Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Ah just like how Einstein said that despite the observed evidence the universe can't be expanding.
Like how those who observed the bending of light were ridiculed.
Like how Darwin rejected the fixidity of many plants, and a few bird species, as not worth his time.
Like how Kepler ridiculed the observations of Coperniucs.
Such things are especially a problem with modern science we can no longer rely on our own eyes and have to use immense instrumentation. Modern science is all about disputes over what observations are valid and what are not. It happens all the time, well at least in chemistry which I do.

There are so many different scientific papers released, often contradictory, one has to decide which ones are the most important and why, much like theologians decide which bits of the bible are the most important and why.

And the theologians don't just say "These bits are merely parable becuase I say so". It involves complex literary analysis, finding streams of similarly written texts, finding bits in common and bits that don't fit. There is structure there.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Well, that structure is what I was asking for in the first place. Thanks. However, I think what I wrote still applies to a "DIY" partial literalist, who most likely does not go through such tasks and merely picks and chooses much more casually...

[Archbio]

I'm sorry but there's really no equivalence there.

Theology isn't science with a different field of study. It's, as you hint, more akin to a literary discipline.

A list of controversy, disagreements and mistaken opinions in science is more damning to theology than to science, since a similar list of theological disagreement would show that the resolution of disagreements in theology are often reversible, since the most decisive resolutions will depend on the vaguaries of culture, popularity or political power.

Many theological notions that have been shed can be taken up again with no fear of contradiction. Contradiction from theology that is. Advanced knowledge of the world (and of History) has had a big impact on tilting the balance in favor of non-literalism. Otherwise, I can think of several biblical myths that could still be interpreted as being meant as literal, and that have been in the past for a long while.

The same can't be said with the major part of what science has left behind.

Theology is, in bloc, not even wrong, where material claims are concerned, while in science proper it's an exception.

[Nique]

Well, how do you know which parts are and which parts aren't?

Context. Or sometime's it's just obvious.

Jesus sits down and tells you a story about a lousy kid who spent all his dad's money on prostitutes. Did this actually happen? Maybe, but the whole point revloves around it just being an example, and laregly figurative at that.

Genesis talks about 6 'creative days'. Are these literal days? Or is the word used, as it can be, to mean 'a period of time' (e.g. "in my father's day, pong was popular"). Given what is being claimedto have happened here, it's pretty reasonable to assume that God took his sweet time forming the earth.

Or what about it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to be cool with God? Hyperbole.


There are clear cases where the Bible isn't being literal. So when I say "literal" doesn't always mean literal" I mean that I think it's pretty obvious that the Bible isn't always trying to be literal, and when it is it's even clearer.

[Toast]

Personally, I don't see a compelling need to teach either theory in school. Of greater importance, I think, is getting these kids to read and write at a greater than fourth grade level. Or even more importantly, teaching them how to think and how to find out for themselves.

Because until the student is at that point, you might as well just teach them useless filler information with the only goal of making them a good worker drone for society. Oh wait...

To be a little more serious, the purpose of education is to expand the knowledge base, so there's no justifiable reason to exclude theories such as these. I mean, how hard is it to spend a class period on each?

[42PETUNIAS]

Originally Posted by Toast

To be a little more serious, the purpose of education is to expand the knowledge base, so there's no justifiable reason to exclude theories such as these. I mean, how hard is it to spend a class period on each?

That would be fine, except church and state are supposed to be, y'know, seperate and all. Most schools will teach about creation stories of the main religions in a world history class, which is where it should stay, when saying what several religions think, not preaching what one religion believes happened to everyone.

[Lord of Joshelplex]

I personally believe religion should stay in churches. Too often, I see it used as an excuse by the government, (Harper wanting to try and get rid of gay marriage for not being of wholesome Christian values) and I think it has no place in the government or schools. I say this because I feel that it is unfair to force these beliefs and policies on people, and in the cases of gevernment and school, there isnt much choice to not listen.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Lord of Joshelplex

I personally believe religion should stay in churches. Too often, I see it used as an excuse by the government, (Harper wanting to try and get rid of gay marriage for not being of wholesome Christian values) and I think it has no place in the government or schools. I say this because I feel that it is unfair to force these beliefs and policies on people, and in the cases of gevernment and school, there isnt much choice to not listen.

Exactly at what point did Harper want to try and get rid of gay marriage? Last I checked, he hasn't even touched on the issue since coming into power. Also, Harper doesn't claim to be religious either, and most of his beliefs have little to nothing to do with religion.

And furthermore, ANYTHING, not just religion, can be used as an excuse by the government to force their own policies. The whole war on Iraq should be proof of that. People attempt to force their beliefs and policies on other people whether religion is in the equation or not, so I don't see how your point is even relevant as you can substitute any ideal in for religion and keep your statement true.

Back on to the current topic, the museum is kind of stupid. I'm a pretty hardcore Christian in most things, but I find Adam and Eve coexisting with the dinosaurs a bit ridiculous from any (including biblical) standpoints. I really don't think this attitude is the rule when it comes to belief in God.

[Archbio]

He hasn't even touched on the issue since coming into power.

False. He hasn't touched on the issue, at best, since December 7, 2006.

[Sesshoumaru]

That would be fine, except church and state are supposed to be, y'know, seperate and all.

That is one of the greatest lies purpetrated by the secular left. The only thing that comes close is their claim that the Second Amendment protects the federal gov'ts right to keep an armed force in your state (the National Guard; paid for with federal money and based on federal land). Read the establishment clause again (or, as it may be, for the first time).

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, [i]or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[i] (emphasis added)"

Tell me, what part of that says that any trace of anything remotely religious must purged from all governmental instituions with blood fire and sword (ok, that last part should probably be replaced with "court edict and sinister lies," but my line sounds cooler)?


*

Now here's the main problem I have with religions, though, admittedly, usually of the christian persuasion. It's the generalization, the labelling, but mostly it's the attitude of "Good wholesome us, sinful sinful you."

I used to be catholic. I found way too many holes in that dogma, and now consider myself angry at a god which I consider far too crass. I go to a Catholic High School, ripe for debate. The thing I get the most often that just PISSES ME OFF is this assumption: You are not catholic, you are not religious. Ergo, you must be a bad person.

Way to completely generalize all Christians (funny, that seems to be what you were arguing against doing). Incidentally, thats one of the main problems I have witht he anti-Christian secularists (ok, I know that they're against all religions, but its not PC to go after the Jews, and they're too afraid to go after the Muslims, so they usually just beat on the Christians 'cause they know they can).