Are Religion and Science Compatible? 2.0

[United Muscovite Nations]

Hence why I emphasized that he was speaking metaphorically.

I mean you. Are you metaphorical, too?Aren't you trying to say that science and theology have something in common?

I am not metaphorical. I think they can inform one-another.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

I mean you. Are you metaphorical, too?Aren't you trying to say that science and theology have something in common?

I am not metaphorical. I think they can inform one-another.

It is not recommended that you choose an atheist as an example. Maybe you should choose a person without religious belief.There is a clear difference. The former is against theism, while the latter just doesn't believe it

[Albrenia]

I am not metaphorical. I think they can inform one-another.

It is not recommended that you choose an atheist as an example. Maybe you should choose a person without religious belief.There is a clear difference. The former is against theism, while the latter just doesn't believe it

Technically anyone who doesn't accept a religion is an atheist. Being against religion is generally maltheist or anti-theist.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The Catholic Church is an abhorrent institution which should have been excised from existence years ago.

The evil they have caused this world far outweighs any good they may have done.

While I don't necessarily condone the actions and words of every member of my church, I recognize that the Catholic Church stands for what is right.

Idk man, up until a few hundred years ago the church seemingly had few qualms about getting up to shockingly non-Christlike behavior.

[United Muscovite Nations]

While I don't necessarily condone the actions and words of every member of my church, I recognize that the Catholic Church stands for what is right.

Idk man, up until a few hundred years ago the church seemingly had few qualms about getting up to shockingly non-Christlike behavior.

I'm not sure that's quite fair, it kind of varies over the centuries, though your point I think remains intact.

[Dogmeat]

I am not metaphorical. I think they can inform one-another.

It is not recommended that you choose an atheist as an example. Maybe you should choose a person without religious belief.There is a clear difference. The former is against theism, while the latter just doesn't believe it

This is false. Someone who just doesn't believe religion is an atheist. They don't have to be against it.

[Dogmeat]

Idk man, up until a few hundred years ago the church seemingly had few qualms about getting up to shockingly non-Christlike behavior.

I'm not sure that's quite fair, it kind of varies over the centuries, though your point I think remains intact.

That's sort of the point though. The Church continuously claims to know better then the rest of society what's right and wrong.

But when you look at it's record, it's always just behind societies current understanding of morality.

For instance, they renounced antisemitism and the charges of deicide against the Jewish people. But only 20 years after the holocaust.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'm not sure that's quite fair, it kind of varies over the centuries, though your point I think remains intact.

That's sort of the point though. The Church continuously claims to know better then the rest of society what's right and wrong.

But when you look at it's record, it's always just behind societies current understanding of morality.

For instance, they renounced antisemitism and the charges of deicide against the Jewish people. But only 20 years after the holocaust.

I don't think that's accurate either. If you look back at, say, the High Middle Ages and parts of the Early-Modern period, the RCC was well-ahead of society on moral and political issues.

[Dogmeat]

That's sort of the point though. The Church continuously claims to know better then the rest of society what's right and wrong.

But when you look at it's record, it's always just behind societies current understanding of morality.

For instance, they renounced antisemitism and the charges of deicide against the Jewish people. But only 20 years after the holocaust.

I don't think that's accurate either. If you look back at, say, the High Middle Ages and parts of the Early-Modern period, the RCC was well-ahead of society on moral and political issues.

I don't know man. Crusading and weird Christ-sex affective-spirituality stuff are certainly novel, but I'm not sure if I'd call them "ahead" of society.

It is true that they worked to limit the effects of warfare by encouraging codes of conduct, but whether that was "ahead" of society or not is difficult to say, because they're the only ones writing about it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I don't think that's accurate either. If you look back at, say, the High Middle Ages and parts of the Early-Modern period, the RCC was well-ahead of society on moral and political issues.

I don't know man. Crusading and weird Christ-sex affective-spirituality stuff are certainly novel, but I'm not sure if I'd call them "ahead" of society.

It is true that they worked to limit the effects of warfare by encouraging codes of conduct, but whether that was "ahead" of society or not is difficult to say, because they're the only ones writing about it.

Crusading aside, the Church also ran massive amounts of hospitals, charities, etc. (in fact the Black Death severely weakened the Church as most clergy died, as they took care of the sick). Moreover, Ecclesiastical Law required nobility to have certain economic conduct towards peasants which promoted a type of welfare that was more progressive than anything that secular law would mandate until the 19th century. Furthermore, the Church did not allow usury, which is still allowed today and results in massive economic hardship. Until the early-modern period, the Church worked to outlaw slavery (and continued to do so within Europe).

And in the early-modern period, it was often the Church which crushed the nobility, and many clergy quashed the abuses of lesser clergy (Cardinal Richelieu is a great example of this). I think it's telling that, throughout the period of the Church's power, people preferred to be tried by Church courts than secular courts, as far as which was more progressive.

[Tholosis]

I feel that they are totally compatible. In fact, one way that I have seen Science intertwined with Religion is the notion that the understanding of the natural world is inherent to worship, as knowing the world that is inhabited by or was created by a diety/deities strengthens love of the world. This poses the knowledge of the world as an act of worship, and that seeking out knowledge and understanding is good. I have seen this idea intertwined with Christianity in a fascinating way. The seeking of the knowledge of the world may seem antithetical to the idea posited in genesis, where upon learning the knowledge of the world, the first humans are cast out of god’s paradise. The way that this is reconciled is then by viewing the apple of the garden as the sort of “fast track” lazy answer, when god intended humans to learn the workings of his world through our own efforts. I myself am an agnostic, but I find religion and religious philosophy fascinating!

[Washington Resistance Army]

I feel the need to point out my comments regarding the church were more directed at the late classical and early medieval periods than anything else. The church of that time period got up to more than a few "convert or die" type escapades and I'm not a fan of that.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

That's sort of the point though. The Church continuously claims to know better then the rest of society what's right and wrong.

But when you look at it's record, it's always just behind societies current understanding of morality.

For instance, they renounced antisemitism and the charges of deicide against the Jewish people. But only 20 years after the holocaust.

I don't think that's accurate either. If you look back at, say, the High Middle Ages and parts of the Early-Modern period, the RCC was well-ahead of society on moral and political issues.

Since the fall of Western Rome and the middle ages, RCC has lagged behind Arab countries in morality and technology. Not to mention China and India. As the most advanced country at that time, China was an atheist country, and religion spread only within the scope of not threatening the government.Western Europe should wait until the age of great navigation and the strength of RCC is weak.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

I don't know man. Crusading and weird Christ-sex affective-spirituality stuff are certainly novel, but I'm not sure if I'd call them "ahead" of society.

It is true that they worked to limit the effects of warfare by encouraging codes of conduct, but whether that was "ahead" of society or not is difficult to say, because they're the only ones writing about it.

Crusading aside, the Church also ran massive amounts of hospitals, charities, etc. (in fact the Black Death severely weakened the Church as most clergy died, as they took care of the sick). Moreover, Ecclesiastical Law required nobility to have certain economic conduct towards peasants which promoted a type of welfare that was more progressive than anything that secular law would mandate until the 19th century. Furthermore, the Church did not allow usury, which is still allowed today and results in massive economic hardship. Until the early-modern period, the Church worked to outlaw slavery (and continued to do so within Europe).

And in the early-modern period, it was often the Church which crushed the nobility, and many clergy quashed the abuses of lesser clergy (Cardinal Richelieu is a great example of this). I think it's telling that, throughout the period of the Church's power, people preferred to be tried by Church courts than secular courts, as far as which was more progressive.

Where did you learn your history?
That only means that the European church was stronger than the secular power at that time, not that it was more advanced.In 1073, Gregory VII believed that the church should also have the right to take charge of secular affairs, and tried to remove some king.After that, their struggle became more intense, but it was mainly the church that prevailed.
The power of the church is weak until the urbanization and economic development of Europe.First, the total failure of the Crusades in 200 years hit the prestige of the church.Then the Mongol western expedition and the Black Death. The church's property gradually became less important and the Renaissance liberated the mind.When the church weakened, Europe came out of the dark middle ages.Historians, Protestants, and the enlightenment all believed that RCC was responsible for the dark ages. Although their description is probably exaggerated because of hostile attitude.But it's not historical to regard RCC as a progressive force in the middle ages

[Washington Resistance Army]

Crusading aside, the Church also ran massive amounts of hospitals, charities, etc. (in fact the Black Death severely weakened the Church as most clergy died, as they took care of the sick). Moreover, Ecclesiastical Law required nobility to have certain economic conduct towards peasants which promoted a type of welfare that was more progressive than anything that secular law would mandate until the 19th century. Furthermore, the Church did not allow usury, which is still allowed today and results in massive economic hardship. Until the early-modern period, the Church worked to outlaw slavery (and continued to do so within Europe).

And in the early-modern period, it was often the Church which crushed the nobility, and many clergy quashed the abuses of lesser clergy (Cardinal Richelieu is a great example of this). I think it's telling that, throughout the period of the Church's power, people preferred to be tried by Church courts than secular courts, as far as which was more progressive.

Where did you learn your history?
That only means that the European church was stronger than the secular power at that time, not that it was more advanced.In 1073, Gregory VII believed that the church should also have the right to take charge of secular affairs, and tried to remove some king.After that, their struggle became more intense, but it was mainly the church that prevailed.
The power of the church is weak until the urbanization and economic development of Europe.First, the total failure of the Crusades in 200 years hit the prestige of the church.Then the Mongol western expedition and the Black Death. The church's property gradually became less important and the Renaissance liberated the mind.When the church weakened, Europe came out of the dark middle ages.Historians, Protestants, and the enlightenment all believed that RCC was responsible for the dark ages. Although their description is probably exaggerated because of hostile attitude.But it's not historical to regard RCC as a progressive force in the middle ages

I'm pretty sure most historians nowadays reject the idea of the Dark Ages entirely.

[The Alma Mater]

While I don't necessarily condone the actions and words of every member of my church, I recognize that the Catholic Church stands for what is right.

Idk man, up until a few hundred years ago the church seemingly had few qualms about getting up to shockingly non-Christlike behavior.

Remember, the Catholic Church had standing orders to hinder investigations into child molestation schandals until february.
Yes, february 2020.

However, while "hindering investigations" and "being bad for science" can be linked if one really wants to; that debate probably fits better in one of the thousand other topics on morality, christianity etc.

[Nemohsis]

Personally, Catholism is pretty sus
Catholics can be great like any Christian can be great- but there's a lot of pitfalls.
Bible makes it pretty clear church heirarchy is pretty much God at top and everyone else equal on the bottom. I'm comfortable with that. Trying to justify things about the Catholic Church doctrine has led to some pretty un scientific reasoning, and it's just not very academically professional.

[Rojava Free State]

Idk man, up until a few hundred years ago the church seemingly had few qualms about getting up to shockingly non-Christlike behavior.

Remember, the Catholic Church had standing orders to hinder investigations into child molestation schandals until february.
Yes, february 2020.

However, while "hindering investigations" and "being bad for science" can be linked if one really wants to; that debate probably fits better in one of the thousand other topics on morality, christianity etc.

I guess they interpreted leviticus as "man shall not lie with another man...unless it isn't consensual and then gay rape is a-okay."

[Rojava Free State]

Personally, Catholism is pretty sus
Catholics can be great like any Christian can be great- but there's a lot of pitfalls.
Bible makes it pretty clear church heirarchy is pretty much God at top and everyone else equal on the bottom. I'm comfortable with that. Trying to justify things about the Catholic Church doctrine has led to some pretty un scientific reasoning, and it's just not very academically professional.

The catholic church is especially troublesome but all of Christianity is a problem to me, with its strict rules and its intolerance to other beliefs.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Personally, Catholism is pretty sus
Catholics can be great like any Christian can be great- but there's a lot of pitfalls.
Bible makes it pretty clear church heirarchy is pretty much God at top and everyone else equal on the bottom. I'm comfortable with that. Trying to justify things about the Catholic Church doctrine has led to some pretty un scientific reasoning, and it's just not very academically professional.

Not really, the Bible has different levels of worship, it has elders (priests/presbyters) and apostles (bishops).

[Salus Maior]

Personally, Catholism is pretty sus
Catholics can be great like any Christian can be great- but there's a lot of pitfalls.
Bible makes it pretty clear church heirarchy is pretty much God at top and everyone else equal on the bottom. I'm comfortable with that. Trying to justify things about the Catholic Church doctrine has led to some pretty un scientific reasoning, and it's just not very academically professional.

The Catholic church compiled the Bible. It's not in conflict.

[Salus Maior]

Remember, the Catholic Church had standing orders to hinder investigations into child molestation schandals until february.
Yes, february 2020.

However, while "hindering investigations" and "being bad for science" can be linked if one really wants to; that debate probably fits better in one of the thousand other topics on morality, christianity etc.

I guess they interpreted leviticus as "man shall not lie with another man...unless it isn't consensual and then gay rape is a-okay."

Huh, same interpretation the people we elect use.

[Page]

Personally, Catholism is pretty sus
Catholics can be great like any Christian can be great- but there's a lot of pitfalls.
Bible makes it pretty clear church heirarchy is pretty much God at top and everyone else equal on the bottom. I'm comfortable with that. Trying to justify things about the Catholic Church doctrine has led to some pretty un scientific reasoning, and it's just not very academically professional.

The Catholic church compiled the Bible. It's not in conflict.

If there wasn't some conflict between the Catholic Church and scripture, Martin Luther would not have had 95 theses to nail to the church door.

That's not to say Protestants don't have their own doctrine that conflict with the Bible, they do, but the Catholic Church has quite a lot of extra-biblical doctrine.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The Catholic church compiled the Bible. It's not in conflict.

If there wasn't some conflict between the Catholic Church and scripture, Martin Luther would not have had 95 theses to nail to the church door.

That's not to say Protestants don't have their own doctrine that conflict with the Bible, they do, but the Catholic Church has quite a lot of extra-biblical doctrine.

Martin Luther's 95 theses weren't about doctrine. Protestant doctrine developed later after Luther and through people other than Luther.

[Sundiata]

The Catholic church compiled the Bible. It's not in conflict.

If there wasn't some conflict between the Catholic Church and scripture, Martin Luther would not have had 95 theses to nail to the church door.

That's not to say Protestants don't have their own doctrine that conflict with the Bible, they do, but the Catholic Church has quite a lot of extra-biblical doctrine.

The practices of the church are based upon scripture and Christian tradition. Luther really did the world a disservice by disseminating confusion.