Non Overlapping Magisteria

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ok, well thanks. And ya know, I am the first to say as well that if someone follows the teachings of Jesus or ideas, and let's say they read scripture and they are convinced that they should start killing first born babies and sacrificing lambs and things like this, that, I would recommend that if this is the case, they're probably better off not following scripture.

It's unfortunate that the Bible isn't like a 1 million page super technical guidance manual for life. People work with what they have I guess. And people pick different guidance manuals, and pick at ideas.

I may have mentioned this before but I once heard a pastor describe this hypothetical scenario where a slave had a Christian slave master. And through this hypothetically abusive slave master, the slave came to know Christianity as something of an atrocity. So the slave flees away from christian teachings.

From a Christian perspective, some conservatives might say that this woman maybe ended up dying an atheist and in which case, wouldn't she hypothetically go to hell? But this scenario would actually make God or Jesus out to be basically a tyrant. So many pastors have looked at this and have alternatively said that, well, in:

John 3:16
Bible Gateway passage: John 3:16 - New International Version

Jesus hypothetically died for all of humanity. When he was attacked and arrested, he took time to even heal the injured Roman that came to take him away (that had been injured by the apostles in their struggle). Jesus didn't say, this person attacked me so I'm sending him to hell, rather he loved even on that individual.

So going back to this hypothetical slave, Jesus, in accordance with who scripture describes Jesus to be (even if you don't even believe he existed), Jesus would seek out and save even people who didnt accept him during life for similar reasons among others.

So if someone today picks up scripture and is disgusted and they see pastors scamming people or maybe they see priests molesting children etc. And they turn away from Christianity, I would trust that if God is as described at least in the new testament, that these people would be saved just as any one else would, while it is the priests or the scammers, though they may be believers, who ought to be concerned about salvation.

It's about a walk with or in Christ moreso than about what people call themselves.

But as always, I don't necessarily expect anyone to believe Jesus existed given the lack of scientific evidence. Or that he was divine in any way. So it's all just a thought exercise for these forum discussions.

OK... but that really doesn't clarify the issue I raised.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes, I've no argument with any of that - which is why I said, in respect of abiogenesis, "physics really does favour the development of molecules and chemical cycles that play important roles in living things"; clearly, at that point, there were no living things, just molecules & chemical cycles that could potentially play a role in future life.

It might be just a language thing there, then(?) .. In other forums elsewhere, I've found enthusiastic budding amateur Astrobiologists who use our modern biology's selective molecular substitution/deletion capability, as justification for how life-as-we-don't-know-it, 'likely' (therefore) proceeds in assembling itself from scratch, in/for completely different base geo-chemistries. (Ie: a bit like Terminator V2 magically reassembling itself from fractured segments of itself, or something).

The fact is that this feature is, at the moment, contextually well constrained to, specifically, DNA/RNA's molecular electrochemical properties in only Earth's particular prebiotic geo-chemical physical environment, which just happened (somewhat by chance) to end up favouring it. The case of the possible rarity of Earth's pre-biotic scenario, is then completely steamrollered, using this Earth centric-specific line of argument. Abiogenesis is not purely a product of universally applicable, deterministic inorganic chemistry, y'know(?) .. we already know there's away more to it than just that.

Oh ... and I don't really think you mean that the laws of physics favours the assemblage of things important to life .. and therefore life is important(?)
(We both know how some folk around these parts, would run a mile with that particular interpretation/misreading?)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Stephen J Gould, from his book 'Rock Of Ages':

"Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve...These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."

As this is in the Creation and Evolution sub forum, i would suggest that we can consider those two subjects to be in separate magisteriums. Creation obviously within the religious one and evolution in the scientific.

Is there an overlap?

Not by much.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Oh ... and I don't really think you mean that the laws of physics favours the assemblage of things important to life .. and therefore life is important(?)

Correct. If I'd meant that, I would have said it.

 

[Job 33:6]

OK... but that really doesn't clarify the issue I raised.

Sorry. You're going to have to clarify on your concern. You're batting a thousand and they're just flying over my head here!

Is your concern that because God or Jesus aren't scientifically proven to exist, that words attributed to these figures cannot be rightfully followed? Or that they can but you feel that you need more of something?

 

[Job 33:6]

To remind you of his amazing teachings.

What confuses me is your explicit distinction between following Jesus' teachings and following him: "maybe you think that the teachings of Jesus are what transformed someone's life, and not necessarily Jesus himself, therefore Jesus is not worth following, and only his teachings may be?"

Why does this comment confuse you?

 

[Job 33:6]

.

It's probably just a language thing...

It may be. People commonly refer to following Jesus, but this encompasses a handfull of concepts. It may be following his teachings as noted above, which are known or learned through scripture. Some may feel like they've had divine experiences, perhaps of the holy spirit, they may follow these experiences and attribute them to God and Jesus by extension of they're trinitarians. Some people might even have claimed to have seen and spoken with Jesus directly in human form. In which case they then follow him.

I think if I were to boil it down, the most easy and tangible of these things would be to say that it's teachings in scripture that we follow, given that Jesus is considered to have ascended to heaven and isn't physically here to literally walk around with and follow from town to town as the apostles did.

So to follow Jesus is a broad statement.

 

[Bradskii]

Well, you quote only one side so it seems the question is at least slanted to one view and the other view starts at a deep disadvantage at the get go.

I can't really be fairer than to quote an eminent scientist who has commented on this aspect of the science/religion overlap on many ocassions who holds a position that there are no overlaps. Which is in direct opposition to my position that there are many claims of an overlap.

If they actually exist is a matter which the thread is meant to determine. And again, if you believe that they do I'm keen to know where you think that might be.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sorry. You're going to have to clarify on your concern. You're batting a thousand and they're just flying over my head here!

Is your concern that because God or Jesus aren't scientifically proven to exist, that words attributed to these figures cannot be rightfully followed? Or that they can but you feel that you need more of something?

No, it's the 'following' issue - t.b.c.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why does this comment confuse you?

I find it confusing because, as I previously explained, I can follow the teachings and example of someone whether they're alive or dead, but I can only follow, back, or support that person if they're alive.

If I have understood you correctly, you have suggested that it is possible to follow the teachings and example of Jesus, and to follow, back, and support Jesus himself (despite him being dead for 2,000 years). I don't know what you mean by that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It may be. People commonly refer to following Jesus, but this encompasses a handfull of concepts. It may be following his teachings as noted above, which are known or learned through scripture. Some may feel like they've had divine experiences, perhaps of the holy spirit, they may follow these experiences and attribute them to God and Jesus by extension of they're trinitarians. Some people might even have claimed to have seen and spoken with Jesus directly in human form. In which case they then follow him.

I think if I were to boil it down, the most easy and tangible of these things would be to say that it's teachings in scripture that we follow, given that Jesus is considered to have ascended to heaven and isn't physically here to literally walk around with and follow from town to town as the apostles did.

So to follow Jesus is a broad statement.

OK; so when you asked, "maybe you think that the teachings of Jesus are what transformed someone's life, and not necessarily Jesus himself, therefore Jesus is not worth following, and only his teachings may be?" you were speaking from a Trinitarian point of view?

 

[Job 33:6]

OK; so when you asked, "maybe you think that the teachings of Jesus are what transformed someone's life, and not necessarily Jesus himself, therefore Jesus is not worth following, and only his teachings may be?" you were speaking from a Trinitarian point of view?

If Jesus is the source of said teachings, it could still be said that Jesus himself has transforms someone's life. At least depending on how you consider the phrase.

Just as if we say, Donald trump or Joe Biden wrote a book, they pass away, you read the teachings of either, then if the teachings (and the person by extension) transformed your life, you might say "Joe Biden really transformed my life". Whether he's still alive or not doesn't really change the impact of the information that the individual relayed.

Though I'd say this is different than actively following someone. Different phrases, different meanings. As noted above. If a Christian says they're followers of Jesus, it can have multiple meanings. Ultimately though, Christians collectively are reading scripture and learning from it, which would be teachings of Jesus. Thus would be at least one meaning behind "I'm a follower of Jesus". You're a student of his teachings.

Alternatively though, they could also combine teachings and person in an idea of actively following Jesus in the sense that he were still alive as well (via the holy spirit).

And the question was written to see if you were distinguishing between the two and to investigate if that was where your concern was. I don't think the question was written in a Unitarian or trinitarian view, I think that the question could be asked either way, but depending on your beliefs, you might find value in the separation of these ideas.

It's all just a language thing I suppose. Does this answer the question you've been asking?

 

[Bradskii]

Just as if we say, Donald trump...wrote a book...

Sorry. You lost me there.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sorry. You lost me there.

Hahaha. I tried to keep it neutral and threw in Joe Biden as well. Maybe I should have just used carl Sagan or Einstein in my examples again.

Imagines Donald Trump sitting around authoring Hawkings On the Shoulders of Giants*

Further imagines a master painting of Donald Trump authoring Hawkings On the Shoulders of Giants, hanging on a wall in Donald Trump's office.*

I've written many books. They are the greatest books, greater than anyone else's books.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If Jesus is the source of said teachings, it could still be said that Jesus himself has transforms someone's life. At least depending on how you consider the phrase.

Just as if we say, Donald trump or Joe Biden wrote a book, they pass away, you read the teachings of either, then if the teachings (and the person by extension) transformed your life, you might say "Joe Biden really transformed my life". Whether he's still alive or not doesn't really change the impact of the information that the individual relayed.

Though I'd say this is different than actively following someone. Different phrases, different meanings. As noted above. If a Christian says they're followers of Jesus, it can have multiple meanings. Ultimately though, Christians collectively are reading scripture and learning from it, which would be teachings of Jesus. Thus would be at least one meaning behind "I'm a follower of Jesus". You're a student of his teachings.

Alternatively though, they could also combine teachings and person in an idea of actively following Jesus in the sense that he were still alive as well (via the holy spirit).

And the question was written to see if you were distinguishing between the two and to investigate if that was where your concern was. I don't think the question was written in a Unitarian or trinitarian view, I think that the question could be asked either way, but depending on your beliefs, you might find value in the separation of these ideas.

It's all just a language thing I suppose. Does this answer the question you've been asking?

Yes, thank you.

Also, I have no relevant beliefs.