The Faith & Religion mega Thread

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

Pascal wager (opinions) must be why we still burn those children alive, in secret for our crops!

At least burning children in a decade of drought we'd see some results! Not like the fairy tale of better believe in case there is a heaven! And, most religions keep those 'demons' around so we got plenty of people that kill children...

Originally Posted by business_kid It's interesting to think that syphillis was kept alive from 1500B.C.E. primarily by pagan worship. It was discovered among egyptian homosexuals, although it may have first developed among the homosexual cities of Sodom & Gomorrah some hundreds of years earlier.

I was going to say that's nonsense because syphilis was confined to the Americas until Columbus, but Syphilis May Have Spread Through Europe Before Columbus. So I guess it can't be ruled out.

However, I can't find anything about Ancient Egypt. And I don't see any reason to suppose that pagan worship would be required to keep syphilis alive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syphilis#Transmission

Syphilis is transmitted primarily by sexual contact or during pregnancy from a mother to her baby; the spirochete is able to pass through intact mucous membranes or compromised skin.[2][14] It is thus transmissible by kissing near a lesion, as well as oral, vaginal, and anal sex.

If religions were lost to us, the gods would be dicks not letting us in when we die... not that they all haven't been repeatedly in the silly old books and traditions, let's burn them.

If only the Earth where round, s!

Anyone heard Cat Stevens new album, now as a Muslim?

Originally Posted by business_kid A bit of history helps. The practices of competitor religions in the Middle East were so dangerous and revolting that their removal was essential in order to allow a clean people to exist. The land of Israel got spring rains which gave them a barley harvest, and autumn rains which were instrumental in the autumn harvest. They needed those. The practice of worshiping the local gods to look after the local weather was very ingrained. In a very dry summer, it took a man of real faith to say 'God will bring the rains because he knows we need them,' and not hedge your bets by worshipping the local gods. It's interesting to think that syphillis was kept alive from 1500B.C.E. primarily by pagan worship. It was discovered among egyptian homosexuals, although it may have first developed among the homosexual cities of Sodom & Gomorrah some hundreds of years earlier. Their remains cannot be found. Ancient Egypt was mainly heterosexual, and not notorious for large scale homosexuality, IIRC. Just to give one example: Molech required child worship. To be specific, he wanted your eldest son at 7 years old. His statue in the Middle East depicted him with a human-like body, outstretched arms forming a circle, which was the chimney for the huge fireplace below. The child was burnt alive, the flesh carved up and given to all attending as 'communion with the gods.' Does anyone think that's ok?

I really am not trying to respond to your every post but I find I most often need clarification so, once again, here I am. It feels like you continually make claims with no specifics or backing. What exactly was "so dangerous and revolting" at least to you? Additionally what do you mean by "clean people" when few societies were hygenic by anything remotely like modern standards?

Even the Romans who bathed regularly, washed and cut their hair, and possibly changed clothes with some frequency were very rare with regards to the span of time and even then that was mostly among the upper classes and garbage and waste was barely managed at all but ran in the streets. I'm pretty confident that everyone would have been absolutely terrified and disgusted to walk most streets of London before 1800 or Chicago before (and possibly some after) 1900.

As for the role and origin of syphillis not only is it's place of origin hotly contested but the dates are impossible to nail down beyond the first known historical record in 1495. In fact much of the heated contest is the speculation referred to as part of The Colombian Exchange.

Much like the myth of Sodom and Gomorrah, it isn't even known if those cities actually existed in History other than as a recurring fable or morality tale passed on through many religions. It isn't even agreed upon among biblical scholars what God found so actionable in the hypothetical citizens let alone why Lot, with or without his daughters, qualified as one to be saved. It does seem unlikely considering that Lot supposedly offered his daughters to demanding angels for sex and later the daughters attempted to seduce their Father that homosexuality or even sexuality was the "infraction" worthy of divine destruction. Some scholars interpret the text to simply describe a people who were fat and wealthy as well as inhospitable to strangers especially if they were poor.

It appears the Christian Bible is a library of poetic philosophy at best. It is absolutely known for certain to not be literal historical fact at least among actual scholars of religion AND History. There exist contradictions even within the same chapters. Hundreds exists just in Genesis such as which came first, the other animals or humans?

I really don't wish to get involved in arguing Bible details, as that battle has raged for 2000 years without conclusion, but I will engage in arguing unsubstantiated stories related as "facts". Simply put, please don't make claims without evidence and evidence excludes "it is so written". That's just repeating the claim in a circle.

Originally Posted by enorbet I really am not trying to respond to your every post but I find I most often need clarification so, once again, here I am. It feels like you continually make claims with no specifics or backing. What exactly was "so dangerous and revolting" at least to you? Additionally what do you mean by "clean people" when few societies were hygenic by anything remotely like modern standards?

Agreed, hygiene was a different standard back then.God wanted to be clean morally, physically & spiritually. People were required to wash, sueage was to be properly disposed of, uncleanness was mandated after doing certain things. Within the law code were commands that ensured as much of that as was needed. You can research that if you wish. I'm not going to bother quoting detail at you, as you believe none of it anyhow.

Originally Posted by enorbet Even the Romans who bathed regularly, washed and cut their hair, and possibly changed clothes with some frequency were very rare with regards to the span of time and even then that was mostly among the upper classes and garbage and waste was barely managed at all but ran in the streets. I'm pretty confident that everyone would have been absolutely terrified and disgusted to walk most streets of London before 1800 or Chicago before (and possibly some after) 1900.

And the point of those completely irrelevant remarks was what? Have you reliable sources for any of those statements?

Originally Posted by enorbet Much like the myth of Sodom and Gomorrah, it isn't even known if those cities actually existed in History other than as a recurring fable or morality tale passed on through many religions. It isn't even agreed upon among biblical scholars what God found so actionable in the hypothetical citizens let alone why Lot, with or without his daughters, qualified as one to be saved. It does seem unlikely considering that Lot supposedly offered his daughters to demanding angels for sex and later the daughters attempted to seduce their Father that homosexuality or even sexuality was the "infraction" worthy of divine destruction. Some scholars interpret the text to simply describe a people who were fat and wealthy as well as inhospitable to strangers especially if they were poor.

Sodom & Gomorrah were there all right. Curiously what you call myth, fable & legend is by far the most accurate historical record of the events it recounts for another millenium at least. If you don't believe me, read the other ones! Flavius Josephus is good too, but that's either Scripture, or Jewish tradition (usually wrong). The best information there indicates that Sodom & Gomorrah were under what is now the south of the dead sea. The other potential sites have been excavated. It's thought there was considerable subsidence When God destroyed not just the cities, but the district.

Plenty of people trace descent from Abraham, and he was a real person. We see him interacting with the king of Sodom in Genesis chapter 14. He also witnessed their destruction recorded in Genesis 19: 27-29. But much as you are skeptical of scripture, you're pretty credulous when it comes to Science. You believe life started on earth, despite the fact that it's impossible on many, many counts which we explored earlier and I won't rehearse. So you'll understand if I don't take your lectures too seriously. These origins we have already discussed are all unfalsifiable to you, which isn't scientific either.

Originally Posted by enorbet There exist contradictions even within the same chapters. Hundreds exists just in Genesis such as which came first, the other animals or humans?

I have already challenged you to come up with one material contradiction, and you demurred when your bluff was called. Such claims are borne from misunderstandings, poor background knowledge and poor translations. Such cheap shots are beneath you, unless you're desparate.

Originally Posted by enorbet I really don't wish to get involved in arguing Bible details, as that battle has raged for 2000 years without conclusion, but I will engage in arguing unsubstantiated stories related as "facts". Simply put, please don't make claims without evidence and evidence excludes "it is so written". That's just repeating the claim in a circle.

More unsubstantiated claims. The Bible was held primarily as Jerome's Latin Vulgate for over 1000 years after he translated it and it is the best selling book of all time in an unparalleled number of languages. The "Church" reserved peculiar forms of torture for any who bad-mouthed the Bible. This skepticism is poorly researched wishful thinking on your part. Where's Your sources?

And what you're saying is that you want to have your cheap shots at scripture, and then run away before you're challenged to authenticate them. That is is definition of blind prejudice. But that's ok. Be blind.

Originally Posted by ntubski I was going to say that's nonsense because syphilis was confined to the Americas until Columbus, but Syphilis May Have Spread Through Europe Before Columbus. So I guess it can't be ruled out. However, I can't find anything about Ancient Egypt. And I don't see any reason to suppose that pagan worship would be required to keep syphilis alive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syphilis#Transmission

Funny. I notice nobody posted on the meat of what I said, but are simply contesting asides.

I'm not going to argue the origin of syphillis at any length. Historical written records are usually insufficiently precise, so it would have to be skeletal degradation, at advanced stages of syphilis that allowed diagnosis. I heard it was found in male Egyptian skeletons through examination and that the skeletons were dated pre-1500BC. This was shown in the 1980s and in the context of AIDS being a disease that developed among homosexuals when AIDS was new on the scene. The British made use of their dominant position in the 19th century to do research in the Middle East (Including Egypt). They have Museums full of bits pilfered from those places, and their expertise is considerable. The BBC documentary that contained it may have been in error, but BBC have a habit of checking their facts.

Originally Posted by business_kid Agreed, hygiene was a different standard back then.God wanted to be clean morally, physically & spiritually. People were required to wash, sueage was to be properly disposed of, uncleanness was mandated after doing certain things. Within the law code were commands that ensured as much of that as was needed. You can research that if you wish. I'm not going to bother quoting detail at you, as you believe none of it anyhow. And the point of those completely irrelevant remarks was what? Have you reliable sources for any of those statements?

Sorry. I thought it obvious that I was continuing to comment on the concept of "clean" through History compared to now. While I did focus on physical cleanliness, I think it also applies to the comparison of morality. That there are people today who wish to denigrate, even tear down statues commemorating great men who accomplished great advancements, and largely unopposed because they don't measure up by today's standards is testament to that progression and changing standards. "Chosen People" considered others beasts of burden... property to be dealt with without legal recourse. Even Clergy were allowed to kill peasants for such capital offenses as not getting off a path into the mud to make way for Upper Classes. Granted only a low number were allowed per year (we wouldn't want to be excessive, right?) but sometimes a fine was levied for destruction of property. Yeah... "clean".

Originally Posted by business_kid Sodom & Gomorrah were there all right. Curiously what you call myth, fable & legend is by far the most accurate historical record of the events it recounts for another millenium at least. If you don't believe me, read the other ones! Flavius Josephus is good too, but that's either Scripture, or Jewish tradition (usually wrong). The best information there indicates that Sodom & Gomorrah were under what is now the south of the dead sea. The other potential sites have been excavated. It's thought there was considerable subsidence When God destroyed not just the cities, but the district.

What "best information"? All the subsequent accounts that I know of are just recanting and adding on to the original myths, legends, and fiction just like Atlantis and Harry Potter. There are thousands of excavations. Are there any confirmed to be Sodom, Gomorrah, or Atlantis?

Originally Posted by business_kid I have already challenged you to come up with one material contradiction, and you demurred when your bluff was called. Such claims are borne from misunderstandings, poor background knowledge and poor translations. Such cheap shots are beneath you, unless you're desparate.

Even Biblical Scholars agree there are many hundreds of contradictions in the Christian Bible and lists of such are readily available. You posses a search engine, right? As for the views on contradiction, misinterpretation and outright falsehood, consider the tens of thousands of subsets just in Christianity that disagree with each other in interpretation of "detailed accounts". A sample includes that some drink poison and dance with venomous snakes while others forbid dancing with other people.

Originally Posted by business_kid More unsubstantiated claims. The Bible was held primarily as Jerome's Latin Vulgate for over 1000 years after he translated it and it is the best selling book of all time in an unparalleled number of languages. The "Church" reserved peculiar forms of torture for any who bad-mouthed the Bible. This skepticism is poorly researched wishful thinking on your part. Where's Your sources?

Popularity does not equal veracity. It is entirely obvious and a matter of record who does the research here. I have repeatedly explained that I am not at all inclinded to find a way to disprove Religion or any Bible, I wish they were true and reliable as an actual source but they are not. All of them are solely their own source and even then are a patchwork quilt of hand-me-down mythology. I'm not even saying that alone is a reason to "write them off". It is equally obvious why many believe, but it is NOT evidence supported or objective truth.

Originally Posted by business_kid And what you're saying is that you want to have your cheap shots at scripture, and then run away before you're challenged to authenticate them. That is is definition of blind prejudice. But that's ok. Be blind.

Really? Does this look like "running away" to you? Does it really look like "blind"? I routinely list a wide variety of sources. The few you bother to list are all from Christian works. Many examples such as Fred Hoyle are ummm "not factual" as a matter of record!. You continue to refer to "Singularity" as only referring to Black Holes when it has been demonstrated otherwise and is also a matter of record. etc etc etc etc.

Business_kid... seriously. I have no problem whatsoever that you have Faith. I do have a problem with anyone trying to prove it's foundation with Science. It isn't going to happen. Faith is entirely self-contained and circular. It can't be shored up with Science and really, why do you need it to?

Originally Posted by business_kid Funny. I notice nobody posted on the meat of what I said, but are simply contesting asides.

From my point view, your posts don't have any meat. Probably our respective standards are too different.

Originally Posted by business_kid Funny. I notice nobody posted on the meat of what I said, but are simply contesting asides.

There was no meat.

I think I have a positive, helpful post today. It's a checklist by Carl Sagan that I respect and try to abide by partly because I think he was a bright light person of great strength and morality, very well-balanced, and he did Humanity a solid just by being principalled and kind. When he published it he was forced to be Politically Correct for his time so he called it his "Baloney Detector". I find that a bit quaint and compromising of it's importance. It's a Bullshit Detector and it's a great self-check guide. Try it on yourself!

There's no Pass/Fail because it recognizes progression requires mistakes to get better.

Anyone interested in kind, thoughtful concepts and words can find it here >>>>>>>

http://dyingwords.net/carl-sagans-bu...detection-kit/

https://www.npr.org/2012/11/09/16479...hallucinations

If evolution doesn't exist the neither does the miniature dachshund or the fear of us playing "god$" with genetics...

jamison what makes you categorize playing with genetics as "playing 'god$'"? Altering genetics has been going on since prehistory. The only difference is we used to do it by altering the environment or the mates. Humans and also animals alter environments all the time as part of living and dying. It's absolutely natural but then again there's no such thing as super natural.