Null's grudge with scientists. Take 5.

[Sunbaneglasses]

Sgt Null wrote

have come out against anyone who uses the OT and ignores the Gospels.

Well taken out of context?That sure sounds bad.

Honestly,do you think that the church or other individuals/groups have never done anything wrong,or evil in the name of God/Jesus?As adamantly as you defend your religion and attack differing opinions I have begun to wonder if you believe the Catholic church is infallible.

[Lord Mhoram]

null,

You are simply misinterpreting history. Luther did try to reform Catholicism - that was his entire purpose. He considered himself a good Catholic until...oh yeah, when Leo X excommunicated him. He was universally ignored and then, when they saw he was relevant, reviled by the Church hierarchy. If the Church responded to his criticisms as they should have, the Protestant Reformation would have been, at the very least, slowed down.

As for the Crusades: They are cast in a poor light because it was the immense mobilization of an entire continent's military to wage a holy war, called upon by a religion that preaches peace, upon another religion to take away its land.

[Cail]

Fist wins my vote for Poster of the Year. Anyone who can speak so eloquently and reference Dr. Zaius in the same post is #1 in my book.

I see a lot of Dennis's attitude in people that were raised in a single faith (I'm guessing you're a Cradle Catholic). They refuse to accept the fact that their paticular denomination has done any nasty stuff, whether they're Catholic, Baptist, or whatever else. The Catholic church has been around the longest, throughout some of the darkest periods in history, and has done some truly reprehensible things. To deny them is the height of foolishness and arrogance.

Someone a page back or so said that both science and religion were amoral. That's simply not true. Science is completely amoral. The same technology can either power a city or level it, it depends on the user.

But religion is absolutely not amoral. The basic, underlying messages of the Bible are; love God and love each other. Everything else is gravy. That message is certainly not amoral. I think everyone would agree that loving each other is a very good, positive message, and that the world would be a much nicer place if everyone practiced that.

The problem occurs when people (you know, us fallable humans) start trying to interpret the Word of God, or worse yet, they treat the Bible like a buffet line...You know, a slice of fire, a scoop of brimstone, and a big heaping pile of guilt and judgement. All that stuff is reserved for God, not for man.

Lord Mhoram is absolutely correct about Luther, but that was a huge threat to the Catholic Church, hence their reaction.

[wayfriend]

But religion is absolutely not amoral. The basic, underlying messages of the Bible are; love God and love each other. Everything else is gravy. That message is certainly not amoral. I think everyone would agree that loving each other is a very good, positive message, and that the world would be a much nicer place if everyone practiced that.

The problem occurs when people (you know, us fallable humans) start trying to interpret the Word of God, or worse yet, they treat the Bible like a buffet line...You know, a slice of fire, a scoop of brimstone, and a big heaping pile of guilt and judgement. All that stuff is reserved for God, not for man.

I agree with most of your post but I cannot see "the line" where the basic underlying message stops and where the interpretation begins. Some would say that the line is all the way over to the end: everything is interpretation. Others would argue if it is over here or over there.

This means that you cannot absolutely say that the basic, underlying message is "very good". The basic, underlying message may very well promote slavery, polygamy, murder, war and other activities found in scripture, which we, having done some interpreting, may have excised from our personal moral systems.

(And that's not even attacking your assumption that religion is always based on the Judeo-Christian Bible.)

Religion is not amoral. Agreed. But it is not necessarilly good. Not even necessarilly basically good.

[Cail]

I agree with most of your post but I cannot see "the line" where the basic underlying message stops and where the interpretation begins. Some would say that the line is all the way over to the end: everything is interpretation. Others would argue if it is over here or over there.

This means that you cannot absolutely say that the basic, underlying message is "very good". The basic, underlying message may very well promote slavery, polygamy, murder, war and other activities found in scripture, which we, having done some interpreting, may have excised from our personal moral systems.

OK, I'll grant you that, but those endorsements you speak of are not what I'm referring to as the unifying message of the Bible.

(And that's not even attacking your assumption that religion is always based on the Judeo-Christian Bible.)

I'm not assuming that at all, but it's the only religions (and texts) I'm familiar with, so it's all I can speak of with any semblance of knowledge.

Religion is not amoral. Agreed. But it is not necessarilly good. Not even necessarilly basically good.

I'll agree with this too, as I don't know all the ins and outs of various religions. I would say though that Christianity is basically good (the message from the Bible, not necessarilly the various human interpretations).

[wayfriend]

OK, I'll grant you that, but those endorsements you speak of are not what I'm referring to as the unifying message of the Bible.

And that, unfortunately, is an interpretation.

[Cail]

Do you really think so? Do you think the Bible is about polygamy, murder, and war?

I dunno man, I think that's a stretch. Mind you, I'm not denying that those things (and more) are in there, but you think they're given the same importance as loving your neighbor and God?

[variol son]

Do you really think so? Do you think the Bible is about polygamy, murder, and war?

I dunno man, I think that's a stretch. Mind you, I'm not denying that those things (and more) are in there, but you think they're given the same importance as loving your neighbor and God?

Polygamy , war and murder? No. However, I have known people who would see the unifying message of the christian bible as one of fear, or of guilt, or judgement.

I did not agree with those interpretations when I was a christian and I don't really think I do now, but the fact is that there are many people who believe that the unifying message is not about love. Doesn't this suggest that Wayfriend is correct?

[Fist and Faith]

Fist wins my vote for Poster of the Year. Anyone who can speak so eloquently and reference Dr. Zaius in the same post is #1 in my book.

Thank you! *bows*

Do you really think so? Do you think the Bible is about polygamy, murder, and war?

I dunno man, I think that's a stretch. Mind you, I'm not denying that those things (and more) are in there, but you think they're given the same importance as loving your neighbor and God?

Polygamy , war and murder? No. However, I have known people who would see the unifying message of the christian bible as one of fear, or of guilt, or judgement.

I did not agree with those interpretations when I was a christian and I don't really think I do now, but the fact is that there are many people who believe that the unifying message is not about love. Doesn't this suggest that Wayfriend is correct?

I prefer to ignore everything that doesn't have to do with love. But from my much-less-than-thorough knowledge of the Bible, I could understand if someone thought the unifying message was sacrifice.

[Marv]

Fist said

I prefer to ignore everything that doesn't have to do with love.

heh! the god Bhakti would be very proud.

[Cail]

Polygamy , war and murder? No. However, I have known people who would see the unifying message of the christian bible as one of fear, or of guilt, or judgement.

I did not agree with those interpretations when I was a christian and I don't really think I do now, but the fact is that there are many people who believe that the unifying message is not about love. Doesn't this suggest that Wayfriend is correct?

Hmmm. I was going to reply that the people that don't believe it's about love aren't Christians, but then I remembered being a Baptist......OK, I concede the point, I suppose. But that's certainly how my church and I see it.

Fist, I would say that the sacrifices in the Bible are done out of love.

[Lord Mhoram]

Cail,

Fist, I would say that the sacrifices in the Bible are done out of love.

All of them?

[Cail]

I'm sure you have something in mind that you think wasn't, so out with it.

Christ's certainly was, as was Abraham's.

[Lord Mhoram]

Cail,

Well, there were certainly lots of ANIMAL sacrifices. LAWL

But in the Old Testament, there was plenty of "sacrifice" not done out of love: "Then Jehu called a meeting of all the people of the city and said to them, "Ahab hardly worshiped Baal at all compared to the way I will worship him! Summon all the prophets and worshipers of Baal, and call together all his priests. See to it that every one of them comes, for I am going to offer a great sacrifice to Baal. Any of Baal's worshipers who fail to come will be put to death." But Jehu's plan was to destroy all the worshipers of Baal. Then Jehu ordered, "Prepare a solemn assembly to worship Baal!" So they did. He sent messengers throughout all Israel summoning those who worshiped Baal. They all came and filled the temple of Baal from one end to the other. And Jehu instructed the keeper of the wardrobe, "Be sure that every worshiper of Baal wears one of these robes." So robes were given to them"


"Then Jehu went into the temple of Baal with Jehonadab son of Recab. Jehu said to the worshipers of Baal, "Make sure that only those who worship Baal are here. Don't let anyone in who worships the LORD!" So they were all inside the temple to offer sacrifices and burnt offerings. Now Jehu had surrounded the building with eighty of his men and had warned them, "If you let anyone escape, you will pay for it with your own life."


"As soon as Jehu had finished sacrificing the burnt offering, he commanded his guards and officers, "Go in and kill all of them. Don't let a single one escape!" So they killed them all with their swords, and the guards and officers dragged their bodies outside. Then Jehu's men went into the fortress of the temple of Baal. They dragged out the sacred pillar used in the worship of Baal and destroyed it. They broke down the sacred pillar of Baal and wrecked the temple of Baal, converting it into a public toilet. That is what it is used for to this day." 2 Kings 10:18-27 NLT

Just a quick example.

As for Christ and Abraham - Was Abraham's sacrifice out of love, or fear?

And why did Jesus sacrifice himself?

[Loredoctor]

Do you really think so? Do you think the Bible is about polygamy, murder, and war?

I dunno man, I think that's a stretch. Mind you, I'm not denying that those things (and more) are in there, but you think they're given the same importance as loving your neighbor and God?

Polygamy , war and murder? No. However, I have known people who would see the unifying message of the christian bible as one of fear, or of guilt, or judgement.

I did not agree with those interpretations when I was a christian and I don't really think I do now, but the fact is that there are many people who believe that the unifying message is not about love. Doesn't this suggest that Wayfriend is correct?

I once knew a Christian who believed the underlying message of the Bible is of hatred of minorities and that hetrosexual white Christians should kill other races and homosexuals.

[Fist and Faith]

heh! the god Bhakti would be very proud.

*bows*

I once knew a Christian who believed the underlying message of the Bible is of hatred of minorities and that hetrosexual white Christians should kill other races and homosexuals.

I would argue that you do not know a Christian who believed those things are the underlying message of the Bible. Heh.


Cail, I know what you mean, and can understand that view. But my position has been that it depends on which party in those stories you're looking at. Those willing to sacrifice themselves do so out of love. My problem is with the God who requires such things. Of course, I don't particularly think there is any g/God, so I certainly don't worship any. But if I came to believe that one was real, I would not worship him. But I can still appreciate the wisdom, beauty, and love that I do find in the Bible.

[sgt.null]

Cail: I accept what my Church has done. i admit what my Church has done. and not all science is amoral. explain poison gas. what good was there for that?

btw: born Catholic, but raised congregationalist and traveled beyond that before coming home. Rev. Johnson of the Con church was one of the finest human beings i have ever known. if i turn out half as good as him, i'll be pretty well off.

Mhoram: and what did Luther give us, protestantism has fractured Christianity, given a weakened religion, where if anyone disagrees with something they form a new church. martin Luther formed his own church, at what cost? not following God's will, God's timeline. maybe Vatican II would have happened quicker if he had stayed with the Church? and editing the bible, what purpose did that serve? and you seem to forget there was another factor in the crusades, Islam.

Fist: sacrifice born of love.

[Loredoctor]

and not all science is amoral. explain poison gas. what good was there for that?

Blame the war ministries for that, Null. In fact poison gas is often a misuse of science's findings - like chlorine and mustard gas. Null, are you really that stupid that you would point the finger at a scientist for discovering X when the military use it to make bomb Y? Like saying Einstein dropped the atomic bomb out of the Enola Gay because he realised E=MC sq.

[sgt.null]

it is likely the cold medicine talking (and it is) but i love all of you guys. see, science rocks!

Lore: I will say that the scientists knew they were making a bomb. and i'm not that stupid.

[Loredoctor]

Lore: I will say that the scientists knew they were making a bomb. and i'm not that stupid.

Null, I do think you are smart, but you need to stop blaming science for every technological evil. Scientists discover things that the military abuse. You cant rail against science, because it is simply not true that science itself is evil. In fact it's morally neutral.