Talya wrote:
Not at all. There are hundreds of major dogma differences between various denominations within Christendom alone. Christianity is just one of several major religions and dozens of others currently existing, thousands and perhaps millions throughout history. Each has at least a slightly different God (many of them major differences) that they use to fill in the gaps with entirely different stories. If you don't accept that they're made up, then you accept that thousands of entirely contradictory and mutually exclusive religious dogmas are all "right." If you believe only one particular one is right, then the vast majority --the rest of them-- are still completely made up bullshit. Unsurprisingly, just like there is no logical or empirical evidence of the existence of God, there is also no logical or empirical way to tell one religion from another as far as possible veracity. They're all equally likely (or unlikely) to be correct. Even for the religious person, there's no way to know, apart from randomly picking whichever one feels best to you and hoping your God both exists, and isn't very picky about people choosing the right version of his religion...
Completely false. Believing that, say Lutherans are right and Catholics wrong about the nature of communion does not in any way mean you think Catholicism is completely made up bullshit. It only means you disagree on one particular point. You're wildly exaggerating the nature of the differences.
Most such doctrines are not "mutually exclusive" and even if two are, that doesn't mean you consider the holder of the other one completely wrong about everything else.
All that is, is admitting we don't have all the answers. Religions are not under any obligation to have 100% perfect knowledge of what they believe in.
Quote:
No matter which way you view it, Religion randomly tries to fill in the gaps with bullshit and claims to know the answer. Science alone admits what we don't know and tries to make sense of it all.
False. Again, circular argument. You haven't given any reason it's bullshit except your own claim that it is, just phrased differently. Science doesn't admit what we don't know any more than religion does. Religion does as well, the different beliefs just represent different hypothesis, just like scientists disagree with one another. You're just trying to make it
seem like religious differences are somhow problematic, but scientific differences of opinion are perfectly ok. It;s just how you want to view it; reality does not actually support this at all.
Quote:
Creation myth filled with impossibilities? 900 year old people? Angels having sex with women and having hybrid giant offspring? A deluge covering the entire earth while millions of discrete species are preserved in a wooden box?
Some of those things are clearly allegorical, some are partially allegorical, and some applied only in very narrow circumstances (a few people allegedly lived for hundreds of years) and have not been disproven at all. You can't use the supernatural nature of the events as an argument against them; that's simply circular argument assuming that the supernatural can't be just because its supernatural.
Quote:
Oh, but we're not limited to Genesis.
-Seven different bible writers wrote that the sky had a solid roof ("Firmament").
Allegory. What's your point? I didn't say there was no allegory involved; rather when we recognize something as allegory that is an improvement in understanding.
Quote:
-It wouldn't be fair to pick on th LSD Trip known as the Revelation to John, widely described as entirely symbolic even before science got involved.
Science can't get involved, and hasn't gotten involved, because its a prediction of the futute and no one knows what it's talking about with any real certainty. It's a great mystery. This does not uspport your position in any way. You can' use the nature of the stories as arguments against them, that's just using your premise as your conclusion.
Quote:
-They couldn't even get simple math right. 2 Chronicles 4:2, providing exact measurements for a round temple water container, gives the value of Pi as 3.
It doesn't give a value of Pi at all. Rahter it refers to a tank 10 cubits across (15 feet) and refers to its circumfrance as being 30 cubits (45 feet). This would, if you perform the calcluations exactly, seem to indicate a vlaue for Pi of 3.. except that in some translations it refers to "about 45 feet", and a multiplication of 2PiR by a radius of 7.5 feet does indeed give a result of "about 45". Exact measurements are not the concern of the Bible; its purely descriptive to give the reader an understanding of how big this thing is. Moreover, it doesn't use decimels anywhere.
This is you taking it excessively literally in order to claim it's "wrong". For what purpose exactly does the reader need to know if it was 30 cubits around or 31.4159 cubits? Oh that's right, none. It's just about finding a nitpick because you want to present your personal views as somehow factual.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
