RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 11:11 am
I have plenty of criticism to go around. It is not just directed at science but at wild interpretations of the Bible by clergy who crucify the words of the Bible afresh daily.

But, I believe today's "science" has damaged the spiritual connectedness that humans innately have with their creator for a sterile, dead, "clinical" view. Where we are no longer individuals or people but "specimens". We have no inalienable rights because from their view we are not connected to anything "spiritual". Pavlov's dogs waiting for another pellet to pop out of our tv screen.

Spirituality goes the gamut from the Egyptians preparing years in advance for the death of a spiritual person to preserve and present their bodies unto eternity... To today's forensic science chopping up dead corpses like they are blood thirsty serial killers. Freezers full of body parts for a deal on e-bay. "Science" putting dead human bodies on display in museums. Where is the balance, where is the decency? Where is the respect for the dead? Science cannot respect something it cannot observe or measure. Will science ever recognize the human spirit? Science has a blind eye.

Are we "rapidly" devolving?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 11:33 am
With you as an example, yes.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 12:01 pm
Rex, the "blind eye" you perceive is an illusion peculiar to those determined to "see" that which in fact is not seeable, but merely guessable. Evidence is not a matter of preference, whether considering science or the study of cultures, traditions, and the writings descended therefrom. Though you profess to "Know the Bible", in a religionist sense and from a religionist perspective, you apparently know little about from whence came the collection of scriptural writings we know as the Bible. Examining that issue from a perspective wholly independent of theology is truly illuminating, though potentially dangerous to to the convictions of those not well grounded in philosophy, theology, history, and literature.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 02:15 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Rex, the "blind eye" you perceive is an illusion peculiar to those determined to "see" that which in fact is not seeable, but merely guessable. Evidence is not a matter of preference, whether considering science or the study of cultures, traditions, and the writings descended therefrom. Though you profess to "Know the Bible", in a religionist sense and from a religionist perspective, you apparently know little about from whence came the collection of scriptural writings we know as the Bible. Examining that issue from a perspective wholly independent of theology is truly illuminating, though potentially dangerous to to the convictions of those not well grounded in philosophy, theology, history, and literature.


John 3:1-21
1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 02:17 pm
Rex do you exempt from your life those parts of science you disagree with, and if so what parts of science do you disagree with, and how do you exempt them from your life.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 02:23 pm
Rex apparently takes exception to that which he perceives to be at odds in any way with what he he assumes to be relevant to any aspect of that concept he purports to be his god and his particular, individual, singular interpretation of the mythology dependent thereon.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 02:29 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Rex takes exception to that which he perceives to be at odds in any way with what he he assumes to be relevant to any aspect of that concept he purports to be his god and the mythology dependent thereon.


Did you ever even once consider that maybe Jesus is right? (We must first be born again.) Is that even on your list of possibilities?

If one must be "born again" to "see" the kingdom of God then it would explain why some are "guessing" and some "know"...
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 02:37 pm
It's an age-old problem, Rex. A person with faith trying to contend with someone who wants only scientific-method-proveable fact - it's unreconcileable (sp?). The absolute best that can be hoped for is a truce characterized by mutual respect. I personally have fallen fall short of that desired state with the agnostics and atheists I've run across (except for maybe with edgarblythe- we seem only to clash once in a while, not constantly). Mutual respect might be too civilized even for us oh-so-intelligent and worldly A2Kers...
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 02:45 pm
Chumly wrote:
Rex do you exempt from your life those parts of science you disagree with, and if so what parts of science do you disagree with, and how do you exempt them from your life.


A wake up email designed to provoke guilt is not beneath me. I can phrase things with some unbridled cruelty and have caught people off their guard.

Of course I do it with "Christian love" which only seems to make things even more bitter sweet and remorseful.

I have achieved some desired results with the "for shame" email... (stops spammers too hehe)

People can wake up and take a more humble position. Sometime we only need to reflect upon priorities a bit more to have things click.

Smile
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 02:52 pm
Oh. oh - the wrath of god.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 02:56 pm
snood wrote:
It's an age-old problem, Rex. A person with faith trying to contend with someone who wants only scientific-method-proveable fact - it's unreconcileable (sp?). The absolute best that can be hoped for is a truce characterized by mutual respect. I personally have fallen fall short of that desired state with the agnostics and atheists I've run across (except for maybe with edgarblythe- we seem only to clash once in a while, not constantly). Mutual respect might be too civilized even for us oh-so-intelligent and worldly A2Kers...


I appreciate your advice. I have not declared war on science, on the contrary, I am just here protecting the faith from people who think that science has somehow disproved God. I love science because it reveals the hidden wonders of God. It is when I am thwarted from expressing spirituality that I sense a battle. That not only has science dumbed down the universe but it is an ongoing endeavor to actively suppress free spirituality.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 03:16 pm
RexRed wrote:
snood wrote:
It's an age-old problem, Rex. A person with faith trying to contend with someone who wants only scientific-method-proveable fact - it's unreconcileable (sp?). The absolute best that can be hoped for is a truce characterized by mutual respect. I personally have fallen fall short of that desired state with the agnostics and atheists I've run across (except for maybe with edgarblythe- we seem only to clash once in a while, not constantly). Mutual respect might be too civilized even for us oh-so-intelligent and worldly A2Kers...


I appreciate your advice. I have not declared war on science, on the contrary, I am just here protecting the faith from people who think that science has somehow disproved God.


That is bullcrap. No one here has asserted that science has disproved god. On the contrary, all the people here have done is ask you to prove the existence of your god, to prove that a creation occured. You have demanded that people disprove that, and you now want to insist that science seeks to disprove god. It does not. Science deals with naturalism, and not with the supernatural.

Quote:
I love science because it reveals the hidden wonders of God.


That is precisely what motivated the seventeenth and eighteenth century christians of England, who were educated at Oxford and Cambridge, and who went back there to teach. Charles Darwin was educated in that tradition, and a letter survives from him to his father, in which he discusses whether or not he should seek a living (i.e., become a minister in the Anglican church), or go on the Beagle expedition. For the record, his father advised him not to pass up that latter opportunity.

Quote:
It is when I am thwarted from expressing spirituality that I sense a battle.


No one is attempting to thwart you, we only ask that you make coherent posts which relate to the topic at hand, rather than wandering off in one post after another in which you spew spiritual garbage which sounds like some christian hippie on acid. The battle starts because you howl when people try to get you on topic, and challenge your otherwise unfounded assertions--which drivel you refer to as the spiritual.

Quote:
That not only has science dumbed down the universe but it is an ongoing endeavor to actively suppress free spirituality.


Horseshit, pure and simple. Science is only a method. You make this **** up as you go along, and get angry when people don't swallow your bilge whole with a smile.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 03:51 pm
Quote any scientist who is trying to disprove god. This I'd like to see.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 04:16 pm
What is evident is that some see spirituality somehow threatened by science. That is in itself a crushing condemnation of the worth of any spirituality so shallow and insecure as to perceive an external threat, particularly when that perceived, yet unevidenced, threat is thought to come from a quarter by definition thoroughly uninvolved with and disinterested in any such considerations. Telling in the extreme is the propensity of some proponents of some spirituality concepts to misconstrue, mischaracterize, miscontextualize, misunderstand, and misrepresent science's position re spirituality. The worth of the objections posed by such is made plain by the anger and misinformation, if not outright lies, which in large part characterize those objections
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 04:18 pm
I think Timber set a new worlds record for nested modifiers.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 04:19 pm
He's the champ, bar none . . .
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 04:26 pm
A paranoid in search of a phantom menace.
0 Replies
 
Scott777ab
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 07:39 pm
EVOLUTION HOW?

There is no how.

The bible says God created, that is out of nothing the heavens and the universe.

THere is no EVOLUTION.

Have Fun.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 07:47 pm
Scott777ab wrote:
EVOLUTION HOW?

There is no how.

The bible says God created, that is out of nothing the heavens and the universe.

THere is no EVOLUTION.

Have Fun.

Education....
Look in to it
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 08:14 pm
Education? I don't need no f**kin' education!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution? How?
  3. » Page 539
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 09/30/2024 at 08:25:19