User Tag List

First 1018192021 Last

Results 191 to 200 of 205

  1. #191
    Terpsichore Abcdenfp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7W8
    Posts
    1,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Memories View Post
    as a Catholic I feel inclined to speak of my chosen saint which was St. Catherine of Siena, only doctor of the church, who experienced the stigmata and a mystical marriage.

    Women are involved with God.
    I have never understood the concept of St's for Catholics, the saints speak to god on your behalf? They aren't deities. So i don't consider them a part of what i am talking about. They are more like a messenger acting on your behalf.

    I think that the removal of the female DIVINITY is responsible for a lot of the imbalance in the church, (I was raised Anglican) and seeing my priest with his wife and watching the women's guild work under her direction was wholesome and felt natural.

    This marriage to the church is, removes the feminine Divinity and makes it nameless faceless sexless.
    "I have spoken."
    Likes The Cat, Kanra Jest liked this post

  2. #192
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    30,049

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abcdenfp View Post
    I have never understood the concept of St's for Catholics, the saints speak to god on your behalf? They aren't deities. So i don't consider them a part of what i am talking about. They are more like a messenger acting on your behalf.

    I think that the removal of the female DIVINITY is responsible for a lot of the imbalance in the church, (I was raised Anglican) and seeing my priest with his wife and watching the women's guild work under her direction was wholesome and felt natural.

    This marriage to the church is, removes the feminine Divinity and makes it nameless faceless sexless.
    Saints are individuals who are in the presence of God, usually as evidenced by apparitions and miracles after they are dead. I dont know if I believe a lot of the intercession ideas personally.

  3. #193
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    20,368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Memories View Post
    as a Catholic I feel inclined to speak of my chosen saint which was St. Catherine of Siena, only doctor of the church, who experienced the stigmata and a mystical marriage.

    Women are involved with God.
    If we are not practising a deception by claiming the stigmata and mystical marriage, we are likely mentally ill.

    This is common with saints and gurus. Our very own guru Carl Jung was psychotic.

  4. #194
    Terpsichore Abcdenfp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7W8
    Posts
    1,672

    Default

    Participating in this course today, so much learning and exploring , the aspects of my spiritual journey that are new to me but a deep calling..

  5. #195
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    20,368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abcdenfp View Post
    Participating in this course today, so much learning and exploring , the aspects of my spiritual journey that are new to me but a deep calling..
    Revenge is as American as apple pie, and there is little darker than revenge, particularly revenge justified by religion and fashion..

  6. #196
    ornery ornithologist citizen cane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    BIRD
    Enneagram
    631 sp
    Posts
    3,787

    Default

    @Mole "Why is religion still relevant in our time?

    Obviously in past centuries it was a form of mind control and personality cults."

    Given that this has probably been answered in numerous ways by now, i suggest turning this on its head.

    If religion now exists concurs with science, many believe in both, and it is sometimes not a form of mind control or a cult, then why not?

  7. #197
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    20,368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captain curmudgeon View Post
    @Mole "Why is religion still relevant in our time? Obviously in past centuries it was a form of mind control and personality cults." Given that this has probably been answered in numerous ways by now, i suggest turning this on its head. If religion now exists concurs with science, many believe in both, and it is sometimes not a form of mind control or a cult, then why not?
    Yes, religion is a matter of faith, while science is a matter of evidence and reason.

    Scientists don't believe in science, scientists don't have faith in science.

  8. #198
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    20,368

    Default Local Religion and Universal Science

    Through our telescopes in Space we have discovered there are four trillion galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars, most of which contain planets, with many suitable for life.

    And many of these planets will contain intelligent life.

    And we can say this intelligent life will discover exactly the same Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Cosmology as we have.

    And we can equally say the religions created by this intelligent life will be unlike any religion on Earth.

    This is because science is based on evidence and reason and is the same wherever we go in our universe, and religion is based on faith and imagination and is different wherever we go in our universe.

    So religion is a local expression even on Earth, while science is a universal expression of fact.

  9. #199
    Mayday Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    27,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Memories View Post
    Science does not give you the meaning of life or sense of purpose. As also, Science cannot completely explain our earth and universe either. There are scientific facts and then there are theories, theories of evolution, of creation. To follow any requires a certain extent of faith, as none of the options can properly be explained merely by science alone. There are many things we can entrust to science and rely on science for.

    I think science and religion can most certainly coexist together and should, because God would not intend for scientific knowledge and discovery to go unused. Nevertheless, having faith can also instill a stronger boundary upon not misusing science, if blended correctly.

    The problem with faith today is as many will with science, they attempt to conform the facts and theories to fit what they want rather than what is true. So today we have a lot of false religious people. Because faith transforms you, not you transform God.
    I agree about the complementary nature of religion and science, and the need for both to have a complete understanding of our world and existence. Science aims only to explain the physical aspects of our universe. It may never be able to do even this completely, but with every generation, it is able to explain more and more.

    It is wrong to speak of faith in the context of science, though. We don't accept scientific principles or observations on faith, we accept them because they are repeatable and are able to predict future events with accuracy. When they stop doing so - when new events or observations arise which cannot be explained - we must revise or discard the theory. Note that in science, a theory is not some unproven, tentative conjecture. It represents our best explanation of a phenomenon to date; the one that best explains all available observations. That sort of unproven conjecture is a hypothesis. These are routinely disproven as part of the scientific process.

    Science also has no place for conforming facts or theories to wishful thinking. Facts, often in the form of observations or raw data, are validated through repeated measurement, and are discarded only with very good cause. Theories, as Sherlock Holmes insisted, must then be modified to fit the facts rather than the reverse. Reproducibility is an essential part of the process, since if an explanation is real, it should be what everyone finds if they look.

    The nature of science is explained briefly in this article about the need to revise the standard model of particle physics:
    The purpose of science is to seek truth. With this goal in mind, researchers are constantly returning to their data and checking to see if measurements and theories agree or disagree. While agreement is always satisfying, it's in the disagreement that progress is made. When a theory is shown to predict something other than what a valid measurement has revealed, scientists rethink their theory and adjust it.
    Let us go together to that Sea of Stars.
    Likes Red Memories liked this post

  10. #200
    You are Free. Earl Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    648 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I agree about the complementary nature of religion and science, and the need for both to have a complete understanding of our world and existence. Science aims only to explain the physical aspects of our universe. It may never be able to do even this completely, but with every generation, it is able to explain more and more.
    I agree with what Coriolis has said. Science doesn't explain every aspect of life, and it makes sense to want to and explore the world and ourselves, and religion can fit into spaces science cannot, and not necessarily contradict each other.

    What is religion but a belief system? People routinely have their own belief systems without formal doctrine. It is inseparable from how we interact with the world. What beliefs religion stands for and what parts of human experience it supports differs from religion to religion. People follow religious doctrine or some other system- their own, or one in their own community or communities, etc. People also follow a doctrine for various reasons, and implement them in their lives in different ways, and the information and facts that science provides can be used to supplement carrying our one's belief system, at least in my opinion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    This is because science is based on evidence and reason and is the same wherever we go in our universe, and religion is based on faith and imagination and is different wherever we go in our universe.

    So religion is a local expression even on Earth, while science is a universal expression of fact.
    This is true (sans imagination), but you seem to be trying to make the point that it follows that religion would thus be unreliable because it is non-standardised.

    Take a look at what you believe. What do you believe we should do about the environment? The future? How we should treat our fellow human beings? People would likely have very different answers. Those are things science cannot answer- but can support with data and the scientific method. Religion and science need not be at war. We figure out a system that works for ourselves, and that forms our belief, outlook, morality, and influences our actions. Just because your method isn't standardised, it doesn't mean it isn't valid, or that it doesn't work.


    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    It is wrong to speak of faith in the context of science, though. We don't accept scientific principles or observations on faith, we accept them because they are repeatable and are able to predict future events with accuracy. When they stop doing so - when new events or observations arise which cannot be explained - we must revise or discard the theory. Note that in science, a theory is not some unproven, tentative conjecture. It represents our best explanation of a phenomenon to date; the one that best explains all available observations. That sort of unproven conjecture is a hypothesis. These are routinely disproven as part of the scientific process.

    Science also has no place for conforming facts or theories to wishful thinking. Facts, often in the form of observations or raw data, are validated through repeated measurement, and are discarded only with very good cause. Theories, as Sherlock Holmes insisted, must then be modified to fit the facts rather than the reverse. Reproducibility is an essential part of the process, since if an explanation is real, it should be what everyone finds if they look.
    Coriolis has explained it well, but to add to his post- for anyone who wants to know more of the bolded in a nutshell, this guy explains it well:



    I hope this also explains how 'scientific fact' or 'scientific theory' cannot really be equated to religion in that it's- as some people say it- 'just a theory' that can just be swapped out for any other theory.
    Freedom- for freedom!
    -forgive me
    Likes Red Memories liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Why do religions hate gays so darn much?
    By Kasper in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 258
    Last Post: 03-15-2020, 06:01 PM
  2. What Religion Do You Practice/Not Practice and Why?
    By Evastover in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 589
    Last Post: 06-04-2016, 03:24 AM
  3. so why don't you have religion?
    By miss fortune in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: 12-11-2011, 07:21 PM
  4. [NT] NTs why did you embrace religion?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 125
    Last Post: 02-19-2009, 03:56 PM
  5. Why?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 04-24-2007, 06:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO