Ahhhh, so that's it. Because they contradicted what the falliable experts claimed was right. For the record, many of these books were referenced in other canonical books.

That's the problem though. Hence we are falliable and easily led into deception, then how can you say that the interpretation of what is correct and cohesive is accurate? I mean if you look at the bible and analyze the authors' voices, they all sound different. Who are you to say what is and isn't the word of god, being falliable?

So yeah, you pick and choose - but what if you've (general you) picked the wrong ones? No one can be sure, they can only go with what they have on faith - not fact.

Listen Lucas either you're going to listen or you're not.  You seem to only want to be contrary for contrary's sake.  I don't have time for this.     I'm not making this up.  It's all very historical.  If you really wish to know you don't need me to tell you this.  There are a gazillion sources out there who can explain this to you better than I.....that is, if you really want to know....which I don't think you do.  You just seem to like to argue for argue sake.  I've got better things to do. 

Thanks, but I know what I'm doing. I'm asking questions on things I am skeptical on, if you don't wish to answer them, then so be it. I'm not, however, going to stop asking questions and looking into things.

As it be, I see there cases where books have been chosen based on alleged parameters, but that still doesn't begin to delve into the other aspects of it. In my opinion at least.

So, do whatever you want. *shrugs*

~Alderic

KFC POSTS:

I agree KFC. Religion and science call for belief both by faith and study. Religion begins with Divine faith that will not, in fact can not deceive, whereas science begins with human faith that is fallible.

Me too! I'm thinking of Ps. 18:1, "The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declares the works of His hands." We could say that Science is knowing how God works in the natural order, and Faith is knowing how God works in the supernatural order. This is why there is no conflict between science and faith. Also that faith in true science and in true religion does not teach anything opposed to reason or to those sound principles to reason rightly.   

ALDERICJOURDAIN POSTS:

AldericJourdain, consider this. It's impossible to study math, history, chemistry, astronomy, or any scientific subject, as well as religion (which is concerned with man's duties in homage to Almighty God) without accepting first principles upon faith, without faith in the teachers.   Science, like religion, begins with mysteries, truths that are not and never will be fully understood. Take electricity for example. Science doesn't stop to inquire what electircity is in substance, it just goes ahead developing the uses of it.  

So, it seems to me that we mus tproperly appreciate what faith really is and it's basic role in the case of Science and religion. Faith doesn't change...it's not emotional, blind submission to the unknowable. Rather faith is an intellectual assent of the mind to something not seen with the physical eye, the acceptance of a truth upon the authority of some one else. In religion, it's Divine Authority, "taking God at His word". In science, it is dependence upon human authority, that may or may not be right (and in this discussion...may or may not have personal ethics or integrity .)

And I expect you'll grin after reading ....When faith of science is accepted, and not the faith of religion, it is wise to recall the Divinely inspired declaration of 1 St.John. 5:9. "If we accept the testimony of man, the testimony of God is greater".

See that's where you're wrong, it isn't some system that you can put faith in - it's a method that which we can use to understand the world.

Of course science changes, it's called progress.

Religion is rooted in the primitive history of Man - it would be best left there.

kfc posts:

daiwa posts:

S &JTEARS POSTS

I'm with you S&JTears.

KFC # 39

S&JTEARS

kfc posts 45

I think way too much praise has been given Albert Einstein. He supposedly discovered the theory of "relativity"...related to measurements in the physical sciences.  KFC, think on this....what is Einstein's theory of "relativity" applied to philosophy and religion....It's cultivated Atheism. Einstein's own writings, as well as others who personally knew him say that it's the principle of relativity applied to philosophy and religion that caused Einstein to deny belief in a personal God, to deny belief in free will, to reject the revealed code of morality to which every person is subject and to be a patron of subversive organizations.

It was the application of Einstein's theory of relativity to philosophy and religion that prompted Cardinal O'Connell to write, "a befogged speculation producing universal doubt about God and His creation, that cloaks the ghastly apparation of atheism." Evidently, a Rabbi in New York cabled Einstein and asked him, "Do you believe in God?"  Einstein's now famous answer was, "I believe in Spinoza's god who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns Himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Check out "Spinoza" and you'll find out that he advocated a pantheistic god, one that emanated from matter. Turns out that for believing this, Spinoza was rightly expelled from the Synagague in Amsersdam in the 17th century.

Well put, very lucid, and intriguing. (Wow, my saying that is a first...mea culpa lula)

~Alderic

Sorry, I'm confused.  Are you saying that Einstein applied the theory that distance is not fixed but altered by speed to religion?  What on earth does the theory of relativity have to do with religon?

Speaking of fallacies, this is a whopper, maybe the whopper of the whole thread.

No.

 Einstein's "religiosity" and concept of God not unlike that of Spinoza has given way to the myths of moral and cultural relativism.   Einstein's theory of general relativity has been misused.....if time and space are relative, so too are moral, cultural and religious values.   His theory has been misapplied by those who would have us believe there are no absolutes.

Lula, there is such thing as moral relativsm. Take a look at the different cultures for example, their morals, their right and wrong have been shown to be different to yours, or others.

Saying that certain things are not relative, i.e. different according to cultures and so on - means you're just full of it.

~Alderic/hope4iran

How is it a fallacy and a whopper? Back it up.

Einstein demonstrating human faith wrote, "The cosmic religious experience is the strongest and noblest driving force behind scientific research....What a deep faith in the rationality of the structure of the world and what a longing to understand even a small glimpse of the reason revealed in the world there must have been in Kepler and Newton to enable them to unravel the mechanism of the heavens...." Cosmic Religion, New York 1931 pgs. 52-53.

Einstein evidently thought that Kepler and Newton unraveled the mechanism of the heavens, did they?

Lula, you have to understand that Einstein, when he often spoke about God, et al. - he often did not mean the same God as you do. That, I think, is where you fail to understand him. In fact, here he is in his own words:

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

In fact, Einstein is reported to have said that he felt Jesus to be a myth.

He was no christian. If nothing else, we was...a combination of naturalistic deism. Or, in a sense, someone who relied on science.That's my interpretation at least. In fact, the comment there - in my eyes - seems to point to not religion, or faith or anything like that, but the desire to explore and understand the world. There's an interesting bit, on page 234 of this book. It starts at "The religious genius'..."

Addendum:

To clarify things a bit - Einstein could, and likely does - fall into the category of people who:

1. He says he believes in Spinoza's God.

2.Spinoza's God is a pantheistic God, in which the universe and nature and God, are one in the same.

3. So, taking that into account - it is logical to assume that Einstein believed that God could be found through science, nature, etc.

You get where I'm going with this?

OK, if you insist:

1.  Religion begins with Divine faith.

Substitute 'blind' for 'Divine' & the meaning is unchanged.  How has 'Divine' been determined?  It has been 'judged' to be Divine by... fallible humans.

2.  Faith that will not, in fact can not deceive.

A posit which cannot be tested, proven or disputed.

3.  Science begins with human faith.

Umm... no.  Science begins with observation of data.

The fallacy is in the assumption that religion is infallible and science is not.