Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
there are many flavors of ice cream. it's still ice cream.
people may disagree about what is the best flavor or their favorite flavor.
but it's still ice cream.
what a peculiar notion that having more than one flavor (of anything) renders them "mutually exclusive" and "inadequate"
That's just another woo idea.
Let's begin by just taking American history. And let's focus in on mainstream christian religions and Mormonism. People died over the differences. People were literally banished over the differences. Missouri's Governor Lilburn Boggs ordered the Mormons expelled from the state, or “exterminated” (his word), if necessary. Joseph Smith and his brother were murdered by a mob while they were in jail in Carthage, Illinois due to their beliefs. And still today, if you ask a typical mainstream American christian what they think of Mormon beliefs, you're not likely to get a very receptive response. This, despite the fact that without a single exception, the Mormons I have met have been very nice, very moral people.
That kind of religious prejudice -- perhaps just not to that degree -- has been a common part of American history that still exists. Perhaps you missed antisemitism. Perhaps you missed christian churches who would fight against Buddhist temples moving into an area "because it might affect traffic". Perhaps you missed how long it took for a catholic to be elected president.
These struggles should not be compared to someone preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream.
I spent years trying reconcile catholicism and Buddhism. And there are some principles that are parallel, much -- especially belief versus non-belief about god -- is not reconcilable. There's another thread on this forum about what people think about reincarnation. I guess you haven't read that either.
I'm not about fairy tales. I'm about the reality of what is. And I'm not going to discuss silly things like flavors of ice cream.
the reality is, that science is not theology.
and remains an inadequate tool to address theology.
the reality also is that different ideas about anything, including science, do not render the various ideas "mutually exclusive" and "inadequate."
there exist different races and different cultures and different languages spoken. they are not "mutually exclusive." nor are they "inadequate."
they are just different. humans that may look different, speak different, and have different customs. but all humans.
a variety yes. "mutually exclusive and inadequate" no.
same with theology.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-19-2023 at 10:56 AM..
there are many flavors of ice cream. it's still ice cream.
people may disagree about what is the best flavor or their favorite flavor.
but it's still ice cream.
Yes we know about your inapt analogies. Ice cream, like theologies exist. That does not mean the different theologies are valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
what a peculiar notion that having more than one flavor (of anything) renders them "mutually exclusive" and "inadequate"
Yes, we understand you have difficulty understand the concept of "mutually exclusive". To you, a triangle and a square must have the same number of sides because they are both shapes.
the reality is, that science is not theology.
and remains an inadequate tool to address theology.
the reality also is that different ideas about anything, including science, do not render the various ideas "mutually exclusive" and "inadequate."
there exist different races and different cultures and different languages spoken. they are not "mutually exclusive." nor are they "inadequate."
they are just different. humans that may look different, speak different, and have different customs. but all humans.
a variety yes. "mutually exclusive and inadequate" no.
same with theology.
so differences between theologies are just different flavors of ice cream, but the differences between science and theology are chocolate cake versus sushi.
No more so than (sometimes very heatedly) clashing minds in the general scientific community.
Spot on
Why would we ever think that everyone should think alike in any field of inquiry - such as theology and philosophy. That we think differently an disagree and debate is strength not a weakness.
there are many flavors of ice cream. it's still ice cream.
people may disagree about what is the best flavor or their favorite flavor.
but it's still ice cream.
what a peculiar notion that having more than one flavor (of anything) renders them "mutually exclusive" and "inadequate"
I agree. Every person has his or her own path but ultimately the destination is the same. What resonates with me may not resonate with the next person. Ergo...choices. Just my belief.
Yes we know about your inapt analogies. Ice cream, like theologies exist. That does not mean the different theologies are valid.
Yes, we understand you have difficulty understand the concept of "mutually exclusive". To you, a triangle and a square must have the same number of sides because they are both shapes.
Did you mean "inept"?
By the way, your analogy doesn't fit...just saying. Different flavors of ice cream still being ice cream does not mean a square has the same number of sides as a triangle. Are they *both shapes*...yes.
Yes we know about your inapt analogies. Ice cream, like theologies exist. That does not mean the different theologies are valid.
Yes, we understand you have difficulty understand the concept of "mutually exclusive". To you, a triangle and a square must have the same number of sides because they are both shapes.
You are the one who is confused by the analogy, Harry. The sides of the figures (shapes) are equivalent to the flavors of ice cream.
By the way, your analogy doesn't fit...just saying. Different flavors of ice cream still being ice cream does not mean a square has the same number of sides as a triangle. Are they *both shapes*...yes.
No, I think he meant "inapt", as in not appropriate. Good word, not often used.
I for one am impressed with such mastery of a third language while I struggle with a late-life attempt at basic Spanish and French, with a bit of my ancestral Dutch thrown in for fun.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Different flavors of ice cream still being ice cream does not mean a square has the same number of sides as a triangle. Are they *both shapes*...yes.
