world population

[Mare Tranquillity]

No. You are still out there.

Where else would I be? If you're not living on the edge you're taking up too much space. Try to remember a time when the Christians were "way out there" too according the sheeple of the time. Being in a herd doesn't make you right.

 

[Hobo1]

Millions of people think it is relevant. If you do not then that is a matter of your concern.

I misstated my point. The Bible is a valuable document for understanding the evolution of spiritual and moral beliefs. Many of the philosophical concepts presented in the Bible are relevant to the historical development (or lack thereof) of civilization, such as compassion, honesty, the importance of maintaining trust, human kindness among others. I will not take away the mostly positive impact the teachings the Bible has had on the human race.

Personally I suspect the "Prophets" are more an inevitable product of mankind's march toward civilization rather than a divine inspiration bringing some esoteric new concept to humanity. It's a bit like scientific research. The next important discovery will be made when previous research has laid the foundation for new, pioneering work. New ideas do not pop out of the head of God full grown and developed, like Zeus.

Therefore, the Bible is hardly the place I would look for the answers to current problems, such as overpopulation. We are going to need a new Prophet to say that the world which God created is on a precarious edge and God's hand will soon use his terrible swift sword to kill off the half the people on earth. Naturally, no one will believe this new Prophet. But when the holocaust of overpopulation proves to be true, the Prophet will stand as a guiding light for teaching people God's principles on how to procreate responsibly.

That's how religion works.

 

[Dr.Who]

If you focus on the minutiae then you can avoid the thrust of the conversation instead of doing the real work of discussion. I noted that the Persians had goats.

Bpth the thrust and the minutiae are easy to fugure out.

Parts of the world are overpopulated because people like to do the things that make babies and they don't like to take responsibility.

Regarding the minutia, you have added both the goat comment, the flat earth comment and several others that are just flat out not anything other than prejudicial statements.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Bpth the thrust and the minutiae are easy to fugure out.

Parts of the world are overpopulated because people like to do the things that make babies and they don't like to take responsibility.

Regarding the minutia, you have added both the goat comment, the flat earth comment and several others that are just flat out not anything other than prejudicial statements.

Did they make my point? Was there any question in your mind about the point I was trying to make? I'll bet not, unless you are considerably less intelligent than I give you credit for on the basis of your posts.

 

[Dr.Who]

Did they make my point? Was there any question in your mind about the point I was trying to make? I'll bet not, unless you are considerably less intelligent than I give you credit for on the basis of your posts.

When you said that all people used to think the earth was flat (or exactly whatever you said was) you made the point very well that you are prejudiced against people that lived a few hundred years ago. You think they are all ignorant and you hold myths about what they think to be true.

When you characterized all ancient people as goatherders your implication that they too were all ignorant was made well too - except that it too was prejudicial and not based on any actual evidence.

I don't actually remember if the point you were so poorly making that people of old were ignorant was consistent with your other points at all - but it demonstrates all too well something about you.

 

[PLC1]

When you said that all people used to think the earth was flat (or exactly whatever you said was) you made the point very well that you are prejudiced against people that lived a few hundred years ago. You think they are all ignorant and you hold myths about what they think to be true.

When you characterized all ancient people as goatherders your implication that they too were all ignorant was made well too - except that it too was prejudicial and not based on any actual evidence.

I don't actually remember if the point you were so poorly making that people of old were ignorant was consistent with your other points at all - but it demonstrates all too well something about you.

Are you going to argue that people 500 years ago weren't ignorant?

Let's see... the germ theory of disease hadn't been discovered, no one understood evolution, nor human anatomy beyond the very basics. There were no machines that generated their own power, so no one understood how any sort of engines worked. Electricity had yet to be discovered. Modern concepts of nutrition and health were unknown. The majority of the world's population was illiterate. Few people had ever traveled more than a hundred miles from their birthplace. No one had ever talked to anyone over a distance. Such as telephones, televisions, and radios would have been thought to be witchcraft.

Yes, people were more ignorant hundreds of years ago than they are now. Of course, the more we learn, the more we realize we don't know.

In another century, of course, people will look back on our time as a period of extreme backwardness.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

When you said that all people used to think the earth was flat (or exactly whatever you said was) you made the point very well that you are prejudiced against people that lived a few hundred years ago. You think they are all ignorant and you hold myths about what they think to be true.

When you characterized all ancient people as goatherders your implication that they too were all ignorant was made well too - except that it too was prejudicial and not based on any actual evidence.

I don't actually remember if the point you were so poorly making that people of old were ignorant was consistent with your other points at all - but it demonstrates all too well something about you.

The point was that just because a lot of people believe something, that doesn't make it right. The goatherder point was that we don't have to continue to believe the myths and taboos of primitive people. You are only offended by the "goatherder" reference because you hold them in contempt, you don't like to think of yourself in that context despite the fact that you are pushing the same taboos and myths that they did. At least they had an excuse: they were primitive and had no education. What excuse do you have? They didn't have Jesus' two most important commandments either, but you do, so why are you ignoring Jesus and emulating goatherders?

 

[Dr.Who]

Are you going to argue that people 500 years ago weren't ignorant?

Let's see... the germ theory of disease hadn't been discovered, no one understood evolution, nor human anatomy beyond the very basics. There were no machines that generated their own power, so no one understood how any sort of engines worked. Electricity had yet to be discovered. Modern concepts of nutrition and health were unknown. The majority of the world's population was illiterate. Few people had ever traveled more than a hundred miles from their birthplace. No one had ever talked to anyone over a distance. Such as telephones, televisions, and radios would have been thought to be witchcraft.

Yes, people were more ignorant hundreds of years ago than they are now. Of course, the more we learn, the more we realize we don't know.

In another century, of course, people will look back on our time as a period of extreme backwardness.

I am not going to argue that they did not know things that we know now.

I am going to argue that classifying them as ignorant as a way of dismissing everything they thought is ignorant too.

They may not have put a man on he moon but they had great culture and poetry and remarkable scientific and technological advancements considering what they had to work with. You try building a pyramid without a crane. They accomplished things back then that we still do not know how they did it.

I would add that religious beliefs have remained largely untouched by technological advancements. People still believe wildly foolish stuff and still hold to ideas that while old are profound. The lack of modern knowledge does not in any way mean that their cultures and religious ideas were wrong.

Remember I said that millions of people today [with all of our technology] think that Christianity is relevant. Then MT responded that everybody used to think that the world was flat. MT was in fact wrong about people thinking the earth was flat and his argument that since people were once ignorant they must have believed ignorant things and therefore today people think ignorant things falls even more flat.

People may have been technologically ignorant but were not ignorant in so many other ways. People today are ignorant and prejudicial and inaccurate statements about flat-earthers and goat-herders are an example of that thinking. Ignorance is actually irrelevant if as the religionists claim they have had a revelation from God. A God inspired doctrine that is a 1000 years old would be far preferable to a man inspired technology that is 10 years old. Whether or not it actually is God inspired is a matter for a different debate. The fact remains it is silly to dismiss the religious beliefs of an ancient people based on their lack of technology. That's apples and oranges.

 

[PLC1]

I am not going to argue that they did not know things that we know now.

I am going to argue that classifying them as ignorant as a way of dismissing everything they thought is ignorant too.

They may not have put a man on he moon but they had great culture and poetry and remarkable scientific and technological advancements considering what they had to work with. You try building a pyramid without a crane. They accomplished things back then that we still do not know how they did it.

I would add that religious beliefs have remained largely untouched by technological advancements. People still believe wildly foolish stuff and still hold to ideas that while old are profound. The lack of modern knowledge does not in any way mean that their cultures and religious ideas were wrong.

Yes, that is so, just as long as those religious beliefs don't have to challenge modern scientific theories to remain viable.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, that is so, just as long as those religious beliefs don't have to challenge modern scientific theories to remain viable.

I see nothing wrong with a challenge as long as a good conclusion is reached in the end. I suspect that sometimes foolish doctrine not derived from the actual evidence would have to be abandoned by both religionists and scientists.

So yes there are lots of people, like young earth creationists who challenge the status quo of science when both you and I think they are being silly. And then there are the faction of evolutionists who accept what they think more like a religion and they too have some of the details wrong.

I believe that in the end a hybrid will arise which takes the best of both religion and science arrived at by logical thinking and an honest evaluation of the evidences. I believe that the things religious people add to the bible will largely be removed and the things people add to the science will largely be removed. I even believe that there is more silliness added to religion than to science. But unlike MT I have the ability to see the difference between what is claimed to be doctrine and what is claimed to be inspired text.

Let me go back and quote a post and discuss it now.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, just exactly.The Biblical mess contains all the good teachings of Jesus, and my position is that we should gather those gems and let the violent dross be washed away. Time to let the "eye for an eye" and "blood payment" attitudes be recognized for the barbaric anachronisms that they are. Let them go the way of the Old Testament burnt offerings and the taboos about women being unclean during their period.

If the bible is the inspired word of God then all that was in the original is inspired
and therefore 100% credible. If on the other hand it was not inspired then even what you consider to be a gem holds no God given credibility at all.

There is no basis to accept only a part of the original book - it must be all or nothing. Once you start voting on what to take out and what to leave in based on your own sensibilities you might as well just start from scratch and write your very own work.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I am not going to argue that they did not know things that we know now.

I am going to argue that classifying them as ignorant as a way of dismissing everything they thought is ignorant too.

They may not have put a man on he moon but they had great culture and poetry and remarkable scientific and technological advancements considering what they had to work with. You try building a pyramid without a crane. They accomplished things back then that we still do not know how they did it.

I would add that religious beliefs have remained largely untouched by technological advancements. People still believe wildly foolish stuff and still hold to ideas that while old are profound. The lack of modern knowledge does not in any way mean that their cultures and religious ideas were wrong.

Remember I said that millions of people today [with all of our technology] think that Christianity is relevant. Then MT responded that everybody used to think that the world was flat. MT was in fact wrong about people thinking the earth was flat and his argument that since people were once ignorant they must have believed ignorant things and therefore today people think ignorant things falls even more flat.

People may have been technologically ignorant but were not ignorant in so many other ways. People today are ignorant and prejudicial and inaccurate statements about flat-earthers and goat-herders are an example of that thinking. Ignorance is actually irrelevant if as the religionists claim they have had a revelation from God. A God inspired doctrine that is a 1000 years old would be far preferable to a man inspired technology that is 10 years old. Whether or not it actually is God inspired is a matter for a different debate. The fact remains it is silly to dismiss the religious beliefs of an ancient people based on their lack of technology. That's apples and oranges.

I certainly didn't dismiss the goatherders for their lack of technology. It intrigues me that you cling so tightly to the condemnation of gays while dismissing all kinds of other superstitions in the Bible. The goatherders had no access to the science of today which tells us that all the evidence is pointing to the conclusion that sexual orientation has a normal range which includes bi-sexuals and homosexuals as well as heterosexuals in humans and almost all animals too.

I would actually have less problem with you and the others if you were advocating all the laws in the Bible, then at least you wouldn't be such egregious hypocrites. But when you deliberately ignore the most important thing in the Bible, stated in only 6 words by the most important person in the Bible and focus on punishing gay and trans people instead, then you destroy any credibility that you and your religion might ever have had. It would also help if your religion didn't have such a long history of doing the same kind of thing over other ancient ideas like interfaith and interracial marriage, women's right to own property, burning witches and transsexuals at the stake, enslaving people, torturing and beating mentally ill people to drive out the demons.

While you are whittling away on the fact that not EVERYBODY believed that the Earth was flat, you miss the point that it was Church doctrine just as the denial of the heliocentric model condemnation. Then the Church condemned witches, then dark skin was the Mark of Cain, at one time the Church taught that women didn't have souls... the list just goes on and on. Now the Church has focused on gay people as the flavor of the month when we have enough scientific information to show that the Bible has nothing on which to base the condemnation of gays except myth and superstition.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If the bible is the inspired word of God then all that was in the original is inspired
and therefore 100% credible. If on the other hand it was not inspired then even what you consider to be a gem holds no God given credibility at all.

There is no basis to accept only a part of the original book - it must be all or nothing. Once you start voting on what to take out and what to leave in based on your own sensibilities you might as well just start from scratch and write your very own work.

Total nonsense, in the Council of Nicea they voted on what would be put into the Bible and as you have noted, people have been "fine tuning" the Bible for centuries. If it was God's Word, then it wouldn't need fine tuning and people would have to take it all or leave it all. Why do you get to change the Bible by fine tuning, but condemn the concept of others doing the same?

The idea that one has to accept or deny the whole book is also silly since we have no copy of the original God-dictated text, we have no idea what if anything God had to do with the Bible. But anyone can look with an open heart and see that Jesus' two most important commandments could make life on Earth a much better place if people followed them. Whereas the insane violence in the Old Testament and the tortuous death by crucifixion would do nothing to make the world more peaceful. God gave us brains and most of us have consciences too, so I expect that God meant us to use them.

Why do you so adamantly deny the commandment to LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF?

 

[Dr.Who]

I certainly didn't dismiss the goatherders for their lack of technology. It intrigues me that you cling so tightly to the condemnation of gays while dismissing all kinds of other superstitions in the Bible. The goatherders had no access to the science of today which tells us that all the evidence is pointing to the conclusion that sexual orientation has a normal range which includes bi-sexuals and homosexuals as well as heterosexuals in humans and almost all animals too.

Um, no you dismissed them for some other reason I suppose.

I have not condemned gays. Go ahead and find a quote. But remember that condemning a gay person is very very different than disagreeing with their agenda.

Aren't you the one who said that ancient cultures were accepting of gays?

I would actually have less problem with you and the others if you were advocating all the laws in the Bible, then at least you wouldn't be such egregious hypocrites. But when you deliberately ignore the most important thing in the Bible, stated in only 6 words by the most important person in the Bible and focus on punishing gay and trans people instead, then you destroy any credibility that you and your religion might ever have had.

I don't advocate punishing gay or TG people. And I do attempt to follow the 6 words.

It would also help if your religion didn't have such a long history of doing the same kind of thing over other ancient ideas like interfaith and interracial marriage, women's right to own property, burning witches and transsexuals at the stake, enslaving people, torturing and beating mentally ill people to drive out the demons.

You have been wrong so many times and have based what you say on so many myths that I suspect if we started a thread for each of those we would find them not to be as egregious as you think.

While you are whittling away on the fact that not EVERYBODY believed that the Earth was flat, you miss the point that it was Church doctrine just as the denial of the heliocentric model condemnation. Then the Church condemned witches, then dark skin was the Mark of Cain, at one time the Church taught that women didn't have souls... the list just goes on and on. Now the Church has focused on gay people as the flavor of the month when we have enough scientific information to show that the Bible has nothing on which to base the condemnation of gays except myth and superstition.

Again I am sure those include exaggerations of the truth.

 

[Dr.Who]

Total nonsense, in the Council of Nicea they voted on what would be put into the Bible and as you have noted, people have been "fine tuning" the Bible for centuries. If it was God's Word, then it wouldn't need fine tuning and people would have to take it all or leave it all. Why do you get to change the Bible by fine tuning, but condemn the concept of others doing the same?

It was already widely accepted what writings belonged and what did not. the vote was a formality. If today we held a vote and decided not to include the book of MT it would not be a contested idea at all.

It is not the bible that is fine tuned but the translations of it. The original words have not changed. Ink has a way of being permanent.

The idea that one has to accept or deny the whole book is also silly since we have no copy of the original God-dictated text, we have no idea what if anything God had to do with the Bible. But anyone can look with an open heart and see that Jesus' two most important commandments could make life on Earth a much better place if people followed them. Whereas the insane violence in the Old Testament and the tortuous death by crucifixion would do nothing to make the world more peaceful. God gave us brains and most of us have consciences too, so I expect that God meant us to use them.

Somehow the rest of Christianity has no objection to the greatest commandments and the rest of the bible.

Why do you so adamantly deny the commandment to LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF?

I don't.