expelled

Originally posted by twhitehead
The Church does not have a 'field of study'.

[b]Edit: Just so you know, religion NEVER made me do "bad" things.
So you never did anything as a result of your religion? Are you sure that not one of those things was 'bad'? I don't believe you.

I know for a fact that you promote your religion. You do that because of your religion. I believe promoting religion to be bad.[/b]

The church does not have a field of study? Its a little know thing called theology.

No, my religion has not made me do bad things just like science has not made anyone do bad things. You see we do bad things by elevating our own self interest above others. Now please show me where Christ advocated any such thing? As a matter of fact, he preached serving his fellow man rather than trying to reign over them.

Originally posted by whodey
Is not science being used to show that that race in question is causing "bad" effects on humanity as a whole?

The problem is you insist on confusing two types of 'bad'. The fact that you know you are doing it is demonstrated by the fact that you put "bad" in inverted commas.
In your example, Science is being used to show that the race in question is causing effects that would have a negative impact on the human races 'health' as a whole. This is not scientifically a morally bad thing. You are using the fact that we can use the word 'bad' to mean the same thing and confusing that with 'morally bad'.
To demonstrate: medicines often have a negative impact on disease causing organisms. Medicines are bad for diseases. Therefore it is morally bad to use medicine.
Do you see the problem now?

Originally posted by whodey
The church does not have a field of study? Its a little know thing called theology.

It is not a legitimate field of study.

No, my religion has not made me do bad things just like science has not made anyone do bad things. You see we do bad things by elevating our own self interest above others.
And you sometimes do that because of the religion you belong to. Belonging to a religion affects your behavior, sometimes that result is 'bad' behavior.

Now please show me where Christ advocated any such thing? As a matter of fact, he preached serving his fellow man rather than trying to reign over them.
What Christ advocated is irrelevant to the issue.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is not a legitimate field of study.

Is it?

I'm not saying theology is a study of the actual properties of reality, but it essentially is a literature study in my view.

It's like having a specialized literature degree that specializes in a specific topic really. In as such it could be a legitimage field of study, but it's not at all a legitimate scientific field.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Is it?

I'm not saying theology is a study of the actual properties of reality, but it essentially is a literature study in my view.

It's like having a specialized literature degree that specializes in a specific topic really. In as such it could be a legitimage field of study, but it's not at all a legitimate scientific field.

Theology has a lot to do with human perception. Like anthropology theology is a legitimate field of study, but in a similar way it is not science. Nor are literature, history and psychology, to name a few.

And it is ttrue that Christ advocates to look within yourself and decide what is good or bad, and to serve others rather than rule them. That is what the whole crucifiction stands for, the fact that he offered himself in sacrifice.

It is also true that a lot of bad things, truly bad things, have happened in the name of the Christian religion. That wasn't what he advocated, yet it did happen in his name.

Originally posted by thyme
Theology has a lot to do with human perception. Like anthropology theology is a legitimate field of study, but in a similar way it is not science. Nor are literature, history and psychology, to name a few.

And it is ttrue that Christ advocates to look within yourself and decide what is good or bad, and to serve others rather than rule them. That is what the ...[text shortened]... e name of the Christian religion. That wasn't what he advocated, yet it did happen in his name.

I would disagree about Psychology - there is a lot more science in psychology than literature or theology. It isn't the same kind of testing that is in the lab, but there's a hell of a lot more of the scientific method applied than say, theology which has 0.

I also wouldn't put theology in the same category as anthropology or history since they actually study things that actually have evidence to support hypotheses and claims, where theology just studies various mythologies.

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]It is not a legitimate field of study.

If you say so.

Originally posted by twhitehead

And you sometimes do that because of the religion you belong to. Belonging to a religion affects your behavior, sometimes that result is 'bad' behavior.

If you say so.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What Christ advocated is irrelevant to the issue.[/b]

If you say.....wait just minute!!! NO!!!!

What Christ advocated is exacly the issue at hand because I am a follower of his!!! In fact, it is the ONLY issue!!

Originally posted by thyme
[b]Theology has a lot to do with human perception. Like anthropology theology is a legitimate field of study, but in a similar way it is not science. Nor are literature, history and psychology, to name a few.

Theology is the human perception of who and what God is that has been passed down over the years and how we relate to him or her, depending on the religion. It is not just a literature course.

As for myself, I hold to the writings of John who said that God IS love. Of course, how does one study the intricacies of love and how it is relavent in our everyday lives? Is it science who clumsily says that love is nothing more than chemical reactions in ones brain and in and of itself does not exist? Is it literature written about loving relationships between people? I would give more credance personally to the later than to science, however, I believe that love has a source and is an actual entity that made us.

Originally posted by thyme
It is also true that a lot of bad things, truly bad things, have happened in the name of the Christian religion. That wasn't what he advocated, yet it did happen in his name.[/b]

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!!!

We have a winner!!! 😀

Originally posted by thyme
It is also true that a lot of bad things, truly bad things, have happened in the name of the Christian religion. That wasn't what he advocated, yet it did happen in his name.

Wait wait wait. My internal inconsistency alarm is going off.

These bible guys, Whodey for example, often claim that the bible is the source of all morality. If that's to be the case, I think we can quite clearly say that the contents of the bible DO have an effect on people's actions.

You claim God / Jesus didn't advocate morality repugnent acts. So, how often do you go stoning gays or women who have had sex outside of wedlock to death, and have you, or do you have any friends who have ever eaten crab or shrimp?

You can't have it both ways, claiming that the bible doesn't advocate bad things (it clearly does), that it is the basis for all morality (perhaps for Hannibal Lecter), and that it doesn't influence people's behaviour.

Now, Jesus seems to have been a nice guy (remember, Luke said all OT instructions still stood) but as another part of the same being he's awefully inconsistant. In the OT it's considered a good thing to murder the children and babies of your enemies, yet Jesus said to love your enemies. Murdering their children doesn't sound very loving to me.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Wait wait wait. My internal inconsistency alarm is going off.

These bible guys, Whodey for example, often claim that the bible is the source of all morality. If that's to be the case, I think we can quite clearly say that the contents of the bible DO have an effect on people's actions.

You claim God / Jesus didn't advocate morality repugnent act ...[text shortened]... said to love your enemies. Murdering their children doesn't sound very loving to me.

Even more inconsistent, whodey faults the theory of evolution because some people may use it as a justification for eugenics; but does he blame the Bible because people use it to justify morally repugnant behavior? No.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Is it?

I'm not saying theology is a study of the actual properties of reality, but it essentially is a literature study in my view.

It's like having a specialized literature degree that specializes in a specific topic really. In as such it could be a legitimage field of study, but it's not at all a legitimate scientific field.

I would accept that if a 'Theologist' was someone who studied a specific type of literature. That is not the case. A theologists is someone who:
1. studies a specific type of literature.
2. makes conclusion based on the content of that literature.
3. makes conclusions based on their own personal ideas.
4. believes the conclusion to apply to reality.
5. invents stuff.
6. etc.

Originally posted by telerion
Even more inconsistent, whodey faults the theory of evolution because some people may use it as a justification for eugenics; but does he blame the Bible because people use it to justify morally repugnant behavior? No.

Have people used the Bible to justify repugnant behavoir? Yes. Are we all happy now?