|
Post by Craig Richard Lysy on Nov 25, 2009 7:59:38 GMT -8
TJ, my friend, Jon created the "Off Topic" section of his site for this very reason!
Your statement discloses that you view my effort here through an adversarial lens. I would argue to you and to Hook that not participating in dialog with those of different beliefs is a waste. As with reading we grow and evolve intellectually when we participate, when we discuss, when we challenge each other's beliefs. Dialog catalyzes introspection and self-reflection and questioning. These processes are healthy, renewing and constructive.
Now if you are resolute in your viewpoint, completely closed to any opposing viewpoint, or view any discussion as adversarial where there must be a clearly defined winner and loser, then I can see why you would see the forum I started here as a waste. I am heartened that despite both your and Hook's comments, that you chose to participate. I for one would much rather talk to you two than any of my bleeding heart friends!
"
Indeed, with one caveat, unless you subscribe to fundamentalism. Most believers are not fundamentalists and therefore can reconcile science and religion, reason and faith.
Now for my friend Hook, I surmise that you are not a science major, yet your comment regarding natural selection is actually quite good. Luck indeed plays a role in natural selection. In England during the industrial revolution there were two types of moths, one black, one white (the black had recessive genes and was very rare). The industrial coal soot blackened the trees and made the white moth more visible to birds and afforded the black moth cover. The white moths were wiped out. They did not adapt, their species survived in the genes of their black brothers.
Whether nature induced or human induced, natural selection works to reward those organisms that best adapt to a changing environment. Human intelligence affords our species with the greatest adaptive ability, hence our domination of this planet, and I would argue testimony to God’s grand design. I reconcile faith and reason.
Hook and TJ, the fact that we have a consensus on some points provides testimony that there is indeed value to our discussion.
Thank you for participating.
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Nov 25, 2009 12:50:45 GMT -8
I don't understand why such threads, which only divide people, get created on forums about subjects that are totally unrelated. They have debate forums out there, I don't know why we need this kind of stuff here....but to each their own! Hey, don't throw me in the closet! Craig is new, and starting new threads is better than flipping through the archives. It's off-topic, so let's keep it that way. -CG
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 26, 2009 10:19:48 GMT -8
Christopher: You seemed to completely glossed over the rest of what Jon said. I gather then you must not accept the science? The thing about dogma/religion is most people with such heavy beliefs actually don't believe in facts or science when it comes to their religion. They take a point of view without anything to back themselves up, except for faith, which is a tool really to say they don't have to explain what they believe. Well I can believe I can walk on water, but it doesn't mean I can. A religious person would probably laugh at that analogy and say of course you can't walk on water. I would then ask them how. What would they say? Science proves I can't. Joe I tried to answer the rest of his post by my general "I can't explain that" statement. Here's the thing. I believe in truth. I think there is such a thing as absolute truth. I think science has been used to discover many of those truths. I think some day, maybe in the next life, I'll realize how the scientific truths that mortals have discovered fit into that absolute truth. For now, all I know is that I'm sure the scriptures are true. If scientific theory doesn't agree with that for the moment, I'm okay with that. So for carbon dating and dinosaurs, I have no way to explain that, and if that's convincing evidence for you to believe God didn't place mankind on the earth like the Bible says he did, then I can understand that. As far as walking on water, I would say you can do that with enough faith, as long as it is something that God needs to happen, which is why I would say it hasn't happened much.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 26, 2009 10:37:43 GMT -8
Hi Chris, thank you for sharing! For the record, you should not construe my commentary as any criticism of your faith. It is not. I respect your beliefs and offer you reasoned argument for you to consider. You should know that I have studied extensively all the great faiths, I have read all the great books, and that I am well versed in scripture. I thirst for the truth and seek the Grail, the reunion with the Divine. Great! I welcome a theological discussion. Among the great books you've read, have you read the Book of Mormon? I have read your post, and offer the following for you to consider. God is the embodiment of wisdom, intelligence and knowledge. God is all knowing. God is the Prime Archetype from which all form life is derived. A such God is all, and God therefore must be both Male and Female. In Jewish tradition the feminine aspect of God is called Skekinah in Christian tradition she is called Sophia. Interesting. I believe God is male. The Father, as Jesus called Him. God created humans and animals with sexual organs. Clearly, like other organs, the heart, the lungs, the liver, etc. God created them for a purpose! It would be illogical for God to create organs with a clear intended design, yet not envision that they would be used! Clearly God by design intended for humans to reproduce, had he not intended this, he would not have created us with sexual organs! I 100% agree with you. The very first commandment God gave to Adam was to multiply and replenish the earth. Mormon doctrine simply holds that it was impossible for him to do that until he choose to leave the Garden and experience mortality. I discern, that Genesis provides us with a metaphor, of children coming of age. I assert that the eating of the fruit of the Tree Of Knowledge of Good and Evil is an allegory for Adam and Eve discovering sexual identity, of mating! When God confronted them did they not attempt to hide their sexual organs from view? Does this not clearly demonstrate discovery and usage of these organs? Do not children when confronted with a 'crime' attempt to hide what they have done? Clearly, psychologically this constitutes a loss of innocence, the passage from childhood to adulthood, hence the scriptural 'Fall from Grace.' I think some of the Genesis account is symbolic (like creating Eve from Adam's rib as being symbolic of a wife's place beside her husband and not behind or in front of him), but I don't believe it to be an allegory. I know it is popular to believe in "original sin" as being a sexual sin. I don't think that is the case. I think Adam and Eve trying to hide their nakedness has to do with their loss of innocence resulting from a knowledge of good and evil. In the garden they didn not know good from evil and so were like little children (who are unashamed of being naked in front of others). Once they partook of that fruit, they gained knowledge. No longer being innocent they tried to "hide their nakedness." I assert that God envisioned this, that humans were never intended to exist as non-sexual beings forever given their design. Humans were always intended to Love! Love is God's greatest gift! Indeed, Love is what raises humans above animals. The fact that God commanded later "be fruitful and multiply" supports my argument. God always intended for us to love, to mate, and to multiply. Why would God limit the scope and magnificence of His greatest creation! Again we are agreed. I think the Fall of Adam was part of God's design and that "all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things" (2 Nephi 2:24). I also believe that "Adam fell that man might be and men are that they might have joy." You and I believe the same things, I just believe that the fall of Adam was necessary to get the ball rolling. I agree with your assertion that time is not defined in scripture. We know through science that the Earth is clearly 4.5 billion years old, not 6,000 years old as misguided Christian literalist assert. What is ultimately important is that God created, not how God created. Science answeres How, Religion answers Why. One should never confuse the two. I accept the Bible timeline for the history of humanity post-Fall, which is about 6,000 years, but I believe it took God a lot longer than 7 days to organize this earth into its current state. I also don't know how long Adam and Eve would have lived in the Garden, as the Biblical record really doesn't start counting years until after the Fall. I, too, agree that the Bible (or any of the additional scripture that I hold sacred) does not share the "hows" of creation. I think the "why" is the point, there. I'm interested to know what Science can discover about the how. Thank you for sharing, for being open, for allowing yourself to be vulnerable. I would ask you to consider my points of argument. I am Christian, but abandoned my catholic faith to attain a more reasoned and therefore truer appreciation of God. All religions are well intentioned, however I assert that we are created as scripture asserts in the image of God, and by that we are afforded the gifts of reason, logic and intelligence. It is therefore right that we reason, that we question, that we challenge! A relationship wit God is not delivered, it must be sought. All the best! Thanks for your thoughts, too, Craig. I think you're a very level-headed and thoughtful man. Happy Thanksgiving!
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 26, 2009 11:43:38 GMT -8
It is dangerous when you say that you're theology doesn't allow you to think in a certain away. What if a school of theology didn't allow you to think that interracial marriages should occur, or that anti-slavery platforms should exist... I see what you mean. My church is a little different than most. Let me explain a little background for our Church. We believe that God is unchanging (most religious people do). We also believe because He loves His children, He wants to bless us the with the knowledge we need to progress eternally. So he reveals Himself to a prophet and teaches him what he needs to do. That prophet had the job of teaching others God's will. Eventually people have always rejected the truth (called apostasy). This is pattern repeated over and over. Adam taught his children, but they eventually rejected it. Noah was called to end that apostasy, then Abraham was called to start over, then Moses started over, then Jesus started over. Before each of these great prophets (Christ being much more than a prophet) was a period of spiritual darkness. We believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is exactly what its name purports: the true gospel once again restored to the earth through prophets after a period of apostasy. That's a long explanation to make this one point: when a church claims to be the one true church led by Jesus Himself through prophets, then you must accept those what those prophets say, or reject the whole church. A church cannot have true prophets that are teaching things that are not true. Here's what I mean when I say that our doctrine doesn't "allow" for a certain idea. It's not that you get kicked out of the church if you don't believe it, and you're perfectly able to make up your own mind, but if you really believe in the gospel, you accept the whole thing. It's not that I allow my church's doctrines to make up my mind. I choose to accept my church whole-heartedly. By the way, Mormons will be the first to tell you not to accept our church blindly - only after serious study, contemplation, and prayer. If the Spirit of God tells you something is true, it is then your duty to act accordingly. By the way, our church is okay with interracial marriage and was anti-slavery before anti-slavery was cool (it's one of the reasons we got kicked out of Missouri in the 1830s!) God works according to scientific laws to accomplish his purposes, but God has to work through humans, and humans and their translations and interpretations, and their understanding of science (how things actually work) are limited by the thoughts and scientific breakthroughs of their era. The interesting thing is, what is the "word of God?" Is the Bible something that is divinely-inspired or is it something else? I agree with you. God works according to laws, many of which science has given us a lot of understanding about. As for the Bible, as you may surmise from my responses above, I think it is the will of God made known to man through servants that God has chosen. In saying that, I don't believe the Bible to be perfect (changes over the years have undoubtedly occured, and translation errors, etc.), but I do think it is "divinely-inspired." Also, is it possible for a word to be an allegory, or a symbol? Anyway, Chris, I don't think that the Bible's purpose is to teach science (or history). I think it's possible to accept Science and belief in religion.... To your question: yes. To your next statement: true (on both counts). As to your last: I agree. Let none think that I have no faith in science. I am currently working on my master's degree in family and developmental science, which while not biology or chemistry is still a science dedicated to using the scientific method to explain things and make life better. Carlton, you're a cool guy. Happy Thanksgiving!
|
|
pr0ner
Scoring Assistant
Posts: 130
|
Post by pr0ner on Nov 26, 2009 14:36:36 GMT -8
I attached a label to myself: Scientist. I need not say more. This is rather weak sauce.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Nov 26, 2009 17:31:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by TJ on Nov 27, 2009 13:08:09 GMT -8
I agree. I've always found fundamentalist (of any religion) quite scary.
|
|
|
Post by Craig Richard Lysy on Nov 28, 2009 11:12:30 GMT -8
Wow, I we have found alot of common ground in this thread, and I believe this is a good thing.
Chi's, I have not read the Book Of Mormon. Since I have read other 'Apocryphal' texts and found truth within their words, I think it time to visit this text also.
All the best.
|
|
|
Post by TJ on Nov 28, 2009 12:26:52 GMT -8
I doubt Jon created off topics for the sole purpose of talking politics.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Nov 28, 2009 16:03:43 GMT -8
I doubt Jon created off topics for the sole purpose of talking politics. You can talk about anything you want. That's the point!
|
|
|
Post by TJ on Nov 28, 2009 16:40:57 GMT -8
ANYTHING?
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Nov 28, 2009 17:37:32 GMT -8
Sure. As long as it's not racist or overly sexually-explicit, which I know you wouldn't do anyway. Other than that... anything you want.
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
Post by cheno on Nov 28, 2009 21:10:13 GMT -8
What about irrational anti-Canadianism?
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Nov 28, 2009 21:38:48 GMT -8
if it's funny I don't have a problem with it
|
|