There's always the next crazy guy who thinks God told him that (previous set of beliefs X) wasn't really the right way to do it and that (new set of beliefs Y) is.

As far as monotheistic religions go, we've got Animism (not monotheistic, but Judaism rejects in "no idolatry" etc.) -> Judaism -> Christianity -> Catholicism (well, a couple decades after Jesus's death, was pretty down-to-earth before that) Islam + Protestantism -> Mormonism.

It's kind of silly to even take the original sins seriously anyway, because they're so general. Other posters have pointed out how non-specific both the "new" ones and the old ones are, potentially dooming everyone to fiery pits below. Catholicism is funny in that it both seems to accept social and scientific progress (less pollution, social welfare, evolution) and then reject it (genetic engineering). It's better than a lot of Protestantism, though, which I would think would be a more down-to-earth "love-thy-neighbor" sort of thing on paper but ends up being in practice the most radical (at least in the U.S.)



Most of that is about Palestine, really, not directly religiously based. Of course, the reason they want Palestine is because it's a holy city, but the thing is that's why the Jews settled there after the Holocaust and set up Israel there, so it could be seen as religiously motivated on both sides.

actually i was referring to the Al Quaide & Co. which claim to be on a religious Jihad against the capitalisitc west.....

They are motivated for the same reasons. This "jihad" is only about "freeing Palestine" from Israel and attacking the U.S. for supporting them.

ok...

i don't know their intentions... i just know what they do...
and that is enough for me because i don't think this is a way to treat each other...

and i absolutely did not want to hijack the threat... so back to sins

And I'm a presbyterian. Well met!


Yup. The problem is, people just sort of seem to forget this... continually...

personaly....

I consider myself a truth finder, I try to belive in the truth, no matter the implications.

As such, I am going to be a physcist when I get out of college, and I am a christian.

I don't belive any single "sin" can conbem someone.

and I belive that Cathlism, and "real" chritianity (what I belive in) are vastly differnt

as such, I belive that any large organization is inherintly corrupt, so to keep the truth true, churches must be kept small.

Finaly, I belive that nothing should be taken personaly, seriously: yes, personly: no.

As a wise old lady wiht a flying umbrella said "a spoon full of suger helps the medicince go down." my version (by no means more imprtant, or even better in any way) is "a short bout of laughter helps the truth go down"

....just my two cents....

well..the west always wants democracy and with it capitalism. when there is capitalism, there will bound to be greed and hence "sin" the idea of free trade is not exactly free, depending on how one looks at it, the consequences can have some very superstitious consequences. And like Nietzsche said, mankind killed God, and He will be killed again and again each century regardless how many times He gets resurrected. In His Name, how many missery and violence have people stirred. It would be infinite much better if mankind can go beyond religion, or any kind of superstitious notion.

Good man! Personally, I have a lot of trouble understanding why some people think science and religion (or at least Christianity) are incompatible.



Actually, it wouldn't, because if people went "beyond" religion, they'd lose God, and suffer the consequences. And violence has been inflicted, yes, but it isn't religion's fault - in most cases, it's just the "cover story" for the more real reasons, which are things like greed and even delusion - these are characteristic of people, not of religion.

Omnipotent guy in the sky turning people into pillars of salt and impregnating a woman who gives birth to a Jewish guy who can transform water into wine and cure leprosy. I mean, if you're just a sermon on the mount "Jesus was a pretty cool guy he preached all this stuff about being a nice person" sorta Christian it's not too much of a stretch. But once you start getting into the OT and even some of the interpretations of the NT it starts falling apart.



What would that be?

Al Quaide & Co has nothing to do with islam those people are just dumber than crap
i just hope that the muslim world would speak out more against terrorisme so people
will understand that the majority are not evil terrorists
"judge people by there actions not by there religion or race"

*shrug* Science isn't a bound on God's operation; that is the usual argument set forward by Christians, and, logically, it remains true. If God created the universe, why should the method by which the universe functions limit God's ability to work in it?
Jesus, being the Son of God, is clearly a reason to breach science.
By the way, I'm not a creationist; I take a symbolic view of Genesis, and of Revelation.



Assuming the God of the Bible, the major consequence for all humanity would be Hell, wouldn't it?
Not assuming the God of the Bible, then we shouldn't be having this discussion - it would perhaps be better to argue with a secular theologian, because a Christian (like myself) will always give you an answer that assumes the God of the Bible.

But if I may be so bold, this appears to be a hijack

On Islam: according to the Koran, the way a person gets to heaven is by being more good than they are bad (basically), kinda like catholics (not saying Muslims and catholics are the same, just drawing an analogy). The only way a Muslim can be 100% sure he's going to heaven (because Allah didn't bless them with a good-o-meter) is by killing infidels. Seriously, I kid you not. That is why there is a jihad and why Islam was known for centuries as "the religion of the sword". The big difference in Christian and Muslim historical violence is that Mohamed himself led his followers to capture cities (and kill lots and lots of people); Jesus did not condone the violence of his followers at any time during his life. The violence of the crusades is a result of some religious leaders that misinterpreted/ignored the bible. They probably would have done it regardless of religion: religion was the tool in this instance, not the cause. (This has already been explained well above.)

And about religion and science: Interestingly enough, there has never been an instance where archeology has contradicted the bible. Ever. In fact, more than one archaeologist has become a Christian because of how their finds fit perfectly in the bible. (And example of where this is not true would be Mormonism, where the Book of Mormon talks about an advanced civilization with cities of millions in the united states 2000 years ago. Not one scrap of evidence has been found to support this.)
And as for the miracles in the bible being unscientific, that's...ummm...the point. God's supposed to be outside our laws of physics. This is not unscientific: it is outside the ability of science to address. The only thing it contradicts is a presupposed naturalistic philosophy (the belief that the only thing that exists is the physical universe) which is not based on science at all. It does not necessarily contradict it either, it's simply a matter of being outside the scope of science; it is a personal decision about the nature of reality.
But don't say Christianity is unscientific: that's a nonsensical statement. (But an idea that's currently in vogue none-the-less.)

they should exchange "taking drugs" for "being overwhelmly addicted". you proof knowing nothing about drugs by stating the first.

This is completely incorrect and reveals a shocking lack of ignorance about Islam. "Jihad" does not mean running around and killing random people as you seem to suggest. Jihad, as practiced by Muslims today and of its original meaning, is to struggle for spiritual or physical well-being. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are staunchly opposed to violence, and most overwhelming-majority Muslim countries like Indonesia (shock! they're not all Arab!) are modern countries with very little religiously-motivated violence. The reason Islam became the "religion of the sword" was that Mohammed actively chose to seek a political position, something no Judaic prophet ever did. In a shocking twist, political positions in the 7th century tended to include a lot of violence and conquering. That's pretty much what people did back then for fun.



Modern archaeology contradicts your Bible's "six days", it contradicts your Bible's "great flood", and modern biology contradicts your Bible's origins of life.



1. Congratulations, you just answered a question about how religion is making claims of extraordinary phenomena by presupposing the existence of another extraordinary phenomenon to explain it.



2. When you make naturalistic predictions (a Jewish rabbi walked across some water), you have entered The Realm Of Science (tm). If you make a "personal decision" about the nature of reality: sorry, but you're an idiot. Physics is not subjective. The makeup of the universe, its workings, and how it came to be is not something you can "agree to disagree" on. You have a hypothesis that someone can turn water into wine, you back it up with factual evidence and a theory to explain how that happens or it's not valid. End of story.



Well yeah, but specificity isn't exactly this list's strong point, as the first reply pointed out. You can't just go "pollute" and not define it. You can also wonder what's meant by "drugs" - alcohol is a "drug", and it's taken by Catholics at communion. So I guess they're all going to hell too.

*sigh* Ok Carbon, you followed the party line pretty much exactly, so I'll give you the standard rebuttals, albeit abbreviated ones (the full ones would fill volumes, due to the range of material they cover).

Read the Koran (or a translation if, like me, you're basically stuck with english). Seriously. I'd personally recommend reading it in a chronological order (it's arranged by chapter size, not order of writing) simply because I find it easier to see flow of ideas that way, but that's just a personal preference. Once you've done that let me know and we'll have a discussion about it.
Now, modern sects of Muslims (that would be the majority you spoke of) actually are peaceful. The point of what I was saying was to explain one of the reasons "Al Quaide & Co" do what they do: because, according to what the Koran actually says they're going to heaven because of it.

About the whole science thing: "If you make a "personal decision" about the nature of reality: sorry, but you're an idiot. Physics is not subjective." Ok, exactly what science is and where its boundaries are seems to be generally poorly understood by most people, but I'll give clarifying a shot: science, in its pure form, is only concerned with physical phenomena that can be observed. Science cannot make statements about reality in general. Science cannot tell you what the laws of physics are elsewhere in the universe. That may sound weird, but until we have measure it, it is outside the realm of science. Unfortunately, that's not very useful: we can't go around measuring everything all the time. I'm an engineer, not a philosopher, so when I'm designing a system I assume that the laws of physics work the same everywhere and for all time. That assumption is philosophy, not science. Scientists make these assumptions all the time, but most of the time they don't actually make a difference (even if we're in a computer simulation designed by robots, it makes no practical difference), but sometimes it's very important to understand the limits of science. Science cannot comment on the nature of God (assuming he exists of course) or, to be absolutely strict about it, the past.

We can make scientific statements about reality, however (i.e. the second law of thermal dynamics), but these are based upon a philosophical framework (such as: the laws of physics are the same everywhere). This framework cannot be proven or disproven by science, but science cannot exist without it. That is why I call it a "personal decision"--you have to make up your own mind (or mindlessly follow someone else), science won't give you an answer. You assume (as deduced from your post) physicalism: basically, that the physical universe is all that is. I don't. That's a personal decision of both our part, but does not make physics "subjective" in any way. One of us is right, and the other wrong. However, it does lead us to interpret the same data different ways. (I think huge numbers of animals laid down by sedimentary processes on all parts of the earth is indicative of a "great flood", you apparently don't.)

"Congratulations, you just answered a question about how religion is making claims of extraordinary phenomena by presupposing the existence of another extraordinary phenomenon to explain it." Not sure what the question you refer to was. I assume there's a God outside the laws of physics and make "naturalistic predictions" (Jesus chillin on water is not one of them: the prediction is that it's possible at all) based upon that presupposition. Supernatural phenomena (there really aren't very many of them in the bible to begin with) fit nicely into that framework. So what seems "extraordinary" to you fits nicely within my model. So does the origin of the universe (and life).

Modern evolutionary theory contradicts the bible? Sure, but the raw evidence does not. Biological theory is not evidence, it is the interpretation of that evidence. An example: the age of the earth. Most geologists figure it's around 4.54 billion years old and arrive at that via radioisotope dating. This compares the ratios of, say, U-235 and lead and calculates how many half-lives the specimen has experienced. All well and good, but how do you know what the original ratios were? In any theory, the early earth did not have only uranium and no lead. So what do scientists assume that early ratio was? Whatever they need it to be.

Evolutionists say the early earth had an atmosphere mostly free from oxygen. Do they say this because geology points in that direction? No (rocks they clam date from that time actually show the opposite), but that's the only way modern origin-of-life theories work. They need it to be reducing.

Evolutionists see the similarity between living things and interpret that as proof they're related: bible thumpers see it as proof they were created by the same designer. You see, it's all about the framework.

Archeology: "the scientific study of historic or prehistoric peoples and their cultures by analysis of their artifacts, inscriptions, monuments, and other such remains, esp. those that have been excavated." When I said archeology, this is what I meant. Archeology is often confused with paleontology or the study of the past in general. Like I said, archeology jives with the bible just peachy.

Anyway, this is definitely way off topic for this post. A little more on-topic: does anyone know if the Vatican put out an explanation of the list, or just the list? And if they did put out an explanation or some type of elaboration, where would that be found?

Wow, a religion thread. Amazing nobody have been hanged, many flames though. Good post tropical, I love engineers.

Science, religion, MAGIC. That pretty much what I see here, many people speaking of magic, using different names. I am a self called liberal catholic christian. There are only two forces in this universe, Humanity and Nature. Nature is the earth, the universe, all the forces we do/dont understand and that we can not change but that we can use. Humanity is us, men and women, who are locked in a endless cycle, yet we are moving toward perfection or death, depends how you look at it(bottle of water half-full or half-empty?) Nature can also be called God, Allah, Yaveh, etc. Nature gave us all life and shaped everything that exist.

Humanity uses Nature to the best of our understading, that can be called science. The little bits of Nature we understand, we can use. We understand heat, we use it to cook, to smelt metal and glass. We understand electricity, the mere fact that you are reading this is prove enough. Yet we don't understand how to make a planet, or a sun, or exactly how to create a hurricane/earthquake/tornado.

On the specific topic of religion, we will always have different religions and belief just as we will always have different people. We will always have disputes and wars and also peace and harmony. That the endless cycle of life, as one anime movie said it, the endless cycle of war-peace-revolution. And that how it should be. Necesity is the mother of all inventions. The computer you are using, the internet which we are using are all products of wars. Wars are one way which we advance ourselves.

Ask yourselves the question, "What is Peace?" If you can fully answer that question without using a opposite like "people don't fight", or "don't hate". You are one step closer to enlightment.

Now, take that answer you just came up with, and try to explain every single word of it, like if you were to explain it to an infant. Example: Peace is when all of Humanity loves each other. Explain what is "love". And dont assume a word like love is basic, remember, imagine you are trying to explain its meaning to an infant who always keep asking "and what does that mean?, and why is that?"

Now take that new answer and explain each word. Try and come up with a answer that does not include a "love is when you DO NOT hate another" or something like that, when you have to say something is the opposite of another.

Repeat it many times and really be precise and try to write it. If you suddenly find yourselve going in cycles(love is when you dont hate someone, hate is when you dont love someone), then I believe you are on the correct path to enlightment, and the world will be a better place.

The Bible isn't Creationist by definition. I believe in evolution. Genesis 1 is clearly symbolic, and you'd notice this if you read it through.


The problem is, God is outside this realm. So what are we arguing? About the existence of God? I thought we were discussing compatibility. And so far, I've failed to see a lack of compatibility. I see a lack of compatibility in Creationism, for example, and that's why I'm not a Creationist.

Creationism isn't a scientific viewpoint. It's a point of view that insists that they only correct way to interpret Genesis 1 is a literal one.

SPOT ON!
And similarly, religion is out of the realm of science, and vice versa. Someone once said "science deals with the how's, religion with the why's". This is why they are perfectly compatible.
And I'm an engineer-in-training! Yay! I was going to be an astronomer (a field requiring a 13-billion-year-old universe, and one that I have no problem with ) but decided I'd enjoy designing more than observing.