[tw]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Wow. That's pretty wordy. Lets go a little at a time.
...
Although the bible does have science in it (however crude we view it today), I would say religion as an institution was misused from the beginning as a tool of power and profit and control.
...
You're going to have to define "the bible's time". Do you mean when it was written? If so, please prove that theory and experimental confirmation was not in existence during the time of, lets say, Moses. Cite.
...
Uh...please prove this statement. So facts weren't facts back in the days of Jacob? When, exactly, then, did facts become facts?
...
Really? I thought the real definition of religion was:
...
But you know, all those pesky dictionaries MUST be wrong...

The bible as a tool of influence can easily be a source of 'good' or of 'evil'. The same parable is told in another story called Star Wars. Parables were powerful tools to justify an action or 'prove' the king was chosen by god. But in biblical days, that is how most of mankind knowledge was proven.

Still something happened in Greece long before - and yet was little understood since most people could not read let alone understand Greek. Socrates was using something radical called logic to prove things such as that the gods were simply nothing more than extensions of human traits. Socrates indeed taught things never before comprehended because he was using a new tool – logic. If – then …. For if gods choose people, practice jealously or disdain, and exercise personal will, then gods were not infinite. Even though so much of our early logic and even concepts of social order can be traced to the Greeks, still, people even 1000 years later had no knowledge of the concepts. The tools that so many had to perform 'advanced' thinking were parables from the bible.

It indeed was a good book in its time. And yet its concepts could also be used by (was it the Dominicans?) to massacre another French Catholic people (the Jesuits?). (Does anyone have this story - I cannot find it?) It justified the Crusades – even resulting in the ransacking of Constantinople in 1205. Therefore 'good' was just as easily turned into 'evil' - which means good and evil are based more on emotions - not necessarily on facts. But that is how the bible was used (manipulated) throughout history. We used an early social science to make mistakes - and learn more laws of nature - or god's laws if you will.

People such as DaVinci rescued, demonstrated, and performed logic in a time we call the Renaissance. In the days of Moses, one would only say something - and his credibility was enough? Tools of logical thought were that deficient. As science advanced, the procedures to establish facts have advanced. Currently we use things such as peer reviewed papers, bibliographic citations, and mathematical theory to demand far more before we accept something as fact. At least that is what one who is not a junk scientist does.

Things we call junk science were common in biblical times. Anyone who saw Capt Kirk transport to earth would indeed call him god. Today, we call those 'facts', at best, a parable. Did a burning bush talk to Moses? Ever see a speaker created from the flame of a bunsen burner? Was it god, some electronic wizardry, or just a fairy tale that Moses used to provide credibility to his ten rules of social order? Was Moses nothing more than a great 'innovator' who appreciated a need for better rules? Well we do call him a prophet.

The principles that Moses set forth are historically important and well proven principles. How the principles were created could have been a lie - so common with parables. But what those rules accomplished can be defined as the early principles of a science called law. Ten Commandments (and not necessary the story) are important facts in mankind history.

Principles of creation met the criteria for fact in biblical times. But man has advanced. We no longer believe the principles of spontaneous reproduction because our requirements for facts have made spontaneous reproduction nothing more than a myth. Same can be said of creationism. It too no longer meets the criteria as fact. It too has fallen to the rank of parable or nursery tale. A tale important to mankind's history. But not valid in a world of a constantly advancing science. There is no factual basis for creationism. Only a … we will get to that definition of religion later.

Currently mankind is in another struggle. We can no longer explain a universe that is four dimensional - length, width, height, and time. As we continue to advance, we may learn that this universe is 7 or 10 dimensional. IOW as our tools get better, we must now learn how a particle simultaneously in NYC and one in London are the same particle. What does the bible say about this? Real sciences - the principles that advance mankind - must continue long beyond what is found in the bible.

IOW we develop and then use better tools to learn more facts. Yes many things taken for fact in the first hundred years AD were nothing more than myths. The stars did not 'talk' to us. In the meantime, much great wisdom such as 500 BC Sze Tzu is still not understood even by (corrupt) leaders today who are getting and presenting the Freedom Metal …. because they were ignorant of well proven military science. Go figure. How do you explain that fact? Too much religious beliefs imposed on other people by a president who ‘believes he is god’s chosen one’ … reality and knowledge be damned. More examples of how a Christian religion imposed on others can cause the deaths of about 98,000 Iraqis.

There still are many mysteries (ie junk science proclamations) in the world such as WMDs and aluminum tubes. Even when science says otherwise, still many will believe myths. Mankind still has much to learn.

You may not know anyone who views the bible as an early book of science. And yet is that not what Moses brought down from the mountain? Does the bible say which foods of that time should not be eaten? Right there we have the science of law and the science of nutrition. Where else do biblical people learn how to advance mankind - the purpose of science? The Quran even teaches trade rules. Economics. Another science (although some might argue economics is black magic).

A definition of religion says

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Therein lies my point. In biblical times, the bible was some of the best science (other religions had similar principles and books). But the bible is now an obsolete book. Religious means believing in those old and now obsolete principles. IOW beliefs held with "ardor and faith" - as called emotions. Parables not based upon the newer tools of science such as logic. In Christian religion, god's prophet existed only in biblical times. In religion, god has sent no more prophets? Nonsense. That makes god nothing more than a super human. Or the creation of a good fiction writer.

Religion even in that definition implies no change - no advancement - no discovery - that things will always be the way less educated people believed - only because that was written back then. Religion must be based upon emotions such as “ardor and faith”? It requires “scrupulous conformity”? Any prophets that say otherwise must be wrong because only the bible is correct. Things based only upon emotion and not based upon what we now require as fact.

How trusting must a religious person be? Scam artists recognize the most religious among us are easiest to scam. They are the most trusting. Less likely to ask 'embarrassing' or probing questions. Most easily influenced by junk science reasoning. IOW people with less appreciation for science and most appreciation for the now obsoleted science are better defined as religious. It a trend - not a rule.

That pesky dictionary is not wrong. It also implies what one must do to choose religion over facts, logic, and other tools of science. Use emotion rather than facts.
[Continues in next post]