[SPasse]

Hi All,

Is religion relative to the modern world?

1 Premise #1: Religion was a mythological tool, invented by primitive societies to explain the mysteries of everyday existence. The progression of modern science & technology has, and will continue to uncover those mysteries that were once the realm of religious faith. As time goes on, religion will have progressively less and less relevance.

2 Premise #2: Life on earth was the product of a divine creator. Science will always have its limits and will only server to provide us insight into the creators designs. Religion will continue to be relevant to help us “know the unknowable” as an article of faith. Science actually may be a religion and also may be already approaching its limits. http://www.csicop.org/si/9703/end.html

Regards,

Scott

[almostdiva]

I think most people sit somewhere in the middle. Lots of folks hold religious beliefs, but have problems with "organized religion" -- with the institutions we humans have built up around beliefs. My boyfriend regularly tells people "It's not God I have an issue with, it's the Catholic Church".

Even some of our brightest scientists have religious beliefs -- ever read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time"? He's arguable one of the world's leading mathematicians/physicists, deals in very highly specialized stuff (black holes, the space time continuum, etc).

I think many people now differentiate between "god" (whether it's the Judeo-Christian one or some other) and "religion" (as defined as all the trappings/institutions, etc we people build up around "god".

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPASSE

Premise #2: Life on earth was the product of a divine creator.

This is a construct -- a non-testable statement to account for a set of observations.

Science will always have its limits and will only server to provide us insight into the creators designs.

Science acknowledges its limits, religions rarely do. Science is always subject to change based on new information or new observations. Newton's view of gravity, though flawed, was a valuable first step. Einstein's theory of gravity built on the work of Newton and refined it but that doesn't mean that that's the end of our knowledge of gravity. In fact, recent discoveries point to new aspects of gravity that are yet to be fully understood.

Contrast that with religious dogma that is handed down based on authority rather than rational inquiry. The extreme example of this would be Jerry Falwell, founder of The Moral Majority, who believes that all of the Bible, including all of the Old Testament, is the divine word of God and must be taken as literal truth. Any thinking person who is even vaguely familiar with the Old Testament may have difficulty accepting everything literally. The morals and family values of the Old Testament are not something most people of today would want to emulate.

The Book of Genesis is still cited by many Christians as a valid explanation for the origin of life on Earth. I may have accepted the Book of Genesis when I was 12 years old but it began to sound awfully strange by the time I turned 14. It takes a lot of faith to believe that it never rained on Earth prior to the great flood. It takes a lot of faith to believe that Noah was able to get all those animals into his ark, too, to say nothing of Noah not starting a family until he was around 600 years old and living until he was past 900 years old. Obviously many Christians today do not have the same difficulty I encountered with the Book of Genesis. I guess it means they have either more faith or less capacity for rational thought or some combination of both. They seem to have a knack for pulling out certain passages from Leviticus while ignoring all the other absurd things he wrote. It's either all valid or none of it is valid. It's either divinely inspired or it's not.

Religion will continue to be relevant to help us “know the unknowable” as an article of faith.

Religion doesn't help you "know the unknowable" any more than science helps you "know the unknowable." Science has its hands full dealing with the knowable and knows better than to try to explain the "unknowable." Religion may help you to accept explanations that cannot be either proven or disproven but it doesn't help you "know" something. Lets not confuse knowledge with faith. Religion may be a comfort to those who are troubled by the "unknowable" but it does not grant them any "knowledge" of the unknowable. They accept explanations for the unknowable based on faith. Faith is based on dogma. It is handed down by religious authorities. It is written down in religious books like the Bible or the Koran that are attributed to divine inspiration.

Science actually may be a religion and also may be already approaching its limits. http://www.csicop.org/si/9703/end.html

The example given of the professor telling his students to observe the pencil is laughable. Why that little parable was included is beyond me. The scientific method is not subject to a simple little three-step recipe as given in that article and it is not something that follows the same order in every case. You don't start out by telling someone, "Observe!" You have to have a question or problem in mind first before your curiosity leads you to investigate the causal relationships that might lead to rational explanations that can be tested.

For example, if someone tried to tell me that the Earth is flat, I might explain to them that the shadow of the Earth on the Moon during an eclipse is round. This would only work if the other person accepted the "theory" that the Earth orbits the Sun and the Moon orbits the Earth -- a belief that could have gotten you burned at the stake as recently as 500 years ago! I might also point out that as a ship disappears over the horizon, it's mast is the last thing we see. Nowadays there aren't very many people left who dispute the "theory" that the Earth is round or that it circles the Sun instead of the other way around, but Copernican astronomy was considered heresy only a few hundred years ago. I almost mentioned that I could show them pictures of the Earth that were taken from the Moon but then I remembered our famous moon-landing-is-a-hoax thread on this very board and figured that there are some people who wouldn't be impressed with those "phony" pictures that NASA put out as part of its vast moon landing conspiracy. (P.S. -- Just goes to show you how some people will believe anything they see on Fox TV. They have shown that dumb piece that claims men never landed on the moon no less and 25 times now. At least!)

The process of scientific investigation is an interactive one that involves making observations, drawing conclusions, making predictions and testing them against further evidence. Scientific truth is temporary. It is the best explanation that we have at the moment based on rational inquiry. It is always subject to correction. As Einstein once said, "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

Most religions, or maybe I should say most Christian religions, since I'm really not familiar enough with the other major religions, evolve over time. The teachings of the Catholic Church today are not the same as the teachings of the Catholic Church during the reign of the Medici boys in the Vatican. There may have been no need for the Reformation if popes had been chosen based on their religious qualifications rather than their political connections. Lorenzo de' Medici's son was only 14 when he was made a cardinal and in his mid-30's when he was elected pope. (Which is a big improvement over Pope John XII, who was only 18 when he was elected pope!) Lorenzo's nephew had to wait until he was 35 before being named a cardinal and 45 before becoming pope. Hadrian VI (the last non-Italian pope before John Paul II) reigned briefly between the Medici cousins. Anyway, I digress...

Just as science is subject to correction, so is religion. It either adapts or it will become irrevelant. Some of the more progressive Protestant denominations are quicker at adapting than the Catholic Church but even the Catholic Church revises its teachings. Because of the sticky issue of infallibility, the Church cannot revise anything that has been proclaimed as infallible but very few pronouncements of the popes have actually been issued ex cathedra as infallible over the centuries. Infallible means not subject to error. By definition, therefore, anything that is not infallible, is subject to error. Thus, we see the last pope apologizing all over the place for all sorts of perceived sins of the Church. Oops! He didn't actually apologize for any "sins of the Church," rather he apologized for errors of the "sons and daughters of the Church." Big difference! Anyway, he apologized for the sacking of Constantinople, for the Crusades, for the official anti-semitic teachings of the Church, for the Church's inaction during WWII (a BIG story there that is just recently coming to light with the diary of John XXIII when he was Apolostic Nuncio to Paris in 1944), for the Church's treatment of women -- but he has forbade even the discussion of the idea of women priests.

Look at the present split between the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church in the U.S. and the Anglican Church in Canada and Australia. It's seems that the U.S., Canadian and Australian branches of the Church of England are getting a little ahead of the mother church. Theoretically that's not supposed to happen in the Catholic Church because of the control of the pope, but the last pope was rather lax in letting the local cardinals chart their own course on certain issues. The cardinals in Africa have some strange views on celibacy. Speaking of which, the next pope should definitely want to reconsider the Church's position on marriage in the priesthood. Celibacy has only been around for less than half the history of the Church and in spite of St. Paul's glorification of it, it's probably not suited for the 21st. century. This is an area where the Church may be forced to adapt if it wants to remain in business. It's running out of personnel. Either that or institute a draft? j/k

[pisomojado]

premise #3:

Government/leaders/entreprenurs adapted the idea of ancient religions to use as a set of laws and regulations to control the population. I speak only of Christianity, not familiar with much else.

[Ninong]

I see where the governor of Colorado, a Catholic, has imposed his religious views on all of the citizens of his state by vetoing House Bill 1042 on so-called religious grounds.

Colorado's HB 1042 would have required all hospitals to inform rape victims of the possibility of terminating any possible pregnancy by emergency contraception -- the morning after pill. This is something that is required by law in the state of California. Colorado's new statute would have allowed caregivers to refer the sexual assault victim to another provider if their personal religious convictions prevented them from dispensing such medication.

However, the governor of Colorado decided that the mere act of informing the rape victim of the possibility of emergency contraception violated the religious freedom of those individuals, like himself and certain others, who strongly believe that the rape victim should be required to bear the child of her attacker whether she wants to or not and their so-called religious freedom outweighs any of her rights.

[Poseidon]

That just makes me MAD!!! Hopefully in such a case the victim will ASK about such a pill. I can't believe that anyone with a heart and a sense of compassion would make a rape vistim bear the child of her attacker. I couldn't even imagine the psycological effects that the mother would have even LOOKING at the child....

[SPasse]

Poseidon,

That just makes me MAD!!! Hopefully in such a case the victim will ASK about such a pill. I can't believe that anyone with a heart and a sense of compassion would make a rape victim bear the child of her attacker. I couldn't even imagine the psychological effects that the mother would have even LOOKING at the child....

I have made my point on these issues before, we are arguing about whose rights take president and why some ones linage would have any bearing on their right to exist.

One of the other points that the abortion on demand folks like to sweep under the table is the large percentage of women who have abortions and are later haunted for the rest of there life by their choice, especially when their was no extraordinary health etc. issues for the mother. I have talked with women who are dealing with this on an ongoing basis.

Regards,

Scott

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

That just makes me MAD!!! Hopefully in such a case the victim will ASK about such a pill.

What if the victim doesn't even know about such a pill? The purpose of the law, which would have been similar to California's law, was simply to inform the rape victim and allow her to make an informed decision. She would still be free to bear the child of her rapist if that was her choice.

If that upsets you, and it certainly upsets me, then you will probably be upset to learn that the culture of life crowd is about to wage war on the new vaccines that are coming out for the prevention of HPV: http://coldfury.com/reason/?p=381

The HPV virus is the cause of cervical cancer. HPV is extremely common. Half of all sexually active women ages 18 to 22 in the United States are infected. Most cases clear up but sometimes infection can persist and lead to cancer many years later.

The vaccine must be administered before the young woman becomes sexually active. Surveys show that 80% of parents would want their young daughters to be vaccinated but the religious right is gearing up to pass legislation that would outlaw this life-saving vaccine on religious grounds. They believe it will encourage young girls to go out and get laid. I'm sure 99% of them have never heard of HPV virus.

“Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV,” says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group. http://coldfury.com/reason/?p=381

These are the same people who managed to reverse the downward trend in the rates of abortion in this country. All through the 1990's the abortion rates were declining but then the religious right got their candidate elected and abstinence is now the official policy of the federal government. Sensible sex education has been abandoned in favor of abstinence-only sex education. This has resulted in increasing rates of abortions, especially among those young women who were not properly informed of contraception options and the proper use of condoms. Their rates of STD infections is also rising because they don't use condoms. Too bad the "just say no" message doesn't always work in the real world of raging hormones.

[SPasse]

Ninong,

Science acknowledges its limits, religions rarely do. Science is always subject to change based on new information or new observations. Newton's view of gravity, though flawed, was a valuable first step. Einstein's theory of gravity built on the work of Newton and refined it but that doesn't mean that that's the end of our knowledge of gravity. In fact, recent discoveries point to new aspects of gravity that are yet to be fully understood.

Your attitude towards science was my attitude toward science, during a certain portion of my life. Interestingly about the same time period of your life, where Genesis “made sense” However you are alluding to the “religion of science” as some of it’s advocates would like to be; a self correcting, logic based system that evolves continuously under the correcting forces of innovation, observation, & reasoning. But because the “Religion of Science” is the product of the human mind, it is subject to the same self-serving and corrupting influences as any other “belief system”

It is also interesting that evolutionary science is seriously discussing the concept that based on genome mapping, we really all can trace our linage to a single “Eve” and by implication an “Adam.” That is a theory that “science would have laughed at a few years ago”

Also, as I am sure you are aware, the tenants of evolution are accepted by many of the major Christian faiths and there are ever debating the necessity for intelligent design, at least in a direct “hands on” sense.

I guess it means they have either more faith or less capacity for rational thought or some combination of both. As I have stated earlier we are both having to concede at a certain point to faith, just different kinds. Willingness to be at piece with these faiths is necessary in either belief system and I would not attribute this to any “less capacity for rational thought” Indeed it is an article of faith to believe that the human mind will ever unravel all knowledge.

They seem to have a knack for pulling out certain passages from Leviticus while ignoring all the other absurd things he wrote.

Leviticus is one of those books of the bible where people tend to blur the differences between the moral laws and the Jewish ceremonial laws, usually because of a particular axe that they want to grind. I for one don’t think of eating pork, shellfish, etc of being a “sin” However eating pork, shellfish, etc. was a big health concern back then (given contemporary cooking methods) and so we have an example of a text that had certain forms of knowledge well beyond any form of “science” that existed back then. From a farming perspective, pork has a very low yield rate (lb of meat per amount of feed) so again this was probably a period-context related issue.

No I am not going to try and advocate that all of world’s critters somehow got into the Ark etc… Flat Earth, etc., etc.

It's either all valid or none of it is valid. It's either divinely inspired or it's not.

That sounds like something an ultra conservative religious authority would say. To believe something is “divinely inspired” does not mean that the limits of translation and contextual meaning don’t have to be factored in. Also, food related issues were probably only era relevant. If none of it is valid, what are you suggesting as a replacement? Are you advocating a scientific basis for a moral code?

Regards,

Scott

[SPasse]

Ninong,

The (HPV) vaccine must be administered before the young woman becomes sexually active. Surveys show that 80% of parents would want their young daughters to be vaccinated but the religious right is gearing up to pass legislation that would outlaw this life-saving vaccine on religious grounds. They believe it will encourage young girls to go out and get laid. I'm sure 99% of them have never heard of HPV virus.

You will get no argument from me on this one. If an effective AIDS virus ever is developed would they try to use the same “logic” against getting people vaccinated against AIDS as well?

This is at least one of those issues where I would part company from the “Family Research Council”

Also, as pointed out in the article/link that you provided, We ought to be vaccinating young men as well. I would also put the vaccination for Hepatitis A & B on this list. Alas, we don’t have a vaccination for Hepatitis C, yet….

Regards,

Scott

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPASSE

It is also interesting that evolutionary science is seriously discussing the concept that based on genome mapping, we really all can trace our linage to a single “Eve” and by implication an “Adam.” That is a theory that “science would have laughed at a few years ago”

Why do you say that science would have laughed at that idea a few years ago? I'm afraid I'm not with you on that one. There were some scientists who suggested that H. sapiens might have developed simultaneously in several different parts of the world but the prevailing view for as long as I can remember has been that we developed from one point of origin in Africa.

Also, as I am sure you are aware, the tenants of evolution are accepted by many of the major Christian faiths and there are ever debating the necessity for intelligent design, at least in a direct “hands on” sense.

It's just that they aren't as noisy as the Tom DeLay creation science advocates who want to abolish the teaching of evolution in public schools and instead require Bible studies. Which brings up an interesting point: The extreme right-wing of the Republican Party that is getting all the press attention right now is almost certainly a minority even within that political party. They're just the ones who scream the loudest.

Indeed it is an article of faith to believe that the human mind will ever unravel all knowledge.

And who said that? I have never said that. You could go back to the WG threads from five years ago (except that Scott lost them) and see that I have never said that. And I certainly didn't say that in any of these recent threads.

It's either all valid or none of it is valid. It's either divinely inspired or it's not.

That sounds like something an ultra conservative religious authority would say.

Yes, it sounds exactly like something Jerry Falwell would say, doesn't it? Because it's almost exactly what he has said repeatedly. Rev. Falwell says that every word of the the Bible, both the old and new testaments, is literally true because it is divinely inspired.

Are you advocating a scientific basis for a moral code?

The basis for my moral code is in my very being. I don't have to give it a moment's thought. I know right from wrong because I am a rational human being. And I certainly don't need any religious authorities to tell me what's moral and what's immoral. That would be a joke if ever there was one.

[Ninong]

Another way to approach this question is to consider the relevance of religion in previous "modern" worlds. In other words, with the benefit of hindsight, which was more relevant, science or religion? With the benefit of hindsight, which was correct in answering some of the questions that seemed "unknowable" at the time.

This is also a good way to prove that most religions change over time. Not all, but most. It may take some, like the Catholic Church, a few hundred years to reverse previous dogma but at least they eventually come around. Some of the more fundamentalist Protestant denominations like the Baptists and the Pentacostals may never come around. People like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and James Dobson and anyone else who insists that the Bible (all of it) is divinely inspired and they believe every word of it will never come around.

What were religious leaders saying a few hundred years ago about astronomy, which was the evolution of its day? That was a time when anyone who dared to hold any opinions that conflicted with the Bible's version of the stationary Earth as the center of the universe ran the risk of incarceration or even death by burning at the stake. Burning at the stake was the usual punishment for heretics and Copernican astronomy was heresy. Galileo barely escaped death only by renouncing his heretical teachings that the Earth revolved around the Sun. He lived out the remainder of his years under house arrest.

Here are a few examples of what the famous religious leaders of that day had to say on the topic of astronomy:


"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin." -- Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, during the trial of Galileo.


"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'" -- John Calvin, sermon No. 8 on 1st. Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988).


"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." -- Martin Luther


Are there any religious leaders today that still hold such views? Sure, all of the ones who believe that every word of the Bible is true.

"The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to tell us what it is. And since He has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years in age, and no more, that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology." -- Henry Morris, president of the Institute of Creation Research.


"I would not be a geocentrist if it were not for the Scriptures." -- Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D. (1984 Bible Science Conference).

"God, in His Word, consistently teaches geocentricity." -- Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D.

"Historians readily acknowledge that the Copernican Revolution [i.e., the idea that 'the earth moves and turns'] spawned the bloody French and Bolshevic revolutions... set the stage for the ancient Greek dogma of evolution...led to Marxism and Communism...It is reported that Marx even acknowledged his indebtedness to Copernicus, without whom Marx believed that his ideas would not have gained much acceptance...It is thus a small step to total rejection of the Bible and the precepts of morality and law taught therein." -- Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D., "Why Geocentricity?" (Baptist Bulletin, 1985).


Here is John Locke's take on religion and common sense:

"I find every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use of it gladly; and where it fails them, they cry out, it is a matter of faith, and above reason." -- John Locke


P.S. -- If you're one who doesn't believe in the "fallible theories of sinful people," this site will help you prove to others that every word of the Bible must be taken as literal truth and that God actually created everything in six ordinary days of 24 hours each. Anyone who believes otherwise is not a true Christian. Only by accepting every word of the Bible exactly as written can you hope to be saved: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home...k/sixdays2.asp

[Penguin]

I wonder if in a few decades embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning (assuming that it ends up working) will be accepted by the Christain religions. Look at something like general anesthesia, which was opposed by many when it was first developed, but is now considered routine and perfectly acceptable.

Or how about in vitro fertilization, or condoms? I think that most individuals find these morally acceptable even if some religions still officially do not. The moral consensus evolves.

[almostdiva]

Originally Posted by Penguin

I wonder if in a few decades embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning (assuming that it ends up working) will be accepted by the Christain religions. Look at something like general anesthesia, which was opposed by many when it was first developed, but is now considered routine and perfectly acceptable.

Or how about in vitro fertilization, or condoms? I think that most individuals find these morally acceptable even if some religions still officially do not. The moral consensus evolves.

We can hope, but I doubt it.... at least in this country. Let's take cloning out of the mix, for now, just b/c SO many people freak out. Stem cells still make "the right" nuts because they feel life is being destroyed. The Catholic church still sez condoms should never be used (they destroy "the culture of life") EVEN in African countries where AIDS is at pandemic levels.

And while we are at it... I find it highly obnoxious that the majority of those who legislate in this country (men) on women's reproductive rights issues cannot and will not EVER really know what these choices are like for women. It incenses me that almost all health plans will pay for Viagra or similar drugs, but many will not cover "the pill". And we get shots for mumps, measles, TB, polio ROUTINELY as infants to prevent potentially deadly diseased. WHY NOT routinely innoculate for HPV? It has no bearing, IMO, on whether or not a young woman will become sexually active.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Or how about in vitro fertilization, or condoms? I think that most individuals find these morally acceptable even if some religions still officially do not. The moral consensus evolves.

The moral consensus evolves and the religious teachings evolve, only much slower. This process will move much faster now thanks to worldwide instantaneous communication. No longer is the Church the sole guardian of knowledge. Things began to change with the invention of the printing press hundreds of years ago and speeded up dramatically in the past century with the invention of radio, television and finally the internet (or "internets" if you're a Republican).

Christianity seems to be a bit ahead of Islam in catching up with the modern world but I'm sure Islam will come around eventually. It is difficult for religious leaders who base their teachings and authority on what they believe to be divinely inspired scripture to accept change that contradicts that scripture but it does happen.


For example, the Christian church no longer condones slavery yet the Bible gives us permission to own slaves:

Leviticus: 44-45

44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.

Obviously there are restrictions. We may not own just any slaves. They must come from the nations around us. In our case, that would mean Canada and Mexico. One of my Republican friends says that we can't own Canadians, only Mexicans. Why can't we own Canadians? That doesn't seem fair. Most of them already speak English!

Looks like the Bible gives us permission to own people who are here on green cards, too. I think a lot of people are taking advantage of that right now.

Ephesians 6:5

5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Colossians 4:1

1Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

1 Peter 2:18-19

18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God.


The Christian churches all condoned slavery for a very long time. They all opposed democracy, too. Something to do with the divine right of kings. And the Church was a very recent convert to the concept of human rights or equality for women. They're still working on the equality for women thing because there are just too many references in scripture that specifically oppose such a concept.

How long it will take the Catholic Church to accept condoms is anybody's guess. I doubt that it will happen during the reign of Papa Ratzi because he has been very clear on that. Using condoms is a very grave sin because you are in effect pre-killing children before they are even born. Technically this is sodomy because you are spilling your seed. It is far more moral to allow tens of millions of people in Africa to die of AIDS than to provide them with condoms. What was that Spanish Archbishop thinking when he spouted off about permitting the use of condoms to prevent AIDS? Thank God we nipped that in the bud before it spread.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by almostdiva

WHY NOT routinely innoculate for HPV? It has no bearing, IMO, on whether or not a young woman will become sexually active.

The Bush administration is against vaccination for HPV because it would infuriate their radical religious base and it's a complete waste of money because everyone is supposed to be practicing abstinence until marriage and absolute fidelity during marriage. Both of those concepts are working out so well that there is no need to waste money on such sinful programs that would only encourage young girls to go out and get laid. In the meantime, we need to increase our spending on education programs that teach children the dangers of condoms and why they should never use them.

Just say no. That's what Laura and the president have always told Jenna and Barbara and look how great that's working out.

[Penguin]

"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great..."

...sorry, everytime I hear something about the Catholic Church's position on condoms it makes me think of that old Monty Python sketch.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Penguin

"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great..."

...sorry, everytime I hear something about the Catholic Church's position on condoms it makes me think of that old Monty Python sketch.

The Catholic Church's position on human sexuality today is about where it's position on astronomy was during the heresy trial of Galileo. They consider that they have come a long way in permitting intercourse for fun rather than exclusively for procreation.

[jgreen1025]

Maybe not a direct answer, but interesting nonetheless:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600131186,00.html

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPASSE

But because the “Religion of Science” is the product of the human mind, it is subject to the same self-serving and corrupting influences as any other “belief system”

"Religion of Science" is not an accurate way to describe science unless you're talking about pseudo-science, such as "creation science." Religion is based on dogma handed down by religious authorities. Science is based on discovery and is self-correcting.

As I have stated earlier we are both having to concede at a certain point to faith, just different kinds. Willingness to be at piece with these faiths is necessary in either belief system and I would not attribute this to any “less capacity for rational thought”

Willingness to be at peace with beliefs that are contradicted by reality requires a certain suspension of rational thought.

Leviticus is one of those books of the bible where people tend to blur the differences between the moral laws and the Jewish ceremonial laws, usually because of a particular axe that they want to grind.

I believe the examples I gave from Leviticus all pertain to "moral laws," not "Jewish ceremonial laws." Leviticus tells us that we should purchase slaves only from neighboring countries, so obviously God approves of slavery. Right? He also prescribes the death penalty for anyone who blasphemes, so obviously God approves of the death penalty. Exodus tells us that we must stone to death anyone who curses his parents or works on the Sabbath. Where is the difficulty in translation there? Exodus also tells us to kill all witches.

That famous Baptist theologian, Rev. Jerry Falwell, tells us that he believes every single word of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. A recent survey reports that 42% of the American public believes in the literal truth of the Bible. Amazing!

To believe something is “divinely inspired” does not mean that the limits of translation and contextual meaning don’t have to be factored in.

Translation and contextual meaning are not the issue in the great majority of absurd statements in the Old Testament.

Also, food related issues were probably only era relevant.

I don't understand the emphasis on food? I don't believe I have ever mentioned anything about problems with