Funny that I didn't even know you replied to this.
Originally Posted by Indica
I was just posting a sarcastic comment when I started but you are totally opening different Pandora boxes and theories that are going way off topic.
Even though this further derails the thread, you've said some things I am not going to leave alone. It looks like the original topic is done for anyway.
Originally Posted by Indica
I am not making any claims about the Bible, it's a fact it's a bunch of BS and I don't need any scholarship to support my facts. Ive read the Bible and was forced to go to Sunday School for 15 years. At the age of 8 I knew the Bible was fake. There is no archaeological evidence to prove that Moses ever existed, nor any evidence of thousands of people traveling from Egypt back to this so called Promised Land. Oh, by the way, did Adam and Eve have Belly Buttons?
Whether or not you are religious is of no concern of mine and by itself does not factor in to how I regard you as a person, but I can NOT abide your hatred, your behavior, and your rationale for both. You claim
you know the truth, but all your beliefs are based on your experiences when you were eight years old
Meanwhile, well-educated people make careers out of studying the Bible and investegating on the historical links within it. Countless papers and books have been written on the subject. That people are still doing this, especially since archaeology continues to turn up curiosities and possible leads, makes your claim that "a fact it's a bunch of BS and I don't need any scholarship to support my facts" look very naive in comparison.
Furthermore, much of biblical scholarship has to do with investegating the meaning behind passages and determining what those passages were meant to be intepreted as. Likely, when you were a child at Bible school, you were made to interpret all those passages literally without any serious discussion on them. That would explain why you're making such random and irrational challenges like "did Adam and Eve have Belly Buttons
However, if you were to actually have a serious
conversation with any theologan or even a religious scientist (such as America's leading geneticist Francis Collins--who led the Human Genome Project to completion--or the Irish former molecular biophysicist Alister McGrath) you'd probably have your world rocked to find that many don't think the Bible was meant to be taken word-for-word literally. Of course, considering how you cling to your childhood beliefs and regard the Bible as "fucking rag scrolls," I doubt you'd ever consider the possibility--or would instead just shout random obscinities at them.
Take Bernard Ramm, a Baptist theologan, who specifically poke out about that kind of thing fifty years ago: "Revelation is the communication of divine truth; interpretation is the effort to understand it. One cannot say 'I believe just exactly what Genesis 1 says and I don't need any theory of reconciliation with science.'"
He also said, "These are extremely serious matters and there is no legitimate place for small minds, petty souls, and studied ignorance."
Originally Posted by Indica
The only thing I want to divide is people from these nonsense religions as your stating in your last sentence. Don't give me any BS that the Catholic Church and these other big groups are not doing the same causing society to divide based on some fucking rag scrolls created by man.
It's not BS except to those people who revel in their misconceptions, ignorance, stereotypes, and hatreds--something you've been quite adept at displaying in this thread. If you think you can save the world by purging religion, you're no better of a person than Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or Enver Hoxa--all who sought to do the same thing and would up hurting, oppressing, torturing, and killing millions
of people just to force their anti-religious doctrines down the throats of their citizens (among other things).
You tried to use the Catholic Church as an example, which shows you clearly don't know about things such as their 1965 "Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions" or "Nostra Aetate." Why is it important? Because it was the Catholic Church's resolve to promote religious tolerance, acceptance of the world's religions, and to fight antisemitism. No doubt you would refuse to read it and retch at the sight of it given how much you appear to hate Christianity, but I think it demonstrates something when--freaking 40 years plus ago--the Church that you
claim is causing "society to divide based on some fucking rag scrolls" declared that "it is contrary to the teaching of the Church to discriminate against, show hatred towards or harass any person or people on the basis of colour, race, religion, and way of life."
Pope John Paul II took that even farther--eight years ago he sought forgiveness on behalf of the Catholic Church for what wrongs have been done in its name throughout history. You'll want to look up articles on that.
And then there's statements by such Catholic clergy as Cardinal Paul Poupard.
"The faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer."
"We also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason, and becomes prey to fundamentalism."
"The permanent lesson that the Galileo case represents pushes us to keep alive the dialogue between the various disciplines, and in particular between theology and the natural sciences, if we want to prevent similar episodes from repeating themselves in the future."
Gee, these don't sound like the kind of things that a church that supposedly divides society based on what you consider "fucking rag scrolls" would do.
Suffice to say, that you claim otherwise in the face of such evidence as this reflects quite poorly on your knowledge. I guess it's understandable as these kinds of things don't make headlines like zealous extremists killing people do. The fact that there has actually been major drives to promote religious tolerance and interfaith dialogue doesn't change that those kinds of things happen, but a certain professor Steven Dutch had something to say about that.
"If religions preach peace, and we don't have peace, then obviously most people are not living up to the demands of their religions. Right?
But we can't go there. That would imply there's something wrong with human nature, when it's so much easier to put the blame on an externality like religion, circumcision, or Saturday morning cartoons."
Demonstrating these things to you
are fruitless since you're so caught up in your own childhood beliefs to actually do some research and think about things seriously as an adult, but I find worth in replying to you if only to demonstrate how little you know (and care to know) to others.
I think, however, you've done much more to make yourself look bigoted, ignorant, and hateful than anything I could have written in response to you.