[Zarax]

The point is that you are taking religion too seriously imho.
It has been (and sometimes still is) a good education method.
After all, you cannot teach scentific theories to most people, as they wouldn't be understood...
Religion has always been a great way to cover the holes in the knowledge, and in many cases also a good veichle to teach morals.
Now, i don't have anything against religions (i don't believe, but i let the others do, my vision of the world is near of kazan's one), but in most cases i despise how organized religions work...
I guess that the human factor does not take logic into account... But on the other side, if we were perfectly logical history would have been really much different...
Everyone is free to believe in what he wants, just keep the zealots far from me...

[karajorma]

Originally posted by TrashMan
@Kajorama & Stryke 9 - I'm not re-inventing faith. You again forget the age of the Bible (even before it was writen) and the simple people that lived there. Like I said, the Old Testament is full of symbolims, but you still can't reinterpret it however you want. There are rules  (common sense, science) and guidelines (New Testament)

But who gets to choose what is symbolic and what is real? You? Your family? Your priest? The Pope? What if you disagree?  

@Zarax. It's all well and good to say that religion is just a learning tool for the uneducated/stupid but if that is all it is and it is holding back people who want to learn the truth (e.g preventing teaching of evolution in schools) or holding back humanity in general (preventing research into stem cells) then maybe it's time to find a new tool.

[Zarax]

That is zealotry Karajorma, something i really despise.
The problem is that you can't just remove religion... You have to find a replacement to it...

[karajorma]

Nope it's not zealotry. I'm fine with people having their own beliefs. I wouldn't force anyone to believe or not believe in anything. But if you're saying that the only point in having religion is as a tool then there is a big flaw in your arguement which I felt needed pointing out.

Did you not notice the large number of conditionals in my reply?

[Zarax]

Yes, i did but my english sometimes does not help with my short answers...
What i meant is that using religion to prevent the spreading of facts that may be in contrast with their thesys (preventing teaching of evolution like you said is a good example).
I don't think that religion is only a tool, but i tend to simplify most things, so that i may have given that idea...
Religion is something that feels "spiritual needs" as well as being an important social factor and often motivation to people imho...
Again, this is a simplified view, but it resumes my personal one pretty well...

[diamondgeezer]

But religion, organised religion, also produces the likes of Liberator who 'pities' homosexuals. Double-edged sword

[Zarax]

That's prejudice more than religion...

[diamondgeezer]

Ask him where his prejudice stems from. Ask him how he justifies it. If you ignore the dodgy 'science' he quotes, all you're left with is his interpretation of the Bible's laws

[Zarax]

Ask who DG?

[aldo_14]

Not to mention it's a prejudice that is actively supported by many churches - look at the furore whenever a gay bishop or whatnot is appointed (or attempted to be)

[TrashMan]

@Diamondgeezer - The Bible was carrier on for generation to generation for decades verbally BEFORE it was written down...

@Janos - Like I sad...there is proof...You don't see it as proof, I do..There's nothing further to explain...
And PARTS of the Bible are to be takes simbolycly...(Like Noah and the flood), some are blown up (Like when it say's Abraham and his people wandered the desert for 40 years...You don't really belive it was 40?...Fisher's tale)
I don't contradict myself..You merely see contradiction everywhere..
There exists much historical proof whith which one can analyze the Old Testament...And common sense allso helps, since there are parts that are CLEARLY symbolical...
The New Testament was written allmost directly, so to re-interpret it would be kinda hard...and besides, it's lot more straight-forward than the Old Testament..

@Stryke 9 - you misunderstood...  If you think that EVERY Biblical charachter stands for something else then I pitty you....
The thing I said was referenced ONLY to the Adam&Eve story


@Kajorama - what's symbolic..If you really can't filter that out, why the hell am I even talking to you?

- I don't like gays....I don't hate tehm..I just don't like them...I don't want to like them...I don't need to liek them...

[neo_hermes]

bill gate's
i'd rather chose him for right now!

[neo_hermes]

f'n double post

[Zarax]

Don't let Kazan know it or he will burn you as heretic

[neo_hermes]

there's no "all powerful being" except BG.

[Zarax]

Not even I dare to say that... Lol, if BG is God then i'm a priest of his cult... Come on my children, let me enlighted you

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
There's no reference to Lilith in the Bible at all. Or demons in the Christian sense, for that matter. Biblical Satan is still God's right-hand man and the snake's just a jerk. I think there's one case of demonic possession in the New Testament, but they're Jewish demons, basically wandering malevolent spirits having a hoe-down in some poor bastard's head, rather than rebel angels working in a coordinated plan to bring down God and assume power in Heaven which seems to mostly involve being obnoxious to humanity. Lilith's origins are in texts that were either excised from the Bible or just were created at about the same time and refer to something that sounds like Adam's story (I don't know the specifics), and the whole devil bit was made up by the early Christians so they could have a really good bad guy that wasn't nasty, sinful, intolerant people and hence a few centuries later be free to be nasty, sinful, and intolerant themselves.

The whole devil concept was stolen from the Zoroastrians, actually, who believed in two gods (one good, one evil). Cultural diffusion.

Also, the origin of Lilith is in an attempt to explain a bit of a contradiction in Genesis.
Genesis 1:27: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Genesis 2:22: "And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

This led to a rather disturbing little book called "The Life of Adam and Eve". It's one of the apocryphal books. Haven't actually read it, but from what I've heard, it's rather messed up.

[Bobboau]

what have you heard?

[Grey Wolf]

It's a rather odd apocryphal book, that blames he pain of childbirth on Eve being fooled by the devil again and the like.

Also, I wrote the wrong apocryphal book. The story of Lilith is from the "Alphabet of Ben Sira", and states that Lilith was exiled from Eden for not lying on the bottom during sex.

[Ace]

Originally posted by Sandwich
The way I see it, the account of Adam, Eve, and their sons, Cain and Abel, is too specific to be referring to people groups, what with the geneologies and all. Although it certainly doesn't make sense that they were the only humans on earth at the time, since Cain took a wife from somewhere.

That's a good question, Cain's wife was taken from the land of Nod, Nod meaning "wanderer."

If Adam and Eve are the only two human beings, then who... no what are the wanderers?