Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 28th Mar 2009 03:13 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 355824
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Humans can pervert any teachings to mean whatever they want it to mean.
Once society has said that it's OK to believe irrational things... no evidence required, then there is no limit to the severity of the ensuing abuse. That is the ultimate problem with the insanity that is religion. And that is why it ends up doing so much more harm than good in the world. And that is why its best to discourage it, in favor of rational thought.
"Humans can pervert any teachings to mean whatever they want it to mean.
Once society has said that it's OK to believe irrational things... no evidence required, then there is no limit to the severity of the ensuing abuse. That is the ultimate problem with the insanity that is religion. And that is why it ends up doing so much more harm than good in the world. And that is why its best to discourage it, in favor of rational thought. "
Using your argument and viewpoint - is it insane to believe all of life occurred naturally (abiogensis)? Abiogensis has not been proven, yet, you may have "faith" in science that it must be how it occurred without irrefutable evidence.






Member since:
2005-11-14
You had no point except to attempt to spread your beliefs, and force them onto others. Thanks for playing
As to another post, the New Testament does not over ride the Old Testament. They are part of the same book, one before the birth of JC, the second part after. It is a history book that has been (mis)-interpreted too many times in being translated from the original work. "
My point was simple, you just refused to acknowledge it. Humans can pervert any teachings to mean whatever they want it to mean. That point was made very clearly in my post, which you either ignored, or was outside your ability to understand. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you just ignored it, because it went against your beliefs. However, you're being intellectual dishonest with yourself to cite the Crusades (something that was against the teachings of the Bible).
To illustrate your point in a different context, let's say you're studying up on C#, you write an application, and it fails to compile due to errors in your code. Your stance is that is the errors in your code is what you were taught to do, although the textbook that you were studying from clearly says otherwise.
The Bible is a collection of books, not just one book. I agree that there are parts that are mistranslated, which is why you must interpret the teachings in it's entirety, not just by one singular verse from a book in the Bible.