Unproven

[juggalo420]

T. Aquinas was a philosopher during the end of the Dark Ages. He strived (under the guidance of the Church) to reconsile religion (Roman Catholic, actually) with Aristole's philosophical works. Often it is said he merged religion and reason Look him up, some interesting stuff

I dont think he merged it with reason, but he was a excellant writer. I find its funny that lots of evangelacal(s/p?) christians view Thomas Aquinas works as heretical because he merged christianity with paganism(greek philosophy). ^Just thought that was a little interesting side note.

[GHoSToKeR]

I think a distraction is needed

**causes a distraction**

dammit, it didnt work..

carry on

**moves on to the next thread**

[Buck268]

I dont think he merged it with reason, but he was a excellant writer. I find its funny that lots of evangelacal(s/p?) christians view Thomas Aquinas works as heretical because he merged christianity with paganism(greek philosophy). ^Just thought that was a little interesting side note.

This would be the opposing view point, yes... I would like to state I'm not really on either side...

[Garden Knowm]

Aquinas is a bad dude!! I vote he did merge it with reason.. and he payed the price (didn't they kill him?).. Aquinas was deep thinker and one of the few if only ones to actually be a progressive thinker in the church...

I also think that later ...after his death he was made a saint.. go figure hehhe

[Buck268]

Yeahm the killed him then honor him for it o_()

[RESiNATE]

A very well articulated post, Blisterize, if I may say
And some good replies, also.

Unfortunately, it seems that some people have misinterpreted your 'gist'.
If I read your post correctly, Blist, the question that you're asking is whether the Bible is a valid account of history, rather than a Holy book, per se.

In the UK, I would say that a vast majority of schools are under the dictate of a religious organisation; Catholic, Christian, and Muslim. As such, I have been exposed to religious teaching, and have a very sketchy understanding of the content and intent of the Bible. Additionally, internet research and discussion since my schooldays, has gained me further education in this field. Therefore, having assessed the information at my disposal, coupled with my own ideas about such, I can honestly say that my conclusion is not a blind one.
I do not subscribe to religion.
My views about religion are an entirely different discussion, and I don't want to stray from the point

That said, I am not so ready to discount the existence of 'God'.
I use the term 'God' in it's purest definition; the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.
Again, an entirely separate debate.

So, now that we understand my viewpoint, I can present my case. lmao

The Bible that we know today, is the result of numerous translations and re-writes. Terminology and language, is hugely different to that used by its original authors. Expression, passion, and emotion felt by those who first saw the events that are described, might only cause us to raise an eyebrow today. This must be an important consideration when assessing the accounts' authenticity.
The next thing that we must do is to disregard the religious connotation.
This is a somewhat difficult task, because of the general intent of the context - but for the sake of this discussion, please try your best

Too many of the events that are described in the Bible are known to have happened in fact, that it would be silly to dismiss its validity out-of-hand. Moreover, we must also regard this text as being somewhat of the first book of law; the Ten Commandments, for example, and that it attempts to inbue a sense of moral responsibility upon its reader.

The biggest problem that the Bible has, is that there are too many interested parties who wish to twist the words to their own advantage. Selected interpretation and paraphrasing, not to mention contridiction throughout, has (sadly) turned a great many people away from what is essentially, a great history book.
The 'great acts of God' that we read about, are indubitably the primitive perception of those who witnessed the actual event. We must be mindful of the euphamistic description that they used, and try to decipher the account in a logical manner.

Back in the days when communication between the tribes was being standardised, and written language was new, I think that the inate human desire for memorabilia spurred on a fad for keeping records. Describing a thunderstorm with their scant vocabulary and limited understanding, would be an extremely different proposal in comparison to our current level of intelligence.

Therefore, with all of this in mind, I do not think that it would be reasonable of me to conclude that the Bible is meritless.

I believe that the Bible has been used to acheive too many things.
It seems to have lost its original identity; changed by man, from a collection of memories and accounts, into a means of political ideology and coersion.
I think that we can learn a great deal from it - archeology and science have discovered some truisms in the stories, or at the very least, some logical explanation.

Anyways, I'm stoned as assholes, so what do I know? lmfaooo
Res...

[Garden Knowm]

Yeah, what HE said!!!!!!!!!

Especially the "too many interested parties who wish to twist the words to their own advantage" and the "I'm stoned as assholes" part...

[Reefer Rogue]

i think we need more threads about god we dont have like any...

[GHoSToKeR]

Yeah, I was just reading through the boards, and I thought "Damn!! There hasn't been a thread about God for like, a whole hour!! We need more God threads now!" lol

[Reefer Rogue]

we should make a poll about more god threads. that being said some1 else should coz im a lazy shit. i think i see more god threads in loungin then spirituality lol.