Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Fifthfiend]

Pejorative?

...

I suck.

[Mesden]

Because it's amusing and very relevant!

[Sesshoumaru]

Nique has the right of it there. I think everyone already knows where I stand on the religious aspect, and I have to say, not all of the Bible is supposed to be taken as literal fact. There are many Christians (like myself) that think of the creation story in Genesis as a parable, which I must say is probably how its meant to be, what with there being two creation stories in Genesis.

[ZAKtheGeek]

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

[Roy_D_Mylote]

Originally Posted by Archbio

It's an apt analogy. The mechanisms are equally known and demonstrated.

I do not mean to sound mean: Are you serious? Are you saying my analogy is good?

[Archbio]

I do not mean to sound mean: Are you serious? Are you saying my analogy is good?

To a certain extent?

[...]Not all of the Bible is supposed to be taken as literal fact.

Then I think it's safer to say that you're not a literalist.

[ZAKtheGeek]

To elaborate on my point, I don't think you can treat the bible with much authority if you're only going to accept some of it literally.

"According to the bible, [blah]."
"But what if you're not meant to take [blah] literally?"
"****."

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

To elaborate on my point, I don't think you can treat the bible with much authority if you're only going to accept some of it literally.

"According to the bible, [blah]."
"But what if you're not meant to take [blah] literally?"
"****."

Well it's not like evolutionist scientists are one harmonious camp.
And don't even get me started on the craziness of Darwin though fortunately he only popularised evolution rather than providing solid mechanisms for it.

Sure, you'll say, scientists have objective tests to seperate themselves. But in the case of evolution, we really don't. Well macro-evolution we do but go and try to get someone to demonstrate cell growth from proteins for you and see what they say .

Theologians have their own ways to seperate themselves, based upon metaphysical qualification because they explain metaphysical realms. They don't always agree but neither do scientists, especially in such a speculative, hard to test realm.

[Darth SS]

After reading the early bits of the thread, I think there is nomenclature to be cleared up:

Christian; Believer/follower of Christ.

Catholic: A “how-to” guide for following Christ. A specific sect of christians.


Also, I just don't get creationism that comes from catholics. Gregor Mendel, one of the fathers of modern genetics, was a monk for fuck's sake! I mean, unless monstaries have been overrun and destroyed by satanic scientists, I think it's probably okay to believe in some of this.

Message to religion: Evolution 1. Religion 0. You guys lost that round. You lost it a long time ago.



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.

Newsflash: You don't need to believe you're following the sky-man's wishes to be a good person.

The other problem I have is the us and them mentality. You know the one. This idea that catholics are always embattled in a bitter struggle to defend themselves against the cold heartless hordes of the unbelieving world. Bad news; We're not out to destroy you. I understand this ruins your view of yourselves as gallant defenders, but them's the breaks. Your beliefs are for you, and only for you. Just because they don't work for me doesn't mean I'm out to ruin them for you.

[ZAKtheGeek]

That's really not the same thing. The only supposedly authoritative body of data that scientists making their respective claims will draw their information from would be the set of all observable facts. This indeed is a set of data worth assuming is correct, and nobody can simply say that some parts of it arbitrarily aren't worth reading into as having any actual impact. Meanwhile, a lot of Christians will take passages from the bible and claim that those writings are authoritative and to be adhered to, whilst labeling others as unintended for such usage; and quite arbitrarily, it seems to me. So, if you can cherry-pick which parts of the bible you do or don't want to trust, then you can't claim it as authoritative since anybody else can justly call the parts you trust untrustworthy (or call the whole thing untrustworthy, really); but with scientific models, the explanations of the information will differ, but all of it will always be considered.

To try and actually simplify: a scientist isn't going to say, "These observations don't really count."