Onward, Christian Scientists...

[Peter Frazier]

I wish that we had Science Fairs in Australia. Especially Creation Science Fairs.
The winning topics at the Fellowship Baptist Creation Science Fair 2001 (Yeah- it's a bit old):
"My Uncle Is A Man Named Steve (Not A Monkey)"
"Pine Cones Are Complicated"
"God Made Kitty"
"The Bible Says Creation"
"Pokemon Prove Evolutionism Is False"
"Life Doesn't Come From Non-Life"
"Women Were Designed For Homemaking" (My personal favourite- 'Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker'.) I hope his Mum had some input into this toopic.
"Mousetrap Reduced To Pile Of Functionless Parts"
"Dinosaur & Man Walked Together"
"Rocks Can't Evolve, Where Did They Come From Mr. Darwin?"
"Using Prayer To Microevolve Latent Antibiotic Resistance In Bacteria"
"Maximal Packing Of Rodentia Kinds: A Feasibility Study"
"Geocentrism: Politically Incorrect"
"Young Earth, Old Lies"
"Thermodynamics Of Hell Fire"

Cute stuff.

[Angie Gallant]

The site (http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html) that came from is a hoax. Like Landover Baptist, only playing it slightly more straight. Just look at their kids section or their cafe press shop.

[Peter Frazier]

Awwww, don't tell me that. I was getting impressed by their methodology. :wink:
Spoilsport.
And I'll blame my daughter for distracting me long enough to make me forget about adding a link.

[Robert Sharp]

There are actually some decent creation scientists out there. Their work is just largely ignored because of the views that prevail today. Also, you'd be surprised how many scientists would call themselves Christians despite doing work that is clearly not compatible with the Bible. I guess they just omit those parts when they reading the Good Book :).

[Tom Chick]

Also, you'd be surprised how many scientists would call themselves Christians despite doing work that is clearly not compatible with the Bible. I guess they just omit those parts when they reading the Good Book .

I wouldn't be surprised at all. There is no science that is incompatible with the Bible unless you regard it as an Inerrant Factual Document and Historical Chronicle.

But there are many Christians whose faith doesn't rely on doing this sort of violence to what is easily the greatest literary work of Western Civilization. Some people, believe it or not, understand that Jonah being swallowed by a whale was a metaphor.

-Tom

[Tyjenks]

Some people, believe it or not, understand that Jonah being swallowed by a whale was a metaphor.

-Tom

What?!?!?! Next you will tell me that Moses did not order a sea to split in two and then march his fellow Dead heads across searching for the Promise Land where all the weed is free and legal.

[cyborg]

I wish I still lived next to the mormons - they were entertaining.

[Rywill]

There is no science that is incompatible with the Bible unless you regard it as an Inerrant Factual Document and Historical Chronicle.
Which would be terrific except that the book itself and most people who believe in it present it as exactly that. Maybe this is one of those triple-bluff metaphors the Bible is so well known for, though.

[Tom Chick]

Which would be terrific except that the book itself and most people who believe in it present it as exactly that.

Does it? And do they? The answers are 'no' and 'no'.

Biblical inerrancy means many different things to many different people. The sort of theological doctrine that says that if a man can't be swallowed by a whale then Christ can't be risen from the dead is an element of certain Fundamentalism sects of Protestantism. Most Christian faith will not crumble under the threat of metaphors, particularly when some of the most important messages in the Gospels are delived as such: Jesus' parables.

And it's certainly not anything interally supported in the Chrisitan Bible or the Jewish Tanakh.

-Tom

[Cleve Blakemore]

The only people more fanatical and mindless than those who argue the literalness of every word in the Bible are the hardcore secular nuts who preach it's tinest flaws or translation ambiguities as proof of it's errancy. They're both wrong.

The Bible is the literal word of God. Did God really halt the Sun in the air for Joshua so he could proceed in the interim? Since we are talking about God, is it really necessary to argue ridiculous gibberish like the gravitational rotation of the Earth and how all the matter would violently torque around destroying all the continents, doesn't it suffice to say that for Joshua, the Sun stopped in it's path?

I think people who contend over things like this will be thrown into hell along with the secular, they are all fools given to idolatry of one form or another. None of them really understand what the important questions are or care to ask them.

[Robert Sharp]

Also, you'd be surprised how many scientists would call themselves Christians despite doing work that is clearly not compatible with the Bible. I guess they just omit those parts when they reading the Good Book .

I wouldn't be surprised at all. There is no science that is incompatible with the Bible unless you regard it as an Inerrant Factual Document and Historical Chronicle.


-Tom

Come on, Tom...this is just wrong, or perhaps just a bit too extreme. Do you really believe that the Bible will just accomodate any belief someone has about the world? That's the kind of dangerous thinking that leads to relativist Protestantism. People think they can believe whatever they want about God because the Bible means different things to different people.

I agree with you to an extent...the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, in the sense of history. However, it CLEARLY makes claims about certain things and there is science out there that disputes some of these claims. In the Bible, there's spontaneous creation, there's fire coming out of heaven, there are people being brought back from the dead. Certainly, all of this can be taken as pure metaphor, but the question is really whether or not it SHOULD be. Do you think the people who wrote the Bible didn't believe any of it was true, except in a metaphorical sense? Do you think they would say...oh, you believe in evolution..well, that fits with what we are saying...just translate each of the seven days of creation into millenia or whatever you need to do to make our book fit with your theories.

Of course, the advantage of science is that it isn't trying to explain why things happen (in a metaphysical sense). So it doesn't directly overlap with what the Bible is trying to do. The Bible certainly is not trying to make scientific claims, nor does it care about the claims science DOES make (or had made). But science still suggests that people can't walk on water or produce bread and wine from thin air, etc. So unless you think the Bible is in NO way meant to represent actual events, I am not sure I can accept your claim.

Perhaps your point is just that science doesn't need the Bible any more than the Bible needs science? So, there is no conflict?

[Robert Sharp]

Just to illustrate what I mean about the basic difference between science and religion (since we might be talking about different issues), I want to point out the key difference. Science only accepts things based on empirical evidence...that's a key part of science. Faith in God is not based on empirical evidence...if it were, it wouldn't be faith. Now, we could go through all the crap about how we have to have faith in our senses in order to believe empirical evidence, but that isn't the point. The point is that we cannot sense God. We can't do experiments to prove He exists. We can't use reason to prove this either. Scientists CLAIM not to believe in things that can't be proven scientifically, but they let that go when it comes to God. Why? Probably because the two fields have nothing to do with one another. Faith in God is an independent issue. That MAY be what you mean, Tom, when you say you don't see a conflict between the two. However, I find it odd that a person who dedicates his life to experiential data would drop that requirement in the case of religion. It may not be a logical problem, per se, but it certainly seems to be an idealogical problem (an inconsistency). These same scientists would likely laugh at me if I try to talk to them about morality....because it can't be "proven" scientifically.

Obviously, I am not talking about all scientists here, but you have probably met the type of scientist I AM talking about.

[bmulligan]

"The" bible is a misnomer. There is no such thing as the one all powerfull document. Every religious sect has carefully chosen, translated and omitted various texts from their bibles because they don't correspond to their religious dogma.

[Tyjenks]

There is no such thing as the one all powerfull document. Every religious sect has carefully chosen, translated and omitted various texts from their bibles because they don't correspond to their religious dogma.

You're shitting me!

[Peter Frazier]

Gosh, I just thought the article was funny.
I forgot that Tom has a theological background and would go into Torquemada mode when it appears that faith is derided.
As for scientists being Christians, the game-theorist from the same site explains why they have made that choice. http://objective.jesussave.us/gametheory.html down the bottom.

[Tom Chick]

However, I find it odd that a person who dedicates his life to experiential data would drop that requirement in the case of religion. It may not be a logical problem, per se, but it certainly seems to be an idealogical problem (an inconsistency).

It's not odd to me, and I certainly don't see it as an inconsistency. I'm assuming you're not religious? Because I think anyone with religious conviction understands that it comes from a very different place than the things you learn from empirical data.

For instance, the creation myth in Genesis -- and I don't use myth in any sense to mean 'false' or 'untrue' -- isn't necessarily incompatible with evolution. They're both different ways of talking. And even when they overlap in terms of subject matter, they don't have to be contradictory. Is William Blake's description of a sunset any less 'true' than a meteorologist's description? Absolutely not.

BTW, a central tenet of nearly any religion, and in particular Western traditions beginning with Judaism, is that God has intervened; he has broken into the normal rules of history and science and whatnot to deliver a message. It doesn't necessarily follow that these interventions have to follow the rules as we know them.

-Tom

[bmulligan]

bmulligan wrote:
There is no such thing as the one all powerfull document. Every religious sect has carefully chosen, translated and omitted various texts from their bibles because they don't correspond to their religious dogma.


You're shitting me!

Yeah, I'm trying to get a rise out of Blakemore since he seems to think theres some sort of golden holy seal on the king james. Jeesh, thanks for ruining the moment.

[Cleve Blakemore]

bmulligan wrote:
There is no such thing as the one all powerfull document. Every religious sect has carefully chosen, translated and omitted various texts from their bibles because they don't correspond to their religious dogma.


You're shitting me!

Yeah, I'm trying to get a rise out of Blakemore since he seems to think theres some sort of golden holy seal on the king james. Jeesh, thanks for ruining the moment.

It's all in perspective at the Judgement throne. Every civilization in decline has always evolved a theory of secular atomism in which an individual is accountable to nothing but himself, God either does not exist or else is so harmless he cannot threaten the individual who is idealized as a kind of mini-God in his own right. It was true in the last days of Rome when religion devolved to nothing but secular observance and it is true now of postmodern 2oth century culture, which like Seinfeld is basically a culture about nothing - nihilism.

Understanding the passing, transient nature of these superficial viewpoints, don't you fear some ultimate reality that might transcend all of this rubbish? It's the beginning of wisdom if you do.

[Gary Whitta]

http://www.c-zone.net/berner/angeldog.jpg

[bmulligan]

Understanding the passing, transient nature of these superficial viewpoints, don't you fear some ultimate reality that might transcend all of this rubbish? It's the beginning of wisdom if you do.

No, Cleve, I don't believe in the ultimate reality. I live in it. A perfect interdimentional existence has no appeal to me, except in fantasy fiction. The wonder and miracle of creation is all around me, not in a floating platonic sphere of ether, apart from what is real.

It still boggles my mind that you of all people, with your enormous intellect have been halved by the dichotomy of religion. Most of the genius minds I've met who do believe in a creator, have very different thoughts of god than a personal one who forced mens' hands to preserve his words, and enact vengence upon those who do not keep them.

[Jason McCullough]

You know, if the Holy Writ was delivered to earth etched in a meteor, I think there'd be a point to arguing that it should be taken literally.

But after 2000 years of church politics, selective book choice, translation, and whatnot? It's like being a little pregnant.

[TimElhajj]

Just to illustrate what I mean about the basic difference between science and religion

Wait until Jeff Lackey gets here. He's a God fearing scientist and he is just gonna kick your butt when he hears this stuff you're saying, Robert. :)

Don't hurt him Jeff!

[bmulligan]

So, what about etched in stone tablets by the actual hand of god? Would you believe it then?

[Rywill]

Which would be terrific except that the book itself and most people who believe in it present it as exactly that.

Does it? And do they? The answers are 'no' and 'no'.
You're technically correct in that the book doesn't say "And by the way, none of this is a metaphor," but I think anyone--particularly you--would understand that the people who wrote it, and the people who read it as it was written, and the people who assembled it into the Bible, all took the position that it was literally true. In fact, IIRC, some bishop caused quite a temptest in like 1850 when he said he thought the Great Flood might not be literally true. The Church's position--certainly the Catholic Church's position--has been that the Bible is literally true, or at least it was when I was growing up. And when I grew up in places like Illinois, Kansas, and Texas, I can tell you that lots of folks there thought it was, or at least was supposed to be, literally true. All the stuff that couldn't possibly happen is just explained as having happened through the power of God--that's the whole point of a miracle, after all. So yeah, someone really gets swallowed by a great fish, Jesus walks on the Sea of Galilee, the sun stops, etc etc etc. Science contradicts Genesis? That's not because Genesis is a metaphor; it's because God made it that way, maybe to test your faith, or maybe just because the Lord does things we don't understand a lot of the time.

I'm sure there are lots of folks, particularly on the coasts, who are religious and have faith but think the Bible is really supposed to be more metaphorical, so they can "believe" in the Bible, in a way, while still believing in science and taking rational positions about history. I'm certainly not going to judge something like that, although it's not the way I feel about things. But to take the position that that's the way the Bible was intended is, I think, mistaken (although I guess nobody knows for sure).

[Met_K]

God created numerous versions of himself and assigned the other versions to certain groups of people - tailored and based on their needs.

That's why we have people in this world fighting for invisible all-power deities in the sky - because God didn't include error-checking and thus, upon a fatal error, the nearly-identical versions kept going as opposed to having a supernatural Dr. Watson shut their ass down.

[Cleve Blakemore]

Understanding the passing, transient nature of these superficial viewpoints, don't you fear some ultimate reality that might transcend all of this rubbish? It's the beginning of wisdom if you do.

No, Cleve, I don't believe in the ultimate reality. I live in it. A perfect interdimentional existence has no appeal to me, except in fantasy fiction. The wonder and miracle of creation is all around me, not in a floating platonic sphere of ether, apart from what is real.

It still boggles my mind that you of all people, with your enormous intellect have been halved by the dichotomy of religion. Most of the genius minds I've met who do believe in a creator, have very different thoughts of god than a personal one who forced mens' hands to preserve his words, and enact vengence upon those who do not keep them.

What is really funny to contemplate is that I was an avowed atheist for about 16 years and others always seemed to be shocked at me proffering the same viewpoints that are fashionable today. (Of course, my arguments were far better)

Recognize that your trendy secular viewpoint is about 80% media echo, 18% marginal clique gone mainstream and 2% your own intellectual processing, albeit feeble in the extreme. I have little doubt that 16 years ago you would have been the one feigning shock and revulsion when I offered many of your same arguments in a social setting. Truth is, you're a largely plantlike organism that receives ideas from popular culture in much the same way that plants get sunlight and CO2 from their surroundings.

It is my genius that enables me to see that the universe may in fact not be run by Gloria Steinem and Abbie Hoffman as a Bolshevist democratik venture based on a God with cornrows and a crackpipe ... that in fact the supreme being may be a thousand times more complex than you could possibly comprehend.

Humans are animals biologically. They need limits. (like the Ten Commandments) They also need consequences. (Judgement) I don't know about "life lessons" or any of that New Age crap. The cosmos may not be a soft padded dojo where you can slap the mat when it is over and cry for a second chance. God in his generosity extends you infinite forgiveness through Christ ... if you're not even smart enough to seek it out, he may just trash you like discarded rubbish when it is over and unworthy of renewal. That might lead you to seek redress against this perceived "injustice" with the ACLU or another bunch of lawyers, of which there will be no shortage in hell. It just may not do you any good.

The universe might not be the secular indulgent consumer playpen you imagine it to be at all. It might be a very harsh place, a kind of obstacle course where you don't just fall off the monkeybars, you fall off the monkeybars onto spikes and get impaled for all eternity. Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, fear leads you to seek an escape from his obligations under the commandments, you escape these through Christ's death and resurrection.

You probably don't see how the era and culture in which you live color everything you think about yourself and the world around you. Shirley MacClaine won't be able to help you in the lake of fire. Nothing will.

[Cleve Blakemore]

God created numerous versions of himself and assigned the other versions to certain groups of people - tailored and based on their needs.

That's why we have people in this world fighting for invisible all-power deities in the sky - because God didn't include error-checking and thus, upon a fatal error, the nearly-identical versions kept going as opposed to having a supernatural Dr. Watson shut their ass down.

This guy, for example, actually has reserved seating in hell. They've got a nametag for him sitting on a chair with 3 inch nails sticking out of it.

[Tom Chick]

You're technically correct in that the book doesn't say "And by the way, none of this is a metaphor," but I think anyone--particularly you--would understand that the people who wrote it, and the people who read it as it was written, and the people who assembled it into the Bible, all took the position that it was literally true.

I hope this doesn't sound like I'm splitting hairs, because I think this is really important. But 'literally true' means different things to different people in different contexts. The creation myth in Genesis -- which had been assembled from various myths predating it -- was an effort to explain the origin of the universe from a very specific cultural context. It is not a scientific explanation and was never intended as such, because when it was fashioned, there was no such thing as a scientific explanation. Is it therefore untrue? By a scientiest's standards, sure. But that's a pretty poor gauge for religion.

I come back to my sunset analogy. A poet and a meteorologist would have a very different explanation of a sunset. But neither of them is wrong.

Take the Book of Revelations, for instance, which is one big huge dream sequence. Is it 'literally true'? Are angels going to literally empty bowls of blood over the earth? If not, is the Book of Revelations then 'false'? Of course not. It's a prophesy (which is not, mind you, a prediction -- it is instead a warning of something that can be averted). It's a dream. It was clearly written as a metaphor and anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't understand it.

Same with the Song of Solomon, which is an erotic psalm, and some of the prophets, which are sort of legendary tales or morality stories. The Book of Job is a complex, messy, sometimes contradictory short story. Ecclesiastes is weird existential meditation that defies a lot of Christian theology. They're poetry, literature, spiritual struggles that don't hinge in the least on whether a whale can ingest a man.

I think that many religious people are comfortable with these kind of nuances in a way that non-religious people like us don't understand. The Bible is a phenonemal work and if you try to evaluate it like you would a scientific journal, you're missing the point. That goes for Fundamentalists and atheists.

-Tom

[Peter Frazier]

By saying "non-religious people like us" are you saying that your work in theology was just a dilletante effort or have you jumped ship?
I'm speaking from the atheist camp here (and Cleve, right beside my seat in Hell is one marked 'Cleve'. My punishment for not believing will be to sit next to you for eternity whilst you work on Grimoire, play with your Hermy puppet and flex your biceps.) so I must admit that still I don't get how scientists can be Christians.
By acknowledging that there is a supreme power aren't you totally wrecking the frame of reference by which the universe and scientific method runs?
Saying that the bible is a metaphorical romp seems disingenuous. That line of reasoning works for the poet but not for the meteorologist in your example. The poet can adapt and distort what the meteorologist says to make a comfortable fit with what he believes is proper. The same can't be said for the meteorologist.
Likewise it is easy enough for people to mould the bible to accomodate scientific discoveries but it isn't easy for science to distort itself to accept religion. Or so I think. I'm still waiting for a Christian scientist to set me straight on this. I know I'm wading into deep water by voicing an opinion here so I think I better shut up now.

[Anders Hallin]

I like the position that the Swedish Arch-Bishop has on Christianity: the important part is faith in the message of Jesus. The resurrection, Genesis, Revelations and all that other stuff might be real, might not be, it's not really that important.
Also, I read Genesis as meaning that while Adam and Eve were created as the first of what would become the Jewish line with Abram, they were not the first, only humans.
And if you count the creation of the world as the first time humans became aware of actually being in the world, then that date for creation isn't quite as far off.

Oh, and I find religion deplorable, stop believing, you feeble-minded sheep.
;)

[cyborg]

Most people are far too dumb to be able to live with science and religion - give em one or the other and they'll plump for the ease one.

[Chris Nahr]

I'm speaking from the atheist camp here (and Cleve, right beside my seat in Hell is one marked 'Cleve'. My punishment for not believing will be to sit next to you for eternity whilst you work on Grimoire, play with your Hermy puppet and flex your biceps.)

If that prospect won't make you repent your sins nothing will!


By acknowledging that there is a supreme power aren't you totally wrecking the frame of reference by which the universe and scientific method runs?

Standing in for Jeff Lackey: no, it doesn't. The two spheres are easily reconciled by assuming that God has created a universe with natural laws that are there for us to discover. In the process we may marvel at the wonders of creation and fulfil the Biblic command to subdue Earth.

That's a very old dispute; the earliest church fathers were generally against science and pagan (= Greek) philosophy but the middle ages (notably Thomas Aquinas), having rediscovered Aristotle, declared that natural science was a devout occupation since it's the examination of the divine creation. That was the commonly accepted way of thinking by the time of the Enlightenment. Miracles are easily integrated into this view by assuming that God, having created the laws of nature, can also suspend them at will.

(And I wrote that previous paragraph without actually looking up my notes and books so please excuse errors in detail.)

[Rywill]

I hope this doesn't sound like I'm splitting hairs, because I think this is really important. But 'literally true' means different things to different people in different contexts. The creation myth in Genesis -- which had been assembled from various myths predating it -- was an effort to explain the origin of the universe from a very specific cultural context. It is not a scientific explanation and was never intended as such, because when it was fashioned, there was no such thing as a scientific explanation. Is it therefore untrue? By a scientiest's standards, sure. But that's a pretty poor gauge for religion.

Okay, I have a much better understanding of what you're saying. Still, though, the Bible makes various factual statements, which are actually (and, for some of them, verifiably) true or false. For example, a poet might say "The sun set like a blood-red coin" or whatever (you can see why I'm not a poet :) ), and that's a statement of opinion and a similie, so it's not really true or false. OTOH, a poet might say "The sun set over a period of two years." Maybe that's what you would call "metaphorically true," because the sun seemed to take a long time to set; but it's actually (let's say "scientifically," for convenience) false, because a sunset takes less than an hour.

It's my belief, and I think it's well-supported by the evidence, that the ancient believers in the Bible and many current American believers in the Bible, particularly in the midwest, believe that the Bible is not just metaphorically true, but also scientifically true. In other words, that Genesis isn't just a metaphorical examination of the spiritual side of how the universe started, it's also a historically accurate recording of the first seven days of the universe. All this stuff about it being a metaphor, and about a "day" just being an expression for "a period of time distinct from other periods of time," is a later invention used by intelligent people to shield the Bible, and their faith, from its incompatibility with the development of science.

Why do they feel uncomfortable just saying "The Bible is wrong on that point, but it's still a good story that gives me something and helps me think about life and its meaning"? I don't know. I'm guessing it's because then the whole divine inspiration behind the Bible is shaken--you wouldn't expect God to be wrong about something like the creation of the universe, so you're left with either A) there is no God and it's a bunch of hooey; or at best B) the folks who wrote and assembled the Bible weren't in touch with God, so their words can't be trusted as coming from God, and it's a bunch of hooey. Either option is probably uncomfortable for people whose faith and religion is based on the idea of the Bible being God's word, rather than just a helpful set of ethics and spiritual ruminations.

I personally don't totally understand that. I mean, the Foundation series is also a bunch of hooey, in the sense that none of that stuff ever happened, but it was still a good series of books that made me think about life and its meaning. Same with LOTR, Atlas Shrugged, The Prophet, and probably half a dozen other books. They don't have to be literally true to be meaningful (which is I guess pretty much what you're saying). So I don't know why people get so tied into the idea of the Bible being literally true.

[Robert Sharp]

However, I find it odd that a person who dedicates his life to experiential data would drop that requirement in the case of religion. It may not be a logical problem, per se, but it certainly seems to be an idealogical problem (an inconsistency).

It's not odd to me, and I certainly don't see it as an inconsistency. I'm assuming you're not religious? Because I think anyone with religious conviction understands that it comes from a very different place than the things you learn from empirical data.

I thought I said that. I said that there is no logical inconsistency because they are two different approaches. They aren't incompatible...I just think they are incommensurable, which is basically what you are saying. They are completely different ways of looking at the world. And yes, for the record I am not religious, but I used to be. I do understand faith. I just don't have it anymore. I think the problem is that many scientists require scientific proof of everything except God. But they won't throw out the idea of God, even though scientific theory has made such an idea largely superfluous. It seems to be a sign that they are just following tradition when it comes to God, or perhaps just using God to explain all the things they can't yet. I'm not trying to be like Frazer here...I don't think religion is just bad science. I'm saying that I don't see why scientists would need it anymore.



For instance, the creation myth in Genesis -- and I don't use myth in any sense to mean 'false' or 'untrue' -- isn't necessarily incompatible with evolution. They're both different ways of talking. And even when they overlap in terms of subject matter, they don't have to be contradictory. Is William Blake's description of a sunset any less 'true' than a meteorologist's description? Absolutely not.

-Tom

Right...but the danger is if you take EVERYTHING in the Bible to be just metaphor. Then the whole book becomes empty and meaningless. Did God really create everything out of nothing? Since science says that is impossible, should we consider that to be a metaphor? If so, what is it's referrent? If it really just means the Big Bang happened, and then evolution, etc. where is the place for God in all that? did He just start it, as deists suggest? That seems to be completely against the spirit of Christianity (and even Judaism, to a lesser extent). If He did create something from nothing, that contradicts science. You can say that because He is God He can do that...ok, but it still contradicts science. If God can do that, then that's fine, but it would only prove my point that the two views can conflict at times.

I like the Blake reference btw, though I am not a huge fan of the Romantics (anymore).

[Robert Sharp]

Most people are far too dumb to be able to live with science and religion - give em one or the other and they'll plump for the ease one.

And which one is that? You think living without God is easy? If so, you haven't seriously tried it.

It's far more comforting to believe there is purpose behind everything...something bigger than you...something that cares about you. I don't mean to suggest that is the only reason people are religious. Being religious isn't necessarily a weakness in a person (though it CAN be..many people are religious by default rather than thinking it through. I admire those who actually think about their religious views, even if I disagree with their conclusions). However, it is an easier life in many ways.

Then there are people like Cleve who THINK they are religious but say things that show that they have no clue what that would actually mean. Cleve's extreme arrogance is the surest sign of misguided atheism.

[FlamingSheep]

"Pokemon Prove Evolutionism Is False"


I can't be the only one who's curious about this.

[Jason McCullough]

So, what about etched in stone tablets by the actual hand of god? Would you believe it then?

I don't believe any of them, but even if you do postulate that the original source was the untainted word of god, it's probably so far from the original by now that it's a moot point.


I think that many religious people are comfortable with these kind of nuances in a way that non-religious people like us don't understand.

Maybe there's a bunch of religous people you know who use this kind of nuanced thinking, but nearly everyone I knew back in Texas thought it was all literal fact - not a metaphor at all. Fundamentalism is the strongest US religion out there now.

The "culturally-specific explanation" thing is at least plausible, though.

[bmulligan]

Cleve's extreme arrogance is the surest sign of misguided atheism.

But Cleve is not atheist. He believes in the Christ. I can't understand is why anyone must have to sacrifice their own lives to be'saved'. To profess one's own unworthiness in order to become thre recipient of mercy. Mercy being enearned forgiveness.


It's far more comforting to believe there is purpose behind everything...something bigger than you...something that cares about you.

Why is this more comforting? Why does it matter if someone cares about me? The premise that most (western) religion is based on is that you are nothing. You are undeserving, unclean, immoral, and insignificant. You must immolate yourself to become something that is impossible to achieve.

The other pillar is the denial of this world as the 'true' world, only a bastardization of the 'real' universe where everything is perfect. (thank you Plato) When one accepts that this world is not 'real' he can believe anything his leaders tell him.

And Cleve, your ramblings of my athiestic belief system is a result of mass media and popular thought is the most sophomoric response I've read so far from you.

I'm curious to know what your epiphany was like, what visions you saw, or what drugs you took that changed you into a believer. [/i]

[antlers]

I believe in the literal truth of The Iliad. Prove me wrong.

[Anders Hallin]

I believe in the literal truth of The Iliad. Prove me wrong.
The Greek gods aren't mentioned in the Bible.

(edited because I commented on the Odyssey at first)

[Tyjenks]

So, what about etched in stone tablets by the actual hand of god? Would you believe it then?

I don't believe any of them, but even if you do postulate that the original source was the untainted word of god, it's probably so far from the original by now that it's a moot point.


I think that many religious people are comfortable with these kind of nuances in a way that non-religious people like us don't understand.

Maybe there's a bunch of religous people you know who use this kind of nuanced thinking, but nearly everyone I knew back in Texas thought it was all literal fact - not a metaphor at all. Fundamentalism is the strongest US religion out there now.

The "culturally-specific explanation" thing is at least plausible, though.

I agree on both these points, Jason. The Southern Baptists here in Alabama believe that every word written or transcribed and interpreted throughout the ages was directly guided by the hand of God. There are also fundamental branches of Methodist, Presbyterian, Church of God, Church of Christ, and on and on who believe much the same.

I do not know what enlightened State (or state of mind) that Mr. Kleve Mulligan lives in, but it ain't one I have ever heard of or seen.

[TimElhajj]

I don't believe any of them, but even if you do postulate that the original source was the untainted word of god, it's probably so far from the original by now that it's a moot point.

Because clearly God is not going to have as much success as, say, J K Rowling at retaining editorial integrity of her books over the years. :)

[cyborg]

I believe in the literal truth of The Iliad. Prove me wrong.

Believing in that book would just be nuts. :roll:

[Kalle]

It's far more comforting to believe there is purpose behind everything...something bigger than you...something that cares about you.

Why is this more comforting? Why does it matter if someone cares about me?

Are you familiar with the concept of love at all?

[Tom Chick]

Thread...derailing...watch for...smooth spot...to jump off...

To answer Peter's question, I don't consider myself a religious person and wasn't raised in any particular tradition, but I have the utmost respect for people who are. I think religion is beautiful -- particularly Christianity because I'm most familiar with it and particularly the Bible because that's what I've studied -- and I have contempt for people who sneer at it without making any effort to understand it. It's easy to throw up things like the Crusades and the Inquisition and Jerry Falwell in an attempt to dismiss religion.


Right...but the danger is if you take EVERYTHING in the Bible to be just metaphor.

Of course. There are degrees.

But the people who insist, as a theological principle, that every word is Literally True are on the fringe. Most theology uses language about divine inspiration, Word of God, and even inerrancy, which doesn't mean the woman's teeth in Song of Solomon were literally a flock of sheep.

But no matter your theologly, there is no disputing that the Bible is filled with metaphor. The dispute is what things are metaphor. Most Christians would be comfortable acknowledging metaphor if you're not attacking them with it, using metaphor as a code word for 'false'. Which is what these disucssion are often about.

I think the common ground among Chrisitans is that they take literally the concept of the Resurrection. Then you work backwards from there. Many Christians, for instance, are perfectly comfortable discussing miracles as exceptional happenings that didn't violate the laws of physics. The parting of the Red Sea was a low tide, Jesus' healings were psychosomatic, the feeding of the masses and the water-to-wine were just clever provisioning, and so forth. For some liberal strains of Christianity, it's even permissible to regard the Resurrection as a metaphor.

-Tom

[Dirt]

"To answer Peter's question, I don't consider myself a religious person and wasn't raised in any particular tradition, but I have the utmost respect for people who are. I think religion is beautiful -- particularly Christianity because I'm most familiar with it and particularly the Bible because that's what I've studied -- and I have contempt for people who sneer at it without making any effort to understand it. It's easy to throw up things like the Crusades and the Inquisition and Jerry Falwell in an attempt to dismiss religion."

I sneer at it because I grew up Confucianist and understand that the most and find that to be the most beautiful. Wait minute, no I don't; actually, I think Confucianism needs a new revival. Then again, I feel the same way about Catholicism. Anyways...

Religion: Whatever gives your life meaning, your mind peaceful and your existence happy.

[Robert Sharp]

Thread...derailing...watch for...smooth spot...to jump off...

To answer Peter's question, I don't consider myself a religious person and wasn't raised in any particular tradition, but I have the utmost respect for people who are. I think religion is beautiful -- particularly Christianity because I'm most familiar with it and particularly the Bible because that's what I've studied -- and I have contempt for people who sneer at it without making any effort to understand it. It's easy to throw up things like the Crusades and the Inquisition and Jerry Falwell in an attempt to dismiss religion.


Right...but the danger is if you take EVERYTHING in the Bible to be just metaphor.

Of course. There are degrees.

But the people who insist, as a theological principle, that every word is Literally True are on the fringe. Most theology uses language about divine inspiration, Word of God, and even inerrancy, which doesn't mean the woman's teeth in Song of Solomon were literally a flock of sheep.

But no matter your theologly, there is no disputing that the Bible is filled with metaphor. The dispute is what things are metaphor. Most Christians would be comfortable acknowledging metaphor if you're not attacking them with it, using metaphor as a code word for 'false'. Which is what these disucssion are often about.

I think the common ground among Chrisitans is that they take literally the concept of the Resurrection. Then you work backwards from there. Many Christians, for instance, are perfectly comfortable discussing miracles as exceptional happenings that didn't violate the laws of physics. The parting of the Red Sea was a low tide, Jesus' healings were psychosomatic, the feeding of the masses and the water-to-wine were just clever provisioning, and so forth. For some liberal strains of Christianity, it's even permissible to regard the Resurrection as a metaphor.

-Tom

I agree with ALL of that. I guess I should have been more generous with your first comments when I interpreted them. Actually, I guess I don't agree with the very last part. I acknowledge that Christians DO try to rationalize events in the Bible. I deny that they should though. If you take the parting of the Red Sea as just a low tide, you lose everything that makes the Bible important.

[Robert Sharp]

Cleve's extreme arrogance is the surest sign of misguided atheism.

But Cleve is not atheist. He believes in the Christ. I can't understand is why anyone must have to sacrifice their own lives to be'saved'. To profess one's own unworthiness in order to become thre recipient of mercy. Mercy being enearned forgiveness.




Ummm...yes I know. That was my point. Cleve claims to be a Christian but doesn't actually follow any of its tenets. I am saying he is an atheist. Just saying you are a Christian doesn't make it so. Do you really think sociopaths that kill in the name of Christ are Christians? Do you really think the KKK are Christians? Of course they SAY they are.

As for the rest of the statement, read the Bible. If you think humility isn't a Christian virtue, then I am not sure what to say to convince you otherwise.

[Dirt]

I would think that once you begin to see much of what is in the Bible to be metaphor you are moving it out of historical reality and into the realms of myth and legend.

[Jason McCullough]

But the people who insist, as a theological principle, that every word is Literally True are on the fringe.

The fringe of what? Respectability, maybe, but there's a ton of them, and they're incredibly noisy.

[Skies]

So does this mean the Book of Mormon is the Bible's sequel?

[Peter Frazier]

Standing in for Jeff Lackey: no, it doesn't. The two spheres are easily reconciled by assuming that God has created a universe with natural laws that are there for us to discover. In the process we may marvel at the wonders of creation and fulfil the Biblic command to subdue Earth.



So everything in the universe follows scientific rules right up until God decides otherwise? Neat footwork but I can't help but feel that each devout scientist has a little tightly-wrapped box in the back of their mind that holds a scream for scientific reasoning.

I see where Tom is coming from with his reasoning but the strange thing is that I see it as a decadent posture to take. When you start to question interpretations and provide grey areas so that people can make compromises you end up losing the intensity of the message. A genteel, fluffy, lets-all-play-nicely religion is going to be a nice one to live by but not a very good one to die for.
Most zealots/fundamentalists would prefer a religion that doesn't pussyfoot around with poetic metaphor, wouldn't they?

[Cleve Blakemore]

Most people are far too dumb to be able to live with science and religion - give em one or the other and they'll plump for the ease one.

And which one is that? You think living without God is easy? If so, you haven't seriously tried it.

It's far more comforting to believe there is purpose behind everything...something bigger than you...something that cares about you. I don't mean to suggest that is the only reason people are religious. Being religious isn't necessarily a weakness in a person (though it CAN be..many people are religious by default rather than thinking it through. I admire those who actually think about their religious views, even if I disagree with their conclusions). However, it is an easier life in many ways.

Then there are people like Cleve who THINK they are religious but say things that show that they have no clue what that would actually mean. Cleve's extreme arrogance is the surest sign of misguided atheism.

I'm not "religious" at all ... whatever that means. I go out of my way to avoid organized religion altogether. Why would I want a one-way ticket to hell? The modern church is utterly captured by Luciferian doctrine and is basically a front for bizarre marxist ideas with almost no reference in the Bible itself.

You be "religious" or "spiritual", Sharp, whatever you think that is supposed to be. I fear God, keep his commandments and seek repentance through Christ's forgiveness. I've got no idea what it is you think you believe, but I can tell you it isn't in the least biblical.

[Cleve Blakemore]

Cleve's extreme arrogance is the surest sign of misguided atheism.

But Cleve is not atheist. He believes in the Christ. I can't understand is why anyone must have to sacrifice their own lives to be'saved'. To profess one's own unworthiness in order to become thre recipient of mercy. Mercy being enearned forgiveness.




Ummm...yes I know. That was my point. Cleve claims to be a Christian but doesn't actually follow any of its tenets. I am saying he is an atheist. Just saying you are a Christian doesn't make it so. Do you really think sociopaths that kill in the name of Christ are Christians? Do you really think the KKK are Christians? Of course they SAY they are.

As for the rest of the statement, read the Bible. If you think humility isn't a Christian virtue, then I am not sure what to say to convince you otherwise.

I don't follow any of it's tenets? I've got the 10 commandments in front of me right now. Are you sure these "tenets" come from the Bible, or like most modern people is your "Christianity" a whacky, wild combination of Bolshevist revolutionary pamphlets and old episodes of Gilligan's Island? "Oh, yes, the Bible, well certainly that has it's place somewhat, I may even get around to reading it one of these days, who knows it may be in accord with my church doctrine."

[cyborg]

So does this mean the Book of Mormon is the Bible's sequel?

Yes, and it's coming to you in technicolor this fall featuring Jesus kicking ass on the big screen in ways the Matrix can only dream of - the plot makes no sense but hay! - a lot of people will make money from it.

[Robert Sharp]

Most people are far too dumb to be able to live with science and religion - give em one or the other and they'll plump for the ease one.

And which one is that? You think living without God is easy? If so, you haven't seriously tried it.

It's far more comforting to believe there is purpose behind everything...something bigger than you...something that cares about you. I don't mean to suggest that is the only reason people are religious. Being religious isn't necessarily a weakness in a person (though it CAN be..many people are religious by default rather than thinking it through. I admire those who actually think about their religious views, even if I disagree with their conclusions). However, it is an easier life in many ways.

Then there are people like Cleve who THINK they are religious but say things that show that they have no clue what that would actually mean. Cleve's extreme arrogance is the surest sign of misguided atheism.

I'm not "religious" at all ... whatever that means. I go out of my way to avoid organized religion altogether. Why would I want a one-way ticket to hell? The modern church is utterly captured by Luciferian doctrine and is basically a front for bizarre marxist ideas with almost no reference in the Bible itself.

You be "religious" or "spiritual", Sharp, whatever you think that is supposed to be. I fear God, keep his commandments and seek repentance through Christ's forgiveness. I've got no idea what it is you think you believe, but I can tell you it isn't in the least biblical.

Actually, I respect that view more than the one I thought you were suggesting Cleve. I have already said that I am not religious. I gave up on religion long before I gave up believing in God...and for reasons not unlike your own. If you had read any of my posts, you would see that I never claimed to be "biblical". So you aren't giving me any news. I view the Bible as a great tool for providing morality to those who are unable to discover morality for themselves.

[Robert Sharp]

And for the record, Cleve. I HAVE read the Bible. If you think there is room for your particular kind of arrogance within its doctrines, I think you should re-read it. You seem to idolize yourself more than God. But maybe you are just taking the commandment about not coveting your neighbors to extremes :).

[Brian Koontz]

I see where Tom is coming from with his reasoning but the strange thing is that I see it as a decadent posture to take. When you start to question interpretations and provide grey areas so that people can make compromises you end up losing the intensity of the message. A genteel, fluffy, lets-all-play-nicely religion is going to be a nice one to live by but not a very good one to die for.
Most zealots/fundamentalists would prefer a religion that doesn't pussyfoot around with poetic metaphor, wouldn't they?

*Ding Ding Ding* We have a winner!

The transfer of the bible from real to metaphor is a symptom of Christianity's decay. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Tyjenks]

Cafeteria Christian: Hmm, I'll have this and this, but I don't think I like that, but I can go along with this over here and that one is right out.

[bmulligan]

Cafeteria Christian: Hmm, I'll have this and this, but I don't think I like that, but I can go along with this over here and that one is right out.

Why not ? The bible was compiled in exactly the same way.

[Cleve Blakemore]

I see where Tom is coming from with his reasoning but the strange thing is that I see it as a decadent posture to take. When you start to question interpretations and provide grey areas so that people can make compromises you end up losing the intensity of the message. A genteel, fluffy, lets-all-play-nicely religion is going to be a nice one to live by but not a very good one to die for.
Most zealots/fundamentalists would prefer a religion that doesn't pussyfoot around with poetic metaphor, wouldn't they?

*Ding Ding Ding* We have a winner!

The transfer of the bible from real to metaphor is a symptom of Christianity's decay. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ditto.

"Christianity" as organized religion is so dead the carcass stinks like rotten fish. The shiny-nosed losers who are drawn to it's weird, incredibly evil satanic doctrines deserve their fate in the lake of fire.

As for Christ, he's as alive as he ever was and I'm not talking about a metaphor. Jesus was the living word of God, died for human sins and was resurrected on the third day. It's no metaphor.

[Cleve Blakemore]

And for the record, Cleve. I HAVE read the Bible. If you think there is room for your particular kind of arrogance within its doctrines, I think you should re-read it. You seem to idolize yourself more than God. But maybe you are just taking the commandment about not coveting your neighbors to extremes :).

"Arrogance." You mean like asserting you're full of crap. Woe onto those who posit sweet for bitter and bitter for sweet. Do you have sufficient imagination to see your views in context, in terms of the big picture of human history?

Quote scripture and verse to me. Are you confusing the Bible with the Communist Manifesto or maybe some Oprah show you saw at some point? You're a little vague. Are people saved by works or by grace? Do you know?

So far, we've established that you have no idea of what you're talking about. You're vague ... obscure ... you're the lukewarm that Christ spits from his mouth, neither hot nor cold. Do you plan on producing your PC credentials at the Judgement? "But ... God! Cleve was arrogant and antisocial and stuff! I'm a good person, conformist in every sense of the word! I believed in multiculturalism and did my utmost to construct a new Tower of Babel! Don't my works qualify me for admission into heaven! I don't understand how antisocial types like Cleve can be admitted into the Christian clique! Can we take a vote on this?"

Here's the story, Robert. I keep the commandments of God. Period. I repent my sins and my transgressions again the law and receive forgiveness through Christ. I'm not one of the elect in the Book of Life because of my deeds, but because I humble myself before God. Do you think Christianity means humbling yourself before men?

Let God be true and every man a liar.

You are all going to burn together. Food for the fire.

[Jeff Green]

http://jewishbazaar.com/BAZAAR/IMG/CJ903.JPG

[Brad Grenz]

So does this mean the Book of Mormon is the Bible's sequel?

Sort of. It's "another testement of Jesus Christ" in that it is an account of the people living in the Americas prior to, concurrent with, and following the life of Jesus. In the Book of Mormon after Jesus is resurrected he visits the faithful living in America. Unlike the Bible it is supposed to be a perfect translation of the records kept by the leaders of these tribes. You can think of it like the Quran in that it builds on the foundation Judeo-Christian religion, keeping the Old and New Testements as important scriptures, buyt recognizing faults, like that the Song of Solomon isn't a sacred text.

[Jason McCullough]

Cleve as a literalist christian is just too funny for words.

[Tom Chick]

I agree. I'm wondering if it calls for dog pictures. At any rate, here's where I get off the thread...

-Tom, jumping

[Gary Whitta]

http://www.maytai15.com/angelic_dog.gif

[quatoria]

I agree. I'm wondering if it calls for dog pictures. At any rate, here's where I get off the thread...

-Tom, jumping

Or, you know, someone could finally do the vaguely sensible thing, and get rid of the prick before he derails even more threads with this new brand of insanity. That might make too much sense, though, I suppose.

[Robert Sharp]

It is my genius that enables me to see that the universe may in fact not be run by Gloria Steinem and Abbie Hoffman as a Bolshevist democratik venture based on a God with cornrows and a crackpipe ... that in fact the supreme being may be a thousand times more complex than you could possibly comprehend.


Read this, Cleve. You wrote it. I am not saying you are arrogant because you don't agree with me. I disagree with LOTS of people on this board, and I don't call them arrogant. I am saying you are arrogant because you think you are better than just about everyone else in the world. You even assume that you know me based on a few posts on a message board. You assume that I don't know the difference between works and grace, between Catholicism and Protestantism. You assume that I have been brainwashed by Oprah and Marx. WHY do you assume all this? Apparently because you are a genius who can read people from a few quotes on the internet. Apparently you think you are the ONLY person who can overcome socialization; you are the only person who reads books anymore and has any comprehension of what they mean. You believe that the fact that everyone disagrees with you is a further sign of your superiority, rather than stopping and asking yourself if you MIGHT be wrong. I could quote you all day to prove you are arrogant, but what's the point? You don't read what anyone else writes anyway, and I doubt you would reread yourself any more closely.

I even admitted that I agreed with you on some points, but you glossed right over it. If I don't agree with you on EVERY point, I must be an idiot, as far as you are concerned. That's fine...I actually thought we could have an interesting debate, but once again you resorted to name calling and your typical anti-American propaganda, which assumes that every American is a die-hard liberal, incapable of individual thought. If you don't see how much of what you write is arrogance, then you have no chance of following those commandments you claim to obey. If you want to prove to me that you are NOT arrogant, that's fine. I am willing to LISTEN to your reasons. But belittling me is a bad way to start.

[Rywill]

Let it go, Robert. He's just yanking your chain to get a rise out of you.

[Tom Chick]

Hey Robert, you have a barbed hook-shaped thing jutting from your lip. You might want to look into that. :)

-Tom

[Cleve Blakemore]

Let it go, Robert. He's just yanking your chain to get a rise out of you.

People will perform the intellectual equivalent of Twister to avoid thinking at any costs. The best way to get people to think is to irritate them to an enormous degree and prod them about their own faults, which are no more numerous than mine except that they don't understand what theirs are and I do.

The Christian Church over the past two generations has essentially become Libertarian Party Headquarters for Satan. You are not going to change people's conceptions about Christianity with a reasonable, patient discussion of its merits. Anything short of an offensive frontal assault on their fragile illusions is not going to have any effect on the bovine mind of the average man.

Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. If you'll look at these diseased Luciferians in the church nowadays, you'll see a bunch of people who do not fear God, most do not even believe he exists as anything other than a consumer convenience in the form of a metaphor. That's a brain pretty far gone and anybody who tries to argue the simple merits of original Christian practice is wasting their time, you need the equivalent of depleted uranium shells to penetrate that dense cerebral armor.

[Skies]

Good one, Cyborg,

Actually, Brad I knew that. I was just tossing that in with regards to the "Divine Inspiration" argument some folks were espousing. The Mormons believe the book to be as inspired as the Bible was by golden tablets handed to Joseph Smith, by the angel Moroni from God herself. Who's to say it's not?

(I really shouldn't have said that cause I'm going to get jumped.)

I do believe one can hold the seeming cotradictions of God and science and not be at odds with ones self. Science is a more exacting quest for God. With faith, that quest doesn't matter.

[MathGoddess]

Many mathematicians were also theologians - believing that mathematics was the language God used to create the universe - some interesting history there... and Pascal decided to go off & become a monk.

My folks are ministers - and in seminary they had to learn Greek to read the New Testament - and there are some neat Bibles that have 4 different translations on one page - so I personally have difficulty with the "literal" word of God analogy.

And Tom - there's many, many, many people who believe the Bible is the literal truth. Look at the success of the Left Behind series. We read the first one in a book club when I was still working - I asked one woman if she believed Revelations was literal - and she said "Absolutely" - she truly believes that everything listed in Revlations will come to pass - and this is a college professor.

As for the books left out of the Bible (for those of you who're unfamiliar) - they're called the Apocrypha (including such chapters as "Bel and the Dragon")

[cyborg]

Christian Scientists are biased if they are good Christians and hences bad scientists.
Pleanty of important science has been done by non Christians.

Inevitably the facts merely exist - how one chooses to interpret them is wide open to error.

Attempting to rationalize a non-scietific book is like trying to map a globe on a flat surface - it's always going to be distorted somehow.

In the end more important than anything is that Christians are someday going to have to wake up and realise half the denomonations condemn each other to hell - you can't even win the game by renoucing your false religion. That would be too easy. You have a belidering array of people who have ideas about the Bible that vary wildly.

How rational a choice is Christianity as a route to salvation given that info?

[Chris Nahr]

Christian Scientists are biased if they are good Christians and hences bad scientists.

What an idiotic statement. You haven't really understood anything of the preceding discussion, have you?

[cyborg]

What an idiotic statement. You haven't really understood anything of the preceding discussion, have you?

OMG I STOOPID, ME GO WORSHIP GOD NOW.

If you remove all parts of belief realting to anything vaugely scientific in order to maintain a completely unbaised approach you are going to be a bad Christian to someone - and frankly there are a lot of people who would see it as so. I fail to see what above contradicts that - people are just supporting the point by banging on about various interpretations - which just increases the arbitary nature of Christianity and frankly makes it more irrelevant each time.
There are just tons of examples of people who have fudged things or just completely ignored things because they didn't like what they infered for one reason or another. Pretending that Christianity isn't going to do that given the prevelent beliefs of the major denomonations is just silly.

I would have less of a problem if you Christians could actually decide on some common frikkin' ground - there are even some which claim they don't believe in God FFS!

[John Merva]

My grandmother taught at MIT and was also one of the scientists that worked on the atom bomb (just to give her credentials) yet she was an extremely devout Christian. The reason she gave for that was that the more that she saw that she could explain, the more she realised there was that she couldn't.

[cyborg]

Without qualifying 'Christian' that doesn't say anything - merely that she has an unspecified set of beliefs that are of the superset 'Christianity'.

It is easy to see, for example, that if she had one Christian perspective she may not have worked on the bomb at all for ethical reasons. Another she may have considered it playing god. Yet another it would have been her duty in order to defeat those waring with a Christian country.

Note however that none of this says anything about her skill - bad science doesn't have to be unskillful - just biased. Newton is considered the father of physics - yet his calculations for momentum included the notion that it was given by God - as he believed all things were directly controlled by him and without his will nothing would 'go'. In doing so he produced a forumla which did not relate to observable physics. Does that make Newton an idiot? Nope - but it does make that bad science.

[John Merva]

Without qualifying 'Christian' that doesn't say anything - merely that she has an unspecified set of beliefs that are of the superset 'Christianity'.

It is easy to see, for example, that if she had one Christian perspective she may not have worked on the bomb at all for ethical reasons. Another she may have considered it playing god. Yet another it would have been her duty in order to defeat those waring with a Christian country.

Note however that none of this says anything about her skill - bad science doesn't have to be unskillful - just biased. Newton is considered the father of physics - yet his calculations for momentum included the notion that it was given by God - as he believed all things were directly controlled by him and without his will nothing would 'go'. In doing so he produced a forumla which did not relate to observable physics. Does that make Newton an idiot? Nope - but it does make that bad science.

Apologies, she is Roman Catholic. The bomb isn't the only thing she worked on, she also holds a patent for an AC/DC converter and was on the team that produced the first electric car. Point taken about Newton, I offered her merely as an example of a Christian scientist and her reasons for her faith.

[Skies]

I still can't see why this is an either/ or issue. Science is based on being skeptical about the phenomenon of the Universe. Religion, and I use that word in the broadest sense, accepts the phenomenon of the Universe as "that’s the way it is", on Faith.

As a scientist, one can explain many things about the workings of the Universe. The things I can't explain still exist and have to take their working on Faith, because they still work.

John Keel wrote a very interesting notion back in the 70's. Basically, it states, that God, in accordance with the Bible, is everywhere, every when, omniscent, and omnipresent. This is a given. In physics, there are particles called tachyons that only exist for mere nanoseconds (if that long). It is postulated that these particles travel faster than the speed of light and as we all know our Einstein, particles traveling that fast exist everywhere, every when. Now endow these particles with intelligence and what can you have....

It's just an idea. I always say its better to have ideas than beliefs.

[cyborg]

I still can't see why this is an either/ or issue.

It's either or when religious doctrine is used to explain how things should happen - and whether you like it or not the Bible does that and people do interpret it as literal truth.


Science is based on being skeptical about the phenomenon of the Universe. Religion, and I use that word in the broadest sense, accepts the phenomenon of the Universe as "that’s the way it is", on Faith.

Science is about answering questions based on experiments.
Faith is about answering questions based on dieties.


As a scientist, one can explain many things about the workings of the Universe. The things I can't explain still exist and have to take their working on Faith, because they still work.

Right there is where I start to have a problem with what you're saying - because you're essentially advocating faith as a stop-gap in human knowledge. When you do that you have a concept you have to remove - and the hardest thing is science is not teaching new ideas - it's removing the old misconceptions and it really doesn't help if the misconception has some religious connection.

[Skies]

I still can't see why this is an either/ or issue.


It's either or when religious doctrine is used to explain how things should happen - and whether you like it or not the Bible does that and people do interpret it as literal truth.

If that's what they chose, I'm fine with it. Most people are intractable when their "belief systems" are scrutenized. Its a "no win situation". Ideas are easier to change with a lot less bloodshed


Science is based on being skeptical about the phenomenon of the Universe. Religion, and I use that word in the broadest sense, accepts the phenomenon of the Universe as "that’s the way it is", on Faith.


Science is about answering questions based on experiments. Faith is about answering questions based on dieties.

What I said. You just went a bit further and BTW, Faith is a belieif that thing will happen. I don't think it attempts to answer questions because there are none if you just believe. Religion attempts to answer questions based on dieties


As a scientist, one can explain many things about the workings of the Universe. The things I can't explain still exist and have to take their working on Faith, because they still work.


Right there is where I start to have a problem with what you're saying - because you're essentially advocating faith as a stop-gap in human knowledge. When you do that you have a concept you have to remove - and the hardest thing is science is not teaching new ideas - it's removing the old misconceptions and it really doesn't help if the misconception has some religious connection.

But Religion has been a stop gap measure through out recorded (and probably pre-recorded) history. What ever can't be explained is attributed to some other worldly power, from the Summerians to the Christians. When a phenomenon is explained, there is change. Galileo is a perfect example of this. He challeged (maybe unwittingly)Catholic dogma at the time, was forced (under pain of pain) to recant. Later, they found out he was right. Oops. Ideas change and so do people, over time.

Science and Religion are both quests for Truth. They just go about it differently. Again, its just an idea.

[Robert Sharp]

Hey Robert, you have a barbed hook-shaped thing jutting from your lip. You might want to look into that. :)

-Tom

Apparently, only a doctor can remove it...I'm having no luck... ;).

I know Cleve is trying to get a rise out of me, but that's how he argues. This time it worked, mainly because hypocrisy bothers me. Believe it or not, I agree with SOME of what Cleve says. I keep hoping (futilely, I suppose) that he will decide to debate someday. But I don't think he believes in reasonable discourse (I don't mean that as an insult...I mean it literally).

[Jason McCullough]

"Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I still believe there's only one true God, and he lives in this lake. And his name is Zorgo."

The State's Old Fashioned Guy

[Cleve Blakemore]

Hey Robert, you have a barbed hook-shaped thing jutting from your lip. You might want to look into that. :)

-Tom

Apparently, only a doctor can remove it...I'm having no luck... ;).

I know Cleve is trying to get a rise out of me, but that's how he argues. This time it worked, mainly because hypocrisy bothers me. Believe it or not, I agree with SOME of what Cleve says. I keep hoping (futilely, I suppose) that he will decide to debate someday. But I don't think he believes in reasonable discourse (I don't mean that as an insult...I mean it literally).

Why would I believe in debate about such a thing? Opponents of the Gospel are driven by weird, subconscious subjective motives that allow them to make blanket statements about the Bible, which 99.999% of them have never read - only heard about word of mouth from another fool.

For every sincere Atheist without a chip on his shoulder towards Christianity (like me for 16 years) there are a thousand who are wayward, deviant, sick and twisted perverts who try to dress up their objections in some pseudo-scientific marxist framework to give them the appearance of indifference. The sneering contempt in their voice for what is undoubtedly one of the great books of Western literature even for secularists gives them away. They are unwell. They are of two minds. Debating such a person is like trying to cure a heroin addict with the hair of the dog that bit them. Why indulge them in their madness and perverse wickedness?

The great arguments for atheism came from geniuses like Nietszche, but like all great ideas once they become populist they are utterly worthless and insincere. The rude mob called mankind will leap on any excuse to rend the pages from beautiful books, jeer at any attempt to understand the universe in any context and pull down statues and antiquities for the pure primate love of smashing things and grinding them beneath their feet.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33401

[quatoria]

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

http://www.whatilove.com/elephantandrabbit.jpg

[Brian Koontz]

Science is about answering questions based on experiments.

No. Science is about answering questions based on paradigms, which makes it no different in that respect from other religions.

The difference is that scientific paradigms can be created and modified THROUGH experimentation. And while the same thing is done to religion through debate and religious writing, its a bit (only a bit) more encouraged in scientific fields.

But dare to question a scientist's belief in his scientific theories and you'll get as much resistance as that from any bishop...

[cyborg]

But dare to question a scientist's belief in his scientific theories and you'll get as much resistance as that from any bishop...

Bad Science.

[XPav]

Go read Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions and you'll see how science advances. That's the book that invented the concept of paridigm shifts.

[Chris Nahr]

Someone else on this board has actually read Kuhn!? I'm going to light a candle to the Virgin Mary. All humanity is not quite lost yet.

[bmulligan]

Kuehn didn't invent the paradigm shift, he just described(defined) it.


No. Science is about answering questions based on paradigms, which makes it no different in that respect from other religions.

The difference is that scientific paradigms can be created and modified THROUGH experimentation. And while the same thing is done to religion through debate and religious writing, its a bit (only a bit) more encouraged in scientific fields.

But dare to question a scientist's belief in his scientific theories and you'll get as much resistance as that from any bishop...

I can't believe this is a Koontz post I actually agree with ----- what is this world coming to ???? Judgement day must be closer than Cleve thinks!

[Brian Koontz]

From the annals of The Life and Times of Brian Koontz...

As previously mentioned, I earned Kook of the Month honors on a forum. The forum was alt.atheism of Usenet. There was probably more than one thing that went into getting the award, but what I recall most clearly is that I promoted Atheism is a Religion on that board. Needless to say, this was quickly and universally attacked by the atheist zealots. My sense of absurdity and irony was greatly heightened by me being calling a Christian and God-lover frequently on that forum. This also really backed my "humanity is a collection of idiots" theory.

If I remember correctly, I defined religion straight out of Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (definition 2a removing "religious" before attitudes) as...

A personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices.

Basically, its a systemic belief system... a paradigm, a worldview, a philosophy. A superstructure that organizes reality. That's what a religion is. This also moves into my convergence of philosophy and religion.

My argument was that Atheism is a systemic belief system that is defined by "God does not exist", with all of the corollaries and things that derive from that.

Atheism, as well as all scientific fields, in that sense are religions.

What confuses people and what was offered as a pseudo-counterargument is that Religion is static (a thing of dogma) and Science is dynamic.

But the whole reason Religion (God-aligned philosophies like Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc) is seen as static is that it is DEAD. Back in the times of St. Augustine, or St. Augustus, etc. biblical scholars revised biblical understanding. Martin Luther radically revised matters... proving that religion is NOT static when it is living.

If Science was dead, it too would be static. People confuse Science's current dynamism with some sort of ETERNAL truth about Science... but nothing is further from the truth. Throughout the "Dark Ages" Science was a matter of dogma... of unchanging belief.

Alas, the idiots on alt.atheism liked their dogma too much...

[XPav]

As previously mentioned, I earned Kook of the Month honors on a forum. The forum was alt.atheism of Usenet.

A google groups for "brian koontz group:alt.atheism.*" find 53 posts from you, mostly in 1998, with a few posts in 1999. So you did post to this newsgroup under your real name.

A google groups for "kook koontz group:alt.atheism.*" find one reference of someone calling you a run-of-the-mill kook and one post with the word "kook" and a Dean Koontz quote.

A google groups for "brian kook" in 1998 and 1999 finds 3 posts, one of which is the same one where someone called you a kook, and 2 other unrelated posts.

A google for "kook of the month" "brian koontz" finds no hits on USENE T or the web.

So unless you have other evidence, I am forced to conclude that you're just making up this "I'm a USENET kook" story out of thin air. You sir, appear to be a common place, run of the mill, undistinguished kook, and that would jibe with your attitude here. While you are, in fact, one of the people on this board most likely to be judged a kook, this is sir, is bush-league stuff.

[Robert Sharp]

Someone else on this board has actually read Kuhn!? I'm going to light a candle to the Virgin Mary. All humanity is not quite lost yet.

Lots of people have read Kuhn...it's a popular book. But it shouldn't be taken for gospel just because of that. There are plenty of people out there who disagree with Kuhn.

[Robert Sharp]

Hey Robert, you have a barbed hook-shaped thing jutting from your lip. You might want to look into that. :)

-Tom

Apparently, only a doctor can remove it...I'm having no luck... ;).

I know Cleve is trying to get a rise out of me, but that's how he argues. This time it worked, mainly because hypocrisy bothers me. Believe it or not, I agree with SOME of what Cleve says. I keep hoping (futilely, I suppose) that he will decide to debate someday. But I don't think he believes in reasonable discourse (I don't mean that as an insult...I mean it literally).

Why would I believe in debate about such a thing? Opponents of the Gospel are driven by weird, subconscious subjective motives that allow them to make blanket statements about the Bible, which 99.999% of them have never read - only heard about word of mouth from another fool.

For every sincere Atheist without a chip on his shoulder towards Christianity (like me for 16 years) there are a thousand who are wayward, deviant, sick and twisted perverts who try to dress up their objections in some pseudo-scientific marxist framework to give them the appearance of indifference. The sneering contempt in their voice for what is undoubtedly one of the great books of Western literature even for secularists gives them away. They are unwell. They are of two minds. Debating such a person is like trying to cure a heroin addict with the hair of the dog that bit them. Why indulge them in their madness and perverse wickedness?

The great arguments for atheism came from geniuses like Nietszche, but like all great ideas once they become populist they are utterly worthless and insincere. The rude mob called mankind will leap on any excuse to rend the pages from beautiful books, jeer at any attempt to understand the universe in any context and pull down statues and antiquities for the pure primate love of smashing things and grinding them beneath their feet.



I actually agree with pretty much all of that. But you are lumping me into that group of insencere atheists without knowing me. I HAVE read the Bible, before and after I became an atheist. I've read Nietzsche too...hell, I've taught Nietzsche. I completely understand your reluctance to debate anyone on these issues, as I tend to avoid it myself, for pretty much the exact same reasons you do (except that you are Christian and I am not, which is a substantial difference). In fact, that was my point about the scientists AND the people who take the Bible to be "just a bunch of metaphors". I think both miss the point. The Bible is meant to the word of God, and not just poorly written science or interesting poetry. I think Kierkegaard was absolutely right to point out that real Christians spend their whole lives trying to understand and live with (really WITH and IN) the Bible, while today people think they are Christians if they simply proclaim it. Most don't even bother to read the Bible, much less grapple with its meaning (or even properly accept it as literal). That's why I don't like it when most (I agree with your 99.9% figure) scientists claim to be Christians. I often wonder if Koontz isn't right in suggesting that there aren't any sincere Christians because they are damn hard to find. I'd love to find a good Christian today, so maybe Brian is right that I am just being naively optimistic.

[Cleve Blakemore]

"The way is narrow and few there be that find it."

Notice Jesus doesn't advice the Apostles to form a large television network with "Christian programming content" or otherwise turn Christianity into a mass market movement for groups. He doesn't advise the Apostles to build a Jesus theme park like Jim and Tammy Baker.

This part of Christian theology is very, very simple to understand. Here it is :

1. Groups burn in hell as individuals, irregardless of professed religion
2. Individuals achieve grace as individuals, irregardless of professed religion

Christianity is about Christ and the Ten Commandments. It isn't about going to church, professing a "Christian framework of belief" or having a wide network of other half-baked insincere friends who also claim to be "Christians" as opposed to "our gang."

For the majority of the human race, "Christian" is just a convenient label to cluster their social group and class under. It's another gang that serves the biological ends of kin-related bias in Darwinian terms. That's why so few people bother to read the Bible ... it's not the Bible they believe in, it's their particular social construct or ideology. Often the most fervent Christians deviate so cleanly from biblical teaching that it makes them furious to even discuss the Bible. I know, I've tried with Baptists and other "Christians" and the better part of them don't give a damn about the Bible or what the word of God says, only their local minister's interpretation of said book for them ... which is usually unrecognizable as having originated with the New Testament.

When you hear modern people talking about toning down/altering/changing "Christianity" to give it a wider appeal just like they were marketing any other consumer product, close your eyes and imagine these people in the outer darkness gnashing their teeth and weeping because that is exactly where they are going when they die.

[Gary Whitta]

http://www.petcelebrations.com/img/51038.jpg

[Brian Koontz]

So unless you have other evidence, I am forced to conclude that you're just making up this "I'm a USENET kook" story out of thin air. You sir, appear to be a common place, run of the mill, undistinguished kook, and that would jibe with your attitude here. While you are, in fact, one of the people on this board most likely to be judged a kook, this is sir, is bush-league stuff.

Check under Vehemence and less likely Ananke and even less likely BK Broiler, and I'll try to think of other possibilities.

Though if I remember right the Kook of the Month was not a posting, although it was discussed in posts from time to time.

[cyborg]

Christianity is about Christ and the Ten Commandments.

Not the two commandments? I would have thought for a Christian what Jesus actually said would be more important.

Mr Sharp pretty much hit it on the head and expressed what I said earlier - Good Christian Scientists Aren't Good In One Or The Other.

I dislike Christians only because most are so incredibly spineless to actually follow their chosen book of reference - I respect the nutters more because they at least have totally embraced the book to it's insanest conclusions.
If you are a Christian exploring the world of science and not looking to the Bible for your reference because you think you know which bits God meant you to glaze over you're not a good Christian (at least SOMEONE is going to think that - and there's no way of getting round the mess of beliefs there are). If you're a Christian scientist who tries to fit everything he learns to fit the Bible you're a bad scientist.

I don't see how you can get round this really. The arguement about atheists being just as bad as Christians missed the point - essentially most people are like this anyway, they just happen to have different sets of beliefs they've adopted as their dogma. The numbers on either side who would debate rationally are limited. Deflecting the arguement to another group of people with dogma and citing them as being just as bad doesn't really strengthen your arguement either.

[Jack]

I don't profess to be either a philosophical or religious expert, but since this is primarily a games site, I don't feel too guilty about talking out of my ass.

I have problems with both religion and science, perhaps some of you smarter folks can help me with these.

Religion:
A literal reading of the Bible is absurd and self-defeating. Not only is a collection of documents written after thousands of years of re-telling, but the collection of books therein were hand-picked by various religious leaders with personal agendas -- not to mention it's been translated, re-translated, and edited uncountable amount of times. Ever play the "Telephone Game?" It's kinda like that, but do with ancient Hebrew to ancient Greek to medieval German to modern English -- and all the goofy idioms that come along with those languages.

The belief that the Bible is true because it's "God's Word" is also ridiculous. If the belief in Yahweh was the Only Truth, then there wouldn't have been thousands of years of thousands of religions preceding the enlightenment of a smallish clan of Israelites (who, by the way, didn't share this One Truth knowledge with the rest of the world until Christianity came along, inviting the gentiles).

All people who don't believe in Jesus go to Hell. This is a corrolary to the above paragraph. Hell would be jam-packed with millions of confused masses who never even heard of the guy. This obviously can't be true, but once you strike the idea that only through Jesus can you gain entrance to Heaven, you've struck a major blow to the central pillar of Christianity. In short, it's bullshit added by later Christians to validate their gang.

Now, Science:
Science, like religion, is constantly revising what it believes to be a "natural law." As stated above by other posters, science is as much an act of faith as religion. And as in religion, it's arrogant in the belief it has everything figured out (or at least a logical framework to understand everything). Scientists, for all their proposed open mindedness are just as resistant to new theories as religous leaders. Science is the religion where Man is the god, nothing more. Every century, we're surprised at the manipulation of some previously undiscovered natural law. Logic, like common sense, is not constructed of granite, but plastic -- remolded every century or so.

Are there other dimensions? Mathematically, yes. Only recently has such a thing become "logical." Is God in one of those dimensions or is he all of those dimensions? Perhaps. Flatly denying this is akin to fish denying the existance of scorpions simply because they've never seen one.

Oh, and that evolution thing? It's easy to find scientists who happily, blindly believe this theory -- but ask them to explain the stuff of life. We are a collection of minerals that somehow has formed a consciousness. And how likely is it that single-celled critters began working together to "evolve" into multi-celled critters without any form of communication among each other? They don't even have brains! How illogical!

For those who complain about the holes in religions, science has just as many. The only difference is, science has emperical data to back up its beliefs -- but wasn't there an empirical study of the power of prayer? Oh, wait. Now I'm all confused again.

But you don't want to listen to data about prayer. That might suggest that scientists don't have all the answers -- that maybe there is some "supernatural" power at work. Darn that logic; it never makes sense.

[cyborg]

Religion:
A literal reading of the Bible is absurd and self-defeating. Not only is a collection of documents written after thousands of years of re-telling,

That is not so much an issue - the tradition of story telling was of accurate recreation and memorisation - not personal inflections. It is at least reasonable to assume the copied texts are faithful to the originals.


Science, like religion, is constantly revising what it believes to be a "natural law." As stated above by other posters, science is as much an act of faith as religion. And as in religion, it's arrogant in the belief it has everything figured out (or at least a logical framework to understand everything). Scientists, for all their proposed open mindedness are just as resistant to new theories as religous leaders.

Bad science. Much as the perfection of Christian philosophy - whatever the hell that is - is not invalidated by the followers who can't follow it correctly neither is the idea of science because some scientists can't follow it. In the end both followers and human and flawed - but if you argue one idea is flawed because of the follower the other must also be flawed.


Science is the religion where Man is the god, nothing more.

Only if you accept that God has dictated the nature of the universe to humanity - otherwise science is just about answering questions based on how things happen rather than how you are told things happen by a divine answerer. If you don't believe God has a role in that then science can't be about promoting man to godhood. If you do believe God is the ultimate authority on knowledge than the pursuit of knowledge beyond that dictated by God is indeed promoting man to godhood and is a theme common to many mythologies - not forgetting that of the Garden of Eden from Christianity.


Every century, we're surprised at the manipulation of some previously undiscovered natural law. Logic, like common sense, is not constructed of granite, but plastic -- remolded every century or so.

Logic remains a constant - it is a process not a philosophy. As to every century - I would say not. Science has only begun to rapidly change over the last century. You could have easily been scientifically ignorant a hundred years ago - today it is hard to not even be slightly aware unless you're completely detached from civilisation - which is still incredibly hard to do.


Flatly denying this is akin to fish denying the existance of scorpions simply because they've never seen one.

That's perfectly reasonable. That is the point of science.
Is it unreasonable to believe in dragons, fairies, gnomes, griffins et al just because we've never seen one? Why are these mythical creatures of less credence?
The burden of proof has to be a corner stone of science for without it anything anyone says might as well be the truth. UFO's, government conspiracies etc... does one merely accept them because of hearsay?


Oh, and that evolution thing? It's easy to find scientists who happily, blindly believe this theory -- but ask them to explain the stuff of life.

It's also easy to find scientists who don't - evolution is not a single theory as most people assume - there is a huge arguement as to the particulars and the procedures of it.


We are a collection of minerals that somehow has formed a consciousness. And how likely is it that single-celled critters began working together to "evolve" into multi-celled critters without any form of communication among each other? They don't even have brains! How illogical

That statement is illogical - there are numerous organisms that don't have brains and co-operate and communicate and is in evidence today and visible for you to observe. Your human-centric perspective merely biases you to assume your way is the own way possible.


For those who complain about the holes in religions, science has just as many.

The major difference being that science requires evidence to plug them whilst religion demands interpretation of texts.


The only difference is, science has emperical data to back up its beliefs -- but wasn't there an empirical study of the power of prayer? Oh, wait. Now I'm all confused again.

The only problem being there are huge swathes of people who pray all the time and don't get better - cripples on pilgramages, terminally ill patients et al. It's all too easy just to take the information you like the looks of and ignore the rest. The big problem of course being the fact that these studies were carried out by biased individuals - I would find it easier to believe this if the studies were carried out by the most viciously atheistic scientists availble.


But you don't want to listen to data about prayer. That might suggest that scientists don't have all the answers -- that maybe there is some "supernatural" power at work. Darn that logic; it never makes sense.

There are a hell of a lot of studies which have seemed to prove things in the past which have turned out to be poorly done and in fact total rubbish later. It needs more research - it is as it is merely inadaquate as proof especially as it has not to my knowledge been attempted in other religions.

[Jason McCullough]

Boy, this won't end. Doing my part to prolong the agony: it's funny how Jesus making the old law invalid can mean the ten commandments applies or doesn't apply, depending on who you're beating with a cudgel.

[Jack]

Religion:

Every century, we're surprised at the manipulation of some previously undiscovered natural law. Logic, like common sense, is not constructed of granite, but plastic -- remolded every century or so.

Logic remains a constant - it is a process not a philosophy.
It's a process. Interesting way to state that it's malleable. Scientists once believe the Earth was flat and the center of the universe, based on data. They later changed their minds, based on data. Is it so unthinkable that a higher realm of life may exist, based on data? To dismiss such a notion is bad science. I agree with you.



Flatly denying this is akin to fish denying the existance of scorpions simply because they've never seen one.

That's perfectly reasonable. That is the point of science.
Is it unreasonable to believe in dragons, fairies, gnomes, griffins et al just because we've never seen one? Why are these mythical creatures of less credence?
The burden of proof has to be a corner stone of science for without it anything anyone says might as well be the truth. UFO's, government conspiracies etc... does one merely accept them because of hearsay?
And again, my point is science tends to dismiss it because its hearsay. But, as you said, bad science. Point taken.


Oh, and that evolution thing? It's easy to find scientists who happily, blindly believe this theory -- but ask them to explain the stuff of life.

It's also easy to find scientists who don't - evolution is not a single theory as most people assume - there is a huge arguement as to the particulars and the procedures of it.


We are a collection of minerals that somehow has formed a consciousness. And how likely is it that single-celled critters began working together to "evolve" into multi-celled critters without any form of communication among each other? They don't even have brains! How illogical

That statement is illogical - there are numerous organisms that don't have brains and co-operate and communicate and is in evidence today and visible for you to observe. Your human-centric perspective merely biases you to assume your way is the own way possible.


For those who complain about the holes in religions, science has just as many.

The major difference being that science requires evidence to plug them whilst religion demands interpretation of texts.[/quote]
Or interpretation of data.


There are a hell of a lot of studies which have seemed to prove things in the past which have turned out to be poorly done and in fact total rubbish later. It needs more research - it is as it is merely inadaquate as proof especially as it has not to my knowledge been attempted in other religions.
I agree.

[cyborg]

It's a process. Interesting way to state that it's malleable. Scientists once believe the Earth was flat and the center of the universe, based on data.

No - that was based on ignorance. The Greeks knew that the earth was round - they even had a fairly good estimate of the circumference based on an experiement with utilising the shadows cast by two obelisks at noon fifty miles apart. The Greeks were excellent mathematicians. A lot of other people weren't - and during the Dark Ages this knowledge was lost and the ignorance about the true nature of the earth lost also.


They later changed their minds, based on data.

Europeans did at least when they circumnavigated the earth -despite the fact the Greeks knew the earth was round long ago. However you must realise that the common perceptions were based on an incredibly narrow world view - most people rarely traveled outside their scope - as far as they were concerned the earth was flat and they would have thought little more about the inconsistancies of perception because it only occured to the people wealthy enough to spend the time pondering such matters.


Is it so unthinkable that a higher realm of life may exist, based on data?

No - I'm just saying the Bible isn't the definitive source of it. It is a total nightmare as far as gleaming information. There is no real data to support the influence of the God that has developed in Christian philosophy - being so etherial as he is and totaly intangeable.


Or interpretation of data.

The interpretation of data and indeed collection of it does not alter the nature of the fact - merely the collector or the interpreter. It is up to the good scientist to ensure accuracy of both. Christianity can only concern itself with one and has the problem of accepting the other as it is (ie the data set is fixed - now it must fit a bewildering set of interpretations).

[Robert Sharp]

Boy, this won't end. Doing my part to prolong the agony: it's funny how Jesus making the old law invalid can mean the ten commandments applies or doesn't apply, depending on who you're beating with a cudgel.

That's not quite right though. Jesus specifically says to follow the Ten Commandments (the Law of Moses). He even lists several of them. I could look up the passage, if you'd like. What most Christians believe is that where there is a conflict between the Old and New Testaments, the New Testament trumps the old because Christ represents a new covenant with God (to replace the one made with Abraham in the Old Testament). Christ's death and rebirth changes everything. That doesn't nullify the Ten Commandments, but it might nullify the need to sacrifice a goat in front of the temple every now and then (deuteronomy is filled with such rules).

I agree with your main point though, which is that people tend to beat people over the head with their interpretation of the Bible, rather than trying to prove it or actually give reasons why others should believe them.

Still, I agree with cyborg, in that I respect someone who really does try to follow the teachings of the Bible (and tries to teach me to do the same) much more than someone who tells me I can believe what I want. No Christian should allow a friend to go to Hell just to avoid an argument.

[Jack]

Still, I agree with cyborg, in that I respect someone who really does try to follow the teachings of the Bible (and tries to teach me to do the same) much more than someone who tells me I can believe what I want. No Christian should allow a friend to go to Hell just to avoid an argument.

This does make me wonder what the teachings of the Bible are. Taken as a whole, it's madly contradictory. Christianity could be one of the most splintered religions in history. Is it love? Vengence? I believe the Christianity today is very little like the historical Jesus would have espoused. Do you think the man who told his apostles to have only sandles, a robe, and a walking stick would approve of multi-million dollar churches that have a hierarchy reminscent of feudalism?

I'm not too sure. My point being, the Bible can't be interpreted literally. If nothing else, it's a metaphor stating "There's more here than you know. Be nice to each other."

Of course, as Tyjenks said, the whole "Thou shalt not kill" thing is a bit murky and often broken by those who believe it to be God's law. I don't think I'd be too interested in being taught the Bible's lessons by those folks.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my post above, Robert. Good stuff.

[Jason McCullough]

That doesn't nullify the Ten Commandments, but it might nullify the need to sacrifice a goat in front of the temple every now and then (deuteronomy is filled with such rules).

Ok. How does the temple prostitute thing with homosexuals fit in to this?

[Robert Sharp]

Thanks for taking the time to answer my post above, Robert. Good stuff.

I think you mean cyborg, actually. However, I WILL answer part of your above post. Your claim that the Bible can't be the word of God because there are other religions (that precede it, though you could have just included all other religions) is a bit flawed. I am not a Christian, as I have said already. However, the FACT of plurality of beliefs does not mean there are multiple truths, or that one of those truths might not be the only correct one. If the Bible is the word of God, then all the other religions are just wrong. Simple. Those people who thought the sun went around the Earth were wrong. The existence of older views (or other views) doesn't negate a newer one. Of course, the Bible could be wrong (I think it is), but not just because there are people who don't believe in it.

What's the topic here again?

[bmulligan]

I AM THE LORD THY GOD, THOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME.

(presupposes that other gods exist to be worshipped in place of him, although he claims to be the one, true god. Or did something get lost in translation?)

[voltaic]

"Before" as in priority. Good god, man.

[Brad Grenz]

It's bmulligan, what did you expect?

[Skies]

Good pic. Never seen a "hellhund" before

[XPav]

You sir, appear to be a common place, run of the mill, undistinguished kook, and that would jibe with your attitude here. While you are, in fact, one of the people on this board most likely to be judged a kook, this is sir, is bush-league stuff.

Check under Vehemence and less likely Ananke and even less likely BK Broiler, and I'll try to think of other possibilities.

Though if I remember right the Kook of the Month was not a posting, although it was discussed in posts from time to time.

Oh there we go (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=vehemence+kook+atheism&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&selm=5ta196%24ebg%40rac7.wam.umd.edu&rnum=1)

Out of 6 stars.

Vehemence 2 stars [email protected]
Science is a religion, because I have redefined religion to mean ...

Two stars: a tad unbalanced

Yup, average run of the mill kook.

[nutsak]

I was going to reply to this with
:: thud::
zzzzz

but I won't... why only attack Christianity? There's other religions out there, let's take.. JW's... my best mate happens to be one of these... and often we have "chats" about God and the like... usually ending with him saying "look, next time I come round, i will bring a book, and it will PROVE it to you"

I asked the question

"Can Creationism, and evolution co-exist"

His responce was "no"

"why?"

"Because if evolution was create by God, it would be in the bible"

"So if God set up a way for living beings to change their attributes over a period of generations, it would have said so in the Bible?"

"Yes."

"Why are there different coloured people?"

"Because Adam had all the genes in him to create different coloured people"

"So when people moved here they just turned Black?"

"Yep"

I stopped the "chat" there... I knew I would go no further.

I asked him about Mormonism and he laughed saying that there's no way that could have happened the way it is said it did... so it's ok for the people that wrote the bible to be given incite through dreams and such, yet when it comes to Angels giving some dude that just wanted some answers some plates, well that just would never happen.
(JW's also have some otehr 'really odd' beleifs, that I won't go into here..)

oh and as soon as I saw this:

So does this mean the Book of Mormon is the Bible's sequel?
First thought in my head was
"yup, the Bible was the Greek Tradgedy, the Book of Mormon is the Comedy"

Seriously, metaphor or not, the Bible is nuts.. and theres no way I'm ever going to church to pray to a Dictator.
(Do what I say or DIE!- God)

[Brad Grenz]

I asked him about Mormonism and he laughed saying that there's no way that could have happened the way it is said it did... so it's ok for the people that wrote the bible to be given incite through dreams and such, yet when it comes to Angels giving some dude that just wanted some answers some plates, well that just would never happen.

Mormons just believe there are prophets now like there were back then. It's certainly no more proposterous, or less legitimate than Mohamad becoming a prophet and establishing religion based on post New Testement revelation. Mormons have an advantage in that they claim current and ongoing revelation allowing the religion to adapt with the times. Practicing polygamy? US government no like, God says we should stop! Descriminating against African Americans? God say they should get the priesthood too!

[Jason McCullough]

As scary as a find the.....intensity.....of the mormon religion, they do have a remarkably good discrimination case. Not that I'm going to be signing up for a Discover card any time soon, though; mixing religion and business worries me.

[JeffL]

I asked him about Mormonism and he laughed saying that there's no way that could have happened the way it is said it did... so it's ok for the people that wrote the bible to be given incite through dreams and such, yet when it comes to Angels giving some dude that just wanted some answers some plates, well that just would never happen.

Mormons just believe there are prophets now like there were back then. It's certainly no more proposterous, or less legitimate than Mohamad becoming a prophet and establishing religion based on post New Testement revelation. Mormons have an advantage in that they claim current and ongoing revelation allowing the religion to adapt with the times. Practicing polygamy? US government no like, God says we should stop! Descriminating against African Americans? God say they should get the priesthood too!

Well, Mormons also believe that if you're good you'll get your own planet when you die and get to be God over that planet.

[cyborg]

Well, Mormons also believe that if you're good you'll get your own planet when you die and get to be God over that planet.

Sign me the fuck up! I'm sold!

[Angie Gallant]

Only if you are a guy, though. Women have to be eternally pregnant. You couldn't pay me enough to get me to join a religion with an afterlife that dire.

[Dirt]

Aren't we supposed to be free from pain and suffering in the afterlife?

[Jack]

I think you mean cyborg, actually.

Whoops. The Devil made me do it. Mark it up as another time I'd like to change my handle to "Jackass."

[Lizard_King]

Francis Bacon, in his efforts to reconcile his faith with his work as a scientist, once defined a fundamental difference between theology and science as a matter of which questions they sought to answer: Science is about "how", and theology deals with "why". Whenever one tries to do the other, disaster ensues (insert obligatory rant about socialism).
I think people have a personal balance between those two questions, but for one part to exist without the other is logically contradictory. Simply because I don't believe in a God per se does not make my view free of theology, for example...there still has to have been a reason, if only in the most literal sense.

[Brad Grenz]

Well, Mormons also believe that if you're good you'll get your own planet when you die and get to be God over that planet.

Yup, you have to be really, really good for that, though. But you become God's equal. Ostensibly, that's how our God got where he is now. And it's not just one planet, you get your own "creation" to govern.

I hadn't heard the eterna-pregnancy thing, but being married is one of the major requirments.

[nutsak]

You get to create an entire creation? .. I didn't know that.

Billion Player Quake deathmatch anyone?

I tell ya what, if you were mormon and you didn't get to make your own creation when you died how pissed whould you be??

in fact, Imagine spending your entire life beleiving and practicing only one religion only to die and realise you chose the wrong one... holy shit.

I might go to hell for how I live, but at least I'm not setting myself up for disappointment.

[MathGoddess]

"But I was a good Catholic and I'm here (in hell). Who was right?"

"I'm sorry, it was the Mormons. The Mormons were right."

----
(probably paraphrased poorly - but one of my all-time favorite episodes!)

[Brandon Clements]

As scary as a find the.....intensity.....of the mormon religion, they do have a remarkably good discrimination case. Not that I'm going to be signing up for a Discover card any time soon, though; mixing religion and business worries me.
say what?

[Jason McCullough]

As scary as a find the.....intensity.....of the mormon religion, they do have a remarkably good discrimination case. Not that I'm going to be signing up for a Discover card any time soon, though; mixing religion and business worries me.
say what?

Crap, now I can't find any cites online, but I could have sworn that Discover Card was entirely owned by the mormon church.

But this (http://www.discovercard.com/discover/data/about/corporate/) says they're owned by Morgan Stanley; where on earth did I get that bit of info from?

[Machfive]

As scary as a find the.....intensity.....of the mormon religion, they do have a remarkably good discrimination case. Not that I'm going to be signing up for a Discover card any time soon, though; mixing religion and business worries me.
say what?

Crap, now I can't find any cites online, but I could have sworn that Discover Card was entirely owned by the mormon church.

But this (http://www.discovercard.com/discover/data/about/corporate/) says they're owned by Morgan Stanley; where on earth did I get that bit of info from?

From the same place that proved the Vatican owns Disney and the Church of England has financial stakes in both Coke and Pepsi. ;)

[Brandon Clements]

Jason, I think I've heard that before, but I thought that was just because they are "based" in Utah (I'd guess because of a lack of an interest rate cap there). I was under the impression that Discover was founded by Morgan Stanley and Wal-Mart as a way to put pressure on Visa/Mastercard to lower their merchant fees. I could very well be wrong, though.

[Jason McCullough]

Ah, could be.

[XPav]

Jason, I think I've heard that before, but I thought that was just because they are "based" in Utah (I'd guess because of a lack of an interest rate cap there). I was under the impression that Discover was founded by Morgan Stanley and Wal-Mart as a way to put pressure on Visa/Mastercard to lower their merchant fees. I could very well be wrong, though.

Wasn't Discover like... Sears though?

[Brandon Clements]

Well, I know that Sam's Club won't take anything but Discover. They only recently started taking debit/ATM cards. Sears may be in on it too: actually, I think my mom got a Discover card app at Sears right when they first came out.

[Machfive]

Well, I know that Sam's Club won't take anything but Discover. They only recently started taking debit/ATM cards. Sears may be in on it too: actually, I think my mom got a Discover card app at Sears right when they first came out.

You can walk into Sears and pay your Discover card bill at any register. I'd say that implies some sort of solid connection between the two companies.