A general topic on "what started it all..."

[Kyuuketsuki]

I'm not so sure I would go that far. See my earlier comments about the discipline of theology. Scholars wouldnt last long without a method to assess, scrutinize, and otherwise deconstruct all types of scriptural texts.

Dharan ... if there was actually a method for assessing scriptures and that method were consistent would we not expect consistent interpretations/answers? Somehow I think I would expect that and, whilst in no way do I infer that scientists always get it right or (at the frontiers of science) always agreed but from mainstream science that is, by and large, what we get!

Kyu

[Ryft]

If there was actually a method for assessing Scriptures, and that method were consistent, would we not expect consistent interpretations/answers? Somehow I think I would expect that.

Only if everyone assessing Scriptures used that same method in consistently the same ways. But there is not just one method for assessing Scriptures. You get different interpretations because some people use different methods of interpretation, and some people use the same method but in different ways (approaching the task with different presuppositions, e.g., source of authority), etc.

[Kyuuketsuki]

If there was actually a method for assessing Scriptures, and that method were consistent, would we not expect consistent interpretations/answers? Somehow I think I would expect that.

Only if everyone assessing Scriptures used that same method in consistently the same ways. But there is not just one method for assessing Scriptures. You get different interpretations because some people use different methods of interpretation, and some people use the same method but in different ways (approaching the task with different presuppositions, e.g., source of authority), etc.

Then it is NOT a method ... it is a bunch of people each doing their own thing!

Kyu

[LEDO]

There is a method to assess scripture. It was/is called the Jesus Conferance or Symposium (I think). They went through scripture and deleted statements Jesus could not have made, most likely didn't make etc. They ended up with very little text, less than the Jefferson Bible.

[LEDO]

There is a method. There was a Jesus Symposium which deleted text Jesus didn't say and things he didn't do. It left very little and Christians rejected it.

[Ryft]

Then it is NOT a method ... it is a bunch of people each doing their own thing!

Ehh... no, not really. I'm sure some do? But mostly it's a bunch of people doing someone else's thing (whoever's thing they chose to use) because most people are not biblical scholars.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Then it is NOT a method ... it is a bunch of people each doing their own thing!

Ehh... no, not really. I'm sure some do? But mostly it's a bunch of people doing someone else's thing (whoever's thing they chose to use) because most people are not biblical scholars.

No ... you specifically said, "Only if everyone assessing Scriptures used that same method in consistently the same ways.", "there is not just one method for assessing Scriptures", "You get different interpretations because some people use different methods of interpretation" and "some people use the same method but in different ways (approaching the task with different presuppositions, e.g., source of authority)"!

Either you have a consistent methodology or you don't ... make your mind up!

Kyu

[Ryft]

No, you specifically said ... [snip quoted material] ... Either you have a consistent methodology or you don't. Make your mind up!

You asked, "If there was actually a method for assessing Scriptures and that method were consistent, would we not expect consistent interpretations/answers?" You said that you would, and I would too. One method consistently adhered to should give us consistent results. The reason we don't have consistent results is because there is not "a method" (singular) for interpretting Scriptures; there are several methods. Some are academically faulty, or logically invalid, or outright retarded, but that does nothing to the fact that they exist and people use them. (For example, the methods for assessing Scriptures used by the Jehovah's Witnesses were developed by people who admitted under oath in a court of law that they could not speak the ancient languages, could not read them, could not identify basic letters from their alphabets, and had no familiarity with their grammatical rules). There are several methodologies out there—and many of them are horribly faulty—which is why we have inconsistent interpretations.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

If science doesn't know, then why arent scientists more open minded toward religion?

Pardon?

By definition,an "open minded" person is one willing to consider new ideas,which is fundamental to science. It is not being close minded to demand proof of any claim.

It seems to me that religion is more likely to be anti science because of religious dogma, which by definition is the antithesis of open mindedness.


From Wiki

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. The term derives from Greek δόγμα "that which seems to one, opinion or belief"[1] and that from δοκέω (dokeo), "to think, to suppose, to imagine".[2] The plural is either dogmas or dogmata , from Greek δόγματα.

---

[Purple Rabbit]

If science doesnt know, then why arent scientists more open minded toward religion? Is it easier to not know? than to go down the path of learning to 'know'?

Easy, scientists have been trained to not plug easy answers into big questions, while religion makes use of indoctrination of young children to first plug in big answers and then bend reality around them. You really can become screwed up if you have experienced both and do not make a choice.