The bible..
Out of context: Reply #527
- Started
- Last post
- 571 Responses
- M0NEYCIDE0
You're trying to segragate science and religion. It's an arbitrary distinction when you compare history of them both together, not to mention current understandings of religious thought and modern science's coorelations. Astonomers were monks, likley some of the same folks who worked on and translated the Bible. What you're reiterating is a 200 year old political prejudice instilled in europe. "We are Man, we have logic, we are unique and made of atoms. No more intellegnce beyond mind. We conquer existance with rationality." God don't work that way, never did, ask Jesus, ask Abraham, ask Godel, ask Ghandi and Bush. Neither does history by the way. Even muhamad preached the glory of nature as truth, it's a pretty scientific perspective.
Just some docs I've let ooze into my conciousness while working...playing in the background at 2 in the morning.
http://video.google.com/videopla…
http://video.google.com/videopla…
http://video.google.com/videopla…
Newton rejected the trinity but never spoke of his beleif in one true God...he was practically a fundamentalist...
http://video.google.com/videopla…
All these esteemed rational minds were quite infatuated with prospects of GOd and metaphysical worlds...convinced I should say...
http://video.google.com/videopla…
Tonx you don't have a clue. Religions simply don't 'worship', they are basic approaches to reality and human experience including social and metaphysical aspects. Buddha wasn't unique in his views just distinct and influential, he was influenced by the current spitualities of the day, Budhism mixed with Chinese philosophy and hinduism subsequently creating many versions and perspectives all over the world. And God was never really superstitious so much as evident, it was the earth and nature, your soul was union of Man and the universe, not a destinct and unique to yourself.