The Arrogance Of A "Scientist".........

[batdog]

 You know what the problem with christanity is today? Its medival. Yep... the "concepts" of God, Jesus, heaven etc are stuck in the 15th-17th centuries. I think that for christanity to survive as time rolls on it will have to "remake" itself to a certain extent. I mean we "know" of things like black holes, Quantem Physics, Quarks, blabla bla but have never really tried to improve our concept of spirutiality. This is a great weakness that is easily exploited in the 21st  cen by others.
 I personily feel that all religions to a certain extent have some "right". I dont think any can say they are the ultimate truth. I mean how can a christain say Buddia is going to hell but some child molesture who found God 2 hrs before execution is going to heaven... the whole thing is goofed.

batdog

[Dinger]

First, you have to assume that the repeatability of experiments indicates an underlying principle.  That is a metaphysical assumption, and not just splitting hairs.
Second, you have to make some pretty big assumptions about things you cannot test.  Can you test the Big Bang?  Hell no.  You can test for what you postulate to be its effects, and reason up to the cause, but in the end it doesn't give you certitude, nor is it universally valid.  You have to accept the premises for it to work, and those premises are not trivial.

Religion today is a helluva lot different from religion int he 15th century.  The problem, batdog, is that people today want to view 15th-century religion as being ruled by the extremist nuts in today's religions.  That wasn't the case.

[miko2d]

 Scientists may be arrogant personally, but they are pretty humble when it comes to knowlege. They always know how much they do not know and every discovery opens more things that are not known.
 Newertheless, while despite any particular discovery we always will be in search of thruth because the knowlege is incomplete,
any particular discovery can help us detect the falsehood.

 There are plenty of occasions that prove that the guy who wrote the Bible did not know more then any priest 2000 years ago.
 The creator could have been behind the evolution or could have created the whole thing in one day and disguised it to look like the result of evolution - carbon dating and everything... Furthermore, I do not expect Him to explain DNA to Moses - creation of life from dirt (inorganic matter) is a passable metaphor. But He would not have written that the Earth is flat and the Sun rotates around it and other nonsense.

 miko

[niknak]

Oh man but......

"While it is certainly true millions have died in the name of Religion, i wonder if this jerk is aware it's SCIENCE(and Technology)that gave the human race the thermo-nuclear bomb, napalm, the machine-gun, and many other interesting methods of burning, enviscerating, and poisoning of our fellow human beings."


Is this outlook be compliant with this one

"guns don't kill people people kill people"

<runs for cover>

[AKSeaWulfe]

 

Originally posted by batdog:
I mean how can a christain say Buddia is going to hell but some child molesture who found God 2 hrs before execution is going to heaven... the whole thing is goofed.

batdog

He has a good point right here....
-SW

[NATEDOG]

I have actually asked those questions before, and here is the answer I got:
1. about the Buddah thing....... God speaks in many tongues. meaning that each religion is part of the same, they are just modified to fit each culture.
2. about the killer finding God right before he gets his well deserved shot, he's going to hell. he didn't really find God, he just tried to cheat his way into heaven. God ain't buyin it! now some really do find God, and change their life. I think God would know the difference.

Like I said, this is what I was told, and it makes sence to me, I'm sure everyone has their own views on the subject.


------------------
Nathan "NATEDOG" Mathieu
Art Director
HiTech Creations
-=HELLFIRE SQUAD=-

".... And on the eighth day, God created beer. "

[-ammo-]

 

Originally posted by Dinger:
First, you have to assume that the repeatability of experiments indicates an underlying principle.  That is a metaphysical assumption, and not just splitting hairs.
Second, you have to make some pretty big assumptions about things you cannot test.  Can you test the Big Bang?  Hell no.  You can test for what you postulate to be its effects, and reason up to the cause, but in the end it doesn't give you certitude, nor is it universally valid.  You have to accept the premises for it to work, and those premises are not trivial.

Religion today is a helluva lot different from religion int he 15th century.  The problem, batdog, is that people today want to view 15th-century religion as being ruled by the extremist nuts in today's religions.  That wasn't the case.

IMO the sheer complexity of this world and the universe gives more evidence of Divine creation than any man-made theory ever even touched. The process by which a baby is concieved in itself lends to creation. ANd the fact that the Bible has remained unchanged in its precepts from its inception gives more reason to believe that God Truly is in charge. I believe that the Bible is the God-Inspired Word, and infallible truth. It is righteous, and askews evil. "John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and The Word was with God, and the Word was God" verse 3" All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made" verse 10, samne chapter "He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not"

ANd am i a Bible Thumping Nut? Well i guess so if you wish However keep in mind it is not me throwing around the insults I am certainly one thing, just a common man that has chose to Join the winning army, I am not special, nor am I a pretty boy, just saved by His never-ending Grace.

[Dinger]

I'm sorry, I didn't know I called you a Bible-thumping nut.  I use the term in its technical sense, to refer to someone who not only believes the Bible is the Truth (which, if you accept on faith the premises I guess it is), but asserts that everything in it, especially the stuff secondary to the Message, is the literal truth, and can be proven by scientific methods.  Moreover, this literal truth is far more important to the believer than any deeper meaning that may be in there.
That, for me, is a Bible-thumping nut.  There aren't many around, but they get a lot of airtime, and they form the "straw man" for "science"'s attacks on "religion".

For example, is it really important that the world was created in 6 periods of 24 hours apiece?  Doesn't the Genesis story have much more significance if you look at it as a description of the relationship between God and Creation?  And, for those of you who believe, don't you find the beginning of John cited by ammo above compelling on many levels?

Oh and Nate, if the killer fully repented, and God forgave him, yeah sure, that's it.  Horrendous evil is a nasty theological problem.  But remember, God is omnipotent, so He can do as He wills, and by the fact that he does it, it will be good. (it's good Bart!) The whole reason for the Reformation was because someone felt the Christian Church that existed was giving too much power to the individual to determine her or his salvation.
So you can only believe these things because you believe God said so; and whether Divine Decree limits omnipotence, is another question.

Fun stuff.


[This message has been edited by Dinger (edited 03-29-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Dinger (edited 03-29-2001).]

[AKSeaWulfe]

 

Originally posted by Dinger:
And, for those of you who believe, don't you find the beginning of John cited by ammo above compelling on many levels?

Not really. I find it stating the same thing three times, each time in a different order of the previous. Kind of like saying: "I created the car, the car was created by me, if the car was created it was created by me."

If speaking in riddles is a big part of why the Bible is "The Truth" , hey man I can do that too. I've just not seen any reason to convince me any of it is true.

And no, nothing you can tell me will convince me otherwise. But, if you believe, more power to you. I'm not going to take that away from you.
-SW

[Dinger]

I wasn't talking to you seawulfe.

[AKSeaWulfe]

Same here Dinger, the "you" was generic and applied to all who read my post. Sorry, very confusing I know.
-SW

[Dinger]

I knew you weren't talking to be.
You talking to me?
Are YOU TALKING TO ME?
I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE HERE!

[-ammo-]

 

Originally posted by -ammo-:

 "John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and The Word was with God, and the Word was God" verse 3" All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made" verse 10, samne chapter "He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not"

NP SW, understand your standpoint. While I do disagree, that is what is great about this country, we can practice our on Freewill...at least to the extent of the law. Of coarse as A "Bible-Thumper" I kinda like strict laws

Now for an explanation of John 1:1, It is an expression of the Deity of Jesus Christ. The Word describes Jesus Himself. "In the beginning was the Word" Christ is eternal, foreever..Alpha to omega. Scofield says- "He is, from Eternity, but especially in His incarnation, the utterance or expression of the Person and thought of Deity. In the Being, Person, and work of Christ, Deity is expressed"

"and The Word was with God, and the Word was God" An absolute. This part of the verse is often used in debate within denominations of the Christian Church over the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghosth. It expresses the Trinity, in that the Word was Christ and seperate form God, however they are one in power.

"All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made"

Pretty strong argument for Creation..If you give credence to the Bible..which of coarse is what the Christian Church is founded.

[AKSeaWulfe]

I just want to make it clear, I am not trying to disrespect anyone's religion or what you believe in. I understand why people want to believe, and I understand a lot of what the Bible is trying to say. I, under my own mind set, can't see it as being true. I could obviously very well be wrong and if I am, well I'll give you guys a wave from my place in hell.

I do beleive in being a good person, morally and ethically, much like the Bible teaches. In that sense, I follow the Bible. I do not, however, believe in Jesus Christ, God or any of the who created us. So in that sense I do not follow the Bible, and if I'm wrong and the Bible is right I am damned eternally for my ignorance.

I understand the situation I'm in, but I think it's everyone's choice to do what they believe is the truth and stuff. I've thought about both the scientific and the religious view points of how "it" all began, and I gotta say... I'm stumped. Either way is quite believable, which is where I will end my "speech". :-)

I mean no disrespect to anyone that does believe in what the Bible teaches.
-SW

[Yeager]

Assuming the big bang theory is correct: what was there before the big bang?  I mean, where did all the stuff in our lovely little universe come from?

Assuming that the universe is expanding: whats beyond the edge of the expanding universe and how far out does it go?

There is a creator or a source of creation of that I am sure.  Call it God, call it a milkshake but something definately created all that is.

Throw humans into the mix and things are bound to get muddled up.  Good, bad and the ugly.

Yeager