Religion or Science - How do they compare?

Phat writes: I don't. I DO think that the God I worship is special, though.

Everybody thinks the god they worship is special. Funny then that they're different gods and diferent beliefs.

Again, I believe that all gods are inventions and/or demons. Except One.

What an amazing coincidence! Doesn't it bother you at all that had you be born elesewhere, you wouldn't think that?

Where I disagree is that I believe that God,if God exists is capable of reaching us.

Well, you know, he's a god and all. It's kind of expected that he can do stuff like that.

As to whether or not He chooses to do so I see no reason why we would be a waste of His time. Do you? (Hypothetically)

This is anthropomorphism. It's just childish.

Phat writes: Again, I believe that all gods are inventions and/or demons. Except One.

Hi Phat I didn't really want to jump back into this thread but I did want to say something about this.

Firstly it isn't about which deity we believe in. For example all Abrahamic religions at their root worship the same god. I would go further than that and say that all theistic religions worship the same god.

Where we differ is in our understanding of the deity. What is the nature of that deity and what should it mean to my life and for the whole world for that matter. Obviously there are also differences within the same religion. Faith is prepared to worship a deity who would be prepared to support genocide and public stoning. I worship a deity who would under no circumstances do such a thing. These differences obviously come from differing understandings of how the Bible should be understood.

Also, I have a problem with talking about the deity that we “believe” in. It really should be about the god that we have trust in and a want to follow in this life. I’ve used this quote before but the following is from CS Lewis’ “The Last Battle”.

quote:

---

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”

So I went over much grass and many flowers and among all kinds of wholesome and delectable tree till lo! In a narrow place between two rocks there came to meet me a great Lion. The speed of him was like an ostrich, and his size was an elephant’s; his hair was like pure gold that is liquid in the furnace. He was more terrible than the Flaming Mountain of Langour, and in beauty he surpassed all that is in the world even as the rose in bloom surpasses the dust of the desert.

Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him.

But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.

Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.

Dost thou understand , Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.

---

Obviously Tash represents a deity who espouses hatred and Aslan represents a deity who espouses love. However Lewis’ point is that acts of love done in the name of Tash are actually done for Aslan and acts of hatred done in the name of Aslan are actually done for Tash.

Belief is too often understood to mean that we give intellectual ascent to some doctrine. Belief should be more like a wedding vow when we say “I do” when we pledge faithfulness and loving service.

I would also add that too often our religious adherence is based on what we can get out of it for ourselves, whether it be in this life or the next, when it should be about how we can serve our deity. I contend that the we as Christians are told that we can serve our God by loving our neighbour and by providing good stewardship to our planet and the creatures on it. That is my belief about the nature of God. That understanding of the deity can also be held by people of any specific religion.

Edited by GDR, : to change title

GDR writes: Phat writes: Again, I believe that all gods are inventions and/or demons. Except One. ...I did want to say something about this. Firstly it isn't about which deity we believe in. For example all Abrahamic religions at their root worship the same god.

They do not.

I would go further than that and say that all theistic religions worship the same god.

What other theistic religions are there? In any case no they do not.

definition of Theism on Google page: "belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures. " Belief in "gods," is polytheism and that is even farther away from the idea that "all theistic religions worship the same god."

Where we differ is in our understanding of the deity.

Which is exactly why we do not all worship the same God. It isn't the same God if He has different characteristics from other gods.

there is only one God and He defines Himself in the Bible. At least the Jews have the Old Testament portrait right, but missing Jesus Christ means missing who God really is. And Allah isn't anywhere near the God of the Bible.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

GDR writes: Firstly it isn't about which deity we believe in. For example, all Abrahamic religions at their root worship the same god.

Tangle writes: Everybody thinks the god they worship is special. Funny then that they're different gods and different beliefs.

GDR is suggesting that at the root we all seek to know the GOD WHO is. You, OTOH don't believe that there is One GOD Who is, nevermind multiple candidates. Perhaps GDR would suggest that you do seek Truth, and by that criteria are seeking GOD by default.

GDR writes: Faith is prepared to worship a deity who would be prepared to support genocide and public stoning. I worship a deity who would under no circumstances do such a thing.

So are you saying that you both seek the same GOD, namely the One Who is, while at the same time having a different understanding as to the nature of such a Deity? Tangle, further, seeks truth yet sees no need or reason to look for a God who is not there. So could all three of you still be looking for the same thing?

GDR writes: Tash represents a deity who espouses hatred and Aslan represents a deity who espouses love. However, Lewis’ point is that acts of love done in the name of Tash are actually done for Aslan and acts of hatred done in the name of Aslan are actually done for Tash.

Thus anyone who does acts of love is doing them for the One God who is, correct? And for Tangle, doing acts of love for humanity is as close to the truth as any religion, correct? thus everyone seeks the same thing.. we just have different understandings of what that thing is....is this your basic argument?

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Phat writes: GDR is suggesting that at the root we all seek to know the GOD WHO is. You, OTOH don't believe that there is One GOD Who is, nevermind multiple candidates. Perhaps GDR would suggest that you do seek Truth, and by that criteria are seeking GOD by default.

'The god who is. Seeking truth'. This is all just religious drivel. Pompous and meaningless religiosity.

And for Tangle, doing acts of love for humanity is as close to the truth as any religion, correct?

'Acts of love for humanity.' More religious drivel.

All this language is irrelevant. It's religions' attempt to place all human activity within its own silly paradigm. I'm not seeking truth or performing acts of love, I'm just living my life the best way I can. The way that feels right or gets me by and makes me the happiest.

Please try to understand that this is not a search for any kind meaning and purpose - I know it's hard for you to do but please put aside any thoughts you may have that my motivations resemble anything resembling the religious kind. There is no purpose so looking for one is going to make you very unhappy.

Phat writes: So are you saying that you both seek the same GOD, namely the One Who is, while at the same time having a different understanding as to the nature of such a Deity? Tangle, further, seeks truth yet sees no need or reason to look for a God who is not there. So could all three of you still be looking for the same thing?

I wouldn't include Tangle in that, although I agree with Bob Dylan when he wrote, "you got to serve somebody". An atheist obviously doesn't worship any deity as they deny the existence of one.

Presumably though, any theist must have put some thought in to what they believe about the nature of what ever god they believe in, and what if anything that should mean to their life. It doesn't matter what name is attached to a deity, it is the nature of the deity that is important.

As I pointed out in my last post even though Faith and I are both Christians we disagree about the nature of God as we follow Him. In both cases our beliefs might more closely be related to the nature of what a Muslim might believe about the nature of Allah.

Certainly as Christians we do believe certain things such as the divinity of Christ, and so we can use Jesus as the perfect example of God's nature, but that does not mean that we can't come to the same understanding of the nature of God in other ways.

My signature tells us what the OT tells us about what God hopes for us, and obviously it is really pretty simple.

AbE It isn't the name that we attach to a deity, it is the nature of the deity and how it impacts our life that matters ultimately.

Edited by GDR, : typo

Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Phat writes: GDR is suggesting that at the root we all seek to know the GOD WHO is.

Be honest. You're not seeking "The God Who Is". You're seeking "The God Who Has a Son Named Jesus". And you're not really seeking Him either. You think you've found Him.

ringo writes: This isn't about me; it's about your apologist sources. They have essentially apologized God out of the equation.

Not all of them!

Phat writes: Not all of them!

I'm not watching your video. If you have a point to make, you'll have to do it in your own words.

Is that "Dr." Grady S. McMurtry? BS Agriculture and MS Environmental Science, both from accredited institutions. His doctorate is in theology from an unaccredited school which researchers have difficulty tracking down (http://www.ecalpemos.org/...grady-mcmurtry-what-are-his.html).

Rather light on the sciences, don't you think?

If you look for him in Wikipedia, you will instead find Grady L. McMurtry, a Satanist leader who appears to be Grady S. McMurtry's father. That previous link discusses the clues.

I agree fully with Ringo that you need to make your point yourself instead of "arguing with links" (a video in this case), which is against forum rules anyway, AIUT.

Actually, I tried to watch one of his videos on YouTube, but found the Stupid to be far too painful to put up with, so I didn't. If you really think that he has something worthwhile to say, then just simply tell us what that might be.

No. That is Dr.John Lennox, of late an apologist.

quote:

---

hn Lennox is Professor of Mathematics (emeritus) at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College, Oxford. He is also an Associate Fellow of the Said Business School, Oxford University, and teaches for the Oxford Strategic Leadership Programme. In addition, he is an Adjunct Lecturer at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University, and at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics, as well as being a Senior Fellow of the Trinity Forum.

---

jar can laugh at them if he wishes, but he makes some decent arguments, which I suppose I could present in my own words once I internalize them enough.

Well, all I could go by was what he looked like. Since you had offered zero information.

Summarizing what he presents in the video does not require you to internalize anything. Why would you think that it does?

That reminds me of one of the stranger creationist encounters I had (think it was on CompuServe). When I pointed out that he needed to study evolution if he ever hoped to argue against it effectively, to which he pretty much freaked out absolutely refusing to do study evolution since he believed that would require him to "believe in evolution". What? Studying some subject does not require believing in it, any more than summarizing a video would require internalizing the contents.

That taught be a basic difference in how fundamentalists and normals view education: normals seek knowledge about the subject whereas fundamentalists engage in indoctrination. For example, the California guidelines for science education (c 1989) said:

quote:

---

Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.

---

In contrast, when "public school edition" creationist materials are used in class in Livermore, CA, in 1981, each lesson ended by insisting that the students decide then and there whether to accept the "unnamed" Creator or "atheistic" evolution.

You had a reason to violate forum rules by posting a bare link. So why not simply present that reason? Or are we back to that awkward situation where you felt very charged up for "The Good Fight" by the virulent anti-atheist propaganda of "God's NOT Dead" (comparable to the classic propaganda film, "Der Ewige Jüde") and then refused to discuss it?