article: Potomac Falls woman removed from son’s Boy Scout troop

[shortridge]

Beavah,

 

I think we really disagree on this one.

 

Science involves positing theories and testable, recordable, repeatable events or experiments. If someone is bleeding, it can be stopped (much of the time) by applying pressure. That's a fact, and it can be proven and repeated.

 

But a priest's assertion that wine and bread turn into the blood and body of Christ is not a fact. It cannot be tested or proven under any circumstances. It is, at best, only a theory.

 

Theology is not a knowledge system. It is a belief system.

 

That's not to say theology is wrong or bad. It just isn't on a level with science, because many of its claims cannot be examined.

[BrentAllen]

shortrigdge,

Please give me the scientific, factual cure for the common cold. My daughter has one, and she'd like the remedy.

[shortridge]

Oh, Brent. No one's saying that science has all the answers. What I'm simply saying is that science and theology are not the same thing.

 

A member of the clergy does not automatically speak with any more authority on "confusing issues" than anyone else. Wearing a collar or a yarmulke does not grant wisdom. It simply means that a person has studied one very focused point of view in great depth and can explain it in detail. A priest or rabbi or imam can still be as dumb as a load of bricks about a whole range of issues. It's up to the *person*, not the position, to be knowledgeable about the world.

[Beavah]

Yah, shortridge, science is just a branch of human knowledge. It has its rules for how to discuss and validate that knowledge, but most historians of science that I've read wouldn't call it anywhere near as trite and cut-and-dried as you suggest, eh? Da vast majority of scientific phenomenon cannot be easily confined to a simplistic laboratory experiment. Instead, like climate change, they are addressed by assumptions based on underlying principles and models and approximations.

 

No different for any branch of human knowledge, eh? Each has its rules for how to discuss and validate that knowledge, and usually it's pretty complimicated, combining evidence with reasoning with social position with funding availability.

 

Some "scientific" ideas fail da test of time, like phlogiston theory. Some theological ideas fail da test of time, like the acceptability of slavery. In both cases, because evidence is accumulated that overwhelms the theory. Some scientific ideas are fringe and never really gain any real acceptance, and some religious ideas are fringe and never gain any real acceptance. Experts who make in-depth study of the field are treated with respect and deference in both cases, and attract followers/graduate students. But not every idea an expert has meets da test of time.

 

There really are very few differences, eh? Probably da biggest is that in its purest form, science limits itself to simplistic things, while religion tends to take on da deepest, hardest questions.

 

Da thing we all have to be careful of is what moosetracker suggests, eh? Religion/theology are human knowledge, eh? Just as science is human knowledge. Religion is not the same thing as God, just as science is not the same thing as the universe. Neither is perfect. But both are valuable.

 

A priest or rabbi or imam can still be as dumb as a load of bricks about a whole range of issues.

 

Just as a scientist can be as dumb as a load of bricks about a whole range of issues, eh? Just look at da daffy physicists and mathematicians that got into da finance industry.

 

The question is, would yeh turn to a scientist on a question of science, or would yeh assume yeh knew as much as anybody who'd spent their lifetime studying the discipline and go it on your own?

 

And then the question is, would yeh turn to a religious minister on a question of religion/God, or would yeh assume yeh knew as much as anybody who'd spent their lifetime studying the discipline and go it on your own?

 

If da answer to each question is different, then I think yeh have to face da fact that you have a bias one way or the other.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[moosetracker]

Beavah - I agree there is alot of politics & corruption involved too.. (I might say, you have a point if you want to put it as equal).. But there is alot of splits over moral issues

 

Alot of the different branches with the Protestants is the difference of how conservative or liberal they become, most of the difference in conservative vs liberal works itself back to arguements of what is moral & what is not.

 

What about the first significant split? When the Church of the East left over Nestoriansm which was considered heretical?

 

Gnosticism - moral dualism which was a thought of conflict between good & evil and seeing the material world as having some in between being , rather than directly by God. While some opponents simply disagreed, others even as evil (ie.. morally wrong)

 

While the Great Schism Between East & West.. was more political, over a top dog, patriarch and patriarchs of certain territories, the later splits were over moral issues as groups took exception to Papal infallibility.. Yeah, that little belief of yours that your Pope is seen as unable to have any errors can be seen by others as a moral issue..

 

Lastly, I would argue about that split over the King authorizing his divorce.. It may have turned political, but it started with the morality issue that built out of proportion. I do not think the church would have been in such opposition of the king believing he should be able to brush his own teeth.

 

[moosetracker]

Oh.. the arguement about science vs theology.. How about comparing a preist to a weatherman.. That's a scientific field, and you can say those in the field have studied their field, vast instruments to help them interpret their field of study.. Still, the weatherman can get it wrong.. (or if you have differing viewpoint on differing stations, you can take bets on who is going to come out right..)

 

Even if they come out wrong, we still turn in to the weather, because their ideas are more studied in the field then ours.

[Beavah]

Nestorianism? Surely if yeh were goin' to go back that far yeh need to start with Arianism.

 

The disputes among da early church fathers were no different in character than the disputes among supporters of different scientific theories over the years. They debated points, they met and argued at conferences/councils, a consensus of da large majority was formed over a period of time and the community generally dismissed or drove out those whose theories were less convincing/had less evidence. Some continued as small groups of dissenters/eccentrics.

 

None of these were questions of morality, eh? They were questions of religious theory and doctrine. Nestorianism was based on da theology of Theotokos, what it means to call Mary "the mother of God". Now to my mind at least, that's not a concept of morality, as in how to make choices about right and wrong in one's life, eh? It's a question about very particular religious theory. Like some esoteric detail of String Theory for Physicists.

 

Same with Gnosticism and all da rest. If yeh read the disputes over definitions and theories that have survived, they look an awful lot like disputes over esoteric elements of Constitutional Law or science. They're in some ways more polite than da average disputes between various schools of economics .

 

Da issue with King Henry VIII had little to do with morality. It had to do with da fact that his wife, Catherine of Aragon, was the daughter of the King of Spain, and Spain was both the reigning power in Europe of the day and a lot closer to Rome. But are yeh arguin' that it's morally OK for a husband to divorce his wife by startin' his own religion and loppin' off her head?

 

Beavah

 

[moosetracker]

Are you saying the issue of divorce and murder is defined as a political difference of opinion rather than an immoral decision?

 

I guess then by your definition the argument over the judgment of atheists and homosexuals is a political one because it is chewing up the court systems..

You might say the difference between Catholic & protestant philosophy is philosophical. The Protestants will not call the ideas of the Catholic church immoral, out of respect for their right to opinion. Yet the except for the (Episcopal which is half & half in philosophy) Protestants will never themselves have anything resembling Popes or saints, or all the pomp of the Catholic church. Reason being is that they see it as putting forth idols that get in the way of you being able to see God. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. Therefore churches are simple with little adornment, and ministers are you everyday normal family men, capable of making mistakes like everyone else. It is a difference in philosophies between the Catholic & Protestants.

 

You might now look at the other things as arguments of idealism, but in the heat of the argument, those on the side of that was against the ideas saw the new opinions as evil and immoral. Thousands of years from now (if the planet should survive)..

 

On those grounds you win. Everything is political; nothing is about morality, because over time when the emotion of the debate is gone it is just a differing view on philosophies.

 

So what about my comparison that your priests are similar to the scientist who try to track nature, (or the acts of God) The weathermen? And have the ability to be as accurate. Only the weathermens, accuracy is proved correct or incorrect much more quickly.

(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[packsaddle]

It would be interesting to have Augustine alive today, to see how people decided not to follow his advice, and the results. Interesting.

[Beavah]

Are you saying the issue of divorce and murder is defined as a political difference of opinion rather than an immoral decision?

 

Of course not, and you know it. Da claim you made was that schisms were caused by Christians differing on questions of morality. I refuted that claim by pointing out that historically schisms were in fact about human politics and debates over theological, not moral, theories. Da Anglican community founded by Henry VIII still believed that divorce and murder were wrong, eh? There was no dispute over morality. Da dispute was over the power of the secular king. As is often da case, evil secular government will prevail over da more moral guidance of religion, which is why yeh should always be careful about givin' too much power to da secular state. . Humans unchecked by da moral norms of both personal and communal religion are dangerous, which is why da best sort of citizen owes a duty to God first.

 

Now I'm a Protestant fellow, so I'll agree with yeh in terms of Catholics and all of their pomp and adornment, though I reckon callin' 'em all idolaters is a bit over the top. After all, they have more religious sworn to lives of personal poverty than all of us Protestants put together, eh? So at least they don't worship at da altar of Money in quite da way some of our Protestant brethren do, eh?

 

But when yeh disparage learning by claimin' yeh don't value someone trained in da field, my agreement ends. It was, after all, da need for trainin' Protestant ministers that founded Harvard and Yale, and they still have respected divinity schools. "We don't need no education!" makes for a good Pink Floyd song, but it makes for a lousy Christian. Just like it makes for a lousy scientist, or a lousy citizen.

 

If yeh feel yeh do need and respect learning in da sciences, but yeh don't respect learning in other fields, then that's da veritable definition of bias, eh?

 

And were yeh to devalue science because of all da horrible things it's done ... weapons of mass destruction, pollution, involuntary experimentation on humans, rationales for eugenics and all da rest... without also crediting science for all the good things it's accomplished, then that wouldn't be fair, eh? So to da the same to religion, isn't that also bias?

 

A well educated minister ain't a weatherman, eh? He or she is a real meteorologist. They can offer advice and guidance on your personal choices for the day, or educate yeh on the principles and mechanisms of atmospherics and meterology of the soul.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[moosetracker]

Ok, I agree the term is meterologist.. Was too lazy to look it up, but knew there was a term for it, (weathermen can be meterologist but not all weathermen are.)

 

I never said I did not value the learning of a religous man.. Just said they don't always get it right.. Just like Doctors don't always get it right, just like meterologist don't always get it right (but because it's the weathermen who vebalize the forecast we take it out on them when it turns out wrong.)

 

I just said don't take the word of a minister, preist (or even the Pope (I am not Catholic so I do not think his word is infallable).. As Gossip, as a fact, as indisputable.. Listen to them, listen to others, and listen to your own inner voice.

 

It is like my husband, grew up Catholic, knew nothing but Catholic, yet even then when he discussed his faith he did not agree with all the ceremony around the Pope, or saints, or the wealthy display at Rome.. Bottom line he felt all of that was out of step and wrong about it.. Took him to a Protestant church, and he found out his beliefs matched up with the values of the Protestant church.. Now you can call it a disagreement with the policy he was raised to believe, but I call it his inner voice that was nagging him there was something wrong with this picture (as in right/wrong) as in morally wrong..

 

 

But I will not say that the Catholic Church is idolaters.. The Churches have made their peace with each other so they just consider it differing policies in organization. And all this is suppose to point everyone in the direction of God, they don't call their Pope God or Christ, but the vessal of Christ and God is somewhere above him still (if only ever so slightly above him)..

 

All I said is if a protestant group wanted to follow on a similar path, it would be seen as a moral step in the wrong direction, because the emotions between the original group with the group splitting off to take the different path would be fresh, raw and heated..

 

The difference in viewpoint between if a topic is a split in policy or political views or if it is a moral sin comes with the cooling of heads, and the lack of some priests of the time labeling the differing opinion as heretic to their followers to drum up support for their side of the arguement.

[Beavah]

I just said don't take the word of a minister, preist (or even the Pope (I am not Catholic so I do not think his word is infallable).. As Gossip, as a fact, as indisputable.. Listen to them, listen to others, and listen to your own inner voice

 

Gossip? Yeh must be usin' one of those new-fangled iDevices with their funny autocorrect, eh?

 

Here's the thing. If a climatologist tells yeh there's global warming but your "inner voice" of opinion and "listening to others" in your social group tells you there isn't, which is more likely to be right? Wouldn't it be foolish not to at least give the climatologist's "opinion" substantially more weight than your own or your friends'? How about if the large majority of climatologists agree?

 

So if a respected religious minister tells yeh something about religion and morality, but your own opinion and that of your social group is different, which is more likely to be right? How about if the large majority of religious leaders, even from very different religions agree, based on thousands of years of human experience? Wouldn't it be foolish not to at least give their opinion substantially more weight than your own or your friends?

 

And if yeh see a difference between these two cases, in either direction, doesn't that show an unfortunate and unproductive bias on your part?

 

they don't call their Pope God or Christ, but the vessal of Christ and God is somewhere above him still (if only ever so slightly above him)..

 

Yah, hmmm.... speakin' of biases! .

 

Now I'm a Protestant fellow who doesn't really understand da whole popery thing, but OGE did once make me a Defender of the Faith or gave me a plenary indulgence or somethin' like that. I reckon that indulgence thing is a bit like payin' for a room at a Holiday Inn Express

 

I think you are badly misrepresenting what Catholics really believe and teach, in a way that's a more than a bit nasty. Or maybe yeh just don't understand da meaning of the word "vassal".

 

Either way, yeh should really learn some more and reflect on that prejudice with your " inner voice". Or just plain cut it out.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[moosetracker]

:) I meant gospel, not gossip... Opps.. Fruedian slip :)

 

Ok, looking it up, it is not vassal of Christ it is "vicar of Christ" sorry there too..

 

Had to look up why you took offense to Vassal though.. Maybe you are looking at the meaning "slave".. But I am looking at the meaning as a person holiding some similar relation to a superior, a subject, subordiante, follower, retainer.. Even in the definition of Slave it states a servant of slave.. I don't see the indignity of calling someone a follower or servant of Christ or God, I grew up with that terminoligy in prayer.. Actually that to me it is more appropriate to be a "servant of God", rather then the meaning of vicar..

 

The Pope is the vicar of Christ. The term "vicar" comes from the Latin word vicarius, which means "instead of." In the Catholic Church, the vicar is the representative of a higher-ranking official, with all of the same authority and power that that official has. Calling the pope the "Vicar of Christ" implies that he has the same power and authority that Christ had over the church.

 

 

There are also things all over the internet about the thoughts on the infalliblity of the Pope.. Although they do add he can have his own sins & mistakes, but is simply infallibal in his religious message.

 

According to Catholic doctrine, the Pope is infallible in matters of doctrine, faith and morals.

 

Catholicism maintains that the Pope is infallible, incapable of error, when he teaches a doctrine on faith or morals to the universal Church in his unique office as supreme head

 

Infallibility doesnt mean perfect. Infallible statements arent perfect statements, so they can be improved so that subsequent popes can use better or more accurate language. Yet infallible statements can never be contradicted, rejected, or refuted

 

 

So hopefully with showing the exact wording of others on the subject I have corrected anything I mis-spoken.. But, I don't see anything there that say I interpreted anything wrong, maybe you do in some of the fine print..

 

Thing is there is another group saying we are going into an ice age period and that the ice age & global warming combining is just going to wreak havoc all over the place. Watching the weather pattern of the last few years, I'm kindof banking on the mixup mess forecast myself.

 

Problem with the veiwpoint on homosexuals is there are many religions that do not find it a sin.. And although those that are against it say it is a sin, they lack examples.

 

Now if the religion is talking about the sins of jealousy and greed and pride. They have alot of great Biblical stories and examples to back up their claims of the damage. And God's displeasure. So Beavah, tell me a biblical story about the sin of homosexuality..

 

But I never said I would not listen to a preist if he had concrete historical or Biblical evidence.. Will I believe him

[CalicoPenn]

yeah yeah yeah...meteorologists can be wrong - so what? The longer the distance between prediction and event, the more likely they'll be wrong. But even there, the models are improving. But they are more often correct about events happening in the short term.

 

Hurricane Irene is a prime example. When it was first forming near Africa, meteorologists ran a number of different models to try to figure out what it was going to do. By the time it hit the Bahamas, they had the model for what it would likely do as it headed for the US. They said it would hit in the Carolinas and move north through NYC. It did exactly that. They even said that by the time it hit the Carolinas it would be a Cat 1 storm and would weaken to a tropical storm after it hit the US and before it headed up to New York. It dd exactly that. Unfortunately, the rest of the media hear that the storm was a Cat 4 and heading our way, without listening to the rest of the story - and got everyone worried. Had anyone paid attention, the devestation we see in Vermont wouldn't have been a surprise. The Meteorologists had said that their models showed that there would be more damage inland rather than along the coast and that inland New York and New England should get ready. Again, the media concentrated on DC and NYC giving everyone the impression that those areas would be the worst hit - despite meterologists saying otherwise.

 

You really can't compare a priest and a meteorologist. The nature of being a priest is that you make vague predictions. A meteorologist makes specific predictions. A meteorologist will way it will rain a week from Tuesday. A priest would say it will rain this summer. Who's more likely to be correct?

[moosetracker]

A meteorologist will way it will rain a week from Tuesday. A priest would say it will rain this summer. Who's more likely to be correct?

 

I would hope the preist. If not it is going to a dry, dry summer..

 

Well that explains some of the conflicting info I got. I would watch the weather tracker that would say tropical storm.. Media would say flood and destruction, worse since 1938 when whole towns parished.. But it was a weird one.. Rain and a very slight wind felt on the ground. It had to be much stronger just slightly higher up from the surprising falling trees on all the roads & power lines.. And we did get flood damage..

 

But on the ground it didn't seem like much..

 

Don't know if meterologist or weathermen but someone kept playing with the time it would hit, also.. Comming in faster, expected time x.. Slowing down expected time y.. Going more inland expected time z.. After a while, you gave up, it would come when it came..