That is the biggest load of crap ever. To believe stories about a guy who 2000 years ago was born from a virgin birth, then walked on water, then came back from the dead, then ascended up into the sky. (where he ended up I don't know, has he reached the star Sirius yet?) can be attributed to nothing but faith. (and that is putting it very nicely) Evolution can be deduced by the simple observation that all things change and are impermanent. Please stop.
There's so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start. I guess the first sentence is as good a place as any. First of all, science doesn't seek to "prove" anything. The goal is, rather, to find the best representation of reality by examining all available evidence. Also, I dispute that knowing "why" is more important than knowing "how". We don't even know if there is a ubiquitous "why", and people get along pretty well coming up with their own makeshift "whys". You religious folk seem to know what that's about. The second paragraph is laughable. Science hasn't improved the world, eh? I suppose you beleive that God created your computer? Your refrigerator? The printing press that produced your Bible(s)? The truth is, some of us have outgrown God. We understand that we don't need an imaginary friend (or a trinity of them) to tell us what is right and wrong. We can figure that out for ourselves, and I beleive that we can do it a lot better than the authors of the Bible did (though they don't really set the bar too high). Erwin McManus, you deserve a big fat .
Ah, the classic, "Our religion is more correct than yours." Of course, if you ask any Jew, they will tell you that Jesus doesn't even come close to meeting the criteria for being the messiah. God, please reveal yourself to me. Oh, and while you're at it, please end all suffering in the world. You're a big boy, and I know you can do it! ... ... (cricket noises) ... ... Didn't work. I guess God isn't as all-loving as you thought. If you want to learn why this silly trick worked on you, please read about confirmation bias. You are interested in the truth, right?
I'm not trying to argue that at all. I knew it wouldn't take long before you'd take this approach, though. I'm comparing the NT to the Book of Mormon. That's it. That isn't a comment on its truth. I can not absolutely positively confirm or deny that Joseph Smith was doing anything other than telling the truth when he said that an angel revealed to him the Book of Mormon. Any Jew? How about Matthew, Mark and John? What about the apostle, Paul? I wonder what Peter would say? How about virtually everyone in the church described in Acts? Or how about my friend who is Jewish, but believes Christ to be the messiah?
I think you're reading in more than is there. First, this is his perception based on value. It's not an objective statement, in general. He values different things than you do. Second, in the context of the rest of the book, it's pretty clear McManus isn't saying science hasn't improved life. He's saying it's fallen short of the hope of man from the Enlightenment all...that it would solve all problems...which leads him to Einstein's quote. Finally, I made it very clear this was a matter of faith at its heart. I can have a discussion with you without trying to trash your beliefs. I'm wondering if you can do the same. There's tons of people here and elsewhere who differ with me on the existence of God and the person of Christ. Some of those I count as good friends. Some of them I count as family. It is possible to have respect for people and their beliefs without agreeing with them.
I'm sorry if I mischaracterized your argument. My point was that the Book of Mormon is every bit as legitimate an extension of the Christian Bible as the NT is of the Tanakh. Unfortunately, we have not figured out how to communicate with dead people, so that's not gunna work. As for your friend, he may consider himself to be Jewish, but that does not change the fact that contemporary Judaism holds that the messiah has not yet come. The Jewish messiah, according to many rabbis to whom I've spoken, bears no resemblence to the Christian mythological accounts of Jesus. Way to dodge my answer to your ridiculous assertion that science requires faith. I didn't ask for a lecture on respecting others' beliefs. Science is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of fact.
I have pretty much decided that I'm done contributing to this thread because much of what is being said at this point is just debate and mudslinging, but I did want to comment on this briefly because, and I'm not necessarily directing this at you MadMax, but there is often quite a bit of confusion about what the Book of Mormon actually is. Whether you believe it's true or not, this is what the Book of Mormon claims to be: To put it simply, the Book of Mormon covers about a thousand year history of an ancient American civilization. Basically some of the ancestors of the Mayans, Incans, American Indian tribes, etc. A prophet named Lehi who lived in Jerusalem about the time of Jeremiah in the Old Testament was told by the Lord to leave Jerusalem because it was about to be destroyed. (this later happened and Lamentation, etc. followed) Anyway, the fled with a few others and ultimately were instructed how to build a boat and they sailed to somewhere in the New World. The Book of Mormon focuses heavily on their prophesies and dealings with God. And since they were part of the house of Isreal, (the house of Joseph, through Manasseh) they were also aware of the prophesies about the coming of the Messiah, and their prophets taught about His coming. And like the Jews, they went through various stages of following the Lord and going astray. But ultimately, after His resurrection Jesus DOES come to visit them and delivers His gospel to them as well. Also, as part of His visitation, He tells them that they are among the "other sheep" in His fold that He had told His disciples in the Old World about. (John 10:16) I could go on, but mostly I wanted to make it clear that Joseph Smith does not appear in any way in the Book of Mormon, nor is it a collection of revelations that he received or anything. It was translated by him, but the contents are something entirely different. (obviously critics will say that he wrote it, but I just wanted to make clear what it is and what it claims to be) As far as the connection with the Old Testament and the New Testament, I think the message is very clear that God is the God of this whole world. We consider the Book of Mormon to be another testament of Jesus Christ and use it right along with the Old Testament and the New Testament. Now with that said... I think I'm going to back away slowly from this thread.
Cranky today eh? Buddha would not be proud. So maybe God was behind evolution. Creationism can't be proven anymore then evolution, your full of crap yourself. THHHPPPFFFTTTTT!!!!!!
Here’s some supplementary information to the science question that some of you may be interested in. The CBC program Ideas is running a series called How to Think About Science which is available online. Here’s the intro to the series. If science is neither cookery, nor angelic virtuosity, then what is it? Modern societies have tended to take science for granted as a way of knowing, ordering and controlling the world. Everything was subject to science, but science itself largely escaped scrutiny. This situation has changed dramatically in recent years. Historians, sociologists, philosophers and sometimes scientists themselves have begun to ask fundamental questions about how the institution of science is structured and how it knows what it knows. David Cayley talks to some of the leading lights of this new field of study. This is a series of 1 hour interviews with people such as Simon Schaffer, Lorraine Daston, Margaret Lock, Ian Hacking and Andrew Pickering, Ulrich Beck and Bruno Latour, James Lovelock, Arthur Zajonc, Wendell Berry, Rupert Sheldrake, and Brian Wynne. The first 5 are now available in streaming RA here: http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html Or downloadable as mp3s here: http://www.cbc.ca/podcasting/pastpodcasts.html?45#ref45
Perhaps you should recall that I was not the one who made the assertion that science requires faith. I didn't say that. I also realize you didn't ask for a lecture. I didn't ask to have you trash my faith and assert that you're somehow more intelligent than every person of faith, either...but that didn't stop you. And we come to another interesting thread you kill.
LScolaDominates, Jesus, The Gospels, etc have been beaten with a stick several times in the D&D. You can use search if you like to read those threads. IIRC one of those threads likely caused the split of the Hangout and the D&D; it was the final straw. James Cameron vs. Christianity Christianity and Christ's Death The Passion of Christ Astronomers Pinpoint Time / Date of Crucifixion and I am sure I missing some.
I understand confirmation bias, I have lectured as an atheist and evolutionist. I have written papers to prove that god is a work of man's imagination and irrational in scientific context. I have been more biased against god than most people in my own opinion and bias. Truthfully you demonstrate a prideful attitude towards God and He is opposed to the proud of heart. I used to be amused myself at the pathetic picture of Christ suffering on a cross and dying. Until my own pride was deeply swallowed. If you have an honest question as to why God patiently endures man's selfish wicked attacks against other men, producing the horrible suffering we witness in the world- then email me and I will explain why God so called 'is silent' while children starve and people suffer. If nothing else realize that your fellow man's sufferings might possibly just be your own exam or test, a way of revealing the truth about yourself -whether you love others enough to heal their sufferings or whether you are hopelessly self absorbed caring more about your own fortunes. God's love is revealed through people, acting on His behalf. The problem is hypocrisy. The world is full of it. But if you really want God to reveal Himself, He will. I am quite sure of it. If your request was sincere and humble, I have badly misjudged you, but you can be sure God will not misjudge your motives, if you are sincere and humble of heart God will reveal Himself to you in a most convincing way. I am not trying to take up for God or defend His honor, I am pleading for you to ask God honestly to reveal Himself. If God does love you, and He does, He will do it. Now I ask you to ask Him again, think carefully about it, do it in private if you wish, but ask Him from your own heart, be willing to lay aside your own bias. God bless you.
He's saying, to me at least, that science hasn't provided the promise it gave to people in the 1700s and onward. There is still war, hunger, and misery. In fact, all three have been magnified rather than reduced by science's potential. The mass scale slaughter of the 20th century and the negativity surrounding our future prospects of avoiding another major conflict supports that opinion. The depth of humanist work that occurred during the Enlightenment made everyone optimistic of utopias and the exploration for new ideas. When the industrial and scientific revolutions came along, they seemed to be excellent conduits to apply those ideas. Unfortunately, as we all know, not many of them panned out. Wars and revolutions incited by young and worldly thinkers ended up being another petty overthrow and grab for power. We just got better at killing. I believe Erwin's lamenting the lack of personal evolution in today's society, which is something that religion, as a tool, can provide. If he didn't mean that, then I do.
The science of investigating and understanding our minds and the universe is the only hope for some peace. The solution lies within the problem. The Church used to teach some people the we were the center of the universe, everything revolved around us. Thanks to science they better understand our place. Sorry but I just can't believe everything evolves around us. The universe is too big for us to comprehend. I can't believe the storybook NT after we see reality for what it is. Science is not my religion. Understanding ourselves as a part of the universe might be. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MKLhpuoql1w&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MKLhpuoql1w&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
This thread has taken some interesting turns and time permitting I will try to toss in my two ducats on this. First off reading this thread and following the reaction to Romney's campaign I think what much of the worry about Romney's faith comes down to a fear that if he is elected president the LDS church will end up imposing its will through the power of the presidency. This fear is magnified by seeing the LDS as a strange cultish religion with a unified hierarchy and apostasy of mainstream Christianity. The fear then is that given how powerful the hierarchy is Romney is both unable and unwilling to act independently of it. While such sentiments haven't been clearly spelled out this way this is my own read on the unease about Romney by evangelical and other mainline Christian critics. I find it ironic that such fears are expressed by evangelicals as someone who is not Christian it seems to me that political evangelicals have often been the ones to assert a tie between religion and government and have pushed the hardest to keep religion in the political and public sphere. If they truly believe that religion does play a strong role in politics and governence then its no wonder that they fear someone from a church they consider apostates becoming president. To me though Romney's candidacy shows the wisdom of the founders to seek to separate church and state along with checks in balances. As Jefferson noted in his letter to the bishops this is good for the churches as it prevents the possibility of government interfering in relgious practices. Whether Romney is truly independent or not of the LDS church his imposition of Mormon beliefs as president is checked by Congress and the very establishment clause that so bedevils those who push for a stronger role of religion in the government. For instance the very arguments that prevent the display of the Ten Commandments in school are the same arguments that would prevent Mormom politicians from mandating the display of the Book of Mormon in school. As I've said before as a non-Christian I have strongly believed in maintianing the separation of Church while it seems to me that those who have pushed to weaken that separation most often are Christian. To the point that they might now fear the possibility of a Mormon president imposing Mormon beliefs and values through the power of the state I think this is a good thing as it will help them (Christians) understand why it is a bad idea to weaken the wall of separation.
Many of the right wing Christians only want their religion in government, not even some obscure Christian religion. People can say Christ is the son of the god and that Christianity is the real religion, but no one can prove or disprove that currently. Didn't the Romans used to have their own religion? So if all it takes is a Roman emperor to change his religion to change the religious faith of its citizens, shouldn't thse right wing Christians worry one day this nation become a muslim nation if enough muslims live in this country and outlaw Christian faith?
It’s not very scientific to say that something that hasn’t in your mind been proven, in this case the NT, is necessarily false. Your calling the NT a storybook is necessarily a statement of faith, not a statement of fact. Do you see that?
Of course, under current technology, religion can not be proved or disproved. But to say Science is a matter of faith is going too far, as some other posters stated. Science just trying to find out how things works and explain it as best we can under current knowledge, not why.
"When it comes to faith, everybody has it. People often tell me they could never have faith, that it is just too hard. The idea that some people have faith and others don't is a popular one. But it is not a true one. Everybody has faith. Everybody is following somebody. What often happens is that people with specific beliefs about God end up backed into a corner, defending their faith against the calm, cool rationality of others. As if they have faith and beliefs and others don't. But that is not true. Let's take an example. Some people believe we were made by a creator who has plans and purposes for his creation, while others believe there is no greater meaning to life, no grand design and we exist not because of some divine intention, but because of random chance. This is not a discussion between people of faith and people who don't have faith. Both perspectives are faith perspectives built on systems of belief. The person who says we are here by chance and there is no greater meaning has just as many beliefs as the person who says there's a creator. Maybe even more. Think about some of the words that are used in these kinds of discussions. One of the most common being the phrase, "open-minded." Often the person with spiritual convictions is seen as close-minded and others are seen as open-minded. What is fascinating to me is that at the center of the Christian faith is the assumption that this life isn't all there is. That there is more to life than the material. That existence is not limited to what we can see, touch, measure, taste, hear and observe. One of the central assertions of the Christian worldview is that there is "more." Those who oppose this insist that this is all there is, that only what we can measure and observe and see with our eyes is real. There is nothing else. Which perspective is more "closed-minded?" Which perspective is more "open?" ... Everybody follows somebody. All of us make decisions every day about what is important, how to treat people, and what to do with our lives. These decisions come from what we believe about every aspect of our existence. And we got our beliefs from somewhere. WE have been formed, every one of us, by this complicated mix of people and places and things. Parents and teachers and artists and scientists and mentors - we are each taking all of these influences and living our lives according to which teachings we have made our own. Some insist that they aren't influenced by any person or religion, that they think for themselves. And that's an honorable perspective. The problem is they got that perspective from....somebody. They're following somebody even if they insist it is themselves they are following." -- Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis
