Science and religion unite??

[baldrick]

Two points to consider:

1) Religion (the Christian faith anyway) talks about people being selfish and tries to teach people to share things and to think of others.

2) In religion , all 'evil' things are dressed in black (witches, for example).


Now, in the scientific world, the colour black adsorbes all the colours (this could be seen as being selfish), where as the colour white (a 'heavenly' colour - angels) reflects the majority of the light (this could be seen as being kind, sharing the light with others)

It's just a quick thought, but a bit of sense :confused:

[The Mad Linguist]

No particular mystery. Humans are evolved as diurnal creatures. The day, under the light of the sun, is the time when we're in control. At night, we're seriously out of our element and easy prey for anything with big enough teeth and claws.

If bats ever get around to coming up with a religon, I'm sure darkness will be good and light bad.

[baldrick]

I got some friends like that, don't like the sun. It's starting to freak me out a bit. I hate the smell of garlic, anyone know where you can get a vampire-repellent spray :roll:

[Ladewig]

2) In religion , all 'evil' things are dressed in black (witches, for example).

Now, in the scientific world, the colour black adsorbes all the colours (this could be seen as being selfish), where as the colour white (a 'heavenly' colour - angels) reflects the majority of the light (this could be seen as being kind, sharing the light with others)


So, by your definition, Lucifer (the bringer of light) is not evil? And Catholic priests (dressed in black) are evil?

[Yahzi]

In Japan, white is the color of death. The idea of black as bad is not a cultural universal.

[The Mad Linguist]

Interesting, Yahzi... you learn something new every day....

[baldrick]

Originally posted by Ladewig



So, by your definition, Lucifer (the bringer of light) is not evil? And Catholic priests (dressed in black) are evil?

Good points. I was actually basing my theory on the Christian Religion, not the Catholic one. By the way, Who is Lucifer??

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by baldrick


Good points. I was actually basing my theory on the Christian Religion, not the Catholic one. By the way, Who is Lucifer??

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Balders, you won't get away with statements like that here. Catholicism is a sect of Christianity - one of the biggest if not THE biggest.

[baldrick]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist


Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Balders, you won't get away with statements like that here. Catholicism is a sect of Christianity - one of the biggest if not THE biggest.

OK, there are so many sects of Christianity. They all believe in the same God, so why can't they just unite into one church? Would be a lot simpilar:)

[Lord Emsworth]

[tongue a bit in cheek]They already have united into one church. Sort of.

All the 'Christians' who do not belong to that church are not real Christians.

Get the point?[/tongue a bit in cheek]

[baldrick]

I meant, like you've got the Cathloics and Christians. Technically, they both believe in Christ, so they're both Christians, but Cathloics have a reputation for being stricter, which must mean that the "rule-book" varies between Cathloics and Christians

[The Mad Linguist]

I think the word you're looking for is "Protestant", Baldrick. Christians who are not Catholics or Orthodox are Protestants.

And the Catholic Church is not necessarily stricter. It depends which Protestant sect you compare them. If you compare them to the Anglicans/Episcopalians then yes, they're stricter. If you compare them to the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Catholic Church suddenly doesn't seem as strict.

Edited to add: by saying "I meant, like you've got the Cathloics and Christians", you imply that Catholics are not Christians. There are several hundred million Catholics on the planet that might find that a bit presumptuous on your part.

[Ladewig]

Good points. I was actually basing my theory on the Christian Religion, not the Catholic one. By the way, Who is Lucifer??

Mmmmm. Could it be Satan?

Isaiah 14:12 is the only place in the Bible that mentions Lucifer. While most Christians consider this verse to be a reference to Satan, some consider it to be a reference to the King of Babylon. In this case, the difference is irrelevant because neither could be classified as "good" under any interpretation of Christian doctrine.

Your proposal does carry some weight, (Gen 9:13 the rainbow is a sign of God's promise), but there are enough exceptions (Ps 18:11 He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies) to discount the theory.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Isaiah 14:12 is the only place in the Bible that mentions Lucifer.

In the KJV its
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/isa014.htm#012) 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

I've just checkd my (German) Bible and there it already says 'Morgenstern' (morningstar) and not Lucifer.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Ladewig


Mmmmm. Could it be Satan?

Isaiah 14:12 is the only place in the Bible that mentions Lucifer.

Really? Fascinating. Then whence the legend of the revolt in heaven before creation, Lucifer duking it out with Michael and getting lobbed out of heaven for his troubles?

And does anyone know what the Hebrew is for Lucifer?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by baldrick
I meant, like you've got the Cathloics and Christians. Technically, they both believe in Christ, so they're both Christians, but Cathloics have a reputation for being stricter, which must mean that the "rule-book" varies between Cathloics and Christians
Both previous times I've met someone who considered Catholics not to be Christians, I was speaking with a Southern Baptist.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Both previous times I've met someone who considered Catholics not to be Christians, I was speaking with a Southern Baptist.

I met a god-botherer in my city centre who thought likewsie, not quite sure what he was but I'm supposing not Southern Baptist... he refused to specify beyond "Christian", so I supect the attitude is common amongst the born-again crowd.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist


Really? Fascinating. Then whence the legend of the revolt in heaven before creation, Lucifer duking it out with Michael and getting lobbed out of heaven for his troubles?

And does anyone know what the Hebrew is for Lucifer?

You might find this site interesting, which was spat out by a quick googling:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml

The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? To find the answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell?

The answer was a surprise. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."

Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King").

The scholars authorized by ... King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated ... largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and --- ironically --- the Prince of Darkness.

Edited to add one more link:
http://www.israelofgod.org/lucifer.htm

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth


http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml

http://www.israelofgod.org/lucifer.htm

Good links! The next question is, how did Jerome's mistranslation / others' misunderstanding of Jerome's translation get elaborated into the whole story of Lucifer's revolt, loyal angels under Michael fighting back, and so on? I'll research this one myself if I get a spare moment....

[Ladewig]

The morningstar translation in Isaiah seems to be a bit at odds with Rev. 22:16 (KJV) _"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." But in any case, the original point still stands. No matter what or whom Isaiah 14 is referring to, it is not support for the theory that "all goods things are represented by light and all evil things are represented by darkness."

[thinkren]

Originally posted by Yahzi
In Japan, white is the color of death. The idea of black as bad is not a cultural universal.

Two summers ago, I took a class on aesthetics where a guest lecture whos expertise was in japanese tea ceremonies spoke amusingly of just such a missunderstanding. She was attending the wedding banquet of an asian friend. For some reason, the caterer were not made aware of the cultural significance of white in asian cultures. The wedding guests, herself included, were horrified when all the tablecloths, napkings, and various other things were done up (from their perspective) as if preparing for a funeral. Red is the appropriate color for joyous events like weddings, but at the very least, pink would have been more appropriate than the white chosen by the caterer

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by baldrick
Two points to consider:

1) Religion (the Christian faith anyway) talks about people being selfish and tries to teach people to share things and to think of others.

2) In religion , all 'evil' things are dressed in black (witches, for example).


Now, in the scientific world, the colour black adsorbes all the colours (this could be seen as being selfish), where as the colour white (a 'heavenly' colour - angels) reflects the majority of the light (this could be seen as being kind, sharing the light with others)

It's just a quick thought, but a bit of sense :confused:

I think it is an edifying thought, one that I will have freely share with others. By absorbing your thought that makes me selfish, but by relfecting it to others that makes be angelic. Do I have that right?

:)

-Elliot

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by baldrick
Two points to consider:

1
2) In religion , all 'evil' things are dressed in black (witches, for example).





I guess, if you don't count priests..:rolleyes:

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Diogenes



I guess, if you don't count priests..:rolleyes:

Aren't child molesters evil?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
[tongue a bit in cheek]They already have united into one church. Sort of.

All the 'Christians' who do not belong to that church are not real Christians.

Get the point?[/tongue a bit in cheek]

AKA the 'Billiefan' Hypothesis