I think it's good reading and a good example for linguistic excellence.
You may or may not agree with the content...

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ar...ls.php?id=7036

AlpineRAM

 

Well, for folks who want to have some good laughs

http://www.amazon.com/gp/poll/polls/...074054-5106269

AlpineRAM

 

What is gerlin oil, he never explains it. I've never heard of Gerin oil before, and there is nothing on my usual.. research sites..

Unless he mispelled it, Geraniol is rose oil, also in citronella limes, perfumes..

 

Gerin Oil or Gerinoil= Religion

 

Give that man a cigar!

Yes, the article, essay, was an intresting read, but the total lack of any evidence to substanciate any of the facts was a tell tale that it was just an essay. Altough cleary religion [the solved anagram] can be everything the story describes it to be. The writer Dr. Hawkins subsequently addmited to the fact that no such substance exists but rather it is a play on the word.

 

Now you're talkin'! I've been looking for a Norwegian Blue for a long time...

 

An interesting read, for sure. But it poses one perplexing question to me: how can such an educated individual be so ignorant?

The problem is the lumps together all religion, without bothering to consider the merits of any of them.

NEWSFLASH: they can't all be correct.

Note, this doesn't mean they are all wrong, either. It just means that if they don't agree, on something, they can't both be correct.


Something else to ponder: Nothing in the Bible has be proven false. In each major archaeological discovery only furnishes further proof of its veracity.

Now, just because the Bible is perfect and true, doesn't protect it from being used and misused as the foundation of all kinds of incorrect conclusions, often with the main intent being to maniulate people.

 

I do not think he is, maybe you just read too much into it. His main point being that if one is "intoxicated" "adicted" to religion [read that as beong fanatical] then it can lead to bad things. Throughout history there have been "bad" things done in the name of just about all major religions. I do not think he is in any way addressing the fundamentals of any particular faith, as such he is not validating or contradicting any of them.

Not being proven false does not necesarily substanciate "veracity"
For example when an acused person is found 'not guilty' it does not mean that the person is inocent, but rather that not suficient proof was presented to convict.
Take for instance our faith: First nothing, then over many many years came the Old Testament, then for many more nothing again. Then came Christ and the New Testament, and in essence it stops again. If you take the Muslim view point (which I do not) the continuation was their profet Mohamed. They do not contradict our bible at all. Of course argument can be made for either side, but above all, I think what is most important is that it is a FAITH and one believes as one chooses. "...blessed are those who have not seen, yet believed..."

 

these muslims totally contradict the bible. can you imagine the apostles strapping on a bomb to kill innocent people? what about Jesus commanding his apostles or disciples to kill infidels? reckon Jesus blessed the weapons of war during his time period? dont think so

 

Actualy they do not "contradict" the bible, thier actions go against even their own religion. But then again I did not imply anything to that efect. The only point made was that unfortunately many atrocities have been commited in the past and present in the name of religion, by fanatics. Saddly that that is true for not only the Muslims.

As to imagining the Apostoles straping bombs to themselves, no I can't, altough one did cut of the ear of one of the high priest's servants. Does make you think doesn't it? But we are getting off topic here...

 

true that did happen but Jesus did correct Peter and healed the slave. not going on any further asthis could turn into an ugly thread

 

Need not worry about that, we ARE reasonable people, and not even in disagreement.

 

Well, I think the article in question did not mention a single religion by name. It just stated the results of overdoses and the potential to get addicted.
I know you won't want to hear it, but there is something to the words "opium for the masses".
I regard the text I read as a very good bit of mastering the english language.
I do hope that this thread will not become a battlefield where fragments of religious texts are used as discussional shrapnels to puncture the opponents beliefs.
Isn't it astounding how bitter the reactions are? Everybody feels attacked in his beliefs but I'd suggest to just re-read the text.

AlpineRAM

PS: There's also some reason behind my second post on this thread...

 

Read Galations 1:8.

Islam says the Quran superscedes the Bible, but that is not what Galations says.