Religion vs. Science?

[Lunalle]

Hi Lunalle

I just wanted to point out that the Bible is not the infallible word of God, the Bible is a collection of books inspired by mans interactions with God. It is inerrant in the sense that it conveys God's message to his people. Jesus is the direct word of God and not the Bible, it is possible for the Bible to contain errors relating to science, errors with copying etc... Because it was written from a human perspective.

Dan

Well thanks Dan. I completely agree. Because it has been shown to contain errors, I don't take it as a credible source of information. I've been accused of "throwing the baby out with the bath water", but if you admit that the Bible is erroneous, then honestly you just have your own beliefs. What information (outside of the admittedly erroneous Bible) do you have about Jesus to justify your claim that he is the word of God?

[Danieltwotwenty]

The Gospels are reliable testimonies that I believe, it's as simple as that.

A good book on the subject is "Cold Case Christianity" by J Warner Wallace.

It goes into great detail as to why the Gospels are reliable and that the chain of custody remains intact.

There is plenty of supporting evidence that exists outside the Bible that verifies that eyewitness testimonies of the Gospel writers, all you have to do is start reading on the subject and the book I suggested is a great place to start.

Dan

[Lunalle]

Ok, thanks Dan. Cherrypicking the bible doesn't work for me, and I'm extremely skeptical about what anyone born in 1962 has to say about events closer to the year 0.

Personally, I don't believe in God, never mind Jesus. I've been focusing my efforts on the question of "Does God exist?" Would you agree that a belief in the existence of God is required for Christianity? Maybe one day my position on the existence of God will change, at which point I'll look closer in to Christianity, but it hasn't happened yet.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Read, don't read, matters little to me.
I'm off to bed now since I'm in Aussie land and it's kinda late.

One thing though that I will leave with is that I believe that Jesus is God because of the things he had to say, everything he said is exactly what I would expect from a loving Father and all powerful creator. It was so counter culture that they killed him, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, love your neighbour in the way you love yourself, turn the other cheek etc....
Everything he had to say rings true in my heart and that is why I believe in him and want to live like him.

Peace out

Dan

[neo-x]

Hello Lunelle

neo-x wrote:
So there is a reasonable margin of interpretation which exists.

It is not reasonable to interpret the infallible word of a being that is all knowing and all powerful.

I think you are making a common error. Interpretation is not a fault, its a tool, a very useful one. There are many interpretations but they are all bound to the text, you can actually see if one interpretation is right or wrong, or relatively more right or wrong, from the text itself.

As for the word of God thingy, its again something you may point out but no one here thinks that God hand written or dictated it in its entirety. That is not what we mean when we say word of God. So no, interpretation can and may exist. What you perhaps lack are hermeneutical skills needed to engage ancient texts. Everyone can read a bible and THINK this is what the text means...but authentic interpretation follows not feelings, it follows strict guidelines. So its not arbitrary, as in completely whatever you make of it. There are always very good indicators to mean what the text is saying. But everyone has an opinion and therefore everyone thinks their interpretation is correct because they can interpret it, but very few actually know what they are interpreting, correctly.

Also remember the bible is written, as a guide, it was not written TO us. Are you with me? To understand it critically you need more than an english bible. I mean you can read it and form your opinion, but that is nothing more than any pulpit preachers opinion or common man who sits in the pews and forms an opinion.

Let me give you an example...

This is from the egyptian book of the dead , how will you go about reading it, what approach and technique will you bring with you?

This is from plate 24 of the translation.

"PLATE XXIV. (2).

Vignette: Ani and his wife adoring three gods, who are seated on a pylon or door-shaped pedestal.

Text [CHAPTER CXXIV.]: (I) THE CHAPTER OF GOING UNTO THE GODLIKE RULERS OF OSIRIS.
Osiris, the scribe Ani, triumphant, saith: "My soul hath builded for me a (2) dwelling-place in Tattu. I have waxed strong in the town Pe. I have ploughed [my] fields in all my forms, and my palm tree standeth therein like unto the god Amsu. I eat not that which I abominate, (3) I eat not that which I loathe; that which I abominate I abominate, and I feed not upon filth. (4) There are food offerings and meat for those who shall not be destroyed thereby. I raise not up myself on my two arms unto any abomination, I walk not thereupon (5) with my shoes, because my bread is [made] from white grain, and my ale from the red (6) barley of the Nile. The sektet boat and the atet boat bring them unto me, and I feed upon them (7) under the trees, whose beautiful branches I myself do know. (8.) How glorious do I make the white crown [when] I lift up the uræi! (9) Hail, guardian of the door, who givest peace unto the two lands, bring thou unto me those who make offerings! Grant that...".

Analyse this paragraph anyway you like and when you do, give me your opinion and technique. Just to be clear, all I am asking is how would you approach this text and with what technique?

[neo-x]

neo-x wrote:
If you compare (nearly) anything today, to 2000+ years ago, its better today. The problem is when people today believe that the "truths" of 2000+ years ago, is better than the "truths" of today.
Sadly you are talking about dogma, but the tenets of christian faith have no need for updation...

No, I'm not. I'm talking about this attitude of holding anything above "updation". You're doing exactly what I pointed out is a serious stumbling block to progress.

Lunelle I just told you that somethings can be updated some not...which progress has stopped because of love your enemies as yourself?

[neo-x]

neo-x wrote:
There is nothing in faith which is not truthful today but was 2000 years ago. Science facts are not faith and just because past churches had positions on such things means its our faith, its not.

I assume you mean religious faith? You're right. It is bad now, and it was bad then. Science "facts" destroy faith, because they provide "facts".

Sorry if that is kind of harsh. It feels like I'm re-explaining things over and over again, because people don't understand what I'm trying to say.

I see what you mean. Our objections are not towards your intention for progress, it is against the stereotype you are implying.

which fact has destroyed faith? Give me one fact which has destroyed faith?
Seriously if you can name me one, I will have reason to see where my faith is wrong.

Let me put it this way, if I see something inhumane, I will object to it the same way you would do...and I see the bad done in the name of God and I am very sad but just to be clear God didn't invent guns, nor the atomic bomb, and when I see those being used I am equally sad. So I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Some forms of religious faith will always be wrong and they should be stopped if they engage in something inhumane like westbro baptists, other than that, faith is a wonderful thing in Christ it should be cherished.

[Lunalle]

Hey Neo, I think we're arguing the same point about the Bible.

Also remember the bible is written, as a guide, it was not written TO us. Are you with me? To understand it critically you need more than an english bible. I mean you can read it and form your opinion, but that is nothing more than any pulpit preachers opinion or common man who sits in the pews and forms an opinion.

I agree 100%, I'd even go further and say that any reading of a (practically) dead language is nothing more than opinion.

You asked about my approach and techniques about reading a translation of a plate from the Egyptian book of the dead. That's a fair question, which I'm happy to answer.

1) I understand that this is a translation, and most likely information has been lost in translation.
2) I expect this to be a (consensual) opinion of the best possible translation.
3) I treat it as a piece of history, a revelation of the workings of an old society.
4) I don't base my worldview on this information.

Hopefully that is a sufficient explanation.

I think Dan hammers home my point, and I appreciate his honesty.

I believe that Jesus is God because of the things he had to say, everything he said is exactly what I would expect from a loving Father and all powerful creator. It was so counter culture that they killed him, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, love your neighbour in the way you love yourself, turn the other cheek etc....
Everything he had to say rings true in my heart and that is why I believe in him and want to live like him.

I guess my expectations of God are higher than yours. What Jesus said (according to most English translations of the Bible) is not what I'd expect a God to say. If you look at what the apostles say, it is very different from what I'd expect an apostle of God (with personal interaction) would say. It is what I expect radically progressive people, living in that time and society to say.

... which progress has stopped because of love your enemies as yourself?

Before I can fairly answer that question, we have to come to an agreement on what progress is, what love is, what enemies are, and what my love for myself is. I'll try to give an example though. If you love an abusive controlling spouse, your life will not make much progress, because the abusive controlling spouse will hinder your progress. Does that make sense?

[PaulSacramento]

The only conflict between religion and science is when religion comments on scientifically proven facts.
Typically it is NOT religion that does that but followers using their own understanding of what THEY think religious texts mean.
Religion is simply a set of human doctrines and views about, typically, the supernatural/God/ deities.

Christianity and religion have always gonna hand-in-hand with each other, even if, AT TIMES, they have been strange "bedfellows".

There is am impressive list of past and present Christian scientists.

The only time Christianity and science "conflict" is when a believer or non-believer decide the THEIR view of either subjects is in conflict with the other.

[neo-x]

Hey Neo, I think we're arguing the same point about the Bible.

Also remember the bible is written, as a guide, it was not written TO us. Are you with me? To understand it critically you need more than an english bible. I mean you can read it and form your opinion, but that is nothing more than any pulpit preachers opinion or common man who sits in the pews and forms an opinion.

I agree 100%, I'd even go further and say that any reading of a (practically) dead language is nothing more than opinion.

You asked about my approach and techniques about reading a translation of a plate from the Egyptian book of the dead. That's a fair question, which I'm happy to answer.

1) I understand that this is a translation, and most likely information has been lost in translation.
2) I expect this to be a (consensual) opinion of the best possible translation.
3) I treat it as a piece of history, a revelation of the workings of an old society.
4) I don't base my worldview on this information.

Hopefully that is a sufficient explanation.

It will do for a start if you were to CRITICALLY judge the text you would find that you need to understand the original language and grammar, plus sayings, idioms, you would have to take somethings with a grain of salt. Most of all you would need to see what is the point of the story. And the emphasis point of the genesis story is not 6 days, its the order, in pairs of verses, which God brought to the chaos. If you read the original hebrew it would not mean "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" it would be like "in the beginning God made the tent covering and the land"...but thats not the emphasis, you have to ask why write this story? what purpose does it fulfil? What theological base blocks does it provide? Why not write it someway else? Why death and evil and is represented by a snake while man is depicted as head of the family and the women is the one who disobeyed? Everything falls perfectly into place this way.

For someone like me who reads this, I see it as a rich texture in history of religion. My faith is not on the story, the story give my faith background. Does that make sense?

I agree 100%, I'd even go further and say that any reading of a (practically) dead language is nothing more than opinion.

Not in all cases, you need to see academics in the field and ask their opinion on this.

I'll respond later to the rest, need to rush.

[Lunalle]

... For someone like me who reads this, I see it as a rich texture in history of religion.

Me too! That's what I was saying in point 3.

My problem is here.

My faith...

Cheers!

[PaulSacramento]

Faith is a personal thing, we all have faith in something.
I have faith that science will eventually answer all of life's questions, though the answer may not be what many think they will be.
I have faith in God through Christ.
Both faiths are based on personal experience that leads me to have faith in both.

[Lunalle]

Paul, this is a clear fallacy of equivocation. The word "faith" was being used with the second definition in the oxford dictionary, and then you came along and switched to the first definition. Yet another example of the dishonesty of apologists.

We don't all have faith (second definition). I used to have a lot of faith (second def.) and when I increased my critical thinking skills, and knowledge, they killed off my faith (second def) completely. Of course everyone (myself included) has at least a very small amount of faith (first def.)

Let me tell you a story to illustrate. Well, no need, we all know the story. Its the one about the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:16-17). There's a lot of discussion over this, and disagreement of what it means metaphorically. To me, it is very clear. If you have enough knowledge, you have no need for faith (second def), and you're better off that way.

Ref: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... th?q=faith

[Danieltwotwenty]

I guess my expectations of God are higher than yours. What Jesus said (according to most English translations of the Bible) is not what I'd expect a God to say.

I am interested to hear what you think God should have said, so I have started a new topic if your interested. http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 33&t=38720

[FlawedIntellect]

Paul, this is a clear fallacy of equivocation. The word "faith" was being used with the second definition in the oxford dictionary, and then you came along and switched to the first definition. Yet another example of the dishonesty of apologists.

We don't all have faith (second definition). I used to have a lot of faith (second def.) and when I increased my critical thinking skills, and knowledge, they killed off my faith (second def) completely. Of course everyone (myself included) has at least a very small amount of faith (first def.)

Let me tell you a story to illustrate. Well, no need, we all know the story. Its the one about the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:16-17). There's a lot of discussion over this, and disagreement of what it means metaphorically. To me, it is very clear. If you have enough knowledge, you have no need for faith (second def), and you're better off that way.

Ref: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... th?q=faith

You're joking, right?

The second definition is just the first definition reworded and applied more specifically to religion.
Definition two invokes definition one.

Heck, look at the second "count noun" under definition two. Doesn't it just restate definition one?