Noah's Ark dinosaurs

Quote: AxelWolf

I doubt that only one teaches that.

One. Chrstianity.

The other two mainstream religions, Judaism and Islam, do not believe Jesus was the son of God. I think Islam regards him as a prophet, but that would put him on a par with other prophets. Their one special prophet is Muhammad, who is considered as having delivered God's final and definitive word. Any prophets after him are regarded as false prophets. As far as Judaism goes, Jesus was just a man like millions of others, not even a prophet like, say, Elijah.

Other than that, I'm not aware that any other religion, like Bhudism, Shintoism, any of the modern pagan sects, Hinduism, etc. even acknowledge a single god, much less the Biblical god, much less Jesus.

If you want to consider the seventeen million or so different Chrsitian denominations as separate religions, then several religions do. But as far as I'm concerned they're just variations of the same thing. And here I include Mormonism and other latter developments.

Quote: Nareed

One. Chrstianity.

The other two mainstream religions, Judaism and Islam, do not believe Jesus was the son of God. I think Islam regards him as a prophet, but that would put him on a par with other prophets. Their one special prophet is Muhammad, who is considered as having delivered God's final and definitive word. Any prophets after him are regarded as false prophets. As far as Judaism goes, Jesus was just a man like millions of others, not even a prophet like, say, Elijah.

Other than that, I'm not aware that any other religion, like Bhudism, Shintoism, any of the modern pagan sects, Hinduism, etc. even acknowledge a single god, much less the Biblical god, much less Jesus.

If you want to consider the seventeen million or so different Chrsitian denominations as separate religions, then several religions do. But as far as I'm concerned they're just variations of the same thing. And here I include Mormonism and other latter developments.

denominations would have been a better word for what I was saying. I have been to many, many different churches and from what I gathered most of them speak about both of them in the same light. Just reading about it (not saying that's you)online and studying it does not give you a real good understanding on what is going. Kind of like AP.

Quote: FrGamble

Likewise, in your brief history of Christianity the evils you mention are also representative of brief periods in history and are as usual exaggerated.

Not at all. These atrocities continue today. Horrible abuses of human rights, going on worldwide. That religion can be used to deny science may be the biggest atrocity of all. Countless future generations will suffer for it.

I am grateful we can move to a point we both agree on. Religion should not and cannot be used to deny science just like science should not and cannot be used to deny religion.

Quote: FrGamble

Sorry Babs, but your depiction of the Bible is very inaccurate. Without going into the verses you mentioned and the reasons why God does indeed sometimes deal harshly with the sins of groups of people who oppress, harm, enslave, and kill the innocent - I hope you realize the small sampling of verses and stories you did cherrypick and prooftext are vastly outnumbered by the stories of mercy, love, compassion, and service. Likewise the Feast of the Holy Innocents, is a lamentation for those innocent children killed by an evil dictator in his pursuit to hunt down Christ.
Likewise, in your brief history of Christianity the evils you mention are also representative of brief periods in history and are as usual exaggerated. These awful and sinful acts of Christians are not even close to giving the whole picture of the countless good men and women who have and still today do so much good.

FrGamble,

I think Face (up a few posts) is right on point with what I was trying to say. I don't think that I am an "as usual exaggerator" (I hope you meant that you find that argument to be exaggerated, not my posts in general) but I also do not suggest that a one-sided condemnation would be accurate either. For every Torquemada, there may be a Mother Teresa, bless Her beauty. But allow me to ask you this, please; if the God of the old Testament was not a vengeful and demanding God who mainly ruled by fear, why was Christ's intercession, or even His existence, necessary in the first place?

I do sense in you the last day or so (between here and similar discussions on DT), a bit of exasperation and frustration, where you usually have the patience of Job in debating us "heathens and infidels" (Kidding on the labels, folks! Just walking a mile in the Padre's moccasins). Do not lose hope; you never know who you are reaching in continuing your debate. I admire your fortitude even as I disagree with your conclusions.

Quote: FrGamble

Just like science should not and cannot be used to deny religion.

Any tangible claim that religion makes can be tested (and denied, if appropriate) by using scientific principles (e.g. the "creation" myth or talking snakes). However, nothing that science has established relies in any way on religion nor can be tested by religious principles. It is not symmetric, not in the least. We do not agree on that. For example, evolutionary biology explains very clearly the biological origins of religion, but religion does not explain the origin of science in any way.

Quote: FrGamble

I am grateful we can move to a point we both agree on. Religion should not and cannot be used to deny science just like science should not and cannot be used to deny religion.

I disagree :)

Religions make claims about the world, too. Such claims need and must be questioned in the light of reason and knowledge, and here science is very helpful. I'll leave the scope of it out in order not to provoke further controversy and debate. Yet I'm sure we can all come up with a great deal.

I will say that, to its credit, the Roman Catholic church has been willing to at least examine their beliefs in light of scientific findings. But also that it does not do so enough.

Quote: beachbumbabs

FrGamble,

I think Face (up a few posts) is right on point with what I was trying to say. I don't think that I am an "as usual exaggerator" (I hope you meant that you find that argument to be exaggerated, not my posts in general) but I also do not suggest that a one-sided condemnation would be accurate either. For every Torquemada, there may be a Mother Teresa, bless Her beauty. But allow me to ask you this, please; if the God of the old Testament was not a vengeful and demanding God who mainly ruled by fear, why was Christ's intercession, or even His existence, necessary in the first place?

I do sense in you the last day or so (between here and similar discussions on DT), a bit of exasperation and frustration, where you usually have the patience of Job in debating us "heathens and infidels" (Kidding on the labels, folks! Just walking a mile in the Padre's moccasins). Do not lose hope; you never know who you are reaching in continuing your debate. I admire your fortitude even as I disagree with your conclusions.

Thanks Babs, you are correct in so many ways as usual. I did not mean you exaggerate at all it is just that from the history I have read about the crusades, inquisition, etc. there is much myth and exaggeration that often are allowed to stand as history. I also confess that recently there has been a lot of difficult things at the parish and maybe I am using the forums to vent a little bit. We have a funeral in a few hours for a courageous young man who died recently, can I ask for your prayers for him and his family.

Anyway back to the pedagogy of God throughout the Holy Bible. I believe when read as a whole you do not see a change in God rather a good teacher who takes a violent world and slowly brings them along towards loving their neighbors. You can't have a teacher in kindergarten teaching calculus. You have to begin with the basics and build on it. God is slowly but surely teaching humanity important lessons so that they will be ready for the message of Jesus Christ. A message that admittedly His followers in the Church have still struggled with throughout history up to today.

Quote: teliot

Any tangible claim that religion makes can be tested (and denied, if appropriate) by using scientific principles (e.g. the "creation" myth or talking snakes). However, nothing that science has established relies in any way on religion nor can be tested by religious principles. It is not symmetric, not in the least. We do not agree on that. For example, evolutionary biology explains very clearly the biological origins of religion, but religion does not explain the origin of science in any way.

The truth that all things must be tested by using scientific principles does not itself rest on scientific principles. It rests on philosophical notions of the order and logic of the universe; a notion that is supported by the religious idea that God created the universe with order and purpose. Therefore the origin of science is really found in philosophy, a philosophy that is supported by and strengthened by a religious worldview.

Quote: FrGamble

I am grateful we can move to a point we both agree on. Religion should not and cannot be used to deny science just like science should not and cannot be used to deny religion.

LOL.... We wouldn't want any FACTS or LOGIC to get in the way. The church loves science unless its used to debunk the church.
You cant pick and choose what science you want to use, it all or don't use any of it. That would be crazy I know. God should not have given us science if he didn't want is to use it. He seems to make a lot of mistakes.

You statement reminds me of how system players think. System players often say real math should not be used to disprove their systems. But then they use funny math to try to prove their systems.

Christians=system players?