Dark Matter Blob Confounds Experts

Status
Not open for further replies.
dadman said:
Lets clear something up thats wrong with this comment. First, Christmas NOW, is not a pagan holiday. It's true the church started celebrating Christmas to offer Christians an alternative to a pagan celebration, thats all.

Second: Easter never has been , nor ever will be a pagan holiday. It celebrates the death AND resurrection of Jesus Christ, and there has ever only been ONE Jesus Christ.

The historical evidence of Jesus is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Whether you want to believe it or not is your choice.
Click to expand...

The only thing Christian about Christmas is the name and the baby scene. The fact is still there that it was a stand-in for the Yule. And in celebrating it is still not accepted as a Christian holiday since other regions also celebrate it, and since they don't believe in Jesus being a completely different religion, they celebrate it in the spirite of the yuletide instead. Take out the Christian symbolisms and it's still an intact holiday.

As for the other, where do you think the word 'Easter' came from?

Please don't tell me you actually believe that those were Jesus actual birthday and crucifixion dates.
 
Wow! I was going to comment on how some scientists are challenging some of the theories by Einstein and others that wouldn't have need for magical dark matter. But, please go on with your Religion vs Science carnival! It is very entertaining!
 
VRMan said:
Wow! I was going to comment on how some scientists are challenging some of the theories by Einstein and others that wouldn't have need for magical dark matter. But, please go on with your Religion vs Science carnival! It is very entertaining!
Click to expand...

How about we don't continue that line?

As to your on-topic portion; Yes, there are some scientists working on theories that wouldn't need dark matter, but they haven't gained a lot of support generally speaking. Why is this? You'd think any theoretical physicist would *love* to have his name on research that proves dark matter unnecessary, so I have to assume that what they propose must not be workable or at least not testable right now(or potentially even ever).
 
Tudz said:
fitting billions of years into the first 7 days of the bible
Click to expand...

I'd like to see where in the Bible it says that a day is 24 hours.
There is also the notion that God could have easily created an "old earth" with fossils and "time" already passed at creation. There is nothing to say this couldn't be.
 
shoota said:
There is also the notion that God could have easily created an "old earth" with fossils and "time" already passed at creation. There is nothing to say this couldn't be.
Click to expand...

Why would there be a need to do that?
 
distortion69 said:
We have no hard feelings, it's just that people are easily offended when talking religion. I talk trash about all subjects, and folks aren't nearly as offended as when it pertains to religion. I have to say though, what you described is part of learning.What would you suggest they do, continue to believe things that they know can't be true? That is exactly the reason why faith based positions are so ludicrous.

The earth is flat...
*calculates the earth is round*
*takes pictures that the earth is round*
*flies into space, sees in person it's round*

Should we A) Still continue to believe the earth is flat, or B) change our understanding based on the new evidence.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it's easier to be ignorant.
Galileo was sentenced to house arrest because he proved the earth isn't in the center of our universe like the church liked to think. Arguing with religious is pointless just like it was hundreds of years ago.
Let science do it's thing, until there is no more knowledge gaps religious people can blame on god.
 
DejaWiz said:
Why would there be a need to do that?
Click to expand...

Why not? Who says there has to be a need? Maybe there is a need? I guess my point is that it's possible that it's an irrelevant question or a question that can't be answered (which seems to be a common thread from both camps here).
 
shoota said:
Why not? Who says there has to be a need? Maybe there is a need? I guess my point is that it's possible that it's an irrelevant question or a question that can't be answered (which seems to be a common thread from both camps here).
Click to expand...

I think the obscure nature and sheer ambiguity regarding the interpretations of biblical text are in and of itself a claim of uncertainty and therefore falsehood. It would seem contradictory to state that god intended to make the book based on all the rules such a hotly debated subject. If it's of such importance you'd figure it should be absolutely clear to everyone and forever, in a matter where nobody questions what's wrtitten/spoken or what have you.

Logically, the next step would be that it wasn't God that fucked up, but us humans. That has some dire implications regarding religious beliefs :p
 
pelo said:
I think the obscure nature and sheer ambiguity regarding the interpretations of biblical text are in and of itself a claim of uncertainty and therefore falsehood. It would seem contradictory to state that god intended to make the book based on all the rules such a hotly debated subject. If it's of such importance you'd figure it should be absolutely clear to everyone and forever, in a matter where nobody questions what's wrtitten/spoken or what have you.

Logically, the next step would be that it wasn't God that fucked up, but us humans. That has some dire implications regarding religious beliefs :p
Click to expand...

There are certain aspects of the Bible that are ambiguous, however, none of them are matters of salvation and are therefore less important. Those parts are very clear.
 
shoota said:
There are certain aspects of the Bible that are ambiguous, however, none of them are matters of salvation and are therefore less important. Those parts are very clear.
Click to expand...

So God has some points that are more important than others that can be skipped over?

w0t?

I'm not exactly devoid of any sort of religious belief structure, but the Christian and in turn Abrahamic interpretation of God strikes me as an inherently shitty and weak one. You allow for mistakes and now just admitted to some issues with clarity that can be glanced over but are somehow less important. If an omnipotent and omniscient thing speaks, you'd bet your ass I would be hanging on every word.

Let me put it this way...

The mere notion of a God requires that it's free of any and all mistakes. It should make perfect sense and it should be timeless. If it has holes or weaknesses then it doesn't fit the definition of God and is thrown in with the rest of us earthly beings and our fallible thoughts and ideas.
 
shoota said:
I'd like to see where in the Bible it says that a day is 24 hours.
There is also the notion that God could have easily created an "old earth" with fossils and "time" already passed at creation. There is nothing to say this couldn't be.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say its 24 hours, but it does define it by the evening and the morning. If you make them long periods of time, then it makes less sense IMO, because the order is fucked up.

As for the second notion, that God had an old Earth with fossils and put people on it...

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (Genesis 1:2)

But there's no requirement that requires an "old Earth" in creation (that I'm aware of at least, and again I won't pretend to be a scholar). Creationists will argue against the old earth concept by saying dating methods that suggest an old earth aren't actually measuring the age at all. Again, I don't know a lot on the topic, but radiometric dating requires several assumptions on initial amounts of isotopes and rates of decay of those isotopes. I have heard stories of people sending rocks to be dated by different labs or different rocks from the same area being sent to the same lab and being given wildly different dates in the millions of years, even though the rocks formed in a recent volcano, I don't know how credible those are though. You can read various arguments from both sides of the fence by googling "creation fossil dating methods".

As for the fossils themselves, the existance of fossils doesn't disprove anything in the bible. Things go extinct all the time, they leave fossils when they do. The bible gives an event that may cause a mass deposit of fossils, the flood.

I'm not going to try and push creation theory on anyone, like I said earlier in the thread creation theory is a theory of life built around the premise that God does exist, evolution is one built around the premise that God doesn't exist, I tread a middle ground... I don't trust what people are going to tell me to believe (whether they be religous or scientists), but I also admit I'm not well researched in the matter to actually make a conclusive choice, as most people aren't (if anyone at all is). I only present argument for creation here as a discussion point and to raise counter arguments to often raised points. In my opinion its very hard to NOT believe creation and remain a christian. It also seems to me that most of the gaps raised by science can be filled through creation, but again I don't pretend to be a scholar on the matter.

A lot of people just parrot anti-bible and anti-creation arguments as if they're conclusive evidence without having looked into it themselves (especially the anti-bible stuff, people talk about it like its conclusively been proved contradictory or false, you ask them to cite where and more often than not it comes down to some verse taken out of context and the counter argument can be found in the bible itself... as much as people like to interpret the bible, its actually quite self sufficient if you take the time to read it).
 
Sly said:
The only thing Christian about Christmas is the name and the baby scene. The fact is still there that it was a stand-in for the Yule. And in celebrating it is still not accepted as a Christian holiday since other regions also celebrate it, and since they don't believe in Jesus being a completely different religion, they celebrate it in the spirite of the yuletide instead. Take out the Christian symbolisms and it's still an intact holiday.

As for the other, where do you think the word 'Easter' came from?

Please don't tell me you actually believe that those were Jesus actual birthday and crucifixion dates.
Click to expand...

Hey, thanks btw, I have always wanted to look up easter but managed to forget about it. Went to christiananswers.net (you would think this might be biased?) But it had a better write up than wiki did! Very cool information.
 
pelo said:
So God has some points that are more important than others that can be skipped over?

w0t?

I'm not exactly devoid of any sort of religious belief structure, but the Christian and in turn Abrahamic interpretation of God strikes me as an inherently shitty and weak one. You allow for mistakes and now just admitted to some issues with clarity that can be glanced over but are somehow less important. If an omnipotent and omniscient thing speaks, you'd bet your ass I would be hanging on every word.

Let me put it this way...

The mere notion of a God requires that it's free of any and all mistakes. It should make perfect sense and it should be timeless. If it has holes or weaknesses then it doesn't fit the definition of God and is thrown in with the rest of us earthly beings and our fallible thoughts and ideas.
Click to expand...

Valid points. But note: I didn't say there are things that can be skipped over, I said salvation issues are #1 priority and are not ambiguous.
I find it dangerous to reason with our human minds as to what a perfect God *should* do or say. Being able to fully understand God would undermine his very sovereignty.
 
shoota said:
I'd like to see where in the Bible it says that a day is 24 hours.
There is also the notion that God could have easily created an "old earth" with fossils and "time" already passed at creation. There is nothing to say this couldn't be.
Click to expand...

You'd sooner believe that the entire existence in which life was dropped into is designed to deceive mankind and is a constant test of faith rather than admit that maybe your faith is in the wrong place?
 
Tudz said:
It doesn't say its 24 hours, but it does define it by the evening and the morning. If you make them long periods of time, then it makes less sense IMO, because the order is fucked up.

As for the second notion, that God had an old Earth with fossils and put people on it...

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (Genesis 1:2)

But there's no requirement that requires an "old Earth" in creation (that I'm aware of at least, and again I won't pretend to be a scholar). Creationists will argue against the old earth concept by saying dating methods that suggest an old earth aren't actually measuring the age at all. Again, I don't know a lot on the topic, but radiometric dating requires several assumptions on initial amounts of isotopes and rates of decay of those isotopes. I have heard stories of people sending rocks to be dated by different labs or different rocks from the same area being sent to the same lab and being given wildly different dates in the millions of years, even though the rocks formed in a recent volcano, I don't know how credible those are though. You can read various arguments from both sides of the fence by googling "creation fossil dating methods".

As for the fossils themselves, the existance of fossils doesn't disprove anything in the bible. Things go extinct all the time, they leave fossils when they do. The bible gives an event that may cause a mass deposit of fossils, the flood.

I'm not going to try and push creation theory on anyone, like I said earlier in the thread creation theory is a theory of life built around the premise that God does exist, evolution is one built around the premise that God doesn't exist, I tread a middle ground... I don't trust what people are going to tell me to believe (whether they be religous or scientists), but I also admit I'm not well researched in the matter to actually make a conclusive choice, as most people aren't (if anyone at all is). I only present argument for creation here as a discussion point and to raise counter arguments to often raised points. In my opinion its very hard to NOT believe creation and remain a christian. It also seems to me that most of the gaps raised by science can be filled through creation, but again I don't pretend to be a scholar on the matter.

A lot of people just parrot anti-bible and anti-creation arguments as if they're conclusive evidence without having looked into it themselves (especially the anti-bible stuff, people talk about it like its conclusively been proved contradictory or false, you ask them to cite where and more often than not it comes down to some verse taken out of context and the counter argument can be found in the bible itself... as much as people like to interpret the bible, its actually quite self sufficient if you take the time to read it).
Click to expand...

Thank you so very much. This is one of the more level-headed posts I've read in a long while. I too admit that I'm not an expert of either side and because of that I make it a point to continually learn.
I never tell anyone to become Christian because someone tells them to. They need to do the research and come to the decision on their own, learning truths along the way. The same goes for people who decide to not become Christian. I would suggest making sure the answers science has to offer are valid and then coming to a educated conclusion on their own.
It comes down to this: neither side knows for ABSOLUTE certain our origins and therefore both sides require some degree of faith. Educate yourself and make a decision.
 
shoota said:
Valid points. But note: I didn't say there are things that can be skipped over, I said salvation issues are #1 priority and are not ambiguous.
I find it dangerous to reason with our human minds as to what a perfect God *should* do or say. Being able to fully understand God would undermine his very sovereignty.
Click to expand...

But that only brings us back full circle: Why would God declare a text holy if we're incapable of properly understanding it? This is precisely what I mean by a fallible perception of God. God knows and sees all by definition yet seems to quite content with giving us a half ass answer that nobody seems to agree on just what the hell it means in the first place yet somehow also tells us to obey it? You've got to see the rather obvious contradiction here, and it stems from the fact that the Abrahamic interpretation of God, or rather any interpretation of a divine being having written or said anything at all that's open to interpretation is inherently and by definition alone a falsehood and not divine in origin in the first place.

And of course if there's a single hole in it it means its entirety is imperfect and therefore can't be considered from God or divine but most likely a human creation.

Don't you see just how silly it all sounds? And it's not like I'm being facetious here or this argument hasn't been brought up countless times over, but I find it's one that's almost always overlooked. The only possible way to salvage your claim would be that God somehow screwed up, but that demotes God from God to something which doesn't require nor should be worshipped nor listened to.
 
Hamish Campbell said:
You'd sooner believe that the entire existence in which life was dropped into is designed to deceive mankind and is a constant test of faith rather than admit that maybe your faith is in the wrong place?
Click to expand...

Well my thoughts on that are that you are presuming to know what God's intentions are. How do you know he is being deceptive? Maybe it IS a test of faith. My faith tells me that He has the world's best intentions at heart.
 
pelo said:
But that only brings us back full circle: Why would God declare a text holy if we're incapable of properly understanding it? This is precisely what I mean by a fallible perception of God. God knows and sees all by definition yet seems to quite content with giving us a half ass answer that nobody seems to agree on just what the hell it means in the first place yet somehow also tells us to obey it? You've got to see the rather obvious contradiction here, and it stems from the fact that the Abrahamic interpretation of God, or rather any interpretation of a divine being having written or said anything at all that's open to interpretation is inherently and by definition alone a falsehood and not divine in origin in the first place.

And of course if there's a single hole in it it means its entirety is imperfect and therefore can't be considered from God or divine but most likely a human creation.

Don't you see just how silly it all sounds? And it's not like I'm being facetious here or this argument hasn't been brought up countless times over, but I find it's one that's almost always overlooked. The only possible way to salvage your claim would be that God somehow screwed up, but that demotes God from God to something which doesn't require nor should be worshipped nor listened to.
Click to expand...

I'm going to think about these comments some more when I have time. My initial problem is that I don't see why a Holy text has to be completely understood. However, I think it IS properly understood. Of course, what properly really means is up for debate. My 'properly' and your 'properly' likely don't match up.
 
shoota said:
There are certain aspects of the Bible that are ambiguous, however, none of them are matters of salvation and are therefore less important. Those parts are very clear.
Click to expand...

HAH

Tell that to the Catholics and the Protestants.
 
shoota said:
It comes down to this: neither side knows for ABSOLUTE certain our origins and therefore both sides require some degree of faith. Educate yourself and make a decision.
Click to expand...
One side is actively trying to find out and the other has an ancient book.

One side is inherently better, period.
 
Aluisious said:
Because he desperately needs to believe his fairy tale, but isn't as far gone as the anti-intellectuals yet.
Click to expand...

Desperately is a strong word lol.
I have my moments of doubt, I mean after all I'm only human. But at the end of the day I choose to put my faith in a perfect God instead of non-perfect man. Will everyone make that decision? No, of course not. But I will still love everyone the same regardless of the decision.
 
pelo said:
But that only brings us back full circle: Why would God declare a text holy if we're incapable of properly understanding it? This is precisely what I mean by a fallible perception of God. God knows and sees all by definition yet seems to quite content with giving us a half ass answer that nobody seems to agree on just what the hell it means in the first place yet somehow also tells us to obey it? You've got to see the rather obvious contradiction here, and it stems from the fact that the Abrahamic interpretation of God, or rather any interpretation of a divine being having written or said anything at all that's open to interpretation is inherently and by definition alone a falsehood and not divine in origin in the first place.

And of course if there's a single hole in it it means its entirety is imperfect and therefore can't be considered from God or divine but most likely a human creation.

Don't you see just how silly it all sounds? And it's not like I'm being facetious here or this argument hasn't been brought up countless times over, but I find it's one that's almost always overlooked. The only possible way to salvage your claim would be that God somehow screwed up, but that demotes God from God to something which doesn't require nor should be worshipped nor listened to.
Click to expand...

I agree to an extent. I'm in the camp you either believe the bible is divinely inspired in its entirety with no holes, or you believe its a lie and relatively meaningless (though it would still be one of, if not "the" the most amazing historical texts either way).

Its not a scientific document, so it doesn't describe HOW God did things, however it is supposed to be a historical one, revealing the nature of God through historical events (like creation). When you view it like that, then yes, we are capable of understanding it. The scientific details of it we might not understand because its not a scientific text (and damn, imagine if it was, it'd be a library rather than a book), and hey, humans are fallible, as we attempt to apply our science to (or against) the bible, we may falter and make mistakes. So in my opinion, for the bible to be of value, it needs to hold water against scientific fact (not hypothesis and theory), but at the same time should not be taken as a scientific explanation, and any "holes" would be omissions rather than flaws... if it is to be believed of course ;)

The bible, if you believe it, really isn't open to interpretation IMO, which is why I don't like some of the more "loose" translations. People use "interpretation" as an easy out to explain contradictions within the church throughout history, but the church is not God and its not the bible. I'm of the belief that the bible must be taken in context, you can't just throw around verses here and there without reading and understanding the context. It does allow for different denominations to focus on different aspects while remaining biblical, but can also result in heresy when one part is taken out of context of the whole.

Anyway, long past time for bed and this thread is so far off topic its not funny :p Surprised it hasn't been locked yet.
 
shoota said:
But at the end of the day I choose to put my faith in a perfect God instead of non-perfect man.
Click to expand...

You're perfectly content to believe GPS works, which is not possible through faith but general relativity. But when the same theory demands an expanding universe that's billions of years old...oh! oh! Nope! It's imperfect, because it impinges on your eternal retirement plan.

Your view is not valid or respectable. All the information out there is available for you to make an intelligent decision. Christianity is an anachronism.
 
shoota said:
It comes down to this: neither side knows for ABSOLUTE certain our origins and therefore both sides require some degree of faith. Educate yourself and make a decision.
Click to expand...

Wait what? The very first book of the bible is Genesis which tells you why, how, where, and when we originated. There is supposed to be certainty in that. It doesn't leave it up to the reader to decide. It tells you, absolutely, and to disagree or have a doubt with creation as presented here is to lose faith and that is sinful.

On the other hand "science" makes no attempt to give absolute answers about our origins or their cause. Evolutionary biology doesn't posit any mechanism or event to answer how or why we came into being. The big bang theory offers no explanations about "why" it happened or "who" set up the conditions. These sciences are upfront with their limitations. Until new discoveries are made and new theories tested, we can't claim to understand these things fully.

In science, we approach these topics with the understanding and admission that we don't have the answers but we are looking for them. In religion the exact opposite is true. There, you'll find the answers already neatly laid out and a mandate that you believe them... or else. Pure science requires no faith, only curiosity. There's speculation and hypothesizing in the minds of scientists, but the important distinction is that it can be empirically tested.
 
shoota said:
Desperately is a strong word lol.
I have my moments of doubt, I mean after all I'm only human. But at the end of the day I choose to put my faith in a perfect God instead of non-perfect man. Will everyone make that decision? No, of course not. But I will still love everyone the same regardless of the decision.
Click to expand...

Amen! "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God" Ephesians 2:8. In other words, you can't take credit for your salvation, because it is a gift from God.
 
Hamish Campbell said:
Wait what? The very first book of the bible is Genesis which tells you why, how, where, and when we originated. There is supposed to be certainty in that. It doesn't leave it up to the reader to decide. It tells you, absolutely, and to disagree or have a doubt with creation as presented here is to lose faith and that is sinful.

On the other hand "science" makes no attempt to give absolute answers about our origins or their cause. Evolutionary biology doesn't posit any mechanism or event to answer how or why we came into being. The big bang theory offers no explanations about "why" it happened or "who" set up the conditions. These sciences are upfront with their limitations. Until new discoveries are made and new theories tested, we can't claim to understand these things fully.

In science, we approach these topics with the understanding and admission that we don't have the answers but we are looking for them. In religion the exact opposite is true. There, you'll find the answers already neatly laid out and a mandate that you believe them... or else. Pure science requires no faith, only curiosity. There's speculation and hypothesizing in the minds of scientists, but the important distinction is that it can be empirically tested.
Click to expand...

In general I agree, however scientists do research within the constraints of a hypothesis to some degree as well. Religions will look at the world and try and fit it within their belief system, scientists will look at the world and try and fit it within an existing hypothesis. Science has the freedom to change that hypothesis, but it is still a limitation until someone comes along with something better, which is why many scientists will agree on an incorrect theory for a long time until an overwhelming amount of contradicting evidence is found.

But science, while admitting it is fallible, offers no redemption or security for any immortal soul we may have, religion does, so good luck convincing people to throw away religion so easily. Of science is wrong, oh well, move along to the next hypothesis. If religion is correct, we're all in for a world of pain :p
 
shoota said:
Well my thoughts on that are that you are presuming to know what God's intentions are. How do you know he is being deceptive? Maybe it IS a test of faith. My faith tells me that He has the world's best intentions at heart.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your definition of deceptive is. To me though, conjuring up an entire reality that is evidently and plainly in contrast to the narrative you've written would qualify as being deceptive. I couldn't claim to know his intentions, other than being able to safely say they were at least not be truthful with his creations. Why then would the cornerstone of the faith be that salvation through God is the way, the truth, and the life?

Something doesn't add up.
 
Dark matter and gravitational lensing; gravity bending light, or invisible monocles created and carefully placed by God?! Discuss!
 
Aluisious said:
Your view is not valid or respectable. All the information out there is available for you to make an intelligent decision.
Click to expand...

I dunno, all the points you've made so far can come up with convincing arguments from both sides with a simple google search, so I wouldn't say the evidence is plain to see. I've just read an article where creationists use general relativity to explain an expanding young universe, and nothing on the list you posted earlier shows conclusive evidence of no God. Perhaps you can point me in the direction of the conclusive information showing there is no God which doesn't have an intelligently constructed counter argument from the creationist/biblical side?

Personally, deep down, I don't WANT to believe either. Creation and God seems to lead to an almost sadistic creator, evolution leads to "well what the fuck matters?", you could walk down the street and gun down 50 people and there would be no real consequence, if anything you're helping the species by reducing over population. And any compassion or love felt to my fellow man is a remnant of when our species had to work together to survive. Either way, it sounds pretty grim to me :p
 
Invisible super spaghetti strings woven through space and time can't keep our galaxies rotating without a steady supply of space marinara sauce to lubricate it all
 
Tudz said:
Science has the freedom to change that hypothesis, but it is still a limitation until someone comes along with something better, which is why many scientists will agree on an incorrect theory for a long time until an overwhelming amount of contradicting evidence is found.
Click to expand...

How is that supposed to be any kind of a "limitation?" That's the best known system for generating knowledge of any kind. Stick with what works until you find something better.
 
Tudz said:
I've just read an article where creationists use general relativity to explain an expanding young universe, and nothing on the list you posted earlier shows conclusive evidence of no God.
Click to expand...

The article you read had no quantified component and is not based on empirical observation. Believe me I've been there and done that, and found the main problem with "creation science" is that it's not scientific in the least. It's generally a bunch of blabbering word salad that anyone can and does write. The reason they never offer quantifiable models is it would be immediately obvious they had nothing.
 
Tudz said:
The bible, if you believe it, really isn't open to interpretation IMO, which is why I don't like some of the more "loose" translations. People use "interpretation" as an easy out to explain contradictions within the church throughout history, but the church is not God and its not the bible. I'm of the belief that the bible must be taken in context, you can't just throw around verses here and there without reading and understanding the context. It does allow for different denominations to focus on different aspects while remaining biblical, but can also result in heresy when one part is taken out of context of the whole.

Anyway, long past time for bed and this thread is so far off topic its not funny :p Surprised it hasn't been locked yet.
Click to expand...

The literal interpretation is the only one that makes sense to me as well, as anything other than a literal interpretation implies that you know better than God, which doesn't make much sense :p Now I don't believe it's true, but I think one would have to take it literally for it to be true.

But although I do believe the "context" is important, it doesn't automatically defer it to eternal status if the context was 2 thousand years ago in a completely different part of the world with an entirely different culture and language than today. Simply put, if we're to take it literally we need to take into account the context, but that doesn't apply today *unless* we decide to open it to "interpretations." Again, you can't possibly have "interpretations" of a biblical text; there's only one possibly interpretation: the right one.

It's not that I dislike Christianity or any other organized form of religion, I just don't think it makes sense. If it doesn't make complete and perfect sense, well... :D

As to the notion that there's a test of faith... this is the most ridiculous one, I find. If God truly was a benevolent being then the test of faith wouldn't be multiple choice. There would be one answer with everyone getting A's because God loves us all, but either God is indifferent or evil when giving us the option of being wrong. But somehow, there exists a hell where people go who, regardless of being good people (still technically hell or at least not heaven) that chose the wrong choice on some test because God wasn't clear. I think this notion and argument is one that should be avoided at all costs by any clear-thinking Christian or Muslim. It doesn't just not make any sense, it's actually pure evil...

Complete digression, but still very civil =P
 
too many people interpret scientific theories as fact. science is about building blocks, nothing more. Sometimes those building blocks crumble and you have to go back to square 1. I'm a very open-minded person though, who thinks anything is possible because as a species, humans are noobs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top