rick_bays 0 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Once again incorrect. It is historical FACT that the bible has been selectively rewritten."In 1604, King James of England called a conference at Hampton Court. In attendance were 47 scholars and clerics. The agenda was to organize the production of a bible that would satisfy the needs of all -- the clergy, the king, the common man. An ambitious goal, considering the widely disparate points of view each with a political investment.""The King James Version first appeared in 1611. Though the frontispiece written by the conference declares it to be a new translation, that's not really what it was. In fact, it was a revision of the Bishop's Bible of 1602, which itself was a revision of the Bishop's Bible of 1568, which was a revision of Coverdale's less than scholarly Great Bible, which was a rewrite of the Tyndale and Wycliffe bibles which themselves had been translated on the run.The King James Version did not gain immediate acceptance. It took a half century to displace the bibles that came before it, especially the Great Bible from which it was descendant, and the notorious Geneva bible of the masses which influenced it."Historical fact. Not knocking your beleifs but you may want to study history a little more.Do you really beleive that no religious writings would be rewritten based on whos in charge and what their agenda may be?Beleive what you like but at least get verifiable facts correct.Yes, let's get the facts correct.The KJV is a *translation* -- not a rewriting of the collection of canonical books.The idiosyncracies of the KJV are well documented (translated with some theological leanings), but to suggest it is a rewriting displays a lack of knowledge of the facts.We have somewhere around 25,000 new testament manuscripts which pre-date the KJV (another 20,000 manuscripts of ancient authors quoting the new testament for a total of somewhere around 45,000 ancient new testament manuscripts), all agreeing with each other approximately 99.5% in their content.There is little room for doubt about the textual content of the New Testament documents (although some well known and discussed minor variants here and there). Nearly any modern translation you pick up today at the local Barnes & Noble will be, in all likelihood, considerably accurate to the autographs. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Once again incorrect. It is historical FACT that the bible has been selectively rewritten."In 1604, King James of England called a conference at Hampton Court. In attendance were 47 scholars and clerics. The agenda was to organize the production of a bible that would satisfy the needs of all -- the clergy, the king, the common man. An ambitious goal, considering the widely disparate points of view each with a political investment.""The King James Version first appeared in 1611. Though the frontispiece written by the conference declares it to be a new translation, that's not really what it was. In fact, it was a revision of the Bishop's Bible of 1602, which itself was a revision of the Bishop's Bible of 1568, which was a revision of Coverdale's less than scholarly Great Bible, which was a rewrite of the Tyndale and Wycliffe bibles which themselves had been translated on the run.The King James Version did not gain immediate acceptance. It took a half century to displace the bibles that came before it, especially the Great Bible from which it was descendant, and the notorious Geneva bible of the masses which influenced it."Historical fact. Not knocking your beleifs but you may want to study history a little more.Do you really beleive that no religious writings would be rewritten based on whos in charge and what their agenda may be?Beleive what you like but at least get verifiable facts correct.Whoa there fella.What you just quoted doesn't even begin to mean what you claim. What Tyndale did for the modern translation of the Latin Bible into English and the subsequent King James had more to do with throwing off the papel control of the people then anything else. And their translation of the greek text to the common street language came about due to the invasion of Constantinople and resulting fleeing westerners that brought new text to better fine tune the original words. Men gave their lives so that the plowman could read scripture himself to see what the Bible says for himself. The RC church fought that and King James used the setting to further establish England seperate from Rome.The only thing being re-written is history and its by you.btw I know this stuff because I studied it. I didn't wikie some quotes and hope they prove what I already believe to be true. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 This didn't make me laugh. It's just too dumb. A pair of shoes is not a "living" thing made up of organic cells.You haven't smelled my shoes after golfing then. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 There is a huge creationist movement there's a lot of ignorant people who buy into biblical literalist propaganda because they are predisposed to that belief. however the actual number of people who are spearheading literal creationism by promoting the propaganda is very small.if you want to expand that to include scientists proponents of "intelligent design" who accept human descent through evolution, but postulate some intelligence must have initiated and/or directed the process, there might be enough to at least show up as a percent or two of the overall scientific community, but it's still a trivially small number. and its very very far from the entire scientific community that believe in evolution and its shrinking very quicklythere are no secular scientists working in any fields related to evolution that do not believe it. zero. if you doubt that go try and find one. in fact there are very few theistic scientists who dispute evolution anymore. go try and find one that isn't hawking a book or website.They just believe everything the department of education, their high school teachers and the discovery channel says without looking at the information themselvesas i said, you must necessarily believe there's a monumental conspiricy going on.I challenge you to find a real mathematician, or even a real evolution scientist (you'll have a tough time because contrary to popular belief - there are hardly any of them) and have him calculate the odds that evolution could have happened, (I'll tell you now that they already have) and then do the exact same calculations for my above example.speciation by natural selection has been directly observed and documented. and if you are talking about spontanious abiogenesis a 'real' evolution scientist will tell you we don't have the information necessary to calculate any odds. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 speciation by natural selection has been directly observed and documented. and if you are talking about spontanious abiogenesis a 'real' evolution scientist will tell you we don't have the information necessary to calculate any odds.I thought it was like 4:1 maybe 5:1? Link to post Share on other sites
11 to 1 0 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 1&2. The Zebra and Penguin. Where is the grey zone necessary for the evolution of what had to be a white and black species mating? Where are the white and grey penguin's and zebra's? Wow. The state of education today is absolutely appalling. I promise - guarantee you that to get a pattern in hair or fur, two animals of solid color do not have to mate. Honest, I swear. Listen, go find a few pictures of litters of kittens. The parents might not match a single one, or all, or a few. Ever see anyone who has different color eyebrows than head hair? What you say "had to be" not only didn't have to be, but wouldn't work. I seriously do not care if you believe species evolved. But I really do care that we have a whole generation of people that are kept from being educated and required to simply think. I hope you play a lot of Holdem and become very good at it. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Wow. The state of education today is absolutely appalling. I promise - guarantee you that to get a pattern in hair or fur, two animals of solid color do not have to mate. Honest, I swear. Listen, go find a few pictures of litters of kittens. The parents might not match a single one, or all, or a few. Ever see anyone who has different color eyebrows than head hair? What you say "had to be" not only didn't have to be, but wouldn't work. I seriously do not care if you believe species evolved. But I really do care that we have a whole generation of people that are kept from being educated and required to simply think. I hope you play a lot of Holdem and become very good at it. thanks. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 haha DN was just here for a few seconds. probably saw multiple topic thread hijack and said get me outa here. Link to post Share on other sites
SORROW_HARVESTER 0 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 We as humans are constantly evolving as is the earth. Evolution couldnt be possible without creation. You can't have one without the other. Whatever YOU believe, is, or will be. We all get exactly what we think most about. It matters not whether we are thinking about what we want, or do not want. We get both. Our thoughts are magnetic and dictate reality. We either intentionally create, or create by defualt. What "can't" be made into an illusion? Daniel, you are thinking about the things you do not want and it is creating turmoil in your reality. Focus on what you do want and it will come back.PeaceS_H Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 We as humans are constantly evolving as is the earth. Evolution couldnt be possible without creation. You can't have one without the other. Whatever YOU believe, is, or will be. We all get exactly what we think most about. It matters not whether we are thinking about what we want, or do not want. We get both. Our thoughts are magnetic and dictate reality. We either intentionally create, or create by defualt. What "can't" be made into an illusion? Daniel, you are thinking about the things you do not want and it is creating turmoil in your reality. Focus on what you do want and it will come back.PeaceS_Hmy magnetic thoughts of me winning the lottery don't seem to be working. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 We as humans are constantly evolving as is the earth. Evolution couldnt be possible without creation. You can't have one without the other. Whatever YOU believe, is, or will be. We all get exactly what we think most about. It matters not whether we are thinking about what we want, or do not want. We get both. Our thoughts are magnetic and dictate reality. We either intentionally create, or create by defualt. What "can't" be made into an illusion? Daniel, you are thinking about the things you do not want and it is creating turmoil in your reality. Focus on what you do want and it will come back.PeaceS_H What the hell is a sorrow harvester? Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 What the hell is a sorrow harvester?something metallica sang about O_o Link to post Share on other sites
Courtsdad 0 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Whoa there fella.What you just quoted doesn't even begin to mean what you claim. What Tyndale did for the modern translation of the Latin Bible into English and the subsequent King James had more to do with throwing off the papel control of the people then anything else. And their translation of the greek text to the common street language came about due to the invasion of Constantinople and resulting fleeing westerners that brought new text to better fine tune the original words. Men gave their lives so that the plowman could read scripture himself to see what the Bible says for himself. The RC church fought that and King James used the setting to further establish England seperate from Rome.The only thing being re-written is history and its by you.btw I know this stuff because I studied it. I didn't wikie some quotes and hope they prove what I already believe to be true.Ill requote :)In 1604, King James of England called a conference at Hampton Court. In attendance were 47 scholars and clerics. The agenda was to organize the production of a bible that would satisfy the needs of all -- the clergy, the king, the common man. An ambitious goal, considering the widely disparate points of view each with a political investment.Aside from everything else you have to aknowledge that anytime something is translated that it is "changed" but thats not what I was pointing out. Anytime a group decided to do what was done with KJB you know that personal views were leaked in and there is a high probabilty that things were ommited or added based on said views.Wyclif trained a cadre of Bible teachers, and under his direction they translated the entire Latin Vulgate into English between the years 1380 and 1384. The Latin, and not the original Greek, was translated because at that time almost no one knew Greek, and Greek manuscripts were simply not available in England. This was before the invention of printing, so Wyclif's version circulated in hand-copied portions. It was intended for use in public gatherings, at which the common people heard the Bible read, usually from the Gospels, and expounded by the disciples of Wyclif. These preachers came to be called "Lollards," a word which had been applied previously to conventicles of very pious students in the Low Countries."You cant change languages three times and expect there not to be ommisions whether on purpose or accidentally. You don't have to read all that is quoted below but there are three translation by three people all with different goals and different people they were trying to please.Coverdale's BibleSoon after the death of Tyndale, King Henry broke with the Roman Catholic Church, confiscated its property in England, and established the moderately Protestant Church of England. After these actions, he was more inclined to allow English versions to be published in his realm; and so when his Archbishop, Thomas Cranmer, proposed that an official translation be prepared, Henry told him to see to it. But Cranmer was too busy to do it himself, and was hampered by lack of help from his bishops. These bishops were really Roman Catholics at heart, and were not willing to have Scripture read in English in the churches. While they dragged their feet an English churchman named Miles Coverdale produced an edition of the whole Bible by himself, combining Tyndale's work with his own to create the first printed English Bible. Coverdale's Bible had various shortcomings, chiefly because he did not know Hebrew or Greek, but relied upon the Vulgate and Luther's German version for the parts that he translated. The portions he took over from Tyndale also stood in need of some correction. Coverdale was not so much interested in literal exactness as in getting a complete Bible into print. But he had a good ear for English style, and contributed much toward the literary quality of the English Bible.God in time past diversely and many ways spake unto the fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he hath spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath made heir of all things, by whom also he made the world. Which [son], being the brightness of his glory and the very image of his substance, bearing up all things with the word of his power, hath in his own person purged our sins, and is set on the right hand of the Majesty on high: being even as much more excellent than the angels, as he hath obtained a more excellent name than they.As you can see, this is all but identical to Tyndale's, but with the final sentence recast in a much more graceful construction, in which Coverdale shows his literary talent.Because he was connected with the Church of England, which from the beginning was a sort of blend of Catholicism and Protestantism, Coverdale's notes were milder than his predecessor's. He had hoped that the King would officially appoint his Bible for use in the English churches. But Henry's bishops advised him not to take this action. Still, he permitted Coverdale to print and sell his version."Matthew's" BibleSoon after the publication of Coverdale's version another one appeared under the name of Thomas Matthew. This was a pseudonym used by John Rogers, who had been a close associate of Tyndale. Evidently while in prison Tyndale had managed to continue translating up through First Chronicles, and gave his manuscript to Rogers before his execution. Rogers then completed the work by supplying the remainder of the Old Testament from Coverdale's version, but published it under a false name, in order to avoid the fate of Tyndale. His marginal notes were, like Tyndale's, rather sharply anti-Roman Catholic, and were offensive to the conservative bishops in England. But Cranmer prevailed upon Henry to allow the new version to be distributed in England, because he judged it to be superior to Coverdale's version, and could not get his bishops moving on the one he had planned. I have not given Rogers' translation of the sample passage because it is identical to Tyndale's.Cranmer's "Great Bible"Archbishop Cranmer finally gave up on his bishops, and convinced Henry to commission an official version from Coverdale, who in fulfillment of his commission presented a revision of Rogers' version. The book was first published in 1539, but was quickly followed by a somewhat revised edition in 1540.God in time past diversely and many ways spake unto the fathers by prophets, but in these last days he hath spoken unto us by his own Son, whom he hath made heir of all things, by whom also he made the world. Which [son] being the brightness of his glory and the very image of his substance, ruling all things with the word of his power, hath by his own person purged our sins, and sitteth on the right hand of the Majesty on high; being so much more excellent than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.This second edition bore a preface by Cranmer, and at the foot of the title page appeared the words, "This is the Bible appointed to the use of the churches." This was the first officially approved English Bible, called "Cranmer's Bible" after the name of its sponsor, and sometimes called the "Great Bible" because of its large size. Its translation of the Psalms was also printed in the Book of Common Prayer, which has remained unchanged to this day. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. DNA 0 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Having a quick read through the last few pages has been a rather harrowing experience. I am shocked at the level of ignorance being shown regarding evolution. For some posters to liken the evolution of species to a car or a shoe, and to state utter crap about how Zebras couldn't have evolved stripes, but should have been grey instead, is indicative of a lousy educational system. I truly hope that this 'information' that is being bandied around here is as a result of some intellectually defunct Christian college, and not from the mainstream universities. Being a European, where even the most conditioned believers find it hard to dismiss the overwhelming case for evolution, this very American, dark-ages mentality is staggering to behold. Without wishing to unfairly castigate or insult anybody too much, for a supposedly 'advanced' nation, you Americans sound like an extremely misinformed and clueless lot. Link to post Share on other sites
llou 0 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Having a quick read through the last few pages has been a rather harrowing experience. I am shocked at the level of ignorance being shown regarding evolution. For some posters to liken the evolution of species to a car or a shoe, and to state utter crap about how Zebras couldn't have evolved stripes, but should have been grey instead, is indicative of a lousy educational system. I truly hope that this 'information' that is being bandied around here is as a result of some intellectually defunct Christian college, and not from the mainstream universities. Being a European, where even the most conditioned believers find it hard to dismiss the overwhelming case for evolution, this very American, dark-ages mentality is staggering to behold. Without wishing to unfairly castigate or insult anybody too much, for a supposedly 'advanced' nation, you Americans sound like an extremely misinformed and clueless lot.I agree completely -- and I am an American. It's tragic -- and may have tragic consequences.In the spirit of religious freedom and tolerance, many public school districts and universities have been prevented from teaching science as it should be taught. They are forced to "show respect" for "alternative views" on evolution, such as creationism. I shudder to think where it will lead us in the future. Millions of children in the US are being raised without learning the difference between a well-established scientific theory and a religious belief based on faith. They are taught to believe all "theories" are equal -- whether they are supported by facts and reason, or whether they are matters purely of religious faith, or whether they are just some crazy theory developed by a madman. Because it has the "theory" label, they believe it is just someone's "opinion" and therefore is equal to everyone else's "opinion." I can't tell you how many times I have gotten into discussions with people (about other subjects) only to discover that they make no differentiation between "theories that are based on scientific fact and/or sound reasoning" and "theories that are just unsubstantiated opinions." They truly believe that all theories should be respected and treated equally. They do not have the intellectual tools to make judgments about the qualilty of the theories they hear. It's scary -- and becoming increasingly widespread.Seriously. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 It's scary -- and becoming increasingly widespread.fortunately fundamentalist educational agendas are NOT spreading in the public educational system anymore because the courts are keeping them in check. Link to post Share on other sites
llou 0 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 fortunately fundamentalist educational agendas are NOT spreading in the public educational system anymore because the courts are keeping them in check.While some of the more extreme fundamentalists have lost a few battles recently, I don't see enough of a turn-around in the underlying denigration of science and informed reason. Too many young people are being led to believe that one theory is as good as another. They believe that a "theory" is ONLY a "theory" and not a "fact." Therefore, all theories are simply the opinion of somebody -- and they are taught to respect all people's opinion equally.Evolution and/or creationism may not even be mentioned in the discussion. But if young people don't learn that they SHOULD CRITICALLY EVALUATE a theory or opionion and learn HOW to critically evaluate the various theories and opinions they hear throughout their day, then we are in serious trouble as a society. My worry is that, in the name of political correctness, young people are learning to tolerate and respect everything -- no matter how wrong it may be. Link to post Share on other sites
rick_bays 0 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Ill requote :)In 1604, King James of England called a conference at Hampton Court. In attendance were 47 scholars and clerics. The agenda was to organize the production of a bible that would satisfy the needs of all -- the clergy, the king, the common man. An ambitious goal, considering the widely disparate points of view each with a political investment.Aside from everything else you have to aknowledge that anytime something is translated that it is "changed" but thats not what I was pointing out. Anytime a group decided to do what was done with KJB you know that personal views were leaked in and there is a high probabilty that things were ommited or added based on said views.You cant change languages three times and expect there not to be ommisions whether on purpose or accidentally. You don't have to read all that is quoted below but there are three translation by three people all with different goals and different people they were trying to please.The collection of documents which make up the Christian Bible have been translated many times throughout the centuries. Does this mean that the translations available today are not accurate to the originals - that there are large portions which were ommitted or added (interpolations)? No, the evidence supports the opposite conclusion. Link to post Share on other sites
Farkus 0 Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Organized religion has done more harm than good in most countries.It seems to me that you are drastically over-stating your point. Do you know where the concept of the Hospital came from? Christians developed the desire to heal and care for the sick, blind, and hurting, because our Lord cares for them! I totally concede that there have been AWEFUL acts of violence and evil committed for "religious" purposes. But schools, the very concept of Public Education itself grew out of a group of believers who desired to see everyone have the opportunity to know/learn. There have for centuries been tremendous GOOD offered to the world by those you pretty callously designate as one-sided. You need to learn more of the history of the Church (and other religious institutions) before you paint them all with a single brush to suit your own position.People of Faith, are still people (and inherently corruptible)!Daniel, Thanks for the post, you have always been my favorite player to watch, now you are also my favorite player to read!!! May the Lord give you Himself above all else! Link to post Share on other sites
Farkus 0 Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 I know you were just joking but Rev 22:18-19"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book." Bummer manBut he was writing in Genesis, and when John wrote Rev. he was just thinking about Rev... so his joke is both Funny and not condemable... Link to post Share on other sites
LouBlue 0 Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Very good advice, Balloon Guy. Get some guys togther and start a small men's group. I've been meeting with 4 other guys for about 10 months now. We take turns doing the study, and we pray for each other each day. We also call each other and keep each other accountable.I love my wife and love praying with her etc, but I need a man's perspective to tell me why I am a bonehead sometimes. Plus I am forced every few weeks to find a section of Bible and study it so I can teach it to he others.We also spent a few months and did the Purpose Driven Life. And we golf together, and we all smoke cigars.Small men's group studies are the bomb.I would imagine though that you would have a harder time finding 3 or 4 guys that can relate to you, and also understand what you have to deal with with media, etc.Good luck Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 But he was writing in Genesis, and when John wrote Rev. he was just thinking about Rev... so his joke is both Funny and not condemable...But his being Canadian makes him very condemable, while polite. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Ill requote :)Aside from everything else you have to aknowledge that anytime something is translated that it is "changed" but thats not what I was pointing out. Anytime a group decided to do what was done with KJB you know that personal views were leaked in and there is a high probabilty that things were ommited or added based on said views.I'll explain why you are wrong.The Bible was written on the original paper.Copies of those papers were made. Letters written by people who had those copies and originals quote from these enough for us to make up most of the Bible alone, just from these letters.. People translated these into different languages.Scholars used as many old copies as they could find to verify that the translations were accurate. People fought argued and some died to make these translations.Most of todays translations have been found to be accurate, to a degree of 99% by some estimates for like the NASB. The other 1% is in question is spelling of names in old testament and a couple extra verses here and there, which may or may not be foot notes.There are thousands of good translations, and the message is the same. The difference between accurate translations are usually sentance structure and or emphasis, not doctrinal truths. You cannot shop around for a translation that says it's okay to call with nothing but a gutshot for less than 8:1 pot odds.Now compare that to re-writing:The Bible was written on the original paper.The founders of Jehovah's Witnesses needed the Bible to say different things to confirm their twist on the truth.The re wrote the Bible and called it the New World Translation.No person who can read and write Hebrew agrees with their translation.They bother us on Saturdays.You are either misusing the word re-write, or you are completely confused and have zero to no understanding of the accuracy of the modern day Bible.You can argue it's content like Crow, but you are going to lose if you argue it's accuracy to the original text.By the way there is an excellant Bible museum in Goodyear Arizona that has copies of Geneva Bibles, Tyndales, etc. and they even have a page of a Guttenburg Bible for sale: $100K for one page. I bought some pages from the original King James Bible and Geneva Bible to add to my small collection of old Bibles and Bible pages. Link to post Share on other sites
LouBlue 0 Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 I think you misunderstood his point. It wasn't a question of whther God is/was there. Daniel was stating that he had taken his focus off of God. The example he used was the goals he set for himself... Jesus told a story (parable) about a guy planting some seeds. In the story, the different soils represented people and whether their lives would be fruitful. In one example, the one in which the plants got choked out by weeds, he compared the soil to people who's lives get too preoccupied with "life's worries, riches, and pleasures." To paraphrase Daniel, he was saying that he had gotten his priorities out of whack. His goals weren't bad goals in and of themselves. However, he was saying that his life is more fruitful when he looks at all of those things in the context of God's overall will for his life. Sorry to be the "Devil's Advocate", but I am very spiritual, but not real religious. I don't think Daniel is missing God, he is missing his comfort zone.Mom is not there, Lori is not there, Mushu is not there. Daniel is still in touch with God, but he is out of his zone. I am sure DN and GOD still speak, but whenever DN looks for any other "secirity blanket" it is gone. I spent 11 years in the Navy, almost died twice, but God was ALWAYS there. I missed my Mom, Wife, and brothers & sisters, but never doubted God being there. Link to post Share on other sites
LouBlue 0 Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Wadems, it might startle you to learn that the percentage of well educated scientists who believe there IS a God is about the same as those who believe there isn't one. "Without God..." you're a human being! Here it is the 21st century and people are still believing (with blind faith) in ancient folklore and mythology! Guess what? We now know that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth. We know that volcanoes are not "fires brought up from the ground by god to punish someone". We know that leprosy is not cause by demonic possesion ("god" doesn't). etc. etc. etc. etc.Enlightenment is a GOOD thing. It's time for people to stop blaming natural phenomena on superstition. It's time for people to grow up and come to grips with basic science. It's time for people to stop acting like ancient folks who thought that lightening was a light sent down by god. etc. etc.Good grief people. Grow up and get real. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now