Do you believe that science is a religion?

[Mr.Bride]

Listening to liberals invoke the sanctity of 'science' to promote the crackpot ideas creates the same uneasy feeling as listening to a liar cite scripture~Ann Coulter(paraphrased)

 

[River Jordan]

Well, River, I have a question for you......if you have determined that KingJ is a fundamentalist, why are you shocked by his posts? He seems extremely predictable to me. And please do not deny that you are shocked - every time you respond to him, you are basically pointing and laughing and attempting to get everyone to recognize your great discovery.

I'm not sure where you get the sense that I'm "shocked" by anything KingJ posts. In fact, I just recently posted (after you observed that the thread was "getting rude"), "When you read his posts with that understanding [of fundamentalism and authoritarianism], they make a lot more sense."

IOW, rather than being shocked by his posts, I'm actually expecting most of what he says because I understand it comes from an authoritarian, black/white mindset.

Look, I know I have been guilty of doing this too, but I think it is a futile effort. Pantsing the narcissist in a nudist colony is just not that shocking.....You cannot cure fundamentalist - nor can you shock people who post here by pointing it out. Believe me, people around here will side with fundamentalism over liberalism (everything beyond fundamentalism) every day of the week.

Well that kinda raises a bigger issue (love the analogy btw :lol: )....why does anyone debate anything in forums like these?

 

[aspen]

Haha.....I know River - it is a tough call. I think I was just asking myself the question. . As far as why....I think I come here to post ideas and solidify what I believe.

Listening to liberals invoke the sanctity of 'science' to promote the crackpot ideas creates the same uneasy feeling as listening to a liar cite scripture~Ann Coulter(paraphrased)

Ah....Ann Coulter - the dishonest Stephen Colbert of the right.....enough said.......Lord have mercy

I am sure Sean Hannity and Rush are right around the bend, right?

 

[Mr.Bride]

I don't know who Ann Coulter is. Just quotin' what she said.

 

[aspen]

I don't know who Ann Coulter is. Just quotin' what she said.

Just when I thought it couldn't get worse......Mr. Bride, you have out done yourself again - please move along.....

May God have mercy on you.

You know KingJ, I remember a time when I believed people like yourself were sincere. Now I know better; people who value doctrine over their neighbor will be stoking the fire and crying for blood on Judgment day.

 

[Mr.Bride]

*tisk tisk tisk... Outdoing yourself aspen

Pray for open eyes my friend

 

[aspen]

Mr. Bride, I have asked you to toddle off - please, let your clever 'I am rubber, you're glue' reasoning, be you last words to me. Thanks a bunch

 

[Mr.Bride]

Hold on, aspen. Here's what I've noticed lately. You and a couple other folks have the same views towards the Bible as some atheists I debated. We'll it wasn't really a debate. It ended up being an attack against me. A belittling session so to speak. Their favorite name for me was 'religitard'.

I gave'em the Word and it cut like a two~edged sword. Kept it simple and plain for em. That's all I know. Christ and him crucified. There are some who are so smart that they are dumb. Thinking God is not the all powerful, only wise God will make you stupid real quick.

Just sayin you gon need the Spirit to make this journey my friend. All scripture is God~breathed. No if, ands, or buts about it. Catch that revelation.

He chose the foolish to shame the wise...

Blessings

 

[KingJ]

I'm not sure where you get the sense that I'm "shocked" by anything KingJ posts. In fact, I just recently posted (after you observed that the thread was "getting rude"), "When you read his posts with that understanding [of fundamentalism and authoritarianism], they make a lot more sense."

IOW, rather than being shocked by his posts, I'm actually expecting most of what he says because I understand it comes from an authoritarian, black/white mindset.


Well that kinda raises a bigger issue (love the analogy btw :lol: )....why does anyone debate anything in forums like these?

You are simply among the most frustrating people to discuss with. You believe like an atheist, call yourself a Christian and have no respect for any scripture. You start controversial threads and back the opposition to Christianity / bible every-time.

The truth of scripture has not settled inside you. You simply waste the time of anyone who discusses with you. As you will not accept rebuke or correction from scripture because it is ancient myth to you. This would all be fine if you never called yourself a Christian. This makes debating circular and helping you near impossible.

The best acid test for a Christian on the net is to determine their love and respect for scripture. If you believed as you do, but yet fed and helped orphans / widows ....I would talk with more patience and love. But all I know so far is that you '''correct''' young Christians... :blink: .

You know KingJ, I remember a time when I believed people like yourself were sincere. Now I know better; people who value doctrine over their neighbor will be stoking the fire and crying for blood on Judgment day.

You need to re-edit your belief. Have you ever wondered why God gives such a harsh warning to US (me included) in Luke 17:2?

I have a family member that was used often to preach at church meetings and camps. He is an atheist today. He spends most of his time running down the bible and Christians on...not atheist sites...but Christian and 'neutral' sites. He is very smart and knows scripture well. Not that I don't love him, but to see him silenced is a daily prayer. Being intelligent + knowing scripture + hating God = ability to stumble many Christians. Yet...River is '+ claims to be a Christian' = false teacher = half truths / twisting / ignoring scripture.

I don't want to see River in hell! You think that of me? I want her to respect scripture more! My family member believes identical to her, except he has the honesty to not call himself a Christian any longer.

Though I must laugh at my efforts. Liberal Christians are here to stay. The state of the church these days . Everyone wants to live as they please, believe what they want and still wear a Christian t-shirt.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Well put KingJ!

It's like the old saying - with friends like that, who needs enemies. In today's "enlightened" version of Christianity, "let God be true, and every man a liar" has become "let every man be true and God a liar."

 

[River Jordan]

You are simply among the most frustrating people to discuss with. You believe like an atheist, call yourself a Christian and have no respect for any scripture. You start controversial threads and back the opposition to Christianity / bible every-time.

Atheism is a lack of believe in God. That's all.

Since I believe in God, your argument makes no sense, except as yet another indication that in your mind, disagreeing with you = atheism.

The best acid test for a Christian on the net is to determine their love and respect for scripture.

And to you "love and respect for scripture" = "has the exact same interpretation as KingJ". No others are allowed, right?

You need to re-edit your belief. Have you ever wondered why God gives such a harsh warning to US (me included) in Luke 17:2?

Yup, and you know what I see causing young people to stumble? Your brand of authoritarian fundamentalism, where there is only one way to do everything...one way to read scripture, one way to pray, one way to think....and any deviation is not tolerated. Look again at the results of THIS SURVEY and see how many of the reasons kids are giving for leaving the faith are rooted in fundamentalist Christianity.

Specific to this topic, if you teach kids things like that natural selection is a myth and that they have to believe that or else they're "rejecting scripture", then when they go out into reality and actually see natural selection happen....what do you think happens? And worse, what I've seen is some kids go back to people like you and say "You said natural selection can't be real and contradicts scripture, but I've seen it myself", they get rebuked and told they have to choose between what they see with their own eyes and Christ.

So yeah, I know exactly what Christ was talking about there....people like you.

Yet...River is '+ claims to be a Christian' = false teacher = half truths / twisting / ignoring scripture.

Yeah, I know that in your authoritarian black/white world, disagreeing with you = "false teacher". But not everyone lives in your world KingJ. You are not the judge of who is and who isn't saved. I know you like to think of yourself as having that authority, but you don't. You're just some angry person yelling at people on an internet forum.

 

[KingJ]

And to you "love and respect for scripture" = "has the exact same interpretation as KingJ". No others are allowed

You keep saying that...If you disagree with my scripture quoted, quote as Jesus did in Matt 4 ''it is also written''. Scripture > opinion.

Yup, and you know what I see causing young people to stumble? Your brand of authoritarian fundamentalism, where there is only one way to do everything...one way to read scripture, one way to pray, one way to think....and any deviation is not tolerated. Look again at the results of THIS SURVEY and see how many of the reasons kids are giving for leaving the faith are rooted in fundamentalist Christianity.

Matt 7:13. Vegetables > Mcdonalds.

Specific to this topic, if you teach kids things like that natural selection is a myth and that they have to believe that or else they're "rejecting scripture", then when they go out into reality and actually see natural selection happen....what do you think happens? And worse, what I've seen is some kids go back to people like you and say "You said natural selection can't be real and contradicts scripture, but I've seen it myself", they get rebuked and told they have to choose between what they see with their own eyes and Christ.

Natural selection...like the strongest lion getting the woman...yes...but natural selection prior to mankinds fall or lion growing wings to keep up with its prey, no.

What gets selected in natural selection is not necessarily greater adaptation, it’s what satisfies the particular conditions natural selection puts living creatures through. These are: surviving competition for scarce resources to reach sexual maturity; generating as many copies of oneself carrying one’s characteristics as possible; seeing those copies survive to pass those characteristics on in the next generation. Prominent among characteristics helping creatures meet those conditions will be aggressiveness and deceit to meet competition for scarce resources, seductiveness and rape to generate as many copies of one’s characteristic as possible, and murder of other creatures’ progeny while defending one’s own. Because those characteristics best satisfy the conditions set by natural selection, those are the characteristics it would concentrate in succeeding generations. That, logically, must be the main effect of natural selection.

It's true, being better adapted to the environment could help a creature meet one or two of those conditions. But I doubt if it would contribute nearly as much. Resources directed to mere fitness will satisfy the conditions set by natural selection less directly than those others allocated to the other characteristics I listed.

Now we can test the theory of natural selection. Do evolved creatures show primarily the characteristics its conditions select for? And I’d say, apart from fitness, no. We, for example, are not marked primarily by aggression to our fellows, deceit in mating, and lethal nepotism. Therefore the theory of natural selection fails the test.

After Darwin’s death the theory of natural selection fell out of favor for yet another reason: experience showed it wasn’t true. Imagine living creatures having been acted on by natural selection for millions of years--there'd be very little variation left among them. Yet before they began applying artificial selection to wild species breeders found them to carry abundant variation. Was that because variation was continuously being created? No. Once the breeders had selected in wild species for exactly the set of variations they wanted, no new variations appeared. Variation in wild species was clearly not undergoing a process of selection anything like artificial selection.

Today natural selection makes less sense anyway. We're losing the sense of living creatures differing from one another in terms of specific variations. Few genes correspond to single characteristics. We know creatures vary more as wholes than as bundles of individual characteristics. So there aren't specific ways of varying for natural selection to identify individually and select among.

So yeah, I know exactly what Christ was talking about there....people like you.

So, disagreeing with blasphemous human theories > rejecting scripture / ignoring it as a myth.

You miss Rev 22:19?

Yeah, I know that in your authoritarian black/white world, disagreeing with you = "false teacher". But not everyone lives in your world KingJ. You are not the judge of who is and who isn't saved. I know you like to think of yourself as having that authority, but you don't. You're just some angry person yelling at people on an internet forum.

If a Muslim did not obey the Quran, would you say he is a Muslim? If a Muslim was blaspheming Muhammad would other Muslims say he is a good Muslim?

You bring judgement upong yourself when you call yourself a Christian 1 Cor 5:12.

1 Cor 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

 

[River Jordan]

You keep saying that...If you disagree with my scripture quoted, quote as Jesus did in Matt 4 ''it is also written''. Scripture > opinion.

I keep saying that because it's true.

Matt 7:13. Vegetables > Mcdonalds.

Um....ok. So is it a competition to see who can come up with the most narrow version of Christianity? If I come up with one that's more narrow than yours, I get to quote that back at you?

Natural selection...like the strongest lion getting the woman...yes...but natural selection prior to mankinds fall or lion growing wings to keep up with its prey, no.

Natural selection is natural selection, whether it be for the strongest predator, the fastest prey, the best hiding ability, or the smartest most cooperative group. Your thinking that it's only about the strongest is a pretty fundamental misconception.

And it's usually considered bad form to copy someone else's words and not give them credit.

It's true, being better adapted to the environment could help a creature meet one or two of those conditions. But I doubt if it would contribute nearly as much.

Um...some guy on the internet saying "I doubt it" isn't really a compelling argument. Especially given his ignorance of the basics of the subjects....

Do evolved creatures show primarily the characteristics its conditions select for? And I’d say, apart from fitness, no. We, for example, are not marked primarily by aggression to our fellows, deceit in mating, and lethal nepotism. Therefore the theory of natural selection fails the test.

Again, why you and this guy (from "takeondarwin.com") seem to think that the only thing that makes an organism more fit is "aggression" is a mystery. Where do you find these guys anyways?

But the bigger question for me is...why are you trying to make (or copy) a science-based argument? Does the science really matter to you?

So, disagreeing with blasphemous human theories > rejecting scripture / ignoring it as a myth.

So now you're back to arguing from a religious standpoint. You need to focus here. If you're going to argue that evolution is scientifically wrong, then let's go with that and see if we can figure it out. OTOH, if your position really is that the scientific status of evolution doesn't matter because it's religiously wrong, then please just say so. That way we can better focus our efforts and not waste so much time.

You miss Rev 22:19?

Um.....I guess when I start taking words away from prophecy, you'll have a point. :huh:

If a Muslim did not obey the Quran, would you say he is a Muslim? If a Muslim was blaspheming Muhammad would other Muslims say he is a good Muslim?

You bring judgement upong yourself when you call yourself a Christian 1 Cor 5:12.

1 Cor 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

You think this is about being obedient? Man, you sure do have a strong authoritarian streak.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Um.....I guess when I start taking words away from prophecy, you'll have a point. :huh:

"Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar." (Pr 30:5-6)

 

[aspen]

really? even the last chapter of Mark?

 

[Mr.Bride]

really? even the last chapter of Mark?

Is the last chapter of Mark the Word of God or nah?

 

[aspen]

Is the last chapter of Mark the Word of God or nah?

Go look MB, most Bibles have a footnote describing it as written long after the original author, yet it is still in the Bible. Somebody wanted to write up a neat and tidy ending to the gospel

 

[justaname]

Religion and science do not equate.

As to the Darwinian theory, there has never been any observable cross species mutations. To be clear, a bat has always had wings throughout the fossil record and every plant or animal species bears the same history throughout the fossil record.

What the theory claims is a "tree of life" as sorts. This is where the religion relation comes in as this "tree of life" has never been observed nor have the gaps between species been filled. What the scientific data reports is consistent with the biblical account, everything is after its kind.

21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Science wants to admit only that which is observable and provable, which is sound in certain aspects of the human experience, yet science takes for granted that which is not observable and cannot be proven, the human mind itself. This is not to be confused with the brain or brain activity, because the brain itself is not conscience, whereas the mind or the soul is. Also the laws of non-contradiction by which science bases all of its conclusions on as well as other laws of logic it takes for granted or assumes without giving any form of reasonable explanation. These cannot be proven nor observed, yet these laws ground the scientific method.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Go look MB, most Bibles have a footnote describing it as written long after the original author, yet it is still in the Bible. Somebody wanted to write up a neat and tidy ending to the gospel

Which proves what exatly?

 

[aspen]

Which proves what exatly?

It proves that not all of what we consider to be inspired scripture is not.