don't believe in God". So you remain ignorant about it.

What's more... you actively speak out against it despite the fact that you know nothing about it... which perpetuates ignorance in the people you talk to.

And besides, people aren't infallible, only God and his words are.

Err... yes.... but people wrote the Bible. Maybe God spoke to those people, but the Bible was still written by their hand.


EDIT: But I'm going to drop the Bible point because it's not related to my original point....

The original point (and the only one I care about) is how religiosity has a long track record of perpetuating ignorance and impeding societal/technological/scientific development.

[cire]

The Bible was inpired by God. It is infallible because of that.


You can say that about anything... including evolutionary theory.

Uh... No. Evolutionists do not even believe in God.

Logically speaking, if you believe in God and that everything comes from him, then everything, including evolutionary theory, is inspired by God. We can make the syllogism complete and conclude that everything is infallible.

This thread is horribly tiring and completely inane; we all live in a yellow submarine.

[jwkNwA7f]

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "inspired".

Typically, when Christians say that, it means "was/were told".

Err... yes.... but people wrote the Bible. Maybe God spoke to those people, but the Bible was still written by their hand.

Yeah.

religiosity has a long track record of perpetuating ignorance and impeding societal/technological/scientific development.

Maybe you know how some do, but I have never known of any. Also, how does it do that with social and technological development?

EDIT:

This raises an interesting question. Why is there a "new" King James version? Was there something wrong with the "old" King James version?

I have never heard of a new King James Version. There are new versions, though. These were made because the original King James Version was in old English, anc now they have a version worded like people talk now.

[Superdude]

No,

Not every thing that he created is infallible. That is silly. People have free will. If God controlled everything explicitly, then of course, everything that happened would be his direct responsibility.

Err... yes.... but people wrote the Bible. Maybe God spoke to those people, but the Bible was still written by their hand.

That is redundant. God told them what to say, and they wrote it. Simple.

This whole thing is easy to understand and to believe if you want to. Otherwise, you become desperate to prove that there is no God.

[jwkNwA7f]

Yeah, God does not make us do anything. If he did, then we would not be able to do anything wrong and against him. Also, we all would believe in him.

[Disch]

Maybe you know how some do, but I have never known of any. Also, how does it do that with social and technological development?

Same sex marriage is illegal in most states despite the fact that the only reason anyone could possibly oppose it is based in religious beliefs (edit: or, I suppose bigotry) (hindering social development)

Paleontology cannot be taught in most public schools in the US (hindering scientific development)

Galileo was imprisoned indefinitely for heresy for suggesting offering proof that the Earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair (hindering scientific development)


I can't immediately think of a technological instance.

[jwkNwA7f]

Same sex marriage is illegal in most states despite the fact that the only reason anyone could possibly oppose it is based in religious beliefs (hindering social development)

Well, yeah. But, it is still wrong and weird.

Paleontology cannot be taught in most public schools in the US (hindering scientific development)

Just like Christianity can't be taught in public school?

[timprograms]

@disch Galileo was hindered by the Catholic church which has always listened to tradition rather than God

[jwkNwA7f]

Off topic: Is unmarried sex illegal? (just wondering since it was mentioned above)
On topic: Abortion is wrong anyway. Killing a baby, just because you don't want him/her?

[Disch]

Well, yeah. But, it is still wrong and weird.

"Wrong" is subjective. There's actually nothing wrong with it from any objective biological or mental viewpoint. In fact it exists throughout nature and history.

"Weird" is also subjective. Considering how large the homosexual population is, it's probably not as weird as you think it is. It's actually very common.

You only think it's wrong and weird because that's how you were raised -- that's what your religion tells you.

Just like Christianity can't be taught in public school?

Christianity is not provable fact. Paleontology is.

If we can't teach objective, proven facts in our schools, why do we even have schools?

[Script Coder]

This raises an interesting question. Why is there a "new" King James version? Was there something wrong with the "old" King James version?

Do not know this sources reliability but it could help: http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071221021247AARaPL2

Your above statement proves my point. You feel you can't learn about evolution because it would mean you "don't believe in God". So you remain ignorant about it.

I would like to back you up on this. The Bible does state that we should not remain ignorant. And also the Bible says nothing about learning about other things it just says that we should not align ourselves under them. E.g. I can knowingly be best friends with a satanist and we can be life long friends (acting and being regular friends) and it will not be a sin. Nor is learning about satanism.

Logically speaking, if you believe in God and that everything comes from him, then everything, including evolutionary theory, is inspired by God.

God could very well have created the universe from the big bang and crafted humans and life in an evolutionary fashion, He does not say how he did it, only that He did.

As for the contents of the Bible being true/original, etc. I say that the basic concepts remain the same, and also, everyone can read the same scripture and give you completely different explanations.

[cire]

This whole thing is easy to understand and to believe if you want to. Otherwise, you become desperate to prove that there is no God.

I don't believe in God, however I'm no more desperate to prove there is no god than I am desperate to prove invisible unicorns don't fly out of my ass when I fart.

[Superdude]

The original point (and the only one I care about) is how religiosity has a long track record of perpetuating ignorance and impeding societal/technological/scientific development.

Scientific development was not at all hindered by Christianity. It mostly helped, until science tried to shove God out of the picture with evolutionism.

Social development has crashed since the huge loosening of morals in society.

Technological development? What does that have anything to do with religion??

[timprograms]

What about Jesus I mean like lots of people admit he existed... They say he was a good guy but would a good guy say hes God and lie would he do all these things
hes either God or a big liar
i know hes God what about you

[jwkNwA7f]

@Disch Just because homosexuality is common doesn't mean it is not weird.

I don't believe in God, however I'm no more desperate to prove there is no god than I am desperate to prove invisible unicorns don't fly out of my ass when I fart.

I know, but a lot of atheists do.
REALLY? I always thought the unicorns did, oh well.

[Daleth]

Don't know if anyone has brought this up, but there was one theory that states a universe is created when two brane (?) membranes collide in the fourth spatial dimension. The collision releases energy in both membranes, causing Big Bangs.

Hope I remembered that correctly.

[Script Coder]

But, it is still wrong and weird.

Please don't say that they are going to hell. Only God has the ability and decision to send people to hell.

If we can't teach objective, proven facts in our schools, why do we even have schools?

I agree, children should be taught facts in school, however, religion need to also be studied. Perhaps from a society point of view.

As for homosexuality's correctness: no comment
As for homosexuality's use: I do not know how it can be useful from a biological perceptive. Reproduction is meant to create life. Maybe it could be that we are meant to have heterosexual intercourse for reproductive purposes only, with homosexual intercourse being for pleasure?

PLEASE NOTE MY POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE SUBJECTIVE

[3qX21hU5]

Disch wrote:

Same sex marriage is illegal in most states despite the fact that the only reason anyone could possibly oppose it is based in religious beliefs (edit: or, I suppose bigotry) (hindering social development)

Here is a interesting read on how marriage came about and marriage has been defined between men and women since before religion became involved in it. Though it has changed over the years like everything does so I can see where you are coming from with that statement.

This is something I am torn upon personally I believe they should be able to marry though it goes against my faith.

Sorry about the wall or post did have the website for this.

The origins of marriage
The institution of marriage is now the subject of a bitter national debate. How did marriage begin—and why?

How old is the institution?
The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

What was it about, then?
Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else.

When did religion become involved?
As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God’s grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.

Did this change the nature of marriage?
Church blessings did improve the lot of wives. Men were taught to show greater respect for their wives, and forbidden from divorcing them. Christian doctrine declared that “the twain shall be one flesh,” giving husband and wife exclusive access to each other’s body. This put new pressure on men to remain sexually faithful. But the church still held that men were the head of families, with their wives deferring to their wishes.

When did love enter the picture?
Later than you might think. For much of human history, couples were brought together for practical reasons, not because they fell in love. In time, of course, many marriage partners came to feel deep mutual love and devotion. But the idea of romantic love, as a motivating force for marriage, only goes as far back as the Middle Ages. Naturally, many scholars believe the concept was “invented” by the French. Its model was the knight who felt intense love for someone else’s wife, as in the case of Sir Lancelot and King Arthur’s wife, Queen Guinevere. Twelfth-century advice literature told men to woo the object of their desire by praising her eyes, hair, and lips. In the 13th century, Richard de Fournival, physician to the king of France, wrote “Advice on Love,” in which he suggested that a woman cast her love flirtatious glances—“anything but a frank and open entreaty.”

Did love change marriage?
It sure did. Marilyn Yalom, a Stanford historian and author of A History of the Wife, credits the concept of romantic love with giving women greater leverage in what had been a largely pragmatic transaction. Wives no longer existed solely to serve men. The romantic prince, in fact, sought to serve the woman he loved. Still, the notion that the husband “owned” the wife continued to hold sway for centuries. When colonists first came to America—at a time when polygamy was still accepted in most parts of the world—the husband’s dominance was officially recognized under a legal doctrine called “coverture,” under which the new bride’s identity was absorbed into his. The bride gave up her name to symbolize the surrendering of her identity, and the husband suddenly became more important, as the official public representative of two people, not one. The rules were so strict that any American woman who married a foreigner immediately lost her citizenship.

How did this tradition change?
Women won the right to vote. When that happened, in 1920, the institution of marriage began a dramatic transformation. Suddenly, each union consisted of two full citizens, although tradition dictated that the husband still ruled the home. By the late 1960s, state laws forbidding interracial marriage had been thrown out, and the last states had dropped laws against the use of birth control. By the 1970s, the law finally recognized the concept of marital rape, which up to that point was inconceivable, as the husband “owned” his wife’s sexuality. “The idea that marriage is a private relationship for the fulfillment of two individuals is really very new,” said historian Stephanie Coontz, author of The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. “Within the past 40 years, marriage has changed more than in the last 5,000.”

Men who married men
Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. “Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!” Juvenal wrote. “Such things, before we’re very much older, will be done in public.” He mocked such unions, saying that male “brides” would never be able to “hold their husbands by having a baby.” The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342. But Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union,” the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.”

cppprogrammer wrote:

@Disch Just because homosexuality is common doesn't mean it is not weird.

Weird to who? You? Are you the one that gets to decide for all now?

[jwkNwA7f]

Please don't say that they are going to hell. Only God has the ability and decision to send people to hell.

I never said that. I just said is a wrong thing to do and that it is weird. I know God is the only one who can send someone to hell.

Edit: Back on the social thing, is unmarried sex even illegal?