Exploring Holy Books: A Scientific Perspective

In summary, the conversation revolves around reading holy books for insight and entertainment. The participants have a variety of backgrounds and are exploring different religious texts, including the Bible, Qu'ran, and Upanishads. They discuss the relationship between these texts and the abrahamic religions, as well as the history and context behind certain practices and beliefs. There is also a mention of the importance of reading translations carefully, as cultural and societal norms may have changed since the original texts were written.
  • #36
CaptainQuasar said:
And although it isn't a scripture for any living religion
In the theme of religions that lost there is the "Poetic Edda" admitadley not as much sex and violence as the old testament.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
mgb_phys said:
In the theme of religions that lost there is the "Poetic Edda" admitadley not as much sex and violence as the old testament.

Yes! And the Finnish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalevala" [Broken]. Actually, I haven't read the Kalevala. If we were all going to read something together I'd definitely vote for that. It's more of a narrative than the Koran is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
CaptainQuasar said:
Not to mention human sacrifice. See Abraham and Isaac.

If Isaac was sacrificed as a young boy, how could Jews be the descendant of him?
 
  • #39
Greg Bernhardt said:
If Isaac was sacrificed as a young boy, how could Jews be the descendant of him?
Isaac was spared at the last moment because god said "heh, I was just joking".
 
  • #40
Greg Bernhardt said:
If Isaac was sacrificed as a young boy, how could Jews be the descendant of him?

Evo said:
Isaac was spared at the last moment because god said "heh, I was just joking".
So Jews descended from Isaac and Muslims from Ishmael, Isaac's older brother (according to the Muslim faith).

There may be some interfaith disagreement over whom Abraham intended to sacrifice, Isaac or Ishmael.

Muslim faith recognizes the holy books up to and including Koran, recognizes all prophets up to and including Mohammad ("God sent a prophet to every generation"), does believe in resurrection of Jesus, and AFAIK his promise to return (possibly except for Shiites, who believe that the prophesied messiah is their 12th imam).

According to the Muslim faith, each prophet taught God's word to his generation and they were all true religions, but men forgot or corrupted those teachings over time. Finally God said "enough is enough," and sent Koran as his "final word."
 
Last edited:
  • #41
I am finished with the Exodus of the Bible. This is a great book for reference of morals and Mosaic law and its counterpart the Napoleon code (or civil law).

Muslims believe Ishmael was the legit heir to Abraham's tribe because he was eldest but because he was born of a concubine sarogate mother Jews believe Isaac to be true heir because he was born of Abraham's wife. Of course Abraham had many wives and some he favored more than others.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
Greg Bernhardt said:
If Isaac was sacrificed as a young boy, how could Jews be the descendant of him?

It's not that Isaac himself was sacrificed, it's that this story is generally taken to mean that ancient Hebrews practiced human sacrifice, as did many early cultures.
 
  • #43
Greg Bernhardt said:
If Isaac was sacrificed as a young boy, how could Jews be the descendant of him?
God was playing an early game of "Yahweh says" - but didn't say "Yahweh says - sacrifice Isaac"
 
Last edited:
  • #44
One of the things I find so fascinating about reading this kind of stuff is how it permeates throughout our culture. Even if you don't believe it literally, you are constantly exposed to it. For instance, many famous movies and novels borrow from the religious and mythical stories all around the world. Even in computer games, there are a ton of references and parallels if you take the time to notice it. It's everywhere, and I believe it points to a deeper sense of meaning. It's hard to ignore something so timeless.
 
  • #45
mgb_phys said:
That was my point you need an annotation that says something like - "the original Hebrew word is X and it is also used in other documents from the same period to mean Y".
So does 'parthenos' mean hadn't had sex or just unmarried, or given the society would there be no difference between the two?
Simply translating into another language, especially one as subtle and changable as English isn't enough - however good the translation.


ps. Does the Qu'ran repeat the Torah/Old Testament books or does it just provide a link to them?

Sorry. When I wrote that last night I was tired and too terse. Parthenos doesn't really refer to sexual activity but rather to marital status, i,e, Mary was an unmarried woman. The implication, given the mores of the time, is that she was also virginal, but the problem with the story is the logical contradiction. She's Joseph's wife but is unmarried.

But, you make an excellent point about English. Many fundamentalists swear by the literal veracity of the King James Bible, yet it is well-known to have been edited by James who did not like words like "tyrant", "despot", etc. I typically use 4 or 5 different Bibles when I read so that I can see the different interpretations. If you want an exercise in futility, try figuring out what "spirit" means; I eventually just began using the much simpler Buddhist meaning of "breath".

The Qu'ran does not repeat the Torah. It apparently was assumed that most Muslims were familiar with that already. The Qu'ran provides commentary and correction to some practices of religion. I am not very familiar with the book, both because it is hard to follow and because I have frankly been afraid to go to the local Islamic Center to ask questions for fear I'll never again be allowed on an airplane or worse.
 
  • #46
Greg Bernhardt said:
If Isaac was sacrificed as a young boy, how could Jews be the descendant of him?

There are a number of possible answers which have been put forth:

The Torah was invented out of whole cloth during the Babylonian Exile as a tool for cohesiveness. Thus, nothing needs to be explained.

The story of Abraham is apocryphal. The Apostle Paul epoused this view.

Isaac was not sacrificed. Abraham's hand was stayed by an angel (or G-d) at the last minute.

It was Ishmael who was sacrificed.

Isaac was sacrificed, went somewhere for 3 days, and was resurrected. When you add to this the fact that Isaac carried the wood up the mountain for his sacrifice, you can see the parallel with the crucifixion of Christ. There is indeed a reference in the New Testament about events seen before they happened (a bad paraphrase but I can't find the verses just now).
 
  • #47
Evo said:
It would be fun to read the books together on here. I'm willing to buy the Quran, I have a bible and would be interested in reading the Torah as well. We'd all have to have the same versions though.

I'd be up for that.
 
  • #48
TVP45, I don't get the joke... Isaac was not sacrificed in the story told in the Bible. Are you confusing this with something else?
 
  • #49
CaptainQuasar said:
TVP45, I don't get the joke... Isaac was not sacrificed in the story told in the Bible. Are you confusing this with something else?

If you ever read many of my posts, you know I love bad puns and groaner jokes. This is serious.

I gave several explanations that are commonly put forth. My personal opinion is that the story is allegorical (I said apocryphal in the previous post and that was the wrong word).

But, if you read the 22nd chapter of Genesis, you will note that, prior to the event, the writer refers to "Abraham and Isaac", "they", and "the two". When it's all over, it says "Abraham went back..." This bothers many scholars and is usually just glossed over. Yet, clearly, Isaac shows up later as a grown man (or at least does if we take Genesis as chronological - it may not be)

Only the Christian churches view the Bible as the sole source. Jews and Muslims use commentaries and traditions and other revelations. Some of those traditions give a more detailed description of what happened to Isaac. Below is a link to a Penn course on the Midrash interpetations (this is just sort of typical - there are a ton of sites like this):
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/002/Midrash.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
EnumaElish said:
does believe in resurrection of Jesus

Actually, Islam denies that Jesus was crucified (Qur'an 4:157) and, therefore, Jesus never died and resurrected. Based on islamic tradition, someone else (i.e. a double) was used instead of Jesus.

The Qur'an also mention that Jesus was able to talk only a few hours/days after birth and that Marry was not married to Joseph.

Other interesting "holy" scripture, as someone mention are Apocryphon (i.e. the gospel that didn't make it in the bible). These writings are quite interesting and some of those gospels influence the Qur'an. For example, as a youth Jesus is a "demon" child and uses is "magical" power to play trick on people.

Other interesting "holy" scripture would be the gnostic writings since they do include Jesus and other Abrahamic religion into their believe
 
  • #51
TVP45 said:
but the problem with the story is the logical contradiction. She's Joseph's wife but is unmarried.

I remember something from school about betrothed meaning something like engaged - promised to but not actually married.

On a related point there is a passage something like "Apostle: Jesus your brothers and sisters are here to see you, Jesus: All who follow me are my brothers and sisters" Implying that Mary didn't remain a virgin for long.
Unfortunately I was taught RE by nuns who felt that theological discussion should be closely linked to corporal punishment so I never got a good answer about what the apostle meant by brothers and sisters, although I read explanations that it meant cousin or people from the same village.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
TVP45 said:
Isaac was sacrificed, went somewhere for 3 days, and was resurrected. When you add to this the fact that Isaac carried the wood up the mountain for his sacrifice,
Being tied to a tree for a few days and surviving to gain godlike superpowers isn't exactly original either.
 
  • #53
EnumaElish said:
So Jews descended from Isaac and Muslims from Ishmael, Isaac's older brother (according to the Muslim faith).

There may be some interfaith disagreement over whom Abraham intended to sacrifice, Isaac or Ishmael.
Interesting. Though, the possibility of having mixed up two brothers with similar sounding names in the retelling of a story is the least of inconsistencies that would bother me...that actually sounds highly plausible (anyone with siblings close in age to them will appreciate how frequently this could happen).


According to the Muslim faith, each prophet taught God's word to his generation and they were all true religions, but men forgot or corrupted those teachings over time. Finally God said "enough is enough," and sent Koran as his "final word."

Or at least until the next time God sends a prophet telling them that man has forgotten or corrupted Mohammed's teachings. It seems each of the holy books is written from this perspective, that God has gotten fed up with the misinterpretations of his instructions and sent someone down to explain them to the people. (I wonder when He'll figure out that he has to illustrate the instruction manuals with pictures if He wants man to follow them? :wink:)
 
  • #54
iansmith said:
...and that Marry was not married to Joseph.

The Christian Bible also never states that they were married. They were betrothed (in modern language, the equivalent of either an engagement, or an agreement for an arranged marriage). There's no mention of them ever getting married, nor any indication of whether they even lived together as husband and wife...as far as I've read, it's pretty open for interpretation.
 
  • #55
Moonbear said:
The Christian Bible also never states that they were married. They were betrothed (in modern language, the equivalent of either an engagement, or an agreement for an arranged marriage). There's no mention of them ever getting married, nor any indication of whether they even lived together as husband and wife...as far as I've read, it's pretty open for interpretation.

Matthew 1 is pretty clear that Joseph married Mary but waited until after the birth of Jesus to have sex.
 
  • #56
mgb_phys said:
I remember something from school about betrothed meaning something like engaged - promised to but not actually married.

On a related point there is a passage something like "Apostle: Jesus your brothers and sisters are here to see you, Jesus: All who follow me are my brothers and sisters" Implying that Mary didn't remain a virgin for long.
Unfortunately I was taught RE by nuns who felt that theological discussion should be closely linked to corporal punishment so I never got a good answer about what the apostle meant by brothers and sisters, although I read explanations that it meant cousin or people from the same village.

You're not alone. I got tossed out of a Baptist church for wondering whether Jesus ever showed any interest in women.
 
  • #57
From the Buddhist side - one should read the Dhammapada and the Tripitaka (Sanskrit)/Tiptaka (Pali), or Three Baskets.
 
  • #58
TVP45 said:
You're not alone. I got tossed out of a Baptist church for wondering whether Jesus ever showed any interest in women.
The nuns used to carry long wooden pointers with rubber tips, and not just for pointing at the blackboard. When one of them said that God can do anything, I raised my hand and asked if God could sin. (After all, that's what we being taught - a hierarchy of severity of sins that could get you damned to hell or lock you up in purgatory for a long time.) That nun was old and rotund, but she was lightning fast with that pointer. My poor knuckles. :cry:
 
  • #59
Moonbear said:
The Christian Bible also never states that they were married. They were betrothed (in modern language, the equivalent of either an engagement, or an agreement for an arranged marriage). There's no mention of them ever getting married, nor any indication of whether they even lived together as husband and wife...as far as I've read, it's pretty open for interpretation.

My bad, I should have been more specific. Just to add to the details, Joseph is not mentioned in the Qur'an.
 
  • #60
Greg Bernhardt said:
I don't adhere to any religion nor have I been conviced there is a God. However I have recently decided that in order to better understand human history and current world affairs it would be very benefical to read the major holy books. My GF is currently reading the Bible and I am about 100 pages into the Qur'an. I also picked up the Upanishads and would like to get a Torah. Now, finishing all these will likely take me a couple years (with the Qur'an I can only handle reading maybe 15 pages at a time!). Does anyone else read holy books for "fun"?
Given a goal of relating to current world affairs, I'd highly recommend digging into some of the early western cannon - some of those authors are fundamental to understanding how Christianity developed. These authors framed some of the famous ideas and even create some of the common language. (Milton's invention of Satan's revolt against God & the temptation of Jesus - mythology not in the bible). I'd start with Augustine's the 'City of God' and then 'On Christian Doctrine'. Augustine lived a fascinating life - born in N. Africa in the last days of the Roman empire and wrote in the context of Alarics's sack of Rome. Deep debates with Roman officials and the neo-Platonists of the time. I think you'll get more for your time if you closely couple the Biblical reading w/ Augustine. Example: On Christian Doctrine III Chap. 10 "...to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative...". Hope this helps.
 
  • #61
mheslep said:
Given a goal of relating to current world affairs, I'd highly recommend digging into some of the early western cannon - some of those authors are fundamental to understanding how Christianity developed. These authors framed some of the famous ideas and even create some of the common language. (Milton's invention of Satan's revolt against God & the temptation of Jesus - mythology not in the bible). I'd start with Augustine's the 'City of God' and then 'On Christian Doctrine'. Augustine lived a fascinating life - born in N. Africa in the last days of the Roman empire and wrote in the context of Alarics's sack of Rome. Deep debates with Roman officials and the neo-Platonists of the time. I think you'll get more for your time if you closely couple the Biblical reading w/ Augustine. Example: On Christian Doctrine III Chap. 10 "...to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative...". Hope this helps.
That would be more related to the New Testament, since Alaric sacked Rome in roughly 400 AD.

So do we discuss the Old Testament or the New Testament? Perhaps progressing through both chronologically would be best.
 
  • #62
Evo said:
Since I was raised Catholic, I had never read or owned a Bible. My youger daughter was given one, so I started reading it. It's frightening and interesting what was considered acceptable back then, I'm reading it as a form of history.

catholics aren't allowed to read the bible?
 
  • #63
iansmith said:
Actually, Islam denies that Jesus was crucified (Qur'an 4:157) and, therefore, Jesus never died and resurrected. Based on islamic tradition, someone else (i.e. a double) was used instead of Jesus.

The Qur'an also mention that Jesus was able to talk only a few hours/days after birth and that Marry was not married to Joseph.

Other interesting "holy" scripture, as someone mention are Apocryphon (i.e. the gospel that didn't make it in the bible). These writings are quite interesting and some of those gospels influence the Qur'an. For example, as a youth Jesus is a "demon" child and uses is "magical" power to play trick on people.

Other interesting "holy" scripture would be the gnostic writings since they do include Jesus and other Abrahamic religion into their believe

Moonbear said:
The Christian Bible also never states that they were married. They were betrothed (in modern language, the equivalent of either an engagement, or an agreement for an arranged marriage). There's no mention of them ever getting married, nor any indication of whether they even lived together as husband and wife...as far as I've read, it's pretty open for interpretation.

iansmith said:
My bad, I should have been more specific. Just to add to the details, Joseph is not mentioned in the Qur'an.
I am not a Koranic scholar by a very long shot. Muslims see Jesus as a holy human being. Although he is not god, he is a special prophet1 because he was the one before the last (Mohammad) and he promised to return. So he is the messiah.2 He is seen as having born a human child to a human mother from a human father (albeit through divine intervention).3 Muslims do refer to him as "our lord Jesus," whereby "lord" means "holy man" (similar to Mary[am] being venerated as "the Lady of the women of the world").

iansmith said:
Other interesting "holy" scripture, as someone mention are Apocryphon (i.e. the gospel that didn't make it in the bible). These writings are quite interesting and some of those gospels influence the Qur'an. For example, as a youth Jesus is a "demon" child and uses is "magical" power to play trick on people.
First time I've heard of these. Islamic tradition holds satan (shaitan) more as a desperate trickster than anti-God or "praxis of Evil" (pun intended) -- with subtle political connotations (Iran's notion of U.S. as the "great shaitan" [itex]\ne[/itex] Bush's notion of Iran as "pure evil"). I wonder whether these could be Christianity's version of "satanic verses."

Notes:
1Somewhat contradicting this, the Wiki page on Islam states: "A Muslim believes in all the Messengers and Prophets of God without any discrimination," a statement possibly based on [Qur'an 3:144] "Muhammad is but a messenger; messengers (the like of whom) have passed away before him." However, see below.
2"And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): therefore have no doubt about the (Hour), but follow ye Me: this is a Straight Way. — [Qur'an 43:61]," which seems to ascribe a special mission to Jesus that is not accorded to other prophets.
3See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryam_(sura)
 
Last edited:
  • #64
Benzoate said:
catholics aren't allowed to read the bible?

Not back in evo's day (get's coat and runs ...)
 
  • #65
TVP45 said:
Matthew 1 is pretty clear that Joseph married Mary

Ah, you're right. All the versions state he was her husband (quite interesting that it also makes it clear that he is NOT the father of Jesus, yet provides Joseph's geneology, not Mary's, thus we know nothing of Jesus' actual geneology from that accounting).

but waited until after the birth of Jesus to have sex.

This is not as clear. Only one version I read states it that way. Others phrase it to be the actual marriage, or living together, not necessarily relating it to having intercourse. It seems more that since they weren't yet married, but still engaged, at the time Mary found she was pregnant, and Joseph being convinced not to break it off entirely, they waited until after the baby was born to get married.
 
  • #66
Evo said:
That would be more related to the New Testament, since Alaric sacked Rome in roughly 400 AD.
410, Augustine began City of God in 413 in partially in response to those Romans who blamed Christianity for the fall. He writes on both old and new testament questions:
City of God:
Book XV: Genesis from the time of Cain/Abel to the flood
Book XVI: includes Abraham to the Kings of Israel.
Book XVII: includes Kings, Psalms, books of Solomon.
 
  • #67
Moonbear said:
Ah, you're right. All the versions state he was her husband (quite interesting that it also makes it clear that he is NOT the father of Jesus, yet provides Joseph's geneology, not Mary's, thus we know nothing of Jesus' actual geneology from that accounting).



This is not as clear. Only one version I read states it that way. Others phrase it to be the actual marriage, or living together, not necessarily relating it to having intercourse. It seems more that since they weren't yet married, but still engaged, at the time Mary found she was pregnant, and Joseph being convinced not to break it off entirely, they waited until after the baby was born to get married.

Yes, I take your point. The sex is not as clear. I'm going over to the Reform Temple in a week or so and will try to get the Rabbi to fill me in on Jewish marriage customs from that time.

BTW, I do have Mary's genealogy somewhere, courtesy of the LDS. If I recall correctly (a very shaky proposition), she was Joseph's second cousin, so it's pretty much similar.
 
Last edited:
  • #68
mheslep said:
Given a goal of relating to current world affairs, I'd highly recommend digging into some of the early western cannon - some of those authors are fundamental to understanding how Christianity developed.

Yeah, it's significant to note that many of the doctrines of Christianity don't derive from the Bible itself but come through tradition and interpretation by theologians like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo" [Broken] there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin" [Broken], an early Christian sect that did not accept the authority of the Church of Rome. This helped to set the tone for the way the Church responded to heresy and schism in the ensuing centuries and millenia.

Augustine is also a major factor in the conventional Christian view that sexuality is sinful. His chief interlocutor at the time, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius" [Broken], basically responded “Right, whatever. I'll have sex with my wife whenever I want.” (This was before priests were required to be abstinent.) But Pelagius was branded a heretic, so much for that. (Though oddly enough, of the modern sects I'm familiar with modern Catholicism probably takes the most Pelagian view of sexuality.)

Another interesting example of extra-scriptural doctrine is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity" [Broken] doctrine unblinkingly accept wholly Roman doctrines like the Trinity or the selection of which scriptures are in the Bible as the Word of God and which aren't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #69
Moonbear said:
Ah, you're right. All the versions state he was her husband (quite interesting that it also makes it clear that he is NOT the father of Jesus, yet provides Joseph's geneology, not Mary's, thus we know nothing of Jesus' actual geneology from that accounting).



This is not as clear. Only one version I read states it that way. Others phrase it to be the actual marriage, or living together, not necessarily relating it to having intercourse. It seems more that since they weren't yet married, but still engaged, at the time Mary found she was pregnant, and Joseph being convinced not to break it off entirely, they waited until after the baby was born to get married.

To follow up on your point, I read through a number of translations while watching George Stephanopoulos do his spin show this a.m. I had never really seen this through your perspective before.

Essentially, the gospel of Matthew was aimed at a Jewish audience and presents the couple as married and mentions sex. The gospel of Luke was aimed at Gentiles and has the couple engaged and doesn't mention sex. Both gospels are believed by many to be derivatives of Mark's gospel, yet Mark makes no mention of this at all.

I suspect there was a lot of spin in these gospels as well??
 
  • #70
CaptainQuasar said:
...which is kind of interesting given Augustine's involvement in the eradication of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatists" [Broken], an early Christian sect that did not accept the authority of the Church of Rome. This helped to set the tone for the way the Church responded to heresy and schism in the ensuing centuries and millenia.
I'm aware that Augustine wrote actively against the Donatists and eventually asked Rome to cut off their funds. I don't know that he went further than that. Do you have a source?
Edit: I'll go further and say the attachment of Augustine to the later purges of the Catholic church is somewhat backwards. Its more credible that the lingering contributions of the Donatists were responsible for that. The Donatists had a very exclusive view of the church: only a select group should be allowed in; the church should expel those who didn't meet a standard; and only 'undefiled' clergymen could run the show (i.e. Matthew the tax collector need not apply).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<h2>1. What is the purpose of exploring holy books from a scientific perspective?</h2><p>The purpose of exploring holy books from a scientific perspective is to gain a deeper understanding of the beliefs, teachings, and historical context of these sacred texts. By applying scientific methods and critical thinking, we can analyze the content and origins of these books and how they have shaped various cultures and societies.</p><h2>2. How does science play a role in the interpretation of holy books?</h2><p>Science can provide a framework for analyzing and interpreting the content of holy books. By using scientific methods such as textual analysis, historical research, and comparative studies, we can gain a more objective understanding of the meaning and significance of these texts.</p><h2>3. Can science and religion coexist when studying holy books?</h2><p>Yes, science and religion can coexist when studying holy books. While science may provide a different perspective on the origins and content of these texts, it does not necessarily contradict or invalidate the religious beliefs and interpretations of these books. Both can work together to provide a more comprehensive understanding.</p><h2>4. How does exploring holy books from a scientific perspective benefit society?</h2><p>Exploring holy books from a scientific perspective can benefit society by promoting critical thinking, cultural understanding, and tolerance. It can also provide a platform for open and respectful discussions about religious beliefs and practices, leading to greater acceptance and harmony among different communities.</p><h2>5. Are there any limitations to exploring holy books from a scientific perspective?</h2><p>Yes, there are limitations to exploring holy books from a scientific perspective. While science can provide valuable insights, it may not be able to fully capture the spiritual and metaphysical aspects of these texts. Additionally, some religious beliefs and practices may not be easily explained or understood through scientific methods.</p>

1. What is the purpose of exploring holy books from a scientific perspective?

The purpose of exploring holy books from a scientific perspective is to gain a deeper understanding of the beliefs, teachings, and historical context of these sacred texts. By applying scientific methods and critical thinking, we can analyze the content and origins of these books and how they have shaped various cultures and societies.

2. How does science play a role in the interpretation of holy books?

Science can provide a framework for analyzing and interpreting the content of holy books. By using scientific methods such as textual analysis, historical research, and comparative studies, we can gain a more objective understanding of the meaning and significance of these texts.

3. Can science and religion coexist when studying holy books?

Yes, science and religion can coexist when studying holy books. While science may provide a different perspective on the origins and content of these texts, it does not necessarily contradict or invalidate the religious beliefs and interpretations of these books. Both can work together to provide a more comprehensive understanding.

4. How does exploring holy books from a scientific perspective benefit society?

Exploring holy books from a scientific perspective can benefit society by promoting critical thinking, cultural understanding, and tolerance. It can also provide a platform for open and respectful discussions about religious beliefs and practices, leading to greater acceptance and harmony among different communities.

5. Are there any limitations to exploring holy books from a scientific perspective?

Yes, there are limitations to exploring holy books from a scientific perspective. While science can provide valuable insights, it may not be able to fully capture the spiritual and metaphysical aspects of these texts. Additionally, some religious beliefs and practices may not be easily explained or understood through scientific methods.

Similar threads

  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
27
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
11K
Replies
26
Views
17K
Back
Top