Should Islam, Christianity and Judaism unite?

[RowdyReptile]

I'm with you. I suppose I really meant to say that the OT Laws had been abrogated by the coming of Christ. He was the fulfilment.

Well certainly a lot of them where swept away. What Christ said is testament to that. I remember some verses that Christ said that spoke of, in essence, allowing some things due to the hardness of the hearts of men. Christ also said that from the beginning it was not so.

And the Old Testament like the New, is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Well, sure. It was the work of the so called prophets writing through the guidance of the comforter and revealer of truth. All three members of the Godhead were present from the beginning of this Earth, so that is easy to figure out. Some people think Jesus was something Heavenly father conjured up later down the line, but he was there from the start, and was the creator of this world.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

Hmmm....he has seen the father do certain things, and he did them likewise here, I would imagine. Fascinating.

The Psalms are especially and play are large part in the Catholic liturgy. In fact the Roman Breviary that Priests are compelled to pray daily under pain of mortal sin, covers every one of the 150 psalms each week.

And of course the liturgy, depending on the time of the liturgical year we find ourselves in, will concentrate on certain aspects of the Old and New Testament scriptures. Abraham for instance is prominent in the liturgy between Christmas and Lent.

Thanks for that bit of trivia.

RR

[Halicarnassus]

And what I take from all of this is that as humans we need not concentrate on any mysteries that are beyond our grasp. The Trinitarian concept I accept because if you are a Christian you believe everything that Christ says, not just the parts that are comfortable/popular/easy.

But this mindset applies also to Science.

Why the incessant search for the unsearchable? Why try to discover the things that we cannot ever know by physical means?

Why the incessant reductionism and breaking up of things? “He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.” JRR Tolkien

Why the incessant attack on religious faith and the perversion of science as an enemy rather than as a friend of religion? Science and Religion work in different spheres and set out to provide explanations for different areas.

This is the harvest of Scientism at its worst.

[Clariman]

Why the incessant attack on religious faith and the perversion of science as an enemy rather than as a friend of religion? Science and Religion work in different spheres and set out to provide explanations for different areas.

As a non-believer, the HUGE difference between religious faith and science is that the former discourages questioning and the search for evidence, whereas science seeks and demands it. Blind faith is something that I could never buy in to.

[beeswax]

Why the incessant attack on religious faith and the perversion of science as an enemy rather than as a friend of religion? Science and Religion work in different spheres and set out to provide explanations for different areas.

As a non-believer, the HUGE difference between religious faith and science is that the former discourages questioning and the search for evidence, whereas science seeks and demands it. Blind faith is something that I could never buy in to.

Well said Clariman.

I've said that I am a former Christian and for a long time too and even though I have an Engineering Science Degree and I think an enquiring mind never gave my faith that much thought and just went along with the soundbites that all Christian use and went along to church services and took the bread and wine just like the others and just listened to the Preacher and sang a few songs and how I loved the music and why I joined the Salvation Army when I was 12 years old and then returned there a few years ago. I don't want to suggest that most religious people are like that. Because I don't know, only the ones I have known personally and they are just like that, no questions, much smiling and handshaking and see you next week. Bible study wasn't actually 'studying' the text in any critical way or to question its validity only what can we 'learn' from it...ie this word of God?

Its very strange because in retirement and more time on my hands, I decided to try and learn much more than I ever had before by research especially the New Testament and in the process become a 'better' more knowledgeable Christian and hopefully draw closer to God in the process. It was probably hundreds of hours and then it started to dawn on me that I had been and was on the wrong religious path and that seeking out the Creator of the Universe which still remains a big question of course but that lots of biblical text could not be true and clashed with science and what we know today and its just too convenient for believers to try and argue they sit side by side and gel together. The hell they do!

It will take to long, it has already on a forum like this to really explain all the stuff I've researched, never mind the clear and unambiguous contradictions in the OT and the NT and its not genuine to say that Jesus was or is God because Jesus explained that he wasn't many times but does that make a difference to those like the Catholic Church? Not a bit and a poster here makes exactly the same error by saying that all that Jesus said in the Gospels must be believed without realizing that most NT historians including Christian ones will say its highly unlikely Jesus said many of the things written decades later by non eye witnesses ie Greek Christians. The OT was also written hundreds of years later by non eye witnesses too and the Rabbi's will tell us that it was all past by tradition and word of mouth and we all know how much inflation takes place in the process. Jesus said not one dot or comma of the law shall be discarded until the end of the world and yet most Christians think he came to replace many parts of the OT law, see the post above for confirmation!

No, it was Paul who said many things in 'direct' contradiction to Jesus..and the Christian Church virtually worships a man called Jesus and not God actually. He certainly wasn't the Messiah or the 'Christ' which was another contradiction when you can all read what the prophesied Messiah was to do when he did arrive and there was never a second coming prophesied. Anyway, does any of this matter and isn't it OK to believe in it all and say its metaphorical and allegorical and lessons can all be learned from it no matter what?

Not so much but when believers say its the word of God and that Jesus is God and then 'teach' that all that Jesus said about eg Divorce and adultery and the Church upheld that for 2000 years that nobody can have a divorce except for adultery and even then cannot get remarried (In church to someone else, that too would be adultery! Catholics still have to seek permission to get a divorce and how come Jesus never mentioned anything about mental and physical abuse as a reason and then say its fine for women with kids to seek another love and get married? Ah Marriage is made in heaven they say...Jesus said so...Well how about treating Jesus as a young unmarried man with absolutely no idea about marriage, much the same as all the Popes, Cardinals and Priests?

Don't get me started on how the bible AND the Church treated homosexuals...

Sorry...Its far to long a post and I could write loads and loads about all this BUT the net result is I am now a Deist for now and think all organised religion is mostly evil and against what the Creator would have wanted and that would be clear to anyone that cares to really 'study' the why's and wherefores and particularly its history.

The sad part is they won't and they all walk away when challenged!

[Halicarnassus]

Why the incessant attack on religious faith and the perversion of science as an enemy rather than as a friend of religion? Science and Religion work in different spheres and set out to provide explanations for different areas.

As a non-believer, the HUGE difference between religious faith and science is that the former discourages questioning and the search for evidence, whereas science seeks and demands it. Blind faith is something that I could never buy in to.

But that merely shows your ignorance on this particular manner.

What religious faith are you specifically referring to?

And what exact evidence should religious faith be looking for?

Are you saying that they should be looking for the same thing? If so, what should they be looking for?

[beeswax]

Why the incessant attack on religious faith and the perversion of science as an enemy rather than as a friend of religion? Science and Religion work in different spheres and set out to provide explanations for different areas.

As a non-believer, the HUGE difference between religious faith and science is that the former discourages questioning and the search for evidence, whereas science seeks and demands it. Blind faith is something that I could never buy in to.

But that merely shows your ignorance on this particular manner.

What religious faith are you specifically referring to?

And what exact evidence should religious faith be looking for?

Are you saying that they should be looking for the same thing? If so, what should they be looking for?

All the ignorance is on the part of believers of ALL organised religion who all claim God spoke with a few men between the centuries. Why none in the last 1500 given Gabriel spoke to Muhammad? That God was so upset and angry with Adam that there was no way back until he decided to send his only son down some 4000 years afterwards...the very essence of goodness, fairness and justice and love is you don't judge another human being for the wrong doing of someone else....Humans don't and yet God did?

You are a Catholic and I've asked you this already.

Why did your Church hold Galileo under house arrest for many years? No conflict between science and religion? It then took several hundreds of years for the Vatican to issue and apology for doing that....Better late than never?

The whole basis and foundation of the Abrahamic Faiths is based on the creation story in the NT. That was totally UNTRUE and so that is the only evidence we need. Its not compatible with science. Just go the next step and ask why does God need, no, demand a redemptive human sacrifice?

[ReformedCharacter]

As a non-believer, the HUGE difference between religious faith and science is that the former discourages questioning and the search for evidence, whereas science seeks and demands it. Blind faith is something that I could never buy in to.

But that merely shows your ignorance on this particular manner.

What religious faith are you specifically referring to?

And what exact evidence should religious faith be looking for?

Are you saying that they should be looking for the same thing? If so, what should they be looking for?

All the ignorance is on the part of believers of ALL organised religion who all claim God spoke with a few men between the centuries. Why none in the last 1500 given Gabriel spoke to Muhammad? That God was so upset and angry with Adam that there was no way back until he decided to send his only son down some 4000 years afterwards...the very essence of goodness, fairness and justice and love is you don't judge another human being for the wrong doing of someone else....Humans don't and yet God did?

You are a Catholic and I've asked you this already.

Why did your Church hold Galileo under house arrest for many years? No conflict between science and religion? It then took several hundreds of years for the Vatican to issue and apology for doing that....Better late than never?

The whole basis and foundation of the Abrahamic Faiths is based on the creation story in the NT. That was totally UNTRUE and so that is the only evidence we need. Its not compatible with science. Just go the next step and ask why does God need, no, demand a redemptive human sacrifice?

Beeswax, you are not worth debating with. You have admitted in the past that you are biased and therefore incapable of reasoned debate. You merely use this forum to expend your bile and insult others. Truly a waste of time.

RC

[beeswax]

But that merely shows your ignorance on this particular manner.

What religious faith are you specifically referring to?

And what exact evidence should religious faith be looking for?

Are you saying that they should be looking for the same thing? If so, what should they be looking for?

All the ignorance is on the part of believers of ALL organised religion who all claim God spoke with a few men between the centuries. Why none in the last 1500 given Gabriel spoke to Muhammad? That God was so upset and angry with Adam that there was no way back until he decided to send his only son down some 4000 years afterwards...the very essence of goodness, fairness and justice and love is you don't judge another human being for the wrong doing of someone else....Humans don't and yet God did?

You are a Catholic and I've asked you this already.

Why did your Church hold Galileo under house arrest for many years? No conflict between science and religion? It then took several hundreds of years for the Vatican to issue and apology for doing that....Better late than never?

The whole basis and foundation of the Abrahamic Faiths is based on the creation story in the NT. That was totally UNTRUE and so that is the only evidence we need. Its not compatible with science. Just go the next step and ask why does God need, no, demand a redemptive human sacrifice?

Beeswax, you are not worth debating with. You have admitted in the past that you are biased and therefore incapable of reasoned debate. You merely use this forum to expend your bile and insult others. Truly a waste of time.

RC

Oh really?

Another Christian that wants to insult rather than actually addressing the points I have made. And have I admitted to be biased and if so what was the context I made that comment? I can't recall saying it tbh...

I doubt that many Christians have put the time in to 'think' about what it was they believed and why? I have and so can rebut almost everything they can come up and so as we can see on this thread, they would rather insult and then walk away. I've seen it on the internet many many times and have experienced that personally to my so called ex 'Christian' friends, who I wouldn't give the time of day and could give many examples of why that is and one thing I do know is if Jesus is doing any judging in the next life, he will tell them to depart from him PDQ.. A truly hypocritical bunch you will ever see...

I used to be very defensive too about my faith but now consider that seeking the truth matters more and has freed me from a very biased and cruel evil bible and NT...and hope that one day the Catholic Church will do as they did with Galileo and apologise for their very disgusting words they say about gay people being evil and intrinsically disordered and the fact they haven't says more about them, than it does about anything else..

Don't pray to Jesus or to the Saints or read any bible text just THINK about what is right and what is wrong and what can we do to address them? I would advise a Catholic Woman who wants a divorce from an abusive husband NOT to go to her Church or her Priest though as they haven't got a clue...A secular society is much more loving and more tolerant than any Church or bible.

I can take it for granted this won't get a reply and so have a good day tomorrow or today that is...

[Halicarnassus]

Beeswax, you are not worth debating with. You have admitted in the past that you are biased and therefore incapable of reasoned debate. You merely use this forum to expend your bile and insult others. Truly a waste of time.

RC

Quite. I have blocked that user for that very reason. I am more than willing to debate my position, but there does appear to be some who have an axe to grind. In my opinion, from past experience on forums, the axe has been forged by a personal situation.

I'm not saying that this is the case here, but previous debates have shown that the person has come to take an antagonist position because their lifestyle is at odds with Church teaching. In previous examples, this might have been because of divorce, contraception, abortion, homosexuality etc.

NB: I cannot see the posts of blocked users unless someone else quotes them. So whatever else has been said I'm unaware of from the moment I blocked the user.

[ReformedCharacter]

All the ignorance is on the part of believers of ALL organised religion who all claim God spoke with a few men between the centuries. Why none in the last 1500 given Gabriel spoke to Muhammad? That God was so upset and angry with Adam that there was no way back until he decided to send his only son down some 4000 years afterwards...the very essence of goodness, fairness and justice and love is you don't judge another human being for the wrong doing of someone else....Humans don't and yet God did?

You are a Catholic and I've asked you this already.

Why did your Church hold Galileo under house arrest for many years? No conflict between science and religion? It then took several hundreds of years for the Vatican to issue and apology for doing that....Better late than never?

The whole basis and foundation of the Abrahamic Faiths is based on the creation story in the NT. That was totally UNTRUE and so that is the only evidence we need. Its not compatible with science. Just go the next step and ask why does God need, no, demand a redemptive human sacrifice?

Beeswax, you are not worth debating with. You have admitted in the past that you are biased and therefore incapable of reasoned debate. You merely use this forum to expend your bile and insult others. Truly a waste of time.

RC

Oh really?

Another Christian that wants to insult rather than actually addressing the points I have made. And have I admitted to be biased and if so what was the context I made that comment? I can't recall saying it tbh...

I doubt that many Christians have put the time in to 'think' about what it was they believed and why? I have and so can rebut almost everything they can come up and so as we can see on this thread, they would rather insult and then walk away. I've seen it on the internet many many times and have experienced that personally to my so called ex 'Christian' friends, who I wouldn't give the time of day and could give many examples of why that is and one thing I do know is if Jesus is doing any judging in the next life, he will tell them to depart from him PDQ.. A truly hypocritical bunch you will ever see...

I used to be very defensive too about my faith but now consider that seeking the truth matters more and has freed me from a very biased and cruel evil bible and NT...and hope that one day the Catholic Church will do as they did with Galileo and apologise for their very disgusting words they say about gay people being evil and intrinsically disordered and the fact they haven't says more about them, than it does about anything else..

Don't pray to Jesus or to the Saints or read any bible text just THINK about what is right and what is wrong and what can we do to address them? I would advise a Catholic Woman who wants a divorce from an abusive husband NOT to go to her Church or her Priest though as they haven't got a clue...A secular society is much more loving and more tolerant than any Church or bible.

I can take it for granted this won't get a reply and so have a good day tomorrow or today that is...

You're completely wrong in your assumptions but that is no surprise!

And no, I'm not going to address the substance of your diatribe, it doesn't warrant the effort. But I will quote a few lines to you, not from the Bible, but a song called Idiot Wind by Bob Dylan:

Idiot wind
Blowing every time you move your mouth
Blowing down the back roads headin' south
Idiot wind
Blowing every time you move your teeth
You're an idiot, babe
It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe

RC

[Clariman]

Moderator Message:
Would posters desist from personal attacks and insulting comments. There is a lot of interesting discussion here, so let's take a step back and be respectful. Thanks

[Clariman]

As a non-believer, the HUGE difference between religious faith and science is that the former discourages questioning and the search for evidence, whereas science seeks and demands it. Blind faith is something that I could never buy in to.

But that merely shows your ignorance on this particular manner[sic].

Thanks

What religious faith are you specifically referring to?
And what exact evidence should religious faith be looking for?
Are you saying that they should be looking for the same thing? If so, what should they be looking for?

It certainly applies to faiths that I have some familiarity with, but would apply to any religion where there is an established orthodoxy that must be followed.

You don't have to look for any evidence if you don't want to - it is a free country.

Perhaps I can best explain my point, by giving some examples. When something does not fit into current thinking, religions and science take a very different approach. When someone questions a bible (or other religious text) belief, they are called a heretic or a denier. When someone questions a scientific belief, more data is gathered and expert minds ponder over it, create new hypotheses, test those hypotheses until a new understanding emerges that is based on the evidence. Do you not acknowledge that difference?

Scientific thinking goes through a rugged process of constant questioning and refinement. Religious thinking starts from a premise ("faith") that the God exists and is all knowing and all powerful. Ancient religious writings (e.g. Bible, Koran, Torah) then get quoted to deny the new information that has come to light.

I am not saying that religious people do not sometimes question their faith. Of course they do. However, instead of thinking afresh and looking at the wider world for evidence (either confirmatory or contradictory), they feel bad that their faith has weakened and simply go back to the orthodox texts and their spiritual leaders for the answers.

I hope that helps explain my thinking.

I would also observe that it is difficult for non-believers and believers to have meaningful discussions on topics like this because they have a very different framework for viewing life. But it is worth discussing nevertheless, provided it is done respectfully by all.

Clariman

[beeswax]

Heretics were burned at the stake and the perpetrators were Christians, so make of that what you will. It's disappointing that intelligent people have to resort to name calling and insults and even to advise placing someone on an 'ignore' list instead of addressing the points raised or the obvious contradiction between religious text and scientific knowledge. Clariman has once again succinctly stated the difference but it will fall on deaf ears I'm afraid. But one or two on Internet forums makes no difference either way as long as the Establishment supports fiction over truth.

Ignorant and uneducated people have an excuse but the evidence is available to anyone that cares to look for it and examine it for themselves. My long experience with Christians particularly is they refuse to do so when it conflicts with their faith.They will even argue there is NO conflict but as you say, it's a free country even though the church is allowed to have special privileges and can discriminate against people based on religious text that IF it was written today would be banned. Personally I couldn't care less what people believe as long as it doesn't impact on the practical or moral guidance on minorities like the gay community. Religious text states they are evil and even should be put to death. They are being killed today as we speak in some parts of the world and all because of words written many centuries ago by ignorant men. Its not that difficult to know it's not the word of God at all and come to realise that by now.

[Halicarnassus]

Perhaps I can best explain my point, by giving some examples. When something does not fit into current thinking, religions and science take a very different approach. When someone questions a bible (or other religious text) belief, they are called a heretic or a denier. When someone questions a scientific belief, more data is gathered and expert minds ponder over it, create new hypotheses, test those hypotheses until a new understanding emerges that is based on the evidence. Do you not acknowledge that difference?

I do, but I feel you are falling prey to a category error of sorts. Let me explain, if you may.

Science has its domain. It is there to answer questions of a physical nature, more specifically things that can be measured. I think we can agree on that.

Unfortunately there has been an increasingly popular Scientism that masquerades as Science attempting to answer things that it cannot possibly hope to: questions about Faith, Morals, God, Creation. The last point is interesting because this has been smuggled in via theories of evolution (macro, not micro). Still, in the end Science can only go back as far (technically) to a starting point- big bang, singularity etc - and then it can go no further. It cannot see outside of the box that it is in. And this is not a criticism, it's just a fact of the material science has got available to it and its boundaries.

And science continues to shed light on the natural world as it should through tested hypothesis, incidence, revision etc. All well and good.

On the other hand, Faith (and I can only really talk from the Catholic perspective) is a position that a person holds based on an accumulation of evidence of a material, circumstantial and logical basis. (I would like to think of myself as fairly balanced and minimally intelligent, married with children, hold several degrees, teach at University etc. (I say this only insofar as it may show that I can think to a degree). I have also been an atheist for 10 years prior to going to the Catholic Faith. It's been an intellectual journey and shows I am capable of changing positions on strength of evidence and argument.)

Now the Catholic Church holds what is called the deposit of faith: that which was handed down from the last Apostle. Nothing can change about the Life of Christ as has been recorded by them via their evidence: The complete New Testament.

Now the Catholic Faith does not have any issues with Science or anything else for that matter that does not contradict the deposit of faith: evolution no, big bang - not that either.

The Catholic Faith is concerned about the Salvation of Souls. It is concerned with the moral being. It does not worry about electrons: why should it?

You should see surely that the Faith and Sciences should be staying in their own domain, I hope?

Scientific thinking goes through a rugged process of constant questioning and refinement. Religious thinking starts from a premise ("faith") that the God exists and is all knowing and all powerful. Ancient religious writings (e.g. Bible, Koran, Torah) then get quoted to deny the new information that has come to light.

The idea of Faith as I mentioned above is different from how you are using it. It is not blind faith. It is just another step after historical evidence, arguments and the like. Peter Kreeft explains this best....

"Arguments can bring you closer to faith in the same sense that a car can bring you to the sea. The car can't swim; you have to jump in to do that. But you can't jump in from a hundred miles inland. You need a car first to bring you to the point where you can make a leap of faith into the sea. Faith is a leap, but a leap in the light, not in the dark."

(Handbook of Catholic Apologetics: Reasoned Answers to Questions of Faith)

[Clariman]

Halicarnassus
Thank you for a very interesting post. Also interesting to know that you and Beeswax have taken the opposite journey, so to speak. I shall give it some more thought.
C

[beeswax]

I find all discussions about religious faith interesting even though I come from it from a revised perspective based on reason, logic and evidence that is available to us all. As Helicarnassus has me on his ignore list, he won't see my contributions which is a pity as in all the time I posted on TMF I never did that and there was no need as if you disagree with anyone, just either skip through it or just pass and he can answer for himself why they do that?

I suspect its because they find the questions put too difficult to answer and too challenging to their faith and so bury head in sand and continue with their beliefs. Its much easier to do that. I would challenge his last contribution though because its full of holes. The bible teaches NOTHING unless you are predisposed to the text and where and who wrote it and why the historical context and evidence is so important to research before we come to any conclusions. I would hope that anyone with a degree would at least realize how important that is...Unless they have done a degree in theology.

The so called 'moral' teaching of the bible is out of kilter with a modern secular society and why we should not take it seriously. He also says its about 'saving souls' and not about the materialist dimension. My former Christian belief would agree with that statement but its based on a false premise. And IF intelligent people would at least try and think why, they would with respect make progress. The basis of a needing saving or needing a Saviour is wholly based on the bible telling us we are ALL sinners and the Catholic Church still teaches that started in the garden of eden and like Paul believed in that original sin that separates us from God and the only way back to him is via Jesus Christ.

I would ask Helicarnessus if he and his church teaches the validity of evolution now, something they have always denied, then how can they possibly believe we need 'saving' from something that never happened? Simple question?

Saint Paul wrote that non believers would suffer the same fate as murderers and the wrath of God if they don't convert and that is still the Church's teaching. So IF they believe in evolution as they say they do, then surely they can agree that God didn't separate himself from us and that was just made up? Is this important or not to know that?

Things stated in the bible CAN be measured like the 6 day creation and the great flood. Jesus said to ask God anything in his name and God will do it...his words and not mine and so that can be measured as having the faith as small as a mustard seed that can move mountains Jesus said, has anyone ever moved a mountain by faith and not dynamite? That can be measured. Jesus said he was coming back in his generation and Paul said he was coming back in that time too and that can be measured whether it happened or not?

Moral teaching can be measured and the OT has Mosaic Law as its foundation where people were stoned to death for all manner of things including working on the Sabbath. Do Christians and Jews consider that to be the 'moral' standards we should have today being that they believe its all God's word? Jesus said the law would stand until the end of the world and so why don't Christians adopt his standards and he even said those who kept the law would be saved! So no blood sacrifice needed then?

I only ask people to actually look at the evidence and not take MY word for it and see for themselves that there is very little in the bible that is worth teaching to anyone and lastly, for me anyway, their conception of God is not mine and their beliefs are actually contradictory to their claim that God is merciful, God is compassionate and just and that God needs an atoning sacrifice based on a mythical garden of eden that never existed, only in their imagination.

Pity he won't get to read it but there you go...it happens the whole time..

[beeswax]

I should have added one very simple sentence..

WHY...Would God want to punish anyone or send them to eternal hell if they have done nothing wrong, whether they be a believer or non believer? The ONLY way Christians can answer that is by saying its based on Saint Paul statement that 'All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God' ie original sin. And we know for certain that NEVER happened.

I think its all based on FEAR, that they won't get to heaven unless they believe in the NT. In other words you are being sent to eternal hell based on thought crime...ie saved by faith alone as Paul put it or a belief...The vilest murderer can be saved on his death bed by a last second confession and yet a non believer who may have helped millions during his life isn't?

This is the nonsense promulgated in the name of God in the bible and its all full of deceit and its not true! I don't doubt that some people have converted to faith by a damascus road experience or life changing experience and feel better by doing so but that is another question for this board.

Would I as a Christian for 50 years not be afraid of now going to hell because I have recanted all that stuff as fantasy now I am nearing the end of my life? Isn't it best to be safe than sorry,ie the Occams Razer question?

No, because for me, the truth matters more than anything and am prepared to stand before God and argue it out...

[DiamondEcho]

I'd like to ask a few questions...

Science has its domain. It is there to answer questions of a physical nature, more specifically things that can be measured. I think we can agree on that.

I disagree that it's domain is as restricted as that. Wikipedia defines it as 'Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.'. So science is about more than the physical realm, and for example we have areas like the Social Sciences including sociology, psychology, and so on. And furthermore if science and theology are divided into separate realms, then where do so called Christian Scientists fit in?

Unfortunately there has been an increasingly popular Scientism that masquerades as Science attempting to answer things that it cannot possibly hope to: questions about Faith, Morals, God, Creation. The last point is interesting because this has been smuggled in via theories of evolution (macro, not micro). Still, in the end Science can only go back as far (technically) to a starting point- big bang, singularity etc - and then it can go no further. It cannot see outside of the box that it is in. And this is not a criticism, it's just a fact of the material science has got available to it and its boundaries. ...

Darwin's Origin of Species [c1860] was both radical, and heretical to the Church when it was published; the latter being no surprise since it threatened the Church's power. [Side-thought, why would the Church be interested in having power when it projects itself as selfless and noble?] How far our 'smuggled in' knowledge, our ability to 'prove beyond reasonable doubt' has come these past 160 years. It seems that after just 160 years a Christian would have us discount Darwin, but accept religion on the basis of faith in the absence of any evidence. IMO in modern parlance that's a 'tough sell'. Is it any wonder church attendance has dropped off a cliff in parallel with the increase in education and knowledge?
You discount scientists as only being able to go back to the Big-Bang, but support a view of the world that demands that the earth and everything on it was created about two thousand years ago. On that sub-topic a Christian demands that the sun orbits the earth and to hell with Copernicus. I'm not sure how a Christian can maintain that, do they deny it's untrue or somehow reconcile it?

Now the Catholic Church holds what is called the deposit of faith: that which was handed down from the last Apostle. Nothing can change about the Life of Christ as has been recorded by them via their evidence: The complete New Testament.
Now the Catholic Faith does not have any issues with Science or anything else for that matter that does not contradict the deposit of faith: evolution no, big bang - not that either.
The Catholic Faith is concerned about the Salvation of Souls. It is concerned with the moral being. It does not worry about electrons: why should it?

Here you're suggesting that knowledge that contradicts Christian teaching is ok, but development of knowledge [if possible] about 'Christ' isn't allowed. If he exists, he has a form of protected status. But if he existed and more knowledge came to light, would you not want to know it? If that were the case aren't you more a follower of a concept, or perhaps an ideal, than a set of proven facts?
The Catholic faith might be concerned with the 'Salvation of Souls' I don't know, but when the peasantry were toiling 18hrs a day in the fields just to get by, selling them scientifically ridiculous myths like 'turning water into wine' might has been a simpler task than it is these days. Can I ask, which bits of the bible are we meant to take at face value and how is the average person meant to know?

[beeswax]

Thanks DE..

I wonder whether your questions will be answered or will they be ignored because they will once again call into question the bible. Jesus was and is God, Catholics and other Christians will tell you yet he told the disciples not to wash their hands before eating when we know for absolute certainty they are responsible for passing on bacteria in a big way... Erm anything in the bible where God 'created' it? I also want to know if they think he is God and said the law.ie the law of Moses in the NT then why are they all not advocating capital punishment for children swearing at their parents, people having sex before marriage, working on the Sabbath and of course putting homosexuals to death. Ah they will say that Jesus put an end to all that and is the new covenant! Because St Paul said so..So who was right, Jesus or Paul on the law? How come the disciples still tried to keep to the law even after his death?

I once had a long discussion with a Church Minister who said the bible was definitely the very word of God and I asked him why then did God consider menstruation as unclean and women on their periods should separate themselves from others during that time plus a bit more and then toddle along to the Temple to make a sacrifice to God for this 'sin'? Its there in Leviticus.

In some ways I couldn't care a less, I have done my homework on the bible. But I do care about bare faced lies that are written in the bible. I have experienced close quarters to what being a Christian means to some believers includimg me, who really did believe the words of Jesus when he said to "Ask God anything in his name and God will do it" Its there in black and white. That little sentence caused my wife to have a nervous breakdown because she went to Sunday School when she was very young and was indoctrinated into it all and was told if God doesn't answer your prayers its because you don't have enough faith or you aren't good enough and keep praying and he will answer in his good time etc...

Its cruel, its tantamount to mental blackmail and has caused untold misery in the world and its time it was stopped and you know the real offenders are? The Church, its leaders and preachers and even Christians themselves who all tell us we need to live a better life and then when people point out the errors and contradictions in the bible, they all run away because they can read what we all can read and the probability is that they never put it to the test...Indeed they even say you should not do so as that is in the bible...

Would Jesus today ever get away with telling people to have faith as small as a seed in order to move mountains? No, he wouldn't because today we would say, OK then Jesus, see that mountain over there? Go move it with your faith and being God an all? Jesus was surrounded by mostly ignorant and uneducated men who really needed to ask some follow up questions. And yet Christians will tell us all these are the ones we should base our lives on...Having simple faith is OK, but not when its preached as God's truth and we are all sinners and need saving and the alternative is hell fire not just for a day a week but for ever and ever...Its complete and utter BS.

Pity I'm on all their ignore lists as they really would learn a thing or two about what it really all means..and its not what impressionable children should be taught..

[quelquod]

Oh dear Beeswax, you really do churn out such drivel. Just not worth reading so to save myself the tedium I'll just block you. Congratulations - you are my first and only.

You discount scientists as only being able to go back to the Big-Bang, but support a view of the world that demands that the earth and everything on it was created about two thousand years ago. On that sub-topic a Christian demands that the sun orbits the earth and to hell with Copernicus. I'm not sure how a Christian can maintain that, do they deny it's untrue or somehow reconcile it?]

I seem to remember Hawkins pointing out this limitation of science in his 'Brief History Of Time'.
I think you have your figures wrong, but in any case very few Christians (or others who believe the Mosaic books) believe that they are universally literal.
You last couple of sentences above are quite remarkable if it's truly what you believe.

Rather than trying to respond I'd suggest a bit of reading around the subject before you try a Q&A with this degree of conciseness.