Reflections From a Murky Pond

All science is theology or, said in another way, theology is the only science, with each otherwise-named path of research merely being a sub-discipline of the greater course of study. The whole of we call the “sciences” is nothing more or less than Man’s attempt to discern the Divine’s will and how it was enacted upon Creation.

There’s no intrinsic conflict between between Science and Religion. Sir Isaac Newton, arguably the father of modern Western science knew that as did even the Muslim World’s Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham. The conflict between Science and Religion is a purely modern invention and a poor one at that.

Tags: Musing | Philosophy | Religion | Science | Theology

This entry was posted on Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 2:42 pm and is filed under Musings, Philosophy, Religion, Society. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Two closely linked flaws in Man’s character causes us, time and time again, great harm as we seek to apprehend the nature of the God(s) and Divine Will, these being our Vanity and our Hubris.

In giving in to these two faults so many raise themselves up above their rightful station in the order of all things and claim that they know the nature and will of the God(s).

This, as the 17th Century Puritan theologian, Dr. John Owen pointed out, is merely the making of a God or Gods out of our own limited thoughts as if one was carving one out wood or stone.

For the being of God; we are so far from a knowledge of it, so as to be able to instruct one another therein by words and expressions of it, as that to frame any conceptions in our mind, with such species and impressions of things as we receive the knowledge of all other things by, is to make an idol to ourselves, and so to worship a god of our own making, and not the God that made us. We may as well and as lawfully hew him out of wood or stone as form him a being in our minds, suited to our apprehensions. The utmost of the best of our thoughts of the being of God is, that we can have no thoughts of it. Our knowledge of a being is but low when it mounts no higher but only to know that we know it not.

— Dr. John Owen (1616-1683),
The Mortification of Sin

Better by far, I think, that Man cultivate a certain agnosticism born of proper humility and knowledge of our mean nature. Such a path, if followed with diligence and scrupulousness, seems to me far more likely to bring a man, and perhaps Man et al, to a higher estate both in this life and at the time of its unavoidable ending and judgment, than more certain and Prideful religious enterprises.

Tags: Agnosticism | Christianity | God | Hubris | Ignorance | John Owen | Knowledge | Mankind | Puritanism | Puritans | Religion | Theology | Vanity

This entry was posted on Sunday, June 19th, 2011 at 7:51 am and is filed under Religion. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

In America Baptists – especially Southern Baptists with their evangelical traditions – have gotten a bad name among many religions and even other sects of Christianity. While much of this dislike is well-deserved, the Baptists have had amongst their number some great and wise theologians and philosophers. Below are some words of wisdom from one of them:

There is a certain view of God and nature and man and the world in the background of our faith. But Christianity is a historical religion, and a religion of experience. It is grounded in facts. The Christian worldview rests upon these facts.

From the fact that other religions, including Judaism, have in them the idea of sacrifice and propitiation, it is concluded by some that it must be a false idea. Fundamentally this assumes that everything in the non-Christian religions must be wholly false. Is it not far more likely that a universal religious idea has in it an element of truth than that its universality is a mark of its falsity? Christianity purified and fulfilled all religious ideas of human beings, emptied them of their transient and superficial meanings, and revealed their true inward meaning. The atonement of Christ in a very special manner does this. In it God appears in Christ, not as a distant, implacable and angry being, requiring a satisfaction for sin which humans cannot supply. Jesus himself, as holy and loving and yearning to save humanity, provides the satisfaction.

— E.Y. Mullins
4th President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Obviously as a Pagan I have a theological difference of opinion with Rev. Dr. E.Y. Mullins’ assertion that “Christianity purified and fulfilled all religious ideas of human beings, emptied them of their transient and superficial meanings, and revealed their true inward meaning,” but his wisdom in knowing and saying aloud that universally held religious and moral concepts are more likely to be true than false and that things outside of the Christian faith are not inherently wrong just for being outside the Christian faith is profound.

Tags: Christianity | Ethics & Morality | Philosophy | Religion | Theology | Theosophy

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 26th, 2009 at 6:38 pm and is filed under Ethics & Morality, Religion. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

In the ongoing debate – some would say war – surrounding gay rights the two major contenders in America are the followers of the Abrahamic Religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) and the LGBT Community, with various other Conservatives and Liberal acting as adjuncts and proxies to these two groups for a plethora of often unrelated reasons.

The religious people are against our society both officially sanctioning and condoning – as oppose to tolerating – a lifestyle that is considered sinful by their faiths. They cite their holy books (the Bible, Qur’an and Torah respectively) regularly to explain their points.

From the Bible

Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

1 Corinthians 6:9 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind ”

From the Qur’an

Sura 7 (Al-A�raf) – “You lust after men instead of women. Truly, you are a degenerate people.”

Sura 26 (Ash-Shu�ara) – “Will you fornicate with males and leave your wives whom Allah has created for you? Surely you are great transgressors.”

From the Torah

Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is an abhorrence.”

Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death�their bloodguilt is upon them”

This repeated focus on specifically male homosexuality throughout the Abrahamic holy books brings an odd – and I’m sure offensive to some – question to my mind:

Is Lesbianism permissible under the tenets of the Abrahamic faiths?

I can easily, as shown above, find multiple passages in the Bible, Qu’ran and Torah that specifically condemn male homosexuality, but I can’t seem to find any verses, sura or pasuk that denounce homosexuality without any male-specific reference.

Would God smile or frown upon this?

If these holy books are the incontrovertible an incontestable word of God as many fundamentalists assert, where does that leave the adherents of these faiths when it comes to lesbians? If there is no specific stricture in verse, sura or pasuk that condemns lesbians, are these fundamentalists contravening the Word of their God by denouncing lesbians alongside male homosexuals?

As I said, it’s an odd question but I believe it to be an intriguing one for the fundamentalists to ponder.

Tags: Christianity | Islam | Judaism | Lesbians | LGBT | Religion | Scripture | Sex | Theology

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 18th, 2008 at 2:41 pm and is filed under Religion. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Euthyphro is one of the Greek philosopher Plato’s early dialogues, dated to around or soon after 399 BCE. In it the Greek philosopher Socrates and Euthyphro, a man known for being a theologian, attempt to arrive at an acceptable definition of piety.

One of the key points in the Euthyphro dialog is called the Euthyphro Dilemma:

Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?

For the followers of the Abrahamic Religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) this normally translates into – on the occasions when it is debated by the theologians – the question of whether something is commanded by their God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by their God.

Amongst polytheists – with the rare exception of myself – the question rarely arises do to our multiplicity of deities with possibly conflicting directives and our lack of requirement for- or belief in their omniscience or infallibility.

I can’t speak to whether or not the Sikhs have the Euthyphro Dilemma often or not. They’re monotheists, but their view of their God is vastly different from most other faiths.

In any case though, it’s an interesting debate. Is the God(s) the creator or legislator of morality, or is the God(s) the enforcer of a morality that originate from separately Divine will?

Tags: Ethics & Morality | Philosophy | Plato | Religion | Socrates | Theology | Theosophy

This entry was posted on Sunday, December 14th, 2008 at 4:42 pm and is filed under Ethics & Morality, Philosophy, Religion. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.