Catholics are making it up.

Bunch of half-baked accusatory rhetoric against "religion" here. It seems to start with the inability to accept the supernatural, is that right? It sounds so "enlightened," so "progressive" to reject invisible worlds, but in reality it's only today's form of ignorant bigotry. I appreciate Mr. Hunger's generally magnanimous and historically more informed attitude about religion, but he too has this same prejudice. "I can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist."Of course it has some creditable roots, Jefferson for instance suffered from the same infirmity. Yet Deists must acknowledge SOME degree of invisible reality. Why limit it?"I can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist." Doesn't matter that humanity as a whole is in the same boat, yet some of us overcame the prejudice. Yet the ones with the infirmity judge the ones who believe as mentally incompetent. Did I suddenly lose all my IQ points when I became a believer? How exactly would that happen? To my mind I acquired a whole world of new knowledge but I'm treated like I'm mentally incompetent. All because of this entrenched prejudice that I myself was set free from. They want "evidence" they say. I did have some supernatural experiences that contributed to my belief I suppose, but the evidence of the truth of the Bible is all from its witnesses. But those they discredit without a second thought based only on their woodenheaded prejudice, treating those dreadfully real people as fictions.Negotiating the paths of atheistic self-justification must make them all dizzy. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This one doesn't make any sense in describing me, Faith. I can't see electricity, but I am convinced that electricity exists. The evidence for the existence of elecricity is overwhelming to me. And to most rational people around the world, too. You do find a few who deny it, but they are crazy.

Actually Faith, Islam was supportive of knowledge and education and creating seats of learning. It was barbaric Christianity that lagged behind in education. Cordoba was a place of learning and education while Europe endured the Dark Ages.

Well, I could agree that it couldn't have been a lot worse being under the tyranny of Islam than under the tyranny of Rome.

What nuanced meanings does one give to a talking snake? The facts the snake spoke not withstanding Knowledge is bad?Or to a super sky daddy so pissed off that it floods the entire world killing every man, woman, child? Tow my line as given by my priests and don't piss me off again or else?Or to the myth of the exodus? Carry god before you as you slaughter the innocent and you will surely know victory?Help me out here MrH. What useful nuances of these myths am I missing? Your hyperbole with language is no example at all. It doesn't fit, doesn't make any sense.Culture is an umbrella concept for the elements, both good and bad, within it, and in so many cultures religion is the driving element behind the thirst for power and the cause of too much bigotry and bloodletting. Do you deny this?Religion is one aspect of culture that we have such a history as to preclude it from being labeled anything but bad. Racial and gender bigotry are also elements of our culture enmeshed deeply within our society. Do we make excuses to accommodate their continued existence? White supremacists and Men's Rights Advocates, many using religion as their absolution, do so every day. Is this not "bad" in your world?Why should we continue to make excuses and accommodations for the demonstrable evil that is religion? And I should stop parroting Jefferson on the freedom of conscience. His cheap generalizations were only correct and worthy of repetition. Just like Dennett, Dawkins, Harris, PZ Myers, Larry Krauss, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and so many others.Edited by AZPaul3, : title

What Tyrany of Islam? During the Caliphates Islam was the bastion of personal freedom and freedom of religion.Edited by jar, : applin spallinEdited by jar, : and missing letters?

The talking snake isn't a myth. It represents Satan, which we are told in the Book of Revelation. It talks because Satan talks and Satan had taken on its form for the seduction of Adam and Eve.And Knowledge is NOT bad and the Bible says nothing of the sort. It says if they eat of the tree they will have knowledge of GOOD AND EVIL. Before eating of it they had nothing but happiness. The disobedience of doing what God told them not to do brought the knowledge of evil, in the sense of misery, which is what the Hebrew word means. Me, I could do without the knowledge of misery, I don't know about you. The degree of sin in the world ("it was filled with violence" says scripture) was beyond anything we can even imagine. And Noah preached to the people that they could save themselves from the disaster that was coming but they ignored him, as so many do today. I know sin is a meaningless concept to people these days. Murder, stealing, adultery, lying, you know, was it Dr. A who just wrote a post pretty much saying we think all those things are OK these days? Well, God doesn't, and if we're honest we should see that a society that doesn't punish such things is a society out of control, ruled by chaos and destruction. Enough of it and He tries to save us from more of it by eliminating the causes of it. But you put an evil spin on it.Also, sin is inherited, according to the Bible. Even babies inherit it and grow up to be evil people if their family line was evil. You can learn from such revelations, but so many choose not to. Where do you get such evil ideas? There's nothing in the image of God's going before the Israelites about killing innocent people, it's solely a reminder that He is their God, which they managed to keep forgetting anyway, being fallen creatures like the rest of humanity. And the people who threatened them were not "innocent" by a long shot. If you are talking about the Canaanites, I understand that you have a soft spot for idolators and other sinners, but the whole point of eliminating them from the land was that their sin had accumulated to the point that God was going to judge them one way or another. He wanted to do it by the Israelites because He's teaching us that His own chosen people are going to off the demon hordes some day. You may not like that either, but then I don't suppose you've ever met a demon. They tend to avoid giving away their existence to people who serve their purposes better by not believing in them. Anyway the Canaanites had indulged in hundreds of years of sin and were due for judgment. If it hadn't been the Israelites it would have been some other tribe that attacked them, or maybe just famine. The Israelites unfortunately failed in their mission and were plagued from then on by the presence of their enemies in the land.The thing about the Bible is that it simply reveals reality to us. The disasters that occur are caused by God's judgment against sin for instance, but unless the Bible had told us that we wouldn't know it. So now you know it and you're mad at God although the knowledge doesn't change one thing about the realities of life on this planet. You'd rather not know their causes I suppose, especially if sin is the cause. So much easier to just believe it's all arbitrary accidental history or natural disasters. Me I find it helpful to know why disasters happen, including my own sufferings. Knowledge gives a way to avoid it. And I have the advantage of being able to pray too.Some of the stuff you accuse religion of, has nothing to do with religion, such as racism, white supremacy etc.But I suppose I should just give up, you LIKE your lies so I should not give myself an ulcer trying to disabuse you of them. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So you agree, there is nothing in Genesis 2&3 to show any seduction and your interpretation is based simply on what the author of Revelation made up?

It won't penetrate your skull of course, but God wrote (inspired the writers of) Genesis and Revelation both, and chose to reveal the meanings behind the earlier history in their own time. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So god wrote and inspired writers to write falsehoods; got it.But again, that is just something yet another person made up and unsupported by what is actually written. The is no Satan in Genesis 2&3 and in that story it is the serpent that tells the truth and the god character that lies.What you describe is apologetics, making stuff up to revise what was actually written earlier.The problem is that you (and many others) need to deny what the bible stories actually say to continue believing in the fiction you created. The issue is not that the Catholics are making stuff up but that you want to deny that the three religions that claim to worship the Abramic god all made stuff up since the very beginning.

More to the point, it can be argued that there would not be modern science without Christianity. Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, Maxwell, Faraday, etc. were motivated by their Christian convictions to develop modern science. Without Christianity we would arguably still be stuck with Greek science.

Goodness. We were talking about the founding of universities in the West and whether Christianity was a help or a hindrance to that end. That doesn't make me a chearleader for Islamic empire--I like what we've got.Anyway, if Islam had won the West, my specific hodge-podge pedigree of Welsh, German, Sicilian and a soupon of native American would probably never have quickened. So no Omni in that fight...Centers of learning rise in every civilization, and existed in China and India, for example, long before there was a Christian church in Europe. The ranking of the "first university" is a bit of artifice, really, because it hinges definitionally on things like set courses of study and degrees/diplomas, excluding earlier courts, great monasteries and libraries (east and west), and even master/apprentice based academies.The human mind yearns to grow in understanding. We can see that when a civilization reaches the necessary size, wealth and complexity, centers of learning emerge. Nowhere else in the world was Christianity required for the creation of centers of learning; the RCC retarded progress for centuries in the name of doctrine. On the other hand, it is a fair question to ask what other imperial center would have commanded the size, wealth and complexity to build universities; but it is also fair to imagine how different the centuries could have been had the church welcomed the early scientists.So, like I said, I dunno: we can't run history back and try a pagan or Islamic modernity in the West. My impression is that the RCC more inhibited than promoted progress, but that demonstration is a scholarly effort, and beyond me.Edited by Omnivorous, : get my soupon rightEdited by Omnivorous, :

Thank you. And modern science was not developed in any of the "centers of learning" of any other civilization either, it's specifically an outgrowth of Christianity. And, just as a matter of fact, I think the only nonProtestant on your list is Galileo, right?

Yes, it represents - i.e. it isn't literal. Even you can't help being right instinctively once in a while.

They stood on the shoulders of Greek giants, and the Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers who rescued those thinkers from the church, as well as the contributions of Islamic scholars. What the scientists you named most enjoyed was a lack of suppression from religious authority.By the broadest imprimatur you give Christianity, we must also hold them responsible for every bad idea and ideology that emerged in the West.