Why can't science and religion just get along?

[Angela 0077]

Well since islam is a religion shouldnt that always state the trues fact not have people make up there own ideas

 

[Luther Sloan]

Right over your head. Meh.

Iguana:

I am not implying that I am perfect, my friend. In fact, that is why I accepted God in the first place. For the forgiveness of sins. I did nothing to you but share my beliefs and defended them to the best of my ability. And that is why I will continue to need God. Because He is my salvation.

Pretty much. His point is "I believe because I do, and the Bible tells me so". Not much for debate. Plus, he's under the mistaken impression that a cursory read of the King James Bible and shaking hands with Jack Chick made him an expert on worlds religions and comparative mythology.

Well, I did give outside sources (i.e. books and other examples) here. But they were side stepped. I have primarily used the Word of God because that is what chisels away at the heart of Man (I mean, it is no coincidence that everyone get's worked up over it).

As for Jack Chick: I never said I agreed with everything he teaches. I do believe in the standard plan of salvation according to the Bible (of which he does support). Jack is a little more a little more fundamental then me (when it comes to Rock and role playing games), but if that works for him (I am not going to attack him because of it).

 

[iguana_tonante]

Well since islam is a religion shouldnt that always state the trues fact not have people make up there own ideas

What?

I am not implying that I am perfect, my friend.

That's doesn't make any sense. Of course you are not "perfect", nobody is. Even more: what does "perfect" mean? That's just some empty platitudes.

What you are doing is telling everyone that you know the ultimate truth about God, based on something that only you can see, and all those who disagree even on the smallest isse are not simply mistaken, but bound to an eternity in Hell.

That attitude is not gonna win anyone here. In fact, it will turn people are away more often than not.

I have primarily used the Word of God because that is what chisels away at the heart of Man (I mean, it is no coincidence that everyone get's worked up over it).

Groan. You really don't get it, right?

 

[Angela 0077]

Geez thankyou Mr Sloan for posting this

yes you did use certain materail for this thread and you were only giving your best thoughts on the subject in hand.

That is why l said before in this thrad that everyone has to get to know you for waht you are and l can say l know more about you than religion and l am glad l got to know you over three yrs.

I am glad you have stated that you do not beleive i everything jack says only the positive thing which help us in life smiles

Anyway you dont have to attack Jack Chick because you know what is right and what is wrong.

In this life there are so many negitive things and it is good that you can look on the bright side of things

it is a shame that others do not see it that way.

I know there is alot of religions which are bad and they force all your money and things from that person

i know there is a relgion my Uncle used to be in and it took him for waht he had and when he didnt have any money left they threw him out.

But with you you look at things which make you happy and to that point l am glad you take a few options but think for your self too.

 

[Luther Sloan]

I am not implying that I am perfect, my friend.

That's doesn't make any sense. Of course you are not "perfect", nobody is. Even more: what does "perfect" mean? That's just some empty platitudes.

Iguana:

God = perfect.

What you are doing is telling everyone that you know the ultimate truth about God, based on something that only you can see, and all those who disagree even on the smallest isse are not simply mistaken, but bound to an eternity in Hell.

Don't shoot the messenger. I am just a follower of God and His Word.

That attitude is not gonna win anyone here. In fact, it will turn people are away more often than not.

Very true. God said...

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

~ Matthew 7:13-14

http://kingjamesbible.com/B40C007.htm

I have primarily used the Word of God because that is what chisels away at the heart of Man (I mean, it is no coincidence that everyone get's worked up over it).
Groan. You really don't get it, right?

Yes I do. The truth sometimes hurts. The truth is not always a pleasant thing to hear. I mean, indulge me. Let's say I am right for one second. Let's say it is all true. What then? Could you blame me for wanting to defend God and His Word?

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Luther: You never answered my question.

Is something put forth as moral because God says it is moral, or does god put it forth because it is moral?

 

[Angela 0077]

Well since islam is a religion shouldnt that always state the trues fact not have people make up there own ideas

What?

I am not implying that I am perfect, my friend.

That's doesn't make any sense. Of course you are not "perfect", nobody is. Even more: what does "perfect" mean? That's just some empty platitudes.

What you are doing is telling everyone that you know the ultimate truth about God, based on something that only you can see, and all those who disagree even on the smallest isse are not simply mistaken, but bound to an eternity in Hell.

That attitude is not gonna win anyone here. In fact, it will turn people are away more often than not.

I have primarily used the Word of God because that is what chisels away at the heart of Man (I mean, it is no coincidence that everyone get's worked up over it).

Groan. You really don't get it, right?

Mr Slaon is not saying he knows everything he is only hgoing by what he knows about his religion
And for being perfect well like you said no one is

Like l said before on the other page of this thread people wanted to know about the religion so he was stating that.

He is not bombarding everyone with this you and others are keeping this up not him.

He is only replying to defend his own character since some of you are saying nasty things and he is defending himself.

How would you feel if you were in his position.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Thank you Angela-0077.
You are very kind.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I see that Luther Sloan refuses to discuss my Quaker beliefs except to say my beliefs are on the whole wrong. He doesn't say what is wrong with what Quakers believe.

By Quakers I am specifically talking about Unprogrammed Quakers (i.e. most Australian, British and New Zealand belong to Unprogrammed Meetings).

So I will ask straight out - what do you have against the Religious Society of Friends, Luther Sloan?

 

[Luther Sloan]

Luther: You never answered my question.

Is something put forth as moral because God says it is moral, or does god put it forth because it is moral?

Flying Spaghetti Monster:

Well, I hope this is the answer you were looking for, my friend:

God is love and is perfect and without sin.

In the Old Testament God tries to reach Man in the best way He could for that point in time. God was also trying to teach His people valuable lessons and show them that He is God (who keeps His Word and loves them very much (i.e. Prophesies of his sacrifice foretold in the Old Testament come to pass in the New Testament).

In the New Testament God (The Son) comes down in the flesh of Man to die for Man's sins because He loved them so much. This allowed Man to have a closer relationship with God and follow closer to His perfection (So that man could have a life of sins forgiven and have a deep bond with Him as He intended).

 

[Jetfire]

Science can only explain what we understand to be true.
Religion tries to explain what we believe to be true.
Science deals with facts & Religion deals with faith...to be honest one really has nothing to do with the other. Faith is something that is personal and no one should be trying use it to condemn others nor should people who don't believe in that faith try to condemn those who do believe in it. I think faith is something that spans beyond the 3 major religions lest we forget.
I am sure someone will come along and rip this apart and also correct my grammar.

This is just my opinion on the subject.

 

[Angela 0077]

Thank you Angela-0077.
You are very kind.

I am just trying to help and l know you are just wanting to post like everyone else here instead of being bullied for what you believe in.

Miss Chicken and a few others who have commented on this page it is good that you are putting down a positive questions and hopefully everyone here can get back on topic.

It would be nice if there was a religion thread instead of what we have here and then if people beleive in certain things to do with the bible you will be able to get a more of a positive result than what we have had here.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Angela 0077 - in your view is it OK that when I asked Luther Sloan the folowing question

If I make a list of Quaker, Buddhist, atheist, New Age, Wiccan books will you read them?

he answered

That's not the same thing. That's like asking a gourmet chef to start working at McDonalds. Why would he create (and fill his mind with) destructive and disgusting garbage for people when he knows he can

He inferred that my Quaker beliefs are destructive and disgusting garbage and you are OK with that and stick up for his right to say so, but than complain if people treat his views in a negative way.

 

[StarryEyed]

Science can only explain what we understand to be true.
Religion tries to explain what we believe to be true.
Science deals with facts & Religion deals with faith...to be honest one really has nothing to do with the other.

That is correct. But sometimes people of faith make worldly claims which are testable by science. For instance, some adherents of one of the three Abrahamic faiths will insist that the book of Genesis is literally true when science can easily demonstrate beyond any doubt that it is not. That's when there is conflict.

Some people of faith have the irrational conviction that faith trumps known reality. That is their mistake. Reality is the ultimate judge. Reality always wins.

 

[Angela 0077]

Well he has been posting to others members questions some good some bad as you can see too.
If you have a positive question and it is something he can answer he will post to it.

Well everytime he posts in here he gets a negitive reponce now you know how it feels to be in his shoes.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Angela 0077

I first mentioned Quakerism inPost 89 when I asked him "Have you read any Quaker books?"

I mentioned Quakerism again in post 101

In post 129 I told him I considered myself to be a non-theist Quaker and asked him if he had looked into Quakerism.

In post 169 I asked him - If I make a list of Quaker, Buddhist, atheist, New Age, Wiccan books will you read them? (to which he gave an offensive reply)

in post 172 I said to him "Maybe you can tell me what is wrong with me identifying heavily with Quaker beliefs."

In post 199 I asked "and you still haven't answered me about your opinions of Quakerism which is considered to be a Christian religion."

If he can't answer these questions he has had plenty of chance to do so, he could have said that he knew little about Quakerism instead he inferred that Quaker beliefs were "destructive and disgusting garbage".

 

[Luther Sloan]

Jetfire:

No. I would never rip apart your grammar, Jetfire; nor would I put you down, either.

And science does teach us a lot of interesting facts in life. But even some science can be flawed or inaccurate.

Also, there are quite a few books out there where science supports the Bible.

Here are two quick facts from the Bible...

_______________________________________________________

The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world (Proverbs 3:6).

Luke 17:34–36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.


_______________________________________________________

And here is a page that lists a couple of Bible facts. Granted, from a skeptics perspective some of these facts are not all the convincing and can be refuted. But there are a few in there that are pretty amazing, though.

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Luther: You never answered my question.

Is something put forth as moral because God says it is moral, or does god put it forth because it is moral?

Oh boy...this is one that cannot be done briefly! Watch me run out of time tonight...

The question as stated is formulated in a manner where it will generate an untenable answer either way it is answered, and obviously the intent was to get Luther to either choose one of the answers, or to answer in a manner that does not address the dilemma the question poses and thus be called on for evading the question.

If one takes option A, then the counter-charge is that God's laws are arbitrary and could thus be ordained in a different fashion at any time and therefore we cannot count on Him for any reliable definition of good and evil. Such a god fits the description of the Olympian deities and the like, and commands no other respect but that given to a stronger power.

If one takes option B, then one presupposes a morality outside of and above God, which negates Him as first cause, as well as voiding the claims of omnipotence and omniscience. God in effect becomes a servant and a mouthpiece rather than a power unto Himself.

There are many steps that have to be taken in order to address why the question is not formulated correctly, and ultimately it is going to come down to an alignment of ultimate values--and it is that alignment where the fundamental difference of viewpoints truly lies.

First we have to look at the formulation of the question. It is hinged upon the presupposition that morality is one of two things: a separate construct from God, or a subordinate construct to God. Again, as stated, either option will lead to a "damning" conclusion. The Christian contention, however, is that they are not separate constructs.

Luther started to go there, but did not connect this to the question. The statement found in the Bible that "God is love" indeed alludes to the idea that morality and God are not separate constructs, but inherently united. (The first chapter of John also addresses this as well, but the succinct statement makes the point just as well.) One must be careful here, for it is easy to then make the statement, if you stop here, that ALL God is is a conglomeration of laws much as the laws of physics are, rather than a source and a being with personality. The thing is, though, that love by definition does indeed require a personality and a will behind it; it cannot simply be an amorphous, unsentient thing like midicholorians (Obligatory Geek Metaphor (TM)).

We then have to understand the rest of the nature of love. Love requires a sentient, knowing personality--a true will. Also--though the strict dictionary definition tends to omit this requirement--love is inherently relational in nature. A will must also be on the other end to accept it in full understanding. Now, the concept of the Trinity does allow for there to be such an interchange while there is also unity, and the idea that love is indeed inherent in God's nature.

We then have to address the question of creation before we go any further (I will be returning to the discussion of the nature of love soon--this digression is necessary, though). Why create something separate? Why not simply allow this nature to be good enough? True, genuine love (I speak of something of which romantic love is only one small part) is overflowing in its nature...it gives selflessly and wishes to continue giving. This is where creating other beings comes in. Some say that we were made for the purpose of worship (which as it is meant to be, is the expression of love). That's just half the story. We were also made to be loved.

There is one thing love requires, though...and that is free will. We must enter into the relationship knowingly and without coercion, for where coercion is found, love is not. If the possibility to choose wrongly is not there, if we do not have free will, then there is no love, only a mockery thereof. As we well know, rape is not love. Coercion is the mental equivalent of rape, and against the definition of love.

The risk of things going wrong is inherent in free will. Pain happens and so does death, if the wrong choice is made. But to remove free will is wrong to a degree that makes even these pale in comparison. I assert that free will, being the integral component of love that it is, as a value trumps even physical life itself, as well as trumping the absence of pain.

Now THIS is the question of values I promised I was headed for. One must give serious thought to this: whether one believes the ultimate (highest) value to be love, as I believe it is, or to be simple life or absence of pain. And THAT, I think, is a question worth addressing.




Now, what I have just outlined is NOT a complete proof of faith or why the Christian faith--this is an analysis of a specific question posed. There are several, several other elements I would have to tie into this in order to construct the full argument, that would carry forward from the new question that has just been posed. (I might have to write a book...though I would say others have done better, such as C.S. Lewis, in THAT regard. ) However, for the purposes of THIS question, we have now moved from a logic problem formulated with the purpose of being unanswerable in a reasonable manner (basically something formulated to be a "gotcha" question) to a fundamental question that really does demand us to think about what we believe about God and the universe.

 

[Angela 0077]

Angela 0077

I first mentioned Quakerism inPost 89 when I asked him "Have you read any Quaker books?"

I mentioned Quakerism again in post 101

In post 129 I told him I considered myself to be a non-theist Quaker and asked him if he had looked into Quakerism.

In post 169 I asked him - If I make a list of Quaker, Buddhist, atheist, New Age, Wiccan books will you read them? (to which he gave an offensive reply)

in post 172 I said to him "Maybe you can tell me what is wrong with me identifying heavily with Quaker beliefs."

In post 199 I asked "and you still haven't answered me about your opinions of Quakerism which is considered to be a Christian religion."

If he can't answer these questions he has had plenty of chance to do so, he could have said that he knew little about Quakerism instead he inferred that Quaker beliefs were "destructive and disgusting garbage".

Well if he is not going to answer the question or questions about this religion it is not up to me to as him to reply.

Maybe you can tell us about this religion and what it is about.

Plus what is it that makes you like so much

Are you a full beleiver in this or do you only like certain parts of it.

I would be interested to know more about this because l havent heard about it before.

 

[Jetfire]

Jetfire:

No. I would never rip apart your grammar, Jetfire; nor would I put you down, either.

And science does teach us a lot of interesting facts in life. But even some science can be flawed or inaccurate.

I didn't mean you LS. Posters in general.