[Spiked Blood]

Originally Posted by Southtown

My understanding of scripture is constantly changing, and has also been stood on its head this year.

Do you find it odd that 'Gods word' would be so fuzzy that you do not immediately understand it, or that other people understand it differently?

Is it your understanding that is increasing or are you placing meaning in text that was not there by design?

Anyway, both questions are beside the point. There is wisdom to be taken from the bible, having studied it I would not deny that, but that's all there is. Today's society is quite different from bible times. See, it doesn't bother Christians that the old and new testament are so vastly different, that they teach different laws. Folly of them to realise that the teachings in the bible evolve as society evolves. As we became more aware and tolerant so did the teachings in the bible. That is not Gods doing, that is (sometimes)wise men changing with society, adapting. Their understanding of life growing. I kinda think God knows what life is about, why would his laws change with society?

Originally Posted by Southtown

You are right. But his actions could affect you negatively, or even his attitude could affect your mental upbringing (as is often the case), assuming you refer to the tenth commandment. (Exodus 20:5)

Soothe your soul

Originally Posted by Southtown

Ahem... (Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8; the book of Ruth)

I could quote scriptures from the bible that indicate Jesus was one angry young man that hated all around him. That, would be removing it from its context. Two scriptures do not nullify the *obvious* fact that chapters of the bible are written by men with a vested interest in a specific group of people.

See, my bible would state that the Scottish are Gods chosen people.

Originally Posted by Southtown

Good one. And I am reassured that people can 'judge for themselves' as it says. If you refer to Old Testament punishment, my rationale is that Israel had to be preserved as a society so that Messiah could come and pay for the world's sin.

I can only reply with hope that one day you will regard this comment of yours and your eyes might be opened.

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

2) The second argument, which I think must follow the first, is whether or not two people can agree on a religious text and its teachings. This is, I believe, a scientific process. If two people can't agree, then either one is right and the other wrong, or the text itself is not very useful as a text. Of course, I have already acknowledged (and science must acknowledge) that new understanding of events and data occurs all the time. So two people may not be able to agree on every fine point, but there must be some agreement on the coarse points.

Agreed, skippy.

Cwes, is Jesus christ your personal saviour? Cuz we personally kicked his ass the last time he tried to preach to us.

Satan is my bitch.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

2) The second argument, which I think must follow the first, is whether or not two people can agree on a religious text and its teachings. This is, I believe, a scientific process. If two people can't agree, then either one is right and the other wrong, or the text itself is not very useful as a text.

You failed to address my earlier point on poetry. A book can be meaningful, but open to interpretation (ala, poetry). Most religious books are as much poetry as law. What then? Interpreting poetry is certainly not scientific.
-Will

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Spiked Blood

Do you find it odd that 'Gods word' would be so fuzzy that you do not immediately understand it, or that other people understand it differently?

Kinda like General Relativity?

Originally Posted by Spiked Blood

Is it your understanding that is increasing or are you placing meaning in text that was not there by design?

You tell me.

http://hypography.com/forums/theolog...post44500.html
http://hypography.com/forums/theolog...post98271.html
http://homeofmercy.com/gracediscussi...t=20#entry4269

Originally Posted by Spiked Blood

Anyway, both questions are beside the point. There is wisdom to be taken from the bible, having studied it I would not deny that, but that's all there is. Today's society is quite different from bible times. See, it doesn't bother Christians that the old and new testament are so vastly different, that they teach different laws. Folly of them to realise that the teachings in the bible evolve as society evolves. As we became more aware and tolerant so did the teachings in the bible. That is not Gods doing, that is (sometimes)wise men changing with society, adapting. Their understanding of life growing. I kinda think God knows what life is about, why would his laws change with society?

Unsupported.

Originally Posted by Spiked Blood

I could quote scriptures from the bible that indicate Jesus was one angry young man that hated all around him. That, would be removing it from its context. Two scriptures do not nullify the *obvious* fact that chapters of the bible are written by men with a vested interest in a specific group of people.

Unsupported.

[cwes99_03]

OK, fellas.

Note I said this was the first issue in the series of two. I recognize that you want to bypass this one. Is it because you agree to my terms for differentiating between a philosophy and a religion? I don't think it can be because what Spiked Blood is talking about is a philosophy.

1) Buffy and I and a couple of others are interested first in deciding whether there is a definite difference between religion and philosophy. My stance has been that there is and that it hinges on two things.
First, it needs to refer to a divine (higher) power above and beyond the human intellect. This allows for a great number of religions such as Gaism (sp?) and what not.
Second, it needs to have a text. For a religion to be shared among a people, it needs a definition of rites, doctrines, etc. Without such things, no two people can correctly identify themselves as like observers of a religion. This is to say that a religion can't be a religion if only one person worships in that way, because then it becomes a philsophy of one and only one person.
Philosophy buffs will agree that for a particular philosophy to be shared among many, it needs to be written down. Thus many people can say they share Rousseau's or Spock's philosophy on raising children.
For this very reason philosophy is a fairly scientificly assignable process. There is a text that makes certain claims. These claims can then be tested and verified, or at the very least be proven to only work part of the time or one of many other scenarios. But it can be tested scientifically.

Originally Posted by Spiked Blood

I could quote scriptures from the bible that indicate Jesus was one angry young man that hated all around him. That, would be removing it from its context. Two scriptures do not nullify the *obvious* fact that chapters of the bible are written by men with a vested interest in a specific group of people.

See, my bible would state that the Scottish are Gods chosen people.

I tend not to argue philosophy, especially philosophy that attempts to deal with religious teachings. The only time I argue with philosophy is when it claims to be a religion.

[cwes99_03]

Would anyone like to propose further definition for the difference between religion and philosophy?

If so, post it here. Religion vs. Philosophy thread.

Until then, I propose we work on the definition proposed therein.
1) philosophy is the love of and study of human wisdom. While this thinking may take on a universal position, and be adhered to by many, it makes no claims as to divinity.
2) religion - is the love of and study of "godly" wisdom. This is not relegated only to the Christian god, but to all who believe in a spiritual world. However, when one identifies with a particular religion, then they must demonstrate adherence to those religious beliefs, and not just "pick and choose" those beliefs they like. Such treatment of a religion is in fact a way of converting that religion into a personal philosophy.
In order to know whether something is personal philosophy or religious teaching, a text should be evident. In absence of a text, oral tradition may be accepted, however, oral tradition must not vary from person to person. The accuracy of oral tradition makes it similar to a text in that many people know of the oral tradition (stories) and can all equally come to agreement in the literal word for word passage of that story. Absent that, the tradition is considered largely lost, except for those portions that can be agreed upon by a significantly large group who has good reason to believe that it is not simply based upon an earlier philosophy.

This post will be placed on both threads.

With that being said, a discusion of religoius viewpoints (which will lend themselves to verification from a religious text) and whether they can be scientifically examined can go forward.

Originally Posted by original post by Mercedes Benzene

I would consider myself very religious. I would also consider myself a "scientist". Most of the time, its seems as if scientists disregard religion, and instead adopt a more intellectual approach to life. For me however, I really do not feel as if science and religion cannot coexist.
I've found that pretty much anything that major religions say can be backed by science.
What do you guys think? Can scientific ideas be backed by religious ideologies? ...and vice versa?

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

2) religion - is the love of and study of "godly" wisdom. This is not relegated only to the Christian god, but to all who believe in a spiritual world. However, when one identifies with a particular religion, then they must demonstrate adherence to those religious beliefs, and not just "pick and choose" those beliefs they like. Such treatment of a religion is in fact a way of converting that religion into a personal philosophy.

I disagree with what I bolded. You are asserting, with this, that religion is not personal, but a set of laws laid out in a book. Given that every book is written by a man, for you it seems the only difference between a religion and personal philosophy is that a religion is a personal philosophy that was codified and now has many followers. This I disagree with.

As I have previously mentioned, I also disagree that the study of any good literature is a scientific process.
-Will

[cwes99_03]

Will, I copied your post to the proper thread. Let's discuss it there.