Officially OT -> Re:My fiscal responcibility...

[James Knott]

Zbigniew Koziol wrote:
> James Knott:
> 
> 
>>J. Schaap wrote:
>>
>>>>"Mnay people have such beliefs, simply because they've been brainwashed
>>>
>>>all their lives with such things."<
>>>
>>>Judging you by your own standards:
>>>
>>>Many people have such *unbeliefs*, simply because they've been
>>>brainwashed all their lives with such things.
>>
>>OK, where are the proofs that the Bible is not simply a collection of
>>fiction?  With science, the goal is to continually refine the knowledge,
>>not simply accept "that's the way it is", unlike religion, where you're
>>supposed to accept, without question.
> 
> 
> What do you mean by fiction? The Bible is not a fiction in at least that 
> sense that it has been written by people. As such it does reflect their 
> believes, observations, ideas, etc. There is of course a question to which 
> extend some facts described in the Bible are based on real events.
> 
> And it is a deep misundarstanding to think that religion imposed some 
> believes without giving the people oportunity to question them. In some 
> religions yes, but to certain extend only. In Christianity perhaps also, in 
> the history, that happened often. But at the same time Christianity has been 
> given impetus to the development of various sciences. 

The fiction refers to those who take the bible as hard fact, when it's 
just a collection of stories.  There are some good metaphors to be sure, 
but it is by no means a historical account.  You can include in the 
fiction catagory any gods, angels etc.  Why is it that the Christian 
world looks on other beliefs as pagan or myth?  Why weren't the Roman 
gods every bit as real as the current one?

Incidentally, in MacLeans magizine (IIRC) Dec 2002 issue, there was an 
article about how the bible is not only not supported by history and 
archeology, but generally contradicted by it.

You might also want to read Tom Harpur's column in the Star last week, 
where he's showing that the bible texts cannot be taken as hard fact, 
but only as example.

> 
> 
>>One of the principal causes of the dark ages, was the imposition of
>>ignorance, by the church. 
> 
> 
> Do not quite agree. Saint Thomas, St Augustinus, and many, many others are 
> counterexamples. Or take Copernicus (know a bit more about him because he was
> Polish, like me). How many of you on this list knows that Copernicus' primary 
> "job" was to work for Church? He held highest positions in the Church 
> hierarchy through his entire adult life (besides, it was his uncle, a bishop, 
> who took care of his education). At the same time he wrote economical 
> treaties, studied stars movement, organized military defence of several 
> cities against Teutonics, held the title of medical doctor, wrote poetry, 
> traveled extensively, organized university education, and prepared first maps 
> of the delta of Vistula. Have however a look to this picture, unfortunately 
> not broadly published neither in the past in communist Poland nor in, sorry 
> to say this, mostly anti-religious media in the West):

One thing you appear to be forgetting, was that in those ages, only the 
nobility and clergy could get an education.  Therefore, if you had an 
education, you were in one way or another connected to the church.

> 
> 	http://www.iyp.org/zBych/iPolonia/kopernik-en.html
> 
> 
>>Ever wonder why only the Christian world was
>>afflicted by that great loss of knowledge?  Ever wonder why the Arab
>>world flourished back in those days
> 
> 
> This is probably a myth rather. The Arab world did contribute to the 
> development of sciences significantly but I would not exagarate the 
> importance of that contribution.
> 
> 
>>The teachings of the church were that the earth was the
>>center of the universe.  
> 
> 
> Others commented on this already.
> 
> 
>>Those falacies and others have fallen, simply
>>because people such as Galeleo, Coperinicus and others were willing to
>>stand up to what religion taught as being correct.
> 
> 
> Neither Galileo nor Copernicus acted against the religion. 

I am aware of that.  Their "crime" was to try to prove that the world 
was not the center of the universe and that it in fact revolved around 
the sun.  Like many others, including Einstein, they found their faith 
in conflict with the reality they observed.

> 
> 
>>Then we get to religious frauds, such as the Shroud of Turin, which for
>>centuries was held as an article of faith, by the Catholic church, only
>>to be shown to be the fraud that it was, 
> 
> 
> Well, please give references. I did read that contrary, there is no 
> conclusive proove that it was a fraud. I am personally not convinced that it 
> was not a fraud. But I see neither a strong reason to think that it was.

What did you read to the contrary?  I read about the radio carbon dating 
along with the fact that it has no provenance, prior to when it was 
"discovered" in (IIRC) the 12th century, a period that curiously matches 
the radio carbon date and was also an age known for fraudulent relics. 
I am also aware of the claims that it was supposedly "pollen" from that 
time that was being dated, a claim that's an insult to those who 
actually ran the tests.

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml