Cenk Uygur, the far-left co-founder of the popular Young Turks YouTube page, appeared on a counter-extremism panel this week and claimed that Christianity is responsible for perpetrating that Holocaust.
Uygur made the anti-Christian comments while “moderating” a panel at the WebSummit, an annual tech conference based in Europe. He was joined on the panel by Muslim Reform Movement leader Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, along with two liberal terrorism researchers.
Dr. Jasser, a Muslim, stressed the need for a global Islamic reformation, one that preaches tolerance and a more secular way of life. He urged co-panelists not to coddle Muslims and to recognize the threat posed by global jihadist groups motivated by political Islam.
Seemingly offended by Jasser’s remarks, Uygur fired back, defending Islam as a whole and targeting Christianity.
Cenk Uygur, the far-left co-founder of the popular Young Turks YouTube page, appeared on a counter-extremism panel this week and claimed that Christianity is responsible for perpetrating that Holocaust.
Uygur made the anti-Christian comments while “moderating” a panel at the WebSummit, an annual tech conference based in Europe. He was joined on the panel by Muslim Reform Movement leader Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, along with two liberal terrorism researchers.
Dr. Jasser, a Muslim, stressed the need for a global Islamic reformation, one that preaches tolerance and a more secular way of life. He urged co-panelists not to coddle Muslims and to recognize the threat posed by global jihadist groups motivated by political Islam.
Seemingly offended by Jasser’s remarks, Uygur fired back, defending Islam as a whole and targeting Christianity.
Catholicisms role in WW1-WW2 is pretty well established and not something you can argue against. Its desire to side and support fascism at every turn in the 20th century is well understood. What exactly do you think happens when you run a 2,000 year campaign spouting anti-jew hatred? You end up with genocide.
Cenk, needs to realize that Islam is in the same spot Catholicism was in, in the 20th century.
Catholicisms role in WW1-WW2 is pretty well established and not something you can argue against. Its desire to side and support fascism at every turn in the 20th century is well understood. What exactly do you think happens when you run a 2,000 year campaign spouting anti-jew hatred? You end up with genocide.
Cenk, needs to realize that Islam is in the same spot Catholicism was in, in the 20th century.
I've been Catholic all my life and no one spouts anything against the Jews. The only time they come up is when reading selective OT passages. Seems you have an anti Catholic rant though.
Catholicisms role in WW1-WW2 is pretty well established and not something you can argue against. Its desire to side and support fascism at every turn in the 20th century is well understood. What exactly do you think happens when you run a 2,000 year campaign spouting anti-jew hatred? You end up with genocide.
Cenk, needs to realize that Islam is in the same spot Catholicism was in, in the 20th century.
I've been Catholic all my life and no one spouts anything against the Jews. The only time they come up is when reading selective OT passages. Seems you have an anti Catholic rant though.
Congratulations. That does not mean we didnt see a constant stream of anti-jew bigotry coming from Catholicism for 2000 years. This is not a rant, its a citation of history.
Passion of the Christ, what do you think that was? It was a play created in the dark ages to stir up political hatred for Jews and was even acted out during WW2 to help gain support from the Catholic population of Germany. Mein Kampf references commands from Catholicism, the old and new testament more than most any other non-religious book. And of course the ideologies Hitler based his ideas on are.... that's right.... "conservative" (for the early 20th century) catholic values. Want to start taking count of the countries that had the backing of the worlds largest catholic organizations in WW2? Hint Hint... it was mostly axis.
Catholicisms role in WW1-WW2 is pretty well established and not something you can argue against. Its desire to side and support fascism at every turn in the 20th century is well understood. What exactly do you think happens when you run a 2,000 year campaign spouting anti-jew hatred? You end up with genocide.
Cenk, needs to realize that Islam is in the same spot Catholicism was in, in the 20th century.
I've been Catholic all my life and no one spouts anything against the Jews. The only time they come up is when reading selective OT passages. Seems you have an anti Catholic rant though.
Congratulations. That does not mean we didnt see a constant stream of anti-jew bigotry coming from Catholicism for 2000 years. This is not a rant, its a citation of history.
Passion of the Christ, what do you think that was? It was a play created in the dark ages to stir up political hatred for Jews and was even acted out during WW2 to help gain support from the Catholic population of Germany.
The story of Christ's death and Resurrection is much older than the dark ages. Also by WW2 Germany had more than one Christian faith. Hitler persecuted the Church and as with all people they fought on both sides of the conflict. Also the pope spoke out against the the Nazi crimes against Jews. in his Christmas address of 1942. He was the first to do so. He did maintain neutrality politically much like other countries did. Priests aided war victims and Polish priests were victims as much as the Jewish people were.
It sounds as though you haven't done much research........
The story of Christ's death and Resurrection is much older than the dark ages.
Didnt say it wasnt. I used an example of an era of Catholic rule and what they did to spout bigotry.
@LJS9502_basic said:
Also by WW2 Germany had more than one Christian faith. Hitler persecuted the Church and as with all people they fought on both sides of the conflict.
What the **** are you talking about?
The Roman Catholic church was by Hitlers side every step of the way........ they fucking officially made his birthday a religious holiday for Christ's sake and to this day have not renounced that holiday OR excommunicated any Nazi's from god, including Hitler. The only churches Hitler "persecuted" were the handful that didnt go along with him and if you have not seen support polls from 1930s Germany, its an embarrassing number for you to cite.
The Roman Catholic Church also gave its support to Mussolini.
Stalin had the backing of the Russian Orthodox Church.
@LJS9502_basic said:
Also the pope spoke out against the the Nazi crimes against Jews. in his Christmas address of 1942.
In public Pope Pius XII was utterly silent on the issue. He NEVER spoke out against the holocaust.. and that's because he gave it his support.
@LJS9502_basic said:
He was the first to do so. He did maintain neutrality politically much like other countries did. Priests aided war victims and Polish priests were victims as much as the Jewish people were.
No one is suggest all Catholics were horrible people or didnt stand up for the Jews. Its just religion has this history of always doing the wrong thing as a group and Catholics are not exempt from this as pretty much the worst of the 20th century was caused or fueled by Catholicism..... and today... in our current world in the 21st century, its Islam that is acting as badly, or attempting to.
@LJS9502_basic said:
It sounds as though you haven't done much research........
Apparently i made my edit too late. The first two and last one are historical peer reviews.
This is true to this day... Really looks like the Vatican really has its priorities straight huh? Marry a person of another religion (not even another religion, a subset of Christianity)? Screw you, you cant be with god. Commit genocide? Nah, you're cool.
@kod: I've asked you repeatedly to stop breaking up the posts and respond in one space. It doesn't format correctly all the time when quoted. I can't even quote your mess right now.
You say the play was created in the dark ages. I pointed out the subject was much older and certainly not unknown to anyone calling themselves any denomination of Christian.
I also gave you the address by the pope who was the first to denounce the Nazi's treatment of the Jews. Which shows your premise as false from the start.
Initially they had an agreement that Hitler would leave the church alone and they would not comment on politics. This was before the Holocaust. However Hitler started persecuting Catholics in 1937. The address was made in 1942. The Holocaust started in 1941.
As for you studies...........I started reading the linked one.........it disagrees with what you've posted here. I don't have time to read all those links as I'm leaving for work in ten minutes. I'd also need time to ascertain the ideology behind those studies. As we've seen slants make for dishonest conclusions and Catholics aren't the most popular. Again....Hitler arrested many priests before the Holocaust. The Church was in a tough place because Hitler had control over many lands and Catholics were there. And as I said he had many Catholics killed as well.
@kod: I've asked you repeatedly to stop breaking up the posts and respond in one space. It doesn't format correctly all the time when quoted. I can't even quote your mess right now.
Have you? I sure don't remember this, but whatever. All you have to do is take two seconds of effort to make sure it formats correctly. Respond how you want, but i do this to help organize responses to ensure i am touching on every "point" you make.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@kod: You say the play was created in the dark ages. I pointed out the subject was much older and certainly not unknown to anyone calling themselves any denomination of Christian.
Right... again, i was not speaking of the age of anti-jew hatred by the Catholics, merely pointing out when a play was created and what it was used for. Now i did this because today, its still relevant and still being used by bigots. Maybe you should ask Mel Gibson if he knows its history. But whether you know this history is irrelevant, because you don't need to know its history for it to be used how its used to this day.
I also gave you the address by the pope who was the first to denounce the Nazi's treatment of the Jews. Which shows your premise as false from the start.
"Also the pope spoke out against the the Nazi crimes against Jews. in his Christmas address of 1942"
This is all you said. The pope, since you don't know who it was. Was Pope Pius XII and again, he never, not once, even after the holocaust, spoke against the holocaust, war crimes, nazi's, nothing. It took later popes to recognize this and they spent a very long time, apologizing for it.... now that's great and all, but their support in these acts was unspeakably wrong and did damage that mankind will never recover from.
Pope Asks Forgiveness for Errors Of the Church Over 2,000 Years -
This was the first time, the year 2000, a pope asked for forgiveness for the catholic churches involvement in the holocaust and for 2000 years of bigotry, war, siding with fascists, etc.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@kod: Initially they had an agreement that Hitler would leave the church alone and they would not comment on politics. This was before the Holocaust. However Hitler started persecuting Catholics in 1937. The address was made in 1942. The Holocaust started in 1941.
So again, pay attention. The only "persecution of Catholics" that took place in Nazi Germany, were the very small number of Catholics who did not support him. Hitler killed those who got in his way. And you have your time line flipped, the treaty came after they started executing those who did not support the Nazi's. Long after this fact was when the Roman Catholic church decided to recognize Hitlers birthday as a holiday.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@kod: I'd also need time to ascertain the ideology behind those studies.
I don't. Im from the bible belt, ive had this shit shoved down my throat all my life and becasue of its hypocrisy and disgusting acts against humanity, ive ensured to be very aware and historically accurate when it comes to Christianity.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@kod: Again....Hitler arrested many priests before the Holocaust. The Church was in a tough place because Hitler had control over many lands and Catholics were there. And as I said he had many Catholics killed as well.
And then they sided with him, supported him, almost worshiped him. They helped him to gain support among populations. And again, same with Mussolini and Stalin. What bullshit are you going to try to bring up to try to dismiss Catholic support for those two?
And again, reminder... meh... how about a suggestion... why don't you look into where his ideas came from.
Who is seeing what they want to see?
Myself, or the person denying the catholic churches undeniable role in WW1 AND WW2? Ohh shit, that's right. WW1 happened because of Catholicism as well! I noticed you didnt respond to that one (along with Mussolini or the Russian Orthodox Church and Stalin).
Cenk Uygur, the far-left co-founder of the popular Young Turks YouTube page, appeared on a counter-extremism panel this week and claimed that Christianity is responsible for perpetrating that Holocaust.
Uygur made the anti-Christian comments while “moderating” a panel at the WebSummit, an annual tech conference based in Europe. He was joined on the panel by Muslim Reform Movement leader Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, along with two liberal terrorism researchers.
Dr. Jasser, a Muslim, stressed the need for a global Islamic reformation, one that preaches tolerance and a more secular way of life. He urged co-panelists not to coddle Muslims and to recognize the threat posed by global jihadist groups motivated by political Islam.
Seemingly offended by Jasser’s remarks, Uygur fired back, defending Islam as a whole and targeting Christianity.
Ok, a nut argues with another nut and uses the normal trick people who have no arguments do.
But this shows the problem with religion , people get personally offended and make wild accusations that has no basis in reality.
@kod I am Protestant thus I don't recognize the pope as an authority per se but still. What point are you attempting to make? No one argues that several human atrocities have been committed in the name of God. Be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any Abrahamic(or otherwise) religion. That is beyond dispute.
The largest problem with religion is that it's man made and thus malleable and exploitable. Is that your point or something else?
@kod I am Protestant thus I don't recognize the pope as an authority per se but still. What point are you attempting to make? No one argues that several human atrocities have been committed in the name of God. Be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any Abrahamic(or otherwise) religion. That is beyond dispute.
Did i just randomly spout all of that out or was i responding to a person who was attempting to deny/minimize Catholicisms role in WW2?
That is kind of ironic for a guy working on a show named after the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide. Title would more accurate if read: Cenk Uygur blames Christianity for everything.
@virtuous: I never got why they're called that. Is there something good about the young Turks that I haven't heard of, or do TYT also really hate Armenians?
That is kind of ironic for a guy working on a show named after the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide. Title would more accurate if read: Cenk Uygur blames Christianity for everything.
How is that ironic?
And Christianity, Islam and Judaism have caused immeasurable harm and destruction and are guilty of the worst ideas in human history.... there's plenty we can blame on them. It would be nice if Cenk spent more time being honest about Islam and how bad it is, but i get his reasoning as to why he does not.
That is kind of ironic for a guy working on a show named after the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide. Title would more accurate if read: Cenk Uygur blames Christianity for everything.
How is that ironic?
And Christianity, Islam and Judaism have caused immeasurable harm and destruction and are guilty of the worst ideas in human history.... there's plenty we can blame on them. It would be nice if Cenk spent more time being honest about Islam and how bad it is, but i get his reasoning as to why he does not.
It's ironic because the young Turks committed genocide against Christians.
There was plenty of evil things going on in the world long before the Abrahamic religions came along there is plenty you can try to blame them for but there is also a lot of good things they should get credit for as well, it's more accurate to say there is plenty to blame dogmatic thinking for in history. Religion by itself is knowledge and knowledge can be used for evil as easily as for good just like knowledge of medicine can be used to create poison just as surly as it can create a cure it is what people use it for that makes it evil sometimes.
That is kind of ironic for a guy working on a show named after the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide. Title would more accurate if read: Cenk Uygur blames Christianity for everything.
It's ironic because the young Turks committed genocide against Christians.
Christianity is an ideology, being Turkish is an ethnicity. Where's the irony? Better yet, who in this world does not have an ethnicity that has not committed genocide? Because of this, you feel its "ironic" when someone criticizes a bad idea? Or maybe its not ironic? Irony would be not recognizing that persons religions history of genocide... Hell, maybe that is not even ironic, but its closer than suggesting irony because someone criticizing bad ideas, is from an ethnicity that once had a bad idea as well.
@virtuous said:
There was plenty of evil things going on in the world long before the Abrahamic religions came along there is plenty you can try to blame them for but there is also a lot of good things they should get credit for as well
I dont think anyone would deny this. But the problem is writing horrific ideas on paper, saying they are commandments from the person giving you eternal life, and then acting on those instructions. There's a difference between atrocities happening simply because we live in such a world, and people writing these ideas down and preaching them to others. The latter is what religion is guilty of.... imagine how many gay people would still be alive today or would not have been murdered earlier in their lives, had two of the three abrahamic religions not preached and practiced biblical literalism. Of course we can extend that to "witches", "jews", "women", etc.
And just so we are clear, there's nothing positive religion has brought to the world that was not already there or would not exist without it.
@virtuous said:
Religion by itself is knowledge and knowledge can be used for evil as easily as for good just like knowledge of medicine can be used to create poison just as surly as it can create a cure it is what people use it for that makes it evil sometimes.
Religion contains next to zero real world knowledge.... errr. Abrahamic religion, contains next to zero real world knowledge. The old or new testament, didnt get science or history correct at all. A spiderman comic contains more real world knowledge than either bible.
And just so we are clear, there's nothing positive religion has brought to the world that was not already there or would not exist without it.
Can you provide proof of this statement? Because I would say that is a simply absurd as religion has been the inspiration of many of history's most prominent moral teachers and philosophers. If you are taking the position that human beings are simply born with an understanding of morality or are driven by purely material motivations you are sadly mistaken on the issue.
Religion contains next to zero real world knowledge.... errr. Abrahamic religion, contains next to zero real world knowledge. The old or new testament, didnt get science or history correct at all. A spiderman comic contains more real world knowledge than either bible.
Knowledge of the material world is not the only knowledge if we as humans beings lived in such an existence we would be little more than walking computers. The Bible is not scientific literature and it's history is accurate as far as we can tell you are wrong on that account but I suspect a man who thinks you can learn more from a comic book than the Bible is wrong about many things.
Can you provide proof of this statement? Because I would say that is a simply absurd as religion has been the inspiration of many of history's most prominent moral teachers and philosophers. If you are taking the position that human beings are simply born with an understanding of morality or are driven by purely material motivations you are sadly mistaken on the issue.
It would probably be easier if you told me what you feel religion has given to the world.
Philosophers? Anything can provide inspiration, but the religion itself came from basic philosophy being practiced... that's how all religions came about. Religion is mankind's first attempt at explaining the real world.
@virtuous said:
@kod:
If you are taking the position that human beings are simply born with an understanding of morality or are driven by purely material motivations you are sadly mistaken on the issue.
Except we do have a biological drive for what is considered basic morality as we are a social species that relies on one another.
Ive never understood this point from religious people, as if we don't know for a fact that people operated within these same basic moral structures tens of thousands of years prior to the Abrahamic religions. Even before religions existed.
@virtuous said:
@kod: Knowledge of the material world is not the only knowledge if we as humans beings lived in such an existence we would be little more than walking computers.
Well, knowledge of the real world is the only thing that matters. This is the world we live in, its the world we all have to deal with, its the world we have to make better for ourselves and children. Any other nonsense does not matter in the least.
@virtuous said:
@kod: The Bible is not scientific literature and it's history is accurate as far as we can tell you are wrong on that account but I suspect a man who thinks you can learn more from a comic book than the Bible is wrong about many things.
The real world is scientifically accurate, why shouldnt the bible be? If it operates within the universe it created, why cant it follow those rules?
As for historically accurate, maybe you should check with Israeli religious historians who have actually proved that most of the OT shit never took place.... people who had a vested interest in it being right. We know none of the major events of the OT happened and its pretty safe to say the NT is full of shit as well given that multiple generations had died before they decided to start writing these stories of Jebus down..... Stories that are clearly plagiarized from pagan religions absorbed by Judaism conquering and then creating another silly idea. Want me to start listing the deities absorbed by Judaism long before the New Testament was written? And yes, i have read both the NT and OT multiple times, been studying the Abrahamic religions for over 20 years (mostly Christianity) and yes, i would get more valuable information out of a Spiderman comic than those piece of shit.. at least a Spiderman comic would tell me to wash a wound with clean water and then to bandage it instead of the bible's suggestion of curing leprosy through alchemy and birds blood.
Can you provide proof of this statement? Because I would say that is a simply absurd as religion has been the inspiration of many of history's most prominent moral teachers and philosophers. If you are taking the position that human beings are simply born with an understanding of morality or are driven by purely material motivations you are sadly mistaken on the issue.
It would probably be easier if you told me what you feel religion has given to the world.
Philosophers? Anything can provide inspiration, but the religion itself came from basic philosophy being practiced... that's how all religions came about. Religion is mankind's first attempt at explaining the real world.
@virtuous said:
@kod:
If you are taking the position that human beings are simply born with an understanding of morality or are driven by purely material motivations you are sadly mistaken on the issue.
Except we do have a biological drive for what is considered basic morality as we are a social species that relies on one another.
Ive never understood this point from religious people, as if we don't know for a fact that people operated within these same basic moral structures tens of thousands of years prior to the Abrahamic religions. Even before religions existed.
@virtuous said:
@kod: Knowledge of the material world is not the only knowledge if we as humans beings lived in such an existence we would be little more than walking computers.
Well, knowledge of the real world is the only thing that matters. This is the world we live in, its the world we all have to deal with, its the world we have to make better for ourselves and children. Any other nonsense does not matter in the least.
@virtuous said:
@kod: The Bible is not scientific literature and it's history is accurate as far as we can tell you are wrong on that account but I suspect a man who thinks you can learn more from a comic book than the Bible is wrong about many things.
The real world is scientifically accurate, why shouldnt the bible be? If it operates within the universe it created, why cant it follow those rules?
As for historically accurate, maybe you should check with Israeli religious historians who have actually proved that most of the OT shit never took place.... people who had a vested interest in it being right. We know none of the major events of the OT happened and its pretty safe to say the NT is full of shit as well given that multiple generations had died before they decided to start writing these stories of Jebus down..... Stories that are clearly plagiarized from pagan religions absorbed by Judaism conquering and then creating another silly idea. Want me to start listing the deities absorbed by Judaism long before the New Testament was written? And yes, i have read both the NT and OT multiple times, been studying the Abrahamic religions for over 20 years (mostly Christianity) and yes, i would get more valuable information out of a Spiderman comic than those piece of shit.. at least a Spiderman comic would tell me to wash a wound with clean water and then to bandage it instead of the bible's suggestion of curing leprosy through alchemy and birds blood.
Is this a joke? For someone who read the bible several times, you seem to have missed its point. The Bible isn't about scientists it's about faith.
The events in the bible weren't chronicled/recorded by physicists, geologists, other men of science, or scholars. They aren't using the scientific method or any other analytic based ways to reach their conclusions. Most of the men and women chronicling the bible are carpenters, shepherds, woodworkers, tentmakers, hunters/gatherers tax collectors, etc.
Why would such a person be concerned about scientific accuracy? Furthermore, several books of the bible are written by prophets. Their POV is pretty much direct inspiration for GOD(at least from Christian POV). If a prophet prays to God for rain, do you REALLY think said prophet is going to record via science how the rain came to be? Or is he going to give praise to God for a prayer being answered?
I can understand the POV that the Bible is fantastical and beyond belief. That is reasonable for one who has no faith in the power of God. But for a smart guy like yourself who purports to have read it speak about scientific accuracy within its pages...come on man.
Can you provide proof of this statement? Because I would say that is a simply absurd as religion has been the inspiration of many of history's most prominent moral teachers and philosophers. If you are taking the position that human beings are simply born with an understanding of morality or are driven by purely material motivations you are sadly mistaken on the issue.
It would probably be easier if you told me what you feel religion has given to the world.
Philosophers? Anything can provide inspiration, but the religion itself came from basic philosophy being practiced... that's how all religions came about. Religion is mankind's first attempt at explaining the real world.
@virtuous said:
@kod:
If you are taking the position that human beings are simply born with an understanding of morality or are driven by purely material motivations you are sadly mistaken on the issue.
Except we do have a biological drive for what is considered basic morality as we are a social species that relies on one another.
Ive never understood this point from religious people, as if we don't know for a fact that people operated within these same basic moral structures tens of thousands of years prior to the Abrahamic religions. Even before religions existed.
@virtuous said:
@kod: Knowledge of the material world is not the only knowledge if we as humans beings lived in such an existence we would be little more than walking computers.
Well, knowledge of the real world is the only thing that matters. This is the world we live in, its the world we all have to deal with, its the world we have to make better for ourselves and children. Any other nonsense does not matter in the least.
@virtuous said:
@kod: The Bible is not scientific literature and it's history is accurate as far as we can tell you are wrong on that account but I suspect a man who thinks you can learn more from a comic book than the Bible is wrong about many things.
The real world is scientifically accurate, why shouldnt the bible be? If it operates within the universe it created, why cant it follow those rules?
As for historically accurate, maybe you should check with Israeli religious historians who have actually proved that most of the OT shit never took place.... people who had a vested interest in it being right. We know none of the major events of the OT happened and its pretty safe to say the NT is full of shit as well given that multiple generations had died before they decided to start writing these stories of Jebus down..... Stories that are clearly plagiarized from pagan religions absorbed by Judaism conquering and then creating another silly idea. Want me to start listing the deities absorbed by Judaism long before the New Testament was written? And yes, i have read both the NT and OT multiple times, been studying the Abrahamic religions for over 20 years (mostly Christianity) and yes, i would get more valuable information out of a Spiderman comic than those piece of shit.. at least a Spiderman comic would tell me to wash a wound with clean water and then to bandage it instead of the bible's suggestion of curing leprosy through alchemy and birds blood.
Is this a joke? For someone who read the bible several times, you seem to have missed its point. The Bible isn't about scientists it's about faith.
The events in the bible weren't chronicled/recorded by physicists, geologists, other men of science, or scholars. They aren't using the scientific method or any other analytic based ways to reach their conclusions. Most of the men and women chronicling the bible are carpenters, shepherds, woodworkers, tentmakers, hunters/gatherers tax collectors, etc.
Why would such a person be concerned about scientific accuracy? Furthermore, several books of the bible are written by prophets. Their POV is pretty much direct inspiration for GOD(at least from Christian POV). If a prophet prays to God for rain, do you REALLY think said prophet is going to record via science how the rain came to be? Or is he going to give praise to God for a prayer being answered?
I can understand the POV that the Bible is fantastical and beyond belief. That is reasonable for one who has no faith in the power of God. But for a smart guy like yourself who purports to have read it speak about scientific accuracy within its pages...come on man.
Faith is belief without evidence. Almost like guillibility.
Why take it is seriously when it is compiled by ignorant laymen?
These people should be concerned about verifying their claims for the same reason any scientist or scholar should be. Because critical thinking is an important part of truth seeking. These prophets or charlatans claimed to speak for god, or be divinely inspired. But really all they did was take established mythology, and twist it to suit their religious and political agendas. Surely if they were divinely inspired God would have corrected them on all their scientific, mathematical and historical inaccuracies. Some of which were known to be false even at the time.
Is this a joke? For someone who read the bible several times, you seem to have missed its point. The Bible isn't about scientists it's about faith.
But what is the bible? Revealed truths (truth...truth...truth) about the nature of universe and creation, so it should be able to match reality. So why instead, does it utterly fail at this? And "Faith" basically says you accept something you know to be false and is not the virtue the absurd have tried to make it out to be. Its what has lead to the worst things mankind has ever done and has NEVER moved us forward in anyway shape or form.
@sayyy-gaa said:
The events in the bible weren't chronicled/recorded by physicists, geologists, other men of science, or scholars. They aren't using the scientific method or any other analytic based ways to reach their conclusions. Most of the men and women chronicling the bible are carpenters, shepherds, woodworkers, tentmakers, hunters/gatherers tax collectors, etc.
So what does that mean? Im not a geologist, but i could write down if an earthquake happened and a thousand years from now geologists could see if we did actually have earthquakes in that area during that time.
As for your last sentence.... exactly... they were mostly illiterate, kept themselves thousands of years behind the Chinese by continuously causing wars, mass murder and genocide with this bullshit (its amazing the Chinese who could read and write at the time never found of this ridiculousness out right?), and knew noting of the real world.
@sayyy-gaa said:
Why would such a person be concerned about scientific accuracy? Furthermore, several books of the bible are written by prophets. Their POV is pretty much direct inspiration for GOD(at least from Christian POV). If a prophet prays to God for rain, do you REALLY think said prophet is going to record via science how the rain came to be? Or is he going to give praise to God for a prayer being answered?
Because again, these are "revealed truths" that a large percentage of the world believes in.... and btw, lets not ignore that the more educated the area, the less religious they are and dont believe in this nonsense. Your last little part has nothing to do with anything.
@sayyy-gaa said:
I can understand the POV that the Bible is fantastical and beyond belief. That is reasonable for one who has no faith in the power of God. But for a smart guy like yourself who purports to have read it speak about scientific accuracy within its pages...come on man.
Again, this stuff matters when roughly 90% of the world believes it to be "truth".
I also believe it to be true. I'm not disputing the truth of the Holy Bible(HB). I'm disputing your contention of it matching up with science. You are right the HB does matter. The point I'm making is that several of the accounts should not be taken literally as a scientific event. That isn't the point.
To be clear I believe all of the events in the HB occurred and I believe those who recorded them did so to the best of their abilities but that doesn't mean it was scientifically accurate. No scientist alive is going to believe a burning and talking bush can exist. Ditto for fire coming from the sky. Or that 10 distinct plagues, occurring in succession, can affect one nation in less than a year?
It all matters in the realm of faith which isn't just gullibility or foolishness. Faith is the belief/confirmation of something in your heart and spirit. It is biblically defined as the substance of things hoped for/the evidence of things not seen.
Science and religion were not meant to be intertwined. They operate in parallels. Quit trying to converge the two.
Log in to comment