Can you be religious and pro science and technology?

[BreezeWood]

So where's the proof that the world was made in 6 days is an allegorical story? And Noah and the ark has proof as well? The story about Adam banged the girl and getting tossed from heaven has proof also? Ok, go.

Yep, all allegorical, except that bang the girl thingee, that's not in there.

So where's the proof?

You need proof that it is allegorical? You mean you can't figure that out on your own? I did.

.

You need proof that it is allegorical? You mean you can't figure that out on your own? I did.

the 4th century bible had no reason to be allegorical, they fully expected their congregation for one reason or another to be convinced or mesmerized by their version of events they could not explain.

You don't know much about storytelling, conveying information, teaching . . . pretty much communicating in general. The reason for allegory was the same then as it is now. Perhaps if you look up the definition of "allegory", you might grasp the concept.

Or not.

.

The reason for allegory was the same then as it is now.

literary license is not religion.

there was no reason to be allegorical in the 4th century per expression of their religion as they were the governing authority unless for ulterior motives including their misunderstanding of the religion they were trying to convey and associating it with their political agenda. as why they would resort unwittingly to what you refer to as allegory.

so do tell us your explanation for an allegory of your choice as being solely a religious entity requiring your interpretation for its true meaning.

 

[rdean]

You can do anything you want. This is America. You can even use your religion to hate and discriminate. Republicans do it all the time. Ask Mike Pence.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fallacy. Galileo didn't get in trouble because of his science; he got in trouble because of his need to pronounce upon theology while on the Church's dime.

Nice spin on your part. You would have been awesome during the Spanish Inquisition.

The Galileo Controversy | Catholic Answers

No spin. Historical fact, which is easily derived from the aforementioned English competency you clearly lack, applied to your own link.

"Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds."

"Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt."

It's like understanding words and their meanings is important, or something.

Any even half-serious student of history from that time is well aware of the fact that Galileo's problem was his own arrogance and pomposity, not the Catholic Church's intransigence.

Btw, the irrelevancy of the Spanish Inquisition to Galileo does nothing to enhance the illusion of education you're trying vainly to project.

 

[PK1]

Can you be religious and pro science and technology?

Of course you can ... if you cherry-pick scientific research to fit your subjective religious belief.

Otherwise, religion & science are not compatible regarding knowledge acquisition. Science is based on objective methods & evidence, while religion is based on dogma reflecting "easy button" explanations for simple-minded people.

Saying religion and science are incompatible is like saying swimming and horse-racing are incompatible; they're different sports, but there's no reason why a person can't do both well and remain unconflicted with them. It's simply important to remember they are two different things.

I agree that science & religion are "two different things".
One is about knowledge and the other is about faith in non-verifiable explanations (lack of knowledge).

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yep, all allegorical, except that bang the girl thingee, that's not in there.

So where's the proof?

You need proof that it is allegorical? You mean you can't figure that out on your own? I did.

.

You need proof that it is allegorical? You mean you can't figure that out on your own? I did.

the 4th century bible had no reason to be allegorical, they fully expected their congregation for one reason or another to be convinced or mesmerized by their version of events they could not explain.

You don't know much about storytelling, conveying information, teaching . . . pretty much communicating in general. The reason for allegory was the same then as it is now. Perhaps if you look up the definition of "allegory", you might grasp the concept.

Or not.

.

The reason for allegory was the same then as it is now.

literary license is not religion.

there was no reason to be allegorical in the 4th century per expression of their religion as they were the governing authority unless for ulterior motives including their misunderstanding of the religion they were trying to convey and associating it with their political agenda. as why they would resort unwittingly to what you refer to as allegory.

so do tell us your explanation for an allegory of your choice as being solely a religious entity requiring your interpretation for its true meaning.

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Seriously, dude? You want to criticize and nitpick others' educations, and you can't even manage the basic reading comprehension necessary to follow a conversation and figure out that "they" refers to the people in YOUR post to which kwc was responding? Hoo boy. God save me from ignoramuses believing they are intellectuals.

You should put me on ignore as too stupid to have a conversation.

"Many" of Christ's teachings, huh? And now you're going to expound upon exactly WHICH of Christ's teachings those would be, yes?

Irrelevant now since you know I'm an "ignoramus". Have a nice day, sweetie.

Hey, if you want to run away, leave the board. I won't stop you. But don't think this pose is going to accomplish anything but make you look like a coward as well as a fool.

You're here, you're talking, you're going to be challenged, "sweetie". Deal with it, or don't, but don't think anyone doesn't see right through this tired old ploy.

 

[Divine Wind]

You can do anything you want. This is America. You can even use your religion to hate and discriminate. Republicans do it all the time. Ask Mike Pence.

Spoken like a true partisan derailing a thread in order to focus on their own interests.

 

[Divine Wind]

Hey, if you want to run away, leave the board. .....

Sweetie, you're the hypocrite who started this bitch session. If you don't like me, put my username in this link: Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Divine Wind]

I agree that science & religion are "two different things".
One is about knowledge and the other is about faith in non-verifiable explanations (lack of knowledge).

It's okay if you want to be anti-faith, anti-spiritual and even if you want to believe only that all of us are meat computers of no more value the roadkill.

OTOH, science is a systematic method of study for areas within our natural universe. It cannot study anything that happened before the Big Bang nor anything outside the Natural Universe since it's quite likely that the rules of our universe do not extend beyond it.

Religion is a means of studying the spiritual, something far beyond the realm of science. Religions are not the end, but a means to an end. The end being spiritual awareness. Like wisdom, it's something many people acknowledge exists, but is not tangible enough to be readily studied and understood by science.

 

[Mudda]

Those three books are at odds with science. It's a fact.

Nope. Sorry, you are wrong again.

The world was proven by science to have not been made in 6 days, among a ton of other things. You even had to move your own goalposts to try to accommodate it.

The Bible tells us that Creation had a beginning. Science tells us that 14 billion years ago our universe started in a hot dense state “roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom” and expanded and cooled.

Science tells us that this universe started 14 billion years ago. It makes no mention if this is the beginning of everything, because to know if something was already existing before the BB is not knowable at this point in time. The creation story of the bible is a pure guess that it can't prove.

Actually science does tell us that space and time came into existence. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe AND all the laws of physics break down at the event horizon which means that space and time did not exist before the expansion. There was no space and time, Einstein. SPACE AND TIME DID HAVE A BEGINNING.

Our space and time may have had a beginning, but other universes may have already existed. Science doesn't definitively speak to this except for new theories being developed.

 

[Divine Wind]

Our space and time may have had a beginning, but other universes may have already existed. Science doesn't definitively speak to this except for new theories being developed.

Space Time definitely had a beginning. The existence of other universes is purely theoretical with no evidence of their existence. Even if they did exist, there is no way of knowing whether or not the same Space Time rules apply. Same goes for our Universe's laws of physics. "Magic" could be as natural in another Universe as gravity is in ours.

 

[BreezeWood]

So where's the proof?

You need proof that it is allegorical? You mean you can't figure that out on your own? I did.

.

You need proof that it is allegorical? You mean you can't figure that out on your own? I did.

the 4th century bible had no reason to be allegorical, they fully expected their congregation for one reason or another to be convinced or mesmerized by their version of events they could not explain.

You don't know much about storytelling, conveying information, teaching . . . pretty much communicating in general. The reason for allegory was the same then as it is now. Perhaps if you look up the definition of "allegory", you might grasp the concept.

Or not.

.

The reason for allegory was the same then as it is now.

literary license is not religion.

there was no reason to be allegorical in the 4th century per expression of their religion as they were the governing authority unless for ulterior motives including their misunderstanding of the religion they were trying to convey and associating it with their political agenda. as why they would resort unwittingly to what you refer to as allegory.

so do tell us your explanation for an allegory of your choice as being solely a religious entity requiring your interpretation for its true meaning.

That doesn't even make sense.

.

That doesn't even make sense.

The reason for allegory was the same then as it is now.

no that is not true of the rulers that composed 4th century christianity they had ulterior motives as yourself than the understanding of a simple religion, the same as you, coercion. and like you its history of oppression reflects their true intent.

 

[PK1]

science is a systematic method of study for areas within our natural universe.

Religion is a means of studying the spiritual, something far beyond the realm of science. Religions are not the end, but a means to an end. The end being spiritual awareness. Like wisdom, it's something many people acknowledge exists, but is not tangible enough to be readily studied and understood by science.

I agree with your 1st paragraph (that i quoted) on the realm of science.
However, religions are no more than poor attempts at exercising ancient philosophy. The idea that there is something beyond the "natural" called "spiritual" is feeble at best.
The concept of "spiritual awareness" is BS to the max; a made-up idea to pretend one knows something.

In the science world, that BS is known as "God of the gaps", whereby "spiritual" explanations are invented to cover those areas that science cannot yet address.
In ancient times, lightning bolts were from a god. If Moses saw a preacher on TV in the year 2016, he would be sure he was seeing "God".

 

[ding]

Yep, all allegorical, except that bang the girl thingee, that's not in there.

So where's the proof?

You need proof that it is allegorical? You mean you can't figure that out on your own? I did.

.

You need proof that it is allegorical? You mean you can't figure that out on your own? I did.

the 4th century bible had no reason to be allegorical, they fully expected their congregation for one reason or another to be convinced or mesmerized by their version of events they could not explain.

You don't know much about storytelling, conveying information, teaching . . . pretty much communicating in general. The reason for allegory was the same then as it is now. Perhaps if you look up the definition of "allegory", you might grasp the concept.

Or not.

.

The reason for allegory was the same then as it is now.

literary license is not religion.

there was no reason to be allegorical in the 4th century per expression of their religion as they were the governing authority unless for ulterior motives including their misunderstanding of the religion they were trying to convey and associating it with their political agenda. as why they would resort unwittingly to what you refer to as allegory.

so do tell us your explanation for an allegory of your choice as being solely a religious entity requiring your interpretation for its true meaning.

We aren't talking about the NT, Einstein.

 

[ding]

Nope. Sorry, you are wrong again.

The world was proven by science to have not been made in 6 days, among a ton of other things. You even had to move your own goalposts to try to accommodate it.

The Bible tells us that Creation had a beginning. Science tells us that 14 billion years ago our universe started in a hot dense state “roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom” and expanded and cooled.

Science tells us that this universe started 14 billion years ago. It makes no mention if this is the beginning of everything, because to know if something was already existing before the BB is not knowable at this point in time. The creation story of the bible is a pure guess that it can't prove.

Actually science does tell us that space and time came into existence. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe AND all the laws of physics break down at the event horizon which means that space and time did not exist before the expansion. There was no space and time, Einstein. SPACE AND TIME DID HAVE A BEGINNING.

Our space and time may have had a beginning, but other universes may have already existed. Science doesn't definitively speak to this except for new theories being developed.

WTF are you talking about other universes? For a gal that demands proof of everything, you sure did drop your panties pretty fast for a 2nd universe. Newsflash... whatever is outside of our space time envelope is unobservable. You literally can't see it or reach it. Space time is curved.

 

[ding]

science is a systematic method of study for areas within our natural universe.

Religion is a means of studying the spiritual, something far beyond the realm of science. Religions are not the end, but a means to an end. The end being spiritual awareness. Like wisdom, it's something many people acknowledge exists, but is not tangible enough to be readily studied and understood by science.

I agree with your 1st paragraph (that i quoted) on the realm of science.
However, religions are no more than poor attempts at exercising ancient philosophy. The idea that there is something beyond the "natural" called "spiritual" is feeble at best.
The concept of "spiritual awareness" is BS to the max; a made-up idea to pretend one knows something.

In the science world, that BS is known as "God of the gaps", whereby "spiritual" explanations are invented to cover those areas that science cannot yet address.
In ancient times, lightning bolts were from a god. If Moses saw a preacher on TV in the year 2016, he would be sure he was seeing "God".

No. Spiritual awareness is not BS and has practical applications in this world such as progressing as a human being. That's pretty much what it is about.

 

[Divine Wind]

We aren't talking about the NT, Einstein.

While I agree, to Christians, isn't the NT all that matters? If not, why do so many people offer only the "Good News" section of the Bible?

 

[Divine Wind]

No. Spiritual awareness is not BS and has practical applications in this world such as progressing as a human being. That's pretty much what it is about.

Agreed 100%

 

[ding]

We aren't talking about the NT, Einstein.

While I agree, to Christians, isn't the NT all that matters? If not, why do so many people offer only the "Good News" section of the Bible?

Are you sure that isn't just your perception? We read a passage from the Old Testament at every Mass.

 

[Divine Wind]

We aren't talking about the NT, Einstein.

While I agree, to Christians, isn't the NT all that matters? If not, why do so many people offer only the "Good News" section of the Bible?

Are you sure that isn't just your perception? We read a passage from the Old Testament at every Mass.

Okay. I can be wrong. You tell me which parts of the OT apply and which do not....or do they all apply?