G'day,
The New Testiment and what it didn't mention is quoted in this thread. But what is the New Testiment anyway? Is it the word of God?
I get bored so I do random courses, one I finished a little while ago was Christian History from Christ to Constantine. I was fascinated by just how much of the New Testiment was meant to be in the New Testiment.
How accurate are the four basic Gospels of instance? And who wrote them and when? And of the rest of the bible, how did it get to be in the bible, and this includes the Old Testiment by the way?
The story is quite fascinating but not good if you wish to ascribe the words within the Bible to the word of God.
This is very much an aside. It seems that even modern societies require religion. Obviously the religion has to be less intrusive as scientific understanding expands. Can't really blame God for a drought when you understand the natural mechanism for it can we?
I do believe there was a study recently published that explained there is a portion of the human brain designed for religion. Can't remember the full explanation now but it seemed that there was a distinct evolutionary advantage to a group holding mystic beliefs because it then allowed for the survival of the group even if it meant the deliberate sacrifice of members of the group.
I have lived in muslim countries including Kuwait and working in Iraq, Iran and Saudi. The level of contempt for the precepts of the religion seemed to me to be directly related to the education of the individual. The uneducated expressed great fervour in most aspects of their religion, the educated drank, ignored dress codes, etc. But there were exceptions and they were the truly scary. Same with Christians actually. I've met some educated Christians that were also devout and they too were scary. There is a scientist geologist in Australia that despite his IQ and education manages to match all of the formations of Australia to the biblical events of the Old Testiment. He is not a man you wish to argue geology with.
I do find it strange that Iraq is often considered to be a war based on religion differences. Saddam Hussein was a dictator who gave lip service to the Islamic religion. If you don't count the fear of his secret police stiffling freedoms, Iraq actually was one of the most religiously tolerant societies in the Arab world. Women could drive, where mini skirts, own businesses.
But the current conflict has become an ideologic one. I just do not see it as Christain v Muslim but rather factions of Muslims attempting to dominate. I for one would not like to see a religious extremist group such as that ruling Iran in charge of a nuclear arsenal and rockets. I wouldn't like to see that happen in an aethiestic but fundamentalist country such as North Korea either.
Just my little contribution to further muddy the discussion.
Regards
Richard
