Why (or why not) be Christian? Part 2

[Mustardseed86]

Continuing from this thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/philosophy_religion_spirituality/5018897-why-or-why-not-be-christian

Anyone welcome to join. 🙂

@NotCute "The problem being that the very vast majority of the disciples of science as a belief system, and dare I say, modern day idol, is that they are quite a long way off of being scientists or even scientifically minded. Hence the blind faith."

Can you say more about this? What do you mean-science as a belief system?

Have you studied Bruno’s cosmology and works? How familiar are you with the intellectual history of the early modern period?

How is that in any way relevant, to why he was killed, for the reason he was killed.

So irrelevant that you’ve had to comment on it twice.

At its best science does operate this way, however, you only have to look at the extremely dodgy field of "gender medicine" to see it's vulnerable to blind faith and coercion too.

@Garlicking Which brings me to the question I asked on the earlier thread ... I guess that makes Christians hypocrites as well!

Jesus, the man, was a Jew - why would you think he should He renounce His faith? He is the Son of the Jewish God (as depicted in the OT). As a Christian I do align myself with Jews, but the difference is that I am a disciple of Christ Jesus, the Messiah. His is at one with the trinitarian Godhead. With His birth, death and resurrection, He fulfilled the Law and gave me freedom to live according to His 'advice for life'. No modification needed. No hypocrisy.

As I understand it (shakily, no doubt), he understood the Solar System, that the stars in the sky are also solar systems, and that the universe extends far beyond what humans can see or imagine. All of that was heresy, and Bruno went further. He theorised that there could be life on some exoplanets, which the Church considered an insult to God.

Bruno didn't think God was insulted, because Bruno believed the universe and everything in it IS God. Not 'made by god', but that divinity itself suffuses everything on this world and all other worlds, every speck and fibre of the universe without end.

Having already pissed off the ecclesiastical overlords with his science spirituality, Bruno then asserted that god, being universal, couldn't be split up and therefore is not a trinity. I can't remember what he suggested Christ and the Spirit were, but it's now blindingly obvious the church would want him terminated.

He travelled about a bit, becoming a Calvinist (I think) in Switzerland and finally rejoining his old order, the Dominicans. Really interesting chap. He managed to survive a surprisingly long time because his ideas won him some influential friends, but they fried him eventually.

The scripture you quote, Matthew 19:24, is merely a warning that people cannot 'buy' their way into Heaven whether that be through worldly riches nor by doing 'look at me' acts of goodness. More here

Yes, definitely a very interesting human, with a very interesting life, I’ve been reading a lot around him and his life, lately, and he was such all rounder, in so many ways. Shame that he had to die for the truths he revealed.

Honestly, I feel the existence of religion makes people susceptible to that sort of nonsense. It primes them for mystical beliefs like transubstantiation, a soul that's independent of the body, and miraculous transformations. It's often remarked that genderism has all the hallmarks of a religious cult.

While it's more than likely that scientists will pay lip service to the gender belief system in fear for their jobs and funding, some may have bought into it because it "feels true" thanks to their religious backgrounds.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. I think the poster is basically saying science is a lens through which the world is viewed. It holds certain assumptions such as everything is measurable and can be rationalised, that truth is objective and replicable

But if you read on, it then goes on to conclude:

It's very much a belief system at this point as many people do not have the capacity to understand it and so choose to follow it with blind faith. Just as Christians do with God.

And that is simply NOT true!

Science is not a 'belief system' that is 'blindly followed' just like Christians do with God.

It is the exact opposite!

Religion killed him for his scientific work and beliefs- which were actually grounded in provable reality, because it went against church teachings, and he refused to go back on what he believed.

I would like you to know how Christians feel about this?

It seems that Christians are unwilling to accept truths that go against their beliefs.

Actually many people do just that. Look at the confusion during covid when the scientific view kept changing. People just blindly believed the science them got terribly confused when things changed (as happens with science)

Many see science as providing absolute infallible truths. - people who understand science better don’t see it this way but the general population does. It’s similar to how many see religion compared to those who carry a much higher level of knowledge like theologians etc.

You want to know how Christians feel about something that happened in 1600..? Ok. I feel it was bad.

All extremism causes conflict

It’s a title given by the relevant religion. If you are referring to the Christian deity it has a capital G irrespective of your belief system

Because then you might understand the situation. The fact that you have had to ask why these things are relevant would indicate you haven’t got a grasp on the true situation.

Bruno had a wide range of heretical beliefs and practices. This is why he was killed. Some of these beliefs involve what we now might call science but it was far more complicated and nuanced. Even though you clearly want it to be a lot clear cut. I’m sorry that’s just wishful thinking

I would say it’s historically inaccurate, anachronistic and revisionist. An attempt to inaccurately use an historical event to paint certain groups as good and bad. I would say it’s the rhetoric of stupidity.

I actually know a bit about this man and his story. But the bottom line is that he got killed for his beliefs. That’s a black and white situation. Wrong which ever way you look at it.

I’m not commenting on the (irrelevant) point you’re making, just the correct grammar😀

Yes he got killed for his beliefs. It’s being pitched as the nasty Christian’s killed this man because of his scientific beliefs. This is historically inaccurate and anachronistic. If you know quite a bit about this man it was extremely disingenuous to try and present it that way, which was the point I was making.

Grammar rules are ever changing. I don’t worship your god, so that word will always be written with a small g. Millions of people will continue to write it that way.

God isn’t my god! Those people are incorrect too in this respect.

Do you use lowercase for Zeus? Or Odin? Or Jesus (since you're not sure if he existed)? If not then you're probably just being inconsistent to make a point. In a Christian context, God is a proper noun. If you're talking about gods and goddesses generally then you would use lowercase.

I was referring to religious extremism not in general.