|
Scott,
My greatest fault seems to be my superiority.
I cant help it; my ideas make 10 times as much sense as Rush Limbaugh's.
-
You wrote:
"...just let me have my faith."
What I do is not debunking although respect folks for doing that. Your reply did not seem to be a response to what I wrote.
I suspect you can find out while living what you can learn after you die. The world distracts us.
You wrote:
"There have been horrible atrocities
committed in the name of science."
The life and sayings of Jesus stand as testament
that Jesus didn't tell anyone to do the Inquisitions or other terrible things done "in his name."
Similarly, science also stands in mute testimony that most bad programs done in the name of science were not really well-founded scientifically.
Example: Jacob Bronowski says what the Nazis did was not science -- it was ignorance. It was what humans do when they aspire to be gods WITHOUT being answerable to science.
You wrote:
"...the the underlying purpose of religion is good."
You're giving a character reference to an inanimate object or a vague concept. It is value neutral, and can be used for corrupt earthly power or for honest cosmic maturing.
You wrote:
"If I haven't answered your question, then I must
not understand the question you're trying to ask."
You stated that there is a "measurable degree" of change in religious history. Yes, measurement is the stuff of science. So I was asking you to explain that measurement.
You wrote:
"I believe I was the one who brought this fact up in support of my own argument. I said that the Bible is a documented history of the Jewish people and their surrounding cultures."
I just have an indirect comment. While the Nazis
tossed away books to burn, I say the purpose of most books including the Bible is not rules but exploration. Our U.S. Constitution is certainly based on that idea. I certainly didn't conceive the idea. My point is that the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita both make matter-of-fact the idea of wars and slaughter of innocents. If, as Yanniru does, you say Jesus was trying to convert everyone to Judaism, then there's not point in trying to say the New Testament changes much, since Judaism doesn't use the New Testament. If you say the New Testament is the new law, then we have a kind of mush too, since some of it is very hard to decipher --- ie. Revelations -- and some of it is certainly contrary to our civil law concepts.
So, the Bible and related history is important to me mainly as preparation for, context, and even mishandling of Jesus' story -- which stands as a shining beacon for transcendancy. I am not much into voodoo. You know Jefferson used the life and sayings of Jesus, sans miracles, as his Bible.
I am just myself. I don't agree, perhaps with all that Jefferson said. But I see the lasting value in that story. I think it is on a par with the philosophy of science; and though I can respect folks for being sensible who ridicule its miracles and anachronistic-seeming jargon...
I think they might look again.
This might seem ridiculous to some like Stormcrow
but I am prepared to defend it technically.
Thanks, Scott
Mike
|
