Recommended Posts
rehmwa 2
If someone wants to believe there is a diety outside of time and law etc. It shouldn't matter nor should it conflict unless they choose to be lazy and closed minded.
The only thing that gets to me is when religion is used as an excuse to not use science to explaing natural phenomena. There is still rational explanation for everything and it shouldn't conflict. To default to a religious justification only (in lieu of a rational one) is just lazy.
Certainly anything in religious text that conflicts with reality (like the flat earth) should be directly tracable to some 'human' that took the easy way out.
I also believe that religion was used to keep the ignorant from hurting themselves. Take kosher rules - keep your plates clean, don't mix certain foods, keep your plates clean, don't eat certain foods (typically foods that spoil fast). It was probably easier to explain to people that God would be mad rather than explain sanitary conditions and disease risks. In that aspect, religion served a very popular purpose in ancient society. It still could today if taken for its positive aspects.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
The only thing that gets to me is when religion is used as an excuse to not use science to explaing natural phenomena. There is still rational explanation for everything and it shouldn't conflict. To default to a religious justification only (in lieu of a rational one) is just lazy.
Certainly anything in religious text that conflicts with reality (like the flat earth) should be directly tracable to some 'human' that took the easy way out.
I also believe that religion was used to keep the ignorant from hurting themselves. Take kosher rules - keep your plates clean, don't mix certain foods, keep your plates clean, don't eat certain foods (typically foods that spoil fast). It was probably easier to explain to people that God would be mad rather than explain sanitary conditions and disease risks. In that aspect, religion served a very popular purpose in ancient society. It still could today if taken for its positive aspects.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
I pretty much agree with you here. There is a place for science and a place for theology/spirituality.QuoteIf someone wants to believe there is a diety outside of time and law etc. It shouldn't matter nor should it conflict unless they choose to be lazy and closed minded.
The only thing that gets to me is when religion is used as an excuse to not use science to explaing natural phenomena. There is still rational explanation for everything and it shouldn't conflict. To default to a religious justification only (in lieu of a rational one) is just lazy.
Certainly anything in religious text that conflicts with reality (like the flat earth) should be directly tracable to some 'human' that took the easy way out
I think it may be more complex than that. For example, Jews & Muslims forbid eating pork, but in certain Asian and european cultures, eating pork was associated with good health & physical strength. There is this book called "Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches" which goes thru different cultural taboos, beliefs, etc. about how these beliefs came about. Some of it is conjecture, but I think its pretty well thought out & explains the pork taboo among Muslims & Jews & the beef taboo among Hindus, etc. Also other things besides just dietary taboos as well.QuoteI also believe that religion was used to keep the ignorant from hurting themselves. Take kosher rules - keep your plates clean, don't mix certain foods, keep your plates clean, don't eat certain foods (typically foods that spoil fast). It was probably easier to explain to people that God would be mad rather than explain sanitary conditions and disease risks. In that aspect, religion served a very popular purpose in ancient society. It still could today if taken for its positive aspects.
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
billvon 3,111
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>but what Christians will/have/do scream bloody murder about is
> recognizing that it is no way the only, authoritiative 'reflection' and
> that EVERY religion has the same sort of text that reveal just
>as much about humanity and its interaction with the divine...
I'm a christian, and I don't scream bloody murder about such things. The fact that other peoples/cultures/religions have quite valid things to say about spirituality does not detract from the bible. This isn't a contest.
> recognizing that it is no way the only, authoritiative 'reflection' and
> that EVERY religion has the same sort of text that reveal just
>as much about humanity and its interaction with the divine...
I'm a christian, and I don't scream bloody murder about such things. The fact that other peoples/cultures/religions have quite valid things to say about spirituality does not detract from the bible. This isn't a contest.
billvon 3,111
>While the theory might support the observations, there are no
> observations, measurements, or expirmental results to support
>the theory.
One could pray and receive enlightenment as to the actual observations. You could have ten people pray, and have nine receive the same enlightenment, thus proving experimentally that your theory is correct. In theology, such proof is perfectly acceptable. (Remember, we eliminated the "natural" or reality-based part of the science definition.)
> observations, measurements, or expirmental results to support
>the theory.
One could pray and receive enlightenment as to the actual observations. You could have ten people pray, and have nine receive the same enlightenment, thus proving experimentally that your theory is correct. In theology, such proof is perfectly acceptable. (Remember, we eliminated the "natural" or reality-based part of the science definition.)
Zenister 0
Quotewrong. I'm saying there is more to the universe than physical reality. Quite a few agnostics, and others who do not believe in a personal God, do suspect that there is "Something Else", ie, some type of spirituality to the universe. That there is something more to existence than just atoms bumping into each other. It may just be a spiritual force, chi, some force attributed to the spirit of nature, or whatever. And that this force or energy is non-physical (ie, not gravity, electro-magnetic, whatever, but spiritual in nature)Quoteof course by placing everything 'outside' the physical universe you are simply buying the 'cop out' i.e. "my definition doesnt work in reality, so it must take place outside of reality..."
but that IS the point of science.. medieval philosophers and pre-scientists could not measure or observe activity at the atomic level.. they defined realty by what the could observe... when in fact there was (and is still) more to be discovered.. Science will one day be able to accurately observe and describe a great deal of what is now termed 'super-natural' phenomenon.. we may very well have to come up with new scientific terms to 'define' what religion pretends is its own exclusive purview aka "spirituality"
the primary difference between science and religion is that one is flexible enough to account for new observations and understanding about reality and so adapts to describe it, while the other stubbornly holds on to it’s asserted 'Truth' no matter how ridiculous it becomes in the face of progress...
and for the record, i do believe in God.. always have, i simply doubt the assertions of primitive cultures and their attempts to put God into their little box....
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Zenister 0
Quote>but what Christians will/have/do scream bloody murder about is
> recognizing that it is no way the only, authoritiative 'reflection' and
> that EVERY religion has the same sort of text that reveal just
>as much about humanity and its interaction with the divine...
I'm a christian, and I don't scream bloody murder about such things. The fact that other peoples/cultures/religions have quite valid things to say about spirituality does not detract from the bible. This isn't a contest.
it is for some christians, and it certainly is for those who claim the Bible to be "the One True Way" and invalidate all others because of it... you might not be part of that group, but some christians will argue that means you really are not a christian at all......
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
billvon 3,111
>you might not be part of that group, but some christians will
>argue that means you really are not a christian at all......
And I should care about that . . . why?
There are a great number of creationists out there. They range from strict interpretations of the bible to:
1. Young earth creationists - the earth is around 6000 years old, and the apparent age of the earth and universe is because we either don't understand geology and physics, or because God is trying to trick us.
2. Old earth creationists - the earth is very old. The apparent contradiction between the bible and the apparent age of the earth is due to:
- The "day-age" interpetation in which every day in Genesis is an age lasting millions or billions of years.
- The "gap" interpretation. In this interpretation, God creates the world in Genesis 1:1, then destroys it (perhaps in retaliation against Lucifer's fall) then recreates it in Genesis 1:2. Since the earth might have been around for billions of years before God destroyed it the first time, all those fossils and whatnot are real; they were restored when God recreated the world.
- The "visionary day" interpretation. Genesis does not refer to the six days of creation but rather the six days in which God revealed the creation of the world to Moses.
- The "days of proclamation" interpretation. The six days were individual days, but might have been separated by billions of years. Those six days were just the days that God decided to announce the latest bit of creation.
3. Progressive creationism. Some science is correct, but God interfered at specific points in our development, usually in places we don't yet have complete understanding of what happened. Things may have evolved in some limited fashion, but God made man and the original life.
4. Theistic evolution (which contains ID, or intelligent design.) Science is 99.9% correct, and only specific things (like nucleotide arrangement prior to the Cambrian Explosion) is God's doing.
Given that these factions are always at each other's throats, it bothers me not at all that they disagree with me. They can't even agree with each other.
>argue that means you really are not a christian at all......
And I should care about that . . . why?
There are a great number of creationists out there. They range from strict interpretations of the bible to:
1. Young earth creationists - the earth is around 6000 years old, and the apparent age of the earth and universe is because we either don't understand geology and physics, or because God is trying to trick us.
2. Old earth creationists - the earth is very old. The apparent contradiction between the bible and the apparent age of the earth is due to:
- The "day-age" interpetation in which every day in Genesis is an age lasting millions or billions of years.
- The "gap" interpretation. In this interpretation, God creates the world in Genesis 1:1, then destroys it (perhaps in retaliation against Lucifer's fall) then recreates it in Genesis 1:2. Since the earth might have been around for billions of years before God destroyed it the first time, all those fossils and whatnot are real; they were restored when God recreated the world.
- The "visionary day" interpretation. Genesis does not refer to the six days of creation but rather the six days in which God revealed the creation of the world to Moses.
- The "days of proclamation" interpretation. The six days were individual days, but might have been separated by billions of years. Those six days were just the days that God decided to announce the latest bit of creation.
3. Progressive creationism. Some science is correct, but God interfered at specific points in our development, usually in places we don't yet have complete understanding of what happened. Things may have evolved in some limited fashion, but God made man and the original life.
4. Theistic evolution (which contains ID, or intelligent design.) Science is 99.9% correct, and only specific things (like nucleotide arrangement prior to the Cambrian Explosion) is God's doing.
Given that these factions are always at each other's throats, it bothers me not at all that they disagree with me. They can't even agree with each other.
Hi Bill,
Interesting use of the word faction (did you mean to use that in the modern sence - mix of fact and fiction? )
..
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
Interesting use of the word faction (did you mean to use that in the modern sence - mix of fact and fiction? )
..
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
Getting back to the subject at hand, I disagree with using the Bible as if it were a science text book.
--------------------------------------------------
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites