Well, that got factored in a lot, too, especially the layers of hell, the different types of torture, the Devil ruling, etc, etc.

In the Bible, the Lake of Fire is meant for the Devil and his followers, for their disobedience. That is the origination of the Lake of Fire. Now, we have all these interpretations of what that means, of devils torturing sinners, and the like, but that really isn't part of the story.

Satan is also apart of many Talmudic and rabbinic traditions, especially as it relates to Job. Textual evidence for Satan's existence pre-Exile period do not support the concept of Zoroastrianism influence beyond reinforcing preexisting beliefs in Judaic tradition. One of rejections of Babylonian influences was the concept of dualism in that God and Satan are equals, which, in Judaic and Christian traditions, they are not equal.

There is a book about a man who attempted to live, for one year, by the Moasic law. Quite interesting, as some parts he found easier, especially in modern life, and some were more difficult.

There is actually more than just the monks who preserved some knowledge. Several schools were started by the Church or monastic orders, as you stated, but there is more to the story.

This is a quick summary. No, I'm not holding it up as a scientific article, with references. http://www.cracked.com/article_20186_6- … ieves.html

Not the best audio quality, but an interesting lecture from Cambridge regarding science and religion in the Middle Ages:
http://www.faraday.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk … height=460

Probably because it is a part of the human experience and in order to consider all the information, the human factor needs to be considered as well. That science one aspect of trying to understand the universe does not negate other factors in attempts to understand. Personal experience, point of references, cultural history, they all have an impact in a person's view of the world.

So, I think that all factors must be considered, and some, will never be altogether removed, either through scientific or religious means.

This is more to my point. That water is weird, even to science.

Sorry for the formating-computer not cooperating the link to the article.

Science understands what water does, but not why it does it. It doesn't behave like other molecules.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/heav … -0801.html

I wish I understood this line of thought...

I had no expectations for Unexpected Journey or Smaug, yet I responded more positively to Smaug.

To put it simply, yes I am comfortable with that. I have a sense of the the mechanics that would need to come together, spontaneously, in order to form DNA. That, in of itself, is interesting how it all comes together.

So, if I follow your line of thought correctly (which, I am trying to do) we are wrong about everything?

I'm not trying to assign intent to the entire natural world, with demons or gods behind EVERY event. I am, however, trying to understand all the factors that make this Earth function and how the elements that do so arise by chance. I do wonder at that.

Yes, science is against me but not every scientist. There is a book that I wish to pick up and read that documents both the known natural history of life on Earth and the 6 day creation story in the Bible. The author is not interested in proving (I use that term deliberately) that creation occurred in 6 days but that the events follow a pattern. It sounds interesting and again, points towards first cause.

Actually, the idea that Plato proposed works in this discussion too. The idea that the matter of the universe is not perfect matter, and that God did not create. It also flows with one interpretation of the Hebrew of the creation account, that the Earth BECAME without form, indicating that it existed before. It is an interesting thought, of a universe without a form we would know, or could know, because it would be unlike anything that could conceive. It is beyond our perspective because we have such a limited point of view.

So, like Eddie, we can't really know, can we?

I'll be glad to write off Shia as entirely fictional too

Actually, to follow up with pastormacman's Muslim answer, there is a book out there were two Muslim scholars look at how the Quran portrays Jesus Christ and what sort of significance that text gives him. They were surprised to discover that it gives more reverence to Christ than it does Mohammad, despite the fact that they regard Jesus as only a prophet and that Mohammad is the greatest of Allah's prophets. It was very interesting to me.

Speaking for my part, this thread has presented fresh challenges that have forced me to do some deep reading and thinking. It was fun and challenging, and it led me back to why I believe in the first place. I've learned a lot.

It also brought me to reading Aristotle's and Plato's view of God and his working in the universe, as they saw it. Plato saw God as a potter, shaping the universe with preexisting matter, but the universe could never be perfect, while God was, even though he didn't create the matter that forms the universe. Aristotle viewed God as perfect, but inactive. However, the universe is still drawn towards God because it is drawn towards perfection.

It was a fun read because it reflects several points of view that are still strong in Western tradition. For me, the concept of the universe, its functioning and movement, the details of living beings, chemistry, the odds of life occurring on Earth, etc. are what lead me to what Thomas Aquinas would call "the first cause." Regardless of the view of god or a creative being, the more I learn about science, the more I can convinced that there is a "first cause" and that the universe didn't assemble by chance.

Now, I know that is controversial opinion, especially in this day and age, but the idea of the Big Bang occurring and everything else just forming strikes me as long odds. In addition, the complexity of the natural world, especially things like DNA or bacteria, and their basic functioning, are detailed enough to be evidence of a conscious design. I find the conclusions of science, at times, lacking and don't believe that humans can possibly know it all.

From there, I move in to the major world religious points of view. Comparative theology is probably one of the most interesting fields of study for me. There are a lot of details to it that fascinate me, and I have given my reasons as to why the Bible is more compelling.

But, even if I didn't believe in the Bible, there idea of a creative force in this universe is not hard to imagine, due to the way the world works.

Anyway, movies

http://blip.tv/sf-debris-opinionated-re … od-6465265

I just...I...have no words...

Yes, please. Especially the third one.

Also, Stargate, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Blade 2, one of the Ewok movies and something for Trey

This will be interesting.

Yeah, except he won't die with a face palm