Ketatrypt said:
Until I get a non-biased education on religious philosophy I just don't really know what to think.
Education is not confined to an educational institute.
As a scientist, I can only judge what I know, and understand.
Technically, as a scientist, you can only judge what you observe and can test. You may be setting a standard that doesn't apply. For example, do you need to go to school to be able to understand Abraham Lincoln? Certainly you may be able to get a deeper understanding or perhaps learn some things you didn't/couldn't know through non-educational instruction, but it isn't required.
And as I read the bible, I can only understand what I read, as people of most faiths point back to.
Completely understandable. But, like any history book or scientific paper, we can't take only a part of something and then base our understanding around that. I bring that up only as an example of how this thread started. You had mentioned some Old Testament regulations. Your understanding was in error because you hadn't read the whole thing. That's not a slight, please don't take it as one. I am constantly making errors about radiological stuff and Ryan happily points out where I am wrong. Because I am not as well read as he is on that subject.\
[which bible? Apperently there is more then bible, most of which conflict]
This is actually not true. Except for some "bibles" which are generally dismissed by those who know and are educated in translations, bible translations agree with each other.
But if people need so much education from a non-biased source to understand the teachings, how are 'normal' religious people suppose to understand the teachings of 'the' bible?
They don't. Though throughout history, many people claim that it is needed. The Catholic Church was big about that. Much like how the Constitution in the United States is now. The Obamas and the Pelosis want you to think that only Harvard educated people can "really" understand the Constitution, but anyone who has actually read it knows that it is a fairly simple document to read.
And also, why are there teachings of the 'second coming' on a board about defcon 1?
Hence the "Anything Goes" forum.
However even the second paragraph of Encyclopedia Britannica states that "There are diverse interpretations of Christianity which sometimes conflict"
And Encyclopedia Britannica has its own bias.
so I have no idea what to believe. Thus I must find a non-biased source of information, which, in itself is hard to find, without shelling out tens of thousands of dollars. (going to church is not an unbiased education)
Good luck on that. Consider this: We know very little about how black holes work. Does this mean we know nothing about them? Certainly not. We know some things. Other properties about black holes we still study and hypothesize and question. This is kind of the same thing with God. We know some things. Other things we have diverse opinions. Just because we have diverse opinions on some matters does not invalidate the things we know for certain.
I can't disprove any of gods work. However I can question it, and if that makes me wrong, then, dammit, burn me at the stake like a witch.
There's nothing wrong with wondering how things work. Heck, Einstein made a career out of it.
(I always wondered why an all powerful being would torture people out of spite.. As he did design those people to be that way... Right?)
I'll end my post by referring back to the beginning of it. This here is quite a common misconception of God. Evil God, burn forever because he gets some sort of jolly out of it. (/end facetiousness)
A more complete (notice I didn't say "educated") reading would show this isn't God's plan at all.
