The Battle Between The Christian Religion and Science

Deeje · Oct 24, 2016

Carlita said:
I'm in my mid-thirties, and I was reading earlier about what we learn as we age by decades. Science says that in our thirties we are "learning who we are? Why we are here? Asking the purpose in our lives." Forties is pretty much grounding that purpose as it grows. Fifties we found it but finding ways to cope with our decline, and so forth.

I learned a lot of things from both Catholicism and Buddhism when it comes to purpose of life and "the need for a god."

With Catholicism, I learned the purpose of life is through community and sacrifice in servant to others. In Buddhism I learned that we need to accept things change, we change from one generation to the next, and our values change as we get older. We need to be comfortable (core teachings) with suffering: birth, age, sickness, and death.

I guess that is the difference between religion and what it teaches, as opposed to the Bible and what it teaches. The Bible explains why we can never be comfortable about aging sickness and death....we have no 'program' for any of them. We do in fact, rail against them because God never meant these things to be a part of our lives. God hates them as much as we do....but for now we just have to endure the consequences of Adam's sin, and learn all we can in this life about obedience to the Creator and how important it really is. How we navigate our way through this maze under God's instruction, will determine if we get to keep the gift and go on living.

We have to understand that in life we are not given a purpose from an outside party. We are taught, raised with, adopted, or grown into a purpose we developed for ourselves. Whether it be through the Bible or self reflection, but everything comes from us, how we interpret life, and how we connect the dots.

Human kind are the only creatures on earth who require a purpose and a reason for their existence. We are the only ones who can worship a deity with our mind and heart of our own free will. We are at the mercy of our genetics, our environment and our own inclinations.....all the choices are ours to make and we can validate or invalidate everything we have been taught, if we so choose.

Evolutionary science (the study of change in environment and species) is just the study of change and things growing or evolving from one stage to the next. When I was in geology class, we touched on "coming from apes" but it wasn't put that we came from apes. It was put that we evolved from what is called a lower species and we graduated to a higher more intelligent species. As human beings, we need to understand we, our flesh, are not spirits. We should stop attaching ourselves to our flesh (if one likes).

I have a completely different understanding about flesh and spirit to what is taught in the churches. We are material beings who breathe the same air as animals and who die the same death as they do. (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20) The only difference is that the Creator can restore life in our case. (Acts 24:15) and has promised to do so. (John 5:28-29)

That's what I see you're doing with the accusation on evolutionary science. The fact is, we evolve. If the Creator made it be that we evolve from one species to another, however, interesting that is, who are we (to believers) to question how god created you and how you formed into who you are today?

The fact is, we did not evolve from lesser primates. We were created just as we are, fully upright, fully human, only without defects. (Romans 5:12)
Science has evidence for adaptation within species, but they have not one shred of real evidence that all life came from a common ancestor and turned into all we see on earth today.....we have instead a common Creator who has told us exactly how he did it in simple terms.

What about your human body is so divine that you put down theories of where our bodies are from when science does not address who we are as spirit. Spirits always exist. They never die.

That is not true. The spirit in man is his "breath"....once breathing stops, the soul dies. (Ezekiel 18:4; Eccl 9:5;10; Psalm 146:4) There is no consciousness in death....just silence. (Psalm 115:17) There is no immortal part of us that goes on living...that came from the Greeks, not the Bible.

What I learned in Catholicism is ditch all of that. Sacrifice (as what Jesus did) isn't about pointing fingers on how god created. In the Bible, take it literal or not, it isn't about the tools god use to create the world but how and more important the message you get that your origin comes from god. Science is just a study of that origin. Evolution means nothing in comparison.

Not so, the teaching of evolution has produced generations of either total unbelievers or believers who have hatch their own version of events. We are not free to do that....as we will soon see.

I don't understand how science competes with god. If god is the creator of everything, nothing can compete with him not even in concept. It sounds like a form of attachment to human theories. Science has a lot of theories. Believers claim their beliefs are facts. That's why they conflict (in my head, at least).

You forget that there is an adversary who is in a battle for the hearts and minds of men. God will not force himself on anyone, but he does expect that we will support his side of the issue. Evolution is designed to make God redundant, as is evident in any thread designed to promote evolution. Belief in God is placed in the realm of myth and magic.

Not knowing we need a purpose is actually a beautiful thing. In my 30s, I'm trying not to get trapped into "needing a purpose" because if that be the case, I'd be thrown on everyone else's purposes (god's included) without reflecting on who I am and my wants and needs. How do I identify with myself and so forth. That is the purpose: self-reflection. When you sacrifice yourself as Jesus (to translate), you reflect on his passion.

But if there is no god, that doesn't mean we have no purpose. It just means you have to use more brain energy (no pun) to understand life and what you cannot know. It means "giving up the ghost" and finding who you are by where you live, who you interact with, your blood, your ancestry, yourself. It means putting the "higher power" as a service to humanity as that is what the church is.

The purpose of life shouldn't have to be spoon fed. I know my ex friend would die without god and the church. She needs to be spoon fed a belief in god that will take care of her. My co-worker is the same. Many people are. (Probably why people don't like to be questioned their beliefs here on RF).

The easiest people on the planet to fool is ourselves. Religion has indeed spoon fed people lies for centuries, making them dependent on the church, not on a personal relationship with God. The church needs people to survive and if the church looks like it might be failing to keep the masses filling up the coffers, then a change in attitude is almost always seen as a way to water down the truth with what people want to hear. (2 Timothy 4:3-4) The "same sex" marriage issue is a classic example of this IMO. Acceptance from the people becomes more important than acceptance from God.

You don't have to divorce your beliefs but if you can think of a minute what it would be like to think for yourself, can you think of something that defines you that is not sinful?

Thinking for herself is what cause Eve to fall for the devil's lies....thinking for himself was the reason Adam failed to follow what God had taught him to do. Independent thinking is highly overrated IMO. Following through on all the things God commands in his word would make the world a lot nicer place to live. "I think" would be replaced by "God says...."

In my opinion and belief, the manual is life itself. It's here. It's me learning more about you and people on RF. It's me going into my career and working with people in the language I love and express myself in. It's my family. It's my ancestral spirits. It's my prayers. It's my depression. It's my illness. These things are all my "manual" for lie. When I reflect (as mentioned above) and understand these things, I am more grounded.

Life is a learning curve....it the ones who fail to take in the education and learn from their mistakes that are the problem. Also failing to learn from the mistakes of others, we are doomed to keep repeating them.

I tried reading the Bible and it made me physically sick. Not just because of the deaths in it. I rather read the Buddhist sutras if I went off of life and death morals, but because I am given life when in reality, I already have it to begin with. I don't need someone to die for me when everythign comes from me.

We can all pick parts of life that made us sad or bitter....but are the bad bits all there were to it? If you concentrate only on the negative aspects and forget the positives, no wonder you didn't like it. There is still much beauty in the world if you stop concentrating on the bad news. There is much beauty in the scriptures too, but its not all smooth sailing. This is life as we have to live it for now...none of it is without purpose.

I use myself as a placeholder for some people in general. A lot of us don't have that need for a physical manual.

Throwing away the manual has gotten a lot of people wondering why their efforts to operate a piece of machinery have ended in disaster.
We have a manual because it is the Creator's instructions for living.....it is because people have thrown God out with his word, that lives are failing every day in so many ways.

In regards to science, it just is. It is beautiful, I agree. I just find you're putting more emphasis on the people's flesh rather than the people's spirit.

Its the spirit in me that drives me to keep telling the truth. The flesh is where I live and where God put me. It is defective for the present, but it will not always be so. God's kingdom will "come" and God's will, will be done, "on earth as it is in heaven"....how many people utter those words without ever understanding what they are asking for?

9-10ths_Penguin · Oct 24, 2016

Kirran said:
Really? Interesting! Considering their acceptance of evolution that is a trifle odd.

That's the thing: they don't accept evolution fully. The official Church position is that evolution needs to be understood through the lens of doctrine:

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x...nts/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Kirran said:
I imagine that while it is RCC doctrine many Catholics will disagree!

I don't think you could find a Catholic doctrine where many Catholics don't disagree.

Unveiled Artist · Oct 24, 2016

Mind you. I chopped up your post so I can read it rather than pick at it.

Deeje said:
The Bible explains why we can never be comfortable about aging sickness and death....we have no 'program' for any of them. We do in fact, rail against them because God never meant these things to be a part of our lives.

My point is we have to be comfortable with that fact regardless of who describes the process whether it be The Buddha's observations of life or god's creating of it. If we keep finding an outside party (like god or The Buddha) to define life for us, then it defeats the purpose of our lives which is that of constant change, understanding the nature of that change, and finding healthy moral ways to live in that change. (Change or evolution)

Deeje said:
Human kind are the only creatures on earth who require a purpose and a reason for their existence. We are the only ones who can worship a deity with our mind and heart of our own free will. We are at the mercy of our genetics, our environment and our own inclinations.....all the choices are ours to make and we can validate or invalidate everything we have been taught, if we so choose.

We don't need a purpose. If you sit a isolated mother from birth with her child on an island her only purpose would be to take care of her young and herself for survival. Think of Castaway (if you've seen it?) Good movie. It really got to our basic needs but without his fiance, he'd still have the need to survive. So purpose is survival skills and all animals and living beings have that. *Cough* We're not the center of the universe.

Deeje said:
That is not true. The spirit in man is his "breath"....once breathing stops, the soul dies. (Ezekiel 18:4; Eccl 9:5;10; Psalm 146:4) There is no consciousness in death....just silence. (Psalm 115:17) There is no immortal part of us that goes on living...that came from the Greeks, not the Bible.

This is just a difference in beliefs. Yours is no more fact than mine is to the "outside" world. If we understand our place in the universe (that we are not the center of it), then we have open minds that we can see our beliefs as facts without needing to override other people's beliefs in doing so. It's a healthy desertion of what method you want to tell the other they are wrong well meaning or not without considering their view not just your own.

Deeje said:
Not so, the teaching of evolution has produced generations of either total unbelievers or believers who have hatch their own version of events. We are not free to do that....as we will soon see.

Depends on where you're from. I learned about evolution all through my grade school and college years and never once turned into a non-believer nor questioned my beliefs because of it. I just made sure I got the A on the test and I was fine.

Maybe that's true on online society, media, and movies, but in real life (in person) I don't see people's beliefs changing all because someone told them X even though they know Y is true.

Deeje said:
Evolution is designed to make God redundant, as is evident in any thread designed to promote evolution. Belief in God is placed in the realm of myth and magic.

Evolution is the study of change. In and of itself, it does nothing. It says nothing about god nor does it argue against god. It's not a bible and doesn't have laws that say "you can't believe in god" etc. Science evolution has to do with not only biology but psychology as well. We evolve in different ways.

Like nonbelievers, I think you're falling into the trap of mistaking the people and their beliefs for the beliefs themselves.

Deeje said:
Thinking for herself is what cause Eve to fall for the devil's lies....thinking for himself was the reason Adam failed to follow what God had taught him to do. Independent thinking is highly overrated IMO. Following through on all the things God commands in his word would make the world a lot nicer place to live. "I think" would be replaced by "God says...."

You don't have to divorce yourself from your beliefs. For example, I will always believe in the spirits. I will always believe in my ancestors. I will always believe my family. I've gone to a Hindu temple and paid my respects while there. I was open to understand and see from their point of view how they view god rather than listening to god of abraham views all the time. It gets depressing. I've talked with Muslims. I've talked with Pagans (in person). I've talked with Wiccans. I've talked with Buddhists. And of course, I talked with Catholics. I never divorced my beliefs while talking to them. Nor have I felt I would doubt my faith or anger the spirits because I went into a Mosque on Tuesday and a temple on Wednesday and then went to my altar on Friday.

It depends on how strong you are in your beliefs and if you have an open mind to understand others (if your god allows you to).

Deeje said:
We can all pick parts of life that made us sad or bitter....but are the bad bits all there were to it? If you concentrate only on the negative aspects and forget the positives, no wonder you didn't like it. There is still much beauty in the world if you stop concentrating on the bad news. There is much beauty in the scriptures too, but its not all smooth sailing. This is life as we have to live it for now...none of it is without purpose.

I read the whole Bible. Like a adventure and murder mystery and other things I dislike, I put it aside because I don't care for it. I read Psalms occasionally when I pray to my grandmothers; but, even then, it feels like I'm holding mud in my hands. Psalms has no violence in it from so far I remember reading. Proverbs is good as well. The gospels have no violence. The idea of sacrifice is like lead to my tongue.

Maybe that's something you won't understand but I'm not like many atheists who disregard the Bible just because it "mentions" violence. If they haven't experienced sacrifice in Christ, then they are going off of claims and disinterest. Experiencing Christ is a horrible feeling. So, that's why I don't care for the Bible.

Deeje said:
Throwing away the manual has gotten a lot of people wondering why their efforts to operate a piece of machinery have ended in disaster.

Actually, it helped me out of half of my bias. If I can only get off of RF, I can improve a bit more on that. I'm actually talking to my family more. I'm learning about myself through the spirits and learning how to discern messages I receive from them. I have a more healthy interest in my spiritual well being and the well being of others. Without the Bible and any form of Christianity (Baptist, Pentecostal, and Catholic my experiences respectively), I feel at total peace.

This has nothing to do with religion. Baptist have a high regard in following the Bible only. I study a lot and it's something I connect to-that form of worship. Pentecostal church is were I was "baptized" and it was more "youth" oriented. While Catholicism lets you experience Christ in his full passion: Life, Death, and Resurrection. It has nothing to do with traditions nor man made, if you like, things.

It's a spiritual understanding and maturity of knowing what is best for my spirit and Christianity isn't part of it.

Deeje said:
We have a manual because it is the Creator's instructions for living.....it is because people have thrown God out with his word, that lives are failing every day in so many ways.

If you can't live without your manual, then you make it an idol. That's why the manual is life itself. Once you put one thing over everything, you become dependent on it. Some people see the manual in line with the creator. By that thought, that sounds, well, wrong. Not morally for me, but just from what I experienced.

Manuals are fine but, again, learning how to accept uncertainty is also learning how to live without a guide.

Deeje said:
Its the spirit in me that drives me to keep telling the truth. The flesh is where I live and where God put me. It is defective for the present, but it will not always be so. God's kingdom will "come" and God's will, will be done, "on earth as it is in heaven"....how many people utter those words without ever understanding what they are asking for?

Many do. It's a spiritual growth not something they are doing wrong. Some of us are pulled to the god of abraham others are not. I understand the uttering of words without understanding because it's not about knowledge, it's about our connection and heart. Understanding comes with time. If you wait until you understand god's word before you live it and in it, then you run the risk of not experiencing god by himself without depending on anything but him.

Deeje · Oct 24, 2016

lewisnotmiller said:
Hmm...
You appear to be impervious to logic.

No, I just know that I don't necessarily see Christendom as representing Christianity, for all the reasons you mentioned.
Christian is as Christian does. Is that illogical?

I get that you think there is objective morality. And I get that you think it was set by God.
Can you at least see that anyone who doesn't follow your God is automatically a moral slider, regardless of their behaviour?

I am not implying that all atheists are moral sliders. You tend to take my generalities personally. I can see that you are a fair minded and reasonable man and a conscientious father.
Good humanitarians tend to be so...and I love them for it. :hugehug:

But from God's perspective, that is not all there is to it.

I'm not big on blind obedience. It's something I have had to unlearn over the years. It's never done me any favours, and I refuse to saddle my girls with that sort of baggage. Far more important to take personal responsibility for your own choices, than abdicate that to an external authority.

I understand your reasoning and I respect it as a fellow human. Teaching personal responsibility is a dying art in this world of almost total "me-ism".

But I don't see my obedience as blind....I see it as insightful, leading to a desired outcome....one that I am genuinely looking forward to.

BTW, I would rather have you as my neighbor than a hypocritical Christian any day.

If God exists, doesn't understand my reasoning, and wants to punish me...well...not like I can do anything about it, is it?

God "offers"...he doesn't "force" us to do anything....and he understands us on a level that we don't even understand ourselves. (Hebrews 4:12-13)

He tells us about his plans for his planet and his creation and allows us the privilege of enjoying it with him as sovereign ruler over all of it. Conversely, he tells us that those who do not want him as their sovereign, and who cannot (or will not) abide by his rules, these will have no place at all in his arrangement...he then leaves the decision up to us. How is that unfair? You choose the course...you choose the outcome.

God could be this all loving being (the apparent contradiction in that notwithstanding) or he could be evil and have everyone fooled, but whatever else let's jut assume he's powerful. So any version of 'Do What I Say, or Else' is obviously quite compelling in some ways.

If all God wanted to do was flex his muscles, then who would still be standing? He is powerful, but that was not at issue in the beginning. God's sovereign right to dictate the terms of life for his own creation, is what was called into question. He has allowed the issue to be fully explored and for all humans to make up their own minds about what they will do concerning his right to rule them on his terms rather than on theirs.

If we have taken our cues about him from some negative parts of the Bible without balancing them up with the positive things, our one sided view might seem to be the correct one, but if we bother to ask the hard questions, there are answers to most of them that are satisfactory in the present circumstances. Would we want people to evaluate our character only on the negative things we have done...even if we had good reason for them that is not apparent on the surface of it? :shrug:

But to your mind he gave me Free Will. And a somewhat rational mind. If he has an issue with my employing them, so be it.

He gave us all free will, and the kinds of human beings we are is really just an accident of our genetics. We inherited all of who we are from our parent's gene pool. Its about the kind of person we become, and whether we have a heart and soul or recognize our inherent spirituality....or whether we are content to believe that we are just the product of blind chance with no purpose to our existence at all.

Spirituality is like a muscle...if it isn't used and strengthened, it atrophies and becomes useless.
A purely material life is never really satisfying.

There is so much in life that can knock us down....some recover and stand up again, ready to fight another day...others just cant get up and are content lie of the floor crying. What makes the difference between these two personality types? Is it nature? Nurture? Genetics? Outside help? Intestinal fortitude?....or all of the above?

Oh well. Better to die a free man, and all that..

That is your choice of course. But the life offered is free of the unnecessary rules. How many rules were there in Eden? Just one.
Yet they still blew it. "I did it my way" never works out for the benefit of others.

I'm a Republican, too, you might be surprised to hear.

I can understand why you might take that position, but in reality, what would it matter in the big scheme of things?
Humans suck at ruling themselves under any form of self rule. (Jeremiah 10:23)

lewisnotmiller · Oct 24, 2016

Deeje said:
No, I just know that I don't necessarily see Christendom as representing Christianity, for all the reasons you mentioned.
Christian is as Christian does. Is that illogical?

Not illogical, as such. Self-fulfilling. Circular logic, so to speak.

Deeje said:
I am not implying that all atheists are moral sliders. You tend to take my generalities personally. I can see that you are a fair minded and reasonable man and a conscientious father.
Good humanitarians tend to be so...and I love them for it.
But from God's perspective, that is not all there is to it.

It's an interesting area, actually. I have had some very close friends through my life who thought I was going to go to a fairly literal Hell on my death. I do sometimes find it hard to reconcile them worshiping (as opposed to simply believing in) the same God who would send me to Hell, but my personality type is such that it tends to be an intellectual exercise rather than something that ever trouble our relationship. I'm more likely to openly joke about it than anything else.

But I do tend to hold myself up as an example. Not because I am a great example, in truth, but because some of the side issues that Christians commonly worry about are not really issues I have. No illegal drugs, for example. I've only ever slept with one woman. Stuff like that. I could better hold up a lot of people who are better examples of humanity, but many would be morally suspect in some eyes due to some of their lifestyle choices.

Anyways, suffice to say that apart from a little exasperation from time to time, I'm not taking any of this personally.

Deeje said:
I understand your reasoning and I respect it as a fellow human. Teaching personal responsibility is a dying art in this world of almost total "me-ism". But I don't see my obedience as blind....I see it as insightful, leading to a desired outcome....one that I am genuinely looking forward to.

Fair enough. I didn't mean to suggest you followed blindly, actually. But ultimately your interpretation of the Bible is passed through a very human governing body. Some of the materials from the early 20th century are clearly racist. I don't say that to demean the JWs, since the majority of society were racist too. I'm just more comfortable making my own decisions and wearing the consequence of them. My mistakes are mine, and I'm pretty good at owning up to them. Owning other people's mistakes is more problematic for me.

Deeje said:
BTW, I would rather have you as my neighbor than a hypocritical Christian any day.

From my point of view, I've never had much of an issue with religious folks. I judge them by their fruits...

Deeje said:
God "offers"...he doesn't "force" us to do anything....and he understands us on a level that we don't even understand ourselves. (Hebrews 4:12-13)

He tells us about his plans for his planet and his creation and allows us the privilege of enjoying it with him as sovereign ruler over all of it. Conversely, he tells us that those who do not want him as their sovereign, and who cannot (or will not) abide by his rules, these will have no place at all in his arrangement...he then leaves the decision up to us. How is that unfair? You choose the course...you choose the outcome.

Unfair? I don't really think about it in those terms. If he has ultimate power, then he can do as he will. I am not in control of him, or anyone else. Just me. At least mostly. So I do the best I can with that freedom, based on my best efforts. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Deeje said:
If all God wanted to do was flex his muscles, then who would still be standing? He is powerful, but that was not at issue in the beginning. God's sovereign right to dictate the terms of life for his own creation, is what was called into question. He has allowed the issue to be fully explored and for all humans to make up their own minds about what they will do concerning his right to rule them on his terms rather than on theirs.

*shrugs*
I'm sure you have explanations for all of this, but the idea that God allows every issue to be fully explored, and that each human gets a chance to then make a decision on whether they accept his right to rule them or not is frankly laughable from my perspective.
However, speaking for myself, I have more than enough access to the Bible, and to JWs, to be aware of their particular message, so I'll take the risk of God being disappointed with my choice. Mind you, from my world view there are numerous Gods I'm betting against. Whatever the choice, most will be disappointed. Your version is more consistent than most, I'll give him that.

Deeje said:
Spirituality is like a muscle...if it isn't used and strengthened, it atrophies and becomes useless.

Analogies are interesting. They can give the appearance of truth without veracity. Perhaps spirituality is more like a habit?

Deeje said:
A purely material life is never really satisfying.

You're entitled to your own opinion. I don't think of my life as 'purely material' for all that I'm not spiritual. However, I'm unsure where concepts like love fit to your mind.

Deeje said:
There is so much in life that can knock us down....some recover and stand up again, ready to fight another day...others just cant get up and are content lie of the floor crying. What makes the difference between these two personality types? Is it nature? Nurture? Genetics? Outside help? Intestinal fortitude?....or all of the above?

Good mentors and the chance to learn the skills of resilience are part of it...

I'm not really the 'lie on the floor crying' type. Not much of a hand-wringer or whatever.

Deeje said:
That is your choice of course. But the life offered is free of the unnecessary rules. How many rules were there in Eden? Just one.
Yet they still blew it. "I did it my way" never works out for the benefit of others.

Unless it's God saying it?

Deeje said:
I can understand why you might take that position, but in reality, what would it matter in the big scheme of things?
Humans suck at ruling themselves under any form of self rule. (Jeremiah 10:23)

Oh, it was just a joke really. I understand the position you'd have on that. It was a feeble attempt to suggest that I have an independent streak.

Acim · Oct 25, 2016

Deeje said:
Faith appears to answer the questions that science alone can't, and science appears to answer the questions that faith alone can't.
This often leaves people with an either/or choice.....but the truth is you can marry them if you adjust your attitude to both. Compromising one for the acceptance of the other, (as in the case of theistic evolution,) is a weak position to take because faith appears to be sacrificed for credibility.

I appreciated a great many assertions in this post. The gist of what it is getting across somewhat aligns with how I see (global) politics playing out.

Yet, I quote this cause I see/understand the terms different. By faith, I think you are referring to religious faith, whereas I see what you are getting across as theological knowledge, or what I'd usually just reference as Knowledge.

Science can, and does, use that knowledge, but at (superficial) first glance and/or based strictly on appearances and spin, it would certainly seem as if science is unconcerned with theological ... anything. Similarly, religion(s) can, and does use that knowledge, yet going strictly with appearances, are not guarding intention to use that knowledge.

Certain aspects of religious faith (that I would say are self evident) need to be sacrificed for their lack of credibility. What all those aspects are exactly, would plausibly vary by individual, but in essence the antithesis comes down to (IMO) a few primary ideas, such as nothing in the universe that is real is actually separate from you, your Creator is within you, Love is who you are. Thus, what may be sacrificed is ideas such as a) the notion of sacrifice, b) some of us will make it, some won't, c) fear has a purpose and can offer protection/guidance.

Hard sciences may not dabble too much in these fundamentals, but public health science is surely dabbling in them, and in my worldview is engaging in global political ideas that attempt to induce a state of fear or risk in order to bring about a desired change, that I think is perceived as better. But I honestly understand that as me giving that all the meaning it has, for me. I for sure process it as a "we" thing, but responsibility has to squarely start in a place that makes the most sense. IOW, if I perceive division in my worldview, that's not God, nor is that Us, that's on me. And why forgiveness is the only sane function I can participate in.

There is only one winning side in this battle....a battle for the hearts and minds of men. If science appears to be winning, taking people away from faith, it's because this was also foretold. (Matthew 24:37-39)

So whose side are we on? The one with the big voice (Goliath) or the one who speaks quietly in the heart? (David's God)

Thought I might say something on this, but feel I already spoke to it. Perhaps I'd just add that my gnostic self understands the war has already ended, the winner already declared, and knowledge that our side won. Going with appearances only, the battle does appear to be ongoing and setting the stage for a finale (or three). Doesn't seem to me to take much guessing how it will play out, but boy do we enjoy our drama.

Deeje · Oct 25, 2016

lewisnotmiller said:
It's an interesting area, actually. I have had some very close friends through my life who thought I was going to go to a fairly literal Hell on my death. I do sometimes find it hard to reconcile them worshiping (as opposed to simply believing in) the same God who would send me to Hell, but my personality type is such that it tends to be an intellectual exercise rather than something that ever trouble our relationship. I'm more likely to openly joke about it than anything else.

A good sense of humor is an excellent way to avoid conflict....though spiritual suicide is hardly a laughing matter.

But I do tend to hold myself up as an example. Not because I am a great example, in truth, but because some of the side issues that Christians commonly worry about are not really issues I have. No illegal drugs, for example. I've only ever slept with one woman. Stuff like that. I could better hold up a lot of people who are better examples of humanity, but many would be morally suspect in some eyes due to some of their lifestyle choices.

Anyways, suffice to say that apart from a little exasperation from time to time, I'm not taking any of this personally.

I'm glad to hear that you can cop it on the chin and keep smiling...I subscribe to that way of dealing with things myself as long as my opponent doesn't turn into Attila the Hun.

But ultimately your interpretation of the Bible is passed through a very human governing body. Some of the materials from the early 20th century are clearly racist. I don't say that to demean the JWs, since the majority of society were racist too.

The refinement we experienced was a process that took many years. Old habits and ingrained attitudes and beliefs sometimes die hard. They can be embarrassing to look back on, much like the silly things we did in our youth....now looking back on them through more mature eyes. What were we thinking?

I'm just more comfortable making my own decisions and wearing the consequence of them. My mistakes are mine, and I'm pretty good at owning up to them. Owning other people's mistakes is more problematic for me.

No surprises there.....you speak for the majority I think.

From my point of view, I've never had much of an issue with religious folks. I judge them by their fruits...

Which is the way Jesus says he does too...and his judgment is the only one that matters.

If he has ultimate power, then he can do as he will. I am not in control of him, or anyone else. Just me. At least mostly. So I do the best I can with that freedom, based on my best efforts. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Its good enough for you then? Most people would say the same thing....especially Aussies.

We all know "she'll be right"....right?

I'm sure you have explanations for all of this, but the idea that God allows every issue to be fully explored, and that each human gets a chance to then make a decision on whether they accept his right to rule them or not is frankly laughable from my perspective.

You know what they say about he who laughs last....

However, speaking for myself, I have more than enough access to the Bible, and to JWs, to be aware of their particular message, so I'll take the risk of God being disappointed with my choice. Mind you, from my world view there are numerous Gods I'm betting against. Whatever the choice, most will be disappointed. Your version is more consistent than most, I'll give him that.

I am grateful for small concessions.

Analogies are interesting. They can give the appearance of truth without veracity. Perhaps spirituality is more like a habit?

Jesus seemed to like them....

I liked mine personally but then I am a bit biased.

You're entitled to your own opinion. I don't think of my life as 'purely material' for all that I'm not spiritual. However, I'm unsure where concepts like love fit to your mind.

"All you need is love" was written by John Lennon, not God.

Good mentors and the chance to learn the skills of resilience are part of it...

I'm not really the 'lie on the floor crying' type. Not much of a hand-wringer or whatever.

Me either. I'm more of a

Unless it's God saying it?

Who has more of a right?

Oh, it was just a joke really. I understand the position you'd have on that. It was a feeble attempt to suggest that I have an independent streak.

Really? I hadn't noticed.

Kirran · Oct 25, 2016

Deeje said:
It always makes me smile when those who think they know what we believe post stuff that isn't even close to the truth.

That is so way off, its laughable....but typical of the armchair expert. Do you even care that you are spreading lies?

Most people who call themselves Christians, by definition cannot be if they are conducting themselves contrary to the teachings of the Master.
Would you like a comprehensive list of the ways that the majority of "Christians" ignore Jesus teachings? I can provide one, along with Jesus own admission that "few" are actually on the road to life for that very reason. (Matthew 7:13-14; 21-23)
Did the majority in Israel accept Jesus as Messiah? Why didn't they?

"Only 144,000 will gain everlasting life"? You think that there are only 144,000 who have ever lived and died who will benefit from Christ's ransom? There are many millions who will be granted everlasting life, including the millions now dead. (John 5:28-29) Jesus is the one who grants life to the "sheep" and passes the sentence of everlasting death on the "goats". He is the one we need to impress...not each other.

" the 100 billion others will die permanently after their resurrection"? Now I am really laughing.

Where did you get this stuff? From our opposers no doubt. Why do you imagine that the majority of the Jews rejected Jesus? For the very same reason that you posted what you did. Running with popular opinion and believing everything you are told.

How many of Jesus' disciples did that? Thank God they had to courage to be different and go against popular opinion. (John 15:18-21)

Interesting! Are there differences of opinion on this among JWs? I came by this understanding in perfectly good faith by having a conversation with a man handing out Watchtower literature. There are loads of people doing JW proselytising around this city,so a while ago I asked this guy some questions. This is what he had to say. I'm certainly not trying to spread lies!

Laika · Oct 25, 2016

Deeje said:
Well, as I see it, science has undertaken the task of making a Creator God redundant. School children raised without a concept of God will never see a necessary to believe. Parents have also been raised in that godless environment, so a purely secular outlook today has become commonplace. The upshot of believing that we are nothing more than animals is that morality slides right out the door and along with it family values and commitment in relationships. I live in a very secular country where families are fragmented and it is nothing unusual for mothers to have a few different fathers of their children, none of whom were in a committed family relationship, nor really even wanted a lasting partnership.
Role models are important to children as they learn more about life from what they live, than from anything they are told.
Family get-togethers become a nightmare rather than a pleasure in many cases.

As I have no belief in an immaterial soul, I don't see that as being the finale of it all. We are material beings placed on a material earth, for an enjoyable living experience of a world created for us. It is obvious to me that this world was created for us and we for the earth. Being its caretakers is our obligation, and yet without a similar obligation to its Creator, we have failed miserably as stewards.

The kingdom of heaven is the means by which God's original purpose for mankind will be achieved. Only a very few "chosen ones" will go to heaven to make up this governing arrangement (kingdom) in heaven. It will be a heavenly government with earthly subjects, living the life God intended for all of us in the first place. Heaven was never in the original plan.

Thanks for your reply. That has clarified alot.

sayak83 · Oct 25, 2016

Deeje said:
Well, as I see it, science has undertaken the task of making a Creator God redundant. School children raised without a concept of God will never see a necessary to believe. Parents have also been raised in that godless environment, so a purely secular outlook today has become commonplace. The upshot of believing that we are nothing more than animals is that morality slides right out the door and along with it family values and commitment in relationships. I live in a very secular country where families are fragmented and it is nothing unusual for mothers to have a few different fathers of their children, none of whom were in a committed family relationship, nor really even wanted a lasting partnership.
Role models are important to children as they learn more about life from what they live, than from anything they are told.
Family get-togethers become a nightmare rather than a pleasure in many cases.

As I have no belief in an immaterial soul, I don't see that as being the finale of it all. We are material beings placed on a material earth, for an enjoyable living experience of a world created for us. It is obvious to me that this world was created for us and we for the earth. Being its caretakers is our obligation, and yet without a similar obligation to its Creator, we have failed miserably as stewards.

The kingdom of heaven is the means by which God's original purpose for mankind will be achieved. Only a very few "chosen ones" will go to heaven to make up this governing arrangement (kingdom) in heaven. It will be a heavenly government with earthly subjects, living the life God intended for all of us in the first place. Heaven was never in the original plan.

Please provide evidence that today's world is less moral than it was in history.

Here is clear, objective evidence that suggests that it is not. So, are you again going by gut instinct?

https://ourworldindata.org/homicides/

ourworldindata_homicide-rates-in-five-western-european-regions-1300-2010-%E2%80%93-max-roser.png

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/23/u...omicide-and-cities-surprises-the-experts.html

http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_083892.pdf

Key facts:-
1) Number of murders in Europe and America decreased from around 40-50 per 100,000 people to 1 per 100,000 people from 1300 CE to 2010 CE. This despite introduction of guns etc.
2)After modern state formation has been complete (by 1900) homicide has been overall stable in most Western Countries with just temporary upswings and downswings.

homicide-rates-in-the-united-states-and-england-1900-2000-pinker-2011-jpg.jpg

Please provide data to demonstrate your claims of decreasing morality over history. Thank you.

Deeje · Oct 25, 2016

Kirran said:
Interesting! Are there differences of opinion on this among JWs?

No, we all have the same beliefs. We are one of the most united Christian organisations in the world.

There are no differences of opinion on scripture even from country to country.

I came by this understanding in perfectly good faith by having a conversation with a man handing out Watchtower literature. There are loads of people doing JW proselytising around this city,so a while ago I asked this guy some questions. This is what he had to say. I'm certainly not trying to spread lies!

LOL.....then the only thing I can say is...he either didn't covey his answers very well, or you misunderstood what he said.

What you said was so way off the mark.

That is why we invite people to study the Bible, one on one, systematically answering all questions from the scriptures directly. There are no misunderstandings then.

Deeje · Oct 25, 2016

sayak83 said:
Please provide evidence that today's world is less moral than it was in history.

Sorry, but I don't need stats to prove my point. I live in a country where morals no longer exist. I am not talking about fringe dwellers who have always lived on the edge of society, making their own rules, outside of the moral majority....I am talking about society in general.

We as a society accept immorality as a normal part of life. When I talk about morality, I am speaking about Biblical morals. Adultery, fornication, pre-marital sex, lying, cheating, the killing of innocents.....these are the morals we have sacrificed in a godless world. Has this so-called freedom from Biblical constraints improved the happiness factor in our relationships? How many people who actually get married are still together in 5 years?
How many people watch graphic sex and violence in their entertainment that would have been rejected only half a century ago? Our standards have dropped significantly and we as human beings are living up to our status as animals.....why? Because science told us that is what we are, and there is no one to answer to about any of it, except each other.

Here is clear, objective evidence that suggests that it is not. So, are you again going by gut instinct?

I am not judging by stats.....I can see that if we as a race are suppose to advance in our civilization, your 'American' stats are a little out of the norm. We are not living in the wild west anymore. Comparison with the UK in your last graph is a bit telling, don't you think?

Its maybe not that we have less homicides......as much as we have less excuse for them.

What will it take for America to have less homicides, do you think?
Have everyone carry a gun of some sort?

yeah...that'll work.

Please provide data to demonstrate your claims of decreasing morality over history. Thank you.

God has provided all the "data" I need to make my judgments.....you are free to ignore them.

lewisnotmiller · Oct 26, 2016

Deeje said:
Sorry, but I don't need stats to prove my point. I live in a country where morals no longer exist. I am not talking about fringe dwellers who have always lived on the edge of society, making their own rules, outside of the moral majority....I am talking about society in general.

'A country where morals no longer exist...'
I'm going to have to dispute that, given that we live in the same country. Surprised?
Besides, you're Australian, and you're moral. So

.

Deeje said:
We as a society accept immorality as a normal part of life. When I talk about morality, I am speaking about Biblical morals. Adultery, fornication, pre-marital sex, lying, cheating, the killing of innocents.....these are the morals we have sacrificed in a godless world.

There has never been a time in recorded history where adultery, fornication, pre-marital sex, lying, cheating, and the killing of innocents has not occurred. Not one.
So saying that we live in a time when these things occur is the logical equivalent of saying 'We are born in a time when people are born without wings'. It's true. But it's always been true.

Deeje said:
Has this so-called freedom from Biblical constraints improved the happiness factor in our relationships? How many people who actually get married are still together in 5 years?

This is true. We should be more like Libya. Much lower levels of divorce. Only about 0.24 per 1000 persons, according to stats I looked up.

Deeje said:
How many people watch graphic sex and violence in their entertainment that would have been rejected only half a century ago?

Yeah, so...you see today as the outlier, I know, and the period of your youth as 'normal'. Ever considered you might be looking at it backwards?
http://theconversation.com/think-en...day-the-victorians-were-much-much-worse-66714

Obviously I could go back to the Middle Ages and provide some pretty extreme examples, but I thought more recent history in a 'civilized society' might have been more compelling to you.

sayak83 · Oct 26, 2016

Deeje said:
Sorry, but I don't need stats to prove my point.

There you have it. The reason why your conservative theology is incompatible with science. Thanks for the concession.

I live in a country where morals no longer exist.

Opinion without evidence.

I am not talking about fringe dwellers who have always lived on the edge of society, making their own rules, outside of the moral majority....I am talking about society in general.

Opinion without evidence.

We as a society accept immorality as a normal part of life. When I talk about morality, I am speaking about Biblical morals.

Please demonstrate that the morality in your book is the normative standard using reasons and evidence.

Adultery, fornication, pre-marital sex, lying, cheating, the killing of innocents.....these are the morals we have sacrificed in a godless world.

I consider it moral progress that people are free to engage in consensual sex and are free to make and dissolve marriage. Please demonstrate this is a form of moral evil with reason and evidence.
I have demonstrated that murder rates have dramatically (40-50 fold decrease) declined in the world from 14th century onwards. Please provide evidence that this is not the case.

Has this so-called freedom from Biblical constraints improved the happiness factor in our relationships?

Certainly, the people themselves say so.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/happiness-cantril-ladder?year=2015

People in developed countries associated with secular social life are extremely satisfied with their life, with Australia being near the top of the chart.

How many people who actually get married are still together in 5 years?

This assumes marraige is a good in and of itself. I disagree. Satisfaction with life is the primary good, and if marraige does not deliver this, its right and moral to dissolve it.

How many people watch graphic sex and violence in their entertainment that would have been rejected only half a century ago?

Watching such things are wrong because....? Again, people are free to watch anyrthing that is a make-believe performance that causes no unreasonable harm to the performers. It is quite easy to argue that playing Rugby at a professional level is far more detrimental to the players health (fractures, broken bones, chance of serious injury) than a participant in legal sexual performance, or certainly for an actor in an action movie. Please feel free to provide evidence that watching such entertainment is correlated with violence (especially more than drunken brawls of soccer fans we often see).

Our standards have dropped significantly and we as human beings are living up to our status as animals.....why? Because science told us that is what we are, and there is no one to answer to about any of it, except each other.

Having instinctive opinions without evidence is more akin to the animal condition. Its you whose beliefs are more like the instinctive reflexive beliefs that animals possess.

I am not judging by stats.....I can see that if we as a race are suppose to advance in our civilization, your 'American' stats are a little out of the norm. We are not living in the wild west anymore. Comparison with the UK in your last graph is a bit telling, don't you think?

The stats show that Europe (including UK) have done excellently in reducing murder rates and America have done worse. I consider the irrational religiosity of America and their instinctive attachment to guns is the reason. It is indeed telling that a more Christianized developed country (like America) whose decisions are based less on reasons and more on irrational attachment to traditions like guns perform poorly in moral indices like murder rates, racism etc. It proves my point, rather than yours.

Its maybe not that we have less homicides......as much as we have less excuse for them.

This sentence makes no sense. The developed world has less homicides than what they had in 1400-1500. A 40 fold decrease in general.

God has provided all the "data" I need to make my judgments.....you are free to ignore them.

Opinions of some people in an old book is not data. But feel free to ignore actual data. Bolsters your anti-rational credentials.

LuisDantas · Oct 26, 2016

Kirran said:
Really? Interesting! Considering their acceptance of evolution that is a trifle odd. I imagine that while it is RCC doctrine many Catholics will disagree!

It makes sense that such a huge group with such centralized doctrine will be plagued by significant paradoxes.

Deeje · Oct 26, 2016

lewisnotmiller said:
'A country where morals no longer exist...'
I'm going to have to dispute that, given that we live in the same country. Surprised?
Besides, you're Australian, and you're moral. So .

Yep...well, that makes two of us.....

plus a few thousand of my brotherhood.
I know that there are still moral people out there but you cannot deny that the definition has changed over the decades.
Would you allow your young teenage daughter to have a sleepover with her new boyfriend?

There has never been a time in recorded history where adultery, fornication, pre-marital sex, lying, cheating, and the killing of innocents has not occurred. Not one.

I agree, but there has never been a time in recorded history where these things were not considered immoral by Bible standards.
If humans committed these things in Bible times, there was a penalty to pay.....often it was death.

So saying that we live in a time when these things occur is the logical equivalent of saying 'We are born in a time when people are born without wings'. It's true. But it's always been true.

You are right again....but then so am I. From the time the Bible was written, those who worshipped the true God were not permitted to break his moral laws without suffering the consequences.

This is true. We should be more like Libya. Much lower levels of divorce. Only about 0.24 per 1000 persons, according to stats I looked up.

I don't think Libya counts unless it is a country where the majority claim to be Christians......wait a minute....even in countries where the majority do claim to be Christians, the divorce rate is alarming.

It can only mean one thing....their claim of being Christian is baseless. A Christian obeys the teachings of Christ. No frivolous divorce. (Matthew 5:32)

Yeah, so...you see today as the outlier, I know, and the period of your youth as 'normal'. Ever considered you might be looking at it backwards?
http://theconversation.com/think-en...day-the-victorians-were-much-much-worse-66714

Obviously I could go back to the Middle Ages and provide some pretty extreme examples, but I thought more recent history in a 'civilized society' might have been more compelling to you.

What is compelling to me is contrasting today's morality (or lack of it) with the morality of the Bible, written thousands of years ago....not the changing standards of humans through the various ages. The pendulum always swings too far one way or the other, whereas the Bible's standards remain the same through all ages.

When humans dictate the moral standards, we see that change is inevitable as they demand to push the envelope to accommodate their own personal desires. This is a demonstration of how 'gradualism' takes us out of one set of rules, and ever so slowly moves us into another. Its the 'ol frog in the pot..isn't it?

lewisnotmiller · Oct 26, 2016

Deeje said:
Yep...well, that makes two of us.....

plus a few thousand of my brotherhood.
I know that there are still moral people out there but you cannot deny that the definition has changed over the decades.

It has, but it always has.

Deeje said:
Would you allow your young teenage daughter to have a sleepover with her new boyfriend?

Nope. But I wouldn't guilt trip her if her new boyfriend was a girlfriend. Self respect is more my aim than objective morality.

Deeje said:
I agree, but there has never been a time in recorded history where these things were not considered immoral by Bible standards.
If humans committed these things in Bible times, there was a penalty to pay.....often it was death.

Okay, so I get the Biblical morality comment. Makes sense, although I would say that plenty of other religions or philosophies would equally frown on such things. I would go even further and suggest that frowning on such things on paper is much more common and easier than avoiding such things in life.

But in biblical times...there was a LOT of behaviour that didn't meet Biblical morality. Classical history is a hobby...cant agree at all with that point.

Deeje said:
You are right again....but then so am I. From the time the Bible was written, those who worshipped the true God were not permitted to break his moral laws without suffering the consequences.

Perhaps not JUST those who woshipped the true God.

Deeje said:
I don't think Libya counts unless it is a country where the majority claim to be Christians......wait a minute....even in countries where the majority do claim to be Christians, the divorce rate is alarming.

It can only mean one thing....their claim of being Christian is baseless. A Christian obeys the teachings of Christ. No frivolous divorce. (Matthew 5:32)

Georgia then?

Deeje said:
What is compelling to me is contrasting today's morality (or lack of it) with the morality of the Bible, written thousands of years ago....not the changing standards of humans through the various ages. The pendulum always swings too far one way or the other, whereas the Bible's standards remain the same through all ages.

What about true followers of the teachings of Confucious?

Deeje said:
When humans dictate the moral standards, we see that change is inevitable as they demand to push the envelope to accommodate their own personal desires. This is a demonstration of how 'gradualism' takes us out of one set of rules, and ever so slowly moves us into another. Its the 'ol frog in the pot..isn't it?

I tend to think more that some humans are capable of insight and compellingly clear vision. And some humans are capable of following such a creed. And sometimes the person with the vision and the person capable of actually living the creed are the same person.

psychoslice · Oct 26, 2016

The religious, mostly being Christians, need to wake up to themselves and realize that science are way above them in every way.

Deeje · Oct 26, 2016

lewisnotmiller said:
Nope. But I wouldn't guilt trip her if her new boyfriend was a girlfriend. Self respect is more my aim than objective morality.

That in itself is an example of a shift in moral standards, is it not? Could you imagine a parent 50 years ago saying something like that if they had any Christian values?

Okay, so I get the Biblical morality comment. Makes sense, although I would say that plenty of other religions or philosophies would equally frown on such things. I would go even further and suggest that frowning on such things on paper is much more common and easier than avoiding such things in life.

But in biblical times...there was a LOT of behaviour that didn't meet Biblical morality. Classical history is a hobby...cant agree at all with that point.

Doesn't this again underscore that 'practicing what you preach' is the polar opposite of hypocrisy?
Jesus condemned hypocrites.
He castigated the religious leaders of his time for making up their own traditions around the Torah.
He foretold that Christianity too would fall away to the "traditions of men". Christendom pretends that it didn't happen.

History attests to man's hypocrisy, rather than to their faith, which was the possession of only a courageous few who refused to compromise, rather than the masses who did...eagerly.

Perhaps not JUST those who woshipped the true God.

Since I believe that we all descended from one family essentially, (Noah's) and that God's moral laws are actually programmed into us to some degree, we have an inherited sense of morality in our upbringing, unless it is knocked out of us by our parents or our environment. Snatches of that morality are seen in tribal laws even of our own indigenous people....sadly disappearing like it is in the rest of the world.

Georgia then?

Nah....predominantly Eastern Orthodox?
I do not consider any "orthodox" religion to be authentic Christianity.

I put it in the same category as "orthodox" medicine. What it replaced was actually better for our health. The "orthodox" can easily become "unorthodox" when people are deceived into thinking something else is better.
Christendom as a whole is not truly "Christian" IMV because they uphold teachings that originate from outside of Biblical Christianity....and they fail to obey the teachings of the one they call their Lord and Master.
Jesus himself foretold this defection.

What about true followers of the teachings of Confucious?

Confucius say.....'all that calls itself "Christianity" isn't necessarily, unless they can produce the fruits.....and I don't mean watermelons'.

I tend to think more that some humans are capable of insight and compellingly clear vision. And some humans are capable of following such a creed. And sometimes the person with the vision and the person capable of actually living the creed are the same person.

I think you are right. Only "some" humans are capable of 'following a compellingly clear creed due to their insight' (worded slightly differently).....but the world in general is trying to get them to

I don't 'snap' easily. ...and what's more, I enjoy a good

lewisnotmiller · Oct 27, 2016

Deeje said:
That in itself is an example of a shift in moral standards, is it not? Could you imagine a parent 50 years ago saying something like that if they had any Christian values?

Nope, I cant. Not in our country, anyway. Much as I loved my grandfather, his tough love act left my dad with some interesting confidence issues. Old school as I am (for the most part), I long ago decided that respect for others and love was more important than which bits someone found attractive. I get that your God would withold salvation for that choice, amongst others I make, but making moral decisions often means not making the easy or rewarded decision.

Deeje said:
Doesn't this again underscore that 'practicing what you preach' is the polar opposite of hypocrisy?
Jesus condemned hypocrites.
He castigated the religious leaders of his time for making up their own traditions around the Torah.
He foretold that Christianity too would fall away to the "traditions of men". Christendom pretends that it didn't happen.

History attests to man's hypocrisy, rather than to their faith, which was the possession of only a courageous few who refused to compromise, rather than the masses who did...eagerly.

I rate courage. But courage uncoupled from reason has caused plenty of harm in this world.

Deeje said:
Since I believe that we all descended from one family essentially, (Noah's) and that God's moral laws are actually programmed into us to some degree, we have an inherited sense of morality in our upbringing, unless it is knocked out of us by our parents or our environment. Snatches of that morality are seen in tribal laws even of our own indigenous people....sadly disappearing like it is in the rest of the world.

Could you be more specific? What sort of tribal laws do you mean? Perversely, I am more familiar with some Native American tribal laws than indigenous Australian ones.

Deeje said:
Nah....predominantly Eastern Orthodox?
I do not consider any "orthodox" religion to be authentic Christianity.

I put it in the same category as "orthodox" medicine. What it replaced was actually better for our health. The "orthodox" can easily become "unorthodox" when people are deceived into thinking something else is better.
Christendom as a whole is not truly "Christian" IMV because they uphold teachings that originate from outside of Biblical Christianity....and they fail to obey the teachings of the one they call their Lord and Master.
Jesus himself foretold this defection.

But they do have low divorce rates. As do the Libyans. I would suggest the causal link between morality and divorce rate is tenuous at best.

Deeje said:
Confucius say.....'all that calls itself "Christianity" isn't necessarily, unless they can produce the fruits.....and I don't mean watermelons'.

Honest question...are you aware of the impact of Confucianism on Ancient China? How would you compare it to the impact of Christianity on...say...Byzantium?

Deeje said:
I think you are right. Only "some" humans are capable of 'following a compellingly clear creed due to their insight' (worded slightly differently).....but the world in general is trying to get them to

I don't 'snap' easily. ...and what's more, I enjoy a good

To my mind, debate and reflection are paths to learning. I don't ever envisage that changing. I've had...at times...the responsibility of mentoring people, or just being a stable influence. It's amazing how simply the key messages and lessons of life can be stated when the need is there. As with all communication, I find it works best when there is clarity of message and elegance (ie. Simplicity) in it's delivery.

The Battle Between The Christian Religion and Science

Avid Bible Student

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Veteran Member

Avid Bible Student

Grand Hat

Revelation all the time

Avid Bible Student

ॐ

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student

Grand Hat

Veteran Member

Aura of atheification

Avid Bible Student

Grand Hat

Veteran Member

Avid Bible Student

Grand Hat