lol Intelligent Design make me laugh every time I hear it.
I still don't understand how anyone takes it serious after the debunking it got at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial where a conservative judge ruled it as pseudo-science.
@oblivionknight: Ah
Will say religion has saved people's lives though. Did wonders for Malcolm X
True... but even in the salvation it brought him he still realized the Nation of Islam was heavily corrupted by the teachings of Elijah Muhammad and what that "Fool" was doing on the down low... having sex with all those young women.
It's funny too because most of the scientists prosecuted for their claims, actually were religious people who wanted to prove God was real through science. Galileo, Newton, etc.
It is more likely that such scientists were religious due to the fact religion was alot more prominent back then just a product of their time. I mean Newton was a creationist.
Newton was Christian. He wasn't orthodox Christian though. He didn't believe that Jesus Christ had any relation with God. But he still believed that the Christian God existed. In fact he's written his own interpretations of the bible. In one of them, he was writing about prophecy and literally said he was chosen by god. In other words, he was Christian and believed in the bible, he just didn't believe in the trinity that included Jesus.
The Trinity Canon by the Catholic Church is nonsense, Why would Jesus pray to himself and why would the father sand the holy spirit who is also himself.
It's funny too because most of the scientists prosecuted for their claims, actually were religious people who wanted to prove God was real through science. Galileo, Newton, etc.
It is more likely that such scientists were religious due to the fact religion was alot more prominent back then just a product of their time. I mean Newton was a creationist.
Newton was Christian. He wasn't orthodox Christian though. He didn't believe that Jesus Christ had any relation with God. But he still believed that the Christian God existed. In fact he's written his own interpretations of the bible. In one of them, he was writing about prophecy and literally said he was chosen by god. In other words, he was Christian and believed in the bible, he just didn't believe in the trinity that included Jesus.
Um alright then. He was also a creationist it goes to show how time changes. and things progress. If he was around today he would nt be a creationist.
@lykopis: 1) If science teaches us anything, it's that order does not last forever. So, the original texts or stories of the Bible were more than likely taken out, if not for corrupt reasons, then simply because of translational issues.
2) The church still has a lot of growing to do, but it has come a long way. In the dark ages, the Church was close minded. What it may have done to some documents we will never know.
@king_saturn: The actions of a corrupt...lecher, perhaps? He certainly didn't represent Islam itself.
@king_saturn: The actions of a corrupt...lecher, perhaps? He certainly didn't represent Islam itself.
Well the Nation of Islam took elements from Islamic Teachings and applied them to their own Philosophies... I mean the Nation of Islam to Islam is kind of like what the Ku Klux Klan is to Christianity... both carry certain principles of the belief system but they have these very warped extreme views along with them.
@oblivionknight: Ah
Will say religion has saved people's lives though. Did wonders for Malcolm X
True... but even in the salvation it brought him he still realized the Nation of Islam was heavily corrupted by the teachings of Elijah Muhammad and what that "Fool" was doing on the down low... having sex with all those young women.
Agreed. I understand why/how the Nation came to existence, but they're some dirty people.
@lykopis: 1) If science teaches us anything, it's that order does not last forever. So, the original texts or stories of the Bible were more than likely taken out, if not for corrupt reasons, then simply because of translational issues.
2) The church still has a lot of growing to do, but it has come a long way. In the dark ages, the Church was close minded. What it may have done to some documents we will never know.
I disagree on your second statement, a CHURCH that needs to grow up is a SHAM.
Probably. I would make a considered guess that it does and has to a substantial degree. Not just that but as more time passes that effect would increase proportionately. We live in reality, so naturally when we project forward concepts like religion, we know we can't simply cleave it from reality. So of course its overly simple to treat anything as if it only is a negative or a positive, to hinder only or to aid only. So its true many people and peoples and groups have prospered because of religion, and we are where are as a species because of religion, and many great minds who have made advancements in thinking and knowing and discovery have been religious and are religious. Thats not something that should really be considered as impressive though, the same could be said of racism, sexism, genocide, huge natural disasters, a lot of things contribute to us being here as we are now.
If someone lived 3000 years ago, to serve another in a life filled of hardship and servitude, the idea of something more or eventual reward or eventual release from pain would be welcome and peoples minds and imaginations are powerful tools that are hard to deny. Its much easier for people today to be more honest with themselves that when their parents, their brother, or sister, or best friend die, that maybe that is it and they will never be known or met again. That ones own eventual death is the end and that the clock is always ticking. Its easier but its never easy. Its easier because most of us are free, and able and healthy, and know people, and most importantly we have access to knowledge, and education and information. We can learn about people who lived 3000 years ago, and 2000 years ago, and 1000 years ago, and about people who live in squalor and poverty. We can learn about myths and legends surrounding death and life, love and war. We can learn about others, we can learn about people facing their own impending deaths. We can know science and how we die, try and define death, distinguish between various type of death. Death and life is still scary for some despite that, but its a bit easier to appreciate what you got for some when you know that many other people aren't as lucky. You can get to a point where you can admit that you maybe don't know if there is an afterlife and that you don't know if a god loves you and will help you get to that afterlife. In the past though?
For many people though, that there might not be a god, or an afterlife or an ultimate justice its okay. Life goes on, there is still reason to do things, to do good, to act ethically.
Some have mentioned that religion has brought us good? What one has to do is identify what are the core aspects of religion and what good has it brought that has been exclusive to religion? Personally I can only think of its historic value in this sense, but morals, ethics, community, order, law, sympathy, empathy, charity, reciprocity are all things that existed before religion, before modern day man became modern day man, they are not exclusive to religion. You can argue that the positives could have remained without religion. In a similar manner many have tried to excuse or apologize for religion on the notion that humans would have found something else to abuse, and to some extent this is true. Anything that makes an ideal of faith and vilifies transparency and curiosity and critical questioning whilst maintaining that they are for the latter will do a good job of hindering progress. A power hungry king or government for example. Anything that makes claims about death, the afterlife, your soul and moral value and worth and goodness and the value and safety and worth and destination of all the people you love, and that uses authority and peer pressure and conformity and plays on your ignorance and insecurity and aims to reassure you and pacify you by playing to your emotions, fears, doubts, uncertainty and your feelings but not your reason, or intelligence or critical abilities. That, that is also something thats worrying. Its complacency, and its fat and its ignorance and its okay. Well, for some its okay, for others its not okay.
Religion relies a lot on faith, and authority, and matters of the afterlife. It can and often has vilified skepticism and opposing views, and doubt and critical thinking. In this sense it hinders potential, because its divisive, its exclusionary, it makes judgments about people that modern day reasonable scientists and thinkers tell us are okay, and normal, because of the power of an object written thousands of years ago by a divine source you have to believe is divine because you have to believe its divine and you have to have faith and because some people who already believe can attest to its power and its beyond reason and... so on and so on. Like the positive, you identify what negatives are apparent in something, as far as being intrinsic and you compare to see what other things they exist in and to what degree they are integral to their concept definition wise. A lot of people assert its in human nature to be corrupt and so on, actually over the last couple of thousand of years hominids have become less violent and aggressive towards each other, we didn't start off good and pure, our species has gotten better with time, its just our ever constant psychological funk that skewers things and that can make us feel like things are getting worse and that things were better. This is another regressive element of religion. The actual common reasons given for our progress tend to be empathy, reciprocity, reason, intelligence, societal development and interaction, better health, better technology, less reliance on emotions its actually not that hard to imagine when one considers at length. A lot of that happened before any recorded occurrences of religion and most of the early religions aren't relevant today anymore anyway. Don't get me wrong, things will and should continue to improve and its always give and take, it won't be a smooth progression, and the time scales mean none of us unfortunately will ever get to see a planet wide ushering of paradise, peace and non violence, but we are trending in that direction.
Mind you I know a few religious people who if they were the standard for what is considered religious and thus religion, I'd think differently, but those select few are some of the most critical and skeptical of religion, and faith, and many of the things religion deals with. They basically acknowledge they don't know and they don't pretend to know, things like the bible may just be man made, nothing is above being questioned and so on. That and you can't strip away concepts from reality, and many religious prioritize other things over their personal faith in a deity which is another big part of religion, and everything else like other peoples rights and value depend on knowledge and reason and science, not millennia old philosophy or dusty textbooks, which means religion doesn't have to hinder potential, it can depend on the person, the people, the group.
As far as scientists and religion? Thats the thing, you can take the science out of the scientist, you can't take the scientist out of the era or time they existed. Good science attempts to be objective and impersonal and based in reality. Science isn't art, subjective and open to interpretation. A good scientists results, discoveries and findings attempt to be sturdy and accurate not dependent on emotions or feelings or popularity or what's popular or subjectively valued. There may be a historic element involved, human competition and accomplishment but science is collaborative and hence science today is more refined, accurate, precise, comprehensive and powerful today than in the past and it will continue to expand the more and better scientists apply themselves, where as an abstract painting today may not be better than an abstract painting done 100 years ago. The skills of an artist today may not be greater than the skills of an artist 1000 years ago. Just because science itself works best when challenged by superior data and evidence doesn't mean that very human scientists were always capable of challenging themselves, society, family and people by opposing the status quo or popular opinion or understanding, but its disingenuous to conclude that science owes anything to anything else. For the historically famous scientists who were religious, if they were somehow able to know how influential and important there work was considered in the long distant future by a more peaceful, reasonable, intelligent and accomplished humanity and that they would celebrate that scientist even though many large differences would be apparent in non science contexts, I could only speculate they would not care about that element and they would beam with pride that there scientific accomplishments and discoveries would have benefited so many people and enlightened so many people and that they would be remembered fondly and well respected.
@king_saturn: @sousukesagara: why would a church needing to grow be a sham? Its religious beliefs wouldn't have to changed, just its outlook on certain things.
And I can agree with you Saturn. That was definitely the case.
I hate those prosperity gospels that these churches have... they have all those poor people giving their funds to the church and pastor gets richer and richer while the members are stuck in poverty... it just pisses me off. I don't think God really needs money it's just these bloodsucking pastors... no wonder they where those facking awesome suits when they preach in church... they are trying to tell your ass that they are Dracula in the Flesh and Sunday is collection day.
@sc: Too long but good post.
Though there is a book in the Bible called Habakkuk where a prophet of God, questioned him, so I think God is okay if you question him.
Moses questioned God too... he even made him repent of an evil he was about to do when the Children of Israel was pissing off the Almighty too much.
@king_saturn: Yup that's true too. Moses saved the Children of Israel a bunch of times from God's wrath.
I hate those prosperity gospels that these churches have... they have all those poor people giving their funds to the church and pastor gets richer and richer while the members are stuck in poverty... it just pisses me off. I don't think God really needs money it's just these bloodsucking pastors... no wonder they where those facking awesome suits when they preach in church... they are trying to tell your ass that they are Dracula in the Flesh and Sunday is collection day.
This too. My pastor even mentioned how there's pastors out there with 3 houses.
@king_saturn: @sousukesagara: why would a church needing to grow be a sham? Its religious beliefs wouldn't have to changed, just its outlook on certain things.
And I can agree with you Saturn. That was definitely the case.
Do you know why religion, particularly a Church hates change?
Because they tell people that they are enlightened by GOD and the herd they lead believe them without question. To them, the teaching they teach are eternal as the GOD they worship.
The Bible also states that No Word or Letter Should be altered as it will also add to the sins of those who do.
A change in Outlook could also be interpreted as a change in belief, can you give examples?
@sousukesagara: The Bible contradicts itself alot though.
@sousukesagara: The Bible contradicts itself alot though.
Then every religion based on it also contradicts itself. LOL
Probably. I would make a considered guess that it does and has to a substantial degree. Not just that but as more time passes that effect would increase proportionately. We live in reality, so naturally when we project forward concepts like religion, we know we can't simply cleave it from reality. So of course its overly simple to treat anything as if it only is a negative or a positive, to hinder only or to aid only. So its true many people and peoples and groups have prospered because of religion, and we are where are as a species because of religion, and many great minds who have made advancements in thinking and knowing and discovery have been religious and are religious. Thats not something that should really be considered as impressive though, the same could be said of racism, sexism, genocide, huge natural disasters, a lot of things contribute to us being here as we are now.
If someone lived 3000 years ago, to serve another in a life filled of hardship and servitude, the idea of something more or eventual reward or eventual release from pain would be welcome and peoples minds and imaginations are powerful tools that are hard to deny. Its much easier for people today to be more honest with themselves that when their parents, their brother, or sister, or best friend die, that maybe that is it and they will never be known or met again. That ones own eventual death is the end and that the clock is always ticking. Its easier but its never easy. Its easier because most of us are free, and able and healthy, and know people, and most importantly we have access to knowledge, and education and information. We can learn about people who lived 3000 years ago, and 2000 years ago, and 1000 years ago, and about people who live in squalor and poverty. We can learn about myths and legends surrounding death and life, love and war. We can learn about others, we can learn about people facing their own impending deaths. We can know science and how we die, try and define death, distinguish between various type of death. Death and life is still scary for some despite that, but its a bit easier to appreciate what you got for some when you know that many other people aren't as lucky. You can get to a point where you can admit that you maybe don't know if there is an afterlife and that you don't know if a god loves you and will help you get to that afterlife. In the past though?
For many people though, that there might not be a god, or an afterlife or an ultimate justice its okay. Life goes on, there is still reason to do things, to do good, to act ethically.
Some have mentioned that religion has brought us good? What one has to do is identify what are the core aspects of religion and what good has it brought that has been exclusive to religion? Personally I can only think of its historic value in this sense, but morals, ethics, community, order, law, sympathy, empathy, charity, reciprocity are all things that existed before religion, before modern day man became modern day man, they are not exclusive to religion. You can argue that the positives could have remained without religion. In a similar manner many have tried to excuse or apologize for religion on the notion that humans would have found something else to abuse, and to some extent this is true. Anything that makes an ideal of faith and vilifies transparency and curiosity and critical questioning whilst maintaining that they are for the latter will do a good job of hindering progress. A power hungry king or government for example. Anything that makes claims about death, the afterlife, your soul and moral value and worth and goodness and the value and safety and worth and destination of all the people you love, and that uses authority and peer pressure and conformity and plays on your ignorance and insecurity and aims to reassure you and pacify you by playing to your emotions, fears, doubts, uncertainty and your feelings but not your reason, or intelligence or critical abilities. That, that is also something thats worrying. Its complacency, and its fat and its ignorance and its okay. Well, for some its okay, for others its not okay.
Religion relies a lot on faith, and authority, and matters of the afterlife. It can and often has vilified skepticism and opposing views, and doubt and critical thinking. In this sense it hinders potential, because its divisive, its exclusionary, it makes judgments about people that modern day reasonable scientists and thinkers tell us are okay, and normal, because of the power of an object written thousands of years ago by a divine source you have to believe is divine because you have to believe its divine and you have to have faith and because some people who already believe can attest to its power and its beyond reason and... so on and so on. Like the positive, you identify what negatives are apparent in something, as far as being intrinsic and you compare to see what other things they exist in and to what degree they are integral to their concept definition wise. A lot of people assert its in human nature to be corrupt and so on, actually over the last couple of thousand of years hominids have become less violent and aggressive towards each other, we didn't start off good and pure, our species has gotten better with time, its just our ever constant psychological funk that skewers things and that can make us feel like things are getting worse and that things were better. This is another regressive element of religion. The actual common reasons given for our progress tend to be empathy, reciprocity, reason, intelligence, societal development and interaction, better health, better technology, less reliance on emotions its actually not that hard to imagine when one considers at length. A lot of that happened before any recorded occurrences of religion and most of the early religions aren't relevant today anymore anyway. Don't get me wrong, things will and should continue to improve and its always give and take, it won't be a smooth progression, and the time scales mean none of us unfortunately will ever get to see a planet wide ushering of paradise, peace and non violence, but we are trending in that direction.
Mind you I know a few religious people who if they were the standard for what is considered religious and thus religion, I'd think differently, but those select few are some of the most critical and skeptical of religion, and faith, and many of the things religion deals with. They basically acknowledge they don't know and they don't pretend to know, things like the bible may just be man made, nothing is above being questioned and so on. That and you can't strip away concepts from reality, and many religious prioritize other things over their personal faith in a deity which is another big part of religion, and everything else like other peoples rights and value depend on knowledge and reason and science, not millennia old philosophy or dusty textbooks, which means religion doesn't have to hinder potential, it can depend on the person, the people, the group.
As far as scientists and religion? Thats the thing, you can take the science out of the scientist, you can't take the scientist out of the era or time they existed. Good science attempts to be objective and impersonal and based in reality. Science isn't art, subjective and open to interpretation. A good scientists results, discoveries and findings attempt to be sturdy and accurate not dependent on emotions or feelings or popularity or what's popular or subjectively valued. There may be a historic element involved, human competition and accomplishment but science is collaborative and hence science today is more refined, accurate, precise, comprehensive and powerful today than in the past and it will continue to expand the more and better scientists apply themselves, where as an abstract painting today may not be better than an abstract painting done 100 years ago. The skills of an artist today may not be greater than the skills of an artist 1000 years ago. Just because science itself works best when challenged by superior data and evidence doesn't mean that very human scientists were always capable of challenging themselves, society, family and people by opposing the status quo or popular opinion or understanding, but its disingenuous to conclude that science owes anything to anything else. For the historically famous scientists who were religious, if they were somehow able to know how influential and important there work was considered in the long distant future by a more peaceful, reasonable, intelligent and accomplished humanity and that they would celebrate that scientist even though many large differences would be apparent in non science contexts, I could only speculate they would not care about that element and they would beam with pride that there scientific accomplishments and discoveries would have benefited so many people and enlightened so many people and that they would be remembered fondly and well respected.
I will study this first.
@king_saturn: @sousukesagara: why would a church needing to grow be a sham? Its religious beliefs wouldn't have to changed, just its outlook on certain things.
And I can agree with you Saturn. That was definitely the case.
Do you know why religion, particularly a Church hates change?
Because they tell people that they are enlightened by GOD and the herd they lead believe them without question. To them, the teaching they teach are eternal as the GOD they worship.
The Bible also states that No Word or Letter Should be altered as it will also add to the sins of those who do.
A change in Outlook could also be interpreted as a change in belief, can you give examples?
The Catholic Church in my opinion is a sham, look at Mary for example, no where in the bible would say that she ascended but they say she did.
@sousukesagara: the scriptures they follow don't have to change, only the people.
@mrdecepticonleader: 6 paragraphs for a forum post
@mrdecepticonleader: 6 paragraphs for a forum post
@mrdecepticonleader: 6 paragraphs for a forum post
So what? I dont see how it is too long.
Hmm... I guess it all depends on how you look at it. If you look at it over the course of history and what it has caused, stopped and hindered. Then yes, religion can even be considered a bad thing. On the other hand, for some religion is a way to aspire to make something more of themselves. To reach a certain way of thinking that actually helps mankind. My fear though, is that religion will make you do things for others but not for the right reasons. Religion can actually be quite selfish because you help others because you fear if you don't God might punish you or you won't get into heaven or what else. I think it should come from within, to be altruistic and honestly do things for someone else without any personal gain. But that's my own personal bias and skepticism towards religion.
@mrdecepticonleader: Well that's your opinion
Probably. I would make a considered guess that it does and has to a substantial degree. Not just that but as more time passes that effect would increase proportionately. We live in reality, so naturally when we project forward concepts like religion, we know we can't simply cleave it from reality. So of course its overly simple to treat anything as if it only is a negative or a positive, to hinder only or to aid only. So its true many people and peoples and groups have prospered because of religion, and we are where are as a species because of religion, and many great minds who have made advancements in thinking and knowing and discovery have been religious and are religious. Thats not something that should really be considered as impressive though, the same could be said of racism, sexism, genocide, huge natural disasters, a lot of things contribute to us being here as we are now.
If someone lived 3000 years ago, to serve another in a life filled of hardship and servitude, the idea of something more or eventual reward or eventual release from pain would be welcome and peoples minds and imaginations are powerful tools that are hard to deny. Its much easier for people today to be more honest with themselves that when their parents, their brother, or sister, or best friend die, that maybe that is it and they will never be known or met again. That ones own eventual death is the end and that the clock is always ticking. Its easier but its never easy. Its easier because most of us are free, and able and healthy, and know people, and most importantly we have access to knowledge, and education and information. We can learn about people who lived 3000 years ago, and 2000 years ago, and 1000 years ago, and about people who live in squalor and poverty. We can learn about myths and legends surrounding death and life, love and war. We can learn about others, we can learn about people facing their own impending deaths. We can know science and how we die, try and define death, distinguish between various type of death. Death and life is still scary for some despite that, but its a bit easier to appreciate what you got for some when you know that many other people aren't as lucky. You can get to a point where you can admit that you maybe don't know if there is an afterlife and that you don't know if a god loves you and will help you get to that afterlife. In the past though?
For many people though, that there might not be a god, or an afterlife or an ultimate justice its okay. Life goes on, there is still reason to do things, to do good, to act ethically.
Some have mentioned that religion has brought us good? What one has to do is identify what are the core aspects of religion and what good has it brought that has been exclusive to religion? Personally I can only think of its historic value in this sense, but morals, ethics, community, order, law, sympathy, empathy, charity, reciprocity are all things that existed before religion, before modern day man became modern day man, they are not exclusive to religion. You can argue that the positives could have remained without religion. In a similar manner many have tried to excuse or apologize for religion on the notion that humans would have found something else to abuse, and to some extent this is true. Anything that makes an ideal of faith and vilifies transparency and curiosity and critical questioning whilst maintaining that they are for the latter will do a good job of hindering progress. A power hungry king or government for example. Anything that makes claims about death, the afterlife, your soul and moral value and worth and goodness and the value and safety and worth and destination of all the people you love, and that uses authority and peer pressure and conformity and plays on your ignorance and insecurity and aims to reassure you and pacify you by playing to your emotions, fears, doubts, uncertainty and your feelings but not your reason, or intelligence or critical abilities. That, that is also something thats worrying. Its complacency, and its fat and its ignorance and its okay. Well, for some its okay, for others its not okay.
Religion relies a lot on faith, and authority, and matters of the afterlife. It can and often has vilified skepticism and opposing views, and doubt and critical thinking. In this sense it hinders potential, because its divisive, its exclusionary, it makes judgments about people that modern day reasonable scientists and thinkers tell us are okay, and normal, because of the power of an object written thousands of years ago by a divine source you have to believe is divine because you have to believe its divine and you have to have faith and because some people who already believe can attest to its power and its beyond reason and... so on and so on. Like the positive, you identify what negatives are apparent in something, as far as being intrinsic and you compare to see what other things they exist in and to what degree they are integral to their concept definition wise. A lot of people assert its in human nature to be corrupt and so on, actually over the last couple of thousand of years hominids have become less violent and aggressive towards each other, we didn't start off good and pure, our species has gotten better with time, its just our ever constant psychological funk that skewers things and that can make us feel like things are getting worse and that things were better. This is another regressive element of religion. The actual common reasons given for our progress tend to be empathy, reciprocity, reason, intelligence, societal development and interaction, better health, better technology, less reliance on emotions its actually not that hard to imagine when one considers at length. A lot of that happened before any recorded occurrences of religion and most of the early religions aren't relevant today anymore anyway. Don't get me wrong, things will and should continue to improve and its always give and take, it won't be a smooth progression, and the time scales mean none of us unfortunately will ever get to see a planet wide ushering of paradise, peace and non violence, but we are trending in that direction.
Mind you I know a few religious people who if they were the standard for what is considered religious and thus religion, I'd think differently, but those select few are some of the most critical and skeptical of religion, and faith, and many of the things religion deals with. They basically acknowledge they don't know and they don't pretend to know, things like the bible may just be man made, nothing is above being questioned and so on. That and you can't strip away concepts from reality, and many religious prioritize other things over their personal faith in a deity which is another big part of religion, and everything else like other peoples rights and value depend on knowledge and reason and science, not millennia old philosophy or dusty textbooks, which means religion doesn't have to hinder potential, it can depend on the person, the people, the group.
As far as scientists and religion? Thats the thing, you can take the science out of the scientist, you can't take the scientist out of the era or time they existed. Good science attempts to be objective and impersonal and based in reality. Science isn't art, subjective and open to interpretation. A good scientists results, discoveries and findings attempt to be sturdy and accurate not dependent on emotions or feelings or popularity or what's popular or subjectively valued. There may be a historic element involved, human competition and accomplishment but science is collaborative and hence science today is more refined, accurate, precise, comprehensive and powerful today than in the past and it will continue to expand the more and better scientists apply themselves, where as an abstract painting today may not be better than an abstract painting done 100 years ago. The skills of an artist today may not be greater than the skills of an artist 1000 years ago. Just because science itself works best when challenged by superior data and evidence doesn't mean that very human scientists were always capable of challenging themselves, society, family and people by opposing the status quo or popular opinion or understanding, but its disingenuous to conclude that science owes anything to anything else. For the historically famous scientists who were religious, if they were somehow able to know how influential and important there work was considered in the long distant future by a more peaceful, reasonable, intelligent and accomplished humanity and that they would celebrate that scientist even though many large differences would be apparent in non science contexts, I could only speculate they would not care about that element and they would beam with pride that there scientific accomplishments and discoveries would have benefited so many people and enlightened so many people and that they would be remembered fondly and well respected.
lol nice, but that's to be expected from you xD
@mrdecepticonleader: Well that's your opinion
As it is yours.
@king_saturn: @sousukesagara: why would a church needing to grow be a sham? Its religious beliefs wouldn't have to changed, just its outlook on certain things.
And I can agree with you Saturn. That was definitely the case.
Do you know why religion, particularly a Church hates change?
Because they tell people that they are enlightened by GOD and the herd they lead believe them without question. To them, the teaching they teach are eternal as the GOD they worship.
The Bible also states that No Word or Letter Should be altered as it will also add to the sins of those who do.
A change in Outlook could also be interpreted as a change in belief, can you give examples?
The Catholic Church in my opinion is a sham, look at Mary for example, no where in the bible would say that she ascended but they say she did.
The Catholic Church also recant the existence of LIMBO, IIRC.
@sousukesagara: the scriptures they follow don't have to change, only the people.
How can you tell, and even so, their interpretation change from time to time.
@sousukesagara: How can I tell what? The scriptures are the core set of everyone's belief, but a person interpretation of them is their own. Some people believe that the Bible says we should hate homosexuals, some people are against this. The same scripture has many interpretations and at this, what's socially and morally acceptable (hating homosexuals certainly isn't the acceptable one of the two) comes into play. There's more at play than the scriptures. The people and area they grow up in are just as important to the understanding of any scripture.
Yes, their interpretations may change, but that does not mean the actual scripture has to (even though it has gone through revisions since its creation.)
@sousukesagara: How can I tell what? The scriptures are the core set of everyone's belief, but a person interpretation of them is their own. Some people believe that the Bible says we should hate homosexuals, some people are against this. The same scripture has many interpretations and at this, what's socially and morally acceptable (hating homosexuals certainly isn't the acceptable one of the two) comes into play. There's more at play than the scriptures. The people and area they grow up in are just as important to the understanding of any scripture.
Yes, their interpretations may change, but that does not mean the actual scripture has to (even though it has gone through revisions since its creation.)
Yes, how can you tell if the original is not altered or the original itself was made to serve a malicious purpose. If the bible today is unadulterated, a sect or religions interpretation should not vary fro time to time because God's LAW is PERFECT and LASTING, that is what the bible said.
The Bible has 2 division, the Old (Promise) and New (Fulfillment), Christ's revision is the last and sealed by Revelations.
@sousukesagara: That same thing can be said for, quite literally, almost every piece of literature ever written. You weren't the one who wrote it, you weren't the one who may have edited, you don't know WHAT processes it may have gone through. So, who knows if it has remained largely intact or not. We don't have the original and likely never will.
And the Jewish don't believe the promise has been fulfilled. The Bible caters to two different religions.
@sousukesagara: That same thing can be said for, quite literally, almost every piece of literature ever written. You weren't the one who wrote it, you weren't the one who may have edited, you don't know WHAT processes it may have gone through. So, who knows if it has remained largely intact or not. We don't have the original and likely never will.
And the Jewish don't believe the promise has been fulfilled. The Bible caters to two different religions.
Thus why I said that religion is a SHAM, the origin of the faith, the bible, could not be trusted.
As for the Jews, they do not even know how to pronounce the name of their god, IIRC.
@sousukesagara: That same thing can be said for, quite literally, almost every piece of literature ever written. You weren't the one who wrote it, you weren't the one who may have edited, you don't know WHAT processes it may have gone through. So, who knows if it has remained largely intact or not. We don't have the original and likely never will.
And the Jewish don't believe the promise has been fulfilled. The Bible caters to two different religions.
Thus why I said that religion is a SHAM, the origin of the faith, the bible, could not be trusted.
As for the Jews, they do not even know how to pronounce the name of their god, IIRC.
Is this true?
...lol
no
If the churches weren't there we'd find something also to pause ourselves with. It isn't the churches it's the Arrogant nosiness of those irrational members that stop us...hell most religions teach tolerance(with some contradictions here and there.)
@king_saturn: @sousukesagara: why would a church needing to grow be a sham? Its religious beliefs wouldn't have to changed, just its outlook on certain things.
And I can agree with you Saturn. That was definitely the case.
Do you know why religion, particularly a Church hates change?
Because they tell people that they are enlightened by GOD and the herd they lead believe them without question. To them, the teaching they teach are eternal as the GOD they worship.
The Bible also states that No Word or Letter Should be altered as it will also add to the sins of those who do.
A change in Outlook could also be interpreted as a change in belief, can you give examples?
The Catholic Church in my opinion is a sham, look at Mary for example, no where in the bible would say that she ascended but they say she did.
The Catholic Church also recant the existence of LIMBO, IIRC.
think it was Pope John Paul II.
Wow! Religion does encourage potential!
@king_saturn: @sousukesagara: why would a church needing to grow be a sham? Its religious beliefs wouldn't have to changed, just its outlook on certain things.
And I can agree with you Saturn. That was definitely the case.
Do you know why religion, particularly a Church hates change?
Because they tell people that they are enlightened by GOD and the herd they lead believe them without question. To them, the teaching they teach are eternal as the GOD they worship.
The Bible also states that No Word or Letter Should be altered as it will also add to the sins of those who do.
A change in Outlook could also be interpreted as a change in belief, can you give examples?
The Catholic Church in my opinion is a sham, look at Mary for example, no where in the bible would say that she ascended but they say she did.
The Catholic Church also recant the existence of LIMBO, IIRC.
think it was Pope John Paul II.
Not that simple, really...
Good job finding this article
Popes have taken Four Contrary Positions on the Fate of Unbaptized Infants [This is only a brief overview of what popes have said about Limbo. For a fuller discussion of the history of the Limbo heresy, see Unbaptized Infants Suffer Fire and Limbo is a Heretical Pelagian Fable.] SummaryPopes of the Roman Catholic Church have taken four contrary positions regarding the fate of infants who die without baptism. The lot assigned by popes to the infants has gradually changed from including hell fire, through involving the pain of loss only and then no pain at all, to full beatitude in heaven. 1. Popes of the patristic era infallibly defined the doctrine of Augustine that unbaptized infants have the eternal torments of the damned in the fires of hell with the devil. We cite Pope Gregory the Great, Pope Zosimus and Pope Innocent I amongst others who taught this. 2. Pope Innocent III adopted the position of Abelard in the twelfth century that unbaptized infants will have the pain of loss but not the pain of fire. 3. Pope Pius X was the first pope to teach that unbaptized infants have no sufferings in his 1905 Catechism. 4. Recent popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, have given us to “hope” that all unbaptized infants, and indeed all of humanity, will go to heaven. First papal position The XVI Council of Carthage (418) condemned the Pelagian fable that there is some place anywhere where infants who died without baptism live in happiness (Limbo). The Council taught the Catholic doctrine that infants go into the fire to be eternally punished with the devil, being on the left hand at the judgement. The teaching of Carthage was infallibly approved as a rule of the Faith by Pope Zosimus and Pope Innocent I and by the ecumenical councils, which were approved by other popes. “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my house there are many mansions”: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left [cf. Matt. 25:41,46].” “Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels... And these shall go away into everlasting punishment.” ( Matthew 25:41, 46) This remained the teaching of the Church for several centuries. Indeed any contrary doctrine has been heretical ever since the popes made the teaching of Carthage infallible. Pope Gregory the Great (-604) taught the eternal torment of infants in his Moralia on the Book of Job. Gregory the Great: “For there be some that are withdrawn from the present light, before they attain to shew forth the good or evil deserts of an active life. And whereas the Sacraments of salvation do not free them from the sin of their birth, at the same time that here they never did aright by their own act; there they are brought to torment. And these have one wound, viz. to be born in corruption, and another, to die in the flesh. But forasmuch as after death there also follows, death eternal, by a secret and righteous judgment ‘wounds are multiplied to them without cause.’ For they even receive everlasting torments, who never sinned by their own will. And hence it is written, Even the infant of a single day is not pure in His sight upon earth. Hence ‘Truth’ says by His own lips, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Hence Paul says, We were by nature the children of wrath even as others. He then that adding nothing of his own is mined by the guilt of birth alone, how stands it with such an one at the last account, as far as the calculation of human sense goes, but that he is ‘wounded without cause?’ And yet in the strict account of God it is but just that the stock of mortality, like an unfruitful tree, should preserve in the branches that bitterness which it drew from the root. Therefore he says, For He shall break me with a tempest, and multiply my wounds without cause. As if reviewing the woes of mankind he said in plain words; ‘With what sort of visitation does the strict Judge mercilessly slay those, whom the guilt of their own deeds condemns, if He smites for all eternity even those, whom the guilt of deliberate choice does not impeach?’” (Moralia 9: 32) Second papal position Pope Innocent III (-1216) adopted the position of Abelard in the twelfth century. Abelard was the first theologian to dissent from the defined doctrine of hell fire for unbaptized infants. According to Pope Innocent, infants suffer the pain of knowing that they have lost the vision of God but they do not have the pain of fire. “Pope Innocent’s teaching is to the effect that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer ‘no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God.’ It should be noted, however, that this poena damni incurred for original sin implied, with Abelard and most of the early Scholastics, a certain degree of spiritual torment.” (Toner, Catholic Encyclopedia 1910, Limbo) Third papal position Aquinas was the first major theologian to teach that the infants have no pain whatsoever, even a pain of loss. In fact he taught that they have a state of natural happiness. Yes, this is sounding more and more like the happy Limbo of the Pelagians, condemned by the Church at Carthage. But no pope taught the doctrine that the unbaptized infants do not suffer in eternity until it was incorporated into the 1905 Catechism of Pope Pius X, most of which he wrote himself and the use of which he imposed on the diocese of Rome. “Babies dead without baptism go to Limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but neither do they suffer, because, having original sin alone, they do not deserve paradise, but neither do they merit hell or purgatory.” Fourth papal position Recent popes have quite outdone their predecessors. They now give us to “hope” that unbaptized infants will be included in the universal salvation of all people. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote as follows about the efforts of his predecessor, Pope John Paul II. “This state people called limbo. In the course of our century, that has gradually come to seem problematic to us. This was one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable. Finally, the pope made a decisive turn in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, a change already anticipated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when he expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament.” (God and the World, Ignatius Press, 2002, p. 401) The new Catechism, published by John Paul in 1992, encourages us to hope that unbaptized infants go to heaven. “As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261) Indeed, we are given to hope that all people will be saved. “The Church prays that no one should be lost: ‘Lord, let me never be parted from you.’ If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God ‘desires all men to be saved’ (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him ‘all things are possible’ (Mt 19:26).” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1058) “In hope, the Church prays for ‘all men to be saved.’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1821) Pope John Paul II wrote more assertively in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae, telling women who have had an abortion, “you will be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord.” In October 2004 John Paul asked the International Theological Commission to consider the question of the fate of unbaptized infants in the light of the “universal salvific will of God”. Its work has continued under Pope Benedict XVI and The Times recently reported as follows. “Vatican sources said yesterday that the commission would recommend that Limbo be replaced by the more “compassionate” doctrine that all children who die do so “in the hope of eternal salvation.”” (Times, November 30, 2005) John Paul seemed quite certain that all people will be saved. He was given to speak of Jesus as follows. “Christ, Redeemer of man, now for ever ‘clad in a robe dipped in blood’, the everlasting, invincible guarantee of universal salvation.” (Message to the Abbess General of the Order of the Most Holy Saviour of St Bridget) Update! Non-existent quote from Catechism of Pope Pius X It has become clear that the passage maintaining the Limbo heresy is not in the early editions of the Catechism of Pius X. Thus the truth is that no pope has ever taught the version of the Limbo heresy that says that unbaptized infants go to a middle place where they do not suffer even the pain of loss. And yet almost all Catholics think that is what the Church has always taught on this matter! This well illustrates the necessity of looking to the ancient Fathers to see what the true Faith is. Richard Ibranyi recently revealed as follows. “I believe that my mistake in this case was providential because it proves a very important fact that I mention time and time again; that is, heretics misquote imprimatured books to defend their heresies. That is aside from the fact that many imprimatured books do contain heresy. I trusted the many sources that use the supposed following quote from the Hagan edition of the Catechism of Pope Pius X Catechism to defend the Limbo Heresy that dead unbaptized infants are not in hell. “A Compendium of Catechetical Instruction (Also known as the Catechism of Pope Pius X), Monsignor John Hagan, 1910, English edition translated from a French version: ‘Babies dead without baptism go to Limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but neither do they suffer, because, having original sin alone, they do not deserve paradise, but neither do they merit hell or purgatory.’ “I knew that the Hagan edition of the Catechism of Pope Pius X contains the Salvation Heresy, so I assumed that it contained this Limbo Heresy that many said it contained. I should have checked the catechism to verify the quote before I used it in this section of my book. Upon investigation, I discovered that this Limbo Heresy is not in the Hagan edition of the Catechism of Pope Pius X. Therefore, beware of those who use this quote to defend their Limbo Heresy. This is just another example of obstinate heretics lying to defend their heresies, hoping their readers do not catch them lying.” (Damned Infants) | Pope St. Gregory the Great |
@overlordarhas: @jnr6lil: @mrdecepticonleader: @dccomicsrule2011:
Thank you for the kind words.
@overlordarhas: @jnr6lil: @mrdecepticonleader: @dccomicsrule2011:
Thank you for the kind words.
Thank you for your words as per :)
@sousukesagara: please explain why religion is a sham. You have given us no reason to believe the core purposes of te scriptures have changed. And, even then, you've only pointed out Christianity and Judaism, not all religions with differing scriptures.
Not to mention you've failed to address the fact that no single piece of literature can be completely trusted, but those pieces of literature which offer us insight to differing eras (some of which were likely biased or didn't include all details) are considered fact.
And are you referring to YAHWEH/YAWH?
Historically yes religion was a big hindrance. The amount of suffering it caused in relation to people it helped was very big. Now however I don't think it is. Sure you have a few people and cults that take things to the extreme but all in all people with religious beliefs tend to keep to themselves. Heck religion is on a huge decrease now (I think there been something like a 15% decline over the last 10 years) mainly because people are nowhere near as suppressed and are free to interpret things for the themselves which wasn't the case in medieval times etc.... you either believed or you were a heretic and executed.
Historically yes religion was a big hindrance. The amount of suffering it caused in relation to people it helped was very big. Now however I don't think it is. Sure you have a few people and cults that take things to the extreme but all in all people with religious beliefs tend to keep to themselves. Heck religion is on a huge decrease now (I think there been something like a 15% decline over the last 10 years) mainly because people are nowhere near as suppressed and are free to interpret things for the themselves which wasn't the case in medieval times etc.... you either believed or you were a heretic and executed.
This. Does it still hinder potential? Sure
But we are no longer in the society, where an atheist would face automatic death for spreading their opinion.
Historically yes religion was a big hindrance. The amount of suffering it caused in relation to people it helped was very big. Now however I don't think it is. Sure you have a few people and cults that take things to the extreme but all in all people with religious beliefs tend to keep to themselves. Heck religion is on a huge decrease now (I think there been something like a 15% decline over the last 10 years) mainly because people are nowhere near as suppressed and are free to interpret things for the themselves which wasn't the case in medieval times etc.... you either believed or you were a heretic and executed.
This. Does it still hinder potential? Sure
But we are no longer in the society, where an atheist would face automatic death for spreading their opinion.
Depends which society you are referring to
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment