RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible?

RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/17/2017 6:21:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne sure got around a lot for a dead guy And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. ~John 19:39 Not exactly what you'd need or want to prepare a corpse. K.

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/17/2017 6:34:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail The books of the bible were written some 2-400 years after the events (that did not happen) wrong again! Archaeology confirms the Bible’s historical accuracy. Archaeologists have consistently discovered the names of government officials, kings, cities, and festivals mentioned in the Bible -- sometimes when historians didn't think such people or places existed. For example, the Gospel of John tells of Jesus healing a cripple next to the Pool of Bethesda. The text even describes the five porticoes (walkways) leading to the pool. Scholars didn't think the pool existed, until archaeologists found it forty feet below ground, complete with the five porticoes. The Bible has a tremendous amount of historical detail, so not everything mentioned in it has yet been found through archaeology. However, not one archaeological find has conflicted with what the Bible records. The Bible has a tremendous amount of historical detail, so not everything mentioned in it has yet been found through archaeology. However, not one archaeological find has conflicted with what the Bible records "The Dead Sea Scrolls" contained Old Testament scripture dating 1,000 years older than any manuscripts we had. When comparing the manuscripts at hand with these, from 1,000 years earlier, we find agreement 99.5% of the time. And the .5% differences are minor spelling variances and sentence structure that doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. Regarding the New Testament, it is humanity's most reliable ancient document. All ancient manuscripts were written on papyrus, which didn’t have much of a shelf life. So people hand copied originals, to maintain the message and circulate it to others. Few people doubt Plato’s writing of “The Republic.” It’s a classic, written by Plato around 380 B.C. The earliest copies we have of it are dated 900 A.D., which is a 1,300 year time lag from when he wrote it. There are only seven copies in existence. Caesar’s “Gallic Wars” were written around 100-44 B.C. The copies we have today are dated 1,000 years after he wrote it. We have ten copies. When it comes to the New Testament, written between 50-100 A.D, there are more than 5,000 copies. All are within 50-225 years of their original writing. Further, when it came to Scripture, scribes (monks) were meticulous in their copying of original manuscripts. They checked and rechecked their work, to make sure it perfectly matched. What the New Testament writers originally wrote is preserved better than any other ancient manuscript. http://www.everystudent.com/features/bible.html still barking at the moon!

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/17/2017 6:54:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML ORIGINAL: Real0ne ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Straw man. I wrote about the "evils" of Nature, not of mankind. quote: Since 'evil' is defined as [profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity] to be evil something would require a conscious malicious effort be made in order to identify it as evil. Now you would have us believe that nature is scheming and consciously plotting its next evil attack on mankind to do untold harm. [8\|] The problem with simply attempting to proffer an argument then support it with foolish rhetoric is that in the end you always look the fool when rudimentary philosophy backs you into a corner with no way out. That is why I applied quotes to evil, silly. God's Nature is murderous but I never said there was a plot against humankind. It may be just neglect or even careless disdain by God. Certainly, he has been absent. Perhaps we can reduce the charge to Manslaughter One if he wants a plea bargain. [:D] nah that wont work either, you've backed down, my point has been made, I could continue to argue down your added GG however Im getting bored with your foolish troll dance.

mnottertail -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/17/2017 7:15:16 PM)
Sorry retard. as I said, George Washington was a known government official and still did not chop down the cherry tree, the fact that George Washington is in a history book does not make St. Wrinklemeat more than a retard. Nothing wrong, we got no eyewitnesses to Jeebus as savior, none to god as killer, and the only one who has seen holy spirits is the liquor store. http://www.bethinking.org/bible/the-dating-of-the-new-testament so these say they were written 50-70 ad, So, other than this theory with only surface background, absolutely none who were alive in his time. Now, this is only theory at this time, the earliest known manuscript is in greek (we are talking new testament now) from around 116-132 AD. Dont write this down. Go out and preach this simple sentence. * RealZero is a fuckin retard. * Pass this down word of mouth, do it now today, and the head speaker in the year 2086 write down what was said, and what was seen. Get back to me, retard.

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/17/2017 8:20:44 PM)
buy clue brainless. The apostles wrote about Christ during the time of Christ and are quoted in the bible, followed by confirmation from secular sources. I just posted the secular sources, brainless as you are I would have thought you know the apostles wrote about Christ during his life on earth since they are quoted all over the bible, but I guess I gave you too much credit. [8\|]

vincentML -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/17/2017 10:44:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML ORIGINAL: Real0ne ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Straw man. I wrote about the "evils" of Nature, not of mankind. quote: Since 'evil' is defined as [profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity] to be evil something would require a conscious malicious effort be made in order to identify it as evil. Now you would have us believe that nature is scheming and consciously plotting its next evil attack on mankind to do untold harm. [8\|] The problem with simply attempting to proffer an argument then support it with foolish rhetoric is that in the end you always look the fool when rudimentary philosophy backs you into a corner with no way out. That is why I applied quotes to evil, silly. God's Nature is murderous but I never said there was a plot against humankind. It may be just neglect or even careless disdain by God. Certainly, he has been absent. Perhaps we can reduce the charge to Manslaughter One if he wants a plea bargain. [:D] nah that wont work either, you've backed down, my point has been made, I could continue to argue down your added GG however Im getting bored with your foolish troll dance. Thank goodness. Adios. Your defense of God was getting hysterical and way off base. I can't understand why you felt the need to defend God if he is omnipotent. Wow, what an ego trip for you. [sm=happy-smiley58.gif] [sm=happy-smiley58.gif][sm=happy-smiley58.gif]

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/17/2017 10:58:22 PM)
I am not going to chase you around the block every time you get your ass handed to you and move the goal posts to a new argument, especially when I have to post definitions for simple words that you use incorrectly. [8\|]

tamaka -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/17/2017 11:14:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML ORIGINAL: Real0ne ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Straw man. I wrote about the "evils" of Nature, not of mankind. quote: Since 'evil' is defined as [profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity] to be evil something would require a conscious malicious effort be made in order to identify it as evil. Now you would have us believe that nature is scheming and consciously plotting its next evil attack on mankind to do untold harm. [8\|] The problem with simply attempting to proffer an argument then support it with foolish rhetoric is that in the end you always look the fool when rudimentary philosophy backs you into a corner with no way out. That is why I applied quotes to evil, silly. God's Nature is murderous but I never said there was a plot against humankind. It may be just neglect or even careless disdain by God. Certainly, he has been absent. Perhaps we can reduce the charge to Manslaughter One if he wants a plea bargain. [:D] nah that wont work either, you've backed down, my point has been made, I could continue to argue down your added GG however Im getting bored with your foolish troll dance. Thank goodness. Adios. Your defense of God was getting hysterical and way off base. I can't understand why you felt the need to defend God if he is omnipotent. Wow, what an ego trip for you. [sm=happy-smiley58.gif] [sm=happy-smiley58.gif][sm=happy-smiley58.gif] Like judging God isn't your ego speaking? [8\|]

Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 12:11:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Wow, what an ego trip for you. Like judging God isn't your ego speaking? If we confine ourselves to the teachings of Christ, there is neither "natural evil" nor a "problem of evil." Both the source of evil and its nature are clear. Its source is an agent that imagines itself equal to God; its nature is volitional and rooted in that deception; and Truth is what frees us from it. But religious teachings are inherently symbolic, so the question is: Who or what is this enemy? What does Satan represent? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ralgm95jeM K.

tweakabelle -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 2:55:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata But religious teachings are inherently symbolic, so the question is: Who or what is this enemy? What does Satan represent? I am unsure on what basis or authority you can make such a sweeping claim. It may well the case that your assertion has some merit but there are millions of fundamentalists and literalists of all varieties that would disagree with you, some so vehemently that in certain quarters, such 'heresy' would cost you your head. Anyone proposing anything other than literal interpretations of religious texts is seen by these people as Satan's representative or even Satan talking, so for those people the answer to your questions is : "You". It may be the case that religious teachings ought to have been understood symbolically rather than literally from the getgo but history tells us this is rarely the case. This is true for both teachers and believers. My observation is that religious teachings suddenly become symbolic when their everyday meanings are no longer tenable or credible.

Rule -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 3:29:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle My observation is that religious teachings suddenly become symbolic when their everyday meanings are no longer tenable or credible. Or rather when their original meaning has been forgotten and miss-interpreted.

mnottertail -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 4:56:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I am not going to chase you around the block every time you get your ass handed to you and move the goal posts to a new argument, especially when I have to post definitions for simple words that you use incorrectly. [8\|] Well, then you are comatose, the only one with their ass handed them is you. You can now put your head up it again. There is no new argument, no eyewitness accounts, no miracles with eyewitness accounts. Here are some simple dates on nero, 15 December 37 AD – 9 June 68 AD Give me Jeebus. And then you can do the same for god.

Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 5:03:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata But religious teachings are inherently symbolic, so the question is: Who or what is this enemy? What does Satan represent? I am unsure on what basis or authority you can make such a sweeping claim. Religious teachings, myths and parables, are meant to convey truths, not to be believed as truths. It is futile (and all too frequently worse) to take them literally. What man of intelligence, I ask, will consider that the first and second and the third day, in which there are said to be both morning and evening, existed without sun and moon and stars . . . I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history. ~Origen An old Zen teaching story that I've posted more than once tells of a young monk who approaches his Abbot begging to know how best to teach the truths of the Sutras. The response he receives is, "Burn them!" The point is the same. All religion is symbolic, and symbolism is excluded from religion only when religion itself perishes. ~Radhakrishnan K.

Rule -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 5:19:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata An old Zen teaching story that I've posted more than once tells of a young monk who approaches his Abbot begging to know how best to teach the truths of the Sutras. The response he receives is, "Burn them!" Wise counsel.

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 6:05:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata But religious teachings are inherently symbolic, so the question is: Who or what is this enemy? What does Satan represent? I am unsure on what basis or authority you can make such a sweeping claim. Religious teachings, myths and parables, are meant to convey truths, not to be believed as truths. It is futile (and all too frequently worse) to take them literally. What man of intelligence, I ask, will consider that the first and second and the third day, in which there are said to be both morning and evening, existed without sun and moon and stars . . . I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history. ~Origen An old Zen teaching story that I've posted more than once tells of a young monk who approaches his Abbot begging to know how best to teach the truths of the Sutras. The response he receives is, "Burn them!" The point is the same. All religion is symbolic, and symbolism is excluded from religion only when religion itself perishes. ~Radhakrishnan K. Each in its own context. The biggest problem I see is people demanding the supernatural be defined in natural terms, and on the secular side metaphysics being defined in physical terms. While there is a small degree of overlap they try to pound square pegs into round holes and when they discover that does not work throw the baby out with the washwater. If it cant break your toe when dropped it doesnt exist mentality.

Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 6:08:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It may well the case that your assertion has some merit but there are millions of fundamentalists and literalists of all varieties that would disagree with you, some so vehemently that in certain quarters, such 'heresy' would cost you your head. The same argument has been put forward in defense of a prejudicial view of Islam, but unless memory fails me you've never afforded it a shred of credit in that context. K.

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 6:17:32 AM)
Another problem that people run into is that 'religion' has a far wider scope than simple deity worship as it is normally argued, and included things like not eating pork, which is a case of outdated 'religious' practice for most, none the less another understanding lost to tunnel vision approach of those who want to distance their personal religion from any form of deity religion hence they simply close their eyes and plug their ears and pretend religion begins and ends by limiting their scope of belief/discussion to the man in the sky mentality, supernatural, theology, metaphsyics and finally philosophy notwithstanding as far as they are concerned. [img]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/lalala.gif[/img]

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 6:53:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It may well the case that your assertion has some merit but there are millions of fundamentalists and literalists of all varieties that would disagree with you, some so vehemently that in certain quarters, such 'heresy' would cost you your head. The same argument has been put forward in defense of a prejudicial view of Islam, but unless memory fails me you've never afforded it a shred of credit in that context. K. however religion as it stands its not 'your religion' when it becomes dictatorial, such as an established religion [en]'forced' by gubmint much the same as we have in the US with our moral base governed under commercial law then enforced no different than any other religion used to convert the masses by establishment regardless of the God or lack of that we 'personally' choose to worship. Just ask the mormans. Same applies to Islam, if in fact it is forced by beheading, which I dont believe it is. Forced Conversion? So the foundation of Jihad is Islamic propagation (da’wah). The question often asked is whether Islam condones and teaches the forced and armed conversion of non-Muslims. This is the image sometimes projected by Western scholars and as any Muslim scholar will tell you, is seriously flawed. The Qur’an clearly states “There is no compulsion in religion, the path of guidance stands out clear from error” [2:256] and [60:8]. In this verse, the word “rushd” or “path of guidance” refers to the entire domain of human life, not just to the rites and theology of Islam. There is no debate about the fact that pre-Islamic Arabia was a misguided society dominated by tribalism and a blind obedience to custom. In contrast, the clarity of Islam and its emphasis on reason and rational proofs excluded any need to impose it by force. This verse is a clear indication that the Qur’an is strictly opposed to the use of compulsion in religious faith. Similarly, Allah addressed Sayiddina Muhammad r saying, “Remind them, for you are only one who reminds.” [88:21] Allah addresses the believers, urging them to obey the injunctions of Islam, “Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and beware (of evil): if you do turn back, then know that it is Our Messenger’s duty to proclaim (the message) in the clearest manner.” [5:92] However, this verse makes it clear that the Messenger’s duty is only to proclaim and preach the message; it remains to each individual to accept and to follow. http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/5-jihad-a-misunderstood-concept-from-islam.html?start=3

WickedsDesire -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 7:02:00 AM)
I rejected my religion at about 14...Catholicism or whatever it calls itself. I became self aware and have been feral ever since. I think on some board Somewhere in Time (i really had to watch The Time travellers Wife the other day...I pondered unto my raving lunacy does religion(s) teach right from wrong? I would have started this as a thread but some of you lot arnt happy unless your twatting each other with a big stick Small fonts also means i will thread this I suppose as this place needs all the new threads it can get.

vincentML -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/18/2017 7:19:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I am not going to chase you around the block every time you get your ass handed to you and move the goal posts to a new argument, especially when I have to post definitions for simple words that you use incorrectly. [8\|] My argument has been consistent; your straw men have been an odd lot.

Page: << < prev 21 22 [23] 24 25 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625