warmonger1981 wrote:[youtube]9mXvjK4c33w[/youtub
I watched that really, really hoping it was a hip-hop version of Statler Brothers "Do you remember these?" but updated to the 90s. Somebody needs to record that song.
Moderator: Community Team
warmonger1981 wrote:[youtube]9mXvjK4c33w[/youtub
DoomYoshi wrote:"Remember that" Martin Luther was dead 20 years before Galileo was born.
warmonger1981 wrote:So basically science is relative to our understandings. Sounds like an argument for God not against. Just because you don't understand God does not mean that there is no God. Just like that understanding science. Just because you don't understand it does that mean it does not exist. It sounds like an initiate into Freemasonry. If you are not able to understand you are not given an answer. Eyes for those to see and ears for those to hear.
warmonger1981 wrote:This post was made by Symmetry who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
Symmetry wrote:I really don't see belief in God as opposed to belief in science. It's opposed only when people put faith above reason. Take the KJV literalists, for example, or the Christian Scientists who eschew modern medicine like blood transfusion.
jonesthecurl wrote:What additional evidence makes that the Christian god?
jonesthecurl wrote:Imagine for a moment that the existence of the universe is itself sufficient evidence of god(s).
What additional evidence makes that the Christian god?
tzor wrote:warmonger1981 wrote:This post was made by Symmetry who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
Careful war, don't make me quote sym ...
On the other hand, I was going to quote him anyway ...Symmetry wrote:I really don't see belief in God as opposed to belief in science. It's opposed only when people put faith above reason. Take the KJV literalists, for example, or the Christian Scientists who eschew modern medicine like blood transfusion.
The key should always be "faith" and "reason" together. (That having been said one can have incorrect faith and incorrect reason. The early arguments of Paul to the well educated Greeks sounded like a lot of nonsense to him, not because it was a violation of science but because it was a violation of the natural order of nature. They thought there was nothing good to come out of a crucifixion, just as many probably think there is no potential good to come out of the character assassination that the Democrats did to Kavanaugh. But this is a side issue as it really doesn't have to do with facts derived from the scientific method.)
Speaking of side issues, the Christian Scientists is a very interesting one. You have to look at it through Jewish origins and into Christian understandings. In the Torah, "blood" was associated with "life." This can be seen in various stories such as when Able's blood symbolically "cried" to God. The Torah doesn't come from a sushi culture so all food is effectively "dead." The division of life and death is an important theme in the Torah because Egypt was really big on the death thing. So let's refocus on the notion that blood is life. A blood transfer is effectively living blood to living blood, life to life, as opposed to taking blood, making blood pudding and eating it. It is a Christian ideal presented by Jesus himself that to "lay down his life for another" is a high and noble thing. So giving ones life (blood) to another (living blood still living in another) would be a perfect example of charity; not something to be avoided. And if giving is so noble, receiving is also noble.
Back to the original point. There are a lot of things in science we can only blindly speculate on because we cannot observe them directly (what goes on inside the event horizon of a black hole, and what might exist outside of the n dimensional space time we live in). The "logical" conclusion is to state that some things cannot be known. Indeed, this is a basic principle of quantum mechanics in that some things are an unknown set of probabilities until something interacts and "observes" that state. Using a purely scientific approach should yield to agnosticism in all cases where we really can't prove one thing or the other. Under such conditions there is nothing wrong with making a choice as long as it isn't mistaken for scientific fact. "Weak" atheism becomes a valid choice as well as assuming a deity because of faith.
Symmetry wrote:Well that was a strange post, for all kinda reasons. The equating of Kavanaugh to Christ; the black pudding comparison to blood transfusion; not even sure what you meant by "sushi culture"... I think you threw black holes and quantum mechanics in towards the end.
tzor wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:"Remember that" Martin Luther was dead 20 years before Galileo was born.
You're right. Luther's arguments were with Copernicus himself, whom he called a "fool", not the later Galileo.
I'll throw in the fact that John Calvin was expressing similar geocentric demands calling those who believed the earth moved "possessed by the devil."
DoomYoshi wrote:There is a long distance between calling someone a fool and wanting them burned alive at the stake. Can you find proof of your earlier statement or are you in full retreat mode?
As an interesting side note, both Luther and Calvin publicly condemned Galileo outright as a heretic, and would have had him burned at the stake if they could have gotten their hands on him.
I think that Martin Luther’s intentions were not mistaken; he was a reformer. Perhaps some of his methods were not right, although at that time, if you read Pastor’s history, for example – Pastor was a German Lutheran who experienced a conversion when he studied the facts of that period; he became a Catholic – we see that the Church was not exactly a model to emulate. There was corruption and worldliness in the Church; there was attachment to money and power. That was the basis of his protest. He was also intelligent, and he went ahead, justifying his reasons for it.
Nowadays, Lutherans and Catholics, and all Protestants, are in agreement on the doctrine of justification: on this very important point he was not mistaken. He offered a “remedy” for the Church, and then this remedy rigidified in a state of affairs, a discipline, a way of believing, a way of acting, a mode of liturgy. But there was not only Luther: there was Zwingli, there was Calvin … And behind them? The princes, “cuius regio eius religio”. We have to place ourselves in the context of the times. It is a history that is not easy to understand, not easy …
Then things moved on. Today, the dialogue is very good and I believe that the document on justification is one of the richest ecumenical documents, one of the richest and most profound. Right? There are divisions but they also depend on the churches
To be just means simply to be with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Other observances are no longer necessary.
That is why Luther’s expression “sola fide” is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love. That is why, in the Letter to the Galatians, St. Paul develops above all his doctrine on justification; he speaks of faith that operates through charity.
tzor wrote:Symmetry wrote:Well that was a strange post, for all kinda reasons. The equating of Kavanaugh to Christ; the black pudding comparison to blood transfusion; not even sure what you meant by "sushi culture"... I think you threw black holes and quantum mechanics in towards the end.
Sushi culture, you eat your prey while it is still mostly alive. Fresh sushi is literally you get the fist off of the line, cut it up and eat it on the spot.
Raw oysters comes to mind as well, they are still living when you eat them.
Everything else is eating dead cells.
Symmetry wrote:Nope- sushi is basically (very basically, mind you), specially prepared rice plus something else, usually raw seafood, but not live. Fisting a fish off a line is probably a weird sex dream that you had.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Neoteny wrote:What the everloving f*ck is going on in here.
Neoteny wrote:What the everloving f*ck is going on in here.
Symmetry wrote:warmonger1981 wrote:So basically science is relative to our understandings. Sounds like an argument for God not against. Just because you don't understand God does not mean that there is no God. Just like that understanding science. Just because you don't understand it does that mean it does not exist. It sounds like an initiate into Freemasonry. If you are not able to understand you are not given an answer. Eyes for those to see and ears for those to hear.
I really don't see belief in God as opposed to belief in science. It's opposed only when people put faith above reason. Take the KJV literalists, for example, or the Christian Scientists who eschew modern medicine like blood transfusion.
Always reminds me of the joke about the drowning man. A man is drowning. A lifeguard comes out, but the man says, "no, God will save me". A boat reaches him and offers help, but again, the man says "God will save me". A helicopter arrives to pull him out, and again the man refuses there help- "God will save me, I have faith".
The man drowns, and at St Peter's gate he demands to know why God didn't save him. "What do you mean?" says St Peter "We sent a lifeguard, a boat, and a helicopter..."
It's just a joke, obviously. but it does have a point.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users