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. 🙂

As I said kill old gods and new ones will appear.

It is interesting that you seem to try and shift parts of science into religion when you don’t agree with it.

But yes, science is never truely objective, it is driven by social trends, funding, career aspirations etc. it is as ideologically driven as any religion.

it’s not surprising science entrenched cults are starting to form.

in terms of eschatology and to quote Ghostbusters. Choose your the method of your destruction (carefully)!

Why not? I think you’re concentrating on the wrong part of the phrase.

I was stating that there is religious extremism and it is dangerous, has caused conflict around the world and an unknown number of deaths.

"God" isn't the Christian god's proper name. Not like Zeus or Jesus or Ganesh. The capital letter is an honorific.

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.

So you agree that there are people who understand science well and we can therefore trust them? I agree with you.

You then suggest that this is similar to the knowledge a theologian has?

There's a HUGE difference: the scientists work with observable FACTS whereas theologians work with a work of FICTION, the bible

@Kdtym10 "it is as ideologically driven as any religion." Science at least tries to be objective and fact based. Sometimes it fails. But it tries. Religion doesn't.

But yes, science is never truely objective

But a whole lot more than any man made religion!

You’re quite correct, religion makes not real claim to be objective so therefore cannot fail in that respect. Science on the other hand purports to be objective and more usually than not fails.

With all due respect, you seem to have very little understanding of holy texts like the Bible (but many Christian’s don’t either).

Spirituality is not about observable, quantifiable facts. You would probably most usefully understand this distinction by reading Blake.

From https://grammarist.com/style/god-capitalization/

God is capitalized when it functions as a name. The three major monotheistic world religions refer to a one supreme being as God. This is a formal name, and thus a proper noun, and it deserves to be capitalized. Other forms referring to the one religious God also must be capitalized, such as Allah, Father, or Jehovah.

I’m not sure why we have ended up debating with people struggling with basic primary school English. Welcome to the scientific age, the Age of Enlightenment, I guess.

Giordano Bruno met a tragic end due to his unconventional beliefs and refusal to recant them. In 1592, Bruno was arrested by the Roman Inquisition in Venice on charges of heresy, stemming from his unorthodox theological and cosmological ideas. He spent several years in prison, during which time he endured interrogation and attempted persuasion to renounce his beliefs.

Despite the efforts of friends and supporters to secure his release, Bruno remained steadfast in his convictions. He refused to retract his heretical teachings, including his assertions about the infinity of the universe and the plurality of worlds, as well as his rejection of fundamental Christian doctrines.

In 1599, after a lengthy trial, Bruno was found guilty of heresy by the Roman Inquisition. On February 17, 1600, he was taken to the Campo de' Fiori in Rome, where he was publicly burned at the stake. His execution serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of challenging established authorities and the consequences of advocating for intellectual freedom in an era of religious intolerance.

To be honest, @Kdtym10, you do respond more to posts about capitalising God than you do to any other posts!

@Mustardseed86 to be fair, I do usually capitalise him. But only out of respect to the humans it's important to-in the same way I stopped my children blaspheming. Not because I think I need to show respect for a mythical being.

I noticed the same!

Rather than focusing on other people's choice of grammar, why don't you respond critically with some of the actual arguments?

Blimey, how rude are you?

With all due respect, you seem to have very little understanding of holy texts like the Bible

True, I haven't read many of the holy texts. However, as it was written by other humans (rather than by any god!), it is not an objective source of historical evidence.

Historians do not actually consider the Bible as a historical reference text.

Thanks. It is pretty standard usage.

Is there some reason half the posts now seem to be about Giordano Bruno? I don't know if it's meant to be about authoritarianism (which exists in all sorts of systems unfortunately) or to show that religion is incompatible with science. Or just generally "religion=bad"?

Is there some reason half the posts now seem to be about Giordano Bruno?

His case is an example of the Church suppressing scientists, an example of how afraid the church was/is of his ideas - enough to burn one of its own - alive!

This is an example of extraordinarily poor history, although an excellent example of historical revisionism, look up thread as to why your statement is incorrect.

I really don’t know what to say here. I guess scientists should never touch the liberal arts!

Basically, someone with a complete lack of understanding (or they claim to have understanding and therefore I can only assume they were being disingenuous) applied a classic case of historical revisionism and tried to falsely use it as an example of Christianity suppressing scientists. Thus showing a complete lack of understanding of History (specifically early modern intellectual history), Bruno, science and Christianity. It was quite astounding how far they missed the goal posts with this.

First basic English, and now basic historical concepts. I’m stating to think the Age of Enlightenment can only be ever used in an ironic way!

I’m not claiming the Bible is a factual historical account. Although historians do use it as a source as there is a lot valuable historical information to be gleaned from the bible.

As rude as I want to be, but certainly this is no ruder than many of the comments made about Christianity!

Because someone disagrees with your interpretation doesn’t make their opinion or understanding wrong. .