Predict the 1st Banning for uncivil behavior in the new Religious Threads...

[D-Ric902]

I kinda took a swipe at the turtle thing with my divine meercat versus mongoose example. I could call devout Catholics "Mary worshippers" if it would make everyone feel better.

I was right about being uneducated in religion as you seem educated in physics
"Mary Worshiper" is as simplistic to the Catholic Church as "twinkle twinkle little star" is to physics.

 

[ATM]

Philosophy is not religion, though religion may frequently rely on philosophy. It's like saying mechanics is just about changing spark plugs and has nothing to do with the massive suspension bridge the car drives over.

You inquired of theoretical theology. There are truths which may be discovered and deduced by reason which do not rely upon revelation and are beyond the limited scope of experimentation.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I want to see a thread debating the Greek gods. I'm sure someone here thinks Zeus was a busta.

Or I could go on at length about the Lovecraftian/Eldritch Old Gods and Great Ones.

 

[jamil]

This is a religious discussion thread right?

has anybody bashed Shinto lately?

how about the Turtle holding the world up?

how do you feel about reincarnation?

any angel worshipers here?

This thread seems like what I imagine the end of Prohibition would have been like. I imagine the first day post Prohibition, people who cleverly skirted the law to do what they longed to do freely, indulged to the fullest extent when Prohibition ended. Whether you believe in evolution or ID, humans generally seem psychologically encoded to fight with people who dare believe something different.

This "discussion" has essentially turned into an indulgence of the human need to stamp out belief, even non-belief.

No, I 100% agree.

Man has created tens of thousands of problematic gods over the course of human history. Millions of us have died due to belief in these idols. We have managed to shed moloch, thule, thor and zeus...

If we could get rid of allah, jesus, yaweh, the dollar, and celebrity...the human race might just have a chance.

Humans "believe" because they just do. If they didn't have gods or money or fame to believe in it would be something else. People mention all the evil done in the name of religion and when you study what actually happened, it distils into two things: exploiting the human trait of belief for personal gain, or not tolerating diverse beliefs.

The underlying belief doesn't matter. What matters is that people want to control belief, even to the point of exterminating non-believers. We don't need to get rid of allah, jesus, waweh, the dollar, or celebrity for a chance to save mankind. What would give humanity a chance is if we could get beyond the sentiment of forcing our beliefs upon others.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'll wade in.

Religion as literal truth is a recent phenomena, and parallels the rise of science when man started to see the value of proofs. Man wrongly assumed that everything could be proven or dis-proven, and as we are now realizing that simply isn't true. There will always be mystery, there will always be things that cannot be known. When you start to view religion as literal, its easy to disprove unless you want to simply ignore facts. The Bible, for example, contradicts itself in many places. Not simply in terms of "well, you could translate it this way or that way" but in pure mutually exclusive facts such as how many soldiers were in a particular battle, how many horse stalls a particular person had, simple numbers. Arguing over these things misses the point of religion. The allegorical reading, the lessons, the practice. Who CARES how many horse stalls a dead man had, how does your belief make you a better person?

Religion vs science is as silly as fire vs protein. It is not one or the other, and using one to answer the questions the other is suited to is doing a disservice to both. We are all communicating via the efforts of science. None of faithed a computer into being. Many of us are alive thanks to science. We did not faith a new organ. We did not faith an antibiotic. I did not faith my eyesight better. Science and its application through technology did. Similarly, science may teach me how my brain is wired and what I want to do, but it doesn't teach me how I should act and interact with my fellow man. Science offers little comfort, little connection with my fellow man. Knowing that I am linked to my fellow man via God does, even if I do not believe God is what you believe God is. When I cook, combining my fire and my protein, my life as a whole improves. Eliminating one entirely, well, the opposite is true.

I grew up in a secular household and while we attended church it was just that, attending. The literal approach turned me off as I could easily, even as a child, poke holes in it and once you disproved one portion the whole thing just fell down around your ears unless you "faith" past it. I did not, and do not, have that type of faith. It was not until I was introduced to a less literal sense, when I learned the power of allegory and ritual, that I found the value of religion. I will freely admit I'm still not good at it. I fail with amazing regularity. However, I also judge less harshly. I have more empathy for the less fortunate. The simple act of fasting for Ramadan was a hugely powerful moment in my life and in understanding the desperation of thirst and the blessing of being able to relieve it whenever I chose under normal circumstances thanks to my economic standing. My drive for self improvement and the struggle against my own weaknesses has been strengthened. Can you do these things without a religion? To some degree, of course you can. Many do quite well with a philosophy in place of their religion. What philosophy lacks is the ritual, though, and ritual is more powerful to humans than many of us really grasp.

I would urge you to read "The Case for God" by Karen Armstrong.

 

[eric001]

I hold that science, mathematics and religion all trace back to the same core: philosophy.

In their evolved forms today, it is the realm of religion to answer "why" with science providing the "how" and "what" while relying on mathematics to provide the proof to those "how" answers.

All three still share at least some of the same original intent, which is to give us explanations of the world around us and to try to provide some reasonable framework into which we can fit our understanding of reality.

Being a former science teacher in a Catholic high school, I can remember many times in which the "conflict" between science and religion was brought up as a serious question. This is how I handled this apparent contradiction between the two. Keep in mind that such discussions were certainly not verboten in this setting. To make sure I wasn't misrepresenting anything, I ran the following by the resident clergy for approval (which always seemed to make them happy with my approach and overall message):

The Bible clearly states THAT God created the universe and everything within it. [This always gained universal acceptance from the students.]
I challenge each of you to find any reference as to HOW He did so. [Those that wanted to argue at this point had ready access to the Good Book in question and were asked to start searching within it.]
The goal of science is to seek to understand the workings of this universe. [Also pretty well accepted by the students as reasonable, if not downright obvious.]
Understanding His works cannot help but give us a better understanding of our Creator. [Usually only argued by those who professed no belief--yes, some atheists actually go to religious schools.]
Therefore, science not only cannot contradict the Bible's teachings, but can only bring us closer to God. [This statement almost always earned grudging acceptance at worst, and actual support as a norm.]

Usually, this pretty much took care of the objections to studying "science stuff" in a religious school. It is such a pity that this kind of discussion is so perilous in the public schools setting.

 

[jamil]

I'll wade in.

Religion as literal truth is a recent phenomena, and parallels the rise of science when man started to see the value of proofs. Man wrongly assumed that everything could be proven or dis-proven, and as we are now realizing that simply isn't true. There will always be mystery, there will always be things that cannot be known. When you start to view religion as literal, its easy to disprove unless you want to simply ignore facts. The Bible, for example, contradicts itself in many places. Not simply in terms of "well, you could translate it this way or that way" but in pure mutually exclusive facts such as how many soldiers were in a particular battle, how many horse stalls a particular person had, simple numbers. Arguing over these things misses the point of religion. The allegorical reading, the lessons, the practice. Who CARES how many horse stalls a dead man had, how does your belief make you a better person?

Religion vs science is as silly as fire vs protein. It is not one or the other, and using one to answer the questions the other is suited to is doing a disservice to both. We are all communicating via the efforts of science. None of faithed a computer into being. Many of us are alive thanks to science. We did not faith a new organ. We did not faith an antibiotic. I did not faith my eyesight better. Science and its application through technology did. Similarly, science may teach me how my brain is wired and what I want to do, but it doesn't teach me how I should act and interact with my fellow man. Science offers little comfort, little connection with my fellow man. Knowing that I am linked to my fellow man via God does, even if I do not believe God is what you believe God is. When I cook, combining my fire and my protein, my life as a whole improves. Eliminating one entirely, well, the opposite is true.

I grew up in a secular household and while we attended church it was just that, attending. The literal approach turned me off as I could easily, even as a child, poke holes in it and once you disproved one portion the whole thing just fell down around your ears unless you "faith" past it. I did not, and do not, have that type of faith. It was not until I was introduced to a less literal sense, when I learned the power of allegory and ritual, that I found the value of religion. I will freely admit I'm still not good at it. I fail with amazing regularity. However, I also judge less harshly. I have more empathy for the less fortunate. The simple act of fasting for Ramadan was a hugely powerful moment in my life and in understanding the desperation of thirst and the blessing of being able to relieve it whenever I chose under normal circumstances thanks to my economic standing. My drive for self improvement and the struggle against my own weaknesses has been strengthened. Can you do these things without a religion? To some degree, of course you can. Many do quite well with a philosophy in place of their religion. What philosophy lacks is the ritual, though, and ritual is more powerful to humans than many of us really grasp.

I would urge you to read "The Case for God" by Karen Armstrong.

Couldn't rep you. Virtual rep will have to do.

 

[ATM]

...When you start to view religion as literal, its easy to disprove unless you want to simply ignore facts. The Bible, for example, contradicts itself in many places. Not simply in terms of "well, you could translate it this way or that way" but in pure mutually exclusive facts such as how many soldiers were in a particular battle, how many horse stalls a particular person had, simple numbers...

Sounds like you have placed considerable faith in the unanswerability of certain claimed contradictions.

I've yet to see any such claims of "mutually exclusive facts" left unanswered or unresolved.

 

[BugI02]

This is a religious discussion thread right?

has anybody bashed Shinto lately?

how about the Turtle holding the world up?

how do you feel about reincarnation?

any angel worshipers here?

I can't say I believe in reincarnation but I greatly admire Buddhism's emphasis on finding your own path. That one should not rely on experts and elders, that they can show you the path but cannot walk it for you. That we should all make our own choices and draw our own conclusions and have as a goal the betterment of ourselves (enlightenment)

 

[CathyInBlue]

I was right about being uneducated in religion as you seem educated in physics
"Mary Worshiper" is as simplistic to the Catholic Church as "twinkle twinkle little star" is to physics.

It was in jest, dear boy. Every religious opinion, belief, or tenet held to be sacred truth by one man is held to be vile, heretical, blesphemy by at least one other.

 

[BugI02]

Couldn't rep you. Virtual rep will have to do.

Got him for you. I feel likewise.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I want to see a thread debating the Greek gods. I'm sure someone here thinks Zeus was a busta.

Or I could go on at length about the Lovecraftian/Eldritch Old Gods and Great Ones.

Zeus was a rapist.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Serial rapist.

Some of them, he did as a swan or a bull, so he's a bestiality freak too.

 

[BugI02]

Zeus was a rapist.

So he could Qback for the steelers now?

 

[mbills2223]

I kinda took a swipe at the turtle thing with my divine meercat versus mongoose example. I could call devout Catholics "Mary worshippers" if it would make everyone feel better.

I sincerely hope you don't believe that to be true.

 

[mrjarrell]

Zeus was a rapist.

And what do you call a hebephile who impregnates an unknowing teenager without her consent?

 

[jmills]

It has kind of already been mentioned. The old testament was written 1000's of years after it happened based on word of mouth generation to generation. Not to mention all the interpretations made over the years. We don't even know if our own memories are true or not.

 

[lovemachine]

I kinda took a swipe at the turtle thing with my divine meercat versus mongoose example. I could call devout Catholics "Mary worshippers" if it would make everyone feel better.

Catholics Mary worshippers? LOL that is so far from the truth.


I've been a Catholic all my life. I can tell you that we do not worship anyone but GOD. We honor Mary. We pray to her as well, but we do not worship her. MANY people don't understand that.

 

[lovemachine]

And as for the bible being incorrect with its history. Sure, that's true. But one does not read the bible for history. You read the bible to lead a better life.

The bible wasn't written to record history. It was written for the sake of our salvation.

 

[churchmouse]

Catholics Mary worshippers? LOL that is so far from the truth.


I've been a Catholic all my life. I can tell you that we do not worship anyone but GOD. We honor Mary. We pray to her as well, but we do not worship her. MANY people don't understand that.

Mary is Revered in the church.