[skeeterboy]

Daniel 1:4, "Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans."

If you have questions regarding Christian faith, morals, and other issues in Christianity, ask them here, and I will give you answers based from the Bible.

This is my principle: As much as I could, I want to answer your questions without exceeding from what is written in the Scriptures.

"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (I Corinthians 4:6 KJV)"

Just be patient in waiting for me to reply.

PS. I would like to talk about Christianity as a science, a "systematic knowledge or practice (Wikipedia)". To avoid possible equivocation, I just want to say that I am not in any way related to the group Church of Christ, Scientist nor with Mary Baker Eddy.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by skeeterboy

If you have questions regarding Christian faith, morals, and other issues in Christianity, ask them here, and I will give you answers based from the Bible.
...
This is my principle: As much as I could, I want to answer your questions without exceeding from what is written in the Scriptures.
...
PS. I would like to talk about Christianity as a science, a "systematic knowledge or practice (Wikipedia)".

You need to make yourself familiar with the purpose of the Theology Forum that is outlined in this thread. This forum is for the discussion of the phenomenology of religion.

Usage of any self-proclaimed "inspired" text to prove the "truth" of a particular set of beliefs is considered "Proselytizing," and folks that do it don't last long around here.

We're not opposed to religion: we're just opposed to people claiming theirs is the only true one.

Thus we have this forum--quite carefully titled "Theology"--to study religious beliefs and organizations.

Calling Christianity a "science" in and of itself is mangling the definition of the word, and as has been discussed in the past here, usually involves trying to say that the contents of the Bible itself are "by definition true." This is something you can "believe in" but its not provable or justifiable.

As a practical matter of course--again, lots of interesting discussion to be found in this forum--even those who try to interpret scriptures strictly can have wildly different views of what they mean, and this quite often degrades into mudslinging because of the lack of clarity and seeming inconsistencies in the texts. And this point is *not* directed at the Bible: most religious texts run into the same problems.

Lots of us are happy to engage in this sort of discussion, but you need to be aware of the limits we impose, and the fact that these limits are designed to keep the discussion at least reasonably "scientific," but more importantly to eliminate truly offensive "my religion is better than your religion" debates.

Enjoy your stay!

My commandment is "try to be nice to everyone,"
Buffy

[Freddy]

Six centuries before Jesus is born the Chaldeans capture Judah and bring some of the intelligent Jews back to Babylon. Somehow from that you get that Christianity is a science! What science were they practicing back then in Judah?
Christianity is a religion and nothing more.

[Hill]

From Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary:

science
1. : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>

3a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws as obtained and tested through scientific method (the scientific method is the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses)

While 2a is one of the definitions of the word science, you will find that the main subject of interest at Hypography is found in definition 3a. There is obviously room to discuss theology, based on faith, but attempting to prove theological concepts by using the scientific method will make for some tough uphill sledding I believe. I'm just sayin....

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Christianity is just one interpretation of the TRUTH. All religions give the same message, but they are only different interpretations. If one tries, they can completely translate each of the religions into each other.

But lets remember what true Christianity is supposed to be about. Love, truth, self sacrifice, and the rejection of materiality. These were the teachings of Jesus. He never once claimed to be the sole representation of God, and he definitely didn't preach that believing that he was God incarnated was the path to the Source.

By the way, I am not a Bush hater, he is only human, but who would Jesus bomb?

[charles brough]

I have noticed that there is a lot of reluctance in social science theory to deal with what function religions serve and therefore why they have always been with us---perhaps more than 150,000 years, every since we developed language and speech.

It is a touchy subject with them and they naturally prefer to avoid it. It is enough to say we are "hard-wired" to "like the spiritual." We are not "hard wired" and just what is "spiritual" supposed to mean?

We developed religion so we could bond ourselves into groups ("societies") that were much larger than the forty-odd sized hunting-gathering groups we evolved to live in. We are, after all, highly evolved social primates and lapes into addictions, despair, corruption, stress and hostility when our bonding beliefs fail to work, when they fail to bond us tightly together so we feel "as one", united and not "lost" and "abandoned."

So, we need a new belief system that does the job better, doesn't fiddle with our minds and choke them up with "spirit" talk, "miracles," and myths

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by charles brough

I have noticed that there is a lot of reluctance in social science theory to deal with what function religions serve and therefore why they have always been with us...

Uh, well I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but most of the anthropologists and even political scientists I know personally argue quite openly that religion was where political functions *came from*....

Originally Posted by charles brough

It is a touchy subject with them and they naturally prefer to avoid it. It is enough to say we are "hard-wired" to "like the spiritual." We are not "hard wired" and just what is "spiritual" supposed to mean?

"Hard wired" is not how these experts that I've talked to discuss it: until just the last hundred years, political and social structures were barely differentiable from the religious ones.

Do you have some examples of this "reluctance?"

It sounds like you agree with my thesis here, the only question is where is the conspiracy against it that you see?

If your question is why is "Theology" separate from "Social Sciences" as a forum *here*, that is solely idiosyncratic to the fact that the discussions in the Theology forum--much to my own dismay--lean toward justifications of particular religious beliefs rather than the specific societal implications of formal human belief systems. You will notice that where discussions of religion here lean more into sociology that we actually categorize them as such and the end up in the Social Science forum (we've got a few active ones there right now!).

In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination,
Buffy

[OldBill]

As Buffy pointed out "try to be nice to everyone." The Golden Rule is all we've ever needed to guide our moral behavior. All attempts to elaborate, guide or define morality beyond that will usually devolve into something as asinine as Leviticus.

[Lancaster]

Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum

Christianity is just one interpretation of the TRUTH. All religions give the same message, but they are only different interpretations. If one tries, they can completely translate each of the religions into each other.

Lumping all religions into one big group with identical goals is far from accurate. I would love to see you "try" to "completely translate" Hinduism into Judaism. Can you justify your statement?

But lets remember what true Christianity is supposed to be about. Love, truth, self sacrifice, and the rejection of materiality. These were the teachings of Jesus. He never once claimed to be the sole representation of God, and he definitely didn't preach that believing that he was God incarnated was the path to the Source.

Are you kidding? That last statement is reputed by one of the most famous bible verses of all time: John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me."

That was Jesus speaking. You must come through him to get to heaven! Seems like he considered himself the "path to the source" after all. Fact checks are so much fun!

[rockytriton]

Originally Posted by Lancaster

That was Jesus speaking. You must come through him to get to heaven! Seems like he considered himself the "path to the source" after all. Fact checks are so much fun!

That's what jesus said or that's what someone copied that someone else wrote down that they heard someone who was with someone who heard jesus say that?