0
   

Faith and miracles

 
 
NeitherExtreme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Dec, 2007 01:41 pm
@Ciana5,
Oops, I forgot in my last post (from a few minutes ago) to touch on the topic of literal understanding of the Bible. I agree that if taken literally (and out of context) the Bible can be construed to mean many (and wildly opposing) things. I think that it is the wise choice to try (as much as I can) to understand the whole Bible as it relates to itself, and as it relates to the history we know otherwise, and to always remember that it was not writen by (or specifically for) people with Western mindets. There are parts in the Bible that are history, poetry, phrophecy of various types, individual and groop letters, etc, and combinations of them all... And none of it writen by Western minds... So understanding the Bible well can not be done with a quick skim, nor (IMO) a strong bias (since you can in essence find what you want).

I've heard my dad (someone I greatly respect, and even more as I get older) say that it is always important to try to understand:
(1) What the passage says (understanding language, styles, etc.)
(2) Who was the audience (who was this written directly for), and what did this passage mean to them at that time?
(3) Then, in light of those, what does this passage mean for me/us?

Also one important teaching from the Bible (about the Bible) is that there are disputable matters (theological and otherwise) which are best left between a person and God. Also, in the NT, Peter says that some of Paul's writings are hard to understand and that people (in my words) "twist what he says, just like they do with the rest of the scriptures".

Long story short- I won't pretend that the Bible has all the easy answers, though I think that the most important things are definetely clear enough... Smile
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Dec, 2007 12:22 pm
@NeitherExtreme,
Neitherextreme,Smile

Smile I can assure you I do not believe all Christians are evil. The most objectionable of said Christians are the ones whom have a literal interpretation who wish to interpret the world and govern it through this ancient text. This is a political force in the United States which wishes to take over the education system. It has attacked science and rationality itself, and wonders now, why there is a movement to limit its power. It is as a political entity that it is now being attacked. Actually I do not give a dam about what another man's theology is, as long as it is not forced upon others. Keep Christianity in the church, not the science classroom, keep it a choice, for only through choice is virtue truely virtue.
NeitherExtreme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Dec, 2007 04:32 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:

keep it a choice, for only through choice is virtue truely virtue.

Well, we agree %100 on this one. Smile


boagie wrote:

as long as it is not forced upon others.

Not trying to be annoying, but I want mention that since "religion" was in the American classroom first, and was subsequently pushed out by "secular" phillosophy, it is only natural for the "religious" to feel like they are the ones being forced upon... Not that they have responded in a very Christian way overall...

I'm also not saying that the Bible ought to be taught in school, I'm just saying it's not surprising that they are upset. Unfortunately what he have right now is both sides battling for power in a downward spiral of antagonism, rather than attempting to understand each other and find a happy medium.

And for what it's worth, I personally feel that modern science (ie evolutionism) is an attack on science and rationality, and I think that schools ought to teach a more open minded aproach to dealing with natural history; it seems like sticking my head in the sand to pretend like the laws of nature and lots of time could produce the present universe. On the other side though, my biggest frustration with the "intellegent design" folks is that they can't seem to (or don't want to) separate their science from their religion. I would be perfectly happy to discuss natural history in a science class from a scientific standpoint, and attempting to leave religion "in the church" as you say.
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Dec, 2007 05:39 pm
@NeitherExtreme,
NeitherExtreme wrote:
Well, we agree %100 on this one. Smile

Not trying to be annoying, but I want mention that since "religion" was in the American classroom first, and was subsequently pushed out by "secular" phillosophy, it is only natural for the "religious" to feel like they are the ones being forced upon... Not that they have responded in a very Christian way overall...

I'm also not saying that the Bible ought to be taught in school, I'm just saying it's not surprising that they are upset. Unfortunately what he have right now is both sides battling for power in a downward spiral of antagonism, rather than attempting to understand each other and find a happy medium.

And for what it's worth, I personally feel that modern science (ie evolutionism) is an attack on science and rationality, and I think that schools ought to teach a more open minded aproach to dealing with natural history; it seems like sticking my head in the sand to pretend like the laws of nature and lots of time could produce the present universe. On the other side though, my biggest frustration with the "intellegent design" folks is that they can't seem to (or don't want to) separate their science from their religion. I would be perfectly happy to discuss natural history in a science class from a scientific standpoint, and attempting to leave religion "in the church" as you say.


Neitherextreme,


Smile Christianites claim of territory in the public school system does not hold up, its business is faith not knowledge. To say this is our domain because we were here first still will not cut it. Evolutionary biology could say it has a right to teach evolution from the pulpit because it has never been given a chance. I agree however, that it is not surprizing that they are disappointed

Smile Please explain how science as evolutionary biology is an attack on science and rationality? Creationism and/or Intelligent design is not taught in the science classroom because it simply is not science. The creation of the universe is a mystery, creationism and/or intelligent design do not answer the question, indeed what they present is not rationally based on anything. Science is the best guess through the rational of what is known today. If religion had knowledge, faith would not be necessary.




A little entertainment!!

NeitherExtreme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Dec, 2007 06:44 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Neitherextreme,
Smile Christianites claim of territory in the public school system does not hold up, its business is faith not knowledge. To say this is our domain because we were here first still will not cut it. Evolutionary biology could say it has a right to teach evolution from the pulpit because it has never been given a chance. I agree however, that it is not surprizing that they are disappointed

I think we agree for the most part here. Smile What I was saying was not meant to say that religion has an inherent claim on the classroom, I was merely commenting on the loss of "territory", and the obvious result (people being upset). I think one of the biggest "Christian" mistakes of the last few hundred years was that they often opposed science directly when it was introduced, rather than try to understand it. I think that if they had tried to understand it, the two may have both learned from each other and travelled parrallel (though not directly overlapping) paths. Frankly I don't think that Chrisitanity and Science need to be at odds, though unfortunately I don't have a whole lot of hope for reconciliation any time real soon. Sad

boagie wrote:

Smile Please explain how science as evolutionary biology is an attack on science and rationality? Creationism and/or Intelligent design is not taught in the science classroom because it simply is not science. The creation of the universe is a mystery, creationism and/or intelligent design do not answer the question, indeed what they present is not rationally based on anything. Science is the best guess through the rational of what is known today. If religion had knowledge, faith would not be necessary.

First, knowledge takes faith in something: the senses, the mind, something...
But as for the rest of your question, I think I'll start a new thread under the science section at some point in the next week or so, and try to lay out some of my complaints with Naturalism and Evolutionism from a reasoning (non-religious) standpoint. It might be a bit long though... :p
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Dec, 2007 07:14 pm
@NeitherExtreme,
Neitherextreme,Smile

You perhaps have something there about science and religion getting off on the wrong foot. It has been stated that the friction between the two is really a conflict between the science of two thousand years ago with the science of the day. I would be most interested in your thread outlineing this supposed affront to science and rationalism by evolutionary biology.
NeitherExtreme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Dec, 2007 07:51 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Neitherextreme,Smile

You perhaps have something there about science and religion getting off on the wrong foot. It has been stated that the friction between the two is really a conflict between the science of two thousand years ago with the science of the day. I would be most interested in your thread outlineing this supposed affront to science and rationalism by evolutionary biology.


Yeah, I think that at the time that science was really taking off, the "church" (what I call Christendom) had unfortuanately put themselves in the position of being "the Man" (as the Hippies would have called it). They were the big powerful entity that liked things as they were and didn't smile on change...

Unfortunately, there will always be "the Man", and maybe more than one at a time. :rolleyes: Personally, I feel like Naturalistic science and it's influences might be playing the part in some areas of life today...

...Speaking of which, I'll try to get my thoughts together (sometimes a tricky task :rolleyes: ) and let you, and whoever else wants to wander through them, see what you think. Smile
democritus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 01:25 pm
@NeitherExtreme,
Hello everybody,

I have tried to read most of the 47 comments on this subject and found very good points, in case you haven't read my comment on this subject in similar debates on Philosophy/Metaphysic/Miracles and Philosophy/Philosophy of religion/Miracles pages I reprint it here for the benefit of other readers [with minor alterations to suit this debate]:

Let us call "Miracle" = a very rare event in a particular time and place and with intelligence or intend. [with "will" or ON DEMAND]

Some events are unheard of and called "very rare events" [it is true]

A very rare event may be just a "very rare event" [if it happens by accident]

A very rare event may be called a "miracle" [if it happens on demand]

Let us say X[/COLOR][/COLOR] = A man walked through the wall = a very rare event in particular time and location [let us assume]

Let us say Y[/COLOR][/COLOR] = Red Sea crossing = a very rare event in particular time and location [let us assume]

Xa = Miracle[/COLOR][/COLOR] [if there is a will[/COLOR][/COLOR]]
Xb = Not Miracle [if there is not a known will]

Ya = Miracle[/COLOR][/COLOR] [if there is a will[/COLOR][/COLOR]]
Yb = Not Miracle [if there is not a known will]

In order to talk about miracles, which -by definition- requires intelligence/intend or "will", we need to prove that this "will[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE]" is the cause of that particular event.

Now, the onus on the claimer's shoulder to prove without doubt that, there is a miracle and in this particular miracle -the very rare event- happened because of the "will" of the instigator.

Until now, no reliable evidence have been provided to justify the claim [/U]that a "miracle" has actually happened.

However, people who has mistaken "belief[/COLOR][/COLOR]" in particular dogma may take it as "evidence" that a "miracle[/COLOR][/COLOR]" happened because a priest told them, or they have read it in a book or they have heard several eye witnesses account etc. Modern logic do not accept these evidences as final arbitrator.

There are many opinions - but the truth is one - and the job of philosophy is to find out the truth.
Joe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 03:57 pm
@democritus,
I cannot agree that miracles are very rare or rare at all. This is based on an individuals wants and rewards, that he or she must realize. To me, what makes "Miracles" rare, is just the rarity of someones inner realization.

Its funny to explain in such a short way. Whats even more odd is that I dont believe in miracles as an idea but i also dont believe in coincidences as an idea either.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Faith and miracles
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 08:31:06