Faith vs. Science

[Sean]

PS to save Sean et al the bother - miracles don't exist but Providence is in Rhode Island

Would that include miracles such as the resurrection of Jesus?

[Gob]

Miracles exist Meade, I may have to move heaven and earth to prove it to you, if only you'd believe like I believe, we'd get by.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Tee hee, what cards! No, see that there was my little joke at the end - a good non-believer answer to "what's the difference between miracles and Providence" is........

I wonder how many believers could answer it though - there seems to be a lot of confusion amongst the faithful who say such things "my car skidded off the road and went right between two trees; hitting either one would have killed me. It was a miracle". No it wasn't - it was Providence. A miracle would be hitting one tree, being smashed to jelly and emerging whole from the wreckage.

Meade

[rubato]

What all of this proves is that bigots who grow up within a particular cultural tradition are bigoted against all other, equivalent, traditions.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Christians all say that they began in the middle east someplace

No, they do not "all" say that. For a person who enjoys accusing others of bigotry (three posts out of four in this thread), such a rash generalization appears a little odd.

Your post of Sat Apr 14, 2012 1:12 am was interesting though

Meade

[rubato]

Christians all say that they began in the middle east someplace

No, they do not "all" say that. For a person who enjoys accusing others of bigotry (three posts out of four in this thread), such a rash generalization appears a little odd.

Your post of Sat Apr 14, 2012 1:12 am was interesting though

Meade

They all do say that the ark landed on Mt Ararat, which is in the middle east, and that all humans on earth are descended from those in the ark and all animals (non-aquatic ones anyway) came out of it.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

For a person who enjoys accusing others of bigotry (three posts out of four in this thread), such a rash generalization appears a little odd.

Yes, but for the biggest bigot on this forum it's just SOP....

As I've said before, I do not feel that I know a great deal about theology, and therefore I post very sparingly in discussions centered on the topic. (But it's a topic I'm interested in, so I do enjoy reading the perspectives of those who clearly know more about it than I do)

Rube on the other hand knows absolutely nothing about theology and less than nothing about Christianity, (even as little as I know, it's been impossible to miss the breath taking, even comedic level of his ignorance) and yet he posts about it incessantly....

Why would somebody who doesn't know anything about something insist on talking about it at great length?

Well, one explanation would be that the person is simply so stupid that they don't have any realization of the fact that they don't know anything (anything that is accurate anyway) about the subject. (and I'm sure that in this case this factor figures prominently in the explanation) but I think the larger explanation is that being the hate filled little scut that rube is, he simply enjoys venting his hatred and bigotry. It's how he gets his jollies; it somehow makes him feel fulfilled....Discussions about religion provide him with an outlet for this...

As I've said, the level of certitude he expresses on a topic about which his ignorance is absolute, certainly has humorous aspects. Whenever I've read a post from rube related to religion, the tone and quality of knowledge reminds me of All In The Family when Archie Bunker would start giving a history lesson or opine on the characteristics of various nationalities....

Whenever I've read rube going on about the topic, this is the mental image I immediately see:

[dgs49]

Paraphrasing: It's not what you don't know that will hurt you, it's what you know that isn't true.

[Lord Jim]

I've decided I'm going to, for at least a little while, lift my "ignore rubato" principle in the "Philosophy and Religion" room in this forum, because I've come to the conclusion that I am denying myself too much humor by taking that point of view...

[Lord Jim]

One thing I have to say for rube...

One of the things I strive very hard to avoid, is appearing really foolish...

I certainly don't always succeed, but I really do go out of my way to try to avoid looking foolish; if I can at all help it....

Rube appears to be completely liberated from that consideration....

Appearing foolish doesn't matter a farthing to him...

He just takes it in stride...

[rubato]

Christians all say that they began in the middle east someplace

No, they do not "all" say that. For a person who enjoys accusing others of bigotry (three posts out of four in this thread), such a rash generalization appears a little odd.

Your post of Sat Apr 14, 2012 1:12 am was interesting though

Meade

If you took a poll of N. American Christians > 90% would say that the garden of Eden was somewhere in the middle east, the Tigris-Euphrates valley is a popular notion.

You can only accuse me of bigotry if that statement is untrue ... can you prove it?

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Christians all say that they began in the middle east someplace

No, they do not "all" say that. For a person who enjoys accusing others of bigotry (three posts out of four in this thread), such a rash generalization appears a little odd.

Your post of Sat Apr 14, 2012 1:12 am was interesting though

Meade

They all do say that the ark landed on Mt Ararat, which is in the middle east, and that all humans on earth are descended from those in the ark and all animals (non-aquatic ones anyway) came out of it.

yrs,
rubato

So let's address that bit of ignorant idiocy:

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

In other words, Catholic doctrine does not in any way shape or form, deny evolution, and hasn't since at least the papacy of PiusXII; so much for this weird idea that "all' Christians believe all humans alive today are descended from Noah's family...(Where does he get this stuff? )

Oh, and about the world having been created in 4004 BC:

Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).

The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283).

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

Oh, and as I've pointed out before, the "Big Bang" theory of the universe was originally developed by a Jesuit Priest:

Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaitre (About this sound lemaitre.ogg (help·info) 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was also the first to derive what is now known as the Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[1][2][3][4] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'.[5][6] He sometimes used the title Abbé or Monseigneur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

So if religion is supposed to be "anti-science" I guess Fr. Lemaître didn't get the memo....

This humorously ignorant, bigoted little toad, who likes to imagine himself to be a scientist, isn't fit to clean the cassock of a real scientist like Monsignor Lemaitre.

[Timster]

Ok. Thank you All for the genuine amusement!

Rube, Dude. A dissenting opinion is one thing. A demarcation without a graph is unacceptable.

Try to work on that and get back to me. Chop Chop~

[MajGenl.Meade]

Christians all say that they began in the middle east someplace

No, they do not "all" say that. For a person who enjoys accusing others of bigotry (three posts out of four in this thread), such a rash generalization appears a little odd.
Your post of Sat Apr 14, 2012 1:12 am was interesting though
Meade

If you took a poll of N. American Christians > 90% would say that the garden of Eden was somewhere in the middle east, the Tigris-Euphrates valley is a popular notion. You can only accuse me of bigotry if that statement is untrue ... can you prove it? yrs, rubato

Nice side-step but that's not what you said. You said "all" Christians - not "greater than 90% of North American Christians". I believe surveys would s how that "all" is not the same as "some" nor even the same as "many" or "most".

Your amended statement is not at issue. It was your original statement which gave rise to LJ's accusation and you have yourself now proved that it was justified - although I grant ( )it does not prove it is true.

Meade

[RayThom]

You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with... true believers.

You're sure playing to a tough crowd in this room. Me? you're preaching to the choir.

I tell you, it's enough for me to burn my Freethought Society membership card and jump headfirst into the nearest christian church apse... NOT! I'm standing my ground and we'll just have to see where we all wind up on December 23rd.

"Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet."

And may God have mercy on us all.

[rubato]

...
No, they do not "all" say that. For a person who enjoys accusing others of bigotry (three posts out of four in this thread), such a rash generalization appears a little odd.
Your post of Sat Apr 14, 2012 1:12 am was interesting though
Meade

If you took a poll of N. American Christians > 90% would say that the garden of Eden was somewhere in the middle east, the Tigris-Euphrates valley is a popular notion. You can only accuse me of bigotry if that statement is untrue ... can you prove it? yrs, rubato

Nice side-step but that's not what you said. You said "all" Christians - not "greater than 90% of North American Christians". I believe surveys would s how that "all" is not the same as "some" nor even the same as "many" or "most".

Your amended statement is not at issue. It was your original statement which gave rise to LJ's accusation and you have yourself now proved that it was justified - although I grant ( )it does not prove it is true.

Meade

So you are now saying that 90% (plus) of N. American Christians are wrong?

Which tiny few are correct? Mormons? Jehovah's witnesses? Seventh-Day-Adventists? Amish? Which minuscule group represent your own bigoted fragment of Christianity?

Sad. And off the topic.

It does not matter if it was the middle east it only matters that it was in some specific area. The biological argument is still true. Try to stay on-topic?


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

People who believe in the literal accuracy of the Bible are quite rare

If you can consider one third of Americans to be "quite rare", then I wonder what you would consider "common".

I suspect that as with most things, those who espouse a particular thing do so from varying shades of understanding, learning and reasoning skill. Surely, many of those who responded to the survey have in mind an English language Bible, printed in (perhaps) AD 1611 and they believe consciously or otherwise that "literal" means a wooden word-for-word direct correspondence with reality.

That of course has never been the claim of Christianity, although one can doubtless find 'churchmen' who also believed it. Christianity claims that the Bible, in its original autograph, is inerrant and infallible and is 100% inspired by God, written through fallible men (and perhaps women) - not dictated but written according to their style and purpose. Thus Matthew is addressed primarily to a very Jewish audience - Luke to Greek-speaking gentiles. Judges seeks to relate God's dealings with Israel in history; Proverbs collects wisdom; Psalms consist of man's reactions to God and attempts to understand His nature and so on.

A "literalist" is and should be dumbfounded when confronted by passages indicating that God has feathers (Ps 91:4), that Jesus is a door (John 10:7) and so on through multiple examples of imagery which are symbols of "truth" but not physical facts.. . . . . It does suit critics to pretend that the lowest common denominator understanding of the literal truth of the Bible is that which is held by the entirety of Christianity as such. ....... Sadly this twisting of scripture is as likely to happen within the churches as without

Since you gave an inaccurate response to the above (which is highlighted to assist your understanding) and now prevaricate furiously when proven to be wrong, I shall assume that we are both off topic - but my response was to GR in the first place.

However, your question appears odd to me. You assert that 100% of 90% of"American" christians are wrong - but that is not bigotry. But if I assert that 100% of them are wrong - that WOULD be bigotry? Try to stay terrestrial

Meade

[rubato]

I think you have wandered off someplace entirely different from the topic of this thread.

Go back and re-read.

yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

1. Categorical statement made (emphasis added):

Christians all saythat they began in the middle east someplace.

2. Categorical statement denied:

No, they do not "all" say that. For a person who enjoys accusing others of bigotry (three posts out of four in this thread), such a rash generalization appears a little odd.

3. Evidence offered in support of categorical statement:

If you took a poll of N. American Christians > 90% would saythat the garden of Eden was somewhere in the middle east.

No doubt. I must concede that in the above exchange I wandered completely away from it. And of course, "all Christians" (i.e. every Christian in the world) is exactly the same thing as "greater than 90% of North American Christians".


Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance



A California poster with bigger ted issues

Meade