Dude, listen to what you're saying:  The majority of religous people have no problem with science and infuse it in their beliefs thus self correcting religon - - - - - - - -  You're saying that science is infused into religious beleifs thus correcting it, that's the same as saying that "science corrects religion",totally different from religion correcting religion

anyways, I don't think it's possible right now for religion to "correct itself" as the source for the information and writings is long gone and we are going to suddenly "discovered" anything new in this field

BUT one very very important thing that you seem to be forgetting is that for something to be corrected, it needs to be "not right" to begin with. if religion is indeed the "infallible word of god" than this by definition makes it impossible to correct as it is not possible for it to be wrong in the first place by definition... so if science in fact WERE to correct religion in one way or another, that religion would be deemed false, end of story

like if some religion stated long ago in its texts that the earth was flat... we now are certain that the earth is round so the discovery of the real shape of the earth would have led to the discarding of this religion - - - - - that's why science correcting religion or religion correcting itself is not in religion's favor at all. huge wall of text is huge.

I am saying science is a part of religion when said science is done by those who belive in said religions or religous beliefs.

I never said the bolded, and I do not know many who would. I also never said religion is infalible so Ido not see wh y you are attacking me there.

I wasn't trying to attack you :p - - but that's actually part of the definition of what it means to be God. God is perfect by definition, therefore so are his words. If part of his religion was wrong, then that would mean that God would have to be wrong, which is a contradiction.

I can't beleive this is the first you're hearing of the matter. Religions have always stated that their respective texts are the infallible (or inerrant) words of God, this originating from the assumption that God is perfect.

I brought this up to respond to you saying that science could correct religion or that religion could correct itself. that happening would mean the end of that religion

No its not, its some peoples definition of a God. Organized religions have, but many people believe in a higher/god that do not belong to any specific church.

I stand by that religion does correct itself. To think it is come unchanging thing, even for the big churchs is ludacris. All churchs are run by people and have people in them just that fact alone means they will change. Not to mention how people interpret writings of certain religions. Had science never come to be ( i know impossible) religions world wide would change over time wouldn't they?

I'm sorry, I assumed we were talking about holy religions which all claim to be based off of God's Holy word. I wasn't refering to Individual peoples' beliefs or other non-deitic religions.

Well now that we have that cleared up, I'd like to say that these holy religions all worship a single God who is omnipotent, all knowing, and most of all perfect. So to say that something corrected a holy religion is to say that this holy religion is false and therefore did not originate from a holy God.

*** If it is changed then that means it is no longer the word of God, therefore it is not perfect and furthermore its contents ought to be dismissed and rules no longer be followed by those who believed it was the word of the God they worshiped.

Well I wouldn't be so pessimistic, I mean in the last few hundread years many societies have gotten rid of slavery, sectarianism, sexual segregation, sexism and racism to verying degrees. We certainly aren't perfect but in conjuction with the fruits of science that has given us vastly improved living standards and life expectancies I think that life in many countries has vastly improved.

No we aren't anywhere nearly as good as we could be, but the world is a vastly better place to live in for many people then it was even 100 years ago. Yes humanity has a lot of failings and certainly we are moving in poor directions in many areas but that doesn't discount the triumphs of humanity either.

You are throwing the idea out that for it to be self correcting

I never said that religion isn't self correcting, I only said that the examples which you gave are not examples of religion correcting itself. The Synods are examples of religion correcting itself (religious authorities meeting and establishing religious dogma).

that all religous people must believe it, religion is not that way.

???

The majority of religous people have no problem with science and infuse it in their beliefs thus self correcting religon.

No, that's science correcting religion, not religion correcting itself, as those discoveries are made within science, not religion.

Science to me is not "oputside" of religion like you are making it to be.

They're two different fields.

To me you are trying to say religion is not self correcting because they are not all sheep following the same thing, i am trying to say religion is self correcting.

I am not saying that. Plus don't religious people, at least Christians, refer to themselves as sheep?

I just havent found the words to convine you of that. I am working on it.

Maybe you're not understanding what I'm saying. English isn't my native language so maybe I'm not expressing myself right. Or maybe you don't have the capacity to understand what I'm saying. Who knows? Hopefully we'll pull through.

I am saying science is a part of religion when said science is done by those who belive in said religions or religous beliefs.

So if a porn star is also religious does that mean that pornography is also part of religion. 'Cause following your rationale that's what one would deduce.

Basically the discoveries made by those scientists had nothing to do with their religious beliefs. They made those discoveries as scientists using the scientific method and said discoveries were validated by their peers within the scientific fields they worked in.

Tooth Fairy is a character for kids. Apolo, Zeus, Mithra and the othesr were something diffrent. They were considerd a  "higher power" and were superior to humans in every way. Tooth fairy is not in any way a higher power or superior to humans. And when i said "created" i meant when their mind was developed enough for them to think and wonder. I should have been more clear on that.

what? Was that post aimed at me? Nothing you said there has nothing to do with my post.