Ok, third time I've written this, as Firefox has crashed three times now (lots of stability problems for the past couple months of their releases).
this is a terrible argument, obviously not all Christians agree on how the Bible is to be interpreted. Just as not all people agree on whether abortion is correct or not, just as not every one agrees on one theory of creation. But that's what makes humanity great. We seek to understand what is in front of us, we won't always agree but we all admit that there is something there. whether it be divine, human, or natural.
Science has its own internal disputes too. String theory is a great example. However, there is a very very key difference, and this is really the point:
Science has a way of settling such disputes. All scientists agree that the method to solve those disputes is valid and reasonable. Religion does not have any sort of objective way to settle disputes. The bible does not settle disputes...it's part of the problem.
And this lack of objective method to resolve disputes is a huge part of the scariness of religion. Instead of having an objective standard to turn to to resolve disputes, people often turn to violence or coercion over religion. American politics is full of just this...people trying to use the coercive power of the government to force their religious ideals and morals on society (and often succeeding).
1) See once again you gone back to eisegetical interpretation of the Bible. I said the exegetical approach is the only way you can understand anything(not just the Bible). And what is the matter if a catholic and a baptist argue over the Bible. They show that there willing to defend there beliefs and unless they are to thick headed to see there own errors then eventually they'll come to an understanding and both will have learned something.
Groups accuse other groups of taking an eisegetical approach all the time. Jews accuse Christians of doing it when Christians think the Hebrew prophecies are about Jesus. Catholics think everyone else is doing it because, "It can only be understood through the traditions of the church."
The problem is that the term is vague. Again, there is no objective standard to knowing when someone is using one way of interpretation or the other. I mean, how do you know when someone is actually using an eisegetical approach?
Science isn't vague. It uses mathematics, a formalized language of logic, and typically an area of science uses its own terminology that refers to a specific concept (most people would not know what I mean if I told them the negation of two elements, 'A' and 'B', linked with a conjunction is the logical equivalent of the negation of 'A' linked with the negation of 'B' by a disjunction; by De Morgan's law). Although many get frustrated at the "techno-babble," it's there so there is no confusion or vagueness over what is being said. It's just unfortunate it requires training and study to understand it.
Religion just doesn't have this. :/
this like saying that if two scientist debated over a subject, that that subject is inherently wrong as opposed to one of the scientist. There standard would be scientific theory, the Baptist's and Catholic's would be the very the epistles and TaNeKa. You act as if we are incapable of coming to conclusions that don't fit outside of our initial understanding.
That's not the point. Science has its own internal disputes, but they agree on the method for resolving those disputes. Disputes linger (like string theory) due to the current technological limitations of experimentation...string theory can't be tested yet.
Christians don't have an agreed, nonvague method of determining whos interpretation is correct. Because of this, they further don't have a method of determing who has the correct morality, or even the correct facts about when they think the universe was born into existence.
Now while many things are universal like theft or murder
I don't know...it seems acceptable for the state to murder someone in many peoples' eyes...
rational governance takes away the the value of the individual. putting instead the needs of the many ahead of the needs of the few. I dreem of a government which equals the needs of the few and many.
Way to poison the well! Where in the world did you get that rational governance = putting the needs of the many ahead of the needs of the few? Mr. Spock is not the spokesman for rational discourse.
You act as if trouble is the result of religion.and lets face it there is no reason to believe that people need religion to be evil. Trust me if you took away religion the world would be a far more evil place.
Well, you're right that people don't need religion to be evil. They don't need religion to be good either though. Honestly, most people act "good" because that is what they were told to do, fear of the law, or fear of social ostracism (or some combination of these).
What bugs me, and what I think the world could change, is to adopt the objective method of logic when attempting to settle matters of politics, morality, truth, and other such things that are more appropriately in the realm of philosophy, not religion. Instead, what the world has is a bunch of people hopped up on the psychological hype of religious indignation trying to push an agenda that has no basis in logic, observation or the like.
And it's just not just a political thing. It's a social thing. I just wish religion would stay out of our politics and social lives. But it's pushed on me everywhere I go.
