The Co-existence of Science and Theology

12/07/2007 09:11:07 AM · #1029

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Flash:

If I understand your position accurately, you are saying that some (perhaps many or even most) "non-believers" arrived at that station due to a laziness or lack of active effort to find out for themselves. This might be due in part to no particular catalyst being the trigger to motivate them. If this is what you are saying, then I would agree. And basically referenced as much in an earlier post.

I think that's also true of most believers. They arrive at their position of going to church each week through the teaching of their parents/ sunday school etc - not active effort to find out out or laziness to consider other options.

Laziness, apathy and lack of effort seem to be the norm - it isn't a religious thing or not.

I agree. Particularly in today's agnostic society. It does not change ones obligation however. The law is still the law, whether you understand it or not.

12/07/2007 09:19:00 AM · #1030

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Flash:

The reason I would categorize these passive choosers along with active choosers, is the same reason that the law does not excuse ignorance of the law as a defense for violating it. Therefore, as I believe that God has a law, and part of that law is to seek understanding of his will, failure to do so, regardless of whether it is active or passive is still a choice to not understand.

Let me see if I have this right:

1. You are speaking as a Christian, of the Christian God and His laws.

2. You maintain, basically, that a lack of awareness of this God/these laws does not excuse a failure to worship Him/follow them.

3. Whereby it follows logically that entire religious groups, such as the Muslims and the Jews, are in your eyes "guilty" of failing to embrace Christ as their Savior, irregardless of the fact that practice their own brand of Monotheistic worship and otherwise lead morally viable lives.

You'll forgive me, I hope, if I (as a Christian myself) point out that this is part of the PROBLEM: when religions go around branding other religions as false, and make such a big to-do of it, this kind of sours the brew for those who might otherwise be inclined to become Seekers.

Personally, I'm happy when anybody finds God, whatever form they happen to find Him in. I believe we're all finding the same God, just seeing Him from different perspectives, and that the world would be a better place with more seeking-of-God and less sectarian bickering.

R.

I am speaking as a christian and of the Christian God for me. I did not claim (I think) that only the God father of Jesus, was the only true God, by which all judgement is rendered. I believe I left open possibilities for other faiths (Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism, etc) to address God as well. I also believe that each of those have a requirement of followers to seek understanding. They are not given a "pass" based on apathy.

I am not aware of any posting whereby I stated that any other religion was wrong. I have stated that for me, christianity was/is the answer. I also have stated that I believe anyone could benefit as I have, from understanding God.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/07/2007 09:22:04 AM · #1031

Originally posted by Flash:

...Saint Nicholas was real. The traditions are from real events.

This type of reasoning is foreign to me. I think this is the part where I'm supposed to point to such historical evidence as proof of flying reindeer, an arctic toy factory, and a magic bag of capable of holding nearly infinite cargo. I KNEW it was true, and now I have the proof!

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

12/07/2007 09:28:56 AM · #1032

Originally posted by Flash:

That's good :-) I'll accept that at face value. I'm glad to hear it.

R.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/07/2007 09:30:25 AM · #1033

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
...Saint Nicholas was real. The traditions are from real events.

This type of reasoning is foreign to me. I think this is the part where I'm supposed to point to such historical evidence as proof of flying reindeer, an arctic toy factory, and a magic bag of capable of holding nearly infinite cargo. I KNEW it was true, and now I have the proof!

Well, it does make an interesting parallel; there's a historical figure behind the myth, there's a germ of truth at the core of the allegory. It's possible to lay to rest most of one's misgivings about, say, the Bible, by taking that approach.

R.

12/07/2007 09:47:00 AM · #1034

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
...Saint Nicholas was real. The traditions are from real events.

This type of reasoning is foreign to me. I think this is the part where I'm supposed to point to such historical evidence as proof of flying reindeer, an arctic toy factory, and a magic bag of capable of holding nearly infinite cargo. I KNEW it was true, and now I have the proof!

Well, it does make an interesting parallel; there's a historical figure behind the myth, there's a germ of truth at the core of the allegory. It's possible to lay to rest most of one's misgivings about, say, the Bible, by taking that approach.

R.

Exactly why archeology, science, and supporting literature, have been an integral part of my scriptural acceptance.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/07/2007 09:54:06 AM · #1035

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
...Saint Nicholas was real. The traditions are from real events.

This type of reasoning is foreign to me. I think this is the part where I'm supposed to point to such historical evidence as proof of flying reindeer, an arctic toy factory, and a magic bag of capable of holding nearly infinite cargo. I KNEW it was true, and now I have the proof!

Well, it does make an interesting parallel; there's a historical figure behind the myth, there's a germ of truth at the core of the allegory. It's possible to lay to rest most of one's misgivings about, say, the Bible, by taking that approach.

R.

Exactly why archeology, science, and supporting literature, have been an integral part of my scriptural acceptance.

*Smacks forehead* :-/

Spork99

OM System OM-1

12/07/2007 09:56:11 AM · #1036

Originally posted by Flash:

Which raises the question: Were the miracles of Jesus and God any more real than flying reindeer?

12/07/2007 10:38:09 AM · #1037

Originally posted by Flash:

Either they discarded it based upon a logical analysis or they discarded it based on a conflict with their behaviour. Either way, it was either A or B.

The world is not so black and white. Rarely can you fit individuals in so tidy a package. To do so is to show a lack of empathy for each individual's path.

12/07/2007 10:47:07 AM · #1038

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
...Saint Nicholas was real. The traditions are from real events.

This type of reasoning is foreign to me. I think this is the part where I'm supposed to point to such historical evidence as proof of flying reindeer, an arctic toy factory, and a magic bag of capable of holding nearly infinite cargo. I KNEW it was true, and now I have the proof!

Well, it does make an interesting parallel; there's a historical figure behind the myth, there's a germ of truth at the core of the allegory. It's possible to lay to rest most of one's misgivings about, say, the Bible, by taking that approach.

R.

Exactly why archeology, science, and supporting literature, have been an integral part of my scriptural acceptance.

Which raises the question: Were the miracles of Jesus and God any more real than flying reindeer?

I think you are asking if the miracles portrayed in the Bible are any more believable than the myth of flying reindeer? My answer would be that it would depend on the evidence. The evidence could of course be circumstantial. For instance - the "story" of the virgin birth. If no evidence existed of virgin births, then I might be suspect, that it was purely a myth - like flying reindeer. However, since science has proven virgin births do occur (I believe it was a species of sharks), then I would say that it is possible yet not definitive, that Mary was a virgin at the time of Christ's birth. It could be enough circumstantial evidence for me, to not discount the "story" entirely, which it is.

12/07/2007 10:48:52 AM · #1039

Originally posted by Flash:

I agree. Particularly in today's agnostic society.

Today's agnostic society? According to this, in 2001, a full 85% of the US population consisted of religious adherents, and 15% were atheist or agnostic, or had no religion. Agnostic society? Where do you get that?

12/07/2007 10:49:50 AM · #1040

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Flash:
Either they discarded it based upon a logical analysis or they discarded it based on a conflict with their behaviour. Either way, it was either A or B.

The world is not so black and white. Rarely can you fit individuals in so tidy a package. To do so is to show a lack of empathy for each individual's path.

I suspect that you posted this before reading the long discussion between Bear_Music and myself. I admit there is a 3rd category, which I have included in group B.

12/07/2007 10:51:31 AM · #1041

Originally posted by Flash:

My position (although admittedly from a Christian perspective) is that God exists whether you believe that or not.

I trust you understand that the reverse is true, and that, for example, my position is that there is no god or gods whether you like it or not, and that your death is the end of your individuality, and you will certainly not experience an afterlife? Just wanted to point out that your not the only one who thinks for other people. :-P

12/07/2007 11:03:29 AM · #1042

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Flash:
I agree. Particularly in today's agnostic society.

Today's agnostic society? According to this, in 2001, a full 85% of the US population consisted of religious adherents, and 15% were atheist or agnostic, or had no religion. Agnostic society? Where do you get that?

Just because someone claims to be a thing, does not in fact mean that they are. I think we had part of this discussion yesterday, when you were surprised that I frankly answered a question you posed. Although I claim to be follower of Christ's teachings, I do not feel that I am particularly effective at doing so. My christianity does not make me "moral". My thoughts, words and deeds do.

I suspect that part of the problem is the definition of morality. I also suspect that we could not get agreement on its definition here amongst the ardent posters. My example of such would a topic as broad as pornography. We might agree that performing pornography for profit might be immoral, however we may not find agreement that possessing it or even watching it in the privacy of one's home, would equate to an immoral act. Thus, since we likely do not share the same defination of what morality is, then it is unlikely that we can agree on whether atheists/believers behave in moral ways. I submit to you, that the spread of pornography, and its use by (x) number of people is one example of an agnostic behaving society. Since, if they were true followers of their God, it would not be so widespread, regardless of what name they call themselves.

edit for sp/grammar

Message edited by author 2007-12-07 11:29:21.

12/07/2007 11:03:32 AM · #1043

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Flash:
Either they discarded it based upon a logical analysis or they discarded it based on a conflict with their behaviour. Either way, it was either A or B.

The world is not so black and white. Rarely can you fit individuals in so tidy a package. To do so is to show a lack of empathy for each individual's path.

I suspect that you posted this before reading the long discussion between Bear_Music and myself. I admit there is a 3rd category, which I have included in group B.

Ah... well, three's a higher number than two I guess.

12/07/2007 11:04:16 AM · #1044

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Flash:
My position (although admittedly from a Christian perspective) is that God exists whether you believe that or not.

I trust you understand that the reverse is true,

I do.

12/07/2007 11:07:33 AM · #1045

Originally posted by Flash:

I suspect that part of the problem is the definition of morality.....I submit to you, that the spread of pornography, and its use by (x) number of people is one example of an agnostic behaving society.

I can only reply by cautioning that using your ability to be judgemental does not actually allow you to dismiss the context with which people define their lives, nor does it allow you to redefine the word "agnostic".

12/07/2007 11:14:42 AM · #1046

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Flash:
I suspect that part of the problem is the definition of morality.....I submit to you, that the spread of pornography, and its use by (x) number of people is one example of an agnostic behaving society.

I can only reply by cautioning that using your ability to be judgemental does not actually allow you to dismiss the context with which people define their lives, nor does it allow you to redefine the word "agnostic".

I try to be very cautious about judging. I really feel that it belongs to God. One reason I have no personal problem with a host of individual choice actions - like abortion, infidelity, homosexuality, etc. (I do not wish to discuss whether or not homosexuality is choice. It may not be, but the subsequent action of engagement is). Again I have no personal problem with it.

12/07/2007 11:15:52 AM · #1047

Originally posted by Flash:

One is not characteristic of the other. For example:

I submit to you, that the spread of child pornography, and the increasing numbers of priests and ministers caught with it is one example of a religious behaving society.

The statement makes no sense, and only serves to demonstrate prejudice.

12/07/2007 11:20:53 AM · #1048

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
I suspect that part of the problem is the definition of morality.....I submit to you, that the spread of pornography, and its use by (x) number of people is one example of an agnostic behaving society.

One is not characteristic of the other. For example:

I submit to you, that the spread of child pornography, and the increasing numbers of priests and ministers caught with it is one example of a religious behaving society.

The statement makes no sense, and only serves to demonstrate prejudice.

I do not believe that those ministers/preists or any other predator of children is a true believer. My reason for stating so is this. If one understands the nature of a divine judge, with a consequence for violating its laws, then for one to actively and repeatedly violate the laws of that divine judge, then that person either does not truly believe there is a divine judge or they don't understand. Neither is an acceptable defense.

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

12/07/2007 11:26:54 AM · #1049

Originally posted by Flash:

The evidence could of course be circumstantial. For instance - the "story" of the virgin birth. If no evidence existed of virgin births, then I might be suspect, that it was purely a myth - like flying reindeer. However, since science has proven virgin births do occur (I believe it was a species of sharks), then I would say that it is possible yet not definitive, that Mary was a virgin at the time of Christ's birth. It could be enough circumstantial evidence for me, to not discount the "story" entirely, which it is.

True, virgin births have been found in sharks, and even mammals like mice. Please note that the mice, (the only mammals I could find) were induced into virgin birth. Forgive the pun, but I find the jump from sharks and mice to human virgin birth to be quite a leap of faith.

The significance of parthenogenetic virgin mothers in bonnethead sharks and mice

Author: Edwards, R.G.1

Source: Reproductive BioMedicine Online, Volume 15, Number 1, July 2007 , pp. 12-15(4)

Publisher: Reproductive Healthcare Ltd

Abstract:
Two astonishing virgin births in quick succession have raised interest in parthenogenesis in cartilaginous sharks and mammals. These were believed to be exceptions until numerous female bonnethead (hammerhead) sharks were found be giving birth at the Henry Doorly Zoo in Nebraska, despite the prolonged absence of male sharks. The birth of a shark pup led to suggestions that spermatozoa from a previous coitus had persisted in the female tract of its mother and fertilized one of her eggs some months later. These proved to be incorrect because the female had been isolated for several years whereas spermatozoa persisted in the female tract for approximately 6 months. Molecular investigations into the pup's DNA failed to find any paternal contribution and proved the pup to be descended from its mother only. Just before this discovery, a study in mice had revealed that parthenogenesis could be induced by overcoming damage to embryonic development that is normally caused by gene imprinting. This was done by fusing two mouse oocytes and then inserting Igf2 into the parthenogenotes, which led to the birth of several parthenogenetic offspring. Modifying epigenesis had thus opened pathways to full-term parthenogenetic development. The birth of these parthenogenotes fulfils the attempts of earlier scientists to invoke parthenogenesis in experimental animals.