Since when was it structured around forgiveness and tolerance?

Since the teachings of Jesus Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth if one prefers. One thing of note - I'd call those people clinging to ignorance and intolerance claiming to be of christian faith, not actually being true to it. I guess it's just me tending to tell apart religions from faiths.

I fail to see where ComradeWolf is but suggesting not to share science. However..

So you are saying give up against people who I would actually want to argue against? It is pointless and useless to argue against someone who already believes the same as you, and if you don't believe the same as me you are likely wrong. If you are wrong, especially in a religious way, then you are either ignorant of the truth or directly ignoring the truth. By this logic, no one would be able to debate on this forum.

I do see being against arguing, and I agree with that - arguing is pointless and useless in general. It's discussion that's lost it's track and became a fight - and that's where any sensible arguments (not to mistake with "arguements") lose value, since it's now all only about destroying the other side like you mentionned already. Debates on the other hand are not meaningless - those base on the assumption that the other side might not be AWARE of the WHOLE truth, but willing to learn about it.

One thing I'll agree with again though - don't ignore the ignorant. Present your view at least once - if they choose to ignore it that's their problem. They've been given a chance to know better and dropped it. After that it's meaningless to try further, unless you're just one of those who prefer forcing their views onto others.

Kindof fits into the genital analogy too doesn't it?

We aren't made perfect.
god is perfect.
god made us in his image.
we are perfect.
or god failed. what makes god not perfect.

you know god could have made us in most of his image but purpesly made us not perfect

you know god could have made us in most of his image but purpesly made us not perfect

Take it to the Theism vs Atheism thread. This is supposed to be about how Christians reconcile observable phenomena which contradicts the literal interpretation of Genesis.

To answer you though, if he purposefully made us imperfect that just means he's a not too nice guy.

To answer that question you have to look at it in the full story, not just that one statement. God did make us in his image, however he did give us free will to do what we want (including sin)after Adam and Eve sinned there was a punishment (not going into that because I don't want to explain the whole book of Genisis). So as a result of there sinning we still have to work and there is still pain and suffering because we live in a imperfect world. Also, when he died, he did not die so that way our sins would count as nothing, he died so that way our sins could be forgiven (without the sacrafices and such that had to be done before). If you want to go into the evolution side of it, God simply gave animals and plants the ability to adapt to there surroundings think about it... we probably don't look like our original ancestors. I think there is evolution but it can't exist without a creator allowing it.

I never once in my post not to share science, I stated not to share opinions if someone is unwilling. If you know someone is ignorant already, it can be assumed either you or someone else has figured that out either through experience in speaking with them or observing their behavior in a conversation.

I never said don't debate with people who have a different opinion of you. We are having a debate right now, we have conflicting points and interests.

What I said in my post was don't bother forcing your opinion or sharing knowledge to those who are ignorant of your ideals or information. The key word being ignorant. I didn't say, don't share your knowledge, don't share your opinion and keep yourself repressed, no my friend.

And as for the relationship of Christianity and Science in general, they are co existing because there is a growing level of tolerance for both. Yes, there is indeed those who wish to destroy either one, whether it be fundamentalists trying to sabotage the progress of scientific development (such as with the American space program during it's early years) to outright, blatant prejudice and mockery the religious have received. However, to state that the whole of both groups/communities are vying to destroy each other outright is stereotyping both groups under a hateful veil of animosity.

An example of tolerance, from Christianity, is how, while at first Christians were very intolerant of evolution and geographical study, the majority of the Christian community have come to accept it due to undeniable evidence.

Likewise, the Scientific community has actually researched the bible, had archeological investigations and there has been some yield to the Bible's stories and there is factual information presented by the book. Of course the interpretation and the style it was wrote in had elements of mythology or religious interpretation, but if you look at it from a scientific and logical view, do investigation, there is a degree of truth to the stories.

I never once in my post not to share science, I stated not to share opinions if someone is unwilling. If you know someone is ignorant already, it can be assumed either you or someone else has figured that out either through experience in speaking with them or observing their behavior in a conversation.

You said:

     My point with that as well is, don't bother giving information to people who are ignorant of your ideals. If they choose to ignore your information, don't bother. If they want to learn they will listen. If they want to be left behind so be it.

Correct? And information in this since is science, correct? Therefore, you said not to share science.

I never said don't debate with people who have a different opinion of you. We are having a debate right now, we have conflicting points and interests.

And we have not yet mentioned any science at all, and our forces are not conflicting in any meaningful way at the moment.

What I said in my post was don't bother forcing your opinion or sharing knowledge to those who are ignorant of your ideals or information

...Which of course means don't share science? Your contradicting yourself a lot.

Besides that, ignorant means without knowledge. Why would you not share knowledge with people who are without it?

The key word being ignorant. I didn't say, don't share your knowledge, don't share your opinion and keep yourself repressed, no my friend.

Wait, you just did. Do you even know what the work ignorant means?

You:

What I said in my post was don't bother forcing your opinion or sharing knowledge to those who are ignorant of your ideals or information

And as for the relationship of Christianity and Science in general, they are co existing because there is a growing level of tolerance for both.

Actually, they coexists because science is functional and works, while religion is a weed that is engrained to far to be easily destroyed. That is the only reason we still have both.

Yes, there is indeed those who wish to destroy either one, whether it be fundamentalists trying to sabotage the progress of scientific development (such as with the American space program during it's early years) to outright, blatant prejudice and mockery the religious have received

Did you just compare trying to shut down major scientific infrastructure to being mocked?

However, to state that the whole of both groups/communities are vying to destroy each other outright is stereotyping both groups under a hateful veil of animosity

It hardly is. Religion, especially the Christian religion, goes directly against science and the only way it can be accepted with science is ignoring what is actually in the book. Christianity says that all the animals where made the way they are today, science says they evolved. Christianity says that all the world's languages where created on a magic tower, science says that there is a complicated history behind them. Christianity says that the pyramids where made to store grain, history says they where made to store dead pharaohs. The only way they can "coexist" is if you either ignore science or ignore religion, and in most cases both.

An example of tolerance, from Christianity, is how, while at first Christians were very intolerant of evolution and geographical study, the majority of the Christian community have come to accept it due to undeniable evidence.

Should I be glad that they "Let" the truth past, even though their religion held it back many years and goes directly against it? Great tolerance of them.

Likewise, the Scientific community has actually researched the bible, had archeological investigations and there has been some yield to the Bible's stories and there is factual information presented by the book.

Any factual information that can be gotten from it is simply the equivalent to today's fiction. For example, there may have been a town known as Chicago, but there was not a robot wielding a gun chasing people threw it. I can think of many historical inaccuracies that we got from that book (The Jews building the pyramids and using them to store grain comes to mind), but can not think of any information we actually got from them. Care to give some examples?

Of course the interpretation and the style it was wrote in had elements of mythology or religious interpretation, but if you look at it from a scientific and logical view, do investigation, there is a degree of truth to the stories.

Oh really? How about some examples?

My point with that as well is, don't bother giving information to people who are ignorant of your ideals. If they choose to ignore your information, don't bother. If they want to learn they will listen. If they want to be left behind so be it.

Who are ignorant of your ideals. Your excluding parts of my statements.

As for examples of research going into the bible, excavations revealed the town of Jericho and other locations did exist. I didn't say the bible was totally accurate, I said it had a degree of truth to it.

There was also speculative investigation done where there was Hebrew groups in Egypt at one point. Not as slaves of course, but rather as mercenaries. These groups later left Egypt, pillaging as they went. If you look at the passages of Moses tactically, you will also see examples of military strategy. Moses, who according to the bible spent decades in the eastern deserts of Egypt bordering the Red Sea knew the land well. Taking the tribes there, he eluded the Egyptians, and knowing that at certain area's of the Sea of Reeds, there was tidal flush outs, shallow enough to cross.

And as for ignorant, the term, ignorant not only means without knowledge, it is also an action. To purposely ignore is an action to not pay attention, pay heed and most often not care about something, to neglect. I see people who almost preach to those who are ignorant on purpose.

As for me contradicting myself, I have not. I stated simply not to share or give information to those who are ignorant, and I use the whole meaning of the word, unlike you, automatically assuming it being those merely without knowledge. I used christian religion and the scientific community as an example for this discussion.

You on the other hand are bending what I said to your own interpretation and in effect butchering what I said.
A better word for those who lack knowledge of a particular subject is uneducated. People who are not educated about a certain subject or lack information does not mean they are ignorant of it. If they weren't even aware of it in the first place how can someone ignore something? To ignore something you must be aware of it's existence.

As with the relationship of Christianity and the Scientific community, there is growing tolerance. I compared the acts of sabotage on a space program to extreme prejudice and mockery for a few reasons. When I say mockery and prejudice with each other, I do not mean mere insults. It can be as far as outright slandering of a person's credentials due to their background in faith to other more exclusive actions. Actions that can severely limit someone purely based on their background.

Should I be glad that they "Let" the truth past, even though their religion held it back many years and goes directly against it? Great tolerance of them.

I'm aware of the repression the Catholic church has induced upon the Scientific community, as well as other religious groups and institutions. But should there be continued animosity and derailing hatred? No. It will only hinder the progress and sustained survival of both groups. If the religious community wishes to cling to their old beliefs, and choose to ignore the progress of scientific knowledge, then so be it. If you reversed the tables, you wouldn't want the religious community forcing their ideals or belief system on you because you don't agree with it for your own reasons. (Which I assume is the lack of evidence and the contradictions that have been found with the said religions)

Both groups are co existing right now because they have no destroyed each other and probably won't. If they weren't coexisting they would be at open war and there would be a large majority from both groups destroying each others institutions, churches would be destroyed or re purposed, or research facilities would be demolished etc. Of course there is right now is a minority from both groups that do want to see the utter destruction of each other.

However lets take another example of two groups with contradicting idea's that coexisted. The Soviet Union and the United States of America. Of course the Soviet Union no longer exists, but it was of their own doing, not due to the other side destroying them. Both were in fear of a nuclear war. Both had contradicting socio/economic systems. Both were military superpowers. Even China can be included in this too, as they are (despite the capitalist reforms made to their economy) a largely socialist nation, and they still exist.
They both co existed, and while they did compete, they did do cooperative projects and operations. Most notably is the space race. At first they competed, but eventually, by the time te Americans landed on the moon they began to cooperate in the affairs of space exploration. Resources were shared, knowledge was shared and there was great cooperation from both groups.

And in the present era, China is economically tied with the United States. China, having a socialist government, formerly a Maoist regime, has made reforms in cooperation but still clings to socialist policies.
America, which was and still is a poster child of capitalism and representative democracy, and still is to extents, is also changing it's socio/political system. A move towards socialism is happening. I will not say either reforms in ay of those 3 countries have had a positive or negative effect, just that they happened. People have their own opinions on that.

My overall point is to you that sharing knowledge isn't bad. Its pressing knowledge, opinions and beliefs on the ignorant is pointless.

Who are ignorant of your ideals. Your excluding parts of my statements.

So we shouldn't share knowledge or ideals with people who don't know our knowledge or ideals?

As for examples of research going into the bible, excavations revealed the town of Jericho and other locations did exist. I didn't say the bible was totally accurate, I said it had a degree of truth to it.

Wasn't that proven by excavations, not the Bible? And really, it would be like saying we got information from Godzilla, after all Japan is a real place. Just because a location is used in fiction does not me we can get information from it.

There was also speculative investigation done where there was Hebrew groups in Egypt at one point. Not as slaves of course, but rather as mercenaries. These groups later left Egypt, pillaging as they went. If you look at the passages of Moses tactically, you will also see examples of military strategy. Moses, who according to the bible spent decades in the eastern deserts of Egypt bordering the Red Sea knew the land well. Taking the tribes there, he eluded the Egyptians, and knowing that at certain area's of the Sea of Reeds, there was tidal flush outs, shallow enough to cross.

Wow! There maybe might have been Jews in Egypt at one point in time, doing things that where no where close to what they did in the Bible! Please, tell me more of what we have learned from this.

And as for ignorant, the term, ignorant not only means without knowledge, it is also an action. To purposely ignore is an action to not pay attention, pay heed and most often not care about something, to neglect. I see people who almost preach to those who are ignorant on purpose.

No it doesn't. No one ever uses it as an action. No dictionaries describe it as an action. Are you ignorant of the word ignorant?

You on the other hand are bending what I said to your own interpretation and in effect butchering what I said.

What? I am reading the words that you said to take what the words mean. If you want to be understood correctly, then you should probably use the correct words.

A better word for those who lack knowledge of a particular subject is uneducated. People who are not educated about a certain subject or lack information does not mean they are ignorant of it. If they weren't even aware of it in the first place how can someone ignore something? To ignore something you must be aware of it's existence.

Ignorant. Does. Mean. That. Ignorant has nothing to do with ignoring something, at all. It means uneducated, without knowledge, etc. Every word is linked to a dictionary in the first sentence, please look up words if you are unsure of the meaning. And in the future, you should probably listen to native English speakers about the English language, seeing as it is the language I have spoken all my life.

As with the relationship of Christianity and the Scientific community, there is growing tolerance. I compared the acts of sabotage on a space program to extreme prejudice and mockery for a few reasons. When I say mockery and prejudice with each other, I do not mean mere insults. It can be as far as outright slandering of a person's credentials due to their background in faith to other more exclusive actions. Actions that can severely limit someone purely based on their background.

More 'xamples, please? I have never seen that happen, and never heard it happen, especially not in America.

I'm aware of the repression the Catholic church has induced upon the Scientific community, as well as other religious groups and institutions. But should there be continued animosity and derailing hatred? No.

Why not? They have continuing their repression of science and knowledge. It is hard to type while eating.

It will only hinder the progress and sustained survival of both groups. If the religious community wishes to cling to their old beliefs, and choose to ignore the progress of scientific knowledge, then so be it. If you reversed the tables, you wouldn't want the religious community forcing their ideals or belief system on you because you don't agree with it for your own reasons. (Which I assume is the lack of evidence and the contradictions that have been found with the said religions)

There is a difference between "Forcing" facts on someone and forcing religion on someone. Truth is an important thing to have, and should be "Forced" (Meaning tought, everyone should have knowledge of the truth). That is one of the reasons we have schools. Reversing the tables is illogical, do to the nature of both.

Both groups are co existing right now because they have no destroyed each other and probably won't. If they weren't coexisting they would be at open war and there would be a large majority from both groups destroying each others institutions, churches would be destroyed or re purposed, or research facilities would be demolished etc. Of course there is right now is a minority from both groups that do want to see the utter destruction of each other.

War on that scale would hardly be illogical and pointless. Any "war" that would be between these opposing factions would be intellectual, which would only cause fatalities to ignorance. If anything, that would be easier then attempting to put down religions in other ways, if history is anything to go by.

However lets take another example of two groups with contradicting idea's that coexisted. The Soviet Union and the United States of America. Of course the Soviet Union no longer exists, but it was of their own doing, not due to the other side destroying them. Both were in fear of a nuclear war. Both had contradicting socio/economic systems. Both were military superpowers. Even China can be included in this too, as they are (despite the capitalist reforms made to their economy) a largely socialist nation, and they still exist.
They both co existed, and while they did compete, they did do cooperative projects and operations. Most notably is the space race. At first they competed, but eventually, by the time te Americans landed on the moon they began to cooperate in the affairs of space exploration. Resources were shared, knowledge was shared and there was great cooperation from both groups.

There competing WAS to prove who had the best ideology, and they only cooperated in things that did not involve the ideology. While science has a ton of knowledge to share, religion has worse then none. They where competing to destroy each others ideology since day one, and the capitalists where successful.

My overall point is to you that sharing knowledge isn't bad. Its pressing knowledge, opinions and beliefs on the ignorant is pointless.

Quit using the word ignorant. You have no clue what it means and it is annoying to watch you try.

Pressing knowledge is sharing knowledge, darkness is simply the absence of light. If we bring the light of science, then the religion goes away. Pushing light is our duty as humans.

And as for ignorant, the term, ignorant not only means without knowledge, it is also an action. To purposely ignore is an action to not pay attention, pay heed and most often not care about something, to neglect. I see people who almost preach to those who are ignorant on purpose.

I would like to know where you're getting this definition from?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorant
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ignorant
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction … h/ignorant
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio … q=ignorant
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ignorant

The only thing that comes close is a wiki entry under ignorance.
"Matters which are obvious are sometimes ignored, not taken into consideration. This phenomenon is not limited to ordinary persons without native ability but extends to the highest level of human governance resulting in nightmarish scenarios that could, with more wisdom, have been avoided."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance

Sorry for going way off topic here. Carry on.