Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Christianity
ikke:
--- Quote from: tempo2 on January 14, 2010, 03:32:47 AM ---lol at blaming a religion for the advancement of science. blame the people, there was stupid fucks back then and theres stupid fucks now, dosent matter what time period you came from. there may of been advancements of science in the middle ages but only advancements that were minimal but still huge in that era.
its like saying modern sceience has hindered the development of society now. nuclear bombs since there conception have threatened humanity and you could say hindered other science every since they were invented.
i hate all this religion v science bullshit, no side is wrong on whichever side you sit on and no side is right. they both have there own views and beliefs. science once told us the earth was flat and we all know how that turned out.
--- End quote ---
They were stupid because church was feeding them bullshit, Copernicus would be murdered if he openly admitted he thought the earth revolved around the sun. Just look at this day and age, Christians are still holding back scientific advancements with all the complaining about stemcell research.
Advancements that were minimal now but big back then?
No there were practically none in comparison to every other era in human history.
--- Quote from: Shallow on January 14, 2010, 07:43:32 AM ---By that logic 90% of all ancient figures should be taken into question. The Gospels are no less historical than the writings of Plato with regards to who Socrates was. Of course it doesn't even matter. Christ could not have said anything the Bible says but Christ the Teacher would still exist in the writings and his teachings would still have nothing to say about a flat earth or revolving around the sun.
--- End quote ---
True, scientist just piece together the puzzle to see what's most likely, what the bible says isn't likely.
IN most cases you also have multiple sources which always gives more credit.
Yes they are less historical, plato & socrates were writing from a objective perspective in contrast to the writers of the bible.
Biblical stories are written in away some modern writers write, they see something happen and use it as a base for a fictional story.
Shallow:
--- Quote from: The Great Cornholio on January 14, 2010, 07:59:46 AM ---
--- Quote from: tempo2 on January 14, 2010, 03:32:47 AM ---lol at blaming a religion for the advancement of science. blame the people, there was stupid fucks back then and theres stupid fucks now, dosent matter what time period you came from. there may of been advancements of science in the middle ages but only advancements that were minimal but still huge in that era.
its like saying modern sceience has hindered the development of society now. nuclear bombs since there conception have threatened humanity and you could say hindered other science every since they were invented.
i hate all this religion v science bullshit, no side is wrong on whichever side you sit on and no side is right. they both have there own views and beliefs. science once told us the earth was flat and we all know how that turned out.
--- End quote ---
They were stupid because church was feeding them bullshit, Copernicus would be murdered if he openly admitted he thought the earth revolved around the sun. Just look at this day and age, Christians are still holding back scientific advancements with all the complaining about stemcell research.
Advancements that were minimal now but big back then?
No there were practically none in comparison to every other era in human history.
--- Quote from: Shallow on January 14, 2010, 07:43:32 AM ---By that logic 90% of all ancient figures should be taken into question. The Gospels are no less historical than the writings of Plato with regards to who Socrates was. Of course it doesn't even matter. Christ could not have said anything the Bible says but Christ the Teacher would still exist in the writings and his teachings would still have nothing to say about a flat earth or revolving around the sun.
--- End quote ---
True, scientist just piece together the puzzle to see what's most likely, what the bible says isn't likely.
IN most cases you also have multiple sources which always gives more credit.
Yes they are less historical, plato & socrates were writing from a objective perspective in contrast to the writers of the bible.
Biblical stories are written in away some modern writers write, they see something happen and use it as a base for a fictional story.
--- End quote ---
Shows what you know. Socrates never wrote a fucking word.
ikke:
--- Quote from: Shallow on January 14, 2010, 08:48:22 AM ---
--- Quote from: The Great Cornholio on January 14, 2010, 07:59:46 AM ---
--- Quote from: tempo2 on January 14, 2010, 03:32:47 AM ---lol at blaming a religion for the advancement of science. blame the people, there was stupid fucks back then and theres stupid fucks now, dosent matter what time period you came from. there may of been advancements of science in the middle ages but only advancements that were minimal but still huge in that era.
its like saying modern sceience has hindered the development of society now. nuclear bombs since there conception have threatened humanity and you could say hindered other science every since they were invented.
i hate all this religion v science bullshit, no side is wrong on whichever side you sit on and no side is right. they both have there own views and beliefs. science once told us the earth was flat and we all know how that turned out.
--- End quote ---
They were stupid because church was feeding them bullshit, Copernicus would be murdered if he openly admitted he thought the earth revolved around the sun. Just look at this day and age, Christians are still holding back scientific advancements with all the complaining about stemcell research.
Advancements that were minimal now but big back then?
No there were practically none in comparison to every other era in human history.
--- Quote from: Shallow on January 14, 2010, 07:43:32 AM ---By that logic 90% of all ancient figures should be taken into question. The Gospels are no less historical than the writings of Plato with regards to who Socrates was. Of course it doesn't even matter. Christ could not have said anything the Bible says but Christ the Teacher would still exist in the writings and his teachings would still have nothing to say about a flat earth or revolving around the sun.
--- End quote ---
True, scientist just piece together the puzzle to see what's most likely, what the bible says isn't likely.
IN most cases you also have multiple sources which always gives more credit.
Yes they are less historical, plato & socrates were writing from a objective perspective in contrast to the writers of the bible.
Biblical stories are written in away some modern writers write, they see something happen and use it as a base for a fictional story.
--- End quote ---
Shows what you know. Socrates never wrote a fucking word.
--- End quote ---
My bad, I meant the way they thought
QuietTruth:
--- Quote from: The Great Cornholio on January 14, 2010, 01:37:03 AM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on January 13, 2010, 08:24:58 PM ---Jesus as a teacher is not fictional. His life and teachings are documented. Embelished maybe in your mind but the teachings of Christ, aka Christianity, is what is at debate here. Your beef should be with Judaism, and Western Europe's adoption of that religion and paired with Chrsitianity. Jesus never mentioned what we should believe in or not believe in with regards to how the world works. He did everything but call Moses a liar. So a Christian could argue that true Christianty should put aside Judaism.
--- End quote ---
documented by the bible, not a reliable source
there are external sources of his existance, but that's where it stops, his existance
--- End quote ---
It's a very reliable source. Archaeology proves that. There's accounts in The Bible that we know today BECUZ it was written in the book.
Shallow:
--- Quote from: The Great Cornholio on January 14, 2010, 09:07:27 AM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on January 14, 2010, 08:48:22 AM ---
--- Quote from: The Great Cornholio on January 14, 2010, 07:59:46 AM ---
--- Quote from: tempo2 on January 14, 2010, 03:32:47 AM ---lol at blaming a religion for the advancement of science. blame the people, there was stupid fucks back then and theres stupid fucks now, dosent matter what time period you came from. there may of been advancements of science in the middle ages but only advancements that were minimal but still huge in that era.
its like saying modern sceience has hindered the development of society now. nuclear bombs since there conception have threatened humanity and you could say hindered other science every since they were invented.
i hate all this religion v science bullshit, no side is wrong on whichever side you sit on and no side is right. they both have there own views and beliefs. science once told us the earth was flat and we all know how that turned out.
--- End quote ---
They were stupid because church was feeding them bullshit, Copernicus would be murdered if he openly admitted he thought the earth revolved around the sun. Just look at this day and age, Christians are still holding back scientific advancements with all the complaining about stemcell research.
Advancements that were minimal now but big back then?
No there were practically none in comparison to every other era in human history.
--- Quote from: Shallow on January 14, 2010, 07:43:32 AM ---By that logic 90% of all ancient figures should be taken into question. The Gospels are no less historical than the writings of Plato with regards to who Socrates was. Of course it doesn't even matter. Christ could not have said anything the Bible says but Christ the Teacher would still exist in the writings and his teachings would still have nothing to say about a flat earth or revolving around the sun.
--- End quote ---
True, scientist just piece together the puzzle to see what's most likely, what the bible says isn't likely.
IN most cases you also have multiple sources which always gives more credit.
Yes they are less historical, plato & socrates were writing from a objective perspective in contrast to the writers of the bible.
Biblical stories are written in away some modern writers write, they see something happen and use it as a base for a fictional story.
--- End quote ---
Shows what you know. Socrates never wrote a fucking word.
--- End quote ---
My bad, I meant the way they thought
--- End quote ---
All we know of Socrates is what Plato wrote about him, and even then much of Plato's writing is Plato speaking his own thoughts through Socrates as a character in his writings. And no one can tell for sure which Socrates quotes are Plato quoting Socrates or Plato writing his own ideas. Jesus is written about in dozens of old accounts and it'd be easier to say Socrates never existed and wasn't a teacher than it would be to say Jesus isn't.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version