NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh yeah... Always guaranteed to result in :sniper: and :upyours: before finally coming to :headbang:

However, before we get to the fun part, I wanted to follow up the idea of idealogical compromises with that of religious compromise.

How do your reconcile your beliefs with science, and/or your daily life? Dismiss the parts of your religion that just don't work with modern science? Accept them as valid metaphors for explaining the nature of the universe? Accept them as literal truth?

It is something I was thinking about as I visited my mother the other day we were talking about this point.

Personally I adopt the middle option. I never dismiss the teaching of my religion out of hand as being wrong or inappropriate, however I do not adopt a literalist position on any given text, but regarded it as a metaphorical truth, such as creation myths. I believe that taking religious texts as absolutes, containing absolutely no metaphor is a recipe for disaster, as well as failing to look properly at their historical context, as well as how they came to be with us now in the present day.

Of course, the situation is a little different for modern religions. Either way, use the poll and please elaborate with your thoughts etc... Then we can get to the :sniper: :mp5: :headbang: :upyours: bit ;)

Basically, I believe that if my scripture conflicts with fact, I'm reading the scripture wrong.

S'worked for me so far.

I'm the surrender monkey. I was raised by some hardcore empiricists, and only adopted theism after having a few mystical revelations. Consequently, I was fully indoctrinated into the scientific paradigm before approaching theism or religion. I tend to modify my spiritual beliefs whenever I hit new scientific evidence as it seems the best way to keep my feet on the ground.

I have a very different view of god than most, I believe.

Basically, I believe that if my scripture conflicts with fact, I'm reading the scripture wrong.

S'worked for me so far.

I'll be damned: a religious point of view that makes sense! On NSG! *feels faint*

I am both. A lot of the bible, I believe to be literal and some I believe to be metaphorical or symbolic(ex: a lot of the revelation stuff like a horned beast rising out of the sea and ruling the world...)

I reconcile them...as a Jew, I am pretty much encouraged to find a different interpretation than everybody else.
Like the whole world being created in six days...for all we know, a divinely inspired author could not hope to understand the eons that passed between the different phases, and simply called them days for the sake of simplicity.


stuff like that gets me through alright.

Speaking as someone who has a reasonable scientific background(clowning) and as a christian, I don't have much contradiction between my faith and my science. Then again, I never took the Bible or the church at face value; my beliefs and relationship with Chirst are entirely my own.

stuff like that gets me through alright.
Well, imploring the ob-vious here, but that's kinda the point of religion in the first place, t'ain't it?

my beliefs and relationship with Chirst are entirely my own.NSGr on the street asks ... who got in the first groin kick?

I meld science and religion into a single awesome truth.

I meld science and religion into a single awesome truth.I just realized ... I am the "OW" in "NOW"!
Erm, 42.
No, scratch that .... fnord.
?

well since i believe all religion is inherently bad i don't have that problem what ever cannot be backed up by hard facts or does not fit the available evidence or has something to do with a super natural being must give way to science even if other people want a religion to believe they must first make one that has no super natural being and fits perfectly with the world as we know it and must be able to change as our knowledge changes

I find they don't bother each other. My religion doesn't comment on the usual things that tend to lead to science-religion scuffles, it tends to have a neutral stance on any topic it doesn't directly comment on.

Well, imploring the ob-vious here, but that's kinda the point of religion in the first place, t'ain't it?

I imagine that depends on the religion in question. Some people see their holding their religion as being important for the larger community as well as themselves.

I meld science and religion into a single awesome truth.

L. Ron has returned.

NSGr on the street asks ... who got in the first groin kick?

He did. :p

I think the religous principles are a good guide on how to live your life. The stories behind them however are fictional.

Science is the absolute truth, but it is nice to be considerate of other people. So yeah, morally, I follow the rules of religion. Practically, I believe in science and what I can see and prove.

I think the religous principles are a good guide on how to live your life. The stories behind them however are fictional.

Science is the absolute truth, but it is nice to be considerate of other people. So yeah, morally, I follow the rules of religion. Practically, I believe in science and what I can see and prove.

Well, I agree with you there, Science is the absolute truth.

Otherwise, it would just be a collection of rigorously developed and applied models incorporating ongoing experimentation and subsequent revision to offer not only enhanced predictive value but principals that can be applied broadly in any number of fields.

The place where I disagree with you (and where, naturally, you are wrong), is that religious stories are not fictional, they are fact. Science itself will prove that when, once the deepest mysteries have been pierced, isolated, and codified to the satisfaction of even the most exacting mathematician, they will find that all the remaining combined peer-reviewed scientific literature will simply be...the Bible.

I've never had any trouble with my faith and science. I believe that many of the stories in the Bible should not be taken literally, and where there is a conflict between the Bible and what I would say is 'naturally right', such as slavery or the rights of women, it is important to remember that the authors were human, and place their words in the context of the time they were writing.

I'm a "Faith on everything" kind of person. If it conflicts with PROVEN and KNOWN science, I should probably reread it. I missed something. If it conflicts with COMMON SENSE, I probably misread it.

Example: Spare the rod and spoil the child.

Too many people take that literally. I believe it means; if you don't punish your kid in some way, he isn't going to turn out well.

The place where I disagree with you (and where, naturally, you are wrong), is that religious stories are not fictional, they are fact. Science itself will prove that when, once the deepest mysteries have been pierced, isolated, and codified to the satisfaction of even the most exacting mathematician, they will find that all the remaining combined peer-reviewed scientific literature will simply be...the Bible.

OK, confused here. When you mention religious stories being fact, are you talking about all religious texts, or only the Bible? I'm guessing Bible (having read your other posts elsewhere on NSG), but what you write here isn't clear.

Example: Spare the rod and spoil the child.

Too many people take that literally. I believe it means; if you don't punish your kid in some way, he isn't going to turn out well.

Not familiar with the Bible, but have looked up this phrase and it's context, and am forced to agree with you. Secondly, there are directly equivalent teachings in other religions and cultures, and thirdly, it's just plain obvious, truth be told ;)

I think the religous principles are a good guide on how to live your life. The stories behind them however are fictional.

Science is the absolute truth, but it is nice to be considerate of other people. So yeah, morally, I follow the rules of religion. Practically, I believe in science and what I can see and prove.

ok , one question on the first part of your post, have you ever read the old testament? It encourages rape, slavery, religious persecution, general oppression of women, and probably some other stuff as well. And as for the New Testament, AFAIK, it basically says do what ever, just have faith in Jesus and you'll get into heaven.

Also, to get back on track, I'm a hardcore atheist, and I don't believe in anything. I know certin things, but only which can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm a "Faith on everything" kind of person. If it conflicts with PROVEN and KNOWN science, I should probably reread it. I missed something. If it conflicts with COMMON SENSE, I probably misread it.

Example: Spare the rod and spoil the child.

Too many people take that literally. I believe it means; if you don't punish your kid in some way, he isn't going to turn out well.

err... perhaps you mean discipline instead of punish...

I used to think that the rod was a symbol for leadership, you know, like a scepter. thus I used to read that as "spare your guidence/leadership and you will spoil the child."

then after some research, I learned that the 'rod' was in reference to a shepard's crock and how they used that on their sheep... a gentle nudge towards the direction they should go to. which made sense since those teachings were supposed to be for the 'common person' and not the learned. didn't change the meaning of the scripture tho.

to me, I view science as examining God's work. the Bible, I use as a guidance reference and not to be taken literally, and never to be used alone.

err... perhaps you mean discipline instead of punish...

I used to think that the rod was a symbol for leadership, you know, like a scepter. thus I used to read that as "spare your guidence/leadership and you will spoil the child."

then after some research, I learned that the 'rod' was in reference to a shepard's crock and how they used that on their sheep... a gentle nudge towards the direction they should go to. which made sense since those teachings were supposed to be for the 'common person' and not the learned. didn't change the meaning of the scripture tho.


Given the "in some way" I would view the original comment in that light, certainly how I read it anyway.

Rolling squid]
Originally Posted by Lapse
I think the religous principles are a good guide on how to live your life. The stories behind them however are fictional.

Science is the absolute truth, but it is nice to be considerate of other people. So yeah, morally, I follow the rules of religion. Practically, I believe in science and what I can see and prove.

ok , one question on the first part of your post, have you ever read the old testament? It encourages rape, slavery, religious persecution, general oppression of women, and probably some other stuff as well. And as for the New Testament, AFAIK, it basically says do what ever, just have faith in Jesus and you'll get into heaven.


Original post by Lapse doesn't mention the Bible, only religion. Please don't assume.

I salute Abdju for creating this thread.

It's a very good question. Personally, and with no offence meant to any Jews here, I reject the Old Testament, except for the Ten Commandments and the prophetic books for spiritual purposes. As such, I believe in the scientifically proven creation of the Earth, in Evolution, etc.

It is my belief that God didn't just ZAP! the world and humanity and all into existance in seven days. I believe that he did intend for it all to happen, and created existance with that in mind. I believe guided evolution to be plausible, the ressurection of the [Our, not Jesus's] body to be a fallacy, and so on.

I also support scientific reasoning and exploration. Indeed, I make it a central tenant to honour God's intensive creation by learning more about it. As a Christian Humanist, I hold that God wants for humanity to advance itself, and to not be ignorant of his creation, but aware of it. He wouldn't have put it here if he didn't want us to know it's there.

Given the "in some way" I would view the original comment in that light, certainly how I read it anyway.



Original post by Lapse doesn't mention the Bible, only religion. Please don't assume.

Indeed, it does. My apologies to Lapse.
Thanks for spotting that.

err... perhaps you mean discipline instead of punish...

I used to think that the rod was a symbol for leadership, you know, like a scepter. thus I used to read that as "spare your guidence/leadership and you will spoil the child."

then after some research, I learned that the 'rod' was in reference to a shepard's crock and how they used that on their sheep... a gentle nudge towards the direction they should go to. which made sense since those teachings were supposed to be for the 'common person' and not the learned. didn't change the meaning of the scripture tho.

to me, I view science as examining God's work. the Bible, I use as a guidance reference and not to be taken literally, and never to be used alone.

Ah, you knew what I meant.

Some people see their holding their religion as being important for the larger community as well as themselves.
True, some people see it that way. Do they also see it that society itself can't function properly without having an assumed foundation of religious principle?

Example: Spare the rod and spoil the child.

Too many people take that literally. Pederasty, or onanism? That's a fucked up conservative principle if anything.

OK, confused here. When you mention religious stories being fact, are you talking about all religious texts, or only the Bible? I'm guessing Bible (having read your other posts elsewhere on NSG), but what you write here isn't clear.Note that they said, "remaining".

Pederasty, or onanism? That's a fucked up conservative principle if anything.
What are you talking about? How did you get masturbation and child molestation out of THAT one?

What are you talking about? How did you get masturbation and child molestation out of THAT one?
Context? You did say, and i quote:
literally
Of course, i didn't mean YOU, or i'd have said, "... Conservative Moral principle".

Context? You did say, and i quote:

Of course, i didn't mean YOU, or i'd have said, "... Conservative Moral principle".

I know you didn't mean me but... Well... You have a very dirty mind.

I know you didn't mean me but...
Well, now that we've established this rapport .... ;)

OK, confused here. When you mention religious stories being fact, are you talking about all religious texts, or only the Bible? I'm guessing Bible (having read your other posts elsewhere on NSG), but what you write here isn't clear.

The Bible is the only religious text.

Other religious texts, such as the Koran, the Bagvhadgita, Dianetics, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and "Preacher" by Garth Ennis, are all just fiction. They are myths, not religion.

Also, the Koran isn't even really a text. I bought one to burn it, and when I looked inside, it was all just long squiggles without any actual letters.

The Bible is the only religious text.

Other religious texts, such as the Koran, the Bagvhadgita, Dianetics, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and "Preacher" by Garth Ennis, are all just fiction. They are myths, not religion.

Also, the Koran isn't even really a text. I bought one to burn it, and when I looked inside, it was all just long squiggles without any actual letters.

Is the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy a religious text?

Is the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy a religious text?

That rather depends on if you mean the text, itself... the books about it, the radio show, the TV adaptation, or the god-awful movie.

Is the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy a religious text?

Look, you claimed to be a physic major, so I'll convey this mathematically.

Let R be the set of all religious texts. The cardinality of set R is exactly 1. The only element of the set R is The Bible.

Let U be the universal set of all concepts.

Let T be the set equal to U - R.

The book you reference is a member of set T.

Get it? Now, there might be a subset of T, we'll call V, that consists of those things that PRETEND to be religious texts, but are actually efforts by the enemies of God to get you further away from what God wants for you.

These might include the book you mentioned, but also include the writings of the Guru's of the Sikh faith (appropriately named, those people are freaks), the I-Ching, the Tao Te Ching, and anything written by Bertrand Russell or Michael Crichton.

That rather depends on if you mean the text, itself... the books about it, the radio show, the TV adaptation, or the god-awful movie.

Transfer of a material to a different media or format hardly cleanses it from its clearly non-bible based themes.

I'll tell you the same thing that Kirk Cameron told Andrew Fire and Craig Mello, because you need to hear it:

You would do a lot more good by spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ then by exploring advances in RNA splicing that will likely save lives for generations to come.

In all honesty, I know a couple of Young Earth Creationists. To them the Bible is the Literal Truth, and all else is the Devil, and ebil atheists who are trying to drive people away from good and Godly principles.

It doesn't help that one is a narcissist. Question him, and he turns on the flame-thrower.

Transfer of a material to a different media or format hardly cleanses it from its clearly non-bible based themes.


Vengeance and mice? That's about as biblical as it gets, surely?


You would do a lot more good by spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ then by exploring advances in RNA splicing that will likely save lives for generations to come.

When you say it like that, is it wrong to be aroused?

Obviously, the passage "Blessed are the Cheese makers" is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

I see no problems or conflicts between the two. I just always keep in mind that religion answers why questions, and sucks on how; whereas, science is fantastic on how questions but can't answer a why to save its life (so to speak).

Then it's just a matter of deciding what answer I need at the time. How the universe formed? Better ask science. Why the universe formed? Religion. See? No worries!

Obviously, the passage "Blessed are the Cheese makers" is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.
*whistles catchy tune*
http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTON37308020080703

Rolling squid;13814654']ok , one question on the first part of your post, have you ever read the old testament? It encourages rape, slavery, religious persecution, general oppression of women, and probably some other stuff as well. And as for the New Testament, AFAIK, it basically says do what ever, just have faith in Jesus and you'll get into heaven.


But they do come back and mention the 10 sin things. It accepts that people are able to make mistakes and that they can redeem themselves. I agree to this idea. People do have lapses in judgement and do something which is 'wrong'. However it is possible to make up for the prior mistake and learn from it. (so as to not do it again)

I am not a religious person, and the extent of my religious education was in Primary school. Basically, what they told us there was 'Jesus supposedly did this that and something else and was in general a decent bloke. Nobody expects miracles, but it doesn't hurt to be a cooperative and considerate member of society, so give it a whirl hey?'

So, my irreligious point of view is that we should all make an effort to be good people. Not because of any higher power but because it makes everyones lives better.

But they do come back and mention the 10 sin things. It accepts that people are able to make mistakes and that they can redeem themselves. I agree to this idea. People do have lapses in judgement and do something which is 'wrong'. However it is possible to make up for the prior mistake and learn from it. (so as to not do it again)

I am not a religious person, and the extent of my religious education was in Primary school. Basically, what they told us there was 'Jesus supposedly did this that and something else and was in general a decent bloke. Nobody expects miracles, but it doesn't hurt to be a cooperative and considerate member of society, so give it a whirl hey?'

So, my irreligious point of view is that we should all make an effort to be good people. Not because of any higher power but because it makes everyones lives better.In hoping, of course, that you aren't made an example later, and turned into a vindictive bloodthirsty bastard astride a horse, in flowing white gown dipped in blood and a giant blade thrust out in place of an otherwise pleasing tongue.

In hoping, of course, that you aren't made an example later, and turned into a vindictive bloodthirsty bastard astride a horse, in flowing white gown dipped in blood and a giant blade thrust out in place of an otherwise pleasing tongue.

That. would. be. AWESOME!
however... it is bad enough biting my cheek normally.. a giant sword in my mouth could cause some problems...


I also believe that if I am wrong, the relevant higherpower will accept that we were created with free thought (by them), so we use that free thought. thus it is THEIR fault :)

Orignally posted by Hammurab
Transfer of a material to a different media or format hardly cleanses it from its clearly non-bible based themes.

Vengeance and mice? That's about as biblical as it gets, surely?

Quote:Originally Posted by Hammurab
You would do a lot more good by spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ then by exploring advances in RNA splicing that will likely save lives for generations to come.


When you say it like that, is it wrong to be aroused?


http://www.agoravox.fr/IMG/do_not_feed_trolls.jpg
Even if it is amusing ;)

http://www.agoravox.fr/IMG/do_not_feed_trolls.jpg
Even if it is amusing ;)


You know what's amusing? Your name.

The prefix "abd" means "servant of".

The word "ju" means "jew".

Did you think nobody would notice?

That. would. be. AWESOME!The kind of leader you'd have a beer with?

however... it is bad enough biting my cheek normally.. a giant sword in my mouth could cause some problems...http://www.frankossen.com/Sword_Swallower_-_San_Francisco.jpg
Eh, some people seem to get by ...

I also believe that if I am wrong, the relevant higherpower will accept that we were created with free thought (by them), so we use that free thought. thus it is THEIR fault :)See, THAT's what we need more of. Boo-yah!

You know what's amusing? Your name.

The prefix "abd" means "servant of".

The word "ju" means "jew".

Did you think nobody would notice?

Well, if I'm right, you're a servant of a Jew too, but that's a completely different subject than the OP.


---------------------

I was raised in a house-hold where religion held no importance. So basically, I tend to follow science, and I view the religions as simply stories to help people through life, but only that. Stories. But who am I to force my view down someone else's throat. Believe what you want to believe.

Well, if I'm right, you're a servant of a Jew too, but that's a completely different subject than the OP.


---------------------

I was raised in a house-hold where religion held no importance. So basically, I tend to follow science, and I view the religions as simply stories to help people through life, but only that. Stories. But who am I to force my view down someone else's throat. Believe what you want to believe.

Jesus was never a Jew.

Being born to a Jewish family, recognizing the Jewish God as the Creator, and having Jewish siblings does not make you a Jew.

He was whiter than an Irish albino whose particles have been excited to such a state that they are emitting across the entire visible spectrum.

You're probably a Jew, though.

Being born to a Jewish family, recognizing the Jewish God as the Creator, and having Jewish siblings does not make you a Jew. You need to talk to a few people about Barack Obama.

You need to talk to a few people about Barack Hussein Pol-Pot Obama.

Fixed :p

Oh yeah... Always guaranteed to result in :sniper: and :upyours: before finally coming to :headbang:

However, before we get to the fun part, I wanted to follow up the idea of idealogical compromises with that of religious compromise.

How do your reconcile your beliefs with science, and/or your daily life? Dismiss the parts of your religion that just don't work with modern science? Accept them as valid metaphors for explaining the nature of the universe? Accept them as literal truth?

It is something I was thinking about as I visited my mother the other day we were talking about this point.

Personally I adopt the middle option. I never dismiss the teaching of my religion out of hand as being wrong or inappropriate, however I do not adopt a literalist position on any given text, but regarded it as a metaphorical truth, such as creation myths. I believe that taking religious texts as absolutes, containing absolutely no metaphor is a recipe for disaster, as well as failing to look properly at their historical context, as well as how they came to be with us now in the present day.

Of course, the situation is a little different for modern religions. Either way, use the poll and please elaborate with your thoughts etc... Then we can get to the :sniper: :mp5: :headbang: :upyours: bit ;)

Religion is not incompatible with science. There is no compromising. A religious scientist uses science to discover the nature of God's mystery. There is nothing incompatible. One cannot be truly faithful without being deeply interested and appreciative of the awesome power of science to help us understand God.

Fixed :p

It was obviously implied, but you forgot Stalin and Idi Amin in there somewhere. And, as "history may judge", Bush.

One cannot be truly faithful without being deeply interested and appreciative of the awesome power of science to help us understand God.And/or ourselves and/or all of nature, whichever comes first?
"God"'s not high on my list of priorities at this point. Successive, repeated failures on their part to show up in formal attire tend to dissuade a person from further courting of their significance.

well since i believe all religion is inherently bad i don't have that problem what ever cannot be backed up by hard facts or does not fit the available evidence or has something to do with a super natural being must give way to science even if other people want a religion to believe they must first make one that has no super natural being and fits perfectly with the world as we know it and must be able to change as our knowledge changes

Then, I do not think that you qualify as a serious religious type.

And/or ourselves and/or all of nature, whichever comes first?
"God"'s not high on my list of priorities at this point. Successive, repeated failures on their part to show up in formal attire tend to dissuade a person from further courting of their significance.

I believe that your point is that science helps us to have a greater understanding of the truth. The religious scientist typically believes that God is the author of truth because he is the creator. Therefore, seeking the truth is like taking a torch into the great expanse of the mystery of creation and of the natural laws established by God. I am sure that I oversimplified here. I am not sure what your question is or if it was just a comment. Could you please rephrase your question?