re: Let me try and understand your view point.
You said:
Well if that isn't condescending.
Perhaps you misunderstood the meaning of the wording that I used in my observation.
Basically my observation was that "belief" and "faith" are part of everyone's psyche, the belief may be about anything. Some people believe in magic, some people believe in scientific study, some people believe in religion, some people believe that they are superior and some that they are inferior.
I do not think that it is "condescending" to make an observation like this.
You said:
I think you just tipped you hand here although the suspicions were certainly raised with your first post. Your preoccupation with the Bible over every other historical document is the dead giveaway though.
Besides studying Genesis, I also studied the meaning of Einstein's formula, perhaps that could be considered a historical document :-)
To explain my studies and understandings of "other historical documents" would probably fill several volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica, therefore, I will leave such musings out of this discussion.
You said:
For someone to read so much into the jumbled mess the Bible represents clearly shows an agenda to promote Christianity even if you cleverly disguise it in this "deep" mix of science and religion.
Some people enjoy solving puzzles, to others they are just "jumbled mess." I have not done a thorough study of the whole Bible, so there may be several areas that would seem like a jumbled mess to me too. I am not an expert on any theology, though I have been to a Buddhist ceremony and several Christian ceremonies, and I did read in the Koran the words: "they do not listen" but that does not make me a teacher of these religions.
Your insistence that I have an "agenda to promote Christianity" makes me suspect that you have some type of a phobia about that religion.
You said:
One hallmark of Christian preachers is this "all knowing" air where they believe the unassimilated simply haven't progressed enough in their studies, beliefs, and ritual to have experienced the full enlightenment. What a crock.
If you figure that I am a "Christian preacher" then that definitely is a "crock."
But from a "scientific" viewpoint would it not stand to reason that the more you study and experience the field of your interest, the more "enlightened" you will be about the subject?
You said:
You have no clue what paths people have taken in their own personal
Philosophy.
True, we do not know what the other person has experienced, what they believe, or how they formulated those beliefs.
But if they are willing to communicate those experiences and/or beliefs then we can get some type of an impression of their thoughts.
You said:
When I stated before that the Bible was irrelevant for the discussion you created it merely meant that it is a horrible reference book for physics compared with the works of people that had a passion for science, history, and logic.
Now I do not comprehend your assertion here. I compared the formula that I derived from the words in the Bible to the formula that Einstein figured out and they both give the same results. I believe that the mentioning of the Bible is justified. If the same result would have occurred from the study of any other book, then I would certainly mention the name of it.
If I had the time and strength to study all the books that have anything to do with science, history, and logic I would do so and I would recommend that everyone follow my example.
You said:
There is certainly cultural and historical information we can gain from reading a document such as the Bible or Koran but there's equally as much cultural value in reading "Winnie the Pooh". Shall we begin some philosophical discussion on black holes and the Big Bang based on how Tigger bounces from scene to scene?
If it would teach children about the laws of physics, then I think that it would be a good idea.:-)
You said:
Johannes, you sound very passionate about your theories and beliefs and you're certainly entitled to them. They are interesting reading but just know this. If you involve the Bible as your source of interpretation, you're going to polarize a good segment of your audience.
Yes, I realize that the polarization will occur, and I would be very interested in knowing why it occurs.
What is it that prevents some people from accepting the words in the Genesis part of the Bible as being "scientifically" correct?
Is it just dogma that prevents people from accepting new information from an old book?
Who wrote the book in such a way that a "primitive" person could comprehend the meaning and it would have a greater meaning to a person with greater knowledge?
I'm not trying to be condescending with that question, but in this particular instance I believe that my understanding of the "Bible formula" is greater than yours.
I am just as certain that your understanding of many things is much greater than mine.
Johannes