|
Post by Death on Mar 20, 2009 8:50:42 GMT -5
The brilliance of the Mormon religion is that they can change doctrines and beliefs at the drop of a hat, simply by Prophetic edict, er, revelation. The brilliance of science is that it can change theories at the drop of a hat, simply by accepting new facts... I'm sorry, but when there are people on the main page who attack religions because they REFUSE to change their holy books based on new information, it becomes a farce when others attack a person because his holy book DOES change based on (what they will call) new information. Are you seriously trying to make a point here? ?? I hope not. Biblical literalists and fundamentalists get mocked because it's WRONG, not because it was written as being the unchangeable word of God. That merely makes it a permanent record of how WRONG they are. These people get mocked because it was WRONG, and while some of it was written as being unchangeable, most of it was obviously made up on the fly, but it's still a permanent record of how WRONG they are, both then and now, but mainly that they're still making up whatever nonsense they think they can get away with. And yet, there are still people on the main page who DO attack them based on their refusal to change... yet here we have people making an attack based on them changing. That is my point... our actions have turned it into a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation... where no matter what they do, even if it's what we DEMAND that they do, we'll still mock them for what they do. I hope you see the problem with that... You have it arse around mate. Seriously, are you trying to equate untested prophetically inspired change in doctrine with careful scientific evaluation and testing of new facts and hypotheses and the resultant revision of the body of scientific knowledge?
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 20, 2009 9:01:13 GMT -5
So.....a churches teaching should not change even when point out as wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 20, 2009 9:04:48 GMT -5
So.....a churches teaching should not change even when point out a wrong? It's the methodology that counts.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 20, 2009 9:21:12 GMT -5
The methodology of why they changed? If that is what you mean than how is that more importaint then the fact that they did change?
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 20, 2009 9:25:04 GMT -5
The brilliance of science is that it can change theories at the drop of a hat, simply by accepting new facts... ...After said facts are thoroughly examined, reviewed, and tested. Were the Mormon revisionism alive in science, we would no longer accept evolution or the Big Band simply based on the fact that we were being fursecuted. Nor does science gloss over the evolution of its ideas. That's because science is not, in and of itself, professed to be flawless. You're still making an artificial distinction. Besides, why should we all have the exact same sticking points with religion? I've never made a contribution to the main board, so why should someone else's opinion of religion be used to demonstrate such a disconnect? "Obama passed a stimulus bill. Bush passed a stimulus bill. How can you support one and not the other?" See, that's what you're doing. Devoid of context, it kind of does look bad. But then, if you look at what is changed, what is immutable, and why, the two are in no way setting up a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. In the scientific community, this would be shoddy work at best. In a discussion, it's intellectual dishonesty, trying to gloss over the substance to make a superficial argument of equality between two points. In this case, to demonstrate a contradiction that is not a contradiction beyond the superficial.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 20, 2009 9:28:33 GMT -5
So.....a churches teaching should not change even when point out as wrong? Are they doing that? Science points to homosexuality being an inborn condition. Have they changed that, or are they cleaving to the archaic notion that gays are sinners who choose to defy God (hyperbole mine)? Do they offer full equality to women, or do they enforce gender roles and stereotypes with no real basis? They're not changing because they are proven wrong, they're changing because it's convenient. The argument for not changing is the inerrant nature of the Word of God, right up to the point they change said immutable word.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 20, 2009 9:36:05 GMT -5
The methodology of why they changed? If that is what you mean than how is that more importaint then the fact that they did change? You're just being difficult.
|
|
|
Post by crazalus on Mar 20, 2009 10:07:29 GMT -5
You have it arse around mate. Seriously, are you trying to equate untested prophetically inspired change in doctrine with careful scientific evaluation and testing of new facts and hypotheses and the resultant revision of the body of scientific knowledge? No... I'm pointing out the utter hypocrisy of those who attack a holy book over it's refusal to change, THEN go right ahead and attack the holy book because it's changed! For instance (and this is why I brought up science, by the way) all too often comments on the main page are attacking various holy books, saying "It's crap because it doesn't change to reflect new information... that's why Science is so good!" To have that, and then have people attacking a holy book because it HAS changed to reflect new information (which any revelation could be classed as) is setting up a "have your cake and eat it" attitude. Sure, attack it because of HOW it changes, how it evaluates the new information... but don't go attacking it because it changes... that would give a very valid reason to attack Science. But then, if we include the methodology, simply attacking a holy book because it changes is a waste of time... since that's not attacking the methodology, just the fact that it changed. THAT is the problem... if you think it's the methodology that counts, attack that... not the fact that the book changed. Doing that is what Fundies like to do with Science books....
|
|
|
Post by crazalus on Mar 20, 2009 10:13:09 GMT -5
The brilliance of science is that it can change theories at the drop of a hat, simply by accepting new facts... ...After said facts are thoroughly examined, reviewed, and tested. Were the Mormon revisionism alive in science, we would no longer accept evolution or the Big Band simply based on the fact that we were being fursecuted. Nor does science gloss over the evolution of its ideas. Which are you attacking? The book changing or the reason the book changed? I'm pointing out that just attacking the book for changing is as valid as attacking Science for it's books changing. See the difference? "Obama passed a stimulus bill. Bush passed a stimulus bill. How can you support one and not the other?" See, that's what you're doing. Devoid of context, it kind of does look bad. But then, if you look at what is changed, what is immutable, and why, the two are in no way setting up a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. In the scientific community, this would be shoddy work at best. In a discussion, it's intellectual dishonesty, trying to gloss over the substance to make a superficial argument of equality between two points. In this case, to demonstrate a contradiction that is not a contradiction beyond the superficial.[/quote] Yes... and if you spotted what I was refering to, it was someone who attacked the changing of the book, not anything about why or how it was changed... the simple fact it was changed was enough reason to attack it. Nowe, that is exactly what you're talking about... no context, no detail... just a "it changed, that's bad" So no, it's not what I'm doing... it's what I'm pointing out OTHERS are doing.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 20, 2009 10:56:13 GMT -5
You have it arse around mate. Seriously, are you trying to equate untested prophetically inspired change in doctrine with careful scientific evaluation and testing of new facts and hypotheses and the resultant revision of the body of scientific knowledge? No... I'm pointing out the utter hypocrisy of those who attack a holy book over it's refusal to change, THEN go right ahead and attack the holy book because it's changed! For instance (and this is why I brought up science, by the way) all too often comments on the main page are attacking various holy books, saying "It's crap because it doesn't change to reflect new information... that's why Science is so good!" To have that, and then have people attacking a holy book because it HAS changed to reflect new information (which any revelation could be classed as) is setting up a "have your cake and eat it" attitude. Sure, attack it because of HOW it changes, how it evaluates the new information... but don't go attacking it because it changes... that would give a very valid reason to attack Science. But then, if we include the methodology, simply attacking a holy book because it changes is a waste of time... since that's not attacking the methodology, just the fact that it changed. THAT is the problem... if you think it's the methodology that counts, attack that... not the fact that the book changed. Doing that is what Fundies like to do with Science books.... I have never criticised the fact that doctrine changes, only the reasons why and how it changes. Then again, I understand that you may be arguing with the general "you" population and not myself in particular. And I don't think that it's the methodology that counts. I know it.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Mar 20, 2009 11:35:20 GMT -5
No... I'm pointing out the utter hypocrisy of those who attack a holy book over it's refusal to change, THEN go right ahead and attack the holy book because it's changed! Are you even remotely aware of what a deity is? How about deitific concepts and attributes like needing to exist outside of space time, omnipresence, omniescience and omnipotence? Seriously, are you facetiously playing dumb here, or should you actually be asking n00b questions instead of passing ill-informed opinion?
|
|
|
Post by nausea on Mar 20, 2009 11:41:30 GMT -5
You have it arse around mate. Seriously, are you trying to equate untested prophetically inspired change in doctrine with careful scientific evaluation and testing of new facts and hypotheses and the resultant revision of the body of scientific knowledge? No... I'm pointing out the utter hypocrisy of those who attack a holy book over it's refusal to change, THEN go right ahead and attack the holy book because it's changed! For instance (and this is why I brought up science, by the way) all too often comments on the main page are attacking various holy books, saying "It's crap because it doesn't change to reflect new information... that's why Science is so good!" To have that, and then have people attacking a holy book because it HAS changed to reflect new information (which any revelation could be classed as) is setting up a "have your cake and eat it" attitude. Sure, attack it because of HOW it changes, how it evaluates the new information... but don't go attacking it because it changes... that would give a very valid reason to attack Science. But then, if we include the methodology, simply attacking a holy book because it changes is a waste of time... since that's not attacking the methodology, just the fact that it changed. THAT is the problem... if you think it's the methodology that counts, attack that... not the fact that the book changed. Doing that is what Fundies like to do with Science books.... It is the holy books and their interpreters who claim that Scripture is immutable and absolutely right. Thus, when an interpretation of Scripture changes, it is fundamentally problematic because it's indicative that the previous interpretation - which also claimed divine truthiness - was in fact false. The same goes for adding Scripture to a supposedly complete canon. I think the critiques - one of a scriptural interpretation for changing, the other for not-changing - are actually both valid and apply to slightly different things. One is criticizing the religion for holding to outdated ideas that have been shown to be harmful to humanity as a whole. The other is criticizing the religion for not playing by its own rules and undermining its claims to truth. So let's take the gay marriage issue to illustrate. I criticize conservative churches for holding to a historically homophobic stance because it infringes on the right of an individual to love who they will. Nonetheless, it doesn't reflect well on the underlying truth of a given faith if it just "changes" its mind. I may find more political common ground with a liberal protestant Church willing to sanction homosexual marriages, but it would also undermine the Bible generally - after all, it does condemn homosexuality pretty forcefully. Every instance in which the Church picks and chooses chips away at its foundation on holy writ. That said, I'll grant the caveat that a human interpretation of Scripture can be wrong, and can thus change, without undermining the Scripture itself. However, this always has to be essentially regressive in nature, as it should aspire back to the revelation. Let's face it, Moses probably has a better idea of what God is like than we ever could. So a religious interpretation should always be striving to be as true to the original doctrines as possible. In a nutshell1. Belief systems generally should change to assimilate new information, this permits them to respond to their environments. 2. Religions claim not to do this, as they possess an eternal truth. 3. On account of [2], Religions generally resist adopting radically new ideas. If a religion is true, this shouldn't matter because the underlying eternal truth essentially negates the change necessitated by [1]. However, we generally suspect otherwise. 4. When a religion does change, in conjunction with the necessities of [1], it violates [2], and thus surrenders its special claim to truth. Thus, religions - at least those that rely on a claim to eternal and unchanging truth - are fundamentally contradictory belief systems in practice.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Mar 20, 2009 11:51:37 GMT -5
A valid point was actally raised. It is a damned if you do damned if you don't situation in regards to religions changing. Unless that religion has a disclaimer on it that states "While this is what we believe, we are open to new revelations at all time and thus are willing to change our viewpoints if enough evidence is presented".
Ironbite-whoops that would make that religion a science now wouldn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Mar 20, 2009 12:05:31 GMT -5
A valid point was actally raised. It is a damned if you do damned if you don't situation in regards to religions changing. Unless that religion has a disclaimer on it that states "While this is what we believe, we are open to new revelations at all time and thus are willing to change our viewpoints if enough evidence is presented". Ironbite-whoops that would make that religion a science now wouldn't it? Well actually, all things considered, if God existed, he'd/she'd/it'd/they'd be welcome to come down here and change his/her/its/their mind(s) as often as he liked, only he/she/it/they never has/have, all on account of not existing, and us not being a special creation... People making shit up about imaginary friends/foes? Well sadly that comes under the category of people making shit up about imaginary friends/foes.
|
|
|
Post by crazalus on Mar 20, 2009 12:18:17 GMT -5
I have never criticised the fact that doctrine changes, only the reasons why and how it changes. Which makes sense... And indeed I was... Then I take it you agree that attacking the validity of the book just because some of the contents is changed isn't right... attacking the REASON why it has been changed is the thing to do. Or is something changing a valid reason to reject something now?
|
|