# Contradictions: Religion vs Science

## Recommended Posts

I haven't even cited specific passages yet. I merely referenced the books where these took place. WTF are you talking about?

I read the major part of the four gospels until i remembered you gave a link to the info earlier in the thread....

http://www.evilbible.com/what_would_jesus_do.htm

But Mathew 5 verse 17 pretty much kills any assertion that what Jesus would do is what we in modern times would consider moral. Jesus asserts he is in agreement with the morals of the old testament. In other words kill adulterers, homosexuals, unruly children.....

For a peaceful life we have religion, for a healthy life we have science.

Of course... well except for those pesky demands to kill non believers, rape their woman and children and kill their livestock. I'm not familiar with the non abrahamic versions of religion, if that doesn't apply to their writing then i would appreciate being schooled on that.

I look at it like this way. Religions sometimes offer accurate facts too. Like the Vedas have, accurate age of earth, the span of divisions they have made and all. There are pieces which were written well before the actual event happened. No doubt, the actual events have been proved.

Ok, now for those assertions i think we really need some evidence...

But still, those who say we neglect science and worship God, must be at mistake. Science is essential for body, but as they think they are soul, religion is essential for them.

I have to admit i do know some people I would be afraid of if not for religion, according to them rape and pillage would be the first thing they did if they were sure there was no god...

If religion is the motive of life, vitamins and minerals lead to the path. Science is for body, again I say. In today's world, the one who neglects science, neglects God, and his powers.

Now this sounds vaguely like a late night Infomercial, I'm not sure what you're getting at but it sounds like it will be $19.95 plus shipping and handling.... ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites • Replies 158 • Created • Last Reply #### Top Posters In This Topic #### Popular Days #### Top Posters In This Topic #### Popular Days #### Popular Posts Why does everything come down to what some yanks in the Bible belt think? America is not the entire planet and frankly it's bloody boring to see so many topics get judged on some bloody gallup poll fr Actually IA, the Bible doesn't say the Earth is 6,000 years old. That figure was arrived at by a human adding up the Ages of people. It's the literalists that make life difficult. Except for Adam If we were discussing any subject other than religion, the masses would agree you should be institutionalized as a crazy delusional lunatic. However, since the topic at hand is belief in a deity, you I read the major part of the four gospels until i remembered you gave a link to the info earlier in the thread.... http://www.evilbible...ld_jesus_do.htm But Mathew 5 verse 17 pretty much kills any assertion that what Jesus would do is what we in modern times would consider moral. Jesus asserts he is in agreement with the morals of the old testament. In other words kill adulterers, homosexuals, unruly children..... Of course... well except for those pesky demands to kill non believers, rape their woman and children and kill their livestock. I'm not familiar with the non abrahamic versions of religion, if that doesn't apply to their writing then i would appreciate being schooled on that. Ok, now for those assertions i think we really need some evidence... I have to admit i do know some people I would be afraid of if not for religion, according to them rape and pillage would be the first thing they did if they were sure there was no god... Now this sounds vaguely like a late night Infomercial, I'm not sure what you're getting at but it sounds like it will be$19.95 plus shipping and handling....

Like this one

I agree, all religions want peace for all. It's only that people are forgetting that.

##### Share on other sites

No worries, my replies will be spaced out as well due to life in general, but I will eventually write back as well.

As for slavery i have been discussing that someplace else today,

Exodus 21: 2-6

Leviticus 24: 39-46

Luke 12: 42-48

1Peter 2: 42-48

Ephesians 6: 5-9

1Timothy 6: 1-2

Exodus 21: 7-11

Exodus 21: 20-21

Genesis 9:25

The misogyny contained in some of these passages is disgusting, women are less than humans and even less than male slaves, some of the passages strongly suggest that female slavery is also generally accepted to be sexual slavery as well...

I'd be glad to discuss these texts anytime, I'll leave the others to INow...

Like this one

I'm not sure what you are trying to assert with this, but it suggests that Indian culture was far more advanced than Abrahamic culture several thousand years before the Abrahamic culture existed... I see no evidence of anything supernatural here...

I agree, all religions want peace for all. It's only that people are forgetting that.

Well peace for everyone who agrees with the party line at least....

Edited by Moontanman
##### Share on other sites

I haven't even cited specific passages yet. I merely referenced the books where these took place. WTF are you talking about?

I was merely asking if you had studied the references that you made. Didn't realize I wasn't being clear enough.

Edited by NetSplitter
##### Share on other sites

It was precisely my study, my reason, my rationality, my integrity, and my honesty with myself which turned me into a nonbeliever. You were plenty clear, so no worries.

##### Share on other sites

I read the major part of the four gospels until i remembered you gave a link to the info earlier in the thread....

http://www.evilbible...ld_jesus_do.htm

But Mathew 5 verse 17 pretty much kills any assertion that what Jesus would do is what we in modern times would consider moral. Jesus asserts he is in agreement with the morals of the old testament. In other words kill adulterers, homosexuals, unruly children.....

Jesus didn't condemn the women at the well for committing adultery, he condemned the ones doing the condemning (Not trying to just throw that in there, I find it a little relevant). The verse seems pretty focused towards the Pharisees and there hypocritical way of teaching. Much of the Old Testament laws were focused towards Israel, as you suggest he states that he didn't come to abolish the law, but he also says he came to fulfill it - which to my understanding leads to the new covenant which is based on absolute love.

I will write more later, and respond to your other posts within a couple days.

Edited by NetSplitter
##### Share on other sites

my understanding leads to the new covenant which is based on absolute love.

I will write more later, and respond to your other posts within a couple days.

Will it be more of your selective interpretations and ignoring of factual content, or will these future posts have merit worthy of our time? You don't get to argue that "your" interpretation is the only right one and that everyone else is wrong. The book says what it says, is full of contradictions, and is hardly an epic tome or manual on how to exist in a state of pure love and acceptance. To argue otherwise would be disingenuous, obfuscatory, and would show how you (like pretty much all other believers) engage in dissembling and intellectual dishonesty to make your points.

Seriously... Let's be honest. You have faith, and nothing more. That's not enough for many of us with rational minds who have looked with objective eyes at the writings you cite. End conversation. Faith alone ain't gonna cut it, and you already know and accept this yourself since you don't accept that the faith of others who disagree with you is enough to make them correct and you wrong.

##### Share on other sites

Rational minds? What the hell is scientific about assuming there's an effect without a cause?

##### Share on other sites

@Moontanman,

I want to tell that scriptures don't have false claims. I here refer to scriptures of Hinduism only because I never learnt about others. The history of Rama was written by a man years before Rama actually appeared. His writings are still widely popular. I have again and again insisted that you read any English translation of the Indian Scriptures, like The Gita. All knowledgeable people here debate about Christianity and other religions. Take a look at the most ancient one.

The Vedas answer truly. The contain answered questions. They don't put something which is illogical. Get a translation, it might add to knowledge.

##### Share on other sites

Rational minds? What the hell is scientific about assuming there's an effect without a cause?

Your incredulity is hardly a valid counter argument, nor is the implicitly mocking tone in which it was presented. Education is a beautiful thing, and we learn things every day that don't seem to make a lot of sense. The fact that our puny human minds sometimes struggle to understand a thing doesn't make it any less true or valid.

I want to tell that scriptures don't have false claims.

Which is remedially false, as already evidenced earlier in this very thread.

I here refer to scriptures of Hinduism only because I never learnt about others.

If this is the case, then you have no foundation on which to comment. Also, if you want to get technical, there are no "scriptures of hinduism" because it's more of a disorganized religion than an organized one, with at least five major divisions throughout India, and thousands more offshoots from each of those. It's little more than tribalism with cartoon characters, IMO.

All knowledgeable people here debate about Christianity and other religions. Take a look at the most ancient one.

The Vedas answer truly. The contain answered questions. They don't put something which is illogical. Get a translation, it might add to knowledge.

Hinduism is just another form of unthinking irrationality leading people in parts of the world to believe nonsense.

It's not the "most ancient" religion, and it's still a lot of fairy tales and fantasies and wish thinking and different sects who choose to believe different things. While it's noble that they generally seek to be so inclusive and accept pretty much every belief out there, the problem with Hinduism is that it's absolutely logically incoherent and basically you can believe any damned thing you want and still be called a "Hindu." That alone erases the utility of their arguments, but there is more. As I said above, it's not an organized religion, it's a disorganized one, and hence doesn't apply in the context of this discussion.

Practically any statement you can make about Hinduism might be considered valid or true because logical consistency doesn't matter. Designs like this allow for the many forms of evil and cruelty and barbarism we see applied to adherents. On top of that, there actually is some consistency in belief... but in these cases the objects of those beliefs are ludicrous on their face.

While there's no common worldview or fundamentals in hinduism, and while some suggest that the "highest form of hindu belief" is one where there are no gods, there are still many beliefs which are remarkably common across the masses who ascribe to this worldview. The most common beliefs (that we see in the most devout hindus, for example) are still there and apply to (vague and non-defined) things like life after death, souls, heaven, hell, rebirth, karma, dharma, divine retribution, vaishnavam, shaivam, miracles and other similar crap that has zero basis in reality and even less evidence in support.

It's also a system that puts forth a caste system on humans... another remarkably common feature of hinduistic belief. Strictly enforced castes are another of the most common and consistent tenets across the various flavors of belief... And here's where you lose. A caste system has no place in today's world, and this should be clear to anyone respectful of sentient life or with even a elementary understanding of the power of nurture coupled with nature. Any group of people who worship Mickey Mouse or 10-armed elephants or who think there are actually a set of humans that that should be "Untouchable" is no more worthy of time and attention than any of the other stupid groups who blindly follow a collection of fairy tales and fictional belief systems.

These unthinking irrational dogmas... whether abrahamic, hindu, or otherwise are all a cancer on the mind of otherwise intelligent and reasonable people and should be discarded as such.

##### Share on other sites

Will it be more of your selective interpretations and ignoring of factual content, or will these future posts have merit worthy of our time? You don't get to argue that "your" interpretation is the only right one and that everyone else is wrong. The book says what it says, is full of contradictions, and is hardly an epic tome or manual on how to exist in a state of pure love and acceptance. To argue otherwise would be disingenuous, obfuscatory, and would show how you (like pretty much all other believers) engage in dissembling and intellectual dishonesty to make your points.

iNow I must be missing something, because I don't quite know where I've been proved wrong. Nor do I know where I've proved anyone else wrong. Whatever you have sticking in your arse you might want to get it removed.

Please point out what has been selective with my interpretation and where I've ignored factual content regarding what I posted. Also please point out where I have argued that "my" interpretation is the only right one and that everyone else is wrong.

Your assumptions make this very unpleasant, and I don't enjoy such conversations.

My interpretation of biblical scripture relies on cross referencing and historical relevance to the time period. I could care less if that has any relevance to you or not, but to me it gives me a broader picture of what I read.

Seriously... Let's be honest. You have faith, and nothing more. That's not enough for many of us with rational minds who have looked with objective eyes at the writings you cite.

What did I post regarding Matthew 5-17 that was irrational? It is you who seems to have a problem with hearing any other interpretation than your "own". I enjoy discussion scripture, and I have no problem admitting when something doesn't sound morally fit to me.

Edited by NetSplitter
##### Share on other sites

iNow I must be missing something, because I don't quite know where I've been proved wrong. Nor do I know where I've proved anyone else wrong.

Please read what I said again. I didn't say either of those things. I was asking you a question about what you intended for your future response, and shared with you that IF you posted in a specific manner THEN you'd be wrong. I also gave you some unsolicited advice that IF you were to share some stuff about interpretations and suggest that you had it right while others didn't THEN you would have done nothing to prove others wrong.

I hope this clarifies for you.

Whatever you have sticking in your arse you might want to get it removed.

I'm unsure what you mean. Will you please clarify? Are you a proctologist?

Please point out what has been selective with my interpretation and where I've ignored factual content regarding what I posted.

See above. You've obviously misunderstood what was written. It was a preemptive post, not a comment on past posts.

Also please point out where I have argued that "my" interpretation is the only right one and that everyone else is wrong.

See above again.

Your assumptions make this very unpleasant, and I don't enjoy such conversations.

Nobody is forcing you to remain present. You are under no duress to remain engaged in this discussion. You are free to leave at any time. If you don't enjoy these conversations, then one has to wonder why you feel the need to participate in them. Could it be your religious instruction to preach, proselytize, and attempt to convert the masses to your personal flavor of delusion?

My interpretation of biblical scripture relies on cross referencing and historical relevance to the time period. I could care less if that has any relevance to you or not, but to me it gives me a broader picture of what I read.

Thank you for sharing.

What did I post regarding Matthew 5-17 that was irrational? It is you who seems to have a problem with hearing any other interpretation than your "own".

My comment there was unrelated to your Matthew quote. It was a meta comment about the larger issue under discussion. I was essentially cutting to the chase since usually discussions like this one with you get so caught up in minutiae and nit picking as to be supremely silly and a monstrous waste of everyones time where we all wind up exactly where we started after going around and round for 20 pages of thread.

Again... Let's cut to the chase. All you've got is faith, and that's not good enough for many of us with rational minds who have looked with objective eyes at the writings you cite.

##### Share on other sites
My interpretation of biblical scripture relies on cross referencing and historical relevance to the time period. I could care less if that has any relevance to you or not, but to me it gives me a broader picture of what I read.

I would like to know why there has to be an "interpretation" why can't the words speak for themselves, this idea that scripture must be "interpreted" is one of the major flaws in religion, once you are convinced that someone else has to tell you what they "actually" say as opposed to what they really say the train is hopelessly derailed. It reminds me of that Jackass Kent Hovind and his idea that to read the Bible you have to have on your "biblical" glasses to really see what it means. It's nonsensical NetSplitter, jesus in several passages tells slaves to obey their masters and to work as though they were working for god, slavery! if anyone was ever in a position to send a message that Slavery was bad Jesus was it and he failed to do anything but support slavery. Yes, I've heard all the apologetic arguments that say it wasn't the slavery we think of but the bible says other wise, it is even indicated that the slavery of woman was sexual slavery.

For some reason apologists always dismiss each thing that looks bad and go someplace else to show something good but wait, this is god, why should god promote things like rape, aggressive wars, pillage and plunder, genocide, murder of infants and adults sexual slavery of women, these thing totally negate the idea of the god in the bible being omni benevolent, he obviously is not. And how do the good things he does negate the horrific things he does or demands others do?

If I was a multi billionaire that gave away billions of dollars to help the poor and disadvantaged would that negate the the horror of me having three woman chained in my basement for use as sexual slaves? Of course not, but God and his fan club get passes on nearly everything.

Then you have Noah's Ark, a sillier tale i have never heard told as truth, i can trivially falsify the flood, but believers always ignore the absolute evidence it couldn't have happened and try to make up silly horse feathers to get around the impossibilities.

As I said earlier or maybe in another thread, religion is real, there are at least two dozen churches with in 10 miles of me, god on the other hand is iffy at best and the Bible is pure MBE on a shingle.

Rational minds? What the hell is scientific about assuming there's an effect without a cause?

Why would you assume the cause is God? The honest answer is we don't know not god did it...

##### Share on other sites
1325943605[/url]' post='649436']

Your incredulity is hardly a valid counter argument, nor is the implicitly mocking tone in which it was presented. Education is a beautiful thing, and we learn things every day that don't seem to make a lot of sense. The fact that our puny human minds sometimes struggle to understand a thing doesn't make it any less true or valid.

What do you mean, don't make sense? Like what?

You cannot tell me an effect without a cause is true and just believe it. That is faith and magic if I've ever seen it.

##### Share on other sites

@Moontanman,

I want to tell that scriptures don't have false claims. I here refer to scriptures of Hinduism only because I never learnt about others. The history of Rama was written by a man years before Rama actually appeared. His writings are still widely popular. I have again and again insisted that you read any English translation of the Indian Scriptures, like The Gita. All knowledgeable people here debate about Christianity and other religions. Take a look at the most ancient one.

The Vedas answer truly. The contain answered questions. They don't put something which is illogical. Get a translation, it might add to knowledge.

I am totally unaware of anything in the "Gita" that is more believable in asserting the existence of the supernatural than any other religious book but I admit I have never read it and I do not plan to do so unless some evidence of it's divine nature is produced. So far the bits and pieces I have read indicate it is no better than any other religious text... The Indian writings about flying weapons of war and visiting the moon are interesting but clearly just fiction...

##### Share on other sites
1325953856[/url]' post='649470']

Why would you assume the cause is God? The honest answer is we don't know not god did it...

If the universe was crafted, finite, it must have a crafter... This is sensical to me. Whether or not you apply descriptions from an absurd book taken too far is irrelevant. Whether you try to give this crafter human-like attributes because your mind fails to fathom anything else is irrelevant. You're still accepting a creator.

##### Share on other sites

If the universe was crafted, finite, it must have a crafter...

If.... what a word... If frogs had wings they wouldn't bust their little slimy asses every time they jump.... there is no reason to assume the Universe is "crafted" give me some evidence of this craftsmanship.... It's quite possible that the universe we see is the only way a space/time expansion can take place and no other possibility can happen, or it could be that we just happen to be in a space/time expansion that allows intelligent life and since we cannot see or detect any other space time it just looks crafted, we just don't know....

This is sensical to me. Whether or not you apply descriptions from an absurd book taken too far is irrelevant. Whether you try to give this crafter human-like attributes because your mind fails to fathom anything else is irrelevant. You're still accepting a creator.

No, I am saying "I/We don't know" right now that is the most honest answer science can give, we know there was a universal expansion and that the energy of this expansion coalesced into the universe we see today, even that is disputed in some circles,

Appolinaria, at one time, quite recently actually, a couple hundred years or so ago, lightning was totally inexplicable, no one could say where it came from and it was assumed to be the wrath of god. Then lightning rods were invented and suddenly the wrath of god could be stymied, many religious people refused to believe this but the fact that churches were more often hit than any other building was a bit of an embarrassment to the church and eventually it was accepted that lightning was a natural phenomena.

Just because we cannot at this time explain the origin of the universe says nothing about god, or a creator or anything else other than space/time seems to have expanded about 13.7 billion years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if this explanation was over turned at some point but right now it's all we really have. Saying God done it is no better than saying lightning bolts are being thrown by god, so far we can say that if there is a god his influence is so small as to be immeasurable or that he works in naturalistic ways that follow the laws of the universe and this makes it look like he has no effect but no effect is ever seen no matter how fast a spin you put on it....

##### Share on other sites
1325958386[/url]' post='649489']

If.... what a word... If frogs had wings they wouldn't bust their little slimy asses every time they jump.... there is no reason to assume the Universe is "crafted" give me some evidence of this craftsmanship.... It's quite possible that the universe we see is the only way a space/time expansion can take place and no other possibility can happen, or it could be that we just happen to be in a space/time expansion that allows intelligent life and since we cannot see or detect any other space time it just looks crafted, we just don't know....

No, I am saying "I/We don't know" right now that is the most honest answer science can give, we know there was a universal expansion and that the energy of this expansion coalesced into the universe we see today, even that is disputed in some circles,

Appolinaria, at one time, quite recently actually, a couple hundred years or so ago, lightning was totally inexplicable, no one could say where it came from and it was assumed to be the wrath of god. Then lightning rods were invented and suddenly the wrath of god could be stymied, many religious people refused to believe this but the fact that churches were more often hit than any other building was a bit of an embarrassment to the church and eventually it was accepted that lightning was a natural phenomena.

Just because we cannot at this time explain the origin of the universe says nothing about god, or a creator or anything else other than space/time seems to have expanded about 13.7 billion years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if this explanation was over turned at some point but right now it's all we really have. Saying God done it is no better than saying lightning bolts are being thrown by god, so far we can say that if there is a god his influence is so small as to be immeasurable or that he works in naturalistic ways that follow the laws of the universe and this makes it look like he has no effect but no effect is ever seen no matter how fast a spin you put on it....

The fact that the universe is finite, or that there is an origin, means something put the wheels into motion. Which would be a force. A creative force.

Denying one seems unscientific.

Space, time? Surely they were created.

If I want to splatter a bunch of colors around on paint, or type my own creation up on word, the grounds have to be laid first...

##### Share on other sites

What do you mean, don't make sense? Like what?

Like many of the outcomes of quantum mechanics, for example.

If the universe was crafted, finite, it must have a crafter... This is sensical to me.

I fail to see why. It merely displaces the question. It doesn't answer it. What created the creator, and what created that? Your creator doesn't answer any questions. It merely introduces different ones. Why you find this as satisfying and "sensical" is beyond me. It's roughly equivalent to answering a child's question of "why" with "just because."

Goddidit is not a valid answer. Saying "we don't yet know" is a valid answer, and perfectly acceptable.

The fact that the universe is finite, or that there is an origin, means something put the wheels into motion. Which would be a force. A creative force.

Denying one seems unscientific.

And what put your "creation force" into motion then? You've merely displaced the question. That is no answer. It's a cop out.

##### Share on other sites

The fact that the universe is finite, or that there is an origin, means something put the wheels into motion. Which would be a force. A creative force.

Denying one seems unscientific.

Colliding branes in a multi-dimensional bulk space is one idea, these branes would collide and rebound over trillions years in an never ending cycle, do you like that one better?

Space, time? Surely they were created.

Why would you say that?

If I want to splatter a bunch of colors around on paint, or type my own creation up on word, the grounds have to be laid first...

How does this relate to the expansion of the universe? Think about it, if everything has to have a creator like you are suggesting then the solar system had to have a creator, as did each individual planet, moon, comet, and asteroid, the reality is that natural processes allowed them to form, what can't that apply to the universe?

##### Share on other sites
1325977798[/url]' post='649528']

Like many of the outcomes of quantum mechanics, for example.

I fail to see why. It merely displaces the question. It doesn't answer it. What created the creator, and what created that? Your creator doesn't answer any questions. It merely introduces different ones. Why you find this as satisfying and "sensical" is beyond me. It's roughly equivalent to answering a child's question of "why" with "just because."

Goddidit is not a valid answer. Saying "we don't yet know" is a valid answer, and perfectly acceptable.

And what put your "creation force" into motion then? You've merely displaced the question. That is no answer. It's a cop out.

Is quantum mechanics really illogical? I'm not so sure I agree with that.

##### Share on other sites

Appolinaria and Inow,

I am wondering if the disagreement here has to do with the meaning of afterlife.

After one's life, is there life?

And to what extent is that pertinent to one's life.

I do not think it is wrong to believe that life will continue to exist after one's death.

Even Mr. Krauss believes that something will exist in 100 billion years.

The question that seems to be at hand is whether or not the universe was born, will live, and die and there will still be something. Is there an afteruniverse that the universe needs to be concerned with?

Regards, TAR2

##### Share on other sites

Is quantum mechanics really illogical? I'm not so sure I agree with that.

I never said it was illogical. I said it doesn't always make sense. This was in direct response to your request for an example, and I thought was clear given the context of our exchange. It's okay to make a mistake, so long as you're not intentionally misrepresenting me.

Now, as to my other questions that you seem to have ignored... ?

The question that seems to be at hand is whether or not the universe was born, will live, and die and there will still be something.

As I alluded to above, we don't yet know, and that's a perfectly accurate and reasonable answer. I'd rather say we don't know then try to make something up (like "goddidit").

Is there an afteruniverse that the universe needs to be concerned with?

I imagine that the answer to this question largely depends on how we answer the previous.

##### Share on other sites
1325977798[/url]' post='649528']

Like many of the outcomes of quantum mechanics, for example.

I fail to see why. It merely displaces the question. It doesn't answer it. What created the creator, and what created that? Your creator doesn't answer any questions. It merely introduces different ones. Why you find this as satisfying and "sensical" is beyond me. It's roughly equivalent to answering a child's question of "why" with "just because."

Goddidit is not a valid answer. Saying "we don't yet know" is a valid answer, and perfectly acceptable.

And what put your "creation force" into motion then? You've merely displaced the question. That is no answer. It's a cop out.

The energy of the universe must originate from somewhere and go somewhere. The universe is finite. This is all evidence to me that something is beyond it.

Branes colliding, particles coming from nothing... They're still in the realm of space and/or time. But what's responsible for space time, the natural processes, cause and effect?

##### Share on other sites

The relationship of Religion and Science is totally dependent on the education people receive, other than the bible.

Tragically what the people of the US do not understand is that liberal education prepared everyone for critical and scientific thinking, and education for technology does not. I will repeat this, because I am sure the truth is contrary to what most people think. Liberal education prepares everyone for critical and scientific thinking, and education for technology does not.

Germany was a Christian Republic, as the US has been a Christian

Republic. What separated them was their education. Germany had education for technology as soon as the Prussians took control of Germany, and this left Germans to be very superstitious people, with a fear of the supernatural, and a reliance on authority, that is totally contrary to the liberty of the US. Those educated for technology will understand the bible concretely. That is demons are real beings that can actually possess us, because the bible says this is so. Their morality is completely dependent on a fear of God and reliance on authority.

The US mandated free public education around shortly before the Civil War, and this was education based on Greek and Roman classics and preparing everyone for critical thinking and citizenship in a democracy that made liberty a priority. It is Greek and Roman classics that prepares people for scientific thinking, and Christians with this education are much less likely to be superstition. They will understanding the bible abstractly, instead of concretely. That is demons are our fears and pain, and while experience fear and pain, this does not mean demons are foreign beings that can possess us. Their morality rest in their ability to reason, and they assume they are the authority and all the responsibility that comes with that. Get the important difference?

In 1958 the US replaced its liberal education with Germany's model of education for technology, so now our Christians are just like Germany's Christians were, and we are in big trouble! Instead of embracing science, as liberally educated Christians did, they distrust science. Instead of embracing liberty, they are intensely reliant on authority, and this is destroying our democracy with liberty.

##### Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×