Quote:
|
I agree. Knowledge is knowledge.
|
So is all knowledge religion then? You've made several blanket statements about knowledge. What exactly are you trying to say? I believe that there are different types of knowledge and different aims for acquiring knowledge. I imagine that you can agree with me when I say that just because it something is knowable doesn't mean you or anyone else needs to know it.
Quote:
|
How, why, what, who. Religion involves introspective science, and science that deals with the "why", with understanding God (the "who"), and the knowledge to attaining self harmony (the "how"). Biology and archaeology deal with the "what".
|
Interesting that you should say that Religion involves introspective science. The noted theologin Byron Cox states in his book "The Secularization of Society" that the natural aim of the christian faith is in fact secularization. That science is a secular institution and that Christianity is driven towards secularization speaks volumes about the difference between science and religion.
It seems to me as though you are saying that religion is a science. Am I correct in this?
So Biology and Archeology deal with the What. Is this the What of humanity? As in What are We and What did we come from? What about math and physics? Where do they fit in?
Quote:
|
Even so, the causes were greed, fear, politics and conflicting needs. As ever the cause of war. The religion was irrelevent
|
I disagree. The religion placed the need before the people. Certainly greed, fear and politics factored in to the wars of Reformation, but the battles were fought in the name of Religion. The politics were about Religion and the fear was fear of God and the church. Greed fueled the Indulgences but Religion was the cause. If you dissect any war enough you can eventually find whatever it is you are looking for. Heck! If you analyze anything you can find something you're looking for. Huss was burned at the stake for suggesting that the lay people be able to take part in the Eucharist and realize the miracle of Christ's transubstantiation. That seems pretty religiously oriented to me. What did the church have to fear? Certainly the spectre of public drunkeness raised it's ugly head (that strong communion wine) but I'm sure some stronger edict of prohibition could have been issued. Or Huss could have been refused. Burning him seems a little strong to me.
I think that dismisal of all blame from Religion as the cause of strife is a short-sighted claim. Nothing that we (humanity) have ever done is completely good and pure and holy (except maybe Ironworks
[img]tongue.gif[/img] ). Everything has some sort of wretched part of it. Especially institutions like religion and science.
Sorry about all the questions at the start. I'm really curious. If I come off as a smart aleck it is certainly not my intention so excuse me. I offer up my most humble apolgies in advance.
DeSoya