bounty44
Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Kinda surprised how many republicans answered yes. You would think the opposite because it mainly republicans who want to govern based on religion. Well loosely anyway. Anyway, my friend's son went to a Catholic, actually Jesuit school. We turned the kid into a monster and taught him to question everything, and he did. He asked them about teaching evolution and creationism and was told that the science teacher(s) and religion teacher(s) had an agreement - you teach science and I will teach religion. (and vice versa of course) The 6,000 year old Earth people are the worst of the class. They know neither science nor religion. They cite Genesis says six days. Well how long was a day ? Plus the fact that when I was young I wasn't quite as faithless as I am now but at about six years old I had it reconciled, evolution was the method of creation. Think when the Mona Lisa was created it just magically popped up out of this air ? Fuck no. I bet you could convince the 6,000 year people. I suppose the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel painted itself as well. God's will and all. Religion has always been a method of control. Tell them god said it. What the hell is a King James version of the Bible ? Who the hell was he to decide what goes in and what goes out ? Who the hell ws the Pope who changed the sabbath to Saturday to appease the Pagans to get more people into the "flock". And flock it is, they even refer to it that way. Anyway still, what the hell would account for so many republicans answering yes ? T^T you are getting confused a bit by the language. they (the republicans) are strongly disagreeing with the statement "that the two are incompatible." as to your question about king james---I answered that the first time you brought it up months ago: quote:
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Well the same shit happened to the Bible. What the fuck is a King James version ? Who the fuck is the leader of a country, member of a royal welfare recipient family get the right to edit the word of god ? T^T the king james version is an English translation, not an "editing." and to be clear, the work of the translation was commissioned and supported by the king, not DONE by him. it took dozens of scholars a handful of years to do it. you can only say "the same shit happened to the bible" if you can show how meaningful information exists in the original Hebrew, greek and Aramaic, but then does not show up in the English versions. i added this later in a conversation with another person that has relevance here: there was no the bible at the time. relatively speaking canonicity was still occurring, as well as the development of Christian traditions (eastern, protestant and roman catholic). there are some instructive side by side charts here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon the notion that the purpose of religion is to control, as opposed to give spiritual background and guidance to believers might find some credence in isolated instances throughout history, but to attribute that motivation to all religion, is both absurdly cynical and misguided.
< Message edited by bounty44 -- 1/5/2017 6:02:27 AM >
|