Religion Versus Science


Rev. Dr. Dean Ray
 Share

Recommended Posts

I appreciate your discussing your views with me Brother Kaman, and as it seems as though you are getting frustrated with me, I will relent. I do not agree with you on this subject, but that is perfectly ok friend, as we don't have to agree about everything or anything to have cooperative discussion. I was simply pointing out that reality is not subjective in all cases, it is objective sometimes, as Johnathan said. Thank you for your discussion nonetheless, it has been interesting for me. I apologize if it got aggravating to explain and debate repeatedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 228
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I appreciate your discussing your views with me Brother Kaman, and as it seems as though you are getting frustrated with me, I will relent. I do not agree with you on this subject, but that is perfectly ok friend, as we don't have to agree about everything or anything to have cooperative discussion. I was simply pointing out that reality is not subjective in all cases, it is objective sometimes, as Johnathan said. Thank you for your discussion nonetheless, it has been interesting for me. I apologize if it got aggravating to explain and debate repeatedly.

We are all victims of our beliefs and prejudices. My frustration is my inability to explain it better for the member's understanding. I don't know how to make it more clear. I taught my first wife how to drive and she lived to get her driver license in spite of my desire to strangle her. I told her that it did not matter if she was driving forward or in reverse, just turn the wheel in the direction she wanted the car to go. I could not think of any simpler way of telling her how to steer the car. She would invariably turn the wrong way in reverse. I cannot explain to you or anyone else, the premise of creating your reality any better than I have done. I cannot stop you from backing the car into the trash can but I am sure you will get your license to drive in any event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing was added to Revelation, it was the last book of the canon, and those verses were the last instructions (Revelation 22:18-19).

The canon was created by combining works together. Revelations is last, only because the others were added in front of it. This is how compilations are made.

, nothing is contradictory, including Paul's letters, none of which contradict the Sermon on the Mount

Plain language reading comprehension shows otherwise.

Paul: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."

Sermon On The Mount: "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away"

"Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?"

If that is your reality, I am good with it. There are blind people in the world and I believe here on the forum as well. Being blind is not a part of my reality. I can see fairly well with bifocals. There are many who share a reality of poverty. That is not my reality. I live a fair middle income life. I am not going to give any more of the billions of other examples.

What does the word "reality" mean? Edited by mererdog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word "reality" can mean anything you wish it to, mererdog. After all thou art God. I could tell you what it means to me and it would be equally valid as I, too, am God but I don't feel up to continuing. You have had plenty of opportunity to know what I believe and as I explained (or tried to explain) to cuchulain, the fault is no doubt mine due to my inability to communicate. However, I am not too concerned with that because mine is not an evangelistic form of belief/spirituality. You obviously do not agree with me and I am ok with that and you have no doubt learned that I do not agree with you. Enough is enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Communication is only possible if we ascribe the same meanings. Even if only temporarily, for the sake of mutual understanding.

Understanding can be limited if the communicator is exhausted with repetition of employing various examples to illustrate his meaning to no success of the inquiring party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understanding can be limited if the communicator is exhausted with repetition of employing various examples to illustrate his meaning to no success of the inquiring party.

Doing the same thing over and over is not a good way to get different results. That is true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yep, I think the communicator didn't understand that I was debating his views. He kept explaining his views as if I didn't understand what they were, and I kept refuting them, but despite the refutation, he just tried to explain them in a different way so that I would agree. I can understand how that may have been frustrating, but doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is the definition of insanity, I believe. I just don't agree with Brother Kaman's particular view of reality, and was explaining such. Maybe neither of us communicated well, but I think in the end we both easily agree to disagree about this particular subject, with no hard feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plain language reading comprehension shows otherwise.

Paul: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."

Sermon On The Mount: "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away"

"Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?"

I don't read those verses as contradictory, I don't think Jesus was referring to people who were too lazy to work, but was inspiring us to help the poor and those in need. Paul was telling us not to enable a bum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't read those verses as contradictory, I don't think Jesus was referring to people who were too lazy to work, but was inspiring us to help the poor and those in need. Paul was telling us not to enable a bum.

There are actually two parts I quoted from the Sermon. One regards helping others. The other regards helping the self. Jesus specifically says to place faith in God to provide needs, rather than working to provide the needs yourself. As I said, this is plain language reading comprehension. Looking at what is said, purely in terms if what is said. The language is quite strident, leaving no implication of exception. If you don't think the words are meant to apply to lazy people, I suggest you look again. The rule is to treat even the worst people well. Even your enemy, even those who curse you, even those who strike you. They ask for shoes you give them socks too. Of course doing all that stuff only makes sense if you trust in God to provide your daily bread and you believe that to be poor is to be blessed. Otherwise, you will assert that people should earn things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try to blend religious belief and science, as in my own personal opinion, intuition is as valid as science in many cases. I see them both as one side of the coin, and so part of each other, to an extent. Science explains as much of the world as it can, but sometimes there are gaps that can be filled in by belief. Of course, speaking for myself, I have no problem changing my beliefs when science shows I am wrong. I think that is critical.

So, using intuition to decide what the above messages mean might be perfectly acceptable for Dan, don't you think Mererdog? If he uses intuition, which I believe Christianity refers to as the holy spirit, then his interpretation of the messages is correct for him at least. For me? Well, that doesn't really matter, because every persons intuition is unique to that person, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, using intuition to decide what the above messages mean might be perfectly acceptable for Dan, don't you think Mererdog?

As I said, I speak only in terms of plain language reading comprehension. I make no comment on other ways of gleaning meaning from the text. I brought it up only because Dan's accusation that people ignore the words struck a chord. I also believe people ignore the words in the Bible in order to make things fit. Unlike Dan, I believe the early church as guilty of it as later churches.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am certain that the church is guilty of such, early or modern. After all, the book had to be canonized by someone, and that someone had an agenda. Each group present at the canonization of the bible had an agenda, I am willing to wager, and so none of the books are free from interference by political motivation, at least that is my opinion of the bible. I know Dan doesn't share that opinion, and that his reading of the book is such that it has no errors or mistakes, and has not been added to or taken away from. I can understand that a person looking at it historically would view things differently perhaps, I do myself, but I was referring to Dan using his own ability to intuit what the book says for himself, and coming to terms with it in his own way. Plain reading comprehension is a given. But, reading the book through the lens or auspices of the Holy Spirit gives it a whole new interpretation. At least, that is my understanding of how such works. As I say frequently, I am not a Christian, nor do I personally believe the bible to be divinely inspired.

Of course, this is the point I should probably shut myself up, because I have no right to be speaking on Dan's behalf, so I apologize to Dan.

Edited by cuchulain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am certain that the church is guilty of such, early or modern. After all, the book had to be canonized by someone, and that someone had an agenda. Each group present at the canonization of the bible had an agenda, I am willing to wager, and so none of the books are free from interference by political motivation, at least that is my opinion of the bible. I know Dan doesn't share that opinion, and that his reading of the book is such that it has no errors or mistakes, and has not been added to or taken away from. I can understand that a person looking at it historically would view things differently perhaps, I do myself, but I was referring to Dan using his own ability to intuit what the book says for himself, and coming to terms with it in his own way. Plain reading comprehension is a given. But, reading the book through the lens or auspices of the Holy Spirit gives it a whole new interpretation. At least, that is my understanding of how such works. As I say frequently, I am not a Christian, nor do I personally believe the bible to be divinely inspired.

Of course, this is the point I should probably shut myself up, because I have no right to be speaking on Dan's behalf, so I apologize to Dan.

Here's a thought. If the "Holy Spirit" were enough to avoid error -- we would not need "the word." Maybe, we don't. I don't.

By all means, let us pause, so that someone can protest that we do need "the word."

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, reading the book through the lens or auspices of the Holy Spirit gives it a whole new interpretation. At least, that is my understanding of how such works.

I've heard the claim. I've never gotten a straight answer on how to tell the difference between gaining insight through the Holy Spirit and inventing convenient justifications.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Amulet locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share