Science Vs Religion

[zar]

I'm just going by what the Christian holy book says. If you don't want to be associated with murders and bigots, find yourself a holy book that doesn't advocate the slaughter of gays and non-monotheists.

That's hardly fair isn't it? Christian evangelical fundamentalists may take the bible extremely literally but lots of people of the Christian faith do not.

How would you take the above verses I quoted? Symbolically? It is stones of love they are to hurl at the person until they die?

Edit: Here they are again in case you missed them:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Lev. 20:13)

"Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die." (Dt. 17:5)

And finally some genocide to top it off:
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (1 Sam. 15:2-3)

[22/7]

I'm just going by what the Christian holy book says. If you don't want to be associated with murders and bigots, find yourself a holy book that doesn't advocate the slaughter of gays and non-monotheists.

That's hardly fair isn't it? Christian evangelical fundamentalists may take the bible extremely literally but lots of people of the Christian faith do not.

How would you take the above verses I quoted? Symbolically? It is stones of love they are to hurl at the person until they die?

You're totally trolling. This has been explained. Your misunderstanding is no longer viable.

Edit: I gotta go do some irl stuff, but I'll *hopefully* be back.

Back to the OP, anyone?

[zar]

It was just said that most Christians don't take it literally. Well, how else do you interpret the above verses I posted?

[22/7]

It was just said that most Christians don't take it literally. Well, how else do you interpret the above verses I posted?

Do you read my posts?

Supersedes! Supersedes! Do you know what that word means? We don't throw out the OT, when the two conflict you take what the NT says over what the OT says.

---
@ zar: What part of NT > OT are you not getting? The OT was full of this kind of thing. I don't believe anyone is saying we should actually stone people. The book itself is very old and while it is kept from translation to translation and year to year, it's not still accepted as believed, but that doesn't mean we remove the text. Much like if you found a problem with Euclid's Elements, you wouldn't change the book itself. You would change the knowledge but not the original text.

---

I don't think you're paying attention to what Phenriz said. He was saying that the fire and brimstone aspect of the OT are superseded by the NT. So instead of "kill the pagans," it was changed to "love they neighbor" by the NT.

Are you done?

[Okita]

I'm just going by what the Christian holy book says. If you don't want to be associated with murders and bigots, find yourself a holy book that doesn't advocate the slaughter of gays and non-monotheists.

That's hardly fair isn't it? Christian evangelical fundamentalists may take the bible extremely literally but lots of people of the Christian faith do not.

How would you take the above verses I quoted? Symbolically? It is stones of love they are to hurl at the person until they die?

Edit: Here they are again in case you missed them:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Lev. 20:13)

"Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die." (Dt. 17:5)

And finally some genocide to top it off:
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (1 Sam. 15:2-3)

Well, unfortunately, I can't tell you how I would interpret it because it's being taken out of context and since I'm not Christian, I don't know enough of the bible to actually put whatever you quote into its correct context. What I do know is that there are Christians who don't claim that homosexuals should be killed (as according to your quotations) so either they have some interpretation that you're missing or they ignore those quotations. I'm pretty sure it's the former.

[zar]

Simply put, it's a bad excuse 24/7. Do you really believe your god acted how he is depicted in the OT, and then just changed in the NT? You think your god really did order genocide, and now it's all good because of the NT? At one point did your god have a problem with gays to the point of ordering them to be killed?

Or is the book false in those parts, in which case not a whole lot is left to the foundation of Christianity.
---

Well, unfortunately, I can't tell you how I would interpret it because it's being taken out of context and since I'm not Christian, I don't know enough of the bible to actually put whatever you quote into its correct context. What I do know is that there are Christians who don't claim that homosexuals should be killed (as according to your quotations) so either they have some interpretation that you're missing or they ignore those quotations. I'm pretty sure it's the former.

By all means, look up the context. It's just more killing. But come on, be honest -- these verses don't really sit well with you, do they? It's vile, disgusting, hate speech.

DOUBLE POSTING IS BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD.

[VannA]

Well, unfortunately, I can't tell you how I would interpret it because it's being taken out of context and since I'm not Christian, I don't know enough of the bible to actually put whatever you quote into its correct context. What I do know is that there are Christians who don't claim that homosexuals should be killed (as according to your quotations) so either they have some interpretation that you're missing or they ignore those quotations. I'm pretty sure it's the former.

By all means, look up the context. It's just more killing. But come on, be honest -- these verses don't really sit well with you, do they? It's vile, disgusting, hate speech.

Congratulations, you are anti-christian.
Oddly enough, so are many Christian's.
You've trawled the bible looking for things to hate, looking for reasons to despise Christianity. They are there in abundance, especially through the OT. So?
Like I've already mentioned, your understanding of 'irrational' is flawed.
As it happens, I find the Abrahamic God to be 'irrational' in the context of a creative entity.. but that is again a seperate issue.

Your own desire to focus solely on the Abhramic religions has shown you don't actually know what you are talking about, outside of the realm of Christian-hate.

Your inability to acknowledge other points has indicated you are nothing more than a troll, and there are *far* more suitable threads for your bullshit than this one, so if you have a soapbox to stand on, go use those, and leave this one the fuck alone.

And yes, the basic premise of the NT is that God decided to wipe the taint of the Original Sin, and the taint of all Sin, from those of his followers that accepted the message of his Son-on-earth. You've no grounds to argue against it.
*You* can indicate you don't beleive it... but it is not *irrational*.

And, while you are at it, kindly follow the code of this set of Forums.
I can see you've not posted anywhere but in this thread, so go post in the Introduction thread.

[TheStranger]

Simply put, it's a bad excuse 24/7. Do you really believe your god acted how he is depicted in the OT, and then just changed in the NT? You think your god really did order genocide, and now it's all good because of the NT? At one point did your god have a problem with gays to the point of ordering them to be killed?

Or is the book false in those parts, in which case not a whole lot is left to the foundation of Christianity.

Or... the Bible was written by many different people, then translated by others... each one of those people lived in a world vastly different from the one we live in. Every passage cannot be taken as literal truth (this holds double for the OT).

[zar]

Congratulations, you are anti-christian.
Oddly enough, so are many Christian's.
You've trawled the bible looking for things to hate, looking for reasons to despise Christianity. They are there in abundance, especially through the OT. So?
Like I've already mentioned, your understanding of 'irrational' is flawed.
As it happens, I find the Abrahamic God to be 'irrational' in the context of a creative entity.. but that is again a seperate issue.

Your own desire to focus solely on the Abhramic religions has shown you don't actually know what you are talking about, outside of the realm of Christian-hate.

Your inability to acknowledge other points has indicated you are nothing more than a troll, and there are *far* more suitable threads for your bullshit than this one, so if you have a soapbox to stand on, go use those, and leave this one the fuck alone.

And yes, the basic premise of the NT is that God decided to wipe the taint of the Original Sin, and the taint of all Sin, from those of his followers that accepted the message of his Son-on-earth. You've no grounds to argue against it.
*You* can indicate you don't beleive it... but it is not *irrational*.

I uhh... read the Bible, yes. I saw parts that are indefensible in this "holy" book. Lots of them. And because I point out that they're there rather than try to sweep them under the rug or use the tired out "out of context" or "mistranslation" excuses, I'm somehow the one at fault here? It's so ironic that when I speak out against the hate in the Bible, people accuse me of promoting hatred.

I addressed Christianity because it's the biggest religion and most people here who follow a religion are Christian. If I were on a forum where the most common religion was Islam, that's what I would address in my comments.

And yes, I have full grounds to argue against your barbaric fairy tale, that says that one innocent man needs to die for the crimes of others to be forgiven. It is irrational to believe that because Adam and Eve were tricked by a talking snake into eating a fruit that an invisible man told them not to eat, an innocent man needs to die or we will burn forever in hell. That's absurd. If you think it's true, present your evidence and logic behind it. Otherwise, it's just an irrational claim.

[VannA]

Congratulations, you are anti-christian.
Oddly enough, so are many Christian's.
You've trawled the bible looking for things to hate, looking for reasons to despise Christianity. They are there in abundance, especially through the OT. So?
Like I've already mentioned, your understanding of 'irrational' is flawed.
As it happens, I find the Abrahamic God to be 'irrational' in the context of a creative entity.. but that is again a seperate issue.

Your own desire to focus solely on the Abhramic religions has shown you don't actually know what you are talking about, outside of the realm of Christian-hate.

Your inability to acknowledge other points has indicated you are nothing more than a troll, and there are *far* more suitable threads for your bullshit than this one, so if you have a soapbox to stand on, go use those, and leave this one the fuck alone.

And yes, the basic premise of the NT is that God decided to wipe the taint of the Original Sin, and the taint of all Sin, from those of his followers that accepted the message of his Son-on-earth. You've no grounds to argue against it.
*You* can indicate you don't beleive it... but it is not *irrational*.

I uhh... read the Bible, yes. I saw parts that are indefensible in this "holy" book. Lots of them. And because I point out that they're there rather than try to sweep them under the rug or use the tired out "out of context" or "mistranslation" excuses, I'm somehow the one at fault here? It's so ironic that when I speak out against the hate in the Bible, people accuse me of promoting hatred.

I addressed Christianity because it's the biggest religion and most people here who follow a religion are Christian. If I were on a forum where the most common religion was Islam, that's what I would address in my comments.

And yes, I have full grounds to argue against your barbaric fairy tale, that says that one innocent man needs to die for the crimes of others to be forgiven. It is irrational to believe that because Adam and Eve were tricked by a talking snake into eating a fruit that an invisible man told them not to eat, an innocent man needs to die or we will burn forever in hell. That's absurd. If you think it's true, present your evidence and logic behind it. Otherwise, it's just an irrational claim.

Are you 12? Versed in any form of actual philosophy? Missed my entire point?

*I* don't think it's true. I think its absurd. I think the hole concept of the Christian God is inconsistent. I think most Christian's do not know the first thing about their own religion.

I can posit a whole swathe of assumptions that would allow me to extrapolate the Adam and Eve tale, and it would be logically consistent from the axioms it is based on. It would *not* be irrational.

Go and pick a Vedic religion to pick on.. but first acknowledge that you are as much a believer and operator on faith as they are.. you just have different Axioms.
What is worse, is you do not even realise it.

[zar]

Go and pick a Vedic religion to pick on.. but first acknowledge that you are as much a believer and operator on faith as they are.. you just have different Axioms.
What is worse, is you do not even realise it.

This is insanity. There could be invisible green aliens on my shoulder while I type this. It does not require any faith to think that's ridiculous. It does require a lot of faith to believe it to be true. Both are not equally probable or reasonable.

[VannA]

Go and pick a Vedic religion to pick on.. but first acknowledge that you are as much a believer and operator on faith as they are.. you just have different Axioms.
What is worse, is you do not even realise it.

Both are not equally probable or reasonable.

Based on what proofs or axioms?

More importantly, you keep picking on the main sections of the major relgions, instead of actually taking this to a) the appropriate thread b) the POINT of this thread.

Religion != Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hindu, Sikhism, Zorastrianism, etc, etc.

They are examples of the concept, and this thread is about the concepts of empiricism vs the concepts of spirituality, and their authority over the world.

People consistenly fail to realise that 1) Spirituality is the precursor to empirical science being is born of curiousity-without-knowledge.
Empirical science is curiousity melded with knowledge.
Spirituality will continue to hold an important place is those areas which hold little knowledge, and emprical science will continue to develop answers to the questions spirituality raises.

They compete, in those areas where the presuppositions of empirical science are discounted by people.

That's *not* objectively irrational.

sigh.

Take it to the proper thread, please.

[zar]

If you really think that there's just as much chance that there are invisible green aliens on my shoulder as them not being there, then I don't think I have anything else to say. I'm done here, and I'm done dealing with this insanity you've adapted so you can be accepting of religion.

[Belial]

zar, pay attention.

Take it to the proper thread, please.

[22/7]

Thanks to VannA for fighting the good fight while I was gone.

So here's a question. The idea of the metaphysical was brought up earlier. And, of course, if there is a "metaphysical realm" that cannot be described by science, then would religion have a legitimate claim to the description of that realm?

[VannA]

Thanks to VannA for fighting the good fight while I was gone.

So here's a question. The idea of the metaphysical was brought up earlier. And, of course, if there is a "metaphysical realm" that cannot be described by science, then would religion have a legitimate claim to the description of that realm?

This is an offshoot of the supernatural thread.

My answer is essentially.. Yes, if there is a metaphysical realm, then spirituality has a claim to describing it.. as does science, because both of them are simply supposition, in that regard.

Any realm that interacts with us in any way can, and eventually will, be described empirically.

Therefore, only things that cannot interact with us cannot be described by 'science'.. which leads us to the realms of supposition, which while not pointless, is also not very vital.

[Tchebu]

Therefore, only things that cannot interact with us cannot be described by 'science'.. which leads us to the realms of supposition, which while not pointless, is also not very vital.

Isn't existence defined by interaction?... what does it mean for something to exist but not interact with us? Without interaction we have no way of detecting it at all and there's ultimately no difference between saying "it exists but doesnt interact with us" and "it doesn't exist".

As for 22/7's question (i'll humor the possibility of such non-interacting existing things), well I guess so... it definitely has a chance to say something, because at that point we're all going to be in the "brainstorming" stage as to how to understand this new "metaphysical" stuff. At that stage, all ideas are equal. The equality only disappears when some ideas start working better than others and whether or not religion will keep its place as a legitimate source of explanations depends on whether its ideas end up better explanations than those of other "competing" sources.

[22/7]

Ok, I was hoping that someone else had something when that whole metaphysical thing came up, and that this thread might be salvaged, but I don't think so. And so,

DEADED!