it is extremely harmful because often times it is hard NOT to take a negetive meaning of scriptures. subjectivity is confined by common consensus on imposing limits{by society} on what IS or is not inplied by things. for instance, youd be hard put to find a person who can interpret the bible to say that god does not exist. and yet, anything can be interpreted depending on your level of subjectivity.
Agreed. But the argument also works in reverse. You would be hard put to find a person who interprets the bible to say he should cheat on his wife. It still comes down to the same thing: the effect of the bible depends on how you interpret it. And it seems impossible to me to build up evidence that the bible's positive effects to outweigh its negative effects, or visa-versa.
true, on can not go about objectively judgind whether a relegion has more harm vs good. however, one can not go around judging whether FAITHLESS people do more harm vs good either. in that sense there is no difference{i wud say there is in many situations but continuing the agrument..}. however, the thing about a relegion is that it has no ROOM for harm. that is why it is a RELEGION. even more so, when it claims as such. so that when that claim is contradicted, the relegion itself is contradicted in its claims. that is the truth, relegions can act for good or bad.{often both simultaneously} but they are definately NOT 100 right, and they are NOT the ultimate/onnly way, and they are NOT what they claim to be. they have teachings which are good or bad as far as mental or physical acts in the world go. still doesnt make them TRUE.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
the thing about a relegion is that it has no ROOM for harm. that is why it is a RELEGION. even more so, when it claims as such. so that when that claim is contradicted, the relegion itself is contradicted in its claims. that is the truth, relegions can act for good or bad.
So you are saying that the bad thing about religion is that it won't bend: if you contradict one principle you contradict all of them. I suppose that would explain why it is so easy for members of some religions to get so defensive about the truth in minor details. I'm not arguing against you on this post I'm just tying to verify we're thinking along the same track before continuing the thread.
Originally posted by debbiejo
You sure it wasn't worser?
Originally posted by debbiejo
Cause he's been brainwashed in the Catholic church. I believe in an afterlife because we are all energy and you cannot destroy it. Therefore, it must go on.
That's retarded. At least my beliefs aren't disproven by something like, say, that I'm made of matter. Converting me completely into energy would pretty much destroy...a lot. It would produce an explosion around one million times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.Now that's not very nice. BUT, what if in essence we are that powerful.
lol
in physics, something cannot be made of energy. "Energy" is sort of a placeholder for saying "Potential for interaction". The "potential for interaction" held in the atoms of your body slowly changes the same way as it would from any body once in motion now at rest. Whether you are "alive" or "dead", the "energy" in your body should be uneffected. There is no real distinction between the energy in atoms that belong to living tissue or those that belong to inert objects.