PDA

View Full Version : Science and Faith



Bluesky
05-02-2014, 10:18 AM
Seeing as the other thread has kind of gone off the rails with the questions of science and faith, I thought I would begin a new thread. For starters here are a couple of contrsadictory quotes -


'Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know.' Bertrand Russell


'The existence of a limit to science is, however, made clear by its inability to answer childlike elementary questions having to do with first and last things - questions such as "How did everything begin?"; "What are we all here for?"; "What is the point of living?" ' Sir Peter Medawar

Bluesky
05-02-2014, 10:22 AM
Is there an agreed upon definition of science?

hobo
05-02-2014, 11:07 AM
"Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/mar/03/science-definition-council-francis-bacon

Next definition.

The Left Sock
05-02-2014, 01:29 PM
All of science revolves around the same central process.

First, someone makes a proposition - a hypothesis, which is essentially a proposition of fact, or truth.

Then, an experiment is designed, in an effort to prove the hypothesis.

Using empirical methods, namely the collection of measurable and observable objective data, scientists gather their results from the experiment, then analyze whether or not the results support the hypothesis.

Then, other scientists must be able to use similar methods, and come up with similar results. Then the actual method is re-examined, looking for structural flaws. Then, peer groups review the data, to determine their validity.

It goes on and on, before any one hypothesis becomes accepted as fact. Many other experiments are tried, alternative hypothesis are explored, and sometimes, the debate rages on for years between many scientists, until an actual fact can be considered reality.

It is a co-operative, multinational, multi-disciplined approach to finding truth, with a myriad of checks and balances. It is the best tool humanity has, for learning the truth.

That is why it is so damned funny to watch local yocals throw a single weather report or statistic out there, and claim that they have solved the riddle of global warming.

Thankfully, the scientific community marches on, oblivious to the street level wisdom at play in every corner of the globe.

The Berean
05-02-2014, 02:15 PM
All of science revolves around the same central process.

First, someone makes a proposition - a hypothesis, which is essentially a proposition of fact, or truth.

Then, an experiment is designed, in an effort to prove the hypothesis.

Using empirical methods, namely the collection of measurable and observable objective data, scientists gather their results from the experiment, then analyze whether or not the results support the hypothesis.

Then, other scientists must be able to use similar methods, and come up with similar results. Then the actual method is re-examined, looking for structural flaws. Then, peer groups review the data, to determine their validity.

It goes on and on, before any one hypothesis becomes accepted as fact. Many other experiments are tried, alternative hypothesis are explored, and sometimes, the debate rages on for years between many scientists, until an actual fact can be considered reality.

It is a co-operative, multinational, multi-disciplined approach to finding truth, with a myriad of checks and balances. It is the best tool humanity has, for learning the truth.

That is why it is so damned funny to watch local yocals throw a single weather report or statistic out there, and claim that they have solved the riddle of global warming.

Thankfully, the scientific community marches on, oblivious to the street level wisdom at play in every corner of the globe.

Question One: Do all kinds of science use this methodology?

Question Two: What kinds of evidence are there??

The Left Sock
05-02-2014, 03:33 PM
The same method is used for physical sciences, as well as social sciences. It is a universal methodology, accepted by scientists of all stripes, around the world.

As for evidence, there are many kinds of evidence to be gleaned from experiments, depending on the nature of the thing being studied. Social sciences rely heavily on statistical analysis, whereas physical science can be as simple as a positive result for traces of a particular element.

Anapeg
05-02-2014, 04:11 PM
Hard, proof based science I can get my head around but the theoretical stuff I hold at arms length for similar reasons I have reservations for religion.

dancingqueen
05-02-2014, 04:57 PM
Hard, proof based science I can get my head around but the theoretical stuff I hold at arms length for similar reasons I have reservations for religion.

That's just it Anapeg, theoretical science is just that... theoretical.
Theories come before the hypothesis Lefty outlined.
Basically, theories are just educated observations, kinda like a scientist saying "hmmm, I noticed this, I wonder.... Now lets collect more data to see if a hypothesis can be made."

Bluesky
05-03-2014, 08:47 AM
`Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs... in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment... to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ' -Richard Lewontin

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Lewontin_on_materialism
his materialistic convictions are presuppositional. He claims his materialistic views are not based on science, rather his commitment to materialism determines the nature of what he is observing.

Bluesky
05-03-2014, 08:54 AM
Speaking of presuppositions that some scientists hold -

`I am not an agnostic. I am an atheist. My attitude is not based on science, but rather on faith... The absence of a Creator, the non-existence of God is my childhood faith, my adult belief, unshakable and holy.' -George Klein, immunologist.

Bluesky
05-03-2014, 09:03 AM
Can Buddhists be materialists and still maintain the main tenets of Buddhism?

The Left Sock
05-03-2014, 02:18 PM
Materialism is simply one school of thought in philosophy. It is closely associated with determinism. In a nutshell, materialism basically states that our reality is physical. All things are made up of matter, with a predictable, knowable cause and effect. Determinism takes it one step further, and states that all events in reality have a knowable cause, and that the history of everything that has ever happened in the universe can be mapped in a linear progression. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is based in these kinds of thoughts.

It's a nice, comfortable package, but unfortunately, it doesn't explain everything. And you don't have to be dedicated to these thoughts in order to create good science. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle threw everything into a tailspin, when it was discovered that at the subatomic level, our understanding of reality breaks down.

So, following Darwin's theories can help you raise a really great herd of sheep. Adhering to materialism and determinism can get you to design a really hot sports car, but in the end, these theories have limits. Despite all of our knowledge and technology, the condition of autism currently stumps the scientific world, and more and more kids are being afflicted with a developmental disability that will impact them for their entire lives. Science is great, but it has very defined limits. As we move from rocks, to trees, to animals, and then finally on to humans, our science becomes less and less secure.

As far as the question of whether or not Buddhists can be materialists and still be Buddhist, it suggests an either/or proposition is at play. That is not the case. I can know the boiling point of water at the sea level elevation I currently live in, and still follow the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, without experiencing any spiritual conflict.

Cause and effect play a major role in Buddhist thought, especially the concept of Karma. But, many people misunderstand Karma, and it does not come in a neat materialistic, deterministic package. Materialism and determinism are merely thoughts, human constructs. There are others. The true goal for a Buddhist, is to try and appreciate whatever truth is contained in all thoughts, without falling into an either/or style of thinking.

Sometimes, the answer is 'both'.

Hans
05-03-2014, 03:41 PM
Science gave you the internet. That is what defines science. They provide things that did not exist before.
Science gave you space travel, , air travel, water travel, cars, phones, power sources, and the list goes on.

Bluesky
05-07-2014, 02:43 PM
Science gave you the internet. That is what defines science.

May I quote you? Profundity personified.

Hans
05-07-2014, 07:16 PM
Sure, you may quote me as making that statement.

Bluesky
05-08-2014, 11:35 AM
So would you agree with this statement? `There is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal with every aspect of existence' Peter Atkins

Or, "only science can lead to truth"

Hans
05-08-2014, 06:50 PM
I believe given enough time, there is no reason science cannot deal with every aspect of existence.
Science has proven the earth is round, the earth is not the center of the universe, everything we know is made up of atoms, and a whole bunch of other aspects of our existence. In time, more and more scientific data will lead to the unraveling of more and more "mysteries of life".

As for science only leading to truth, that would depend on what truth you are trying to find.

Aristotle
05-08-2014, 06:52 PM
I believe given enough time, there is no reason science cannot deal with every aspect of existence.

I believe in time all will be known, when this world is over and Eternity begins. So,you and I both are going on faith in something that cannot be proven.

Hans
05-08-2014, 06:54 PM
How do you arrive at the conclusion that something cannot be proven?
Science has actually shown that many things that we thought could not be proven has been proven. And that proof cannot be denied.

Aristotle
05-08-2014, 06:55 PM
How do you arrive at the conclusion that something cannot be proven?
Science has actually shown that many things that we thought could not be proven has been proven. And that proof cannot be denied.

I agree much has been proven. But how much more needs to be proven? Do you know?

So, you have faith science will prove all some day.

In the end, you have faith.

Hans
05-08-2014, 07:02 PM
You keep using the worth faith, but that is not what I am using and neither is science.
A better word to use would be insurance, based on past and current achievements and discoveries.

How much needs to be proven? Once science has proven the origin of the universe, we have proven everything there is to prove.

Aristotle
05-08-2014, 07:12 PM
You keep using the worth faith, but that is not what I am using and neither is science.
A better word to use would be insurance, based on past and current achievements and discoveries.

How much needs to be proven? Once science has proven the origin of the universe, we have proven everything there is to prove.

What is my faith in God if not "insurance" my soul and reason purchases in order to gain eternal salvation?

Hans
05-08-2014, 07:17 PM
Because there is no tangible proof eternal salvation exists by means of your faith.
Science has not proven eternal salvation either, and until they do it does not exist as far as I am concerned.

Aristotle
05-08-2014, 07:18 PM
Because there is no tangible proof eternal salvation exists by means of your faith.
Science has not proven eternal salvation either, and until they do it does not exist as far as I am concerned.

Science has not proven the universe goes on forever. So, do you believe it ends somewhere?

Hans
05-08-2014, 07:23 PM
There are 2 theories with regards to the expansion of the universe. Neither have been proven or disproven.
However, we have proof that the universe is still expanding and the distance between stars is increasing as a result of that expansion.

I am assuming you were referring to the expansion of the universe when you stated that science has not proven the universe goes on forever.
If you were referring to proof the universe will exists forever, that is a totally different thing.

Aristotle
05-08-2014, 07:27 PM
There are 2 theories with regards to the expansion of the universe. Neither have been proven or disproven.
However, we have proof that the universe is still expanding and the distance between stars is increasing as a result of that expansion.

I am assuming you were referring to the expansion of the universe when you stated that science has not proven the universe goes on forever.
If you were referring to proof the universe will exists forever, that is a totally different thing.

Either or, proof it will exist forever, or proof it has no end

You don't know,I don't know.

Be that as it may, time to turn my brain off and go watch to see in the Bruins can salvage this series, or if Le Habitant are really as good as they look.

Later.

The Berean
05-08-2014, 09:42 PM
... Once science has proven the origin of the universe, we have proven everything there is to prove.

But you already have faith that it popped into existence from nothing!!!

Bluesky
05-09-2014, 09:34 AM
The major fallacy that people like Hans and others who are committed to naturalism (the faith that there is nothing outside of our natural material existence) can be illustrated thusly.

Imagine you are dropped onto the planet from somewhere in space and you have no understanding of mechanics. Your assignment is to drive a Ford, which you do with gusto. You know nothing about physics or engineering. So you assume that there is a guy named Mr Ford under the hood who is making the car go. When it runs well, you assume Mr Ford is benevolent and kind. When it doesn't run well (probably being a Ford, more often than not) you think Mr Ford is angry with you. You assume that when you go to get gas, this must be the fluid that Mr Ford likes to drink.

But in the meantime, you go to school, begin to learn about mechanics, physics and engineering. The lights begin to come on. Ahh!! We know how the combustion engine runs. We now understand everything about what makes a car go.

Question: Does that mean there was no Mr Ford?

Of course not. He invented the first Ford.

Understanding how something is made or put together does not mean that it is impossible to believe in the existence of its creator/inventor.

The fallacy is called a category mistake.
Now, it is true - the more we understand how a car operates, the closer I come to having the capacity to build my own engine, given the right education, resources and tools.

The better we understand nature, the closer we come to being able to understand how life works.
But the fact still remains - and this is where scientism (the faith that there is nothing but science), makes a huge mistake - nothing comes from nothing.

That category mistake is made in the article (and Hans' thread where some DNA sequence was artificially altered and passed on, and it is made everytime Dawkins and Atkins and other "new" atheists make the claim that science will one day have it all figured out.


It is likewise a category mistake to suppose that our understanding of the impersonal principles according to which the universe works makes it either unnecessary or impossible to believe in the existence of a personal Creator who designed, made, and upholds the universe. In other words, we should not confuse the mechanisms by which the universe works either with its cause or its upholder.
John C. Lennox.

It's confusing mechanism with agency.

It gets back to that rather silly joke the Bear once made here about the scientist who wanted to compete with God in a creation contest.. what was that punchline again? "Get your own dirt?"


When Sir Isaac Newton discovered the universal law of gravitation he did not say, `I have discovered a mechanism that accounts for planetary motion, therefore there is no agent God who designed it.' Quite the opposite: precisely because he understood how it worked, he was moved to increased admiration for the God who had designed it that way.

John C. Lennox.

Bluesky
05-09-2014, 10:00 AM
Far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise is validated by his existence. Inevitably, of course, not only those of us who do science, but all of us, have to choose the presupposition with which we start. There are not many options — essentially just two. Either human intelligence ultimately owes its origin to mindless matter; or there is a Creator. It is strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second. – John Lennox
(my favourite scientist at the moment)

The Left Sock
05-09-2014, 11:03 AM
Even if the universe was intelligently designed, it doesn't put you any closer to proving the existence of a deity who wipes out cities, favors Jews, and dislikes gay people.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

Aristotle
05-09-2014, 11:48 AM
Even if the universe was intelligently designed, it doesn't put you any closer to proving the existence of a deity who wipes out cities, favors Jews, and dislikes gay people.



Hyperbole: it's not just for breakfast anymore

The Left Sock
05-09-2014, 12:15 PM
Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word 'hyperbole', before splashing it around.

What I said was exact and concise - nothing to do with hyperbole.

The Berean
05-09-2014, 01:39 PM
Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word 'hyperbole', before splashing it around.

What I said was exact and concise - nothing to do with hyperbole.

Exact and concise??? Well, the words maybe. Not the ideas.

Mother Nature dislike gays too.

Bluesky
05-09-2014, 01:49 PM
Even if the universe was intelligently designed, it doesn't put you any closer to proving the existence of a deity who wipes out cities, favors Jews, and dislikes gay people.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

This is your response???
Wow.

The Left Sock
05-09-2014, 02:09 PM
Well, I wouldn't want to see anyone too excited about verification of Intelligent Design.

It doesn't mean that Christians have the right answers to anything.

Bluesky
05-09-2014, 03:24 PM
We are talking about Science and faith. Please stay focused. We are not talking about the problem of evil, or why God allowed nasty things to happen.

The Left Sock
05-09-2014, 03:39 PM
My last post directly addressed the issue at hand; the relationship between science and faith.

If Intelligent Design proves to be true, it only means there is intelligence at play in the design of the universe. It doesn't mean the Christian God has anything to do with it.

The Creator could be a very bright Geranium, for all we know.

Bluesky
05-09-2014, 03:41 PM
The Creator could be a very bright Geranium, for all we know.
Wow! That would be even a greater miracle.
I'll bet you wish it were so.

The Left Sock
05-09-2014, 03:47 PM
Well, as a vegetarian, I'm quite confident that my Judgment will be exceedingly harsh, if God is a Geranium. The carnivores will fare much better!

Barry Morris
05-09-2014, 05:40 PM
My last post directly addressed the issue at hand; the relationship between science and faith.

If Intelligent Design proves to be true, it only means there is intelligence at play in the design of the universe. It doesn't mean the Christian God has anything to do with it.

The Creator could be a very bright Geranium, for all we know.

Define what God must be. If you dare.

The God Christians worship is by definition God of everything, and there is no other being greater in any way. He has no equal.

The Left Sock
05-09-2014, 09:40 PM
I don't define what God 'must' be.

I'm happy to just speculate on what God 'might' be. I have no need to be correct, or in control.

The Berean
05-09-2014, 09:46 PM
I don't define what God 'must' be.

I'm happy to just speculate on what God 'might' be. I have no need to be correct, or in control.

I know. But, of course, all your speculation is aimed at bringing God lower. When you call Him, "the christian God", that's all you are doing, as if other religions had gods with the same power. I wouldn't believe in a god like that.

Either He is over absolutely everything, or he is not God at all. THAT'S why I bug you about definitions.

As to control, I suggest you look into what the bible says about servants.

The Left Sock
05-09-2014, 11:38 PM
"I know. But, of course, all your speculation is aimed at bringing God lower."

That's funny. All this time, I thought I was keeping the possibilities of God elevated, by not letting Christians dictate to me what God must be like. It tends to have a limiting effect, in my view.

The Berean
05-10-2014, 09:12 AM
"I know. But, of course, all your speculation is aimed at bringing God lower."

That's funny. All this time, I thought I was keeping the possibilities of God elevated, by not letting Christians dictate to me what God must be like. It tends to have a limiting effect, in my view.

MY view is limiting??? That's human logic for you!!! You don't even care to ask what it is!!!

Bluesky
05-10-2014, 10:27 AM
Whenever you boys want a serious conversation, I'll be happy to join in. I hate these sidebars that are only tangentially related and have been hashed over again and again and again and again... anyone want to get back on track?

The Left Sock
05-10-2014, 01:50 PM
MY view is limiting??? That's human logic for you!!! You don't even care to ask what it is!!!

Your God is a god of love, while at the same time, a god of vengeance.
Your God is a god of forgiveness, while at the same time, a god of judgment.
Your God creates beings in his own image, yet creates them less than equals.
Your God banishes Satan from heaven, yet allows Satan to wreak havoc on his creation.
Your God wants to be worshiped, but never fully understood.
Your God grants free will, but burns people in hell for all eternity, if they don't play by his rules.

From where I sit, your God is a psychotic child.

The Berean
05-10-2014, 01:55 PM
...From where I sit, ....

Precisely.

The Left Sock
05-10-2014, 01:59 PM
Well, you could try to dispute any of the six points I made, rather than taking the easy way out.

Aristotle
05-10-2014, 03:52 PM
Your God is a god of love, while at the same time, a god of vengeance.
Your God is a god of forgiveness, while at the same time, a god of judgment.
Your God creates beings in his own image, yet creates them less than equals.
Your God banishes Satan from heaven, yet allows Satan to wreak havoc on his creation.
Your God wants to be worshiped, but never fully understood.
Your God grants free will, but burns people in hell for all eternity, if they don't play by his rules.

From where I sit, your God is a psychotic child

your 'god' tells you if you behave in this life you may come back in another life as Katy Perry's bra...but if you misbehave in this life you may come back as a turnip

psychotic child, indeed

Hans
05-10-2014, 03:56 PM
The major fallacy that people like Hans and others who are committed to naturalism (the faith that there is nothing outside of our natural material existence) can be illustrated thusly.

Imagine you are dropped onto the planet from somewhere in space and you have no understanding of mechanics. Your assignment is to drive a Ford, which you do with gusto. You know nothing about physics or engineering. So you assume that there is a guy named Mr Ford under the hood who is making the car go. When it runs well, you assume Mr Ford is benevolent and kind. When it doesn't run well (probably being a Ford, more often than not) you think Mr Ford is angry with you. You assume that when you go to get gas, this must be the fluid that Mr Ford likes to drink.

But in the meantime, you go to school, begin to learn about mechanics, physics and engineering. The lights begin to come on. Ahh!! We know how the combustion engine runs. We now understand everything about what makes a car go.

Question: Does that mean there was no Mr Ford?

Of course not. He invented the first Ford.

Understanding how something is made or put together does not mean that it is impossible to believe in the existence of its creator/inventor.

The fallacy is called a category mistake.
Now, it is true - the more we understand how a car operates, the closer I come to having the capacity to build my own engine, given the right education, resources and tools.

The better we understand nature, the closer we come to being able to understand how life works.
But the fact still remains - and this is where scientism (the faith that there is nothing but science), makes a huge mistake - nothing comes from nothing.

That category mistake is made in the article (and Hans' thread where some DNA sequence was artificially altered and passed on, and it is made everytime Dawkins and Atkins and other "new" atheists make the claim that science will one day have it all figured out.


John C. Lennox.

It's confusing mechanism with agency.

It gets back to that rather silly joke the Bear once made here about the scientist who wanted to compete with God in a creation contest.. what was that punchline again? "Get your own dirt?"

John C. Lennox.

There is a simple fault in your logic: the statement that " nothing comes from nothing."
It is often used to "prove" by those who believe that there must be a creator.

They see the creator as a starting point, but at the same time will never ever provide a logical explanation as to how that would be possible when "nothing comes from nothing" besides having "faith".
Or like another poster likes to say " popped into existence from nothing", or "something cannot come from nothing" and similar statements.

Regardless of having faith or not, you cannot explain existence without accepting that it had to start from "nothing" at some point in time, and that includes the creator. Even the creator had to have a starting point.

Aristotle
05-10-2014, 03:58 PM
Even the creator had to have a starting point.

If He was limited by Natural Law, which He is not

Hans
05-10-2014, 04:01 PM
And of course that happens to be the natural law He created, correct?

Aristotle
05-10-2014, 04:02 PM
And of course that happens to be the natural law He created, correct? yes sir

Hans
05-10-2014, 04:06 PM
So how would He be able to create a law that at the same time contradicts His own law under which He exists?

dancingqueen
05-10-2014, 08:15 PM
Your God is a god of love, while at the same time, a god of vengeance.
Your God is a god of forgiveness, while at the same time, a god of judgment.
Your God creates beings in his own image, yet creates them less than equals.
Your God banishes Satan from heaven, yet allows Satan to wreak havoc on his creation.
Your God wants to be worshiped, but never fully understood.
Your God grants free will, but burns people in hell for all eternity, if they don't play by his rules.

From where I sit, your God is a psychotic child

your 'god' tells you if you behave in this life you may come back in another life as Katy Perry's bra...but if you misbehave in this life you may come back as a turnip

psychotic child, indeed

You are deflecting the point.
Absurd though it may seem (It is a nice thought to hold, though I admit I do not know much about the Buddhist faith) you fail to address the points made.

dancingqueen
05-10-2014, 08:17 PM
So how would He be able to create a law that at the same time contradicts His own law under which He exists?

It would seem such an entity would create the natural law as a restriction to prevent others from obtaining similar positions in life.
I believe the Bible calls that jealousy, I would call that petty.

The Berean
05-10-2014, 10:38 PM
So how would He be able to create a law that at the same time contradicts His own law under which He exists?

A NATURAL law. As in nature?? As in the nature God created?? What can be created from inside itself???

God is OUTSIDE time and nature. By definition.

dancingqueen
05-10-2014, 11:17 PM
A NATURAL law. As in nature?? As in the nature God created?? What can be created from inside itself???

God is OUTSIDE time and nature. By definition.

Your skills of deduction are awful. Things can be built from within itself, at least partially.
In addition you use the very laws that you claim God is outside of to determine what he can and cannot do. Does that make much sense to you?

The Berean
05-11-2014, 02:45 AM
Your skills of deduction are awful. Things can be built from within itself, at least partially.
Explain. Also explain "partially"


In addition you use the very laws that you claim God is outside of to determine what he can and cannot do. Does that make much sense to you?

More than your objection.

Aristotle
05-11-2014, 07:58 AM
You are deflecting the point.
Absurd though it may seem (It is a nice thought to hold, though I admit I do not know much about the Buddhist faith) you fail to address the points made.

There was no point to address. If so, what was it?

dancingqueen
05-11-2014, 10:13 AM
There was no point to address. If so, what was it?

The hypocrisy of your God.

dancingqueen
05-11-2014, 10:15 AM
Explain. Also explain "partially"

A house can be partially built within the structure of the house, parts need to be done outside, some parts need to be built inside of it.

Aristotle
05-11-2014, 10:39 AM
The hypocrisy of your God.

He is hypocritical because He is loving, yet vengeful?

Aristotle
05-11-2014, 10:40 AM
If that was the case, parents are hypocrites, because they both love their children and exact a price on their wrongful actions

The Berean
05-11-2014, 12:43 PM
A house can be partially built within the structure of the house, parts need to be done outside, some parts need to be built inside of it.

Wrong.

I take the worlds best carpenter and put him buck nekkid in the middle of a parking lot, and tell him, "Build a house".

What does he do??

dancingqueen
05-11-2014, 02:38 PM
Wrong.

I take the worlds best carpenter and put him buck nekkid in the middle of a parking lot, and tell him, "Build a house".

What does he do??

Ahhh creating the premise to your own argument to "win" it.
Enjoy.

dancingqueen
05-11-2014, 02:39 PM
If that was the case, parents are hypocrites, because they both love their children and exact a price on their wrongful actions

Is a parent supposed to be vengeful when punishing their child for wrongdoing?

Aristotle
05-11-2014, 03:34 PM
Isa parent supposed to be vengeful when punishing their child for wrongdoing?

Not in a physical or mental sense. And in the Biblical sense, God is "vengeful" in that the harm that comes upon someone is of their own making. No greater harm can befall a person than separation from God.

dancingqueen
05-11-2014, 04:22 PM
Not in a physical or mental sense. And in the Biblical sense, God is "vengeful" in that the harm that comes upon someone is of their own making. No grater harm can befall a person than separation from God.

So it seems we are making up the meanings of words now?

Aristotle
05-11-2014, 04:26 PM
So it seems we are making up the meanings of words now?

If you are talking about my creative spelling of "greater", yes.

The Berean
05-11-2014, 04:43 PM
Ahhh creating the premise to your own argument to "win" it.
Enjoy.

But you said the house could be built from the "inside'. Our poor carpenter can't even begin to START without every tool, stick of wood and nail coming from the OUTSIDE.

Therefore, nothing can be created from the inside!! Note I said created, NOT modified!! Because THAT is all a carpenter can do, AFTER everything he needs comes to him from the outside!

dancingqueen
05-11-2014, 09:07 PM
But you said the house could be built from the "inside'. Our poor carpenter can't even begin to START without every tool, stick of wood and nail coming from the OUTSIDE.

Therefore, nothing can be created from the inside!! Note I said created, NOT modified!! Because THAT is all a carpenter can do, AFTER everything he needs comes to him from the outside!

you are intentionally making this convoluted. God is apparently GOD he doesn't need to get his hammer from the tool box to make life.
You claim God to be almighty, yet you limit what he can and cannot do within the confines of your understanding.

dancingqueen
05-11-2014, 09:08 PM
If you are talking about my creative spelling of "greater", yes.

I mean in terms of the word "vengeful"
If a mother is punishing their child for stealing a cookie out of vengeance, that woman has no business caring for a child.
Same goes for God.

Hans
05-11-2014, 09:15 PM
A NATURAL law. As in nature?? As in the nature God created?? What can be created from inside itself???

God is OUTSIDE time and nature. By definition.

Can you explain this definition you are talking about?

The Berean
05-11-2014, 11:14 PM
... God is GOD he doesn't need to get his hammer from the tool box to make life.
...

Just use that part!!!!

The Berean
05-11-2014, 11:16 PM
Can you explain this definition you are talking about?
Like I'm trying to explain to DQ, nothing can be created from within itself. Therefore God is outside the universe, nature that is, all of it!!!

BTW, the definition of what God must be, does not demand that you believe it. If He exists at all, He must have that characteristic.

dancingqueen
05-12-2014, 06:18 AM
Like I'm trying to explain to DQ, nothing can be created from within itself. Therefore God is outside the universe, nature that is, all of it!!!

BTW, the definition of what God must be, does not demand that you believe it. If He exists at all, He must have that characteristic.

And as DQ has explained with examples, and showed how this is not the case The Berean will continue to ignore the explanation and pretend nothing was said.

The Berean
05-12-2014, 07:15 AM
And as DQ has explained with examples, and showed how this is not the case The Berean will continue to ignore the explanation and pretend nothing was said.

Unfortunately, nothing was, apparently.

The Left Sock
05-12-2014, 08:37 AM
If God created us in his image, then it stands to reason he is made of matter, just as we are.

If God is made of matter, he exists within our universe.

If God is not made of matter, we were not created in his image.

Take your pick!

Aristotle
05-12-2014, 08:46 AM
If God created us in his image, then it stands to reason he is made of matter, just as we are.

If God is made of matter, he exists within our universe.

If God is not made of matter, we were not created in his image.

Take your pick!

That's not what it means by "In His image". It is not to be understood scientifically.

Image in the original Greek means "shadow-like", so we shadow qualities of God; we are held up above all other creatures, just as God is above all creation

The Left Sock
05-12-2014, 08:56 AM
That's odd, because Jesus came down to earth, who was in fact God (according to Christians), and he ate, slept, and bled just like the rest of us.

So, it certainly doesn't appear that your God was merely a 'shadow image' of humans, if Jesus really was God.

The Berean
05-12-2014, 09:14 AM
If God created us in his image, then it stands to reason he is made of matter, just as we are.

If God is made of matter, he exists within our universe.

If God is not made of matter, we were not created in his image.

Take your pick!

That would be none of the above, Alex.

Does image mean four limbs and a head, or is it actually referring to the charcteristics that make US human, and apes not??

Aristotle
05-12-2014, 09:43 AM
That's odd, because Jesus came down to earth, who was in fact God (according to Christians), and he ate, slept, and bled just like the rest of us.

So, it certainly doesn't appear that your God was merely a 'shadow image' of humans, if Jesus really was God.

Jesus was both man and God. God is not.

The Left Sock
05-12-2014, 10:01 AM
I know - it's mystical, magical.... beyond our scope of understanding.

Jesus was a man, who was a God. But God is not a man, he just created man in his image. And his son (who was him), was a man, but not really.

And God exists outside of our universe, except when he sends his son (himself) for a visit.

Perfectly clear, easily understandable. Can't understand why anyone would resist getting on board with such a cut-and-dry religion.

The Berean
05-12-2014, 10:05 AM
I know - it's mystical, magical.... beyond our scope of understanding.

Jesus was a man, who was a God. But God is not a man, he just created man in his image. And his son (who was him), was a man, but not really.

And God exists outside of our universe, except when he sends his son (himself) for a visit.

Perfectly clear, easily understandable. Can't understand why anyone would resist getting on board with such a cut-and-dry religion.

Ya know, that's what I thought.

Aristotle
05-12-2014, 10:16 AM
I know - it's mystical, magical.... beyond our scope of understanding.

Jesus was a man, who was a God. But God is not a man, he just created man in his image. And his son (who was him), was a man, but not really.

And God exists outside of our universe, except when he sends his son (himself) for a visit.

Perfectly clear, easily understandable. Can't understand why anyone would resist getting on board with such a cut-and-dry religion.

There's your ego getting in the way again: "I can't understand it, so it must be WRONG!!"

The Left Sock
05-12-2014, 10:34 AM
Newsflash - no rational human being can make sense of all that.

When they say 'leap of faith' they're not fooling around!

Aristotle
05-12-2014, 11:00 AM
Newsflash - no rational human being can make sense of all that.

When they say 'leap of faith' they're not fooling around!

"The Missing Link" is a leap of faith, too.

The Berean
05-12-2014, 12:51 PM
Looks like what he wants is a God who says, "I'm going to explain everything so well, that you won't need to have faith in anything!!"

Hans
05-12-2014, 05:04 PM
Like I'm trying to explain to DQ, nothing can be created from within itself. Therefore God is outside the universe, nature that is, all of it!!!

BTW, the definition of what God must be, does not demand that you believe it. If He exists at all, He must have that characteristic.


Even if you consider there is such a thing as "outside of the universe", you would still need to create something in that "outside of the universe" for it to exist in the "outside of the universe."
It's not because something exist outside of our universe it would not have to be created.

Aristotle
05-12-2014, 05:29 PM
God was not created, He always was

Barry Morris
05-16-2014, 01:01 PM
God was not created, He always was

That is correct, except for the implication in the tenses of the words used, that God is affected by time.

Aristotle
05-16-2014, 01:07 PM
That is correct, except for the implication in the tenses of the words used, that God is affected by time.

ummm...what??

Barry Morris
05-16-2014, 03:12 PM
ummm...what??

Let's get back to school, and study English this time, instead of 'Merican!!!

Aristotle
05-16-2014, 04:50 PM
Let's get back to school, and study English this time, instead of 'Merican!!!

Nice attack, always good to see a Mod engage in that stuff.

Seriously, I don't know what you meant. Can you clarify?

Anapeg
05-16-2014, 05:42 PM
I have not been following as the topic is of little interest other than to ask, does science not fly in the face of religion? Does religion not deny science? With creation and evolution not being compatible how does one reconcile the two?

Barry Morris
05-16-2014, 06:10 PM
Nice attack, always good to see a Mod engage in that stuff.

Seriously, I don't know what you meant. Can you clarify?

An attack. Sure. Trying to remember who else says, 'Ummm...what" or, "Now in english". Whaddya know, it's just you.

The english language uses tenses. These indicate an action or event in the past, present or future. I was. I am, I will be. Each presumes the passing of time. Since God always existed and created time, it is misleading to say "God was.." or God always.."

His own words?? "I AM"

Barry Morris
05-16-2014, 06:12 PM
I have not been following as the topic is of little interest other than to ask, does science not fly in the face of religion? Does religion not deny science? With creation and evolution not being compatible how does one reconcile the two?

Since neither is subject to scientific proof, why should we reconcile them??

Religion does not deny science.

Anapeg
05-16-2014, 06:49 PM
Since neither is subject to scientific proof, why should we reconcile them??

Religion does not deny science.

Picky, picky, picky, it has and does deny science to some degree and does religion not have a problem with evolution, still, yet, whatever? How does the "big bang" align with Christian thinking? Not to mention evolution, which has inherently been a thorn in the side of the Church. Then there is evolution which seems problematic for some Christians. You see a theme here, right?

Barry Morris
05-16-2014, 09:27 PM
Picky, picky, picky, it has and does deny science to some degree and does religion not have a problem with evolution, still, yet, whatever? How does the "big bang" align with Christian thinking? Not to mention evolution, which has inherently been a thorn in the side of the Church. Then there is evolution which seems problematic for some Christians. You see a theme here, right?

Yeah, I see a theme. Non believers think the church is against all science because that Galileo guy caused a ruckus!!!

There's all kinds of holes ion the theories you mention and neither is subject to scientific proof.

Aristotle
05-17-2014, 07:40 AM
An attack. Sure.

this is a keeper

Bluesky
05-17-2014, 02:54 PM
That is correct, except for the implication in the tenses of the words used, that God is affected by time.

Sheesh.
Aristotle is not the one who needs an English lesson here.
The word "was" can simply refer to a state of existence.

You really do sometimes get carried away with your need to correct every picayune thing, even when there is no mistake.

Aristotle
05-17-2014, 03:50 PM
Oh, okay, now I see what he was getting at.

Barry, saying "God always was" doesn't imply He is no longer,it just means He had no beginning, in the sense we understand beginnings.

Barry Morris
05-17-2014, 05:25 PM
Sheesh.
Aristotle is not the one who needs an English lesson here.
The word "was" can simply refer to a state of existence.

You really do sometimes get carried away with your need to correct every picayune thing, even when there is no mistake.

If you are saying "Is" is the same as "Was", you have a problem.

Bluesky
05-20-2014, 08:12 AM
Like I said, "sheesh!"

Ofcourse not. But to say God always was, does not negate that He is eternal.
You are over-reaching in your efforts to be dominant. and that is your problem.

Barry Morris
05-20-2014, 08:27 AM
Like I said, "sheesh!"

Of course not. But to say God always was, does not negate that He is eternal.
You are over-reaching in your efforts to be dominant. and that is your problem.

No, using the term "was" dos not negate that He is eternal.

Mind you, even the word eternal implies the passage of time, and IMO it degrades our opinion of God.

And the rest of your analysis doesn't quite jibe. Look around.

Bluesky
05-20-2014, 10:54 PM
No, using the term "was" dos not negate that He is eternal.

Mind you, even the word eternal implies the passage of time, and IMO it degrades our opinion of God.

And the rest of your analysis doesn't quite jibe. Look around.

Barry, you are obsessing. Quit while you can.

Barry Morris
05-20-2014, 11:20 PM
Barry, you are obsessing. Quit while you can.

Gee, I wish Ari was here to see that we don't get along!!

Thanks for the chuckle!!!

hobo
05-21-2014, 05:52 PM
And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

Barry Morris
05-21-2014, 06:40 PM
Amen and Amen!!!

The Left Sock
05-22-2014, 01:23 AM
Back to the topic at hand, namely science and faith.

In this world, it seems we are compelled to pick sides. The religious world has been at odds with science for hundreds of years. So, for the sake of argument, which side is right?

The average life span in North America has been gradually increasing, over the last several decades. Here is the proof:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/health26-eng.htm

While in the same time span, those who declare religious affiliation in Canada has decreased:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Canada

So, based on the evidence, religion is on decline in Canada, while life expectency is increasing. What does that tell us, in the discussion about religion vs. science? What is causing Canadians to live longer; faith, or science?

It should be obvious. Science is responsible for Canadians living longer. Faith has nothing to do with it.

So, if faith does not lead to a longer life, yet science does, how can anyone question that science is superior to faith?

dancingqueen
05-22-2014, 07:12 AM
Amen and Amen!!!

But doesn't "was", "is", and "to come" imply the passage of time?
So does "day", "night", "had", and "where"

I mean, clearly, that verse is all wrong, is the Bible wrong Barry?
Or can you maybe admit you have been going a bit over the top on this idea of yours?

dancingqueen
05-22-2014, 07:25 AM
Back to the topic at hand, namely science and faith.

In this world, it seems we are compelled to pick sides. The religious world has been at odds with science for hundreds of years. So, for the sake of argument, which side is right?

The average life span in North America has been gradually increasing, over the last several decades. Here is the proof:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/health26-eng.htm

While in the same time span, those who declare religious affiliation in Canada has decreased:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Canada

So, based on the evidence, religion is on decline in Canada, while life expectency is increasing. What does that tell us, in the discussion about religion vs. science? What is causing Canadians to live longer; faith, or science?

It should be obvious. Science is responsible for Canadians living longer. Faith has nothing to do with it.

So, if faith does not lead to a longer life, yet science does, how can anyone question that science is superior to faith?

I would say it's inaccurate to say science and religion has always been at odds, I think it is more accurate to say Science and religion have never touched each other with a 10 foot pole. To science, the idea of religion is unproveable, and therefore would more likely take a "not applicable" stance on religion.

The Left Sock
05-22-2014, 08:00 AM
Well, I would agree that science basically dodges religion, and isn't at direct odd with it, but the same can't be said for the other way around. Historically, the religious have been downright hostile towards science, to the point of sentencing scientists to death for heresy.

Of course, today we mainly just see religious ideologues trying to discredit and ridicule science on local bulletin boards, so I guess some progress has been made!

Barry Morris
05-22-2014, 08:42 AM
Well, I would agree that science basically dodges religion, and isn't at direct odd with it, but the same can't be said for the other way around. Historically, the religious have been downright hostile towards science, to the point of sentencing scientists to death for heresy.

Of course, today we mainly just see religious ideologues trying to discredit and ridicule science on local bulletin boards, so I guess some progress has been made!

I must have missed those posts.

The Left Sock
05-22-2014, 09:28 AM
Global warming is one prime example. People rule it out and deny the science, ridicule others, based purely on faith-related reasoning. The reasoning goes something like this:

- Mankind cannot destroy the earth, because only God has the power to destroy the earth.

- God will not destroy the earth until Jesus has returned.

- Jesus hasn't returned yet.

Therefore, global warming is bogus. No need to think about it, no need to consider it. Just ignore the science, look for any means to refute it and ridicule those who propose it, and put your faith in a higher power, and prophecy.

Some Americans will be treading water in Manhattan, and still denying that global warming is real. It's just the sad truth. And faith has the biggest part to play in the tragedy.

Barry Morris
05-22-2014, 10:59 AM
Global warming is one prime example. People rule it out and deny the science, ridicule others, based purely on faith-related reasoning. The reasoning goes something like this:

- Mankind cannot destroy the earth, because only God has the power to destroy the earth.

- God will not destroy the earth until Jesus has returned.

- Jesus hasn't returned yet.

Therefore, global warming is bogus. No need to think about it, no need to consider it. Just ignore the science, look for any means to refute it and ridicule those who propose it, and put your faith in a higher power, and prophecy.

Some Americans will be treading water in Manhattan, and still denying that global warming is real. It's just the sad truth. And faith has the biggest part to play in the tragedy.

The lunatic fringe will always be with us, your side as well as mine.

But I have never heard any such thing from the religious circles I frequent.

And some of us DO believe something is going on with the weather.

Bluesky
05-22-2014, 11:14 AM
- Mankind cannot destroy the earth, because only God has the power to destroy the earth.

- God will not destroy the earth until Jesus has returned.

- Jesus hasn't returned yet.

I would not say that believing the above three points qualifies me to move into the asylum.
But I would say that the above points have absolutely nothing to do with


Therefore, global warming is bogus.

That's a non sequitor if ever I saw one.

The Left Sock
05-22-2014, 11:31 AM
It's quite simple, and should be self-evident:

Mankind can't cook the earth if that job is reserved exclusively for God, through prophecy.

Therefore, man-made global warming must remain a myth. Either that remains a myth, or God becomes one.

The Left Sock
05-22-2014, 11:36 AM
A look at the front-line battle up-close:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/politics/steyer-climate-change-campaign/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Science and faith are still engaged in battle - right along the same ideological lines they have been for hundreds of years.

Barry Morris
05-22-2014, 01:37 PM
A look at the front-line battle up-close:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/politics/steyer-climate-change-campaign/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Science and faith are still engaged in battle - right along the same ideological lines they have been for hundreds of years.

IMO, Republicans aren't "science deniers" because of theiir religious views, they deny it because it would cost them money.

Barry Morris
05-22-2014, 01:39 PM
It's quite simple, and should be self-evident:

Mankind can't cook the earth if that job is reserved exclusively for God, through prophecy.

Therefore, man-made global warming must remain a myth. Either that remains a myth, or God becomes one.

If there is such a prophecy in scripture, in no way is the cause restricted to the actions of God, rather than the actions of men.

In fact, IMO, one of the reasons I believe we may be living in the end times is that man only now has the power to destroy himself.

Bluesky
05-22-2014, 02:54 PM
It's quite simple, and should be self-evident:

Mankind can't cook the earth if that job is reserved exclusively for God, through prophecy.

Therefore, man-made global warming must remain a myth. Either that remains a myth, or God becomes one.

You misunderstand how Christians regard things. God uses mankind to accomplish his purposes. He doesn't have to be the direct agent. So global warming and it's consequent disruptions can very well be how it is going to happen. Or an atomic conflagration. Which I regard as more likely. Just enlightening you on how to understand agency.

The Left Sock
05-22-2014, 04:03 PM
Thanks for the enlightenment, but Revelations makes the whole final scene pretty clear, and mankind isn't enlisted as any kind of 'agents', as far as I can see.

But then again, I'm just a heathen with a high reading comprehension level, and a strange compulsion to read other people's holy books. So, it's anyone's guess!

Bluesky
05-22-2014, 08:49 PM
Agency does not have to be mentioned in order for agency to be employed. If I say I deposited twenty dollars into my account, it may be that I sent my wife to the bank to do it. No problem. High reading comprehension is one thing. Willingness to discuss and listen to the others pov is another. The most intelligent people can get stuck in their own intelligence trap. But then, you know that, because you are an intelligent man.

The Left Sock
05-23-2014, 03:24 AM
"The most intelligent people can get stuck in their own intelligence trap."

I can completely understand why you would feel the need to believe this. Intelligence is, after all, the greatest threat to faith-based beliefs.

But that's all it is - wishful thinking.

Bluesky
05-23-2014, 07:35 AM
the greatest threat to faith-based beliefs

Buddhism is not a faith based belief?? LOL. ...hoist.. petard..

Why not research what "intelligence trap" means before talking.

The Left Sock
05-23-2014, 07:54 AM
Sorry, hopelessly uninformed, guilty as charged. Alas, my shame precedes me!

And no, you don't need faith to understand Buddhism, or follow it. The principles can be demonstrated daily, right here in the real world. No need to visit the Magical Kingdom for guidance.

Barry Morris
05-24-2014, 10:12 AM
The Golden Rule is simple logic. And it's biblical.

The Left Sock
05-24-2014, 10:27 AM
If the Golden Rule was the only things Christians were peddling, I would never find myself in conflict with them.

Sadly, it's more complicated than that. They threw the baby out with the bathwater, and became consumed with control, instead of living in harmony with others.

Barry Morris
05-24-2014, 12:43 PM
If the Golden Rule was the only things Christians were peddling, I would never find myself in conflict with them.

Sadly, it's more complicated than that. They threw the baby out with the bathwater, and became consumed with control, instead of living in harmony with others.

Generalization.

The Left Sock
05-24-2014, 02:19 PM
No, actually it's my main point of contention.

Barry Morris
05-24-2014, 03:07 PM
No, actually it's my main point of contention.

No, I think it's your narrow point of view.

The Left Sock
05-24-2014, 04:39 PM
Well, you can think that if you want, but you'd be missing the biggest key as to why I have a problem with modern Christianity.

Your choice.

Barry Morris
05-24-2014, 06:53 PM
Well, you can think that if you want, but you'd be missing the biggest key as to why I have a problem with modern Christianity.

Your choice.

Oh, I probably agree with most of your problems with modern Christianity.

I just don't throw God out the window with them.

The Left Sock
05-25-2014, 08:41 AM
I am fairly convinced that there is Intelligence at work in the construction of our reality. But I have come to that conclusion through objective observation, and studying the nature of reality. I study a variety of religious beliefs, read philosophy, and look to natural science, for the answers.

If I would have jumped in to an organized religion like Christianity, I would have never been able to formulate the ideas I now have, because ideology would have blinded me, and I would have been mired in dogma, clouding my judgment.

If there is a God loose in the universe, I am determined to figure that out. But I'm not about to limit myself with a belief system like Christianity, because I am fairly convinced I will never get to the truth, by buying into that whole package. The idea that the Bible is the absolute, literal truth, and is inspired directly from the Intelligence at play in the universe, is a non-starter for me. I won't go there. Simple as that.

Barry Morris
05-25-2014, 08:50 AM
I am fairly convinced that there is Intelligence at work in the construction of our reality. But I have come to that conclusion through objective observation, and studying the nature of reality. I study a variety of religious beliefs, read philosophy, and look to natural science, for the answers.

If I would have jumped in to an organized religion like Christianity, I would have never been able to formulate the ideas I now have, because ideology would have blinded me, and I would have been mired in dogma, clouding my judgment.

If there is a God loose in the universe, I am determined to figure that out. But I'm not about to limit myself with a belief system like Christianity, because I am fairly convinced I will never get to the truth, by buying into that whole package. The idea that the Bible is the absolute, literal truth, and is inspired directly from the Intelligence at play in the universe, is a non-starter for me. I won't go there. Simple as that.

I honestly believe that the "package" you have bought into is not one brought to you by real Christianity, but one fed you mostly by those who oppose it.

I have very few problems with your views on what we all see afflicting the modern church. But, again, I'm not throwing out God because man's free will gets him into foolishness.

The Left Sock
05-25-2014, 09:10 AM
I'm pretty sure there is something going on in our world, that goes beyond our understanding.

I'm also pretty sure that what the Christians are peddling, will not lead me to the correct answers.

Barry Morris
05-25-2014, 02:04 PM
I'm pretty sure there is something going on in our world, that goes beyond our understanding.

I'm also pretty sure that what the Christians are peddling, will not lead me to the correct answers.

So lets get down to the nitty gritty.

What do you think Christians are "peddling"??

The Left Sock
05-25-2014, 02:57 PM
It's all about power and control. It's all about telling others how to live, and elevating yourself into a position where you get to call the shots.

It's all about finding people who are willing to buy into the myths, and then taking control of them. After all, they are flawed enough to buy into the myths in the first place, so they are natural fits for control.

Christianity is selling a product, not unlike Rogaine for men. Your hair is falling out, you need this medicine for the rest of your life, so you can remain intact. Only difference between Rogaine and Christianity, is that with Christianity, you are a failed human being, and the only way you are ever going to be forgiven, is through buying their product.

Create the need, invent the cure, but don't actually cure anything. Treating the symptoms of a disease is far more lucrative. This way, you get control over someone for the rest of their lives, and they pay for the treatment, as long as they live. The Catholic Church didn't get to be the most profitable corporation in the history of the world by accident.

It's a product, and a marketing campaign. For me, that's all it is. And I'm not buying.

Barry Morris
05-25-2014, 03:20 PM
That's about what I though, and an expected viewpoint from an outsider.

How about this point of view. God created man in His own image, and gave him the free will to choose whether to seek God, or mans own gain. Man fell, sinned, and began to run things just the way you say they do.

But there are those who recognize that man has fallen, and choose to seek God and follow His ways, loving God, and loving their fellow man.

That, sir, is as simple as it gets. Everything that you are "not buying" describes those who USE the name Christian, but are not. Real Christianity is not about control, ever. It's about being the same kind of servant that Jesus is. It's not about theological teaching, it's about trusting God just like a little child. It's about being humble before the almighty Creator.

The Left Sock
05-25-2014, 05:25 PM
I have come to appreciate the story about Jesus flipping over the money-changing tables at the temple. He probably had a good idea where things were headed. 2000 years later, little has changed.

Christianity never used to get me riled up - I used to just figure that people can believe whatever they want, that belonging to a group and trying to become better people was just fine with me. Then I caught on to the 'missionary' practices in places like Africa, where Christian groups claim to be helping people. As it turns out, some of them were linking a bowl of rice to a talk about Christianity. You don't get the rice, until you have the 'talk'. That made me furious. Still does.

Just curious. How do you think Jesus would react, if he came back down to earth, and walked in on some starving kids, waiting until the 'talk' was over, before they got their bowl of rice? Think there would be some tables overturned at that little encounter? I sure do.

See, that's the thing: I like a lot of what Jesus had to say, what he stood for, how he lived. His example is something all people should consider, regardless of their beliefs. But when I see what is being done in his name; the bigotry, the callousness, the violence, the profiteering, I realize that while Jesus might have been a wonderful example to us all, the modern manifestation of what he stood for is hollow, and tainted.

Barry Morris
05-25-2014, 06:03 PM
....Just curious. How do you think Jesus would react, if he came back down to earth, and walked in on some starving kids, waiting until the 'talk' was over, before they got their bowl of rice? Think there would be some tables overturned at that little encounter? I sure do.......

How do I think Jesus would react?? Exactly the same as you are doing. Makes perfect sense to me. Not very servant hearted at all.

Now, I can't really say what's going on in Africa, but do you think the local churches sits down everybody that comes to them for help to a rousing sermon first?? Or refuses to help if they won't sit still for it?? Somehow, I really doubt it. Because it wouldn't be a very Christian thing to do.