The Division of 'Truth'

[Heliocendant]

Hello all,

I'm coming to you all with a more societal set of questions, rather than religious, but please answer this in which ever way comes naturally to you.

I have seen a rather puzzling and escalating issue between the champions of the Religions and the Sciences and I think this may be down to responsibility of 'who can say what about what'.

Through my short time here I've seen a number of strength varied opinions and story's on the big questions. Life, Existence, Morality and Social Cohesion and each has there points and reasons which they may or may not follow to the letter. I find a hindering ambiguity in this as neither side can actually prove or disprove the weaker side of their arguments.

I'll explain what I mean here,
Religion has a firm grasp on the 'Why' aspect of modern understanding; the reason we exist, the reason we have choice, the reasons to make the right choices and finding direction in the realms of the unknown etc.
Science on the other hand tackles the 'How' aspect of modern understanding; the laws of physics, the evolution theory, human and animal psychology and how one projects these systems and conditions to create concepts of good and evil, but there's no reason 'Why' in all of that, just a solution that rests.
It fails to complete the basic human thought process which I've come to understand as - State/Problem -> Journey/Method -> Meaning/Solution.

This is got me thinking..

Throughout the internet and in your standard communities there is a turmoil between the advocates of each and I think the entire problem cannot and will not end until each understands what exactly it's own purpose is.

Like I said Religion focuses on Why and Science goes with How so surely when put face to face they are inherently incompatible and should, for all intents and purposes, stay off each others turf.

In a sentence it works perfectly, peace to all men. But this isn't reality because both sides feel an incessant need to pose as each other. Best example of this is Life, Creation vs Evolution. Now many religious people, as individuals, accept the theory and make them work together within themselves but as a whole it's incompatible institutionally. Religion, being the tool used to forge today's society has earned its place as a benchmark of guidance and community.

However, in it's current state religion is slowly alienating itself in the younger generation and the cynics and may have to rethink it's place in the world (Which might I add has already had to re-evaluate itself on a number of occasions as a result to discovery) and turn away from the methods and absolutes it suggests in the scripture.

Buddhism I find is a wonderful philosophical based set of teachings, focusing on the self and the meaning one can find in life. It's not a teaching I personally follow but this framework feels right and doesn't have part in or encourage some of the worst situations this world faces today.

The questions, after the kind wall I've just presented, is;

Would you agree that in order for all minds to have the best chance of prosperous collaboration should the religions of the world become non-punishing philosophies and guide those without a hand of force (hypo - if its possible)?

Can Christianity carry the same weight of appeal and influence without it's account of the creation (Matter and Life), in it's current state?

and lastly, Would those here on the forum accept a Church that, in this day and age, proceeded in a wholesale overhaul on text and interpretation of your scripture via the Vatican for example?

These lead on to a place where physical and spiritual truths are deemed acceptably different and should remain within their realms, moral choice is based on grand opinion seeded by teachings and the physical world and it's 'How''s are left to the world of Science.

I do truly hope these questions and this post do not offend, it's not meant in that way, I merely wish to see what the opinion is, I have tried to be as neutral as possible while reflecting and compiling my inquiry. Humanities built in connection with belief is fascinating and I see none better to ask than the believers themselves. Also, I have wrote this is a fairly intellectually fatigued state after quite a bit of reading so if I am required to delve further into a section of this because I've articulated poorly, please ask.

If I am permitted, after this initial post, I would very much like to follow up with other scenarios for all of your review. Enlightenment has many forms

All the best,
Chris
UK

 

[hattiebod]

Good to see you here on CC Chris...another Brit!
I hope you will get a few replies. My response is simply as you asked, what came to mind when I read your post. Christianity is built on the Word of God, the inspired and infallible Word, as found in the Bible. We, as Christians, believe God sent His Son Jesus Christ to die for the sins of all men. Those who repent of their sins and accept the sacrifice of Christ on the cross are 'saved' from never having a relationship with God, being permanently separated from Him. The gift of life is available to all. I get the impression you are suggesting a one world religion could suffice? a few tweaks to core beliefs? Some Christians actually do believe that all roads lead to God and it does not really matter what one believes in, as long as it is a 'greater power'. I do not subscribe to this. I would be described as a Bible believing Christian I also would be none to happy with the vatican re-inventing Christianity (although some may say unkindly they have been doing it for years?)
As for Bhuddism, having lived in Asia, it is not all that its cracked up to be. Mainly because 'false' religions are often superficially a good idea...until you dig a bit deeper or observe them in action in their natural habitat. I shall never forget seeing the monks waltz through a village (many grossly overweight) while the villagers offered up their meagre food for the monks to eat. The monks ate very well, the villagers were stuck in abject poverty, their children in squalor. I think we need to look at what progress a religion provides for its community, not just its followers. Even if one dislikes 'organised' religion, the impact and influence of Christianity around the world has been great. It includes the abolition of child labour in the UK, the building of our National Health Service and prison reform. The abolition of slavery in the USA and the building of many, many social reforms in education, equality and health across the globe. I prefer however, to think of Christianity as a life style choice...not a 'religion' as the latter has connotations with dogma, fundamentalism and exclusion. Of course many terrible and deeply shameful things have been and are still done, in the name of Christianity. But, that is man, not God and also, just because a person says they are a Christian, does not mean they are.
As for enlightenment? I was enlightened 13 years ago when I accepted Christ for 'fully' who He is, not a prophet, not a good guy, but the Son of THE only creator God. So I suppose you could say....I, and many here on CC are 'sorted' in that respect. But in our walk of faith, we are works in progress, growing and following our God.
I hope you get some interesting responses, God Bless you as you seek the Truth, <><

 

[Domenic]

Science, Religion, and Archeology have been at odds before man invented the wheel.
Each makes it’s own case, and a liar of the other two.
I teach Algebra in schools. I teach the subject in one hour. How? Before I teach how Algebra works, I teach what Algebra is.
I use the same method with Science, Religion, and Archeology. All three of these subjects have a degree of truth. I put them in the order they should be, I mold them into one subject.
Satan understand, divide and conquer works every time. To hide truth, divide those three subjects. Divided they lead nowhere. Together they give a clear picture of truth.

Here is an example: How did the dinosaurs disappear so fast? What caused it?
Archeology dug up the bones, Science examined those bones. Religion speakes of angels taking on the form of men. Put these three together;

Two skull bones. One in the Moscow Museum of an animal that was extent before the flood of Noah,. has a hole between it’s eyes. The second, a Neanderthal skull which is in the London Museum, has the same type hole behind where the ear was.
Scientific Forensic Ballistic Experts From Around the World have examined these two skulls. There finding? All agree, these holes are bullet holes.

It would be easy to explain this away by saying, “Somebody with a gun in our time, shot holes in these two skulls.” That would answer the question, except, the skull in the Moscow with the hole between it’s eyes has calefaction around the hole…which means the animal did not die, and the bone started to re-grow.
The Bible says, “There is nothing new under the sun.” It took all three, Science, Religion, and Archeology to prove this. Together they prove all the things each solo, can not prove.

 

[wdeaton65]

WOW nothing new under the sun is talking about sin in man not guns in the time before the flood you think they had AK 47 or were they M 16 you are being funny right Domenic!!!!

 

[Ariel82]

I have Domenic on ignore so the above statement by wdeaton will remain a mystery because I have no clue how AK47 or M16s have to do with the OP's question...........................................................Science and Christianity are not opposed to one another though people who do not understand either may believe so. I don't believe there should be a "division of truth" or a compromising of Christian values to make it more "palatable" to the younger generation. .........Buddhism is fine for a set of moral principles but it does not have Jesus and the personal relationship with God through the Holy Spirit.

 

[crossnote]

The Christian faith is not one of compromise,it is one of Proclamation...the proclaiming the good news that although mankind is bound in sin, God has provided redemption through His crucified and risen Son, Jesus Christ.
Science is helpful when it sticks to observable facts e.g. archaeology, chemistry, physiology etc. but ends up overstepping it's boundarys when it tries pawning off theories e.g. evolution as fact. The same God who redeemed us and walked among us 2000 years ago is the same God who flung the universe into orbit and formed the eyeball for ALL to behold and ponder.
This house will not compromise in order to gain a following. We preach the Truth and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Heliocendant]

Interesting comments and one very educational I must say, thanks to all that took the time to reply.

I wanted to address this last comment as I found it rather ambiguous.

This house will not compromise in order to gain a following. We preach the Truth and let the chips fall where they may.

I am very aware that doctrine has to be written in order to be passed on and for the most part it's an interpretation enabling test that's appealing to the mind and imagination, it has to be in order to be accepted by the mass.

However, context is lost in translation, the 'rules' need to follow the times and are bent on occasion. I would have felt a lot more comfortable with that sentence been written as "We believe to preach the truth..." which bring a new point to query.

Given the different ideas and limitations placed in the varying believe models, those here are likely to encounter situations that ring false to the set that you, as Christians, have to follow. In some cases you have to make choices that fly in the face of the faith and that leads to a choice which will directly affect the well being of a another human being. I must ask, in moral and severe life decisions (Such as the family inclusion of what has been referred to as 'Abomination' or perhaps a birth interception) would you choose the Deity, or Humanity? This is given that you must make a singular decision, for the validity of the scenario.

Thinking then of that, if the rules and acceptance should change institutionally would you willingly follow suit given the green light from the church's representation and moment full compliance?

This question I put to you in such a way as I do not feel anyone touched on the meaning and purpose of my last set of Q's. I would have been interested to see if anyone within the circle felt that the faith had a place among there 'Why' thought matrix and happily separated the two. I can see this may not be the case and duly move on.

Thanks again and I look forward to any replies,
Chris

P.S. As I mentioned earlier I am more looking for your individual thoughts on these subjects and maybe not a 'classic' answer. I'm quite familiar with those given my history and I would very much like to see some novel thoughts.

 

[Nancyer]

Good to see you here on CC Chris...another Brit!
I hope you will get a few replies. My response is simply as you asked, what came to mind when I read your post. Christianity is built on the Word of God, the inspired and infallible Word, as found in the Bible. We, as Christians, believe God sent His Son Jesus Christ to die for the sins of all men. Those who repent of their sins and accept the sacrifice of Christ on the cross are 'saved' from never having a relationship with God, being permanently separated from Him. The gift of life is available to all. I get the impression you are suggesting a one world religion could suffice? a few tweaks to core beliefs? Some Christians actually do believe that all roads lead to God and it does not really matter what one believes in, as long as it is a 'greater power'. I do not subscribe to this. I would be described as a Bible believing Christian I also would be none to happy with the vatican re-inventing Christianity (although some may say unkindly they have been doing it for years?)
As for Bhuddism, having lived in Asia, it is not all that its cracked up to be. Mainly because 'false' religions are often superficially a good idea...until you dig a bit deeper or observe them in action in their natural habitat. I shall never forget seeing the monks waltz through a village (many grossly overweight) while the villagers offered up their meagre food for the monks to eat. The monks ate very well, the villagers were stuck in abject poverty, their children in squalor. I think we need to look at what progress a religion provides for its community, not just its followers. Even if one dislikes 'organised' religion, the impact and influence of Christianity around the world has been great. It includes the abolition of child labour in the UK, the building of our National Health Service and prison reform. The abolition of slavery in the USA and the building of many, many social reforms in education, equality and health across the globe. I prefer however, to think of Christianity as a life style choice...not a 'religion' as the latter has connotations with dogma, fundamentalism and exclusion. Of course many terrible and deeply shameful things have been and are still done, in the name of Christianity. But, that is man, not God and also, just because a person says they are a Christian, does not mean they are.
As for enlightenment? I was enlightened 13 years ago when I accepted Christ for 'fully' who He is, not a prophet, not a good guy, but the Son of THE only creator God. So I suppose you could say....I, and many here on CC are 'sorted' in that respect. But in our walk of faith, we are works in progress, growing and following our God.
I hope you get some interesting responses, God Bless you as you seek the Truth, <><

Thank you, that was brilliant response. Very well worded and thought out. I may quote you from time to time outside the internet, if you don't mind.