Bd, Those documents are only hidden from those that are enslaved to ignorance. They have been seen and recorded by many. For those that really seek the truth of religion, it can be found, but not by those that refuse to see.

I can understand if you come from a USA invented church, they have completely distorted and manipulated any basis of truth or sensibility within modern christianity. In the past, many ordained were always willing to discuss truthfully the origins and history. My experiences within the high church and my post phd studies, for some reason opened some doors. I was not alone and during those times, I met many both here and overseas that had access to and were researching church documents.

Try the Russian St. Daniel Monastery, or Church of St. George, Moscow. There are records, if not the documents available if requested in the right way. I don't think it has changed since I was last there. It is also not unusual for religions to suppress or destroy documents to conceal truth. Luckily many orthodox churches, preserved most documents that they had. During the 1917 when the Bolsheviks were coming to power, the Holy Council issued an order that all holy works be moved and stored, after the so called 'Khrushchev's thaw" and the imminent collapse of communism many of these document were restored to their proper places.

Regarding nadan, ref:- Ahiqar, you may discover how judism attempted to alter and conceal these documents and the facts as to their number. However you would have to go to Israel to view any, and that is by invitation only, which must come from your church or research body.

Bd you are ill equipped to debate religion, your base is to narrow and severely limited in openness. Those that constantly revert to scripture, show their lack of knowledge. Religion is historical and if not viewed in that way, becomes an illusionary fantasy for those of little, but repetitive mind.

Early in this discussion both Sells and Teatree recommended that I should read some proper theology. My Macquarie defines theology as “the science which treats of God, His attributes, and His relation to the universe”.

I requested guidance as to where I could find this proper theology. I would also like suggestions as to how I can distinguish it from the other sort.

So far there has been no reply. I have tried McGrath and Thomas Aquinas and, indeed, Sells himself. I have found them all adept at words but sadly lacking in what I conceive as science.

Scientific theology? It's like scientific alchemy and scientific spoon-bending. Or perhaps a glorified kind of role-playing game, where people sit around and say "let's invent a parallel universe that was created by some sort of higher being, then sit around on rainy saturday afternoons and play in it."

I think philology, history and literary criticism are better places to start for anyone who wants to understand gods and the people who make them.

It is apparent the unintelligent have no understanding of science or theology and have begun to mock God as they have no logical argument and understanding of a complex universe. Their teasing is 5th class boys standard. Their attempt at infantile shame only reveals their capacity of reasoning. Like all science masters tired of infantile behaviour I suggest they should graduate!

In "The Twilight of Atheism", Alister Mc Grath argues that science cannot know things as surely as Richard Dawkins claims it can. Science, he argues, contains a large measure of faith, just as religion does. The point may be granted, but only if we carefully distinguish between the kind of “faith” that operates in science and the kind of “faith’ that operates in religion.

Faith, despite its positive sense in religion, is actually a negative concept, as it functions in the reality of uncertainty. It occupies the gap between what is and what we know for certain of what is. The two kinds of faith operative in science and religion respectively differ from one another in important respects. The differences are brought about by the differing epistemologies (theories by means of which we find out things and establish facts) of science and religion.

Science claims a measure of certainty which it arrives at through the application of an epistemology of research and experiment. Religion likewise claims a measure of certainty, but certainty which it arrives at, not so much through the application of an epistemology of research and experiment, but rather of one of argumentation (a-la-Aquinas), philosophizing, mythologizing and… who knows what?

And so, to merely point out that science is often uncertain, or has at times had things wrong, is not to prove that propositions of science are as uncertain as that of religion. Nor is it to prove that science and religion are uncertain in the same way. The choice of whom to believe, science or religion, where the two disagree on a particular matter, must be made not on the basis of who has less or more certainty or doubt with regard to that matter, but on the basis of how each has arrived at that certainty or doubt.

When it comes to understanding the world as it really is, then, evaluated on the basis of their respective epistemologies, the “faith” or even the worst ignorance of science is still firmer ground than the best “science” of religion.

Gulielmus

Thank you for your erudite clarification of the 'faith' of science and the 'faith' of religion.

I have always found science to be accessable, whereas religion varies according to whomever is making the interpretation. Also I find the continual attempts to be coerced into accepting a religious faith very suspicious. Whereas science - you can take it or leave it. It doesn't come knocking on your door handing out leaflets. Science doesn't tell you how to dress or how to breed. Religion demands more than simple faith; it would appear to demand complete and utter gullibility.

For myself, science can be heard, felt, touched, measured, tasted etc There are causes and effects. It can evolve as new discoveries are made. Science is progressive. Science makes room for mistakes.

I have been posting to this forum for quite a long time now, I can only say that the extreme religious posters have not achieved changing my opinion on religion at all. In fact, given the emotional abuse I have received by many religious posters - I have become less tolerant of them. This is unfortunate because I believe in live and let live.

Regards