Jump to content

Trying to reconcile my love for science and religion


Recommended Posts

 

"No, what I’m saying is his understanding of religion is flawed; if a chef buggers up a recipe is it the recipes fault?"

If somebody is following that chef's orders, shouldn't we be concerned for them? Does forwarding excuses for their naivety help, or hurt?

 

 

A little out of context but the chefs orders only come into play when he’s not alone ergo an institute.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I wonder if you have really given this much thought.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with believing in God, so long as you don't base your scientific conclusions on that belief. My signature is applicable here: As long as you don't mix the two up,

There's no need to look at alien species to test the universality of specific religions; we have already observed on Earth that religion can't spread without human impetus. There were no Jews in ancie

Posted Images

 

 

A little out of context but the chefs orders only come into play when he’s not alone ergo an institute.

 

It doesn't have to be an institution. Anybody with any degree of fame or prominence can use it to manipulate people. Pastors, politicians, professors, news reporters, authors... Your defense, when without qualification, defends blind obedience to anyone who uses religion deceptively. There's no mention of the pang one ultimately feels after having been used or cheated.

Edited by MonDie
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There are many people whose lives have been profoundly affected by religion becoming better for it like Richard Coles a vicar who’s openly gay and living with his partner, that’s progress at least.

 

So, what's good about religion is when people don't actually follow it.

The Church of England was founded so that Henry the 8th could screw someone else- hardly a great start.

In principle (and, initially,in practice) it was essentially the same as the other branches of Christianity.

As it has departed from its religious roots it has become a better guide to living.

Richard Coles would have been lucky to be merely ostracised by the original Anglican church.

Now the church has had its religion watered down by social pressure and so it is becoming more tolerannt as it becomes less religious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know? If we can't understand the message?

For instance isn't tolerance taught in the bible?

No.

They tell you to kill people who are different- for example those who are gay.

They also tell you that you should use foreigners as slaves- that's not very tolerant.

Have you read much of the Bible?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

They tell you to kill people who are different- for example those who are gay.

They also tell you that you should use foreigners as slaves- that's not very tolerant.

Have you read much of the Bible?

Do you understand God and nature? Is being tolerant godly? I always get the feeling societies are running experiments on themselves and only time will tell if it really works out for the better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

They tell you to kill people who are different- for example those who are gay.

They also tell you that you should use foreigners as slaves- that's not very tolerant.

Have you read much of the Bible?

 

 

Only the new testament and “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” seems to be teaching tolerance. I’ve always thought the old testament was only included to provide an example of how not to do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I’ve always thought the old testament was only included to provide an example of how not to do it.

You may well think that, but it's not what Christ is reported as saying.

 

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

(Matthew 5 17-19)

 

So, Christ is on record as saying that the old testament laws are still right. That's why the early Christian church still followed them. As we have grown more sensible as a society, we have abandoned these grotesque ideas and so we no longer keep slaves of stone children to death.

 

That's not because of religion,it's in spite of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would he need to say “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets” if people didn’t think he was?

 

And given that “I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” could easily mean, he doesn’t want to destroy their lives but show them a way to fulfil them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may well think that, but it's not what Christ is reported as saying.

 

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

(Matthew 5 17-19)

 

So, Christ is on record as saying that the old testament laws are still right. That's why the early Christian church still followed them. As we have grown more sensible as a society, we have abandoned these grotesque ideas and so we no longer keep slaves of stone children to death.

 

That's not because of religion,it's in spite of it.

In other words if anything Jesus says seems to contradict The Law, then you're reading something wrong. Given how ancient both are, this might not be so unreasonable?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven

 

I'm going to heaven! :lol:

Okay, bye.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would he need to say “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets” if people didn’t think he was?

 

And given that “I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” could easily mean, he doesn’t want to destroy their lives but show them a way to fulfil them.

 

 

The rest possibly means that one should follow societies rules such as “thou shall not kill” or “thou shall not steal” and to teach otherwise is immoral.

 

I'm going to heaven! :lol:

Okay, bye.

 

 

Congrats...

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.