Smart Christianity / Dumb Christianity

[Belinda]

I can't disagree with you. Would you agree relativity in science influenced relativity in theology;

No! Frankly I can't see what the connection is or what the theory of relativity has to do with theology. Even now most people have very little or no knowledge of Relativity so why would it have any relevance to one's religious beliefs? But even if that weren't the case how would that influence their theology? Also, I don't know what you mean by "relativity in theology" which is invariably fixed in its own dogma. The slow dismemberment of theism already began in the beginning of the 19th century and certainly suffered a major blow with Darwin much more so than anything Einstein came up with.

...and generally, the belief is relative to the culture of time and place, and even to the perspective of the individual?

I would say yes to both as long the perspective of the individual didn't deviate too much from the rooted culture of the period which usually forced compliance to its official creeds.

It's true most people have very little knowledge of Relativity. I agree for people who have no grasp of scientific relativity , it could not affect their religious beliefs.

Theology and science both owe the same relativity insight to evolving cosmology, in particular the evolution through Earth centredness, through Sun-centredness, to no centre at all.

it is understandable how the Church was upset about Galileo. The Church got used to Galileo , managed to accommodate Newton, and is now understandably upset about there being no absolute centre of existence at all.

[Immanuel Can]

It's true most people have very little knowledge of Relativity. I agree for people who have no grasp of scientific relativity , it could not affect their religious beliefs.

Rather, anybody who thinks Einsteinian relativity constitutes an argument for moral relativism manifests that they don't understand what they're taking about.

it is understandable how the Church was upset about Galileo.

Well, to be fair to the Catholics, the Catholic authorities were only the last ones to be upset with Galileo, actually. The first ones were his Aristotelian colleagues among the scientific establishment. The whole thing is an interesting history, often misrepresented for Atheist propagandistic purposes. But a reading of the actual history dispels the simplistic story.

[Dubious]

Theology and science both owe the same relativity insight to evolving cosmology, in particular the evolution through Earth centredness, through Sun-centredness, to no centre at all.

I think I now get what you're saying when using the word "relativity" conjointly with science and theology. For theists, however, the centre remains scriptural even if the universe has no such direction. In my view they're still independent from each other; for theists a belief centered in god does not require a corresponding centre in the universe. The facade of theism was doomed to crack in any event especially as the authority of the church and its main tenets began to be examined and questioned, a process already incipient in the Renaissance.

[Belinda]

Theology and science both owe the same relativity insight to evolving cosmology, in particular the evolution through Earth centredness, through Sun-centredness, to no centre at all.

I think I now get what you're saying when using the word "relativity" conjointly with science and theology. For theists, however, the centre remains scriptural even if the universe has no such direction. In my view they're still independent from each other; for theists a belief centered in god does not require a corresponding centre in the universe. The facade of theism was doomed to crack in any event especially as the authority of the church and its main tenets began to be examined and questioned, a process already incipient in the Renaissance.

But a theist holds that God is what everything else is beholden to i.e. the centre of belief. Theists hold that God is central to what exists and to morality, and, like the Sun, acts independently of human minds. Theists actually think God is what creates ideas. Well, some theists also think the Devil creates bad ideas.Perhaps more modern theists believe that God exists absolutely like they still think space and time exist absolutely.

[Dubious]

Theology and science both owe the same relativity insight to evolving cosmology, in particular the evolution through Earth centredness, through Sun-centredness, to no centre at all.

I think I now get what you're saying when using the word "relativity" conjointly with science and theology. For theists, however, the centre remains scriptural even if the universe has no such direction. In my view they're still independent from each other; for theists a belief centered in god does not require a corresponding centre in the universe. The facade of theism was doomed to crack in any event especially as the authority of the church and its main tenets began to be examined and questioned, a process already incipient in the Renaissance.

But a theist holds that God is what everything else is beholden to i.e. the centre of belief. Theists hold that God is central to what exists and to morality, and, like the Sun, acts independently of human minds. Theists actually think God is what creates ideas. Well, some theists also think the Devil creates bad ideas.Perhaps more modern theists believe that God exists absolutely like they still think space and time exist absolutely.

I don't think modern theists give a hoot if space or time exists absolutely. They are far more, as you may have noticed, morality centered than science centered. What theists think and like to do is to absurdly argue against atheists in every way imaginable especially as regards morality. The method here is if you can't lift yourself out of your own morass, diminish those who, for good reason, have dispensed with it altogether, that is, those who submit to history, science, research and not least to logic. Just as I wouldn't care how a semi-insane person by whatever perverse logic concludes in ways that make no sense, I care as little in how a theist arrives at his. There are far more worthwhile things to ponder than attempting to force a modicum of sense out of that which has none and only argues based on intentional distortions and negativity against those who have "decentralized" themselves from the so-called holy books of the Ancients.

[Belinda]

I think I now get what you're saying when using the word "relativity" conjointly with science and theology. For theists, however, the centre remains scriptural even if the universe has no such direction. In my view they're still independent from each other; for theists a belief centered in god does not require a corresponding centre in the universe. The facade of theism was doomed to crack in any event especially as the authority of the church and its main tenets began to be examined and questioned, a process already incipient in the Renaissance.

But a theist holds that God is what everything else is beholden to i.e. the centre of belief. Theists hold that God is central to what exists and to morality, and, like the Sun, acts independently of human minds. Theists actually think God is what creates ideas. Well, some theists also think the Devil creates bad ideas.Perhaps more modern theists believe that God exists absolutely like they still think space and time exist absolutely.

I don't think modern theists give a hoot if space or time exists absolutely. They are far more, as you may have noticed, morality centered than science centered. What theists think and like to do is to absurdly argue against atheists in every way imaginable especially as regards morality. The method here is if you can't lift yourself out of your own morass, diminish those who, for good reason, have dispensed with it altogether, that is, those who submit to history, science, research and not least to logic. Just as I wouldn't care how a semi-insane person by whatever perverse logic concludes in ways that make no sense, I care as little in how a theist arrives at his. There are far more worthwhile things to ponder than attempting to force a modicum of sense out of that which has none and only argues based on intentional distortions and negativity against those who have "decentralized" themselves from the so-called holy books of the Ancients.

But we are not talking to anybody, theist or otherwise, who doesn't give a hoot. We are talking to people who think and thoughtfully examine their lives.

I have listened carefully to a schizophrenic friend's views and I found they made metaphorical sense albeit with overmuch paranoia. It is not difficult to make sense of the Xian myth as a story , a story that offers one explanation of life, death, and the cosmos.
Unfortunately for educators especially English and history teachers it's necessary "force a modicum of sense out of that which has none and only argues based on intentional distortions and negativity against those who have "decentralized" themselves from the so-called holy books of the Ancients.This is because everyone begins from a prejudice, 'prejudice' in the sense of an already existing belief and attitude. True, there are theists whose certainty of their own rightness is a mental disease.

[Dubious]

I have listened carefully to a schizophrenic friend's views and I found they made metaphorical sense albeit with overmuch paranoia. It is not difficult to make sense of the Xian myth as a story , a story that offers one explanation of life, death, and the cosmos.

I'm not in disagreement. I can think of only two ways to make sense out of these kind of stories.

One is through the obvious technique of metaphor through which non-sense can be translated into meaning even to its most profound which may not have been inherent in the original. The mental alchemy of metaphor is not unlike the process of converting lead into gold but when blinded by its brightness, refusing to see further, it becomes an absolute truth in the mind of the beholder. For those who simply accept the ancient views of life, death and the cosmos as a comforting truth with their usual concomitant beliefs of life after death and last judgements, there is nothing to gainsay no matter how ludicrous it seems on the surface.

The second is by understanding such stories through purely secular methodologies as it relates to its historical genesis and development by employing the most advanced techniques available. The accomplishments in that field are amazing. It's the reverse process of converting all the glitter back to its true source as a secular story.

Unfortunately for educators especially English and history teachers it's necessary "force a modicum of sense out of that which has none and only argues based on intentional distortions and negativity against those who have "decentralized" themselves from the so-called holy books of the Ancients. This is because everyone begins from a prejudice, 'prejudice' in the sense of an already existing belief and attitude. True, there are theists whose certainty of their own rightness is a mental disease.

That's true around the globe. The tragedy and real crime is that children are, in many places, forced into these prejudices by elders who themselves have been so infested when young. To me religion - not the private kind - is a mental pandemic which remains to be eradicated.

[Belinda]

I have listened carefully to a schizophrenic friend's views and I found they made metaphorical sense albeit with overmuch paranoia. It is not difficult to make sense of the Xian myth as a story , a story that offers one explanation of life, death, and the cosmos.

I'm not in disagreement. I can think of only two ways to make sense out of these kind of stories.

One is through the obvious technique of metaphor through which non-sense can be translated into meaning even to its most profound which may not have been inherent in the original. The mental alchemy of metaphor is not unlike the process of converting lead into gold but when blinded by its brightness, refusing to see further, it becomes an absolute truth in the mind of the beholder. For those who simply accept the ancient views of life, death and the cosmos as a comforting truth with their usual concomitant beliefs of life after death and last judgements, there is nothing to gainsay no matter how ludicrous it seems on the surface.

The second is by understanding such stories through purely secular methodologies as it relates to its historical genesis and development by employing the most advanced techniques available. The accomplishments in that field are amazing. It's the reverse process of converting all the glitter back to its true source as a secular story.

Unfortunately for educators especially English and history teachers it's necessary "force a modicum of sense out of that which has none and only argues based on intentional distortions and negativity against those who have "decentralized" themselves from the so-called holy books of the Ancients. This is because everyone begins from a prejudice, 'prejudice' in the sense of an already existing belief and attitude. True, there are theists whose certainty of their own rightness is a mental disease.

That's true around the globe. The tragedy and real crime is that children are, in many places, forced into these prejudices by elders who themselves have been so infested when young. To me religion - not the private kind - is a mental pandemic which remains to be eradicated.

Bearing in mind your last sentence, is there a difference between religion and ideology?

[Dubious]

I have listened carefully to a schizophrenic friend's views and I found they made metaphorical sense albeit with overmuch paranoia. It is not difficult to make sense of the Xian myth as a story , a story that offers one explanation of life, death, and the cosmos.

I'm not in disagreement. I can think of only two ways to make sense out of these kind of stories.

One is through the obvious technique of metaphor through which non-sense can be translated into meaning even to its most profound which may not have been inherent in the original. The mental alchemy of metaphor is not unlike the process of converting lead into gold but when blinded by its brightness, refusing to see further, it becomes an absolute truth in the mind of the beholder. For those who simply accept the ancient views of life, death and the cosmos as a comforting truth with their usual concomitant beliefs of life after death and last judgements, there is nothing to gainsay no matter how ludicrous it seems on the surface.

The second is by understanding such stories through purely secular methodologies as it relates to its historical genesis and development by employing the most advanced techniques available. The accomplishments in that field are amazing. It's the reverse process of converting all the glitter back to its true source as a secular story.

Unfortunately for educators especially English and history teachers it's necessary "force a modicum of sense out of that which has none and only argues based on intentional distortions and negativity against those who have "decentralized" themselves from the so-called holy books of the Ancients. This is because everyone begins from a prejudice, 'prejudice' in the sense of an already existing belief and attitude. True, there are theists whose certainty of their own rightness is a mental disease.

That's true around the globe. The tragedy and real crime is that children are, in many places, forced into these prejudices by elders who themselves have been so infested when young. To me religion - not the private kind - is a mental pandemic which remains to be eradicated.

Bearing in mind your last sentence, is there a difference between religion and ideology?

Call religion a highly specialized form of ideology whereas ideology can be almost anything one remains idealistic about.

It was a nice conversation.