Terry, although I completely disagree with you I have enjoyed our discussion. You are correct that I believe that there is one source for the basis of morality and from my point of view that is God. I do not believe that the need for morals in a society grew simply and exclusively out of a practical need to survive. That can't be the ultimate reason because every person has the same right and human nature need to survive. So if I need to kill you to survive or to steal your "slave" asset to survive, I would have the right to do so. Your right to survive is no greater than mine.
Posts by RWC
-
171The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?
by Terry inhistory has demonstrated:.
religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone or something.. science asks questions.. religion purports to answer questions.. science seeks to disprove its own conclusions.. religion seeks to reinforce its own dogma.. science is error-correction toward adjusting for realities as they unfold.. religion internalizes against reality by mocking up a substitute.. science is the most recent development of the human mind.
technology proves science to be successful in advancing human progress.. religion disdains human progress and waits for the end.
-
-
-
171
The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?
by Terry inhistory has demonstrated:.
religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone or something.. science asks questions.. religion purports to answer questions.. science seeks to disprove its own conclusions.. religion seeks to reinforce its own dogma.. science is error-correction toward adjusting for realities as they unfold.. religion internalizes against reality by mocking up a substitute.. science is the most recent development of the human mind.
technology proves science to be successful in advancing human progress.. religion disdains human progress and waits for the end.
-
-
RWC
Thank you for the thoughtful response, but I think you missed my point ot I did not make myself clear. To say that morality is practical and then to argue that a person will adhere to the moral code of his society in order not to be shunned, to me is saying two different things all together. One does not support the other. First, your arguement appears to be that morality in a society is something that society determines what it will say is right or wrong. But there has to be a basis for that morality and those societial decisions. They are not just survival. To use your example, there are some communities that would not arrest you for going out in public in the nude. There are some communities that are exploring and even debating legal sanction of euthanasia of the elderly or sick (If my memroy serves, I think that was in Swedan or Norway). It was clearly the debate that arose in the Terry Shivo issue- Did her husband have the right to starve her because he said that was what she wanted. Killing has not always been against the norm of society. Just look at Nazi Germany, within that society it was not only legal but encouraged to kill Jews under the morality of that culture. What was practical about that morality? If your argument is that morality is practical because people will adhere to the moral code for their own survival, than you have to ask the next question, who establishes the moral code. What makes one moral code any better than another one? If it comes down to what one group decides is right for them, how small or big does the group have to be before it is recognized as a moral code? If it comes down to each individual's decision of right and wrong and they just have to find the right goup to fit in, than it is completely random. If there is no group that fits what I think is morally right, I will just make my own group only to be extingushed by a bigger group with more power so that they may place their moral code on me. The end result is that morality is not practical at all, it is just who has the power at the time to impose their version of it on the rest of us. For example, a slave may not run away because the moral code he lives under tells him he will be put in jail or killed for doing so, but that does not make his slavery or the moral code that permits it practical for him or anyone else. Why do you think that society, and as you have argued for all time societies, have made killing another human being immoral and something that would not be tolerated? Why do some societies think that cannablism is moral and others do not? They certainly aren't our societies but they do or at least did exist. And do you think that the role of a religious belief has played absolutely no role in steering soceity from allowing killings, murder, adultry, etc.? What early society that had these prohibitions did so without basing them upon a relgious belief?
-
171
The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?
by Terry inhistory has demonstrated:.
religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone or something.. science asks questions.. religion purports to answer questions.. science seeks to disprove its own conclusions.. religion seeks to reinforce its own dogma.. science is error-correction toward adjusting for realities as they unfold.. religion internalizes against reality by mocking up a substitute.. science is the most recent development of the human mind.
technology proves science to be successful in advancing human progress.. religion disdains human progress and waits for the end.
-
-
RWC
Can I name some scientists who made great discoveries because of religion without their scientific training? Of course not. Their scientific training does allow them to make these discoveries. But does that mean that a scientist's religious belief does not play a part in his scientific endeavors? Attempting to limit religion to a motivation and discounting its influence is a fallacy. Religion is not designed to make scientific discoveries but the original question was which has benefited society the most. Science without a religious motivation to help mankind behind it is very limiting. To use your example of the poverty stricken village, science may provide the technology to plant and harvest, but what provides the thought to share that technology with others so that their suffering may be relieved? It can't be money because it is a poor village with no ability to pay for the technology. It can't be to benefit the human race because of the notion of survivial of the fittest would dictate that the weak go and the fittest survive and scientific logic would dictate that the less people to share limited resources the better. It must be something intangible, something that tells men to help others that are less fortunate then them even though they receive no tangible benefit from doing it. That arises from religion and the moral code that comes with it, not science.
-
171
The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?
by Terry inhistory has demonstrated:.
religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone or something.. science asks questions.. religion purports to answer questions.. science seeks to disprove its own conclusions.. religion seeks to reinforce its own dogma.. science is error-correction toward adjusting for realities as they unfold.. religion internalizes against reality by mocking up a substitute.. science is the most recent development of the human mind.
technology proves science to be successful in advancing human progress.. religion disdains human progress and waits for the end.
-
-
RWC
I must respond to the comment that morality is a practical matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. For someone who does not believe in God or a religious moral code, than morality is different for each person. What you think is moral someone else will think is immoral. There is nothing practical about something that varies from person to person. For example, I assume you would think that taking another person's life is wrong and therefore immoral. However, there are others who clearly believe that taking a life is moral under some circumstances. Such as the elderly who are infirm and can no longer benefit society but instead are a strain, some believe that it is moral for them to be killed for the benefit of society as a whole. There is no absolute moral code outside of religion that would prevent this thought from being "moral". Yet it undermines the "practical" thought that morality would prevent us from taking a life, even if it is for alleged beenfit of others. My point is that it is religion that gives and has always given the world a moral code not a random notion of what is practical. This does not mean that there haven't been horrible deeds conducted in the name of religion, of course there have been. But that does not discount the overall benefit that has arisen from a moral code that finds its beginnning in religion or a belief in God.
-
171
The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?
by Terry inhistory has demonstrated:.
religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone or something.. science asks questions.. religion purports to answer questions.. science seeks to disprove its own conclusions.. religion seeks to reinforce its own dogma.. science is error-correction toward adjusting for realities as they unfold.. religion internalizes against reality by mocking up a substitute.. science is the most recent development of the human mind.
technology proves science to be successful in advancing human progress.. religion disdains human progress and waits for the end.
-
-
RWC
From my perspective the question of which won, science or religion, is an spurious argument to make. Both have clearly benefited society and both have caused harm. If benefit is only measured in technological advances science clearly wins unless you fail to include the religious motivations of those striving to make the advances. I can't imagine that some of these advances were not pursued by people who did so because they were religious and wanted to benefit society to help others as they were taught in the Bible. By the same token, to claim that science is not influenced by faith or a belief system is nonsense. Take for example the "scientific" work done by Nazi Germany based on the belief that their race was superior and they attmepted to prove it through science. This may have been fake science, but nonetheless it was done in the name of science. My thought is that society cannot exist the way we know it without the influence and contributions from both.
-
53
Bible is God's word?
by Moxy inid like to hear some *reasoned* explanations for why you believe the bible is gods word.
ive been so fascinated by the study of *real* biblical scholarship since i began educating myself, i now find it incredulous that i used to take the bible as divine, along with all jws and tons of christians, including a good number here.
so id like to entertain your very best lines of evidence that this is the real deal.. mox
-
-
RWC
I have been coming to this board for a while now and have engaged in several of these debates always taking the sie of the Christian defender of the Bible. I have noticed two groups of people who take the opposite side. One that has a gneuine respect for others beliefs and who will engage in an honest intellectual discourse and one that will be litle others beliefs and raise nothing but sarcasm and insults. To the first group I respect your right to disagree. To the second I would ask that you attempt to refrain from being the non believer's equivilant of a fundamentalist.
As for the Bible being God's word, trying to prove this to someone who will throw out the Bible itself is like trying to prove who won the presidential election without counting the votes. The Bible itself must be the starting point to prove its veracity as God's word. What does it say about its origin, what is its history, has it stood the test of time and is it internally consistent. From there you can go to outside references to prove its validity. I would start with the story of Jesus and the historical accuracy of his existence. Unlike the bold statements that there is no proof of him outside of the Bible, that is incorrect. But beyond what was written about him outside of the Bible, look at how did his life changed the whole social structure of the world he lived in. In a matter of a very short time in historical terms, Jewish culture was changed because of his existence.
Also, look at the number of people who went to their deaths claiming to be eyewitnesses. Note I said eyewitnesses, not simply believers. There is a big difference. Muslims who blow themselves up for their beliefs are not the same as people who claimed to have been eyewitnesses to a ressurrection and went to their deaths without recanting and claiming they made it all up. For you to think that it was all made up, you must base that belief on no evidence. There is no evidence that the story was fabricated. I know, you will say, but the Romans never mentioned it in thier writings. Think about that argument in a present day context, would you say that if our Government doesn't write about something that is happening in Iran that it must never have happened? The Romans wrote about the death of Jesus but they did not write about his miracles. Does that logically mean they did not occur?
-
48
The Bible - inerrant word of God?
by Mr Bean inthe deeper you look into, clearer picture is emerging that god had not any input in these writings at all.
there are many verses, even whole passages which exist in some editions and in some they do not.. he evidently didn't supervised writers or copyists and we have plenty of evidences of that, his name in nt included.. since gospels of peter or thomas are not regarded as valuable and important documentations of jesus' life, only one conclusion comes to my mind.. as a moral guide the bible is an excellent book, written by... men!.
highly recommended!.
-
-
RWC
Since when is Monty Python common sense? My point was that to us it might sound a little odd, but that does not mean that it isn't true or that there is some supernatural component to the exercise.
There is no need to supress what you beleive to be common sense in order for me to have faith in God. In fact, "common sense" is so subjective that what you consider to be common sense maybe nonsense to someone else. What is common sense today may be shown to be utterly worthless and stupid tomorrow. To me that is not a sound basis for my life.
-
48
The Bible - inerrant word of God?
by Mr Bean inthe deeper you look into, clearer picture is emerging that god had not any input in these writings at all.
there are many verses, even whole passages which exist in some editions and in some they do not.. he evidently didn't supervised writers or copyists and we have plenty of evidences of that, his name in nt included.. since gospels of peter or thomas are not regarded as valuable and important documentations of jesus' life, only one conclusion comes to my mind.. as a moral guide the bible is an excellent book, written by... men!.
highly recommended!.
-
-
RWC
Dutchie,
I am referring to the verses preceding the one we were discussing. Numbers 5:5- When a man or a woman wrongs another in any way and so is unfaithful to the Lord, that person is gulity and must confess the sin he has committed. He must make full restitution for his wrong...
The verse is clear that it applies equally to both sexes, so if a man does something wrong he would be punished. Jewish law made it clear tht adultry by both men and women was wrong. Exodus 20:14. Jesus expanded the actual act to lusting after another women in his heart. Matthew 5:27
The Jewish faith and Chrisitianity place a strong emphasis on a chaste marriage, by both spouses. A man is to love his wife as much as Jesus loved the Church, to the point of giving his life for her. That is clearly showing women respect.
A reading of the covered head of the women must be taken in the context of which it was written. During Paul's day, men prayed with their haed uncovered as a sign of reverence and respect. Women prayed with their head covered as a sign of modesty and immodest women were considered immoral. The essence is that both men and women wer to show respect, but in different ways.
Yes the Bible does say that man is the head of the household, particulalry the spiritual head. But that does not mean he can treat his wife with disresepct or as his chattel as you claim. He has entered into a scred covenant with her, as the Catholics claim, a sacrament that was instituted by God and Jesus. With his role comes great responsibility and obligations. He must guide his family in a Chrisitan manner, he must show his wife undying love and fidelity and he must take care of her and protect her. Does that mean he cannot portect and take care of herself? Of course not. But if a man is to have a Chrisitian marriage he obligates himself to follow these rules.
The same is true for the speaking in the Church. You find this in 1 Corinthians 14:34. Paul was writing to the Corinthians. Prostitution associated with pagan religions has been theroizied as the reason for this instruction. Regardless, Paul in other contexts indicated women would be involved in the worship - Acts 16: 14-15, Acts 18:26. One of the heros of the early church was Priscilla who cared for Paul and taught with him in her home. It certainly does not mean that women were not important nor wouldn't be involved in building the Church.
It is a shame that you have a view that the Bible degrades women. I would suspect that you have been subjected to hat type of behavior in the name of the Bible, but I believe tha it couldn't be furhter from the truth.
By the way, I use the New International Version Disciple's Study Bible, the American Catholic Bible and the Ryrie Study Bible
God Bless
-
48
The Bible - inerrant word of God?
by Mr Bean inthe deeper you look into, clearer picture is emerging that god had not any input in these writings at all.
there are many verses, even whole passages which exist in some editions and in some they do not.. he evidently didn't supervised writers or copyists and we have plenty of evidences of that, his name in nt included.. since gospels of peter or thomas are not regarded as valuable and important documentations of jesus' life, only one conclusion comes to my mind.. as a moral guide the bible is an excellent book, written by... men!.
highly recommended!.
-
-
RWC
Numbers Chapter 5:11-28 is the test for the unfaithful wife. It was to be imposed when the husband felt she had been unfaithful yet she did not admit it and there were no witnesses. It is clear that the test is largely symbolic but there is no doubt a belief that God would intervene to show the truth. If nothing happened the women would be vindicated.
Purity was very important to the Jewish people. The verses before talk about expulsion form the camp for both men and women. They also talk about both men and women paying restitution for the harm they had done to others. So it is not inconceivable that if the test proved that the woman was unfaithful that theman would be punished as well.
I do admit that it does sound alot like Monty Pyton and the Holy Grail tests for a witch, but it was written for a particular time and I do believe that there could very well be a supernatural component to it.
I think that it is in line with the overall theme of punishment for wrongdoing. The focus on bad behavior and not on the sexes.
That is also why I do not think that me listing a line of verses taht shows how men are treated is double talk. The Bible is clear that the focus in a persons acts, both good and bad, not on their sex.
-
48
The Bible - inerrant word of God?
by Mr Bean inthe deeper you look into, clearer picture is emerging that god had not any input in these writings at all.
there are many verses, even whole passages which exist in some editions and in some they do not.. he evidently didn't supervised writers or copyists and we have plenty of evidences of that, his name in nt included.. since gospels of peter or thomas are not regarded as valuable and important documentations of jesus' life, only one conclusion comes to my mind.. as a moral guide the bible is an excellent book, written by... men!.
highly recommended!.
-
-
RWC
On the contrary. I think woman are strong morally and emotionally and can be the backbone of a family and ultimately a culture. They should be shown the upmost respect and dignity. I also believe that the Bible taken as a whole supports that belief.