is there a reconciliatory christian view towards science?

Yes. Thats exactly what I did. Especially that part where I put, "Homosexuals are the exact same as a serial killer". Damn dude, get some reading comprehension skills, understand the point and quit reading into what you want.

 

I understand a genetic disposition is not a sole determining factor, but often you can find people who use a (most often unproven in that individual) genetic disposition as a sole excuse. If someone is satisfied on who they are, I don't think it needs to be explained at all.

To be honest, I find the religious sect to be pretty ignorant as a whole. Is it wrong to choose to be oblivious to reality? I don't fit well into the ultra religious groups and I find it hard to find Christians who do not keep their heads buried in the sand. Otherwise, I think Christians do embrace science. But evolution is not science, its a theory. I personally believe there are parts of evolution that are real, but otherwise, Im more likely to believe that the planet was seeded by aliens than I am to believe we came from amoebas.

 

awesome!

another homosexuality debate that goes absolutely nowhere!

 

You’re a Muslim, right? If so then you already believe in God and I’ll respond to you in that context.

I’m not sure what kind of theological strand you’re interested in, but in general there is no inherent disconnect between Christianity and science. They are both part of the same whole. You may be referring to young earth and old earth creationists. Those are two different interpretations of the Bible, but imo the young earth position is more of a traditional position that is not well supported by the Bible or science.

W.r.t. a genetic predisposition toward sin, there are lots of genetic or physical conditions that make one more prone to sin. Elevated testosterone levels tend to make a person more prone to violence. Certain brain injuries and conditions mess with moral inhibitions. There are a number of psychiatric disorders that make people more prone to committing crimes/sins, etc. From a Christian standpoint no person is sinless, and in fact it is often sin that brings us to our knees before God, and in fact that is the purpose of sin according to the Bible. See Romans 3-6 or so.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=3&version=31

 

Christian Science!

Duh.

 

It's hard for me to come up with an example on my view on homosexuality. I think its something that you may have at birth. I think everyone is bisexual to some degree no matter how small. I think there is some choice in the matter but the choice may be much easier or harder depending which way you're looking at it than others.

Here's my best example.

Some people develop abnormalities from stressful events that can trigger an outbreak or a condition that they may carry with them for the rest of their life. I have a relative that developed psoriasis shortly after losing her father. The situation was stressful and the stress triggered it. It was dormant for all her life but it was an event that brought it to life.

The inconsistency in this point is that I don't think homosexuality is an abnormality or a sickness. The tie in with psoriasis is that it was an event that brought it out. Sexual desire is something that brings out homosexuality for some people. It just triggers in them the same way it works for a heterosexual person. In that sense it is a choice, but really its not. A person can't choose which sexual tendencies they carry with them.

 

QUESTION: Why is it important that homosexuality be genetically determined?

IMO
It doesn't matter if it is a choice or not . . .. . treat people fairly

However,
It seems that if people can link it to genetics
they feel that it will be 'easier' to accept

If someone 'can't help who they are' . . .then we are 'forced' to accept their behavior.

QUESTION: If it became scientific fact . . .that smoking is caused by a genetic predisposition . . . would it make you more accepting of Smokers and smoking?? What about being fat??? [They say they found some links between genetics and obesity but it is still imo preliminary]

The thrust to prove that homosexuality is genetic in origins
seems to be as much about greasing the wheels of societal acceptance
as much as advancement of science.

Clearly it can do both . . . I guess

Rocket River

 

Is it so much to ask that people actually learn what science is before they discuss it?

 

That's rhetorical, right? It's been explained a million times, but it does not matter. There's a pamphlet somewhere saying evolution is "just a theory," and that pamphlet does not also include that the entire founding theoretical basis for a microchip has about the same amount of evidence, etc. So pamphlet lameness gets posted here. I wish we could at least see the graphics.

 

I'm an agnostic with a Christian explanation for evolution that I'm rather surprised isn't used to reconciliatory effect:

In a nutshell, the Bible says that God got angry and spread the people around the world in a 'scattered us to the winds' kind of way, separating us by language, culture, looks, and a bunch of other factors.

So....

....why couldn't it be interpreted that God simply blasted all of us back to the lowest form of life, waiting for us to evolve on our own and go through all the hardships required to teach us whatever lesson we were supposed to have learned?

Makes sense to me, and I actually turned more than a few people on to this potentially-Christian theory of evolution when I was in college in Jesus-crazy Abilene.

 

Wasnt sure of the best place to post this, and because I am still presently rookied.

This is some scary shiznit for my country.


http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25538271-5007133,00.html


#Rudd starts every day with prayers
#Reflects on spiritual book
#PM says religion keeps him grounded

KEVIN Rudd has revealed he tries to start every day with a reading from a prayer book.

But the PM admitted he does not always remember the Christian missive that life is not "all about me".

"When I manage to remember that principle . . . I'm much the better person for it," said Mr Rudd, who has been criticised for a tantrum on a VIP plane and is known for fruity language in private.

Mr Rudd told the Salvation Army's War Cry his preferred book of daily devotionals was My Utmost for His Highest, which features a spiritual truth for every day of the year.

"I work out of that and the scriptural readings upon which each day's devotions are based," he said.

"And I try very, very hard to reflect on that before I get stuck into the day."

The best-selling My Utmost for His Highest was written by the Scottish-born World War I AIF chaplain Oswald Chambers.


Related Coverage
Kevin Rudd 'talks to God every day'

Asked how he would advise couples with marriage troubles, Mr Rudd suggested they see their local pastor, priest or minister.

Mr Rudd said his mother, who died late last year, was a strong Catholic and "instilled in me a deep sense of the importance of faith".

"The value of church for me is to be grounded on a regular basis," he said.

Mr Rudd also revealed he flew overnight from China to be present for his youngest son Marcus's last primary school fete.

Mr Rudd, whose father died when he was 11, said he was determined to be there for his children but it was for them to judge whether he was a good dad.

"My sense is that it's things like that - which may only count for an hour or two - that mean the most in a young person's life," he said.

"The other principle a good father must have is unqualified, undiluted love. No ifs, no buts. Love must come first.

"I lost my own father when I was 11 years old. He died in an accident and, therefore, I didn't really know him well, to be quite honest.

"What I remember most positively were the small amounts of time he spent with me as a child.

"He would take me down to the creek, teach me how to boil the billy, teach me how to ride a horse, teach me to do those sorts of things.

"In the scale of everything (he was trying to run a property of several hundred animals), it probably was a very small part of his time, but he cared enough about me to spend that time."

 

No kidding. A never-ending stream of nonsensical idiocy. Same old, same old. Every time.

 

Likewise, is it so much to ask that people actually learn what a particular religion is before they discuss it?

It's been a while since I read about this, but there's been separated twins studies on spiritual behavior. Also certain regions of the brain that light up during meditation and other practices to sharpen the mind. Normally these regions aren't commonly accessed as strongly.

Dick Dawkins once strapped on a contraption in an attempt to feel "spiritual" by stimulating those areas to no avail.

It hasn't been an exact science, but the rate of progress in this field and in neuroscience in general has been grown to the point where we would most likely see a revolutionary society impacting discovery or more within the next 50 years.

 

You're throwing out a lot of context to what brought about the social state on homosexuality. Homosexuality has been and still is considered to be an unnatural act or condition. It's easier to call it a frame of mind (to commit Aberrant Behavior) than to consider it a human condition. The genetic argument came after reactionary groups tried to diminish solid psychological evidence for homosexuality by calling it unnatural. I'm sure both sides are overplaying it into a black and white issue, but that's more politics than a matter of individual reason.

To a majority, homosexuality is an individual choice, but there are always outliers. Aren't 10% of the population left handed...Yet is handedness a choice? I'm sure being ambidextrous can be a learned skill, but to a few, it's natural.

And bringing in proper context, homosexual practice had been accepted in antiquity all over the world. What wasn't accepted in those many cultures were people exhibiting behavior of the opposite sex. Being effeminate is still considered a vice.

Beyond Judeo-Christian morality, I think it's that quality or implication...that if homosexuality were truly open, then our society would be transformed into a nation of sissies and nancies. I mean there are people who are okay with homosexuality but aren't okay with homosexuals "flaunting it".

I have to admit that I do feel a little uncomfortable when I'm around such an open atmosphere, but there's not much to justify being in that state of unease.

There is a genetic predisposition to nicotine addiction, but we aren't forced to deal with nicotine in our lives. It has to be in the form of dried and refined leaves, shoved up in our faces and lit up before we can forcibly inhale it.

As for food or tobacco, Western society has never criminalized either to the extent of locking those Genetic Presdisposables with violent offenders or ordering electroshock to cure the vagrants of their condition.

It's a bafflingly weird question you're asking. Long before the Big Mac, fat people had been a signal of wealth and prestige.

Negative responses to fat people is a social condition, and for the most part, so is homophobia.

 

Heheh. Christianity has come a long way over the years, and pretty damn adaptive IMO. Hey, even religions have to keep up with the times. Otherwise you just get replaced by newer, cooler religions.

 

I'm a Muslim and I follow a similar system of thinking as Lynus302. I'm also pursuing this line (sorry, can't remember who posted this):

I really wouldn't want to get into the nitty-gritty of all this, but my overall sentiment is the following..

If you have true faith (a.k.a. Iman in Islam) then you should be completely secure in that nothing can "disprove" the faith. Nothing should shake your faith. If you have a single string of doubt then you must pursue it. You have to find out. I spent years of my life trying to disprove Islam and I failed miserably (Al7amdulilah). It's made me much much stronger in my faith. Faith starts on the inside - you have a responsibility to know God and his plan so educate yourself properly. Keep in mind that scientific and religious theories always contain conflicts of interest. Don't let this deter you - just acknowledge the conflicts of interest and their potential effects on the information.

If you come across something that seems to be disproving your faith, dig more. What's the worst that can happen? There are only two outcomes: either you will be closer to God (stronger faith) or you will have been wrong all along, in which case you saved yourself the hassle of fighting for something non-existant.

 

Scary because he prays??

scary because his faith makes him realize service of others is more vital than self-absorption? because he has a belief that having a father around is important?

help me understand what scares you about that....because frankly, i could see our current president here in the US saying the exact same thing. i'm guessing i could piece together snippets that would mirror it.

 

It's getting a lot more exact, and it's called "neurotheology." About 97% of human beings believe in God (a God or faith of some kind), so it's reasonable to look for a biological predisposition. Far from saying this means God is just a random bunch of brain impulses, it's a wonderful place for a real conversation of religion and science.

From what I understand, the region of the brain that understands the boundaries of the body (proprioception?) is the most heavily activated region during deep prayer and meditation. Literally speaking, a religious experience seems to challenge our understanding of where an individual ends and where others begin.

 

great points...i'd also like to point out that just because we understand something, doesn't mean it has to lose its wonder. i understand very well how babies are made, but i found myself in complete awe being there and watching my 2 children being born into this world.

 

The scientific method is well defined and universally accepted by those who use it (i.e. scientists). Religions do not share this quality, as even their most fundamental aspects are disputed by their various followers.