Religion Discussion Thread

shafnutz05
Posts: 50339
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:27 pm
Location: A moron or a fascist...but not both.

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby shafnutz05 » Fri Apr 23, 2021 7:30 am

Orthodox Judaism?
Big time. Their treatment of women is disgusting.
:thumb:

My wife and I were just having this conversation last night. Except for the much wider use of terrorism, extremist Islam and super Hasidic Judaism seem to have a good bit in common.

count2infinity
Posts: 35541
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm
Location: All things must pass. With six you get eggroll. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
Contact:

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby count2infinity » Tue Jul 20, 2021 1:25 pm

Hey @Freddy Rumsen ... what is an "evangelical" church? I sort of posed the question in the COVID thread, but really it's a matter of religion and my not understanding it.

In the Christian faith I know Catholic, Protestant, and other.

Catholic is pretty easy to define... I'd even throw Eastern Orthodox into that grouping as it's pretty much the same thing (I know there are technical differences, but pretty similar, yeah?)

Protestant: Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Pentecost, Anglican, etc.

Other: All the "independent" churches and megachurches

What makes a church/individual "evangelical"? Is it a definition that can't quite be completely defined? Is it just the media's word for super anti-abortion, formerly (or currently) anti-evolution, and "AMERICA IS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY!" people?

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:46 pm

I have no idea what an "evangelical" is at this point. It's one of those words that doesn't really mean anything anymore.

In our current world an "evangelical" is probably a better term for a demographic than any kind of "religious" person.

A large percentage of Trump voters who the media would call "evangelical" were not regular church attenders or actively involved in any kind of Christian community.

count2infinity
Posts: 35541
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm
Location: All things must pass. With six you get eggroll. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
Contact:

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby count2infinity » Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:48 pm

Alright... so a non-religious (me) and religious person (you) both don't know what the hell it even means... we have to go deeper. I'll ask Alex Jones. He'll know. :lol:

shafnutz05
Posts: 50339
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:27 pm
Location: A moron or a fascist...but not both.

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby shafnutz05 » Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:20 pm

I was asked by a friend at church to co-teach one of the fall adult Sunday school classes this year. I was terrified to do it, but it has been one of the most rewarding experiences I've ever had.

There is a retired pastor in my class, and today he divulged that he has terminal cancer and has two to three months to live. He has brought so much humor and insight into our class (its all about learning to help others and be kind/compassionate). Man... It hit me hard.

One of the hardest things about being a regular church attender is getting to know all of the wonderful older people there and knowing that many are in their twilight years. I know it's a small audience for this post on this board but his whole mindset just really resonated with me.

robbiestoupe
Posts: 11543
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:27 pm

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby robbiestoupe » Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:36 am

I always like a good religion debate, especially if civilized. So let's keep it going here, c2i
Religious books contain quite a bit of history, and use knowledge at the time they were written to tell stories/parables of the religion they are teaching. So yeah, he's right but....so?
Perhaps this is better suited for the religion thread, but the point being that if you were to hit the reset button on humanity ala The Good Place judge:
Image
When you start over, 2+2 is still going to be 4. The Pythagorean theory will still be valid. When you have a pure substance that has three atoms, one with 8 protons and the other two with 1 proton covalently bound together, they'll be in a bent formation, and if you have a bucket of them they'll be liquid between 0°C and 100°C. A ball will accelerate toward earth at 9.8 m/sec^2. These things will all still be true, and will all be rediscovered.

Will all the Roman gods be rewritten exactly as they are? Will the Christian bible be rewritten exactly as is and will the interpretations of those writings be exactly as they are? Will Scientology still be a thing? Maybe... but most likely only if you go with Shmenguin's no free will theory which sort of violates what most Christians believe anyways.

The point is that science proves itself over and over. Multiple people do the experiments and they come to the same results over and over. So the idea that it takes "faith" to believe in science is a stretch at best, certainly not the same faith that it takes to believe in a religion.
I get that. But what is most religion going to tell you? That there is a creator, and said creator put all the rules of physics in place. So if you really wanted to debate this, you'd have to go a step further and say that everything starts over again, not just humanity.

Science vs. religion is a crappy debate topic anyway. They aren't under the same category, even though they do overlap some*. They can both coexist, but too many times science has been used to disprove religion.

I honestly think this is why there are so many whacko conspiracy theorists out there with covid. Many of this is steeped in religion vs. science. Science took a big swing at religion with the evolution debate, and removing talk of creation out of class rooms. I don't want to debate whether that was the right thing to do or not, but it has put some religious people into super-defensive mode and this is what you get.


* case in point, science is based on the scientific method. You need to be able to prove something in order for it to be taken seriously. Religion, meanwhile, requires faith at some points because there are ideas and theories, if you will, that cannot be proven here on earth. Just because they cannot be proven (or disproven, have you), doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken seriously. There is a series of verses in the Bible that talks about knowing in part and only seeing a reflection of things as we see them now. But in the end, we will know in full and see everything clearly.

count2infinity
Posts: 35541
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm
Location: All things must pass. With six you get eggroll. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
Contact:

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby count2infinity » Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:55 am

Right... I don't like the science v religion debate because to me, they're mutually exclusive. That's why Gervais pushed back on the idea that "believing in science" is just faith, similar to a faith in a god or holy book or any other faith. That's where that entire point came from. Colbert said that Gervais didn't come up with the science himself, he's just taking smart people's word for it, which is why Gervais said what he said.

I do think that there are things within religion that are just ingrained into human DNA. Two of the big ones are there is a creator or creators/some higher being and that you must obey them. One other thing that seems pretty common through most religions is essentially, for lack of better wording, don't be a d*ck. I like that part of religion.

As you mention, the problem comes in with "proof". Most religions say "this is my religion, this is the religion, all other religions are wrong." There's no proof beyond faith.

I largely view all religious text as either history or fiction... often times interwoven with one another. I take no umbridge with those that disagree with me, nor those that are religious. I'm not going to try to convince you you're wrong because why? What does it matter? If you're living your life and I'm living mine, that should be enough. That said, any debate where the bible is brought up as some sort of exhibit to do one thing or another... nah. Pass. I don't want to have that discussion.

I know grunty always used to get very upset when I compared Christianity to scientology or Mormons or anything else, but that's what it is to me. I see no difference between the bible and harry potter. They're books about magical things and a savior that dies and is risen from the dead to save the world against evil. If that's insulting, I'm sorry, but that's truly how I feel about it.

robbiestoupe
Posts: 11543
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:27 pm

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby robbiestoupe » Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:13 am

I respect that POV, c2i. It's not like it's impossible to see where you are coming from, yet so many people think that it just takes a few Bible verses and people will convert.

The debate regarding multiple religions is a game of telephone in my opinion. Most religions started out on the same foot. But something along the way caused a rift, and poof, now you have two religions. And each of those two religions get their own interpretations and now you have 4. And so on. Heck, even today you can't just say you are a Christian or a Jew. It's too broad. You need to be a Protestant or Hasidic. Even those are becoming too broad now. You plop somebody onto earth today and tell them to pick a religion, many times they are going to ask you - how do you know which one is right?

I grew up with this mentality that you have to play everything by the book and there is only one true way to serve God. It did more to turn me away from religion than drawing me in. It's something everybody has to search out for themselves. For Christianity, the Bible is a guide. Yes, it is the word of God and therefore must be taken as truth, but I also don't think it's everything there is to know about God. It's about a relationship, which means two way communication. Without it, you end up with religion - just a bunch of rules to follow.

Morkle
Posts: 22965
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby Morkle » Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:18 am

I align most to what C2I described - but I often wonder what religion looks like in 1-2000 (maybe longer) years. If it's still the same, or if people of the future will look back at Christianity/Catholicism as we do of people who believed in greek gods/norse mythology etc.

count2infinity
Posts: 35541
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm
Location: All things must pass. With six you get eggroll. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
Contact:

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby count2infinity » Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:26 am

Source of the post yet so many people think that it just takes a few Bible verses and people will convert.
Yeah... "the bible is true because it says it's true" does nothing for me and many others.
Source of the post The debate regarding multiple religions is a game of telephone in my opinion.
Yeah, there are obviously separate roots to religions around the world, but even within a particular religion, there are branchings of beliefs and teachings. The king James bible is how many translations removed from the original writings?

I'm cool with people using it as a guide for their own life and how to live. The kindest, nicest, best people that I've met are typically casual theists. It obviously is helpful for some. But I also know a lot of kind, loving, caring, nice casual secularists as well.

CBear3
Posts: 7646
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:02 pm
Location: KC, MO

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby CBear3 » Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:30 am

Religious books contain quite a bit of history, and use knowledge at the time they were written to tell stories/parables of the religion they are teaching. So yeah, he's right but....so?
Perhaps this is better suited for the religion thread, but the point being that if you were to hit the reset button on humanity ala The Good Place judge:
Image
When you start over, 2+2 is still going to be 4. The Pythagorean theory will still be valid. When you have a pure substance that has three atoms, one with 8 protons and the other two with 1 proton covalently bound together, they'll be in a bent formation, and if you have a bucket of them they'll be liquid between 0°C and 100°C. A ball will accelerate toward earth at 9.8 m/sec^2. These things will all still be true, and will all be rediscovered.

Will all the Roman gods be rewritten exactly as they are? Will the Christian bible be rewritten exactly as is and will the interpretations of those writings be exactly as they are? Will Scientology still be a thing? Maybe... but most likely only if you go with Shmenguin's no free will theory which sort of violates what most Christians believe anyways.

The point is that science proves itself over and over. Multiple people do the experiments and they come to the same results over and over. So the idea that it takes "faith" to believe in science is a stretch at best, certainly not the same faith that it takes to believe in a religion.
If all history books were burned, did Hitler still exist? Of course, he did. So did Mohamed, Jesus, etc.
I believe Monotheism would absolutely come back if you destroyed all religious texts, but that's not to say that it's "correct." And it would come back in a different form as opposed to science's concrete numbers.

What's more interesting from a religious perspective is the spiritual interconnectedness that has been discussed in a religious context can now be talked about through quantum entanglement today. What's been described as the Holy Spirit in Christianity can be observed scientifically at the quantum level.

Likewise, for centuries prayer was a silent time of reflection which science today can show the benefits of meditation and manifestation.

These cosmic truths have been practiced by religions for years and science is now able to quantify their benefits and behavior. Does that mean religion isn't necessary, or just that we're describing the same thing in different languages. The Big Bang for instance doesn't eliminate a Deity, it just moves human understanding another step with more questions to follow.

count2infinity
Posts: 35541
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm
Location: All things must pass. With six you get eggroll. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
Contact:

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby count2infinity » Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:34 am

Source of the post If all history books were burned, did Hitler still exist? Of course, he did. So did Mohamed, Jesus, etc.
Right, and that's exactly the point. Even if they existed, but all record of them is gone, that record is never coming back. Versions of them or similar beings might, but they are lost never to return again in their exact form.

MWB
Posts: 8142
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby MWB » Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:39 am

To take this in another direction (one that might not even be worth thinking about): If we started at 0 tomorrow, with everyone's mind erased and society starting over... science stuff will get rediscovered with the same conclusions, as C2I has said. What happens with religion? I think the general themes would still be there, but the world shaped those things then, and would shape them differently now. So I don't know that "Christianity" would form into the same thing again.

count2infinity
Posts: 35541
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm
Location: All things must pass. With six you get eggroll. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
Contact:

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby count2infinity » Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:42 am

To take this in another direction (one that might not even be worth thinking about): If we started at 0 tomorrow, with everyone's mind erased and society starting over... science stuff will get rediscovered with the same conclusions, as C2I has said. What happens with religion? I think the general themes would still be there, but the world shaped those things then, and would shape them differently now. So I don't know that "Christianity" would form into the same thing again.
Unless, one of the religions actually is the word of god... if one of the hundreds (thousands?) of religions actually is the spoken word of god, then yeah. It'd likely come back the same way.

CBear3
Posts: 7646
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:02 pm
Location: KC, MO

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby CBear3 » Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:43 am

[snip]I see no difference between the bible and harry potter. They're books about magical things and a savior that dies and is risen from the dead to save the world against evil. If that's insulting, I'm sorry, but that's truly how I feel about it. [snip]
The difference is one was written knowingly as fiction and one was written because it was believed to be fact. That's why the comparison is kind of insulting. There are obviously Old testament teachings from before the time of the written word that were passed down that are parables, but late in that book and the entirety of the New Testament are written as contemporary accounts of life during those times. They may place divine intent onto natural occurring's and such, but they're not works created with the intent of fiction.

As such, there's very little scholarly debate about whether Jesus of Nazareth existed, because there are a couple contemporary references to him as a "teacher" in that region from non-biblical sources.
Whether he indeed rose from the dead, or was the son of God, can obviously be debated. Since neither can be proven, it makes perfect sense that people wouldn't believe it to be the case.

CBear3
Posts: 7646
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:02 pm
Location: KC, MO

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby CBear3 » Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:46 am

To take this in another direction (one that might not even be worth thinking about): If we started at 0 tomorrow, with everyone's mind erased and society starting over... science stuff will get rediscovered with the same conclusions, as C2I has said. What happens with religion? I think the general themes would still be there, but the world shaped those things then, and would shape them differently now. So I don't know that "Christianity" would form into the same thing again.
Unless, one of the religions actually is the word of god... if one of the hundreds (thousands?) of religions actually is the spoken word of god, then yeah. It'd likely come back the same way.
Since Christianity follows the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, and you just expunged him from existence, a la the Hitler reference, Christianity would not come back unless he himself came back a second time.

count2infinity
Posts: 35541
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm
Location: All things must pass. With six you get eggroll. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
Contact:

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby count2infinity » Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:48 am

[snip]I see no difference between the bible and harry potter. They're books about magical things and a savior that dies and is risen from the dead to save the world against evil. If that's insulting, I'm sorry, but that's truly how I feel about it. [snip]
The difference is one was written knowingly as fiction and one was written because it was believed to be fact. That's why the comparison is kind of insulting. There are obviously Old testament teachings from before the time of the written word that were passed down that are parables, but late in that book and the entirety of the New Testament are written as contemporary accounts of life during those times. They may place divine intent onto natural occurring's and such, but they're not works created with the intent of fiction.
Right... intent is the big word there. If some guy today started writing about miracles and things that seem/are magical and/or devine with the intent of it not being fiction, does that matter? Not to me. So really the only difference (again, to me...) is that one is old and broadly accepted where the other is new and not.
To take this in another direction (one that might not even be worth thinking about): If we started at 0 tomorrow, with everyone's mind erased and society starting over... science stuff will get rediscovered with the same conclusions, as C2I has said. What happens with religion? I think the general themes would still be there, but the world shaped those things then, and would shape them differently now. So I don't know that "Christianity" would form into the same thing again.
Unless, one of the religions actually is the word of god... if one of the hundreds (thousands?) of religions actually is the spoken word of god, then yeah. It'd likely come back the same way.
Since Christianity follows the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, and you just expunged him from existence, a la the Hitler reference, Christianity would not come back unless he himself came back a second time.
He's due back soon, isn't he? ;)

CBear3
Posts: 7646
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:02 pm
Location: KC, MO

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby CBear3 » Mon Jan 24, 2022 12:02 pm

[snip]I see no difference between the bible and harry potter. They're books about magical things and a savior that dies and is risen from the dead to save the world against evil. If that's insulting, I'm sorry, but that's truly how I feel about it. [snip]
The difference is one was written knowingly as fiction and one was written because it was believed to be fact. That's why the comparison is kind of insulting. There are obviously Old testament teachings from before the time of the written word that were passed down that are parables, but late in that book and the entirety of the New Testament are written as contemporary accounts of life during those times. They may place divine intent onto natural occurring's and such, but they're not works created with the intent of fiction.
Right... intent is the big word there. If some guy today started writing about miracles and things that seem/are magical and/or devine with the intent of it not being fiction, does that matter? Not to me. So really the only difference (again, to me...) is that one is old and broadly accepted where the other is new and not.
I guess I can see the comparison in that light.
If a church in Wyoming started doing TikToks of a dude performing magical/Devine acts they'd be met skeptically. If I share them believing them to be true doesn't necessarily make them true. If my shares are the lasting record for some reason, people in 250 years wouldn't know what to believe.

shafnutz05
Posts: 50339
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:27 pm
Location: A moron or a fascist...but not both.

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby shafnutz05 » Mon Jan 24, 2022 12:04 pm

Not apropos of this conversation, but I was ordained as a deacon yesterday. That was pretty cool.

robbiestoupe
Posts: 11543
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:27 pm

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby robbiestoupe » Mon Jan 24, 2022 12:25 pm

Not apropos of this conversation, but I was ordained as a deacon yesterday. That was pretty cool.
Deacon nutz has a certain ring to it.

Congrats :thumb:

count2infinity
Posts: 35541
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm
Location: All things must pass. With six you get eggroll. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
Contact:

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby count2infinity » Mon Jan 24, 2022 12:35 pm

One of my favorite religious leaders I had in my time in the Catholic Church was a deacon.

Of course, he was at my church during a time where we had a super fire and brimstone style priest… so of course he was my favorite. Lol

robbiestoupe
Posts: 11543
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:27 pm

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby robbiestoupe » Mon Jan 24, 2022 12:39 pm

Religious books contain quite a bit of history, and use knowledge at the time they were written to tell stories/parables of the religion they are teaching. So yeah, he's right but....so?
Perhaps this is better suited for the religion thread, but the point being that if you were to hit the reset button on humanity ala The Good Place judge:
Image
When you start over, 2+2 is still going to be 4. The Pythagorean theory will still be valid. When you have a pure substance that has three atoms, one with 8 protons and the other two with 1 proton covalently bound together, they'll be in a bent formation, and if you have a bucket of them they'll be liquid between 0°C and 100°C. A ball will accelerate toward earth at 9.8 m/sec^2. These things will all still be true, and will all be rediscovered.

Will all the Roman gods be rewritten exactly as they are? Will the Christian bible be rewritten exactly as is and will the interpretations of those writings be exactly as they are? Will Scientology still be a thing? Maybe... but most likely only if you go with Shmenguin's no free will theory which sort of violates what most Christians believe anyways.

The point is that science proves itself over and over. Multiple people do the experiments and they come to the same results over and over. So the idea that it takes "faith" to believe in science is a stretch at best, certainly not the same faith that it takes to believe in a religion.
If all history books were burned, did Hitler still exist? Of course, he did. So did Mohamed, Jesus, etc.
I believe Monotheism would absolutely come back if you destroyed all religious texts, but that's not to say that it's "correct." And it would come back in a different form as opposed to science's concrete numbers.

What's more interesting from a religious perspective is the spiritual interconnectedness that has been discussed in a religious context can now be talked about through quantum entanglement today. What's been described as the Holy Spirit in Christianity can be observed scientifically at the quantum level.

Likewise, for centuries prayer was a silent time of reflection which science today can show the benefits of meditation and manifestation.

These cosmic truths have been practiced by religions for years and science is now able to quantify their benefits and behavior. Does that mean religion isn't necessary, or just that we're describing the same thing in different languages. The Big Bang for instance doesn't eliminate a Deity, it just moves human understanding another step with more questions to follow.
Good stuff. I've tried to describe this before, but to me science is itself just another language. It's a way to describe our experiences through a medium that we can all agree upon, but it is man made and therefore imperfect. It's like an asymptotic curve where human understanding is always increasing with time, but will never reach the pinnacle of perfect understanding. It's not in our nature to have that ability, as we ourselves are fallible, mortal creatures.

CBear3
Posts: 7646
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:02 pm
Location: KC, MO

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby CBear3 » Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:41 pm

The "faith" is that science can find the answer to everything. That everything is governed by a universal law or equation. And even at that, it won't rule out a Deity putting it all in place.

So if you accept that we'll never know everything (certainly not in our lifetimes); the amazing remains in learning more about how the universe works, and how we can describe it.

Newton didn't discover Gravity. It was observable from day 1, he was just able to quantify it. Religion in broad strokes has observed the world and given qualitative assessment for years, science is now defining it in a quantitative way.

So to come back to Religion:
If Jesus was not the Son of God, does it make his teachings any less valuable? If there is no God, you are still subject to developing your own moral philosophy. Even if he's just a 30 year old hippy living in his parents' house, the central tenants of his teachings can still be sound moral ground.

count2infinity
Posts: 35541
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm
Location: All things must pass. With six you get eggroll. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
Contact:

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby count2infinity » Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:57 pm

I think very few scientist, agnostics, or atheists and certainly not Gervais (who sparked this whole conversation) would say that science can or ever will refute the idea of some sort of deity. If those kind of people exists: yes... they would be having a faith in something that isn't provable. But they are such a small subset of the scientists and human beings that I'm not sure it's worth discussing further than they're extremists.

I agree with your point on Jesus. I agree with many of his teachings. I couldn't care less if he actually is the son of god or not, they're good lessons and should be followed. But other religions have good moral teachings as well. Care and compassion are not patented by Christianity. There were religions/philosophies before Jesus came around that taught similar things. There are religions that will come later that teach the same thing.

CBear3
Posts: 7646
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:02 pm
Location: KC, MO

Religion Discussion Thread

Postby CBear3 » Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:08 pm

I think very few scientist, agnostics, or atheists and certainly not Gervais (who sparked this whole conversation) would say that science can or ever will refute the idea of some sort of deity. If those kind of people exists: yes... they would be having a faith in something that isn't provable. But they are such a small subset of the scientists and human beings that I'm not sure it's worth discussing further than they're extremists.

I agree with your point on Jesus. I agree with many of his teachings. I couldn't care less if he actually is the son of god or not, they're good lessons and should be followed. But other religions have good moral teachings as well. Care and compassion are not patented by Christianity. There were religions/philosophies before Jesus came around that taught similar things. There are religions that will come later that teach the same thing.
Right, which is why I don't believe it has to be science vs religion. They can coexist. And you can have science without religion. But it can't be the other way. I don't believe you can be a rational human being and solely believe in religion while discounting the qualitative findings science has provided.

I center on Christianity from experience and knowledge (and even then it's not a wealth of it). I wouldn't dare to speak of other religions, nor claim Christianity as the sole holder of moral high ground.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests