Scientists meet to tackle religion

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

But change in the Church is not nearly as glacial as you suggest.

I disagree

Most religons think Homosexuality is wrong. The don't believe priests should marry. They don't think women should be priests. They think birth control in the form of condoms or oral contraception is wrong. They think abortion is wrong. The Catholics believe their leader is infalible!

Worst of all, if you don't believe what they believe, they feel a duty to "save" you because you are not of the same elite "to heaven we go" status they are.

They believe in an invisible man who lives in the sky!

They are light years behind enlightened tolerant society.

Sure, there is variance throughout various religons. There are gay friendly churches. Some allow priests to marry, and women to be priests. But these are clearly the minority.

The bottom line (at least for me) is that it is all based on a lie, and established religions would rather fight for a lie (intelligent design for example), than try to change in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

It isn't as simple as saying "respect my beliefs". Your belief in the lie harms others, and society. How do you think a 6 year old feels when he is told he is naturally a sinner? Or a homosexual teen who is told he is evil? Or a girl with no family and no job wants an abortion, but thinks she is going to burn for eternity because she didn't bring an unwanted child to term?

The lies harm us all. And the system needs to change.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

The don't believe priests should marry. They don't think women should be priests. They think birth control in the form of condoms or oral contraception is wrong. They think abortion is wrong. The Catholics believe their leader is infalible!

You are talking about one specific church though. Just the fact that a whole bunch of different Christian sects exist tells me that it does change.

As for the Catholics specifically, they have accepted the theory of evolution, so that's a change. Although judging by that truly astonishing coronation ritual they went through last summer, maybe they haven't changed much.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

...Most religons think Homosexuality is wrong. The don't believe priests should marry. They don't think women should be priests. They think birth control in the form of condoms or oral contraception is wrong. They think abortion is wrong. The Catholics believe their leader is infalible!

In your opening statement, you seem to equate "most religions" with "the Catholics". I don't claim to have a good grasp on what most religions do in fact believe or choose not to believe. My point was simply that change occurs with regularity—even frequency—throughout large segments of the Christian Church. There are significant numbers of Anglican, United, and even Congregational and Baptist churches that would be considered largely progressive. By this, I mean churches that do not disparage homosexuals, permit and bless marriage among clergy and lay-people (some even among same-sex couples!), ordain women, have no qualms with birth-control, and exercise a very soft political position on abortion. Even evangelicalism is not immune: check out http://www.emergentvillage.com/ and http://www.mhbcmi.org/listen/index.php for a taste.

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Worst of all, if you don't believe what they believe, they feel a duty to "save" you because you are not of the same elite "to heaven we go" status they are.

Now you are using a narrow—albeit highly visible—segment of Christianity to judge the whole animal. Your extremely limited characterization alludes to evangelical fundamentalism, which is a relatively modern (approximately 200 years old) movement within North American Christianity which stresses permillenial dispensationalism, biblical inerrency, an apocalyptic worldview, divine forensics, and a fierce belief in eternal paradise and punishment. Not all Christians are fundamentalists, and I, for one, resent the association. If you are going to criticize the Church, at least get your facts straight about which segment of the Church you are engaging.

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

They believe in an invisible man who lives in the sky!

A pretty poor and medieval characterization of the Christian God, even by the most rudimentary standards.

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

They are light years behind enlightened tolerant society

Again, your open character assault on "they" is horribly generalistic and stereotypical. According to your limited description of "they" I can honestly say I have no part of "them", and know an incredibly small number of Christians who do.

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Sure, there is variance throughout various religons. There are gay friendly churches. Some allow priests to marry, and women to be priests. But these are clearly the minority.

How are yous so sure? And even if they are, what does this matter when they reflect the general consensus of society on a number of hot button moral issues?

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

The bottom line (at least for me) is that it is all based on a lie, and established religions would rather fight for a lie (intelligent design for example), than try to change in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

I can believe in God without subscribing to the scientific theory of intelligent design. From my perspective as a Christian, the matters of science lie wholly outside of the realm of faith. Period. God should never factor into investigations of natural phenomena, but by the same token, there are countless millions of us who sincerely believe that the natural world is not all there is. It may be all we can readily perceive, but my own religious experience has convinced me otherwise.

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

It isn't as simple as saying "respect my beliefs". Your belief in the lie harms others, and society. How do you think a 6 year old feels when he is told he is naturally a sinner? Or a homosexual teen who is told he is evil? Or a girl with no family and no job wants an abortion, but thinks she is going to burn for eternity because she didn't bring an unwanted child to term?

The lies harm us all. And the system needs to change.

I would agree that this is all harmful, but I would also argue that it is not Christian. What you have described is simply and unequivocally not "my belief." I have chosen to follow the way and teachings of Christ, who championed the poor, the oppressed, and the weak. He was vehemently anti-establishmentarian and anti "religious", and was committed to the point of death to a new understanding of God's love and kingdom on earth. One which emphasized equality, justice, freedom, purity, and hope. If anything, the "system" needs to change back.

[Bobblehead]

An excellent discussion. A few of you points I am unclear about:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Now you are using a narrow—albeit highly visible—segment of Christianity to judge the whole animal. Your extremely limited characterization alludes to evangelical fundamentalism, which is a relatively modern (approximately 200 years old) movement within North American Christianity which stresses permillenial dispensationalism, biblical inerrency, an apocalyptic worldview, divine forensics, and a fierce belief in eternal paradise and punishment. Not all Christians are fundamentalists, and I, for one, resent the association. If you are going to criticize the Church, at least get your facts straight about which segment of the Church you are engaging.

One thing I have wondered; if this is such a narrow segment, why does this vocal minority appear to be growing and getting so much attention? If the majority of the Christian fellowship don't agree with them, or like yourself, resent the association, then why hasn't there been much of an effort to differentiate? I hesitate to use the term marginalize, but if that vocal group was marginalized wouldn't that reduce the apparent tensions between the religious and the secular?

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I can believe in God without subscribing to the scientific theory of intelligent design. From my perspective as a Christian, the matters of science lie wholly outside of the realm of faith. Period.

You are saying ID is a scientific theory? Isn't ID, by definition, a matter of faith and contradictory to your following statement?

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I would agree that this is all harmful, but I would also argue that it is not Christian. What you have described is simply and unequivocally not "my belief." I have chosen to follow the way and teachings of Christ, who championed the poor, the oppressed, and the weak. He was vehemently anti-establishmentarian and anti "religious", and was committed to the point of death to a new understanding of God's love and kingdom on earth. One which emphasized equality, justice, freedom, purity, and hope. If anything, the "system" needs to change back.

I believe your point is that Christianity should "change back" to a time "which emphasized equality, justice, freedom, purity, and hope." How far back was that? Don't you need to go back before the dark ages? I'm not a church historian by any means, but isn't the recent church (minus the fundamentalists) the most tolerant the church has been in 1500 years?

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

In your opening statement, you seem to equate "most religions" with "the Catholics". I don't claim to have a good grasp on what most religions do in fact believe or choose not to believe.

Not my intention. Catholics were singled out for the specific example of holding their leader as infalible. A silly belief for any human to hold, let alone a major religon generally thought of as generally compatible with Western society. This is not a fringe group that believes in something rediculous, this is one of the major pillars of religion. My point being, one could probably do a general study of most religions and find similar beliefs and values that range between idiosyncratic (cows are holy and shouldn't be touched), and outright lunacy (Jesus Christ rose from the dead).

My point was simply that change occurs with regularity—even frequency—throughout large segments of the Christian Church. There are significant numbers of Anglican, United, and even Congregational and Baptist churches that would be considered largely progressive.

I don't argue the point that there are many examples of progressive congregations out there. I acknowledged as much in my post. The difference being that in my opinion "many" does not equal "majority".

My disagreement stems from your statement that religion as a whole can be viewed as changing at a rate greater than "glacial".

I believe that religion is by it's nature conservative - it has a vested socioeconomic interest in maintaining the belief system it imparts to it's users. This is natural for any organization that wishes to remain as a powerful entity. My issue lays in the fact that it's belief system is based on fabrication (lies regarding creation of man, earth, and the universe, the existence of an all powerful deity, and the inherent good of so called "holy men"). Since it has a vested interest in maintaining the lies, it has little interest in learning how nature and reality actually works.

Even in the most progressive church, there is a fundimental lie that all members must subscribe to. The existence of God. I see no difference between believing in God, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or any other imaginary being. If you are promoting a lie as a fundimental tenent of your faith (and every religion does it), then it is but a few small steps to further lies - lies that exclude whomever the religion chooses - prohibitions against homosexuality, equal rights, mixed religon marrages, and equal rights for women.

Even evangelicalism is not immune: check out http://www.emergentvillage.com/ and http://www.mhbcmi.org/listen/index.php for a taste.

Sadly a taste is all we are likely to get. Full marks to the progressive religious sects, but again, they are the minority.

Now you are using a narrow—albeit highly visible—segment of Christianity to judge the whole animal. Your extremely limited characterization alludes to evangelical fundamentalism, which is a relatively modern (approximately 200 years old) movement within North American Christianity which stresses permillenial dispensationalism, biblical inerrency, an apocalyptic worldview, divine forensics, and a fierce belief in eternal paradise and punishment.

I actually was thinking Muslims and the 70 odd virgins when I wrote it, but the way you read Christianity into it is a pretty good example of how broad strokes can apply to more than one segment when it comes to religion.

All religions actively seek to expand their membership. Typically this is done through proclaimations that they are following the "correct" God. Even in the more progressive churches, the statement normally runs along the lines of "Well, we all believe in the same God, just in different ways". I have always wondered how they would respond to people who are polytheistic.

Also, I believe the Christian crusades were more than 200 years ago.

Not all Christians are fundamentalists, and I, for one, resent the association. If you are going to criticize the Church, at least get your facts straight about which segment of the Church you are engaging.

I didn't say it, and I wasn't thinking it. It is not my intention to upset anyone. I am looking for discussion, not a fight. I am not trying to engage any particular segment of any particular Church. I consider all of them equally poor for promoting something that isn't true.

A pretty poor and medieval characterization of the Christian God, even by the most rudimentary standards.

The remark was sarcastic, and I apologize if you found it offensive. But the concept of a unverifiable deity, with omnicent powers who generally "manages" life as we know it is a broadly consistant theme across most religions, is it not? In my experience it is.

Again, your open character assault on "they" is horribly generalistic and stereotypical. According to your limited description of "they" I can honestly say I have no part of "them", and know an incredibly small number of Christians who do.

It is clearly a generalization, and for good reason. I don't want it to look like I am picking on any religion in particular. If your place of worship views gay marriage as a civil right, supports a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body, and unyieldingly fights against creationisim as a theory, then full marks to you and your fellow parishoners! I applaud you and your friends. You are religious progressives that I have never heard of, nor knew existed!

Anything short of that, and you are behind the rest of secular society when it comes to tolerance and enlightenment. Much as religion always has been from Galleleo being threatend with torture for saying the earth revolved around the sun, to Imams demanding women shouldn't drive cars.

How are yous so sure? And even if they are, what does this matter when they reflect the general consensus of society on a number of hot button moral issues?

How am I sure there are gay friendly churches etc? Because I have seen them on TV. I don't think I understand your question.

The general consensus of society is tainted by the role of religion. Otherwise perfectly rational people who see nothing wrong with believing in mixed race marriages who oppose gay marriage because of something written in a document 2000 years ago that has been transcribed and translated to today.

I think my position is pretty clear. Ditch the lies, and allow society to develop a consensus in their absence. Do you honestly believe it is wrong for consenting adults who are in no way connected to a church to be denied the right to marry because of religious lobbying on the part of that church?

I can believe in God without subscribing to the scientific theory of intelligent design. From my perspective as a Christian, the matters of science lie wholly outside of the realm of faith. Period. God should never factor into investigations of natural phenomena,

That's awesome! I completely agree, and I think it is great that you recognize it. Does the head of your chosen religion agree with you?

but by the same token, there are countless millions of us who sincerely believe that the natural world is not all there is. It may be all we can readily perceive, but my own religious experience has convinced me otherwise.

Prove it. It is all I ask. It is the same burden that all scientific matters must carry. It is unfair for religion to be given special status in our society. Unfair, and harmful for those who blindly follow it (unlike yourself).

I would agree that this is all harmful, but I would also argue that it is not Christian. What you have described is simply and unequivocally not "my belief." I have chosen to follow the way and teachings of Christ, who championed the poor, the oppressed, and the weak. He was vehemently anti-establishmentarian and anti "religious", and was committed to the point of death to a new understanding of God's love and kingdom on earth. One which emphasized equality, justice, freedom, purity, and hope. If anything, the "system" needs to change back.

I totally agree with both you and Christ here. But the three of us are in the minority. We all think we should ditch the institutions and trappings of religion, and get back to living well ourselves, and helping others without all the unnecessary hokus pokus.

Sadly, the hokus pokus establishment is here to stay and it is holding the rest of society back.

It isn't changing fast, and for the majority of people on this planet, it isn't changing at all. Which is where I disagreed with your original post.

[skins]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You are talking about one specific church though. Just the fact that a whole bunch of different Christian sects exist tells me that it does change.

I don't think there are very many female Rabbi's or Muslum Leaders. Some of those characteristics he listed can be applied to other religions, although ALL of them apply to the Catholic faith

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

...One thing I have wondered; if this is such a narrow segment, why does this vocal minority appear to be growing and getting so much attention? If the majority of the Christian fellowship don't agree with them, or like yourself, resent the association, then why hasn't there been much of an effort to differentiate? I hesitate to use the term marginalize, but if that vocal group was marginalized wouldn't that reduce the apparent tensions between the religious and the secular?

I am uncertain how far evangelical fundamentalism extends, however I will concede to you that it does appear to be a movement that is growing, especially from our vantage point here in North America. From a global perspective, it is not nearly so vocal, nor is it so effectual. The Roman Catholic Church and the Anglicans and Orthodox Christians are still far and away the largest group of Christians in the world. With regards to "marginalizing" the fundies, what more can be done that has not been done already?

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

You are saying ID is a scientific theory? Isn't ID, by definition, a matter of faith and contradictory to your following statement?

Crap! I knew after posting that last bit that I was going to get called on it. I do not believe that ID is a scientific theory; I merely meant to suggest that I can belive in God without subscribing to intelligent design, period. To put it another way: my belief in God is in no way affected by the findings of science. I would furthermore suggest that IDists are rather unbelievably insecure about their own faith if they have to resort to ridiculous tactics to provide naturalistic evidence for something that is virtually unprovable.

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I believe your point is that Christianity should "change back" to a time "which emphasized equality, justice, freedom, purity, and hope." How far back was that? Don't you need to go back before the dark ages? I'm not a church historian by any means, but isn't the recent church (minus the fundamentalists) the most tolerant the church has been in 1500 years?

I think you have made my point for me. Those segments of the Church where tolerance and justice are championed do so because of the sincere desire to be true to the message of Christ.

[Textcritic]

Flashpoint: my apoliogies for being overly snippity. I intend to address your patient and lengthy response later; I'm presently exhausted, and the brain has stopped working.

[CarlW]

I'm just wondering why you only speak of judeo-christian type religions while completely ignoring any information about Buddhism, Taosim, Hinduism, etc.

There has actually been a great compatibility among Buddhism and Science as an example. The Dalai Llama actually has assigned someone the task of working with scientists and increasing the understanding of science in conjunction with Buddhist beliefs in general (I can't remember the guys name though, but he was a guest speaker in my senior Religious Studies course at the U of S).

[Bobblehead]

Interesting article from the NJ Ledger

Junior Matthew LaClair, 16, said history teacher David Paszkiewicz, who is also a Baptist preacher in town, spent the first week of class lecturing students more about heaven and hell than the colonies and the Constitution.

LaClair said Paszkiewicz told students that if they didn't accept Jesus, "you belong in hell." He also dismissed as unscientific the theories of evolution and the "Big Bang."

LaClair, who described his own religious views as "non-Christian," said he wanted to complain about Paszkiewicz to school administrators, but feared his teacher would deny the charges and that no one would take a student's word against a teacher's.

So, he said, he started taping Paszkiewicz.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Or a girl with no family and no job wants an abortion, but thinks she is going to burn for eternity because she didn't bring an unwanted child to term?

this argument literally makes me laugh out loud every time i see it. so the girl has no problem whoring around town, having random unprotected sex outside of marriage and gets knocked up but then feels she can't get an abortion because of her religious beliefs. riiiiiiight

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

this argument literally makes me laugh out loud every time i see it. so the girl has no problem whoring around town, having random unprotected sex outside of marriage and gets knocked up but then feels she can't get an abortion because of her religious beliefs. riiiiiiight

Wow, that's very enlightened.

Where was anything said about "whoring around town"?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Wow, that's very enlightened.

Where was anything said about "whoring around town"?

unprotected sex outside of a comitted relationship (she's got nobody here now to support her right)
she apparantly felt no guilt or religious conflict going to get knocked up - but mention an abortion and suddenly her faith comes shining through.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

unprotected sex outside of a comitted relationship (she's got nobody here now to support her right)
she apparantly felt no guilt or religious conflict going to get knocked up - but mention an abortion and suddenly her faith comes shining through.

OMG unprotected sex outside a committed relationship!!!!!!!! What a whore!!!!!!!!!

What are you, like 90 years old?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

OMG unprotected sex outside a committed relationship!!!!!!!! What a whore!!!!!!!!!

What are you, like 90 years old?

lololololololol she clearly doesn't care about one sin... why would she make such a huge deal out of another one?

and yea.... UNPROTECTED sex outside of a relationship = whorish + chlamydia

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

lololololololol she clearly doesn't care about one sin... why would she make such a huge deal out of another one?

There are so many mitigating circumstances which make this statement preposterous. A woman without the support of a family, and without the means to support herself will be more likely to engage in a sexual relationship by simple virtue of the fact that her options are almost certainly extremely limited. She is probably näive, insecure, exceptionally prone to manipulation, and living in a culture and in an environment where EVERY message she perceives is brainwashing her into believing that sex and her sexuality is a commodity.
The girl in the scenario is for all practical reasons MUCH more concerned with survival than sin. And her survival is probably dependent upon her sexuality.

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

and yea.... UNPROTECTED sex outside of a relationship = whorish + chlamydia

So every woman or child who has unprotected sex outside of a relationship is now an irresponsible whore? Do you not see what is oh-so-wrong with this statement?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The girl in the scenario is for all practical reasons MUCH more concerned with survival than sin. And her survival is probably dependent upon her sexuality.

and then as soon as things blow up in her face she once again finds her faith and becomes saint-like in her following of church doctrine, forever anguishing over what this new choice that she faces will do to the fate of her soul....

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

lololololololol she clearly doesn't care about one sin... why would she make such a huge deal out of another one?

Don't ask me to explain the hypocrisy of religious people.

"Sin" isn't something I deal with or worry about.

I think you are probably more qualified than I am to explain how religious people tend to forget certain parts of the religion they allegedly ascribe to when it's convenient.

Clearly you are "judging" other people when you call them whores. I thought you folks weren't supposed to judge?

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Don't ask me to explain the hypocrisy of religious people.

"Sin" isn't something I deal with or worry about.

I think you are probably more qualified than I am to explain how religious people tend to forget certain parts of the religion they allegedly ascribe to when it's convenient.

Clearly you are "judging" other people when you call them whores. I thought you folks weren't supposed to judge?

So you have no concept of right or wrong? I don't prescribe to religion either, but I certainly do make judgements on what I consider to be right or wrong behaviour. You don't judge people? You don't care what people do, how they do it, the consequences of those actions?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

and then as soon as things blow up in her face she once again finds her faith and becomes saint-like in her following of church doctrine, forever anguishing over what this new choice that she faces will do to the fate of her soul....

God, you are cynical.
Unless you actually can think of a workable solution to a problem that has as much to do with the economy, culture, biology and social perception, seriously, shut the hell up.