Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

I remain unconvinced. When Christ speaks of life in this context, he isn't speaking of corporeal existence but life in the Kingdom of God. None of the other quotes says anything about suicide at all. And if life is so precious, why lay it down for others? The bible is full of contradictions. I ask again, if we are to live according to the Old testament, why don't chrisitans follow the dietary restrictions outlined therein?

They do not speak to suicide directly. They speak of us not belonging to ourselves. I can't do all the work for you. If you search the scriptured you will find that we are to be good stewards of our gifts. Everything we have is from God, a gift, and we are to use it in a way that glorifies Him. Again...
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own, you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

Would you consider killing yourself as honoring God with your body?

Most of modern Christian doctrine has been created post hoc and has no basis in Christ's teachings at all. Christ laid out few rules for behavior other than believe in him, love God and treat your neighbor with forgiveness and as you would like to be treated (of course, there's a loophole there too --- what if you like being beaten with a car antenna while handcuffed, is it then OK to do that to others???)

I just flat out disagree with this statement. I do think that your misrepresentation of Christian doctrin seems due to a post hoc treatment of what scripture says (and some that it doesn't say) and the misunderstanding that results. Christ did say to love God with all your heart. He did say to love your neighbor as yourself. He did say that you are to forgive. Noplace do I find anything that suggests that you should beat another because you like to be beat. In fact, He also said that if struck on one cheak that you should offer the other. He did not say that you should strike back if you enjoyed it. Though, if you enjoy being hit, it should be all that much easier to avoidm feeling the need to strike back...I guess.

You continue to argue against Christian doctrin yet you repeatedly demonstrate that you don't know what that doctrin is? You make something up, present it as Christian doctrin and then argue against it.

As an engineer I can tell you that if you take the same approach to science, you will allways get the wrong answer.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Better yank all the physics, chemistry and mathematics courses out of high school as well. None of them gave a sufficient background in order to understand the different competing theories. We did get atomic spectra and structure of the hydrogen atom, but I don't think we ever measured it in the lab, so we just took that on Faith. We also swallowed wholesale everything else about the Schroedinger equation and quantum jumps without even being introduced to the measurement problem or EPR experiment -- not a single mention. When it came to s, p and d orbitals in chemistry those were handed down like they were from moses and none of us had any idea where those really came from. They did make sense, but without having the background of knowing spherical harmonics and partial differential equations enough to understand the solutions of the radially symmetric wave equation we took a huge amount of basic p-chem entirely on Faith... Best to trash all of it since kids in high school don't have the background to think about any of it critically and we can't possibly introduce them to something they have no way of judging the truth of themselves...

Did I really say anything like that? that we should discard all science in school? I think I did mean to suggest that we might re-evaluate how it is sometimes taught though.

For a scientist you seem rather quick to jump to an extreme conclusion.

 

[MikeFerrara]

The problem with the Luddites who question modern science is their selectivity. They have no problem using the Internet or TV to spread claptrap like creationism, or having cardiac bypass surgery, or driving hybrid cars, or listening to CD players, or any of a million other things based on the physics, chemsitry and biology they view as propaganda. If you reject evidence-based science, reject it all. Live in tents and eat manna from heaven, like Moses. You can't have it both ways... hey, great microprocessor guys, and that jet really got me to my daughter's wedding on time, and, oh yeah, thanks for saving my son from leukemia, but you got that whole "earth is six billion years old" thing wrong by about six orders of magnitude.

If I'm understanding the argument you try to make here, I don't think it's at all valid. Again, you base an argument on a presupposition that isn't true.

Without questions, you don't have science. Science must be questioned or it stops. I do question a creation theory that denies the existamnce of God. Then again, science has not completely explained the origines of anything, especially life as a spontaneous event without a creator. Science has not disproven the existance of God so to question one's assertion that there is no God would seem completely reasonable. However, it seems completely unreasonable to view the question as a rejection of science.

Speaking for myself, in no way do I reject science. I have a technical education and spent about 17 years as an engineer. The fact that I question or even reject a specific theory, in no way obligates me to reject all of science nor does it indicate that I have done so. I don't reject evidence based science but I do reserve the right to question or even reject one's evaluation of what the evidence is telling us.

The assertion that I should live without technology because I believe in a creator seems completely irrational. The electricity that is supplied to my house and all the appliances that it allows to oporate is useful. I don't deny their existance and I can, in fact, explain in great detail, how it all works as well as how the power company measures and bills for it. Why shouldn't I use it again?

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

I've already stated Christ's doctrine --- believe in him, love god, forgive your enemies and expect no earthly retribution for earthly crimes (turn the other cheek) and treat others as you would treat yourself. That's all we can glean directly from the gospels, all else is complicated human over-interpretation of the gospels. Christ doesn't mention suicide, period. Christ doesn't say "love thy neighbor as thyself, except of course for you mentally ill people who don't really love themselves... in that case, love your neighbor as the average non-mentallly ill person would love himself."

But what about common sense, you ask. Can't we presume that Christ knows we have some degree of common sense and that the "love thy neighbor" maxim is to be taken for the typical, not aberrant, person? No, because common sense tells us not to turn the other cheek either ... we can't run a society if, when someone injures us, we invite them to injure us more. The "turn the other cheek" edict is counterintuitive and, if applied in practice, would lead to anarchy. Christ doesn't say just to forgive assaults on our person, but to ignore it and even suggest for the assailant to do more harm. The standard argument of theologians is that Christians can forgive a criminal in their hearts and still expect them to go to prison. Again, this is interpreting something that is not ambiguous --- turn the other cheek, meaning do nothing to those who would harm us. Prisons are anti-christian, they are earhtly punishments which we are not entitled to dole out.

The evolution of "Christian doctrine" has been, at times, bizarre. Catholics can't use hormonal birth control. Why? Because of the sin of onan, an old testament story. I don't see where Christ says: thou shall not use synthetic progesterones to prevent procreation. The bottom line: the church wanted more catholics and manufactured a bogus religious rationale against contraception. Of course, priests should be celibate, Christ says so... no wait a minute, he doesn't mention priests at all. The ancient Christian church argued over whether christians should be circumsized, in other words, be Jews first and Christians afterwards. Paul realized that this would hurt recruting among Greeks, who weren't circumsized and were not likely to be just to join a new religion. Thus, a great deal of christian doctrine has economic/political justification, not justification from the mouth of Christ.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Let me clarify --- I subscribe to Christ's theology, I don't want to come across as anti-Christian, far from it. Loving God, forgiving our neighbors, treating other people with respect, it's hard to argue. But I reject the interpretations that define sin in terms of sexual orientation, use of birth control, belief in scientific theories that conflict with Bible folklore and the need to go to Church and donate 50 bucks every sunday.

 

[novicediver]

As an avowed atheist, I believe that the bible is little more than a fairy tale, much like the greek and roman myths. It is an attempt by ancient man to explain the way the world came to be. Do I know all the answers? No, but then again neither do you, and to blindly state as fact the existance of some unseen entity is an insult to my intelligence.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Let me clarify --- I subscribe to Christ's theology, I don't want to come across as anti-Christian, far from it. Loving God, forgiving our neighbors, treating other people with respect, it's hard to argue. But I reject the interpretations that define sin in terms of sexual orientation, use of birth control, belief in scientific theories that conflict with Bible folklore and the need to go to Church and donate 50 bucks every sunday.

You keep refering to what Jesus said. That's all good but what about the rest of the Bible?
The Bible clarly states in several places that certain sexual behaviors are indeed siful and it doesn't require much interpretation. For example...

1 Cor 6:9 "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved. Neither fornicators, nor idolitors, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

That's pretty plain speach isn't it?

You also keep refering to Catholic doctrin. I'm really not prepared to speak for what they believe because, as far as I can tell, much of Catholic doctrin is not founded in the Bible and I don't believe it myself. you'll have to pick on a Catholic over it. LOL

The Bible doesn't say that you must go to church and give $50. however it does speak of coming together to worship and of tithing. Salvation, not dependant on either but very possibly resulting in both.

 

[novicediver]

give it up mike it is getting old

 

[MikeFerrara]

As an avowed atheist, I believe that the bible is little more than a fairy tale, much like the greek and roman myths. It is an attempt by ancient man to explain the way the world came to be. Do I know all the answers? No, but then again neither do you, and to blindly state as fact the existance of some unseen entity is an insult to my intelligence.

Hmmm. I do believe that The existance of God is a fact and that the Bible is His word. I don't at all think that belief blind. You can of course believe as you will. Why should my beliefe insult you?

 

[MikeFerrara]

give it up mike it is getting old

No. Not just yet.