• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who forbade to mix Religion and Science?

ecco

Veteran Member
Actually, I DO think it was wrong for the Government to raid the FLDS compound years after Jeffs was imprisoned, kidnapping all the women and children and hauling them to detention centers in Baptist busses, yes.

I agree that Jeffs should have been imprisoned. What happened to the women and children after that should have been of no concern to the Government unless it was feared that someone would have stepped in and immediately replaced Jeffs. If anything, these people should have been put into the "care" of other Mormons.


I suppose that you think that because you agree with what the Feds did with some people, that what they did to Utah was just dandy.

I do not know the details of what happened there/then, so I don't have an opinion.

I noticed you did not comment on Waco or Guiana, does that mean you believe the Government should have stayed out of those situations.
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
ecco:
No reputable scientist says DON'T LOOK.

Yeah they do.

Try getting something published if you look in the 'wrong' place.

Did anyone tell Hubble to not look to see if the universe is expanding?
Did anyone tell Wegener to not look to see if the continents were moving?

This is nothing more than the same nonsense arguments that Creationists and psi woosters make.


Give some specific examples and then we can discuss.




Of course, if you are going to use the 'no true 'reputable scientist' argument, there isn't much that can be said.

Why? What's wrong with that? Should we go by the findings of dianaiad when determining what and what not to publish in peer-reviewed scientific publications?


Mind you, if your stated hypothosis is 'THIS DID NOT HAPPEN," That's OK. It's only when one attempts to get data from mythology to find out if something DID happen that one runs into credibility problems.

Uh huh.

As an example, my stated hypothesis is that The Great Flood never happened. I will admit that I have never personally studied the Grand Canyon for myself to determine if it was caused by the receding of the waters of The Great Biblical Flood or some other cause. For one thing, I am not qualified to make such an analysis. However, on one side of the question is the argument from the Bible. I, and very many historians and researchers, consider the Bible to be fiction. On the other hand is the research of thousands of geologists and other scientific professionals who have concluded that the Grand Canyon is not the result of The Great Biblical Flood.

If you have data from mythology that the entire world was covered with water within the past 6000 years, you have not presented it. So, what is there to draw on?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
One might think about the scab lands of eastern Washington,... so that they could figure out that the ancient flood stories of the native Americans might be accounts of actual events;
I notice that you still have not given any evidence to support your claim that native Americans knew the cause of the scablands.

This was the basis of your theme that we need to look at myths to get clues as to causes of actual events. This is where you chastised scientists for not accepting those ancient myths contained overlooked knowledge.

It time for you to present the evidence or, ethically, retract your comments about the scablands and associated native American myths.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
No. They don't any more, because they HAD THEIR NOSES RUBBED IN IT.

They DID dismiss those tales as 'just myth,' or mere story telling, however, until it became obvious that, er....those native Americans were on to something. But the scientists had to go at it backwards.

See post # 163 above.

Why do you continue to be deceitful?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
In Shoghi Effendi's Messages to the Baha'i World 1950 to 1957, in the years after world war 2, I contemplate this passage He penned;

"...Against the background of these afflictive disturbances—the turmoil and tribulations of a travailing age—we may well ponder the portentous prophecies uttered well-nigh fourscore years ago, by the Author of our Faith, as well as the dire predictions made by Him Who is the unerring Interpreter of His teachings, all foreshadowing a universal commotion, of a scope and intensity unparalleled in the annals of mankind.

I note that Shogi Effendi refers to himself as "the unerring Interpreter of His teachings".

I understand the Baha'u'llah if considered unerring since he is a Messenger. However, Shogi Effendi is not a Messenger. How can he call himself unerring in anything? Even the Pope doesn't claim to be unerring in everything, just in some pronouncements where he gets his views directly from God.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Is not the science of war the greatest example of materialism gone mad?
No it is not. It is the greatest example of fanaticism gone mad.

Warfare has been around longer than science; Longer than materialism; Longer than fanaticism.

Our distant ancestors practiced warfare. Our closest cousins, chimps and bonobos practice warfare. To greater and lesser degrees, all mammals do.
To greater and lesser degrees, all lifeforms do. Even viruses do.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I note that Shogi Effendi refers to himself as "the unerring Interpreter of His teachings".

I understand the Baha'u'llah if considered unerring since he is a Messenger. However, Shogi Effendi is not a Messenger. How can he call himself unerring in anything? Even the Pope doesn't claim to be unerring in everything, just in some pronouncements where he gets his views directly from God.

That was a reference to Abdul'baha by Shoghi Effendi.

Abdul'baha was Baha'u'llah's son and appointed by Baha'u'llah in the Covenant to succeed Baha'u'llah as Authorised interpretater of the Writings. Shoghi Effendi was then appointed by Abdul'baha and given the same authority.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Warfare has been around longer than science; Longer than materialism; Longer than fanaticism.

Our distant ancestors practiced warfare. Our closest cousins, chimps and bonobos practice warfare. To greater and lesser degrees, all mammals do.
To greater and lesser degrees, all lifeforms do. Even viruses do.

Materialism is in the story of Adam and Eve. Materialism is the feeding self want instead of choosing the spiritual bounty of giving to others in preference to self.

Those that start a war do it as they feed Materialism. Others that are drawn into some wars, are drawn to it as Justice must prevail.

War and materialisim feed each other.

Regards Tony
 

ecco

Veteran Member
ecco said:
Warfare has been around longer than science; Longer than materialism; Longer than fanaticism.

Our distant ancestors practiced warfare. Our closest cousins, chimps and bonobos practice warfare. To greater and lesser degrees, all mammals do.
To greater and lesser degrees, all lifeforms do. Even viruses do.


Materialism is in the story of Adam and Eve. Materialism is the feeding self want instead of choosing the spiritual bounty of giving to others in preference to self.

Those that start a war do it as they feed Materialism. Others that are drawn into some wars, are drawn to it as Justice must prevail.

War and materialisim feed each other.

Regards Tony

If you were going to ignore everything I said, why did you address your comment to me?
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Why must we assume this? Why do people believe, as apparently you do, that there is a linear relationship between intelligence and religious belief?

I see intelligence can not be measured by Material learning only. This passage by Abdul'baha may give it in a better way;

"...Scientific knowledge is the highest attainment upon the human plane, for science is the discoverer of realities. It is of two kinds: material and spiritual. Material science is the investigation of natural phenomena; divine science is the discovery and realization of spiritual verities. The world of humanity must acquire both. A bird has two wings; it cannot fly with one. Material and spiritual science are the two wings of human uplift and attainment. Both are necessary—one the natural, the other supernatural; one material, the other divine. By the divine we mean the discovery of the mysteries of God, the comprehension of spiritual realities, the wisdom of God, inner significances of the heavenly religions and foundation of the law...."

Regards Tony
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
I agree that Jeffs should have been imprisoned. What happened to the women and children after that should have been of no concern to the Government unless it was feared that someone would have stepped in and immediately replaced Jeffs. If anything, these people should have been put into the "care" of other Mormons.

You are the one who claimed that raiding that compound was a good an appropriate thing, Ecco. Or rather, you were criticizing any, er, criticism of that raid.

I do not know the details of what happened there/then, so I don't have an opinion.

Obviously you do, or you would not have included it in the list of government actions you approve of.

I noticed you did not comment on Waco or Guiana, does that mean you believe the Government should have stayed out of those situations.

Waco was a disaster. It should NOT have gone down the way it did. It was a major screw up by the feds. As to Jonestown...good heavens. you APPROVE of Jim Jones killing all those people himself? Those deaths were not the result of any government raid.

In fact, I don't think you know what you are talking about with any one of these three incidents. Either that, or you are aware of just how...fouled up...they all were, how completely those situations were mishandled, and are using them deliberately for some reason I can't for an instant imagine.

(shrug)

Anyway, I didn't comment on Waco or Jonestown because I am not as familiar with everything about them as I am about the raid on the FLDS compound. You see, that 'went down' just as I was beginning one of my college senior papers. I got permission to change the topic to how the authorities, both federal and state, handled it as an ongoing investigation. Publishing the paper on particular event got me one of my degrees. So I know pretty much everything about that...not so much about the other two.

I obviously, however, know more about the other two than you do.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
See post # 163 above.

Why do you continue to be deceitful?

Here is one website...a bit on the 'we want to prove that there was a world wide flood' side, but the list of native american stories is pretty accurate, none the less.

Native American Indian Flood Myths

There are many others. Some are intrinsic to the culture, some are borrowed from other ancient American cultures. Some may be 'borrowed' from Europeans.

That there ARE such flood narratives in native American Mythology is pretty darned obvious. I haven't come across a single group that didn't have one, somewhere.

Why do you continue to make claims about things you know nothing about (like James/Jonestown, Waco and the raid on the FLDS compound)?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
You are the one who claimed that raiding that compound was a good an appropriate thing, Ecco. Or rather, you were criticizing any, er, criticism of that raid.



Obviously you do, or you would not have included it in the list of government actions you approve of.



Waco was a disaster. It should NOT have gone down the way it did. It was a major screw up by the feds. As to Jonestown...good heavens. you APPROVE of Jim Jones killing all those people himself? Those deaths were not the result of any government raid.

In fact, I don't think you know what you are talking about with any one of these three incidents. Either that, or you are aware of just how...fouled up...they all were, how completely those situations were mishandled, and are using them deliberately for some reason I can't for an instant imagine.

(shrug)

Anyway, I didn't comment on Waco or Jonestown because I am not as familiar with everything about them as I am about the raid on the FLDS compound. You see, that 'went down' just as I was beginning one of my college senior papers. I got permission to change the topic to how the authorities, both federal and state, handled it as an ongoing investigation. Publishing the paper on particular event got me one of my degrees. So I know pretty much everything about that...not so much about the other two.

I obviously, however, know more about the other two than you do.

There have always been local floods and some of them have been terrible, but there has never been a global flood.

A closer look

Another problem with the Ark story arises becausethere is no evidence for a global flood. Creation stories from many different religions and cultures include flood stories, and Feder notes that if a worldwide flood had occurred,

"The archaeological record of 5,000 years ago would be replete with Pompeii-style ruins — the remains of thousands of towns, villages and cities, all wiped out by flood waters, simultaneously. ... It would appear that the near annihilation of the human race, if it happened, left no imprint on the archaeological record anywhere."

The lack of physical evidence of the great flood hasn't stopped modern believers from searching for Noah's Ark itself. But the boat is conspicuously missing. It has never been found despite repeated claims to the contrary.

Forty years ago, Violet M. Cummings, author of "Noah's Ark: Fable or Fact?" (Creation-Science Research Center, 1973) claimed that the Ark had been found on Mount Ararat in Turkey, exactly as described in Genesis 8:4, which states, "and on the 17th day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat."

continued

The Ark: Could Noah's Tale Be True?
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
There have always been local floods and some of them have been terrible, but there has never been a global flood.

As far as I am aware, that's true.

So?

What has that got to do with anything?

I was certainly not claiming that there was scientific evidence for a global flood.

I DO think that scientists are so leery of finding any support for a global flood that they will ignore any flood narratives as support for ANY level of flood, regional or local...for fear that someone, somewhere, MIGHT think that they support the idea of a global flood.

You know, like the way ONE of Hoyle's objections to the 'Big Bang' (which he nicknamed as 'Big Bang' in mockery of the idea) was that it MIGHT support the idea of a Creator and creation ex nihilo.

*I* am not trying to claim that there was a global flood.

Never attempted to do so.

Don't start arguing strawmen with me.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Warfare has been around longer than science; Longer than materialism; Longer than fanaticism.
That's true, but @Tony Bristow-Stagg posted a picture of an atomic bomb exploding and implied that this was a result of 'materialism gone mad'...that most destructive force has been unleashed only once (well actually twice) in warfare...and that by a nation that prides itself on its "Christian" origins and declares itself "one Nation under God". How on earth can 'materialism' be blamed for using nuclear weapons 'in anger' - that surely is an act of fanatical 'over-kill' on the part of a nation that imagined itself to have "God's blessing" in doing so - and justifies itself for having done so to this day? This kind of thing would be nothing but a laughing matter if it weren't for the fact that people really believe this kind of tripe and nonsense - millions of them. It has to be called out whenever it appears because this kind of thinking and excusing of the excesses of religious fanaticism is actually lethal.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
That was a reference to Abdul'baha by Shoghi Effendi.

Abdul'baha was Baha'u'llah's son and appointed by Baha'u'llah in the Covenant to succeed Baha'u'llah as Authorised interpretater of the Writings. Shoghi Effendi was then appointed by Abdul'baha and given the same authority.
I know that this Baha’i tradition or customs and all, but I find such such title and the power/authority invested in those titles, being passed through bloodline, to be hollow.

But then again I supposed that all religious customs and rituals are hollow in this regard.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
There have always been local floods and some of them have been terrible, but there has never been a global flood.
There have been no time when the Earth was completely covered by water.

And certainly at no time in human history.

In Genesis 1:2 it described the Earth was completely covered by water, when it was created, and there were only dry lands been created on the 3rd day of creation.

Likewise, in the myths of Sumerian-Akkadian of the late 3rd millennium BCE and the old Babylonian of the 1st of the 2nd millennium BCE, similarly described a water-covered earth, the primeval ocean, known as Abzu or Apsu and Nammu or Tiamat, before lands was created.

Similarly the Egyptian sun god Atum or Ra created the dry land, the first mound that was Iunu (more popularly known as Heliopolis), from the primeval ocean, Nu.

Most likely the ancient Hebrew borrowed the concept and adapted them from the Babylonian creation myth.

All 3 myths are wrong.

According to the current knowledge in Earth science, there were no water at the beginning, and when water did formed, it didn’t covered the whole surface of the Earth.
 
Top