murmsk

Do churches cause people to be homophobic and Islamophobic, or do these churches reflect the worldview of their membership?

In my view both. People can be very impressionable . A good example is Germany in the 30's. Certainly the Nazi's couldn't have done what they did without the support of many many Germans But the government did a masterful job praying on the plight of the people and whipping up a very high percentage of otherwise good people to a point where they lost thier point of reference.

Certainly worldview offers a soft spot.

steve

Congregational (NACCC) have no set liturgy. It is a construct of each congregation/pastor. Some might fit your desires.

steve

While I don't think that Christianity or the Bible causes homophobia, it certainly does nothing to ameliorate the societal stigma directed toward persons of same gender attraction.

 

A church I attended in my early 20s tried so desperately to deconstruct a young, gay man in our congregation that it drove him to commit suicide. Arguably, there were deeper issues at work, but the layers upon layers of guilt piled upon this poor soul by well-meaning, but WRONG Christians - a group he wanted to belong to more than anything else - pushed him to a final solution at his own hands.

 

 

The speaker whose audience dissipated over words that challenged their prejudices underscore the themes meted out within this thread - whether of Christian or secular origin, homophobia is a scourge worthy of defeat.

The example you site suggests that Christianity does indeed cause homophobia unless you are willing to separate Christianity from the church. My experience suggests that the "church " is often one of the most bigoted institutions on the face of the earth. bigoted= not limited to race.

I think certain congregations go out of their way to foster homophobia as well as secularphobia , islamaphobia and ChristianViewsOtherThanOurOwnphobia. Even churches that don't actively spout hateful rhetoric often have hateful undercurrents that are every bit as damaging.

steve

Why is there a need to attach gender to God?

steve

The intuition came first and then was followed by Einstein's seeking the words to explain the intuition and then working to find all the implications. Then others came to test the these implications as hypotheses. The intuition is part of the fabric by which all entities, actualities are internally related. We call it consciousness or mind, and associate soul and spirit with these internal experiences.

intuition is what drives the scientific process , really it drives all intelectual progress.

steve

Yvonne, I agree and I think it is happening. My only comment is that often especially conservative Christianity refuses to climb the mountain. That is a frustration of science. Religion on the other hand gets frustrated because science refuses to look sideways and also has a habit of belittling those who are behind and on a different path.

I am close to running out of my allotment of posts for the day so I bid you adew . Apparently it is assumed after 10 or 12 posts I might offend someone.

steve

I used the word belief in a broad sense. That doesn't seem to work for you.

It doesn't. The word belief has a very negative connotation and a very narrow definition for those in science.

My definition of belief is an unquestioned idea or view of reality without basis.

Perhaps this may in part explain the problems in communication between science and religion.All should agree on a dictionary before the discussion begins.

steve

That is an interesting article that shows the struggles thinking people have trying to balance science with religion. What is interesting about that article is that it shows his conflict as he is able to recognize when he is being inconsistent. He is an amazing man.

steve

Dutch, What you say is correct, This is why may of the truly see changing discoveries are made by scientists in their early years. When their mind is unencumbered by status quo. Einstein is a perfect example virtually all of his meaningful discoveries were made in his early to mid 20's while working as a patent clerk. As he aged he lost that mental flexibility as he struggled to accept the concept of quanta-mechanics.

Einstein took the scientific process to another level by imagining data as opposed to collecting it. This takes a very clear and unbiased mind. Data is observation(s) whether collected or imagined.

steve

Both science and religion are confessional: this what we believe until we are convinced otherwise.

Most in science would not accept being considered confessional in that for science in its purest form has no room for belief. A question is posed, ALL the data is considered. the data leads one to a conclusion. the conclusion is based only on the data. If one has a belief before or while the data is being considered the process is flawed and the conclusion is worthless whether it is correct or not.

steve

I hate to be nit picky, but did they really "disprove" this. It is something I can't accept and is highly implausible, but "disprove?"

In a very real way this is the real problem science has with religion.

In science there is no such thing as absolute proof at least absolute proof. There are concepts that are accepted, concepts that are highly implausable even thing like the shape of the earth where all the evidence points to round to a point where 100% of people accept it as a given. The difference is IF someone offered evidence that the earth is flat it would be considered on its own merit . Just because it doesn't fit todays understanding would have no bearing whether it is accepted or dismissed. Evidence always stands on it own merit.

The divide between science and religion began long ago.

The divide began when the scientific method began. It began when science began to follow the evidence and it lead away from accepted church truths and the church dug in its heals.

Perhaps it was useful at the beginning of the Enlightenment. But is it relevant today? Does the divide benefit society?

I am not sure I understand this comment so my comments might be way off base..... It is as relevant and necessary today as it has ever been. Without science progress stops dead in its tracks. With out religion society would have to find other ways of dealing with the social ramifications of this progress.

steve

Why would a early Christian make up a story of betrayal by a close disciple?

This may be as much a revisionist story or revisionist explination as anything.

Maybe he really was betrayed by Judas with the revisionist using the excuse that the betrayal was foretold by the OT.

It seems to me that if one assumes the general story line is somewhat historical that Jesus purposely worked to follow the OT predictions ie, how he entered town. Maybe Judas's betrail was another step to fulfil prophacy. Even if it isn't historical in any way , prophacy fulfilment might explain why it was included in canon.

why it was included in canon is a more important question than did it happen.

steve

Kinda the same way progressives view fundamentalists.

A couple more comments

My Dad ,who is a chemist and is who I based most of my remarks on, listened to a Milt Rosenberg radio program on "Historical Jesus" and was shocked at their open mindedness. This is inspite of our many conversations about my views. My point is he, and I think most people of science ,view all people of faith as fundamentalists. This is due to having lived their lives being actively viewed and spoken to as if they were the devil himself. The answer to the original question

What Do Scientists Really Think About Religion?

I remember and interview/debate between Carl Sagan and Jerry Falwell in the late 70's. The two couldn't converse ... they were speaking different languages.

steve

Then the question becomes "Is there any reason we should consider this as historical?" I think the answer is no then the question is why did 1st century followers of Jesus feel it was important enough to want to remember.

steve

I have a couple of comments

When one is talking about conflict between science and religion you have to make a distinction between progressive's and fundi's

Science has a very big fundamental problem problem with conservative religious thought. There is no room in science for "belief"! Belief is the bastard child of prejudice.

When a researcher is looking into an issue 1st a question is posed ... then observations lead the researcher to possible solutions based only on the observations . If the researcher has a bias (belief) then the solution is always flawed. It is no an accident that a very large percentage of sea-changing discoveries are made by very young scientists before the inevitably bias sets in. Einstein was in his early 20's when he began thinking of relativity.

Any religious thought that has belief as it's basis is going to be a problem for science .

Example: the statement "I believe God answers prayers." There is no statistical difference in the health, wealth, age span or success on the football field ... between those who believe that God will answer their prayers and atheists. What does the evidence tell you? These are the kinds of things that science struggles with.

On the other hand Science has no problem with concepts that just are. example, the laws of thermodynamics just are ......, who set the laws of thermodynamic?? God? Where did all the energy that makes up the universe come from? It just is. GOD just is( for some of us anyway) and science is OK with that as long as if evidence come to light that suggests a different conclusion we have an open mind. The past is littered with concepts that were once considered as being correct that have been dis-proven and replaced by another thought that more closely fits observations.

The big problem between Funi religion and science lies in the fundi's unwillingness to consider other possibilities when the evidence points away from their beliefs. Progressive's of all faith traditions have walked hand in hand with science. Always looking for truth even when it contradicts the past. What the fundi's look at as blasphemous, progressives look at as progress in understanding.

The issues science has with religion is because they view everyone who follows Jesus as a fundamentalist. Crackpots who refuse to look at the evidence and revise their thought patterns. True followers walk hand in hand with science along the same path of enlightenment.

steve

It seems to me several questions have to be asked before one begins to answer this question.

Is the Bible story historically reliable? If it isn't then the discussion is mute.

If it isn't 100% historically reliable the how much is reliable?

IMO there is nothing in the Bible that is 100% historic. And there is no real way to definitively determine what is historic and what isn't. Its all a guess, educated guess , but a guess non the less.

Deb, this is one of the most liberating concepts of Christian Progressiveness is moving away from did it happen to what does it mean. As you have pointed out, it makes no sense for Jesus to choose Judas as a disciple if he knew Judas would turn him in. It also makes no sense for Jesus to go to Jerusalem in the first place unless he knew this was his destiny and accepted it (which makes the whole story of Judas unnecessary) or didn't have a clue which calls into question his divinity.

The better question is, why did early followers of Jesus feel this story was important enough to repeat and write down? Where is the wisdom? For me it shows everyone makes mistakes but making mistakes doesn't remove us from the love of God.

steve

It seems to me that thinking of God as only feminine is just as wrong as thinking of God as only masculine.

Spong is right that we tend to view divine through our own eyes.

Steve

I am not sure God evolves but our understanding of God certainly does.

steve

I have always had the feeling that the C churches stance had more to do with growing the church from within. More babies leads to more Catholics. It also explains their insistence on bringing up the children Catholic. The Catholic church seldom

Then why allow the rhythm method?

The old joke while studying reproduction in medical school was:

"what do you call people who practice the rhythm method?...................... parents

steve

Many progressive groups use the expression "there are many paths to God". This is a form of pluralism but, there is much more here. The pluaralism is in the word "paths" or the many ways of seeking but, and this is very important, there is a final unity in the goal where "the many" find their "unity" in God. Thus we have a "both-and" solution to an age old problem.

 

Myron

Well said except it could have stopped at "....the many find their unity..... period.

For me pluralism is the realization that God could have and probably has reveled himself/herself to more than one. It is more that simply being tolerant (or difference as is being described) because tolerance assumes that there is something to be tolerant of.

I find it a bit arrogant to think that God has been revealed to only one religion that just happens to be my own. ...... Marcus Borg

I have no idea what relativism is.

steve

Thanks Mike. While the "Conversations with Scripture" series prob isn't right for the group at this time anyway, It is something I have been looking for. Thanks !!!

steve

I am looking for a book for our discussion group at church. The last few books we have read have been squarely progressive in nature. We are tiring of the combative reteric of all the things "church " has done wrong. We get it. I am looking for a book that in ordinary language discusses a spiritual life. One that anyone from traditional christian to atheist can get something out of. It could be a faith and justice book, a book on equal treatment of all persons, something on pluralism ....

Some of my thoughts are:

God has a vision by Desmond Tutu

Is God Christian R. Kirby Godsey

Any ideas?

thanks steve

Any fool can know. The point is to understand. -- Albert Einstein

Never accept and be content with unanalyzed assumptions, assumptions about work, about the people, about the church or Christianity. Never be afraid to ask questions about the work we have inherited or the work we are doing. There is no question that should not be asked or that is outlawed. The day we are completely satisfied with what we have been doing; the day we have found the perfect, unchangeable system of work, the perfect answer, never in need of being corrected again, on that day we will know we are wrong, that we have made the greatest mistake of all. -- Vincent J. Donovan

Steve