Religion and Engineers

[engineergurl]

Okay... so let me put a little different spin on it... SOME believe that people should live by the books teachings but also feel that they are just a book of stories and parables to show us how we should live... rather then actual truths... it's been tranlated and transcribed so many times that it's not too of a far fetched idea... if this was the case... then the whole water thing could be considered an example of the great things He could do if He wanted to...

ironiclly I'm playing devils advocate here

I do agree that there are sometimes just too many coincidences in life that are unexplained...

what the heck is that quote from Jay and Silent Bob?

 

[DVINNY]

Some of the branches of Christianity say "to take the Bible seriously" while others say "to take the Bible literally".

There is a big difference in that.

I am United Methodist by faith, and we take the Bible seriously. We do not take it word for word but try to apply its meaning to our daily lives.

 

[maryannette]

I think a person's religious beliefs are their own business and I will not discuss mine, ...

That's okay for many people, but I take the Great Commission seriously. I try very hard not to be obnoxious or offensive to anyone. I've been attacked by the Bible in the past and that's not the way to share faith. I am not perfect, but I think I am good enough to share my personal beliefs and efforts to live by them. I don't think force-feeding religion is effective. And I don't think force-feeding atheism is effective, either.

 

[MA_PE]

I try very hard not to be obnoxious or offensive to anyone.

It has been my experience that whenever you try to convince or proof a strong belief (in anything) to someone who has a contrary view it is virtually impossible not to be obnoxious or offensive on some level. As I get older I'm learning to back off and or keep my mouth shut entirely, and it ain't easy for me. Just ask Mrs MA.

 

[Dexman1349]

Okay... so let me put a little different spin on it... SOME believe that people should live by the books teachings but also feel that they are just a book of stories and parables to show us how we should live... rather then actual truths... it's been tranlated and transcribed so many times that it's not too of a far fetched idea... if this was the case... then the whole water thing could be considered an example of the great things He could do if He wanted to...

I have always felt that the bible (I'm only familiar with this as I haven't been exposed to other religious books very much) was a collection of life stories to use as a guide on how to live my own life. I like to compare it to Asop's fables. Each story has a lesson to be learned and applied to your own personal situation.

This was only truly revealed to me a few years back when a co-worker and myself were discussing how various groups (pro-life vs pro-choice, gay rights, etc.) use specific quotes from the bible to prove their point or disprove the opponents views. The topic came up on how Levidicus (sp?) is commonly used in the anti-gay movement (Thou shall not lie with a man as you would with a woman as it is an abomination- I think is close to the quote). The part that would make me mad is very close to this quote are several others that are just shrugged off as no longer valid (There's one about not talking back to your elders, another on not eating the flesh from the sea, and an entire section on animal sacrifice).

So my question I posed to my co-worker was, "Why are only the quotes that apply to your point still vaild, but the rest has been shrugged off?" Only later did I learn the lesson that he has applied the bible as a guide to live his life, and I have applied it differently to live my own life. I have in essence taken on a live and let live mentality. If I don't like gay marrage, I won't marry a man. If I don't like abortion, then I won't ask my wife to have one. I just ask that others don't make me live by their standards. I would rather have the choice to not do something, than to have someone (or some governmental standard) dictating it not be done.

Edit: As far as the "Is there a God?" question: I know there are several things that just can't be explained by "normal science" practices. I am not really of any defined faith (I don't go to churh), but I do think there is some form of higher power out there. How else can you explain Chaos Theory?

 

[benbo]

I would rather have the choice to not do something, than to have someone (or some governmental standard) dictating it not be done.

Wonderfully sounding philosophy, however I guarantee you do not live by it. Everybody has some point at which they want governmental intrusion on another person's individual rights. EVERYBODY. It is just at what point that is.

 

[csb]

^ Right. I don't want people shooting at me or walking around naked or just taking stuff from my house. I'm glad there are laws for that stuff rather than be hoping that someone else's moral code meets mine.

Hmm...but that does raise the issue...who's moral code should be enforced?

 

[Capt Worley PE]

It has been my experience that whenever you try to convince or proof a strong belief (in anything) to someone who has a contrary view it is virtually impossible not to be obnoxious or offensive on some level. As I get older I'm learning to back off and or keep my mouth shut entirely, and it ain't easy for me. Just ask Mrs MA.

That's what I'm doing.

 

[benbo]

^ Right. I don't want people shooting at me or walking around naked or just taking stuff from my house. I'm glad there are laws for that stuff rather than be hoping that someone else's moral code meets mine.
Hmm...but that does raise the issue...who's moral code should be enforced?

That's what the governmental system is for. Some people (like me) says that should be decided in Congress or the state legislature. Other people say the court also has a big role.

A lot of people say "live and let live" as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's rights (your rights end at my nose). But even that is subject to argument because exactly when does somebody else's activity (say a risky health or sexual practice) start to effect the budget and in turn my rights. Again, that's what the government (which should mean the people as a whole) is supposed to decide. JMO.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

That's what the governmental system is for. Some people (like me) says that should be decided in Congress or the state legislature. Other people say the court also has a big role.
A lot of people say "live and let live" as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's rights (your rights end at my nose). But even that is subject to argument because exactly when does somebody else's activity (say a risky health or sexual practice) start to effect the budget and in turn my rights. Again, that's what the government (which should mean the people as a whole) is supposed to decide. JMO.

Wow...remind me to never get into a political or religious debate with you under any circumstances. I disagree with everything you just said.

 

[chaosiscash]

That's what I'm doing.

Word

 

[benbo]

Wow...remind me to never get into a political or religious debate with you under any circumstances. I disagree with everything you just said.

Be a bit more explicit please. I don't think it is possible to disagree with everything I just said unless you are a complete anarchist. By the way, I don't believe in regulating personal behavior in general. But I do believe any laws should be decided in the legistlature (for most laws) or Congress, which happens to be what the Constitution says. Even libertarians generally believe in the power of Congress to enact laws. They are always running candidates for Congress, and Ron Paul is in the Congress and he is sort of a libertarian.

For example, who should decide what is a crime and what is not a crime?

And for future reference, when you say you disagree with everything somebody writes, that is a debate

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Be a bit more explicit please. I don't think it is possible to disagree with everything I just said unless you are a complete anarchist. By the way, I don't believe in regulating personal behavior in general. But I do believe any laws should be decided in the legistlature (for most laws) or Congress, which happens to be what the Constitution says. Even libertarians generally believe in the power of Congress to enact laws. They are always running candidates for Congress, and Ron Paul is in the Congress and he is sort of a libertarian.
For example, who should decide what is a crime and what is not a crime?

And for future reference, when you say you disagree with everything somebody writes, that is a debate

It's not a debate, it's a disagreement. It would be a debate if I gave reasoning for my disagreement to try to persuade others to agree with my views.

And I don't disagree that Congress is there to make laws, but the context in which you said that implied that Congress is there to legislate morality and I wholeheartedly disagree with that. I don't know when the government decided that it had jurisdiction over people's personal lives, but I suspect it was 'round about the time of Roe v. Wade. If you morally agree with abortion and gay marriage, then have at it...legislating something like that is not in anybody's best interest.

I also disagree that religion is the only path to living a moral life. I consider myself a very moral and honest person without the "fear of God" being instilled in me.

 

[DVINNY]

A lot of people say "live and let live" as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's rights (your rights end at my nose). But even that is subject to argument because exactly when does somebody else's activity (say a risky health or sexual practice) start to effect the budget and in turn my rights.

That's the issue I have with abortion. I strongly disagree with abortion, so as stated by Dexman above, I would never ask my wife to have one. HOWEVER, I am very much offended by the government taking my taxes and giving it to someone to perform an act that I strongly disagree with.

 

[MA_PE]

Hello, I'd like to have an arguement please.

for the uninformed (and the pleasure of the informed) I attach the "Arguement Sketch"

 

[benbo]

It's not a debate, it's a disagreement. It would be a debate if I gave reasoning for my disagreement to try to persuade others to agree with my views.
And I don't disagree that Congress is there to make laws, but the context in which you said that implied that Congress is there to legislate morality and I wholeheartedly disagree with that. I don't know when the government decided that it had jurisdiction over people's personal lives, but I suspect it was 'round about the time of Roe v. Wade. If you morally agree with abortion and gay marriage, then have at it...legislating something like that is not in anybody's best interest.

I also disagree that religion is the only path to living a moral life. I consider myself a very moral and honest person without the "fear of God" being instilled in me.

First, I have absolutely no idea where that last statement came from. It wasn't me. You're arguing with somebody else there.

Congress or the state legislature has to legislate morality. Who else will do it? What do you think child molestation laws are? Laws against murder? They are legislation of morality. That just happens to be morality everybody agrees with.

I didn't mention anything about Roe v. Wade and I don't want to get into that debate. But just from a factual point of view, the reason many people have problems with Roe v. Wade is because it was not decided by the Congress but by the Supreme Court. And there is a philosophical difference of opinion as to when a fetus is a human being and gets the same rights as everybody else. I agree there are arguments on both sides of that issue. Maybe some day science will fully resolve it.

 

[Dexman1349]

I also disagree that religion is the only path to living a moral life. I consider myself a very moral and honest person without the "fear of God" being instilled in me.

I never said it was the only path. It is a path that I and several others have chosen to take. It also has nothing to do with "the fear of God" (for me anyways). The only thing I "fear" is some idiot hitting a 2 outer on the river at the poker tables to take my money.

Try not to overgeneralize people and create bias based on views held by a small percentage. It's like saying Mexicans prefer to eat beans and rice.

With a population the size of the US and with the amount of interconnections between heritages and faiths (and especially since the economy is global), the size of the "groups" are actually getting smaller.

 

[Dexman1349]

Wonderfully sounding philosophy, however I guarantee you do not live by it. Everybody has some point at which they want governmental intrusion on another person's individual rights. EVERYBODY. It is just at what point that is.

I do agree with this. The "live and let live" philosophy is a very idealistic one. The one big flaw in it is the "human factor." My morals largely match those of the people I surround myself with, however there will always be disagreements on some of the details (gay rights, abortion, death penalty, etc...). With such a large hodgepodge of people in the US, it is IMPOSSIBLE to dictate the morals to cover everyone at the federal level. This is where I agree with the basis of the republican ticket (but I'm not a republican): small federal government, let the smaller municipalities decide for themselves. Should there be a national abortion policy? hell no, it should be determined at the state/county/city levels which have a better idea of what their populations want. I can tell you right now that Boulder (liberal city to my northwest) and Colorado Springs (conservative city to the south) have a very large gap in their belief structure that even the state government has a hard time appeasing both. I can't imagine trying to create legislation to control Texas and California.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

First, I have absolutely no idea where that last statement came from. It wasn't me. You're arguing with somebody else there.
Congress or the state legislature has to legislate morality. Who else will do it? What do you think child molestation laws are? Laws against murder? They are legislation of morality. That just happens to be morality everybody agrees with.

I didn't mention anything about Roe v. Wade and I don't want to get into that debate. But just from a factual point of view, the reason many people have problems with Roe v. Wade is because it was not decided by the Congress but by the Supreme Court. And there is a philosophical difference of opinion as to when a fetus is a human being and gets the same rights as everybody else. I agree there are arguments on both sides of that issue. Maybe some day science will fully resolve it.

That statement wasn't directed at you...just a general vibe I have picked up in this thread.

I think it's interesting that the two examples you used of legislating morality, murder and molestation, are the two clearest examples of acts that infringe upon the rights of others. Those are also the biggest arguments I hear from statists when I talk about anarcho-capitalism ("if we lived in Anarchy, people would walk around raping and killing everybody!"). The way I see it is that murder is a clear violation of the right to life, and molestation would be a violation of the right to pursuit of happiness. So to answer your question, I believe those laws are to protect Constitutional rights, not moral issues. What is your feeling on gay marriage? I think that having laws banning it are a clear violation of the right to pursuit of happiness for some citizens, and the only basis given for such laws are moral and religious. I agree that Roe v. Wade is a tricky matter, but it remains that it is a moral choice that should not be legislated.

 

[benbo]

That statement wasn't directed at you...just a general vibe I have picked up in this thread.
I think it's interesting that the two examples you used of legislating morality, murder and molestation, are the two clearest examples of acts that infringe upon the rights of others. Those are also the biggest arguments I hear from statists when I talk about anarcho-capitalism ("if we lived in Anarchy, people would walk around raping and killing everybody!"). The way I see it is that murder is a clear violation of the right to life, and molestation would be a violation of the right to pursuit of happiness. So to answer your question, I believe those laws are to protect Constitutional rights, not moral issues. What is your feeling on gay marriage? I think that having laws banning it are a clear violation of the right to pursuit of happiness for some citizens, and the only basis given for such laws are moral and religious. I agree that Roe v. Wade is a tricky matter, but it remains that it is a moral choice that should not be legislated.

I have no problem with gay marriage. I don't believe it is a matter for the state. But i accept that the fact I don't think it is a matter for the state is just my opinion and not everyone shares it. I don't get to declare by fiat what is and is not suitable for discussion.

Who decides who is a child or who is an adult in your utopain free wheeling society? Who sets the age of consent? These laws are as arbitrary as any other law, and for some reason you have no problem accepting them. What if a 15 year old girl wants to marry a 50 year old man? How about 14? 13? 12? Isn't it against her "pursuit of happiness" as you put it, to not be able to do what she wants?

Sine you don't like the examples I cited, I'm assuming you are for allowing children to purchase alcohol at any age? Or can the capricious state set limits on who is a an adult or who is not based on something so arbitrary as the years on the planet.

As far as murder. As you are aware, there has been an evolving definition in this country as to who constitutes a person and who doesn't.

And I note you enjoy government intervention when it meets your own particular moral test. Me too. All I am saying is that this has to be hashed out by the system established in the Constiution and the State legislatures. During time, the people debate and decide what level of regulation they want. It might not be what you like, or it might not be what I like.